/Bertvan:
> > The big complaint has been that ID doesn't do science. When it
> > does do science the outrage is even greater. Note that the
>> complaint is not over what the Chinese are doing, or even
>> disagreement over their conclusions. It is outrage that they
>> are associating with ID scientists.
Tedd:
> The word I saw was "embarassment" but if their science is really
> bad, what's wrong with being outraged? If the author below is
>Prof. Nigel Hughes from UCR, (http://www.trilobyte.ucr.edu/nch/index.html)
>he's quite an expert on Cambrian lifeforms and quite qualified
>to know if people are exaggerating issues or not. Read his
>specific scientific criticism again. What don't you agree with?
Bertvan:
Hi Tedd: I don't see where Hughes spelled out any science that was "really
bad". The whole thing leaves me with the impression that Hughes would prefer
to silence any scientist who considers the posibility of design in nature,
rather than discuss the subject.
Hughes:
>...The most curious aspect of the meeting, and the most embarrassing for
>Western scientists (particularly those form the United States), was the
>presence of individuals supported by the Discovery Institute - a
>Seattle-based foundation that proclaims intelligent design as a scientific
>explanation for biological diversity.
Bertvan:
Are biologists embarrassed to find themselves at a scientific meeting
attended by scientists with whom they disagree? Do they prefer not
participate in any scientific discussion that includes people who consider
the possibility of design? I don't regard such an attitude as scientific.
I don't know to what extent design might explain evolution, but I will
continue ardent support of ID until it is acknowledged as a legitimate
possibility for consideration and discussion.
Hughes:
> The involvement of the Institute came
>as a surprise to the more conventional attendees, especially when it became
>obvious that the Institute had played a key role in the organization of the
>conference, unbeknownst to the scientific community. Several talks were
>presented along this theme, the main thesis of which seemed to be the old
>Pallian arguments wrapped in a variety of molecular guises.
Bertvan:
The Pallian arguments are alive to many people who they feel such arguments
are further supported by developments in molecular biology. Hughes
obviously disagrees with the argument, but dismissing it as "old" does not
dispose of it.
Hughes
> Michael Denton
>spoke on what he saw as a failure of genetics to unveil a universal
>explanation for biological form, Paul Nelson on maternal effect genes, and
>Jonathan Wells on homeotic genes. It takes guts to expose yourself in this
>manner to a generally incredulous audience, but it also places special
>demands if science is your objective. I was depressed to find that my
>rudimentary understanding of molecular biology was sufficient to spot
>egregious errors, candidly dispatched by Eric Davidson.
Bertvan:
Accusing someone with whom you disagree of "egregious errors" without being
specific hardly sounds scientific. Nor does it inspire confidence in the
accuser. I suspect that if anyone had made an "egregious scientific error",
Hughes would have gleefully reported it, rather than feeling depressed. You
disagree?
Hughes:
> Well's claim that
>aspects of *Hox* gene control, instead of providing yet more evidence for
>homology and common ancestry, actually suggest that all metazoan phyla
>arose independently gives the flavor of what was offered. In doing so he
>effectively denied any defensible meaning in the words such as deuterosome
>or ecdysozoan, well established higher taxa which have been erected on
>characters other than those genes that influence segment identity. A bold
>claim, but one he could not reasonably defend as questioning revealed.
Bertvan:
The Chinese have apparently found excellent fossils of some 40 or more animal
phyla, including a chordate for which no earlier ancestral forms have been
found. Earlier fossils of sponges were found. All of these organisms
appeared at the approximately same time, and it seems unlikely they evolved
from each other. I haven't seen convincing evidence that they evolved by
"random mutation and natural selection". To my unscientific eyes their
appearance in the fossil record seems a mystery. If Hughs has the solution
to that mystery, I doubt he'll convince the public by merely tossing out
words like "deuterosome" and "ecdysozoan".
Hughes:
>Denton was dismayed that biotic systems are more complicated than some
>geneticists had expected in the 1960s, but the logical connection between
>this and his belief in immutable natural designs was left unexplained. And
>so it wen ton. The only thing new here was the presence of these arguments
>at a meeting that was ostensibly billed as being scientific.
Bertvan:
I'm confident Denton was not "dismayed" at the complexity of biotic systems.
Such complexity is part of his argument that nature is designed. Nor does
Denton believe in "immutable natural designs". I've heard of no ID who
does. Denton, Nelson and Wells are scientists, even though they entertain
theories with which Hughs disagrees. Such misstatements of Denton's
position destroys Hughes credibility as a scientist, as far as I am
concerned.
Hughs:
>How does one deal with such situations? Those speaking were accompanied by
>a coterie of supporters, including a "cosmic reporter" and one-by-one
>scientists attending courteously answered their questions. Many of us,
>myself included, reluctantly agree to be interviewed on tape. As guests in
>China a major public blow-up was to be avoided, but looking back I wish I
>had been more aggressive. We are all used to arguing science, but we are
>not used to telling people that we suspect their motives. Perhaps we have
>to become so, because the extent, if any, to which Chinese colleagues had
>been made aware of the controversial nature of the Discovery Institute, and
>its political agenda within the United States, remained unclear. What was
>clear is that the Discovery Institute is actively encouraging Chinese
>scientists, by means of funding, to promote a view of the Chengjiang fauna
>to which they are sympathetic.
Bertvan:
Hughes suspects the motives of the Chinese scientists? He suspects them of
being pawns of "political forces" in the United States? Of having been
"bought" by the Discovery Institute?
>Hughes:
>Several Chinese scientists gave presentations that emphasized the sudden
>appearance of phyla, hinting at the need for a new "top-down" mechanism of
>evolution - music, of course, to creationionist ears.
Bertvan:
It sounds like Hughes' objection to a "top-down" mechanism of evolution is
not so much the validity of such a mechanism, but a rejection of anything
which might "be music to creationist ears". It apparently does no good to
point out that ID is not creationism, indeed many IDs are not even religious
and have no interest in whether or not something is "music to creationist
ears". I could respect Hughes' right to a difference of opinion; his
continued misrepresentation of those who disagree with him must mean he
hasn't bothered to familiarize himself with their arguments.
Hughes:
>Although the
>Chenjian fauna does forcefully remind us that many body plans were firmly
>established by early in the Cambrian, it does little more than focus
>attention on the interesting things that happened around the
>Precambrian/Cambrian boundary. The "phylogenetic lawn" idea is hardly new
>(recall, for example, Gould's *Wonderful life*), and is clearly an
>inaccurate view. Given the generous way in which scientists at the meeting
>explained this an other matters to those allied with the Discovery
>Institute it is disappointing to find commentaries in the *Wall Street
>Journal* (August 16, 1999) proclaiming that Chinese scientists have new
>evidence that questions the very basis of evolution. Predictably enough,
>the Discovery Institute turns out to be uninterested in scientific rigor,
>and they will do whatever it takes to promote their agenda, including
>taking advantage of Chinese scholars. Creationism is not only a specter
>that haunts rationality in the United States, but it is also willing to
>employ a little cultural imperialism if it furthers the cause.
Bertvan:
Wow! Creationism has captured the Chinese Communist party!! ;-) I don't
think anyone claims Chinese scientists have new evidence that questions the
very basis of evolution. Like some of us in the US, they might question
Darwinism, "random mutation and natural selection" as an explanation for
macro evolution. I find Hughes' suggestion that Chinese scholars are "being
bought" by people promoting creationism in poor taste. I don't expect you to
defend Hughes' words, Tedd, but you did ask where I disagreed . You claim
Hughes is "quite an expert on Cambrian life forms", and that may well be.
One can become an "quite an expert" on such a body of knowledge and still be
small minded.
Bertvan
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jun 03 2000 - 15:51:01 EDT