Placemarker;)
The words enclosed in quotation marks are accurate. However the quotes are entirely misrepresented and taken out of context.No examples are given. I'd like to see the context, especially since the Discovery Institute replied with
Mindell does not explain how the summary misinterprets his publication or quotes it out of context. This is not surprising, however, as a closer look at the article in question provides additional support for the accuracy of the summary. The summary notes that Mindell et al.’s findings suggest that “mtDNA may be subject to the same kind of historically misleading similarities that affect other types of systematic data”—thus complicating “the use of mtDNA as a historical marker in evolutionary studies.”And that is exactly what Mindell himself said. Again, this is hardly surprising, as the summary was simply a precís of the main points of his article. Can convergent similarity affect molecular data (in this case, mitochondrial gene order) and be historically misleading? Yes; here is what Mindell et al. wrote in their “Results and Discussion”:
Our discovery of multiple originations for a particular gene order in birds is analogous to the discovery of parallel inversions in chloroplast DNA (23) and points to the need for greater sampling of taxa in phylogenetic analyses based on gene order. Without such sampling, convergent similarity among gene order characters will be more easily mistaken for similarity because of common descent, thereby confounding phylogenetic analyses. (pp. 10694-10695; emphasis added)We invite Professor Mindell to explain how this differs in any significant way from what the summary said.
1. Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the authors of the cited articles thought they were providing “scientific evidence for intelligent design?”The answer to both is supposedly "No." When convenient, however, Meyer pretends that the answer is "Yes." Again, from the NCSE page:2. Did the Supplementary Bibliography, or Meyer and Wells, say that the cited articles “provide scientific evidence against evolution?”
Moreover, in light of Stephen C. Meyer's declaration that the Bibliography contains publications "that raise significant challenges to key tenets of Darwinian evolution" — a declaration that significantly postdates the disclaimer — the sincerity of the disclaimer may be doubted.[8]And one has to wonder what the idea of listing a bunch of articles many of which in fact support evolution and not ID would have been, given the goals of Discovery Institute.
The publications 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.Even that low bar is not crossed, according to most of the authors. This rebuttal quibbles endlessly about the word-for-word accuracy of its quotes, meaning only that everything they did say is based on something in the article. I haven't checked carefully enough to see if even that is true. They and you make a point of not getting something that this thread is about:
5. Then why are these scientists so upset about the Supplementary Bibliography?Just turn the situation around and accuse everyone else of dishonesty! You're OK, it's the word that accuses you which is lying!In three words: fear, intimidation, and politics.
In the individual commentaries, author Erwin had raised this charge:
“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.”The attempted 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.Merely citing that someone else cited the article two years ago without a quote of what was cited looks suspicious. Is the article mentioned in a historical context? It is possible to mention old articles when describing an "ongoing" debate, especially when providing "context." And what about this part of Erwin's objection?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.
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.Not a word addressing the core issue. The real problem is that Discovery is still trying to paint a picture of things not adding up, at least not in an evolutionary way. That's a false picture and it's not right to do that no matter how artful your weasel-wording gets.
I could go on, but I find I don't have patience for this. The truth isn't anything you want it to be. A lie is a lie, no matter how you tell it.
I don't expect it to make any impression on you, but this was too funny not to post. As muttered earlier, here's my thorough reading of Discovery Institute's reply to the NCSE Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography.
Are the scientists unjustified in claiming that their work is misrepresented merely by being cited by Discovery Institute in the context it was? Does their every objection, as Discovery claims, "dissolve entirely?"
Well, right up front, D.I.'s protests about their characterization of the very nature of the bibliography are disingenuous. Here's one for fans of weasel-wording. The original sentence:
The publications 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.How many readers would place the implied first "either" in front of "dissenting viewpoints" as Discovery Institute says it intended,
[Either]... rather than after? "The publications represent dissenting viewpoints that [either] (1) ..." etc.
(1) “dissenting viewpoints that challenge one or another aspect of neo-Darwinism”OR
(2) “problems that evolutionary theory faces”
OR
(3) “new lines of evidence that biology must consider when explaining origins”
The normal, expected parsing casts all the citations as "dissenting viewpoints," with subdivisions listed thereafter. The division shown in their response to NCSE is artificial, not what anyone would read. The scientists have every right to howl if they don't consider their viewpoints as "dissenting."
But what's D.I.'s version of why those same scientists are howling?
In three words: fear, intimidation, and politics.D.I. repudiates the professional integrity of its cited supporters.
Let's look at the rebuttals of the specific complaints, every one of which supposedly "dissolves entirely"--their words--upon detailed examination. I will with one exception skip the scientists who did not respond or were not quoted by NCSE as complaining against Discovery Institute.
1) The first rebuttal to Erwin 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. They don't seem to understand the necessity of addressing whether their characterization of the state of affairs was accurate. That is, they rebut by blandly, serenely misunderstanding. Alamo-Girl would presumably approve, but nothing dissolves here for a juror capable of critical thought.
2) Koonin is rebutted simply by disagreeing with his assessment of his own work. The heavyweights at Discovery Institute know better.
3) Lockhart is rejected by backing off of the intended import of the bibliography. "We didn't say he doesn't believe in phylogeny." That's paraphrased, not quoted. But it's also what they said.
4) The case beaten to death on this thread already: Mindell didn't answer requests for clarification. Most people reading the two quotes of Mindell in the NCSE paper would say that no clarification is reasonably necessary here.
5) D.I.'s position on Paul Morris: "We didn't say that and anyway yes he did say this." (Paraphrased again.) A heavily semantic rebuttal. D.I. pretends that their hints of antievolutionism were never there. But Morris knows what the big words mean and you didn't get it right, D.I. I see nothing dissolving entirely.
6) David M. Williams: another rebuttal by the feigned-puzzlement technique. Here's Williams's comment:
“The short answer to your question, ‘Do you consider this accurate?’ is no.”If the above looks oddly punctuated, it's because D.I. has thoughtfully trimmed all words by NCSE away from the scientists's quotes throughout, even when doing so destroys the sense. At any rate, D.I.'s laughable reply:“our review was written nearly 10 years ago and things have moved on since then. Many of the possible solutions to data incongruence we suggested then have now been acted upon and molecules and morphology agree in many more cases. In fact, many more examples using molecules and morphology together highlight and clarify topics relating directly to many evolutionary issues.”
It is impossible to know why Williams thinks the summary is inaccurate, as he has not provided, or at any rate the NCSE has not released, any argument supporting his judgment.That's a stunner in itself. How can you not understand Williams's words above? Discovery goes on, nevertheless:
The only word in the summary that is not either (1) a direct quote, (2) neutrally descriptive (e.g., saying where the authors worked), or (3) a connecting phrase (e.g., “they conclude”) is the noun “myth.” Perhaps this is too strong. Consider, however, Williams’s own statements in the Conclusions section of the original paper: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.Partly because of morphology’s long history, congruence between morphological phylogenies is the exception rather than the rule. With molecular phylogenies, all generated within the last couple of decades, the situation is little better. Many cases of incongruence between molecular phylogenies are documented above; and when a consensus of all trees within 1% of the shortest in a parsimony analysis is published (e.g., 132, 152, 170), structure or resolution tends to evaporate. (p. 180)Williams’s main objection is that he now thinks the paper is outdated. It is unfortunate that scientific publications do not carry expiration dates, like cartons of milk. A 1982 article on homology from the first author of this 1993 publication, Colin Patterson, is still widely cited in the literature, despite its relatively great age. We are undertaking a survey of the Science Citation Index and other sources to see how often, and how recently, this 1993 paper has been cited in the systematics literature. We will update this reply when those results are in hand.
7) Richardson is rebutted by pretending--more semantics--that his corrections do not change the implications of the DI version. Not for people who can read.
8) Weiss is "rebutted" by 1) pointing out that he makes theoretical allowance for questioning everything except shared ancestry, then 2) conceding that he basically said in a footnote, "Hey, creationists, don't quote-mine my work on evolution, it's not creationism and it's not ID!" but they quote-mined him anyway.
9) Douglas Erwin (second instance): "Oh, yes! Erwin is indeed undermining Darwinism, he just won't admit it!"
10) Gilbert used such words as "sudden" and "saltation" in his work on turtles, words which "raise the hackles" of gradualist Darwinians. The fact that he uses these words is very important to D.I. It's about the semantics, you see.
Gilbert claims that his work is in fact "fully within Darwinian parameters." D.I. stands by their interpretation. Gilbert used the magic words. There follows the usual hurt and puzzled request for clarification which has presumably, as in Mindell's case, been so far ignored. (Sniff! Boo-hoo!)
I'll give a hint of what is going on here. Gilbert is describing the fossil record of turtles, where "sudden" means "sudden-as-in-punctuated- equilibrium," perhaps as little as 50,000 years. Discovery intended for Ohio Board members to read "sudden" as "suddenly, one day ..." So, is anything dissolving entirely?
11) There's a rapturously long recapitulation of Miklos's "indictment" of Neo-Darwinism. He responded to the questionnaire, but NCSE did not release his response. I'd be curious to see it. Miklos is an evolutionary geneticist. He clearly states that macroevolution will have to be understood via molecular embryology, "where the quintessence of evolutionary truth is to be found." (Evo-devo isn't ID. Very, very far from it.)
I can't imagine Miklos liked his treatment here. One thing the NCSE does say and D.I. does not dare question, "None of the respondents to NCSE's questionnaire considered their work to provide scientific evidence against evolution."
12) Wagner explicitly rejects D.I.'s interpretation of his work. D.I. once again "never said he said ... but look what he did say here." Apparently, Wagner is yet another liar/coward/idiot who doesn't know what his own work means. This from people who think it's all about semantics.
13) Ball, his quote lifted out of the context in which NCSE places it, is made to look like an idiot who cannot punctuate or write in sentences:
“the effectiveness of evolution in fine-tuning the properties and features of natural systems.”This turns out to be a key to their reply:
Without more information, it is impossible to say if Ball regards the Supplementary Bibliography summary as accurate or inaccurate. By our estimate, the discussion of evolution in the article is less than 1/30th of its total content.The above is not a paraphrase. That's how D.I. dissolves Ball entirely. D.I. originally quoted Ball extensively on the wonder and ingenuity of biological nanoscale "design." Yes, Ball used the word "design." Semantics again.
Do they not know what Ball is saying? I knew what Ball was saying even before I went back to the NCSE document to see what D.I. edited out. Anyway, here it is from the NCSE analysis:
Philip Ball told NCSE that his paper on biomimetics [33] is in fact evidence for "the effectiveness of evolution in fine-tuning the properties and features of natural systems."Other than D.I. trying to suggest that evolution didn't produce insect flight or silk, whereas Ball is saying that it did ... But only in less than 1/30th of the paper's total content! To keep from being quote-mined, do you have to put "evolution" in every third sentence? Merely putting it in a footnote didn't work for Weiss. Only putting it in 1/30th of his paper didn't work for Ball.[Emphasis mine.]
14) Brooks is another hurt puzzlement along the lines of Mindell. "He didn't say where we distorted his words." Discovery needs to buy a clue on these cases. He probably doesn't think he's a "dissenting viewpoint."
15) Deamer protests about the D.I.'s use of "greater realism" (making Deamer's more of a "dissenting viewpoint" than it is) where Deamer would have said "increased understanding." D.I. pretends that their usage is validated in a long quote from a colleague's work that cites Deamer. The implication of the long quote is that the colleague somewhere used their words or something close. Not so. More smoke and mirrors from the self-imagined masters. These guys ought to be ashamed of themselves.
16) Orgel, who has criticized some abiogenesis theories, complains that he is a Darwinian and does not belong on D.I.'s bibliography. D.I. says they didn't say he wasn't a Darwinian, etc. etc. (But, again, all the scientists listed have been characterized as "dissenting viewpoints" by their mere inclusion.)
17) Szathmary thinks he's a cutting-edge Neo-Darwinist. D.I. isn't sure if that's a refutation of their characterization or not. BWAHAHAHAHA! Szathmary's dissolved entirely and is too dumb to know it.