RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

PvM,

This is the second post where you indicate, "I have no idea what Alexanian is musing about here." However, you do not quote anything I have written. Please be careful with you posts.

Moorad

________________________________

From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Sat 9/1/2007 2:18 PM
To: John Walley
Cc: Peter Loose; Gregory Arago; Janice Matchett; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad; AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

Yes, Haeckel is where Wells had a minor success, although Wells then
continues to make flawed assertions as to the various stages of the
embryo.
Since Haeckel's drawings can now be replaced by far more accurate
actual pictures and the story they tell are still quite relevant. But
for reasons different than the recapulatism ideas proposed by Haeckel.
Of course, many of the books that show Haeckel's pictures, are either
addressing it in a historical context, or are using it for a different
purpose.

Nevertheless, the drawings, other than to compare them with actual
pictures, do not deserve a place in today's books. That however was
mostly an issue of science books being behind the times, not an
example of Darwinian myths.

Our friend PZ Myer has some good information on Haeckel
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/02/the_haeckelwell.html

Nick has more on Haeckel as well at
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/haeckel_on_gast.html

Allen Gishlick of the NCSE http://www.natcenscied.org/icons/icon4haeckel.html

Talkorigins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

Where Nick explains

<quote>In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting
that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His
theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully
over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he
was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his
theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in
criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous
diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was
misused to support a falsified theory.
</quote>

followed by

<quote>Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to
take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so
modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not
Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern
evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here,
marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the
Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best
evidence for Darwin's theory."
</quote>

An excellent article Haeckel, Behe, Wells & the Ontogeny of a Fraud,
        American Biology Teacher, v67 n5 p275 May 2005
(http://darwin.bc.asu.edu/pub/pickett.pdf) describes the many problems
found in ID arguments when it comes to Haeckel.

A must read for anyone.

Hope this clarifies. These are important issues.

On 9/1/07, John Walley <john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> From Chapter 5 of Nic Tamzek's "Icons of Obfuscation":
>
> "In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight
> out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an
> example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and
> perpetuated even after being debunked (Haeckel's inaccurate drawings have
> actually been 'exposed' multiple times since the 1800's, the Richardson et
> al. (1997) article that Wells cites being only the most recent example)."
>
> Gould is also quoted as saying that these drawings should not be used and
> calls Biology to account for knowingly continuing to use them.
>
> And this is a valid criticism.
>
> John
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> Behalf Of PvM
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2007 1:45 PM
> To: Peter Loose
> Cc: Gregory Arago; Janice Matchett; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad;
> AmericanScientificAffiliation
> Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
>
> On 9/1/07, Peter Loose <peterwloose@compuserve.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Wow, I am quite surprised at this response re Dr Jonathan Wells and The
> > Peppered Moth. I haven't seen many papers in Scientific Journals that
> > describe the work of others to be 'silly'.
>
> Silly was meant as a mild term to describe the nature of Rev Wells'
> musings. If you are interested in how scientists have described Rev
> Wells' work, see the following
> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/icons_of_evolution.html
>
> Scientists disagree:
>
> * Nic Tamzek has a chapter-by-chapter critique. He concludes that
> Wells is deceptive and devious.
> * Dave Ussery thinks that Wells hasn't successfully attacked any
> of the Icons. He gives the book an "F".
> * Several authors collaborated on a joint rebuttal.
> * Jerry Coyne says Wells has misrepresented him. For example, in
> this interview Wells implies that Coyne agrees with him. Apparently he
> doesn't.
> * Coyne subsequently reviewed this book in Nature. He accused
> Wells of selective omission and deliberate misquotation.
> * Bruce Grant says that Wells has intentionally misquoted him
> about peppered moths, and that Wells is dishonest.
> * Bruce Grant argues that the peppered moth evidence is
> indisputable evidence for natural selection.
> * Richard Weisenberg gives an "F" to Wells' essay in the
> Philadelphia Inquirer.
> * Massimo Pigliucci has debated Dr. Wells. He has a review of the
> book, and also has a short point-by-point rebuttal of the book.
> * Jim Dawson thinks the book is poorly reasoned. [Warning:
> BioMedNet requires free registration]
> * Kevin O'Brien has some answers for the questions Wells wants
> students to ask.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> >
> > I wonder if we could elevate the level of discussion by reverting to well
> > tried methods that are factual/evidence based in response to Wells' paper
> on
> > The Peppered Moth?
>
> Let's explore some of Wells' silly notions, such as the accusation
> that Majerus is abusing statistics, one which Wells has used before.
> Mike Dunford has described some excellent (sic) examples at
> http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/wells_on_moths.html
>
> So let's step back in time and marvel at the history of the peppered
> moth. Oh did I mention that the powerpoint is also avalaible at
> Majerus' lab? http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/Research/majerus.htm
>
> It started with Rev Wells making some irresponsible accusations and
> assertions about the peppered moth, combined with some 'silly'
> rhetoric that led many creationists to come to a flawed conclusion
> that the peppered moth was not really a good example of natural
> selection in action.
>
> Amongst the assertions was the claim that the peppered moth
> never/seldomly/not preferentially rests on tree trunks, even though
> Majerus himself had sufficient data that would contradict such a
> claim.
>
> Based on Rev Wells' 'claims', the Discovery Institute and ID
> proponents have been arguing that books used to teach need to also
> teach the 'controversy', codewords for teaching the vacuity of ID.
> Much has been made by ID proponents to argue this based on a
> perception of flaws in Darwinian theory.
>
> While most real scientists were quick to explain the Kettlewell
> experiments accurately, a few questions remained, such as one raised
> by Hooper in her 'silly' book Of moths and Men. Majerus decided to
> address and test the relevance of these claimed flaws. Note that Wells
> never performed any real experiments to test his claims. ID does not
> seem to be in the business of doing the hard work that is typically
> associated with science.
>
> While perhaps silly may be a rather unscientific term to describe
> Wells' musings, it seemed appropriate given the nature of his claims.
> I have studied Kettlewells' original writings, as well as the various
> 'critiques', including Wells and Judith Hooper and I have read the
> fascinating books by Majerus on moths. While it may not be clear to
> those unfamiliar with the facts that Wells' assertions deserve a label
> of 'silly', I believe that in the end, they will come to the
> conclusion that silly is a rather mild conclusion.
>
> What part of Wells' claims would you like to discuss first?
>
>
>
> > To the person who asked me if I was in some way connected with the
> > Unification Church may I say that the discussion here is not about
> > personalities: the debate is, or should be, centred on relevant evidence.
> In
> > my opinion it should remain so.
>
> <quote author=Wells>Father's words, my studies, and my prayers
> convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism,
> just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their
> lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a
> dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I
> welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle.</quote>
>
> Sufficient evidence?
>
> >
> > Blessings
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
> > Behalf Of PvM
> > Sent: Friday, August 31, 2007 5:56 PM
> > To: Peter Loose
> > Cc: Gregory Arago; Janice Matchett; George Murphy; Alexanian, Moorad;
> > AmericanScientificAffiliation
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance
> >
> >
> > Read more here
> >
> http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/08/wells_on_moths_a_case_study_in.php
> > and note in the comments how people react to Wells' claims.
> >
> > I have been closely following the peppered moth debates and found that
> > Wells' claims were at best silly and at worst running afoul of St
> > Augustine's warnings.
> >
> > Remember how the ID movement made much of what they considered to be
> > 'flawed experiments' and Darwinian myths. Of course they were wrong in
> > most instances, but in this case, it took seven years to gather the
> > data to fill in some of the gaps.
> > Imagine if science had taken seriously ID's position, we would never
> > have gathered the knowledge that shows the link between bird predation
> > and the decline of the peppered moth.
> >
> > Notice how more recently Behe's court appearances (yes plural, more on
> > that one later) have show how irrelevant ID's position has become and
> > how disconnected from science ID has to be to make its claims.
> > Imagine a world of science in which scientists follow ID's
> > proposals... Shudder. Imagine a world where Christians would take ID's
> > claims seriously and then run into these gaps that are filled, time
> > after time. What an unnecessary risky approach to faith not to mention
> > what a vacuous approach to doing science.
> > Is this what we as Christians should support, encourage or expose? And
> > as Christians and scientists?
> >
> >
> > On 8/31/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Yes, Wells is not happy since he had previously and erroneously made
> > > many assertions about the peppered moth which were plainly wrong. Now
> > > that science has once again closed another gap of our ignorance, ID
> > > has to retreat, so what does it do? It makes silly and irrelevant
> > > accusations rather than to focus on the science.
> > >
> > > Use references to Wells at your own risk but remember St Augustine. Do
> > > we as Christians want to be associated with such obvious scientific
> > > nonsense?
> > >
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.13.0/980 - Release Date: 30/08/2007
> > 18:05
> >
> >
> >
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sat Sep 1 15:31:06 2007