Speaking of teeny-weeny Evinrudes...

In my last post I noted that PBS reran the Nova broadcast of Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. In it, we heard Judge Jones say "We've seen that," referring to a picture of a bacterial flagellum, similar to one already shown. The flagellum had been introduced as literally an outboard motor. This was not noted as a simile; it was not noted as a metaphor. However, I must say, that many times when I hear someone refer to something as literally something else, they frequently mean "No, not literally--when I say literally I really don't mean that literally."

Anyhow, Michael Behe's contention was that this structure, the bacterial flagellum, is irreducibly complex--that is, take away any single part and the thing doesn't function. That contention was seen to be flawed; part of the structure has quite successfully functioned as a delivery system for plague.

An article in Science for 15 February 2008 by Shou Furuike &al. (subscription required) describes an itty-bitty motor that also lacks a rather important part, yet apparently still functions. In this case it's not an Evinrude, it's a Yamaha, er, the Fo motor of the ATP synthase. And the part it's missing is the axle. The axle-less mutants do indeed rotate. The authors end the article with

Why is there superfluous robustness in the rotary mechanism of F1? Perhaps this began as a clumsy device, and then proceeded to sophistication. If so, ring-shaped AAA+ ATPases may all, in principle, be capable of producing torque, as suggested for helicases.

Show the good stuff

Apparently, PBS is doing more begging fund-raising now, showing those old dead people playing music that wasn't all that good forty years ago. If they want to impress me enough to send them more money, they need to run more shows like they just did. Tonight they reran
Nova's Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, interviews and re-enactment of the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, presided over by Judge John E. Jones III. That's a damn sight better than bringing on the woomeisters and the experts on the obvious that make up the bulk of fund -raising programming.

My only criticism of the show is that although they interviewed Pastor Ray Mummert, they did not get him to repeat , We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture.

Expelled? Execrable!

I'm not going to review the anti-science pseudo-documentary film "Expelled."

For one thing, it's getting a bit late, and the film is being shown in fewer and fewer theaters. It opened in 1,052 theaters on 18 April, and on 8 May it was showing in 656 theaters (data from here).

Furthermore, there have been numerous reviews of Expelled, some by people who have actually seen it. Some reviewers managed to see it despite efforts by the producers to keep them away (i.e., expelled). The reviewers all agreed that Expelled is a lousy film from an artistic viewpoint, but, more importantly, it is exceedingly dishonest. It misrepresents science and scientists, it relates a false history, it ignores facts contrary to its premise, and it insults any viewers capable of rational thought. Expelled is the quintessential manifestation of the phrase, "Lying for Jesus." Judge John E. Jones III made a comment in his opinion in the Kitzmiller &al. v. Dover Area School Board &al. (Document 342, Memorandum Opinion, December 20, 2005, p. 137) that perfectly fits Expelled:

It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy.

The purpose of this post, then, is merely to direct anyone who hasn't been there already to visit Expelled Exposed, hosted by the National Center for Science Education (NCSE). Get the facts. Check the sources.

A desirable state of affairs

In a post at Rabettrun, Eli quotes a Kansas Republican legislator giving her reason for upholding Governor Sebelius' veto of legislation that would require the state to permit construction of some new coal-fired electricity generation plants: I'm amazed at how well-educated many Kansans are on issues about the environment and energy.

Imagine... if other legislators, of any political party, could make similar claims about their constituents' knowledge of other issues that require just a bit understanding of science. Say, for instance, legislators or school board members in Florida. Or any other place under assault by the anti-science forces of the Discovery Institute.

Did I mention I received an award?

No, of course I didn't mention it; I was out to lunch for a few months. Every time I thought I would be able to sit down and write a post, something came up. Not that I actually accomplished much over all that time.

A comment in my last post informed me this blog was considered worthy of the "E for Excellence Award," a tag that was making the rounds a few months ago. Well, a belated thanks, Ian--I do appreciate a complement when it comes from someone whose blog I respect and enjoy. And I will try to get back to blogging more frequently.

From the Research Labs of Intelligent Design

Okay, I'm a little behind in my reading. So the article I'm about to discuss may stir a memory because it was mentioned (and probably reviewed) a couple years ago. It comes out of, not the Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture, but from the Interdisciplinary Biblical Research Institute of the Biblical Theological Seminary. I'm referring to IBRI Research Report #56, presented online in 2005: Rumors of Angels: Using ID to Detect Malevolent Spiritual Agents, by Robert C. Newman.

The title evokes Peter L. Berger's A Rumor of Angels: Modern Society and the Rediscovery of the Supernatural. Berger contends that sociological arguments support the notion that "theological thinking" is possible in modern society. His small volume is not, Berger notes, a book about angels. He does suggest that our perception of reality may be improved by a "rediscovery of the supernatural"--and this rediscovery might allow for more meaningful relationships between people. He notes that existentialist ponderings need to be tempered with an occasional laugh.

Newman provides us with plenty of laughs and guffaws in his essay. Here is his abstract, in its entirety:

Most discussions of God's action in nature since about 1900 have ignored angelic activity, perhaps in reaction to White's History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom. Here we take another look at the biblical data on angels, and then consider what scientific data might be relevant in light of recent interest in intelligent design.

What does this abstract tell us appears in the paper? Very little, and absolutely nothing of what was concluded.

Angels are real, Newman tells us, and are capable of interacting with the material world. Yet they are immaterial beings. So how do they interact with a material world? No explanation is provided. But we know that angels are real because of the evidence--the Bible tells us so, just as it is evidence that there are such other spiritual beings as seraphim and cherubim. Oh, yes--and demons, too. Newman's research report goes on to tell us what it is that angels do, according to his laboratory research (i.e., reading the Bible). His "research" covers what demons do, as well.

Newman reasonably states that people live and act in a real world, a world that has objective existence. So why can't those "other intelligences" (by which he is not referring to chimpanzees or dolphins) live and act in the same world? How can they be detected? In posing these questions, he takes it for granted that angels exist--to doubt their existence, Newman says makes one a liberal--a modern Sadducee.

After presenting several hoary examples of how detection of design can be difficult, Newman proposes

...angelic activity is not like natural laws, which are operating continuously. Rather, they are more like human actions, which are sporadic. But here we have the additional complication that we cannot see the actors.

Then after admitting that science can, indeed, study unrepeatable events, he says

So the only way to find and study such phenomena would be if they leave traces that are detectable and (preferably) unmistakable.

At this point Newman introduces William Dembski's Explanatory Filter, suggesting that it can be used not only to detect God's designs, but

...such an approach could also be used to recognize an intermediate scale of intelligent design, between that of God and humans.

In other words, angels and demons.

And for examples, he cites the book of Job and offers the suggestion that they perform their actions by "influencing individuals and groups" (somehow) or by "doing genetic manipulation on individual organisms" (somehow).

One of the arguments used against Intelligent Design has been the existence of "designs" that are suboptimal or even injurious to humans and other organisms. These, Newman argues, are examples of malevolent design, springing from the drafting tables of Evil Spirits, or, alternatively, the misinterpreted work of God (and so not really malevolent) or space men (which, for some reason, is "consistent with a biblical theism"). "Designs" which are faulty, yet not injurious (such as the famous panda's thumb) are attributed not to evolution contingent upon existing material, but to design by "benevolent (but finite) spirit beings," namely, angels (Good angels, not bad angels). These designs are contingent upon existing material, but changes are not influenced by mutation and natural selection, only by the limited power and imperfect quality that we know is characteristic of angels. I guess angels don't have access to CAD software like God does.

Newman concludes that he doesn't know much about biology, yet he felt no embarrassment in attributing causes to biological observations and determining that his fantasies might seriously impact how science is done, specifically with respect to including the supernatural in scientific research.

Image from Wellcome Library.

Darwin Day is coming...And a little progress

Don't forget, it's Darwin's Birthday Tuesday, 12 February. Why not make a weekend out of it?

The progress I'm referring to is to note that there was an item in the York (PA) Daily Record announcing an 'Evolution Shabbat' Friday (better hurry) at Temple Beth Israel in York, Pennsylvania. Speakers are Rabbi Irwin N. Goldenberg on the Jewish perspective, and Leonard Berkowitz on science, creationism, and intelligent design.

Rip It ripoff?

While waiting for lunch at the sandwich shop today, I glanced in the cooler containing various beverages. One caught my eye--it was labeled as an energy drink, something that has gotten rather popular lately. Now here's the amazing part: the label also claimed the drink contained 0 calories!