Saturday, November 7, 2009

Analysis of the


Dissent From Darwin

List



This list, released by the Discovery Institute, is a
world-wide collection of scientists (Doctorate Level), who are
advertised to reject the Theory of Evolution. This list has existed and
has been open for additional signatures since 2001. Soon, i will begin
analyzing this list and showing how this list is misleading, at least at the
surface, and in 8 years, has not produced even a modest percentage of
experts.

First off, I am not a fan of the critiques that compare this list to a list of all biologists in the US. This is misleading because,
1. This is a worldwide list
2. The number (955,300), representing all biologists in the US, is for all biologists with a Bachelors degree while this list is only of those with Doctorates.

I do not currently have an estimate on how many US biologists are on this list but the number of Biologists worldwide on this list number about 160 (counted from actual list). Let's assume they were all from the US (gross overstatement but no actual count of US biologists). Let's also compare this with the most recent estimate of all practicing Biologist PhDs (from the NSF (1999)), in which there were 153,000 PhD biologists. That means that only .1% of all US biologists have signed this list during the 8 years it has existed. That's 1 our of 1000! This is no controversy!

Updates to come...
-accurate US biologist count... expect the .1% to plummet!
- comment on the statement, do these "dissenting" scientists ACTUALLY disagree with the theory of evolution?
- The problem with such a list as an argument from authority
These updates will probably come slow as I am busy with 18 credit hours of school. Any assistance from anyone who wants to volunteer to count the number of US biologists would be greatly appreciated.



Sources to help refute Creationist propaganda

According to a 1991 Gallup Poll, Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only 5% are creationists. Creationists petitions fail to even show more than .1% of American Biologists who deny the Theory of Evolution. However, according to a 2009 Gallup Poll, only 37% of Americans accept evolution. Further this poll shows a correlation between acceptance of Evolution and higher education levels. Why, in America, is there such a gap in acceptance of Evolution between the educated experts and the general population? Looking back at this poll reveals that only 25% of Americans deny evolution. The remaining 36% have no opinion. With Creationist activists working diligently to compromise science education, good unbiased non-superstitious science needs as many supporters as it can get. These 36% of Americans are likely to not pay attention to a politician's views on science and are likely to support candidates who want to encourage bad science. If an educated politician is so unconcerned with accurate science that he or she will deny the Theory of Evolution, how can you trust they care about accurate science in any other issue (Global Warming, Vaccines, AIDS, Stem Cell Research, Alternative Medicines, Alternative Energy, Vaccines, etc...)

Creationists work diligently to misinform the public with propaganda. This propaganda involves many tactics from misinformation over scientific theory to logical fallacies and outright lies. These Creationists want to confuse the American public into believing that the Theory of Evolution is a "theory in crisis" and that it is the "religious belief" of secularists (Despite the existence of theistic evolution).

This blog is dedicated to helping inform those who are unsure and are actually interested in accuracy. This blog is also for those creationists who are interested to see what good science says about their claims. I will continually update this blog with sources (websites, books, and movies), that are dedicated to skeptically examining creationist arguments and educating the public over just how sound and supported the Theory of Evolution really is...

I will continue to update this blog as I find sources. If anyone knows of a source i haven't posted, please let me know.


Websites:
National Center for Science Education
Expelled Exposed: Why Expelled Flunks (NCSE)
Creation Vs. Evolution (Scientific American)
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense (Scientific American)
Evolution Resources from the National Academy of Sciences
PBS web site for Evolution
Understanding Evolution (University of California at Berkeley)
Talk Orgins Archive

Books:
The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution (Richard Dawkins)
How to Debate A Creationist (Michael Shermer of Skeptics Society)
Defending Evolution In The Classroom (Brian J. Alters and Sandra M. Alters)
The Triumph of Evolution And The Failure of Creationism (Niles Eldredge)
Intelligent Design And Its Critics (Robert T. Pennock)

Extra sources for people of faith interested in "Theistic Evolution":
Thank God For Evolution
Biologos (Dr. Francis Collins)
Dr. Ken Miller's Evolution Page



In the interest of fairness and skeptical inquiry, i will provide sources for Creation and Intelligent Design. Although I accept the Theory and Facts of Evolution, I highly encourage anyone interested in unbiased skepticism to attempt to research with no initial conclusion. If not, it is good to at least listen to these arguments with an open mind. Here are some Creationist and Intelligent Design Sources:
Institute For Creation Research
Discovery Institute
Answers In Genesis
*These are the best available sources for Creation and Intelligent Design. However, THIS blog is not aimed at presenting both sides equally.

Just a warning though, these websites like to use certain terms that are misleading (These issues are mentioned in the Evolution sites):
Darwinian Theory (or neo-Darwinian Theory): These terms have been used by anti-evolutionists to explain the Theory of Evolution with disregard to the fact that the modern Theory of Evolution is far more advanced than the 150 year old theory of Charles Darwin. Much more is known today.
Materialistic explanations: This is basically translated to any natural, observable, testable hypothesis. In other words, it can be proven right or wrong. Supernatural explanations are untestable and unobservable and therefore cannot be proven right or wrong.

Note:
ID proponents claim that they are not religiously motivated. In 1998, The Discovery Institute put together a document outlining what is known as the Wedge Strategy. Read it and decide for yourself.

Republican Spending Hypocrisy

John Kyl (R-ariz) said recently:
“I think it’s safe to say that there are a huge number of big issues that
people have,” Kyl said, referring to Republican senators. “There is no
way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-..dollar-plus bill.” This is funny since he supported $800 billion in bailout spending last year during the Bush administration.

I find it crazy that 2/3 of the now "..anti-spending"
Senate Republicans and nearly half of House Republicans approved of
such a bill. Anyone who thinks these Republicans are actually concerned
about excessive government spending should check the rosters for the
Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 under the Bush
Administration... Remember that was $800 Billion in government
spending! Is this truly a battle over excessive government spending or
possibly a war between the right and left?

Senate vote on HR 1424 (Oct 1st 2008):
http:../../..www...senate...gov/..legislative/..LIS/..roll_..call_..lists/..roll_..call_..vote_..cfm...cfm?..congress=..110&..session=..2&vote=00213

House Vote on HR 1424 (Oct 3rd, 2008):
http:../../..clerk...house...gov/..evs/..2008/..roll681.xml

H.R. 1424: Library of Congress
http:../../..thomas...loc...gov/..cgi-..bin/..bdquery/..z?..d110:h.r.01424:

Next time you hear a Republican congressman attack "excessive government spending," check to see if they really truly believe it. Check to see if they supported $800 billion in government spending under a Republican Administration.

A 50 year game of telephone.

One reason I am so skeptical of the New Testament gospels is because of just how long it took for the stories of Jesus to be written down. These stories of Jesus went through an oral stage for at least a good 40-60 years. The oldest Gospel, the Gospel of Mark is believed to have been written around 63-85 CE, depending on the scholar. This was around 30-50 years after the year Jesus was believed to have died(~30AD). I wonder how many bible literalists actually remember playing the game of telephone when they were young. Within the small minute it took to get a message around a circle of people, it is highly unlikely the message will retain its original integrity. Now stretch this out to 30-50 years, among thousands of people, all living in an age long before the age of scientific skepticism.

Interestingly, another issue arises out of that last statement. If anyone has followed the skeptics movement, it should be obvious there are plenty of claims that, without scientific skepticism, would be left unchallenged and highly likely to be believed. Even today many of these claims are believed, even though they've been successfully disproved or extremely unlikely. Look at
  • faith healers
  • alien abduction stories
  • ghost stories
  • the miracle of the sun in Fatima
  • the Incorruptibles
  • countless conspiracy theories
  • 2012
  • and many more (In fact, if you're interested in learning about these claims, a good starting point is the podcast SKEPTOID, by Brian Dunning)....
There are also issues of eyewitness testimony. How many people were sure they saw a projectile hit TWA flight 800, despite the fact that their testimonies disobey basic laws of physics? If so many people believe these things, despite the fact they have been disproved, imagine how many people would believe these outrageous stories without the scientific knowledge needed to objectively asses a given event?

Now we come to the stories of Jesus. All we need to do is look at other historical figures and see how many bogus stories have been written about them. For example,
  • Darwin's Deathbed Confession
  • George Washington and the cherry tree
  • The Hitler Diaries
  • Nostradamus
  • etc...
Now I understand these examples are over 50 years old, but we have recorded accounts of these people from the times they lived. The point is, without these accounts dating from the time of their actual lives, who knows how many of these bogus stories may have been believed with the same certainty of the belief given to the stories of Jesus.

Now it's no secret what could have motivated these followers of Jesus in the early first century BC. The Roman occupation of Jerusalem was brutal. Some accounts of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate show there were daily crucifixion tallies of over 100 people. In the face of Roman oppression, the hope for the return of the Jewish Messiah had to be strong.

Now don't get me wrong. This is no evidence against the validity of the old testament as historical truth. This is merely speculation. However, this shows just how likely it would be for stories like the Gospels to have arisen given the historical conditions, whether or not they had any factual basis. This is nothing more than a reason to remain skeptical of any non-collaborated "historical texts" such as the gospels.

Another Theist 2-cent answer to a million dollar question...

I got into a debate with a Theist yesterday and he brought up some points I hadn't heard before. His basic claim that Natural Selection evolves our brains to the benefit of the survivability of our genes, not necessarily rationality. So because of this, how do we know we are rational beings? And if we can't know whether or not we are rational beings, how can we reasonably expect to perform scientific work without the possibility that we are spinning our wheels? This all tied into another point he made about how science needs philosophy. My answer at the time was that, in the long run, we don't know. Of course, his solution was exactly as expected from a Theist when presented with a complex question such as this. He invokes his god. His god wanted us to be rational beings. So he guided the evolutionary process to ensure this. Therefore, unless you believe that his god makes us rational, scientific inquiry is basically pointless.

Of course, this sounds as if it is just another cheap "2 cent" answer to more complex "million dollar" question. He invokes this "God solution" without the slightest burden of proving the existence of this "God." Yes, it would solve all these problems this were true. But is it true? At most, this is an argument for the benefits of belief, but still fails to answer the original question (in boldface). If this solution of his were acceptable philosophy, then philosophy itself is behind the times.

One problem still arises if one were to invoke an answer like this. How does one know their god exists? One could believe all day that Baylor's football team will win the National Championship this year, but it does not make it true or even remotely likely. This "God" would be a great solution to the problem, if he/she exists. But then again, one would first have the burden of proving the existence of your god in the first place, or even the likelihood. So if there were no burden of proof in this case, could one not propose ANY unproven solution to the problem? Could one not propose Allah, or Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, each with their own attached dogmas? If there is no burden of proof, solutions are infinite and no single solution is more valid than any other. Once again, one would have to turn to science to test validity.

Of course there is another element of this problem that I hinted to with the Baylor analogy. This "God solution," or any similar solution, only serves as a way for us to feel comfortable with our own rationality. The question still remains. No matter how many of these "God solutions" we make up, how do we actually know we are "rational" beings. An "irrational being" may be expected to make up some authority to label the being as rational. That is, of course, if it is able and motivated to do so. So how do we know we are not these "irrational beings" and God (or Zeus) isn't the authority figure we have created to make ourselves feel rational? Once again, we end up right back at the original starting point; the boldface question.

This seems to be a common theme among Theists. When presented with a complex philosophical or scientific question, the response is to engage in wishful thinking without ACTUALLY answering the question. The main problem with the original argument from the Theist I debated was that he first invoked his God as a solution without actually proving that his God exists or even has a likely chance to exist. In all honesty, before your God can be invoked as a solution, you must also prove than not only is your God likely to exist, but is also the most likely to exist of any possible solution. This is something that, to my knowledge, has never been accomplished with ANY god.

Now we come back to the question itself and what exact solution a non-believer may have. Because this question is no new to me, I have not had that much time to think of a solution. I don't know if anyone has. Of course this Theist left me with two possible solutions: Either I believe in his god to feel as though science isn't just "spinning its wheels," or I don't believe in his god and continue down this road of futility. As I have already pointed out, simply believing in an unproven or unlikely god is not an acceptable solution for anyone who would rather live in reality then a pleasant fantasy. So is his dichotomy correct? Or is there another solution? I have an idea. Although I would like to hear the perspective of others.

I have no background in philosophy or biology but I wonder if this question is even an issue. My first question would be to define rationality. Basically, it seems as though rationality is ": the quality or state of being agreeable to reason." Now, looking at the possible definitions of reason in this context (Definition 2 on the list), I see a few possibilities. The first seems to go back to rationality, which is cyclical. The second, ": proper exercise of the mind," just poses more questions over what exactly is "proper exercise." The most i can infer is through the use of proper logic, which is what I am hoping I am using here. However, the third seems the most helpful: "the sum of the intellectual powers." Basically, it seems as though rationality is actually defined by our "intellectual powers" (I say ours because we would not consider other animals to be rational). So if there were some "higher form" of rationality, We would not necessarily call it rational by our standards, since our definition is based on our intellectual powers. Basically, my point is that we are rational because we defined rationality based on OUR concept of rationality. An analogy is to say a cat is green because we have defined that color of the cat to be green. Is there a true green that isn't our green?

I don't want this to be a red herring though. This may not really be an argument over the definition of rationality so much as the qualities of rationality. I just wanted to close that door so that we can focus on what exactly is the benefit of rationality. The most clear benefit is that it allows us to perceive and correctly analyze what we perceive as reality. And without this benefit, who honestly cares? What is the point beyond this? Now if this benefit is allows an organism to be more "fit", then it is clear that it would be favored by natural selection. At this point we would turn to biology and evolutionary psychology, to which I am no expert. I am just showing another possible train of thought for the boldface question. And I would like to see comments from people knowledgeable in these fields. If you have something constructive to say, please say it. Maybe the answer to the boldface question is obvious to someone knowledgeable in an applicable field. I don't know. I have just not personally seen this issue tackled.

Friday, November 6, 2009



I know. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse but it still amazes me that Global Warming Deniers actually still cite this petition as meaning anything. On earlier postings, i have revealed the many skeletons this petition has in its closet, from denial of the link between smoking and adverse health effects, to fake signatures. But this time, i would actually like to make another point.
One of the main arguments made by the people who cite this petition is that it proves that there is no scientific "consensus" on the Anthropogenic Global Warming. Now, we have to beg the question on what constitutes a consensus. Many deniers argue that a consensus means a unanimous opinion. However, after typing the word into Dictionary.com, i see no definition with any mention of the word unanimous. Although certain definitions indirectly could be analyzed in this fashion, it is only common sense that unanimous opinion in global communities is unrealistic, especially in the case of "scientists." One would find it impossible to find any subject in which EVERY scientist in the US or World agrees upon. So obviously it would be pointless to even have the concept of a "scientific consensus" if it were based on a unanimous decision. Now Websters dictionary has only one definition of consensus: "Agreement; accord; consent." Dictionary.com also uses the term "majority" and "general agreement." Therefore i think is it safe to say that a "scientific consensus" exists when the vast majority of scientists agree on an opinion.
(Dictionary.com (consensus))

Now, with that out of the way, let's answer the main question. Are 32000 signers really that many? First lets make a few assumptions in the favor of the petition:
1. That all signers have been verified and generally agree with the petition (remember michael moore and ginger spice were on this petition).
2. That the sources behind this petition were credible sources (so that we know the signers based their opinion on legitimate research).
3. That we cared at all what a Veterinarian or Computer Engineer thought about Climate Science

Now lets make some observations and comparisons. Remember, this petition has had over a decade to get all the Global Warming Denier signatures it can. So we will compare these numbers to the National Science Foundation's Table of Employed U.S. scientists and engineers, 1999 (No table has come out since 1999 so these numbers will be lower than normal):
NSF: 1999 Table of Employed Scientists and Engineers
NSF Employment Tables from 1999
1. According to the website, "31,478 American scientists have signed this petition." This includes anyone with at least a "Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields" (note: they consider a DVM an appropriate scientific field). According to the NSF, there were 10,981,600 employed scientists with at least a bachelors degree in 1999. So this means that this petition only makes up .3% of all US scientists (Bachelors Degree of higher) in the United States. So that looks like 99.7% of US "Bachelors level or higher" scientists have not signed this petition.

2. I will summarize the others:


Qualifications: Signers: Total in US: % signed: % not signed:

PhD 9,029 736,700 1.3% 98.7%

Enviornment
and 1,563 102,100 1.6% 98.4%
Atmosphere


(Also, just an interesting bit of information. There are 9833 signers that are in the Medical and General Engineering professions, completely unrelated fields to the subject of Global Warming. Thats 31% of all the signers, almost a third of the petition!)

Basically, the most favorable group we can give these guys is 1.6% of the Environment and Atmosphere scientific community, which is the most relevant anyway. However, i don't think that 1.6% of the scientists in this field over an 11 year span translates to much of an argument against a consensus. I can only hope someone makes a "Project Steve" for the issue of Anthropogenic Global Warming as well.

Remember that these petitions and surveys only means so much. If taken too far, its easy to get caught up in a simple argument from authority. However, it is always good to note when such a majority of scientists support a particular theory. Due to the nature of the peer-review process, there is very little effort to reach a group opinion about any scientific theory. Therefore, to have such a strong agreement, let alone any agreement, within the scientific community as a whole, means quite a bit. Its just something to remember when some random scientist bypasses the peer review process to tell you something in opposition to a generally accepted theory. Remember that these people know you are probably not very well educated in the subject. Remember there is probably a reason they can't convince 98% of the most knowledgeable scientists in their field. This should give you good reason to be skeptical. If an idea is on an unending fringe, there is probably a good reason. Find someone else with his expertise. Remember there is a 98.4% chance that you will find someone who can point out why he is wrong.
Also, so far i have seen this petition mentioned by Senator James Inhoffe (R-OK) and Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX). I am sure a lot more have cited this petition. I personally find it sad that Dr. Paul endorses a petition based on the writings of a scientist who was determined to deny the link between Smoking and Cancer.
I understand this is merely an ad-hominem but it is also an issue of credibility. It is not a reason to completely ignore what they say, but it is a reason to be EXTREMELY SKEPTICAL.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for reference, here are some websites the deal with the Global Warming controversy. These sites frequently refer to peer-reviewed articles in non-biased journals.
America's Climate Choices (National Academy of Science)
Real Climate
Skeptical Science

All of these sites support Anthropogenic Global Warming. To date i have yet to find a good denier site that supports legitimate peer-reviewed articles. Many of these denier sites do claim to be supported by peer review. But in my experience, when verifying these articles, i find that either:
1. The article does not support the claim of the denier. The denier has instead decided to cherry pick pieces of data in support of his argument, in disagreement with the overall conclusion of the original peer-reviewed article. This begs the question why he cant seem to get HIS article published in a peer-reviewed journal.
2. The article is published in a journal that is not respected by the scientific mainstream. These journals are often politically biased do not appear in respected databases (ex: Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, and Energy and Environment).
3. The article is not actually Peer-Reviewed.

Here are some links to these websites so you can see for yourself. I invite you to comment if you find exceptions to my generalizations. I do not want to be guilty of "Straw Man" logic. I just have yet to see exceptions. Research these articles well.
GlobalWarming.org (strangely this site seems to focus on celebrities instead of scientists)
Climate Audit (this site almost seems to imply scientific conspiracies, sound familiar? [antievolution])

These are some of the most popular sites for and against AGW. However, They are merely starting grounds.

New Blog Page

It seems as though my myspace blog was set to private and I cannot find a way to set it back. So i decided to start posting on this website. It kinda sucks because i was really proud of a few of my blog entries and it will be a pain in the ass to port them over, links and all. Oh well. I'll probably start re-posting some of my favorite old blogs later.

More ID nonsense

Heard today from an ID proponent that there were NO open ID proponent professors with tenure. I decided to check out the dissnet from darwin list and picked out a few random names. Of any i could find a link to, all had tenure. Examples include Henry F Schaefer of the University of Georgia, Scott Minnich of the University of Idaho, RUSSELL W CARLSON of the Univerity of Georgia, and Richard Spence of UC Davis... These are just a few quickly selected names, chosen only because they represent universities in the United states. Other than that, the names were selected randomly within that criteria. If all the ones i could find had tenure, who knows how many do out of the hundreds of signatures on the list. The point of this is that you can't say there are NO open ID proponent professors with tenure.I just listed at least one, the negation of the statement. Therefore the original statement is false. This argument was supposed to be evidence of the so called "conspiracy" against ID. Once again another one of these arguments does not stand up to even a moment's scrutiny.