Creationist Wisdom — Example 79: Quote-Mining

CREATIONISTS frequently engage in the shady practice of quote-mining, quoting material out of context to create the impression that an expert somehow rejects the theory of evolution.

The practice is inexcusable, because it requires fraudulent intent to pluck such quotes from a source that obviously isn’t creationist. The fraud is easily exposed when the original source is consulted, but quote-mined articles are never corrected. Creationists are confident that their followers won’t bother to verify their claims.

If you’d like to see the latest example of this technique, we’ve got one from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — truly the fountainhead of creationist wisdom. They’ve posted something we virtually predicted: Does Altered Fish Vision Exhibit Evolution?

But first, we need to put this in context. A week ago we posted Why We Can See Blue Sky, about the first fish known to have switched from ultraviolet vision to violet vision — thus acquiring the ability to see blue light. We quoted one of the researchers who made what we thought was an unfortunately-worded statement. That statement was this, with the troublesome portion in red for emphasis:

“Evolutionary biology is filled with arguments that are misleading, at best,” Yokoyama says. “To make a strong case for the mechanisms of natural selection, you have to connect changes in specific molecules with changes in phenotypes, and then you have to connect these changes to the living environment.”

We knew that would be a problem, and we said:

Very nice, but we sense an opportunity for the quote-miners here. Yokoyama may wish he had been more circumspect in his phraseology.

We even suggested what we thought the researcher had intended to say, and we worded it in a way that would be less vulnerable to quote-mining. Our wording was:

Now that research like this is possible, we have the ability to test specific predictions of evolutionary biology and to provide empirical support for theory at a level of detail not previously attainable.

It was the researchers’ paper, not ours, so they wrote it their way. But we knew the quote-miners would find it. ICR’s “creation science” researchers didn’t disappoint us. Here are a few excerpts from their creationist account of that discovery, with bold font added by us:

Biologists recently analyzed special proteins in fish eyes that capture light photons, making vision possible. By comparing the sequences of a critical protein from different fish, they identified a particular alteration that likely occurred somewhere along the line of this fish’s ancestry.

We already know that. Let’s read on:

Emory University evolutionary biologist Shozo Yokoyama admitted in a university press release, “Evolutionary biology is filled with arguments that are misleading, at best …. To make a strong case for the mechanisms of natural selection, you have to connect changes in specific molecules with changes in phenotypes, and then you have to connect these changes to the living environment.”

Ooooooh! He admitted it! We’ve been exposed!

Actually, Yokoyama was clumsily saying only that the techniques he and his team used provided a new avenue for research. He’s quoted here, at the website of EurekAlert! (the online news service of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) as follows:

“Normally, amino acid changes cause small structure changes, but in this case, a critical amino acid was deleted,” Yokoyama says. “The finding implies that we can find more examples of a similar switch to violet vision in different fish lineages,” he adds. “Comparing violet and UV pigments in fish living in different habitats will open an unprecedented opportunity to clarify the molecular basis of phenotypic adaptations, along with the genetics of UV and violet vision.”

There you are — his work provides an “unprecedented opportunity to clarify” certain molecular changes, because, as EurekAlert! says:

Their results provided a reference framework for further research, and helped bring to light the limitations of studies that rely on statistical analysis of gene sequences alone to identify adaptive mutations in proteins.

That’s the context for Yokoyama’s unfortunate statement that “Evolutionary biology is filled with arguments that are misleading, at best,” but the way ICR presents it, Yokoyama has openly declared that virtually all of evolutionary biology is “misleading at best.”

What else does ICR say? We continue:

The expectation of a loss of function follows from the creation model, which holds that creatures were originally designed with the highest levels of genetic organization and have been gradually losing information since.

[...]

This fish eye research, an endeavor to investigate evolutionary development, merely highlighted a loss of function due to the deletion of a small part of a protein. As such, it has nothing to do with wholesale gain of the type of new genetic information necessary to build a fish from a single-celled ancestor, as the evolutionary tale requires.

Got it? This isn’t evolution, it’s just loss of function — as creationism predicts.

Here’s ICR’s last paragraph:

Thus, the changes that occurred in these fish eyes point to the corruption that entered the world with humanity’s rebellion against God, resulting in the situation observed today in which “the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.”

If the article from ICR seems like a tangled wreck — with a bit of quite-mining tossed onto the pile, you’re right. That’s creationism. So be prepared to see Yokoyama’s “Evolutionary biology is filled with arguments that are misleading, at best” being endlessly repeated at creationist websites, and then spammed into the comments section of pro-science blogs. That’s how the game is played.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Republican Schism: Gingrich vs. Palin

YES, this is about creationism. And it’s also about a great deal more.

It’s all coming into focus in a special congressional election in New York, in which the Republican candidate, Assemblywoman Dierdre Scozzafava, is running against Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman to see who will represent New York’s 23rd Congressional District. There is also a democrat in the race, attorney Bill Owens. The election will be held on 03 November 2009.

The consensus of informed opinion is that the democrat would be handily defeated were it not for the presence of both a Republican and a Conservative candidate in the race. The Republican vote is being split between Dierdre and Doug. That’s bad news for the GOP, which should otherwise be able to win the currently vacant seat. And that GOP split, dear reader, involves creationism.

We’ve previously written of our discomfort concerning the present state of the GOP. See: Open Letter to the Republican Party. There we complained that:

While the other party has been winning elections and undermining everything we have traditionally valued, what issues dominate our political discourse? Our party has been talking about sex and religion.

At that time we referred to the divisive issues as sex and religion; at other times we’ve used a different expression for the same problem. We once wrote that “family values” is code for an obsession with Noah’s Ark and chastity belts. We’re still struggling for a memorable expression that captures the two issues threatening the future of the Republican party.

This time we’re going to try creationism and chastity, or C&C. The meaning of creationism is obvious; the term chastity in this context includes a vast array of topics that somehow find their way into political discourse — topics like abstinence, promiscuity, homosexuality, pre-marital relations, contraception, sodomy, pornography, same-sex marriage, sex education, abortion, and morning-after pills. Does that list sound familiar? It should, because increasingly, those are the issues that get discussed in Republican campaigns.

When either of the C&C issues is raised (usually it’s both), even if only in a peripheral way, it energizes an enthusiastic portion of the Republican base, and that can assure primary victories. It can also assure general election victories in some regions of the country — especially where William Jennings Bryan once strode like giant across the political landscape. But in other regions, and in national politics generally, those same issues are seen as extreme — even bizarre — and that repels a large number of undecided voters who often determine the outcome in general elections.

There’s yet another problem with the C&C issues, which helps to explain the unfavorable reaction of independent voters. The Constitution doesn’t give the federal government any authority over those issues, so they’re strikingly out of place in congressional and presidential politics. If the C&C issues need to be addressed, it can only be at the state level; and most state constitutions also prevent governmental enforcement of religious doctrine; and let’s be candid here — religion is at the core of both C&C issues.

So how is all of this playing out in the New York election? Scozzafava is the Republican candidate. She has traditional Republican positions on taxes, economics, defense, and the 2nd Amendment. But she’s not a “social conservative.” She’s not one of the “family values” crowd. She’s pretty much a libertarian on abortion, and she’s also that way on same-sex relationships. She’s definitely not an in-your-bedroom conservative.

Because Scozzafava is the Republican in the race, she’s been endorsed by Newt Gingrich. At this page of his website, On the NY23 Race, We Have A Practical Choice To Make, Newt says, with bold font added by us:

Through my experience as Speaker of the House and building a Republican majority in 1994, I have learned that if America wants a conservative majority in Washington, parts of that majority are going to disagree. I was elected Speaker because a number of moderates voted for me. They gave us control of the House for the first time in forty years, allowing us to balance the federal budget, cut taxes and reform welfare for America.

My endorsement of Dede Scozzafava in the special election for New York’s 23rd Congressional District is a means of regaining a conservative majority in America.

Although some of her values do not match my own, Scozzafava will help us in our efforts to win back Congress. She has signed the no-tax-increase pledge from the Americans from Tax Reform, she has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, she opposes cap-and-trade and energy tax increases, she is against Obama Care, and she has said she will vote against Nancy Pelosi and in favor of John Boehner as Speaker of the House.

Newt is undoubtedly thinking of his Contract With America, the most successful thing we’ve done since nominating Ronald Reagan. Each item on Newt’s list was poll-tested. Significantly, religion and sex were not on the list, except indirectly in the case of some welfare reform provisions affecting unwed mothers, and some non-controversial items in the proposed Family Reinforcement Act ( such as tax incentives for adoption, and stronger child pornography laws). Wikipedia says: “Gingrich insisted on ’60% issues’, intending for the Contract to avoid promises on controversial and divisive matters like abortion and school prayer.” Source: Contract with America.

A bit more from the Gingrich website:

My number one interest in the 2009 elections is to build a Republican majority. If your interest is taking power back from the Left, and your interest is winning the necessary elections, then there are times when you have to put together a coalition that has disagreement within it.

We have to decide which business we are in. If we are in the business about feeling good about ourselves while our country gets crushed then I probably made the wrong decision.

We like Newt. He makes sense.

Opposed to Scozzafava is Doug Hoffman, who differs from Scozzafava in that he is anti-abortion and anti-gay marriage. Thus, one of the C&C issues is clearly involved. Hoffman has recently been endorsed by Sarah Palin, and more recently by Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty. Both are creationists — the other part of C&C. We can’t find anything specifically indicating that Hoffman is a creationist, but he certainly holds to all the other “family values” positions.

Hoffman’s campaign website indicates that he’s also endorsed by Rick Santorum, another creationist. Can this be a coincidence? It seems more likely that the “family values” crowd recognize Hoffman as one of their own.

Want more? Hoffman is also endorsed by James Dobson. Check out the “social issues” section of his website. In the “education” section, describing Focus on the Family’s The Truth Project, we find:

Lesson 5 – Science: What is True? (two-part lesson)

(Part One): Science, the “systematic study of the natural world,” brings to light innumerable evidences of Intelligent Design. But Darwinian theory transforms science from the honest investigation of nature into a vehicle for propagating a godless philosophy.

(Part Two): A careful examination of molecular biology and the fossil record demonstrates that evolution is not a “proven fact.” Meanwhile, history shows that ideas, including Darwinism as a social philosophy, have definite consequences – consequences that can turn ugly when God is left out of the picture.

To be fair, that’s from Dobson, not Hoffman. But the question is unavoidable — Why are so many known creationists supporting Hoffman? We think it’s because Hoffman is another C&C Republican.

We don’t know what’s going to happen in New York’s 23rd Congressional District on 03 November. But we think the split between what’s shaping up to be the Gingrich wing and Palin wing of the party is in plain view for all to see. The GOP may well lose that seat as a result.

So where does this leave us? Is the Grand Old Party about taxes, defense, and preserving the Constitution? Or is it primarily about God and sex?

The answer involves more than one congressional seat — far more. What’s really in question is whether the Republican party will have any national viability at all. And on that point — some will think this an exaggeration, but they’re wrong — depends the fate of the civilized world.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Creationist Wisdom — Example 78: Occam’s Razor

WE present to you, dear reader, a letter-to-the-editor titled Occam’s razor disputes the logic of evolution, which appears in the Cape Cod Times of Hyannis, Massachusetts.

We’ll copy today’s letter in its entirety, omitting only the writer’s name and city, while adding our Curmudgeonly commentary between the paragraphs.

But first, because the letter discusses Occam’s razor, let’s make sure we’re all together on this. According to Wikipedia:

Occam’s razor … is the principle that can be popularly stated as “when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better.”

[...]

Occam’s razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae (translating to the law of parsimony, law of economy or law of succinctness).

There are numerous examples of this principle, but in terms of evolution we could say that if separate breeding populations of a species exist, as on various islands of the Galapagos chain, genetic differences that are observed in each island’s individuals are the result of successful mutations that have been passed on to succeeding generations of those isolated populations. Thus, Darwin’s finches.

A violation of the principle would be to add an additional cause — that an invisible and undetectable agency intentionally played an incomprehensible role in producing the biological distinctions we observe. Such an addendum could be appended to the explanation of any natural phenomenon, adding not one scintilla of explanatory value.

Now that we’re all together, let’s read today’s letter-to-the-editor. The bold font was added for emphasis:

Space limitations preclude correcting every error espoused by local evolution disciples (“Evolution vs. creationism, Oct. 20). However, Phil Dunham’s argument can be refuted fairly briefly.

Oh goody! The letter-writer is going to be brief. For context, here’s a link to Dunham’s letter. He was responding to someone’s earlier letter which claimed that there’s no evidence for evolution. Dunham gave the peppered moth as an example of evolution which has been observed to occur. That’s a classic example, and creationists hate it. We wrote about those moths before: The Peppered Moth is Turning White Again.

Let’s read on in today’s letter:

The darkening of pepper moths in England, as well as Darwin’s much-touted finch beak variations study, violate an axiom known as Occam’s razor. This, roughly paraphrased, posits that the simplest explanation for observed phenomena is to be preferred until disproved.

So far, so good. We continue:

It’s far more logical to assume that any species’ physical traits that come to dominate a locality were always genetically present, and simply unobserved previously, rather than hoping that somehow, some way, these creatures’ DNA learned from failure and improved. Science is based on observation, and the fact is these moths and finches remain just that.

Glorious! The letter-writer simply dismisses the observed evidence and declares that things were always so. And he invokes Occam’s razor as his justification.

Now — too soon! — we come to the letter’s end:

Ironically, Mr. Dunham argues for stability of species when he discusses animal breeding. Even schoolchildren are aware how quickly the sterility of hybrid animal offspring prevents further variation outside primordially present species.

[Writer's name and city can be seen in the original.]

We’ve read the Dunham letter, and we don’t see where that argument was made. But perhaps today’s letter-writer has deployed Occam’s razor to read more into it than is readily apparent.

So now you’ve seen how Occam’s razor is wielded in the hands of a creationist. It has two somewhat unconventional uses for them: (1) it requires the dismissal of facts which refute one’s pre-conceived notions; and (1) it permits the addition of facts to support such notions. Isn’t creationism grand?

Lesson learned: Never give a sharp instrument to a child — or a creationist.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article

Poll: 54% of Brits Want Creationism Taught

IN the Guardian (formerly the Manchester Guardian), with a daily circulation that puts it behind the Daily Telegraph and the Times, we read: Teach both evolution and creationism say 54% of Britons, subtitled: “British Council poll finds UK adults overtake Americans in wanting science teaching in schools to include intelligent design.” Here are some excerpts, with bold added by us:

More than half of British adults think that intelligent design and creationism should be taught alongside evolution in schoolscience lessons – a proportion higher than in the US.

This is an outrage! We thought the US was leading in creationism. Let’s read on:

About 54% of the 973 polled Britons agreed with the view: “Evolutionary theories should be taught in science lessons in schools together with other possible perspectives, such as intelligent design and creationism.”

In the US, of 991 adults responding to the survey, which was organised by the British Council, 51% agreed that evolution should be on the curriculum alongside other theories, like intelligent design.

Across the 10 countries, 43% agreed with this statement.

Well, at least the US is ahead of all countries except the UK. We continue:

It was found that Britons were almost three times more likely than Egyptians to want creationism and intelligent design to be included in the teaching of evolution.

Good lord! Here’s more:

The UK government has been quick to denounce creationism and intelligent design as unrecognised scientific theory that did not meet the requirements of the national curriculum, but it has said that young people can “discuss creationism as part of their religious education classes”. Neither the primary nor secondary school science curriculums mention creationism or intelligent design.

Prominent scientists and teaching unions have expressed shock at the poll’s findings.

They’re shocked? Well, we’re not. We’ve been dealing with creationists for a long time. Moving along:

Fern Elsdon-Baker, head of the British Council’s Darwin Now programme, which celebrates the 200th anniversary of Darwin’s birthday this year, said the poll raised a debate about how effectively evolutionary science was communicated both inside and outside the classroom.

What is there to debate? It’s obvious that science isn’t being communicated at all. One last excerpt:

She said: “Overall these results may reflect the need for a more sophisticated approach to teaching and communicating how science works as a process.”

Yes, the results “may reflect” that. Keen insight.

One final note: Almost a year ago we posted about a related matter: 29% of British Teachers Say “Teach Creationism!” Make of it what you will.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

• • • • • • • • • • •

. . Permalink for this article