Anti-Science News
A Newly Discovered Textbook Example Refuting NYT and NCSE’s False Claims About Haeckel’s Bogus Embryo Drawings
Behe's Two-Binding-Sites Rule
In his book, The Edge of Evolution; the Search for the Limits of Darwinism, Michael Behe tries to find where exactly the limit to Darwinian evolution is. In a previous thread, Behe's Test, Take 2, it was admitted that if it takes more than two mutations (with the question of whether this includes neutral mutations being brought up by not discussed at length) before a selective advantage is bestowed, then Darwinian evolution probably wouldn't happen. The question is whether or not more than two mutations have ever been needed for evolution to occur. Behe would say, "Yes." And in Chapter 7, "The Two-Binding-Sites Rule," he presents his argument. First there is a long discussion on the nature of "shape space," and then Behe gets to his argument, beginning on page 133:
Consider a hypothetical case where it would give an organism some advantage if a particular two of its proteins, which had been working separately, bound specifically to each other. Perhaps the two-protein complex would be able to perform some new task, or do an old task much better. The lesson from shape space is that, in order for the one to bind the other, we should expect to have to search through tens of millions of different mutant sequences before luckily happening upon one that would specifically stick with even modest strength, which would allow the two to spend even half of their time together. (This is likely the minimum necessary strength, enough to have a noticeable biological effect.) [11] Since the mutation rate is so low — about one mutation at a particular site in a hundred million births — we would expect to have to slog through an enormous number of organisms before striking on that lucky one.
Let's make a rough calculation for the average number of organisms we would have to slog through to find a new protein-protein binding site. As I said, shape space tells us that about one in ten to a hundred million coherent protein-binding sites must be sifted before finding one that binds specifically and firmly to a given target. The simplest way to alter a protein is by point mutation, where one amino acid is substituted for another at a position in a protein. There are twenty different kinds of amino acids found in proteins. That means that if just five or six positions changed to the right residues — the ones that would allow the two proteins to bind — that would be an event of approximately the right frequency, since twenty multiplied by itself five or six time (20<5> or 20<6>) is about three million or sixty million, respectively — relatively close to the ten to a hundred million different sites we need.
So one way to get a new binding site would be to change just five or six amino acids in a coherent patch in the right way.[12] This very rough estimation fits nicely with studies that have been done on protein structure.[13] Five or six amino acids may not sound like very much at first, since proteins are often made of hundreds of amino acids. But five or six amino acid substitutions means that reaching the goal requires five or six coherent mutational steps — just to get two proteins to bind to each other. As we saw in the last chapter, even one missing step makes the job much much tougher for Darwin than when steps are continuous. If multiple steps are missing, the job becomes exponentially more difficult.
Let's consider one further wrinkle. Most amino acid changes in proteins diminish a protein's function. But about one-third of possible amino acid changes are like switching a k for a c in "cat" or "candy"; they can be accomodated without too much trouble.[14] Such "neutral" changes can occur during evolution and spread around a population by chance. So let's suppose that of the five or six changes that have to happen to a protein to make a new binding site, a third of them are neutral. They could occur before the other key mutations, as a separate step, without harm. Although finding the right neutral changes would itself be an improbable step, we'll again err on the conservative side and discount the average number of neutral mutations from the average number of total necessary changes. That leaves three or four amino acid changes that might cause trouble if they occur singly. For the Darwinian step in question, they must occur together. Three or four simultaneous amino acid mutations is like skipping two or three steps on an evolutionary staircase.
Although two or three missing steps doesn't sound like much, that's one or two more Darwinian jumps than were required to get chloroquine resistance in malaria. In Chapter 3 I dubbed that level a "CCC," a "chloroquine-complexity cluster," and showed that its odds were 1 in 10<20> births. In other words (keeping in mind the roughness of the calculation):
Generating a single new cellular protein-protein binding site is of the
same order of difficulty or worse than the development of chloroquine
resistance in the malarial parasite.
Now suppose that, in order to acquire some new, useful property, not just one but two new protein-binding sites had to develop. A CCC requires, on average, 10<20>, a hundred billion billion, organisms — more than the number of animals that has ever existed on earth. So if other things were equal, the likelihood of getting two new binding sites would be what we called in Chapter 3 "double CCC" — the square of a CCC, or one in ten to the fortieth power. Since that's more cells than likely have ever existed on earth, such an event would not be expected to have happened by Darwinian processes in the history of the world. Admittedly, statistics are all about averages, so some freak event like this might happen — it's not ruled out by force of logic. But it is not biologically reasonable to expect it, or less likely events that occurred in the common descent of life on earth. In short, complexes of just three or more different proteins are beyond the edge of evolution. They are lost in shape space.
And the great majority of proteins in the cell work in complexes of six or more. Far beyond that edge.
(pp.133-135)
I'm not sure if Behe's argument is a good one or not. He discusses in an endnote the option of other mutations besides point mutations, which I can also copy if needed. He doesn't discuss the difference between simultaneous and consecutive mutations. And the power of his argument seems to come down to his last two sentences, which is rather reminiscent of his argument for irreducible complexity. I think if people granted that the first living cells needed the great majority of proteins to work in complexes of six or more, then his argument would be difficult to refute. But how many of you critics out there are willing to grant that? Probably none of you, is my guess. But I'm still curious to hear your comments.
Modeling Evolution With Stylus: Part Two
A Good Book About Bad Books
Lying in the Name of Indoctrination
New Interview on Stylus With Brendan Dixon
Big new fossil find in northern Canada
by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent
From 70 million years ago:
The fossil fields were discovered in the 1980s by Canadian geologists surveying the northern tip of Devon Island, but have only recently been excavated by paleontologists. Scientists are trying to reconstruct the prehistoric ecosystem that prevailed at a time when Arctic climes were much warmer, large trees grew north of Baffin Island and the polar sea was ruled by razor-toothed water fowl and marine reptiles called plesiosaurs.
here (National Post, August 21, 2008)
Here's more about plesiosaurs from an earlier find: "The remains of a prehistoric reptile that was "as long as a bus, with teeth larger than cucumbers ... in a head that could swallow an adult human whole," Yikes. Think of that next time you get on a bus ... or maybe not ...
I wonder if this will be another AvalonanotherPost-Darwinist:
Darwin's odd musings on circumcision: Believe whatever you like ... he certainly did
Preach it, brother! A regular shower of blessings from Saint Charles Darwin
Intelligent design and popular culture: Design acknowledged - embarrassingly - in stone
Expelled movie's intelligent design theorists only the tip of the iceberg?
Intellectual freedom in Canada: Political science profs nervous about coming here ...
Aussie prof on Darwin's fibs
Steve Fuller replies to Sahotra Sarkar: Say "Cheese" and tell the baboon to quit scratching himself ...
My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald - Albertans are right to reject Darwinian evolution
Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).
Big new fossil find in northern Canada
by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent
From 70 million years ago:
The fossil fields were discovered in the 1980s by Canadian geologists surveying the northern tip of Devon Island, but have only recently been excavated by paleontologists. Scientists are trying to reconstruct the prehistoric ecosystem that prevailed at a time when Arctic climes were much warmer, large trees grew north of Baffin Island and the polar sea was ruled by razor-toothed water fowl and marine reptiles called plesiosaurs.
here (National Post, August 21, 2008)
Here's more about plesiosaurs from an earlier find: "The remains of a prehistoric reptile that was "as long as a bus, with teeth larger than cucumbers ... in a head that could swallow an adult human whole," Yikes. Think of that next time you get on a bus ... or maybe not ...
I wonder if this will be another AvalonanotherPost-Darwinist:
Darwin's odd musings on circumcision: Believe whatever you like ... he certainly did
Preach it, brother! A regular shower of blessings from Saint Charles Darwin
Intelligent design and popular culture: Design acknowledged - embarrassingly - in stone
Expelled movie's intelligent design theorists only the tip of the iceberg?
Intellectual freedom in Canada: Political science profs nervous about coming here ...
Aussie prof on Darwin's fibs
Steve Fuller replies to Sahotra Sarkar: Say "Cheese" and tell the baboon to quit scratching himself ...
My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald - Albertans are right to reject Darwinian evolution
Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).
The Wise Sage
Phillip Johnson authored Science Futures, an article that makes some points that resonate with me. From the article:
“Predicting is very difficult, especially when it is about the future.” I probably don’t need to tell readers of Touchstone that this weird sentence, paradoxically both wise and absurd, bears the trademark of New York Yankee sage Yogi Berra, the Buddha of baseball.
I think of the great Yogi’s maxim whenever I hear theistic evolutionists warn intelligent design theorists against committing what they call the “God of the gaps” fallacy. Their point is that it is futile to rely on “gaps” that the theory of evolution has not yet explained as places where divine acts might be necessary, because those gaps will inevitably be filled as science progresses. Eventually, God will be squeezed out of these spaces, with consequent embarrassment to the cause of religion.
To avoid committing this fallacy, they claim, we must concede that evolutionary naturalism in biology has been proved beyond doubt, since whatever proof is missing today will surely be supplied tomorrow. I see the point, but I wonder how these folks can be so sure that the future discoveries will always support naturalism. Don’t they know that predicting is difficult, especially when it is about the future?
Very good Phillip. The essence of gap accusations entail inherent predictions of their own. Gaps will not only be filled. They will be filled in a way that satisfies existing preconceptions. So, gaps about the details of how life was generated, will not only be filled, the filling of them will exclude any inference of design. More of Johnson:
It is easy for me to understand why atheists believe a priori that all life must have evolved by purely naturalistic means all the way from non-living chemicals to modern human beings. They have no alternative that is consistent with atheism.
I've made the same point before on many occasions. Theists have more leeway than atheists when it comes to reconciling physical evidence with their metaphysics. If divine causaility is ruled out a priori, then naturalism must be a self-sufficient explanation in the absence of supporting empirical evidence. Not believing in abiogenesis is inconsistent with atheism. But abiogenesis can be consistent with theism. More:
Another motive for adhering to theological naturalism is a desire to protect God from having to take responsibility for the nasty things in nature. It is all very well to give God credit for designing the beautiful things, but what kind of God would have designed the mosquito? I fail to see, however, how theological naturalism protects God from responsibility for everything that exists. Granted that God created by natural laws, should he not have designed the laws so that mosquitoes would not come into existence?
The cited argument for theological naturalism is dumb. How would God not bear responsibility for an evolutionary outcome?
Modeling Evolution With Stylus
New York Times Rehashes Darwinist Myths about Haeckel's Embryo Drawings and Evolution
Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution" With Evasions and Falsehoods
The Uniqueness of Our Solar System
We are continually discovering and classifying planetary systems beyond our own solar system. These efforts can lead to the discovery of exotic formations. Solar systems like ours likely to be rarer than we thought contains this paragraph:
Astronomers, to their obvious delight, have discovered some 250 planetary systems beyond our own, many of them with curious properties. In particular, the discovery of several “hot Jupiters” gas giants that orbit close to their parent stars, challenges our theories of planet formation. The thinking is that gas giants can only form far away from stars because gas and dust simply gets blown away from the inner regions.
Data gathered from the study of other solar systems can influence theories as to how our solar system formed. Another quote:
But the data also has implications for us. A migrating gas giant sweeps away all in its path and that means that solar systems like ours are likely to be rare.
As Thommes and friends put it: “All of this leads us to predict that within the diverse ensemble of planetary systems, ones resembling our own are the exception rather than the rule.”
Paradigms change with time. The one advancing the belief that we inhabit a not very special solar system having an ordinary star is being challenged. How Special Is The Solar System? Let's see.
On the evidence to date, our solar system could be fundamentally different from the majority of planetary systems around stars because it formed in a different way. If that is the case, Earth-like planets will be very rare. After examining the properties of the 100 or so known extrasolar planetary systems and assessing two ways in which planets could form, Dr Martin Beer and Professor Andrew King of the University of Leicester, Dr Mario Livio of the Space Telescope Science Institute and Dr Jim Pringle of the University of Cambridge flag up the distinct possibility that our solar system is special in a paper to be published in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society.
Intelligent Design has a cosmological component. If life arising is an unusual event in our universe, the formation of solar systems, with planets having earth-like conditions, might be rarer still.
Convergence
Mark Vernon authored Not so highly evolved, an article worth reviewing, both for its analysis of Richard Dawkins and for its commentary about an evolutionary phenomenon known as convergence. The article begins:
The 2009 Darwin celebrations are officially under way, now that we are halfway through Richard Dawkins' flagship TV series, The Genius of Charles Darwin. But I can't help but feel they have not begun well. Dawkins' exploration of the science seems to be driven mostly by his desire to score atheistic points: this is not evolution as survival of the fittest but as zero-sum game.
I have not seen the TV series but based on prior behavior a charge that Dawkins is using science to score atheistic points comes as no surprise. If Dawkins is indeed guilty as charged he needs to be taken to task. The Trojan Horse imagary is apt for all who would use science to introduce a side agenda. Vernon also had this to say:
Convergence raises the possibility of directionality in evolution. This is anathema to the old school. Strictly speaking, even to talk of adaptations being advantageous is to risk a false sense of teleology. The sense of "advantage" only comes because we have hindsight. As Stephen Jay Gould put it: according to this interpretation of evolution, if you re-ran the "tape of life", life would look very different.
Convergence challenges this, because in a way, evolution has already re-run the tape of life several times, and it looks strikingly similar. The implications that might be drawn from convergence is what Conway Morris' new book explores. One of the essays, entitled Purpose in a Darwinian World, is written by the philosopher of evolution, Professor Michael Ruse.
Intelligent Design generally incorporates both directionality and purpose. Apparently so does the new school on convergence. Yet Ruse would readily argue that "Darwinian processes "design" organisms to exploit aspects of the natural world." More:
However, the phenomenon of convergence is used to take the possibility of directionality a step further. For what happens if you consider not only elements such as air, water and land to be environmental niches that Darwinian processes can exploit, but elements such as culture and intelligence too? The old school believes that evolution itself creates the niches of culture and intelligence. But what if instead of creating these niches, evolution is exploring pre-existing realities that in this respect can be thought of as analogous to air, water and land?
It sounds pretty speculative, until you consider, say, mathematics. At least some human's brains are capable of doing mathematics. Perhaps some other animal's brains are too. But is mathematics created or discovered? It seems more natural to think of mathematics as existing regardless of the presence of human beings, as, say, the laws of nature presumably exist in the universe too. So maybe the evolution of culture and intelligence are not just by-products of humankind's evolution as a social animal. Perhaps, they are also ways of discovering and exploring pre-existing realities. Conway Morris himself has tentatively suggested that the brain could be thought of as an evolving "antenna" that detects mentality which is itself independent of human intelligence.
Processes can become so intertwined that at times it is unclear which process is in the driver's seat. For example, humans are in a position to influence how our planet evolves. We can bring about extinctions, preservations and alter ecology. But I would think that mathematical principles would exist if no humans were around to appreciate or comprehend mathematics. So I would side with Conway Morris in believing that the human brain detects "mentality" which is independent of human intelligence.
Music, Evolutionary 'Cheesecake', And The Designer Brain
A Review Of Daniel Levitin's 'This Is Your Brain On Music'
By Robert Deyes
Physicist Emerson Pugh once quipped, "if the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't" [1]. Psychiatrist Jean Goodwin likewise proclaimed that the brain, "is impossible to understand because it is too complex" [1]. The complexity of the human brain is self evident when we consider, as neuroscientist Daniel Levitin does in his book "This Is Your Brain On Music", its one hundred billion neuron content. According to Levitin the number of ways that these neurons can connect with each other is so large that we will never fully comprehend all the thought processes that the brain is capable of. Indeed the number of possible thought states far exceeds the total number of particles that exist in the known universe.
And yet in recent years brain mapping has revealed a lot about the functional regions of the brain. Wernicke's area, for example is involved in language processing, the motor cortex in physical movement, frontal lobes in generating our personality, the temporal lobes in hearing and memory and the cerebellum in determining our emotions. Techniques such as encephalography and MRI have given us key spatial-temporal data about brain function in these regions. But we also find that activities such as listening to music contravene such a simplistic compartmentalization. The perception of pitch, tempo, the emotions invoked by a piece of music and the lyrics of a song, for example, all use different parts of the brain albeit simultaneously. Levitin repeatedly emphasizes the multi-faceted aspects of the music 'experience' noting how a, "precision choreography of neurochemical release and uptake" leads to our appreciation of music [p.188]. The brain is thus a massive parallel device, capable of carrying out several different tasks at once. The mechanism of sound acquisition is likewise a marvel of design. Covered with its tiny hairs that are excited differently depending upon the frequency of a sound, the basilar membrane of the inner ear is what captures the sounds we hear. Our ears are able to compress sounds when they reach dangerously loud levels so as to prevent irreversible damage to our ear drums Electrical signals are then sent to the brain where they are processed by the auditory cortex.
While it is through a lifetime of exposure that our brains become used to the note scales and music styles of our culture, it is during childhood that we are most receptive to learning music rules and note sequences. The finding that children's tastes in music are heavily influenced by the music heard during prenatal development, has forced a shift in the way we think about childhood memory. One area of the brain called the cerebellum has the capacity to recall with precision accuracy the rhythm of a music piece long after it has been heard while the brain stem and dorsal cochlear nucleus are able to distinguish between consonant (harmonious) and dissonant sounds. In fact our brains are able to group sounds without any conscious effort from ourselves. We rarely have difficulty, for example, deconvoluting the sounds of instruments- a trumpet will always sound like a trumpet and a clarinet always a clarinet. Every instrument has its own characteristic 'fingerprint' of tone frequencies many of which can now be copied by electrical synthesizers. Indeed frequency modulation synthesis has allowed musicians to simulate instruments and incorporate their own unique sounds into their music.
Levitin's work at Stanford University has brought to light the amazing capacity of the human brain to faithfully remember music pieces in their original pitch and tempo. In essence the brain can re-deploy ('re-member') the same neurons that were used in the original perception of a music piece. Indeed the brain does not carry a strictly isomorphic representation of the world but instead one particular version of reality that is held in the form of a 'neural code' (rather like the binary code representation of a picture held in our computers). Different sets of neuronal networks give us the myriad of feelings that we experience in our day-to-day lives. According to Levitin, the pitch of a sound is entirely in our heads not in the world out there. It is the end product of a chain of mental events that gives rise to an entirely subjective internal representation of the outside world. And yet for cognitive neuroscientists such as Levitin the anatomy of the brain comes second to understanding how thoughts and emotions arise- that is, how the mind works. What of the mind's origin? For Levitin the quirks of our perception and the optical and auditory illusions that occasionally give us a false impression of reality stand out as evidence that points to the blundering process of evolution. Nevertheless Levitin concedes that the sound separation capabilities of the brain, which allow it to differentiate between concurrent sounds (say two different instruments), are nothing short of remarkable. We are only just beginning to understand how it is that the brain registers the sound signals that cause our ear drums to wiggle at certain frequencies. Feature extraction is the process through which neural networks then 'decompose' the sound signal into information about pitch, timbre and loudness amongst other things. Through repeated exposure, our brains generate 'schemas' of what sounds should go together, what letters will appear in a word and what different types of music will sound like.
Levitin does a fantastic job in explaining the universal patterns and regularities of musical construction revealing the common music elements that unite apparently disparate pieces of music such as those of Mozart and The Eagles, Prokoviev and Steve Wonder. The non-arbitrary frequency distances between notes are what identify any given piece of music. And yet as Levitin outlines, part of the appeal that comes from listening to groups such as The Beatles or The Police is their deliberate violation of expected rhythm and sound combinations. We see a similar trick with classical composers who use 'deceptive cadence' as a way of surprising the listener. Other contemporary artists such as Joni Mitchell have taken the element of unpredictability to another level by tuning and playing their instruments in unpredictable ways. Establishing a balance between complexity and simplicity- between a sense of adventure and the security of the predictable- is what will eventually determine whether or not a music piece becomes successful. But according to Levitin, expertise in music is just like expertise in anything else albeit with different neurons firing to give us a different end product. There is of course still much debate about how much genetics and the environment contribute to musical talent. Research has revealed some notable differences in the brains of musicians- a larger frontal portion of the mass of fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain, a greater number of brain synapses and an increase in the amount of grey matter. Nevertheless what is clear is that even talented musicians require thousands of hours of practice before they truly become experts in their field.
Levitin makes his book that much more exciting by recounting many of his own personal stories both as a musician and a neuroscientist. His work as a record producer with some of the biggest names in the business and some of the best-known artists of contemporary rock provides a unique flavor to his scientific discussion. Nevertheless his conversations on evolutionary biology and its relevance to brain evolution with the greats of molecular genetics, notably Francis Crick and James Watson, are somewhat of a disappointment. Indeed in the last chapter Levitin develops the idea that music has served as a 'vehicle' for social bonding and cohesion citing the tendency of people to identify with others with similar music tastes as supportive evidence. He is quick to dismiss psychologist Steve Pinker's assertion that music was nothing more than 'evolutionary cheesecake' that in humans rode on the back of the more critical adaptation of language. Rather, Levitin sees music and musical appreciation as an adaptation in itself that may have allowed sexual partners to charm each other through their courtship displays (an extension of Darwin's theory of sexual selection). He cites the highly social and musical tendencies of Williams Syndrome patients and the musical and social difficulties of autistic children as clear evidence of an evolutionary connection between music and social integration. But what of the complexity that Pugh so eloquently drew our attention to so many years ago?
Naturalist Jane Goodall expressed her expectation of how the brain had evolved when she wrote of, "a series of vanished brains, each more complex than the one that came before it [that] have forever been lost to science, save for a few imprints on fossil craniums" [2]. And yet without the crucial evidence of the 'how'- the mechanistic meat of evolutionary theory- natural selection remains but a skeleton of speculation. For evolutionary biologists, the challenge lies in explaining the 'how' of brain evolution. Perhaps ironically, Levitin's own illustration brings to light the heart of the problem:
"The average brain consists of one hundred billion (100,000,000,000) neurons. Suppose each neuron was one dollar and you stood on a street corner trying to give dollars away to people as they passed by as fast as you could hand them out- let's say one dollar per second. If you did this twenty-four hours a day, 365 days each year without stopping, and if you had started on the day that Jesus was born, you would by the present day only have gone through about two thirds of your money" (p.85)
Biochemist Erwin Chargraff is quoted as having said that science is wonderfully equipped to answer the question "How?" [3]. And yet for the origin of the human brain and the mind, the answer to that burgeoning question remains as elusive to naturalistic science as the origin of life itself.
Further References
1. Inside The Mind Of God- Images And Words Of Inner Space, Introduction By Sharon Begley, Edited By Michael Reagan, Templeton Foundation Press, New York, p.61
2. Jane Goodall (1999) Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey Warner Books Inc, New York, NY, p.126
3. Inside The Mind Of God- Images And Words Of Inner Space, Introduction By Sharon Begley, Edited By Michael Reagan, Templeton Foundation Press, New York, p.68
Copyright (c), 2008, Robert Deyes
Music, Evolutionary 'Cheesecake', And The Designer Brain
A Review Of Daniel Levitin's 'This Is Your Brain On Music'
By Robert Deyes
Physicist Emerson Pugh once quipped, "if the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't" [1]. Psychiatrist Jean Goodwin likewise proclaimed that the brain, "is impossible to understand because it is too complex" [1]. The complexity of the human brain is self evident when we consider, as neuroscientist Daniel Levitin does in his book "This Is Your Brain On Music", its one hundred billion neuron content. According to Levitin the number of ways that these neurons can connect with each other is so large that we will never fully comprehend all the thought processes that the brain is capable of. Indeed the number of possible thought states far exceeds the total number of particles that exist in the known universe.
And yet in recent years brain mapping has revealed a lot about the functional regions of the brain. Wernicke's area, for example is involved in language processing, the motor cortex in physical movement, frontal lobes in generating our personality, the temporal lobes in hearing and memory and the cerebellum in determining our emotions. Techniques such as encephalography and MRI have given us key spatial-temporal data about brain function in these regions. But we also find that activities such as listening to music contravene such a simplistic compartmentalization. The perception of pitch, tempo, the emotions invoked by a piece of music and the lyrics of a song, for example, all use different parts of the brain albeit simultaneously. Levitin repeatedly emphasizes the multi-faceted aspects of the music 'experience' noting how a, "precision choreography of neurochemical release and uptake" leads to our appreciation of music [p.188]. The brain is thus a massive parallel device, capable of carrying out several different tasks at once. The mechanism of sound acquisition is likewise a marvel of design. Covered with its tiny hairs that are excited differently depending upon the frequency of a sound, the basilar membrane of the inner ear is what captures the sounds we hear. Our ears are able to compress sounds when they reach dangerously loud levels so as to prevent irreversible damage to our ear drums Electrical signals are then sent to the brain where they are processed by the auditory cortex.
While it is through a lifetime of exposure that our brains become used to the note scales and music styles of our culture, it is during childhood that we are most receptive to learning music rules and note sequences. The finding that children's tastes in music are heavily influenced by the music heard during prenatal development, has forced a shift in the way we think about childhood memory. One area of the brain called the cerebellum has the capacity to recall with precision accuracy the rhythm of a music piece long after it has been heard while the brain stem and dorsal cochlear nucleus are able to distinguish between consonant (harmonious) and dissonant sounds. In fact our brains are able to group sounds without any conscious effort from ourselves. We rarely have difficulty, for example, deconvoluting the sounds of instruments- a trumpet will always sound like a trumpet and a clarinet always a clarinet. Every instrument has its own characteristic 'fingerprint' of tone frequencies many of which can now be copied by electrical synthesizers. Indeed frequency modulation synthesis has allowed musicians to simulate instruments and incorporate their own unique sounds into their music.
Levitin's work at Stanford University has brought to light the amazing capacity of the human brain to faithfully remember music pieces in their original pitch and tempo. In essence the brain can re-deploy ('re-member') the same neurons that were used in the original perception of a music piece. Indeed the brain does not carry a strictly isomorphic representation of the world but instead one particular version of reality that is held in the form of a 'neural code' (rather like the binary code representation of a picture held in our computers). Different sets of neuronal networks give us the myriad of feelings that we experience in our day-to-day lives. According to Levitin, the pitch of a sound is entirely in our heads not in the world out there. It is the end product of a chain of mental events that gives rise to an entirely subjective internal representation of the outside world. And yet for cognitive neuroscientists such as Levitin the anatomy of the brain comes second to understanding how thoughts and emotions arise- that is, how the mind works. What of the mind's origin? For Levitin the quirks of our perception and the optical and auditory illusions that occasionally give us a false impression of reality stand out as evidence that points to the blundering process of evolution. Nevertheless Levitin concedes that the sound separation capabilities of the brain, which allow it to differentiate between concurrent sounds (say two different instruments), are nothing short of remarkable. We are only just beginning to understand how it is that the brain registers the sound signals that cause our ear drums to wiggle at certain frequencies. Feature extraction is the process through which neural networks then 'decompose' the sound signal into information about pitch, timbre and loudness amongst other things. Through repeated exposure, our brains generate 'schemas' of what sounds should go together, what letters will appear in a word and what different types of music will sound like.
Levitin does a fantastic job in explaining the universal patterns and regularities of musical construction revealing the common music elements that unite apparently disparate pieces of music such as those of Mozart and The Eagles, Prokoviev and Steve Wonder. The non-arbitrary frequency distances between notes are what identify any given piece of music. And yet as Levitin outlines, part of the appeal that comes from listening to groups such as The Beatles or The Police is their deliberate violation of expected rhythm and sound combinations. We see a similar trick with classical composers who use 'deceptive cadence' as a way of surprising the listener. Other contemporary artists such as Joni Mitchell have taken the element of unpredictability to another level by tuning and playing their instruments in unpredictable ways. Establishing a balance between complexity and simplicity- between a sense of adventure and the security of the predictable- is what will eventually determine whether or not a music piece becomes successful. But according to Levitin, expertise in music is just like expertise in anything else albeit with different neurons firing to give us a different end product. There is of course still much debate about how much genetics and the environment contribute to musical talent. Research has revealed some notable differences in the brains of musicians- a larger frontal portion of the mass of fibers that connect the two hemispheres of the brain, a greater number of brain synapses and an increase in the amount of grey matter. Nevertheless what is clear is that even talented musicians require thousands of hours of practice before they truly become experts in their field.
Levitin makes his book that much more exciting by recounting many of his own personal stories both as a musician and a neuroscientist. His work as a record producer with some of the biggest names in the business and some of the best-known artists of contemporary rock provides a unique flavor to his scientific discussion. Nevertheless his conversations on evolutionary biology and its relevance to brain evolution with the greats of molecular genetics, notably Francis Crick and James Watson, are somewhat of a disappointment. Indeed in the last chapter Levitin develops the idea that music has served as a 'vehicle' for social bonding and cohesion citing the tendency of people to identify with others with similar music tastes as supportive evidence. He is quick to dismiss psychologist Steve Pinker's assertion that music was nothing more than 'evolutionary cheesecake' that in humans rode on the back of the more critical adaptation of language. Rather, Levitin sees music and musical appreciation as an adaptation in itself that may have allowed sexual partners to charm each other through their courtship displays (an extension of Darwin's theory of sexual selection). He cites the highly social and musical tendencies of Williams Syndrome patients and the musical and social difficulties of autistic children as clear evidence of an evolutionary connection between music and social integration. But what of the complexity that Pugh so eloquently drew our attention to so many years ago?
Naturalist Jane Goodall expressed her expectation of how the brain had evolved when she wrote of, "a series of vanished brains, each more complex than the one that came before it [that] have forever been lost to science, save for a few imprints on fossil craniums" [2]. And yet without the crucial evidence of the 'how'- the mechanistic meat of evolutionary theory- natural selection remains but a skeleton of speculation. For evolutionary biologists, the challenge lies in explaining the 'how' of brain evolution. Perhaps ironically, Levitin's own illustration brings to light the heart of the problem:
"The average brain consists of one hundred billion (100,000,000,000) neurons. Suppose each neuron was one dollar and you stood on a street corner trying to give dollars away to people as they passed by as fast as you could hand them out- let's say one dollar per second. If you did this twenty-four hours a day, 365 days each year without stopping, and if you had started on the day that Jesus was born, you would by the present day only have gone through about two thirds of your money" (p.85)
Biochemist Erwin Chargraff is quoted as having said that science is wonderfully equipped to answer the question "How?" [3]. And yet for the origin of the human brain and the mind, the answer to that burgeoning question remains as elusive to naturalistic science as the origin of life itself.
Further References
1. Inside The Mind Of God- Images And Words Of Inner Space, Introduction By Sharon Begley, Edited By Michael Reagan, Templeton Foundation Press, New York, p.61
2. Jane Goodall (1999) Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey Warner Books Inc, New York, NY, p.126
3. Inside The Mind Of God- Images And Words Of Inner Space, Introduction By Sharon Begley, Edited By Michael Reagan, Templeton Foundation Press, New York, p.68
Copyright (c), 2008, Robert Deyes
New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists' Error-Filled "Answers" to Jonathan Wells' "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher"
TENURE AND THE ID PERSECUTION COMPLEX_A REBUTTAL
A response to Ed Brayton's post, found here
By Kevin H. Wirth
Brayton and a host of others in the blogosphere have made much ado about the alleged persecution of ID and creationist educators and scientists ever since the dismissal of Guillermo Gonzalez last year from Iowa State University (ISU) and the release earlier this year of the movie 'Expelled'. It seems some critics of the Gonzalez incident and the movie have taken the position that the claims of rampant discrimination and persecution against educators, students, and scientists by Darwinian supporters is just a manufactured form of psychological hype concocted by ID advocates to get some unwarranted sympathy for their cause.
After investigating many case studies and publishing some,[1] I can say with some degree of confidence that contrary to what these critics suggest, this isn't about hype at all, and in fact, the full extent of this situation remains largely under-reported. The practice of discrimination and elimination of Darwin skeptics from our science labs and academic institutions is widespread and, contrary to Mr. Brayton's implacable assertions, shows no signs of dropping off. In fact - the situation is becoming worse thanks to folks like Brayton who view it as a non-issue.
For example, Brayton claims that the ID movement "has a long history of false or unsupported claims of persecution (which shouldn't surprise us, I suppose; after all, their religion has its origin in an act of alleged martyrdom)."
Thanks to the newly released book, "Slaughter of the Dissidents", those claims are no longer unsupported. Of course, I'm pretty sure Brayton and other critics of his ilk will do their best to show us all how the case studies in that book are not really good examples of persecution at all. Go ahead Ed. Have at it.
In his blog, Brayton brings up the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, who was let go from ISU last year after his release of the film "Privileged Planet," and a no-confidence vote from his faculty peers. Gonzalez and his supporters claim that he was targeted for tenure denial because of his ID views, which have been characterized as "religious" by both his critics and former faculty.
Brayton goes on to say
"Here's what those screaming persecution won't say: they have not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate. None. They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God. It is convenient for them to cry persecution, but there simply is no evidence for it. And here's something else they won't say: people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair."
These statements bear taking a closer look.
Was there really "not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate"? I'll let readers judge this one, and refer to the spate of emails that were obtained through the Discovery Institute's Freedom of Information Act request. You can read those letters online [2] and also in Dr. Bergman's just published book on the subject. Those emails reveal not only a degree of hostility towards Guillermo's views, but also includes some insight into their voting intentions based on how his views were perceived. Consider the following email excerpts between some of Gonzalez's colleagues:
Harmon to Franzen 09/23/05: "...you have a nice writing touch and produced the best letter to the editor on intelligent design... It is a topic that is simmering in my blood, but as a colleague of Gonzalez, I am uncertain of how best to react. He will be up for tenure next year, and if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department... By the way, I don't have trouble voting for tenure based on his astronomy...but here he is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration."
and
Wilson to Struck 02/17/04: "In less happy news, Guillermo has a book coming out in April on Astronomy, Earth's privileged place in the universe and intelligent design. Steve K. is very upset about possible impacts. I guess I'm rather sad that he wants to be so very public about something that I see as intellectually vacuous, though it may be spiritually satisfying.
...I am not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enought to be willing to take the risk... He's definitely a mixed bag, and who knows how this will go. At least it will get full daylight at the 3yr review, not hit folks as a surprise at the final tenure decision."
These comments (and many others that I urge you to read) don't exactly indicate that Guillermo's views were not going to pose "one iota" of a problem for his then upcoming tenure review. If you believe that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... These and other comments were made by many who were going to vote on whether to approve tenure for Gonzalez.
So did Gonzalez's views on ID play a role in his tenure denial? I think the email evidence alone makes it pretty clear that yes, they not just kinda did, but they absolutely did. We don't need to know what the actual faculty vote was... it's pretty evident from reading those emails and noting the declaration against ID that was circulated and supported by many of his ISU faculty colleagues.
But then there's the other interesting comment from Mr. Brayton...
"They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God."
Brayton cavalierly dismisses complaints about persecution against Darwin skeptics as patently false on it's face, claiming that "the evil Darwinian priesthood" is just a conjured up boogeyman in the IDers overly imaginative Monsters Inc. closet.
Oh really?
I guess Brayton isn't aware of the numerous comments made by many prominent Darwinians that actually take aim at people who do believe in God (which, by the way, is illegal discrimination if such comments form the basis for denying someone a job, a place to live, etc. etc.). A lot has been said on this topic by many Darwinians, but I'll pull out two choice examples - just so everyone clearly understands that this concern is not just another figment of ID imagination gone wild or another manufactured plot to gain sympathy.
Example #1
Both James Watson and Francis Crick used the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 as an opportunity to "mount an attack on religion" as one observer put it. [4]
Watson: "There is a conflict between truth by revelation and truth by observation and experiment. I think the big fight eventually in our country is not going to be between Republicans and Democrats, but between those who think secularly and those who think in a fundamentalist way.'[5]
And...
Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.
His co-discoverer, Watson, 74, told the Telegraph that religious explanations were "myths from the past".
"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely," said Watson. "Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours." [6]
For such venerated men of science to come out and publicly underscore not only their distate for religion, but their hope that their work clearly shows that religion has no merit, places ID concerns outside of the boogyman category and into the real world.
Crick and Watson's commentary is just a mild reflection of other sentiments I've run into from other Darwinians, but they will suffice to make the point that Brayton is off key in singing his tune.
Way off.
Example #2
Of the many Darwinians who have gone on record with anything to say on this subject, few comments are more clearly anti-religion than the one made a few years back by Richard Lewontin, who famously said:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." [7]
This comment makes it pretty clear that Lewontin (and many other scientists) value their approach to viewing the universe far beyond any other consideration, and especially any evidence indicating the universe might reveal the handiwork of an intelligent designer. I think he makes it pretty clear that EVEN IF the evidence indicates something contrary to what the scientific assumptions of naturalistic materialism dictate, then we need to hold on to those assumptions anyway, and furthermore, at any cost.
So much for the integrity of science.
You can't find a much better example of straight talk about what we should do with any ideas coming from those crazy fundies. I hold this up as exhibit "A" that scientific integrity gets thrown out the window simply as a matter of philosophical convenience by many Darwinians. In other words, what Lewontin and others who are completely committed to naturalistic materialism are saying is, even if an Intelligent Designer were to show up and demonstrate in a one-time instance how he could create a living machine, they would have to disallow it just because it doesn't fit within their framework of naturalism. If it can't be explained by a naturalistic process, then it simply need not be contemplated, period. And furthermore, anyone who argues about it or says wait a minute -- goodby and good riddance, 'cause we don't need to hear any more of your blathering.
Of course these quotes simply serve to light the fuse for the more heinous acts of discrimination endured by many Darwin Doubters who have been victimized over the years.
IDers and creationists have been maligned over the years for their beliefs, and I think it's well past time for everyone to recognize that this is not acceptable, and yes that includes you as well Mr. Brayton. I'm not talking about teaching religion in a science class, I'm talking about everyone's right to hold whatever 'religious' views they want, and the right to express those views appropriately. And I'm talking about going where the evidence might lead us, regardless of what assumptions most other scientists may have. Science does not always move forward on the basis of a democratic vote of the majority, nor is it advanced by the malfeasance of elitists who think they know better than everyone else. Science advances through the introduction of novel ideas, not the outright rejection of them.
SIDEBAR -- I find it fascinating that most ID critics take the position that ID isn't science, and therefore we shouldn't contemplate any of the ideas advanced by ID supporters. If inquiry were really at the core of the approach used by such critics, you would think they'd at least be willing to consider finding a way to investigate ID concepts in a manner that suited them better. But I don't see any of that going on, in fact, I most often see a very strong animus towards anything remotely suggestive of ID notions. Not exactly what you'd expect from people who claim to be interested in what really makes the universe tick.
Finally, Brayton does us the service of bringing to our attention the unfortunate account of Dr. Sean Carroll, another professor who was denied tenure at the University of Chicago simply because some of the UC faculty didn't like the way he brushed his teeth, evidently, because for all appearances, Brayton thinks he seemed worthy of being granted tenure. Brayton goes on to say that Carroll didn't 'whine' about being 'persecuted', but got on with his life, and advises others who find themselves in a similar pickle to simply "Get over it and get a new job."
That's well and good for a professor who doesn't mind starting another 5-7 year cycle attempting to gain tenure somewhere, if he can. Carroll probably won't have a problem with doing that, but you can be sure that's not going to be true of many Darwin skeptics -- they often find it much more difficult to find another really good position at another University, even if they are able to teach their subject material competently. But for those who worked hard, and like Carroll, were not expecting any problems gaining tenure, there is a HUGE issue here, and Brayton blithely passes over it like it was nothing at all. If you were told you had to do xyz to gain tenure at any academic institution, and then met all of those criteria, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to expect to gain tenure. In nearly any other circumstance where the terms of achieving advancement are defined, failure to deliver it when the criteria are met would be considered a breach of contract, except, of course, in academia. That Carroll did not complain is his choice, but that doesn't mean everyone else in a similar circumstance should respond in exactly the same manner he did - especially if discrimination was involved. No one who works hard and meets the expected criteria for tenure, and has good reviews along the way, should have to wake up one day only to learn he's going to get the axe just because the people he worked with didn't like something as inconsequential as the way he parts his hair or the color of his socks. Much less what his personal religious beliefs happen to be. Keep in mind here that Gonzalez did not teach his religious views to his students -- his only "crime" was writing a book and kicking out a movie that claims our planet enjoys some rather unusual and improbable characteristics. That his conclusions would contribute to the decision to terminate him from his position at ISU is unthinkable.
When a prof is on tenure track, I think he/she has the reasonable expectation of knowing what is required to achieve it. If all the requirements are met, then tenure should be granted, pure and simple. No faculty vote by jealous or sanctimonious peers should in any way challenge that achievement. Unfortunately, as we see in Brayton's own example of Carroll, such is not the case. Rather than suggesting someone who has been unjustly denied an earned tenure should "just get over it", I would prefer to see a different course of action undertaken -- one that calls for a correction in an obviously flawed tenure process. And while yes, it is healthy to move on, it's not at all healthy to let someone beat on you and go their merry way without any consequences -- especially if discrimination was indicated.
This is where the example of Carroll diverges from that of Gonzalez. Technically, Brayton is correct - people are denied tenure all the time who seem to deserve it. But when there is evidence of illegal discrimination, that's a horse of a different color. And as I have already demonstrated, it appears certain that Gonzalez was a victim of discrimination, and the emails clearly show that he was in a very hostile work environment. His colleagues made it very clear that they didn't appreciate his 'religious' views. If they ousted him because of his alleged 'religious' views (real or not), then it's religious discrimination, period.
Brayton characterizes Gonzalez and others who have been denied tenure as "whiners," which places an unsavory label on educators who protest when they've been unjustly discriminated against. Victims of discriminiation have every right to cry 'foul!' as loud as they want to when they suspect their rights have been violated. To characterize this as 'whining', as Brayton does, is a slap in the face to everyone who values the supposedly protected freedoms we all assume each of us is entitled to.
Brayton's comment is like saying "I just saw someone mug and beat Joe Blatz -- but he should just get over it and move on."
I wonder, would Brayton say the same thing to an Indian population who complained because their treaty rights had just been violated? Or would he say the same thing to a black person who was denied a place to live simply because of the color of his skin (and had biting emails from neighboring property owners talking about how uncomfortable they would feel living around a black person)? Evidently he would.
Shouldn't we at least be speaking out against those who we know very likely perpetrated a crime, and maybe even see what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again? In my view, it's at least immoral to deprive someone of something they've earned, even when discrimination is not part of the picture. It's even more immoral, in my view, to suggest that we should ignore or dismiss the plight of those who have a reasonable expectation of rights (i.e., protection against illegal discrimination) granted to us all.
There's a difference, Mr. Brayton, between whining and standing up for your rights.
And if we keep handing out "get out of jail free" cards to perpetrators of discrimination today (as both Gonzalez and Carroll eventually did), it will only embolden them to continue doing more of the same tomorrow. So Mr. Brayton, you'll pardon those of us who don't agree that this is all about a bunch of "whiners" complaining about a "persecution complex." This is about a very real wrong in need of radical correction before it gets worse. And don't think you're immune just because of the side of the fence you're sitting on either. The very same freedoms Gonzalez is entitled to apply to you as well. If you fail to honor the protection of those freedoms for people you disagree with ideologically, you also fail to protect them for yourself and the rest of us as well.
[1] see the newly released book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Dr. Jerry Bergman, which presents several case studies of educators and students who have faced discrimination and persection. Go to www.slaughterofthedissidents.com to keep informed about when the book can be purchased online near the end of August as a digital e-book, paperback, and hardback.
[2] you can download the Gonzalez emails online at: www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/cases/gonzalez/emails.zip
[3] removed
[4] Do Our Genes Reveal the Hand of God? In the London Daily Telegraph, by Roger Highfield, 3/20/2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;$sessionid$RBRIDYIPBBIZFQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/connected/2003/03/19/ecfgod19.xml&sSheet=/connected/2003/03/19/ixconn.html
[5] Nobel Laureates Opine on DNA, Politics, and the Christian Right. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0803.htm
[6] Ibid, at 4.
[7] Lewontin, Richard. Billions and Billions of Demons in New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the first book to be published documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin skeptics.
TENURE AND THE ID PERSECUTION COMPLEX_A REBUTTAL
A response to Ed Brayton's post, found here
By Kevin H. Wirth
Brayton and a host of others in the blogosphere have made much ado about the alleged persecution of ID and creationist educators and scientists ever since the dismissal of Guillermo Gonzalez last year from Iowa State University (ISU) and the release earlier this year of the movie 'Expelled'. It seems some critics of the Gonzalez incident and the movie have taken the position that the claims of rampant discrimination and persecution against educators, students, and scientists by Darwinian supporters is just a manufactured form of psychological hype concocted by ID advocates to get some unwarranted sympathy for their cause.
After investigating many case studies and publishing some,[1] I can say with some degree of confidence that contrary to what these critics suggest, this isn't about hype at all, and in fact, the full extent of this situation remains largely under-reported. The practice of discrimination and elimination of Darwin skeptics from our science labs and academic institutions is widespread and, contrary to Mr. Brayton's implacable assertions, shows no signs of dropping off. In fact - the situation is becoming worse thanks to folks like Brayton who view it as a non-issue.
For example, Brayton claims that the ID movement "has a long history of false or unsupported claims of persecution (which shouldn't surprise us, I suppose; after all, their religion has its origin in an act of alleged martyrdom)."
Thanks to the newly released book, "Slaughter of the Dissidents", those claims are no longer unsupported. Of course, I'm pretty sure Brayton and other critics of his ilk will do their best to show us all how the case studies in that book are not really good examples of persecution at all. Go ahead Ed. Have at it.
In his blog, Brayton brings up the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, who was let go from ISU last year after his release of the film "Privileged Planet," and a no-confidence vote from his faculty peers. Gonzalez and his supporters claim that he was targeted for tenure denial because of his ID views, which have been characterized as "religious" by both his critics and former faculty.
Brayton goes on to say
"Here's what those screaming persecution won't say: they have not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate. None. They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God. It is convenient for them to cry persecution, but there simply is no evidence for it. And here's something else they won't say: people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair."
These statements bear taking a closer look.
Was there really "not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate"? I'll let readers judge this one, and refer to the spate of emails that were obtained through the Discovery Institute's Freedom of Information Act request. You can read those letters online [2] and also in Dr. Bergman's just published book on the subject. Those emails reveal not only a degree of hostility towards Guillermo's views, but also includes some insight into their voting intentions based on how his views were perceived. Consider the following email excerpts between some of Gonzalez's colleagues:
Harmon to Franzen 09/23/05: "...you have a nice writing touch and produced the best letter to the editor on intelligent design... It is a topic that is simmering in my blood, but as a colleague of Gonzalez, I am uncertain of how best to react. He will be up for tenure next year, and if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department... By the way, I don't have trouble voting for tenure based on his astronomy...but here he is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration."
and
Wilson to Struck 02/17/04: "In less happy news, Guillermo has a book coming out in April on Astronomy, Earth's privileged place in the universe and intelligent design. Steve K. is very upset about possible impacts. I guess I'm rather sad that he wants to be so very public about something that I see as intellectually vacuous, though it may be spiritually satisfying.
...I am not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enought to be willing to take the risk... He's definitely a mixed bag, and who knows how this will go. At least it will get full daylight at the 3yr review, not hit folks as a surprise at the final tenure decision."
These comments (and many others that I urge you to read) don't exactly indicate that Guillermo's views were not going to pose "one iota" of a problem for his then upcoming tenure review. If you believe that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... These and other comments were made by many who were going to vote on whether to approve tenure for Gonzalez.
So did Gonzalez's views on ID play a role in his tenure denial? I think the email evidence alone makes it pretty clear that yes, they not just kinda did, but they absolutely did. We don't need to know what the actual faculty vote was... it's pretty evident from reading those emails and noting the declaration against ID that was circulated and supported by many of his ISU faculty colleagues.
But then there's the other interesting comment from Mr. Brayton...
"They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God."
Brayton cavalierly dismisses complaints about persecution against Darwin skeptics as patently false on it's face, claiming that "the evil Darwinian priesthood" is just a conjured up boogeyman in the IDers overly imaginative Monsters Inc. closet.
Oh really?
I guess Brayton isn't aware of the numerous comments made by many prominent Darwinians that actually take aim at people who do believe in God (which, by the way, is illegal discrimination if such comments form the basis for denying someone a job, a place to live, etc. etc.). A lot has been said on this topic by many Darwinians, but I'll pull out two choice examples - just so everyone clearly understands that this concern is not just another figment of ID imagination gone wild or another manufactured plot to gain sympathy.
Example #1
Both James Watson and Francis Crick used the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 as an opportunity to "mount an attack on religion" as one observer put it. [4]
Watson: "There is a conflict between truth by revelation and truth by observation and experiment. I think the big fight eventually in our country is not going to be between Republicans and Democrats, but between those who think secularly and those who think in a fundamentalist way.'[5]
And...
Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.
His co-discoverer, Watson, 74, told the Telegraph that religious explanations were "myths from the past".
"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely," said Watson. "Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours." [6]
For such venerated men of science to come out and publicly underscore not only their distate for religion, but their hope that their work clearly shows that religion has no merit, places ID concerns outside of the boogyman category and into the real world.
Crick and Watson's commentary is just a mild reflection of other sentiments I've run into from other Darwinians, but they will suffice to make the point that Brayton is off key in singing his tune.
Way off.
Example #2
Of the many Darwinians who have gone on record with anything to say on this subject, few comments are more clearly anti-religion than the one made a few years back by Richard Lewontin, who famously said:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that Materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." [7]
This comment makes it pretty clear that Lewontin (and many other scientists) value their approach to viewing the universe far beyond any other consideration, and especially any evidence indicating the universe might reveal the handiwork of an intelligent designer. I think he makes it pretty clear that EVEN IF the evidence indicates something contrary to what the scientific assumptions of naturalistic materialism dictate, then we need to hold on to those assumptions anyway, and furthermore, at any cost.
So much for the integrity of science.
You can't find a much better example of straight talk about what we should do with any ideas coming from those crazy fundies. I hold this up as exhibit "A" that scientific integrity gets thrown out the window simply as a matter of philosophical convenience by many Darwinians. In other words, what Lewontin and others who are completely committed to naturalistic materialism are saying is, even if an Intelligent Designer were to show up and demonstrate in a one-time instance how he could create a living machine, they would have to disallow it just because it doesn't fit within their framework of naturalism. If it can't be explained by a naturalistic process, then it simply need not be contemplated, period. And furthermore, anyone who argues about it or says wait a minute -- goodby and good riddance, 'cause we don't need to hear any more of your blathering.
Of course these quotes simply serve to light the fuse for the more heinous acts of discrimination endured by many Darwin Doubters who have been victimized over the years.
IDers and creationists have been maligned over the years for their beliefs, and I think it's well past time for everyone to recognize that this is not acceptable, and yes that includes you as well Mr. Brayton. I'm not talking about teaching religion in a science class, I'm talking about everyone's right to hold whatever 'religious' views they want, and the right to express those views appropriately. And I'm talking about going where the evidence might lead us, regardless of what assumptions most other scientists may have. Science does not always move forward on the basis of a democratic vote of the majority, nor is it advanced by the malfeasance of elitists who think they know better than everyone else. Science advances through the introduction of novel ideas, not the outright rejection of them.
SIDEBAR -- I find it fascinating that most ID critics take the position that ID isn't science, and therefore we shouldn't contemplate any of the ideas advanced by ID supporters. If inquiry were really at the core of the approach used by such critics, you would think they'd at least be willing to consider finding a way to investigate ID concepts in a manner that suited them better. But I don't see any of that going on, in fact, I most often see a very strong animus towards anything remotely suggestive of ID notions. Not exactly what you'd expect from people who claim to be interested in what really makes the universe tick.
Finally, Brayton does us the service of bringing to our attention the unfortunate account of Dr. Sean Carroll, another professor who was denied tenure at the University of Chicago simply because some of the UC faculty didn't like the way he brushed his teeth, evidently, because for all appearances, Brayton thinks he seemed worthy of being granted tenure. Brayton goes on to say that Carroll didn't 'whine' about being 'persecuted', but got on with his life, and advises others who find themselves in a similar pickle to simply "Get over it and get a new job."
That's well and good for a professor who doesn't mind starting another 5-7 year cycle attempting to gain tenure somewhere, if he can. Carroll probably won't have a problem with doing that, but you can be sure that's not going to be true of many Darwin skeptics -- they often find it much more difficult to find another really good position at another University, even if they are able to teach their subject material competently. But for those who worked hard, and like Carroll, were not expecting any problems gaining tenure, there is a HUGE issue here, and Brayton blithely passes over it like it was nothing at all. If you were told you had to do xyz to gain tenure at any academic institution, and then met all of those criteria, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to expect to gain tenure. In nearly any other circumstance where the terms of achieving advancement are defined, failure to deliver it when the criteria are met would be considered a breach of contract, except, of course, in academia. That Carroll did not complain is his choice, but that doesn't mean everyone else in a similar circumstance should respond in exactly the same manner he did - especially if discrimination was involved. No one who works hard and meets the expected criteria for tenure, and has good reviews along the way, should have to wake up one day only to learn he's going to get the axe just because the people he worked with didn't like something as inconsequential as the way he parts his hair or the color of his socks. Much less what his personal religious beliefs happen to be. Keep in mind here that Gonzalez did not teach his religious views to his students -- his only "crime" was writing a book and kicking out a movie that claims our planet enjoys some rather unusual and improbable characteristics. That his conclusions would contribute to the decision to terminate him from his position at ISU is unthinkable.
When a prof is on tenure track, I think he/she has the reasonable expectation of knowing what is required to achieve it. If all the requirements are met, then tenure should be granted, pure and simple. No faculty vote by jealous or sanctimonious peers should in any way challenge that achievement. Unfortunately, as we see in Brayton's own example of Carroll, such is not the case. Rather than suggesting someone who has been unjustly denied an earned tenure should "just get over it", I would prefer to see a different course of action undertaken -- one that calls for a correction in an obviously flawed tenure process. And while yes, it is healthy to move on, it's not at all healthy to let someone beat on you and go their merry way without any consequences -- especially if discrimination was indicated.
This is where the example of Carroll diverges from that of Gonzalez. Technically, Brayton is correct - people are denied tenure all the time who seem to deserve it. But when there is evidence of illegal discrimination, that's a horse of a different color. And as I have already demonstrated, it appears certain that Gonzalez was a victim of discrimination, and the emails clearly show that he was in a very hostile work environment. His colleagues made it very clear that they didn't appreciate his 'religious' views. If they ousted him because of his alleged 'religious' views (real or not), then it's religious discrimination, period.
Brayton characterizes Gonzalez and others who have been denied tenure as "whiners," which places an unsavory label on educators who protest when they've been unjustly discriminated against. Victims of discriminiation have every right to cry 'foul!' as loud as they want to when they suspect their rights have been violated. To characterize this as 'whining', as Brayton does, is a slap in the face to everyone who values the supposedly protected freedoms we all assume each of us is entitled to.
Brayton's comment is like saying "I just saw someone mug and beat Joe Blatz -- but he should just get over it and move on."
I wonder, would Brayton say the same thing to an Indian population who complained because their treaty rights had just been violated? Or would he say the same thing to a black person who was denied a place to live simply because of the color of his skin (and had biting emails from neighboring property owners talking about how uncomfortable they would feel living around a black person)? Evidently he would.
Shouldn't we at least be speaking out against those who we know very likely perpetrated a crime, and maybe even see what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again? In my view, it's at least immoral to deprive someone of something they've earned, even when discrimination is not part of the picture. It's even more immoral, in my view, to suggest that we should ignore or dismiss the plight of those who have a reasonable expectation of rights (i.e., protection against illegal discrimination) granted to us all.
There's a difference, Mr. Brayton, between whining and standing up for your rights.
And if we keep handing out "get out of jail free" cards to perpetrators of discrimination today (as both Gonzalez and Carroll eventually did), it will only embolden them to continue doing more of the same tomorrow. So Mr. Brayton, you'll pardon those of us who don't agree that this is all about a bunch of "whiners" complaining about a "persecution complex." This is about a very real wrong in need of radical correction before it gets worse. And don't think you're immune just because of the side of the fence you're sitting on either. The very same freedoms Gonzalez is entitled to apply to you as well. If you fail to honor the protection of those freedoms for people you disagree with ideologically, you also fail to protect them for yourself and the rest of us as well.
[1] see the newly released book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Dr. Jerry Bergman, which presents several case studies of educators and students who have faced discrimination and persection. Go to www.slaughterofthedissidents.com to keep informed about when the book can be purchased online near the end of August as a digital e-book, paperback, and hardback.
[2] you can download the Gonzalez emails online at: www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/cases/gonzalez/emails.zip
[3] removed
[4] Do Our Genes Reveal the Hand of God? In the London Daily Telegraph, by Roger Highfield, 3/20/2003
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml;$sessionid$RBRIDYIPBBIZFQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=/connected/2003/03/19/ecfgod19.xml&sSheet=/connected/2003/03/19/ixconn.html
[5] Nobel Laureates Opine on DNA, Politics, and the Christian Right. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0803.htm
[6] Ibid, at 4.
[7] Lewontin, Richard. Billions and Billions of Demons in New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.
Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the first book to be published documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin skeptics.
Biden calls ID malarkey
Bill Sammon, writing in Fox News, says,
"Biden also used unusually strong language to ridicule those who believe in creationism or intelligent design."
"'I refuse to believe the majority of people believe this malarkey!' the senior senator from Delaware exclaimed."
"But less than six months earlier, CBS News conducted a poll that found a majority of Americans (51 percent) do believe that God created humans in their present form. Even larger majorities reject the theory of evolution, according to the poll."
Biden knows what he said would be very unpopular with more than half the country.
