Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

IS THE "PEER REVIEW" PROCESS ADVANCING SCIENCE?

The question deserves serious consideration.   To what extent is "science" shackled by dogma, a refusal to publish research that "goes against the grain"?  And if fresh research never gets published, how can science advance?  Dr. Hugh Henry considers the question.  Some excerpts:

In today's society, we often look to science as an unbiased source of truth, regulated by the peer review process. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of publication bias—well-documented in the scientific literature—permeates a variety of scientific studies. To put it one way, certain points of view are more likely to be published than others for reasons other than the quality of research.

For example, the authors of a 2015 meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health trials pinpointed publication bias as the reason why we overestimate the effectiveness of antidepressant medications. Another 2015 meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon (a concept related to global warming) found that contrary data was often suppressed which "might create an upward bias in the literature."¹ The authors of the study also found that "the evidence for selective reporting is stronger for studies published in peer-reviewed journals than for unpublished papers." 

. . .  Science recently published the results of a massive study with more than 250 coauthors "estimating the reproducibility of psychological science."⁴ After conducting replications of 100 studies that were published in three psychology journals, the researchers found only 39 percent of the effects replicated the original result. Reproducibility is one of the three pillars of science.⁵ An experiment repeated under the same conditions should produce similar results; if it doesn't, then it's back to the drawing board. Yet it appears 61 percent of psychology studies fail this test.  These data support an earlier analysis that found a strong publication bias in favor of human-caused global warming in articles published in Science and Nature.²

The peer review process is supposed to pick up errors like these, but instead it seems complicit. And the problem appears much broader than just these examples.  [more . . .]

HOW TO BUILD A WORM

I found this video fascinating.

 

FOLLIES OF "EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY"

--  I did a quick glance at a Denyse O'Leary's article "The Evolutionary Psychologist Knows Why You Vote -- and Shop, and Tip at Restaurants."  Except he/she doesn't.  O'Leary concludes:

 "... evo psych really says far more about the culture that created it than about the history of the human race."

Me:  So true.  (The article provides a host of useful links)

-- I might mention another "evolution article," this one titled "Dartmouth Physicist: When Science Shades Over Into Faith."  It treats of Marcelo Gleiser, a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College, "who provocatively acknowledges that science can shade over into the faith, when scientists cling to ideas beyond the point where the evidence has turned against them."  Stubbornness is part of human behavior.  As Gleiser says (his emphasis):  "When you invest decades of your professional life in the pursuit of an idea, it's real hard to let go. Some never do."  David Klinghoffer comments:   "The old folks won't let go of Darwinism. Progress depends on the young, biologists whose names you’ve not yet heard whispered. It's another way of saying, with Max Planck, that "Science advances one funeral at a time."

EVOLUTION UNDER SCRUTINY IN TURKEY

A young Turkish student, Enes Kayan, is bucking evolution orthodoxy by staging annual open inquiry symposiums on biological evolution and the origin of life at Turkish universities.  Granville Sewell, a mathematics professor at the University of Texas at El Paso was an invited participant at the May 7, 2014 conference held this year in Erzurum, Turkey.  He published the following report on the conference:

Unsatisfied and unconvinced by what he was being taught about evolution at Marmara University in Istanbul, Turkey, 21-year old student Enes Kayan knew there was another side which was never presented in his courses. So in 2012, Enes, a member of the Marmara Young Vision Student Club, decided to organize a symposium in which he and other Marmara students could hear alternative views on evolution, including intelligent design. The idea that evidence against Darwinism, and even for intelligent design, could be freely presented at a university angered some students and professors, and about 300 of them staged a protest, which Enes said actually worked to his advantage as it brought publicity to the event, which was held on May 16-17, 2012.

The event was such a success that Enes decided to organize a similar event the following year, and invite scientists from outside Marmara University, including some from outside Turkey, and the “First International Conference on Queried Evolution,” was held on May 4, 2013 at Marmara University. I was actually invited as one of the international speakers, but had to decline because the event was in the middle of the last week of classes at the University of Texas El Paso. The meeting was organized by Enes, and run entirely by students from Marmara Young Vision Student Club, who found sponsors to pay the expenses of the visiting scientists, including the Student Council of Turkey, a dependency of the Council of Higher Education of Turkey.

The following year Enes organized a second international conference with the Erzurum Young Vision Student Club, this time it was held at Ataturk University in Erzurum in eastern Turkey, and sponsors included the city government of Erzurum and the university itself. Enes again invited me, this time I decided to accept despite the fact that it was again held in the middle of the last week of my classes, May 7, 2014. And so this year I was able to participate in the event and witness the work he and his fellow students had done in organizing it.

The meeting was held in a large 550-seat auditorium at the Culture and Performance Center building and attended by over 600 students during the day. Since some of the talks were in English while others were in Turkish, simultaneous translation was provided by a student interpreter. I heard (through the interpreter) mentions of “specified complexity,” “the explanatory filter,” “irreducible complexity” and other familiar ID terms during some talks, but other speakers presented a range of different viewpoints, including at least one who defended the traditional Darwinist viewpoint. Most of the speakers discussed the origin of life and biological evolution, but one physicist centered his discussion on the fine-tuning of the constants of physics. Lecturers were invited from Celal Bayar University, Dokuz Eylul University, Yidirim Beyazit University, Ataturk University, Ankara, Edmonton, and London. My talk was entitled “The Common Sense Law of Physics,” here is the video that I created while preparing for the trip, which closely parallels my lecture.

I enjoyed seeing Istanbul on the trip in, Enes and his girlfriend showed me the main tourist attractions, and I was especially impressed by Erzurum, which I found was a winter sports capital of sorts, even boasting a couple of large ski jumps near campus. Ataturk University, founded in 1957, now has over 70,000 students, with an attractive and modern campus. For me, the most amazing thing about this conference, which I hope will be continued next year (with the English translation of the title changed from “Queried Evolution” to “Evolution under Scrutiny” at my suggestion!), is that it seemed to be as well-organized and well-run as any scientific conference I have attended, yet all of the organization and all the work was done by a group of 15-20 students. In fact, other than the invited speakers, I don’t recall seeing anyone who did not seem to be of student age. For a 23-year old student to undertake the task of organizing an international scientific meeting on any topic is quite an accomplishment, but for Enes and his fellow students to successfully organize a conference in which alternative views on evolution are presented is especially impressive.

It has been said that when an old theory is replaced, it is often not because its adherents change their minds, but because a new generation embraces the new theory. I may have seen this principle in action last week in Turkey.

Enes Kayan, organizer of the Congresses

Me:  I wonder if these conferences may well serve as a harbinger of things to come.  The evidential structure of biological evolution as currently taught is becoming increasingly weak and wobbly.   The publication this year of Stephen C. Meyer's Darwin's Doubt with its focus on the unexplained "Cambrian Explosion" is another huge problem for evolutionists.  Today I just read that a vertebrate fish has been found in the Cambrian Explosion!!   Keep reading for more on that new find.

Metaspriggina: Vertebrate Fish Found in Cambrian Explosion 

Evolution News & Views August 29, 2014 4:44 AM

THE KEN HAM - BILL NYE DEBATE ON "IS CREATION A VIABLE MODEL OF ORIGINS IN TODAY'S MODERN SCIENTIFIC ERA?"

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye "The Science Guy" debated each other Tuesday night, Feb. 4th.   The debate remains available for viewing here and here.

I confess I am one of those who cringe at the 6,000 year old-earth position Ken Ham defends.   The debate came off better than I had feared, but I still lament that many uninformed viewers will conclude that anyone who believes in the authority of the Bible must reject the scientific evidence that contends for an old earth.  Interestingly, Pat Robertson stated on the 700 club that he holds to an old-earth position as well.

Ham's post-debate reflections are available here.  Nye reflects here.

Dr. Albert Mohler, a young-earth adherent and President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary offers his reflections here.

Those associated with the BioLogos Forum which adheres to a theistic evolution perspective (renamed "evolutionary creation)," published their perspective here.

Casey Luskin of the Intelligent Design movement wasn't happy.  He titled his response, "The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity.   Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University and an advocate of Intelligent Design said, "I was upset that both the parties kept talking on about the age of the Earth than on the elegance and complexities of life."  David Klingfellow, another ID adherent and an orthodox Jew, offers a substitute debate more to his liking, that of Stephen Meyer vs. Charles Marshall.   That debate is on Intelligent Design and the explosion of life.  

Wintery Knight likewise preferred steering people to debates with which he is more comfortable, namely a debate between young earth scientist Jason Lisle and old earth astronomer Hugh Ross.  He also recommends the Stephen C. Meyer vs. Keith Fox debate on intelligent design and evolution as well as the Michael Behe-Keith Fox debate.  Speaking of Hugh Ross, his organization, Reasons to Believe, published RTB's  general perspective on debates without commenting specifically on the Nye-Ham debate.

I was struck by evolutionist Michael Shermer's tweet - "People of all faiths and no faiths accept Big Bang cosmology because of evidence, but no non-Christians accept young earth creationism."  I suspect that is true.   Shermer coached Nye before the debate.

Respondents to the U.K. Christian Magazine gave the debate to Nye.

In terms of who "won" the debate, the audience of Britain's Christian Today website says it was Nye, hands down. With 42,567 responses, the site's online poll finds Nye with 92 percent support, compared with 8 percent for Ham. An option for "neither" is not provided in the poll, which is still taking votes

On the general matter of "evidence" vs. "the Bible" the key issue revolves around interpretation of both science and the Bible. In my judgment, Dr. John C. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, has provided excellent help in his book, Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.  Dr. Lennox gave the following talk on January 31, 2013 at New York's gathering of Socrates in the City.   A  talk Lennox gave of a similar nature is summarized here and critiqued from a young-earth perspective here.  It should be noted that although Lennox believes in an "old earth,"  he rejects theistic evolution and believes man a special creation of God.  

  

I have blogged previously of John Lennox's visit to Yale.  Lennox has debated Princeton ethicist Dr. Peter Singer and Oxford's evolution propagandist Dr. Richard Dawkins among others.  Lennox is the author of the following books:

Paleoanthropologists Fail to Find Common Ancestor to Modern Humans and Neanderthals

Dr. Fazale Rana wrote the commentary below.  He has has authored  The Cell's Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator's Artistry and has debated Michael Ruse on "The Origin of Life: Evolution vs. Design."  Rana serves as vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. He is the coauthor, with Hugh Ross, of Origins of Life and Who Was Adam?  

Recently, paleoanthropologists from the US and Europe sought to identify the common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals by reconstructing dental features of this putative species. Comparison of the reconstructed dental anatomy with that of known hominids failed to find a match. Based on this study, it looks as if the most reasonable candidates (H. erectus, H. antecessor, and H. heidelbergensis) for the common ancestor of modern humans and Neanderthals are no longer in contention. The inability of paleoanthropologists to pinpoint this key evolutionary ancestor doesn’t bode well for the idea of human evolution.

Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate "Darwin's Doubt"

I am a great fan of Stephen C. Meyer whose intellectual work consistently dazzles.   He earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge in the Philosophy of Science and has published the acclaimed The Signature of the Cell:DNA and the Case for Intelligent Design, Does God Exist: Bulding the Scientific Case (TrueU), (a 10-part series especially designed for high school and college students), and his latest book, highlighted below, Darwin's Doubt, which I own and have found to be an extraordinary tour de force.

From Evolution News & Views:

On Public Radio's "Interfaith Voices," Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate Darwin's Doubt

David Klinghoffer August 27, 2013 5:50 AM | Permalink

Here's a very thoughtful and entertaining discussion of Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design with Stephen Meyer and atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, on public radio's "Interfaith Voices." I appreciate the way host Maureen Fiedler makes clear the three-way distinction and contrast of intelligent design versus creationism versus Darwinian evolution. It's an amazing thing to reflect on that few in the media are able to do so.

She solicits arguments from Meyer and Ruse respectively and then turns around and asks the other for a response -- yes, a proper debate, and a civil, informative and even amusing one! Kudos to Dr. Ruse for agreeing to have such a direct confrontation.

A REVIEW OF THE DVD "EVOLUTION VS. GOD"

Dr. Jeff. Zweerink of Reasons to Believe, a science-oriented apologetics organization, isn't thrilled with the new DVD pushed by the American Family Association featuring Ray Comfort attacking evolution.  Even though Reasons to Believe doesn't subscribe to macroevolution, Zweerink issues cautions about this new DVD.  He says,

A number of Christians are promoting evangelist Ray Comfort’s new DVD, "Evolution vs. God." Although the video contains some valid content, its questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution. Bluntly, I see this video as counter to our evangelistic mission. I cannot think of one biblical example where Jesus ridiculed nonbelievers who held erroneous views—although he harshly rebuked the religious leaders who were supposed to guide people toward Him.

IT'S OKAY TO CRITICIZE EVOLUTION IN CHINA BUT NOT IN THE WEST

John Lennox in his book, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? tells the story of Chinese palaeontologist Jun-Yuan Chen who visited the USA in 1999 during which time he gave several lectures.  Lennox writes (p. 95) :

His work on the remarkable discoveries in Chengjiang of strange fossil creatures led him to question the orthodox evolutionary line.  In true scholarly fashion he mentioned his criticisms in his lectures but they elicited very little response.  This lack of reaction surprised him and so he eventually asked one of his hosts what was wrong.  He was told that scientists in the USA did not like to hear such criticism of evolution.  To this he gave the delightful reply that it seemed to him that the difference between the USA and China was:

In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."  

No doubt it is treacherous to criticize Darwinism in the United Kingdom as well.  After all, it is the Oxford evolutionary extremist Richard Dawkins who famously said,

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

To which John Lennox counters with a quote from the distinguished biologist Lynn Margulis:

"Like a sugary snack that temporarily satisfies our appetite but deprives us of more nutritious foods, neo-Darwinism sates intellectual curiosity with abstractions bereft of actual details -- whether metabolic, biochemical, ecological;, or of natural history." 

Lennox offers a valuable overview of the evolution debate in the course of which he makes the observation that, to put it in my words, evolution is first and foremost a philosophy in search of evidentiary justification. rather than a theory developed on the basis of actual evidence.   In other words, if one starts out with a philosophy of naturalism and materialism, then as Lennox says,

[...] merely as a matter of sheer logical necessity [emphasis his], it follows that some kind of evolutionary account must be given for life, apart altogether from any evidence which may be offered to support it.  For, what other possibility can there be?   If, for example, we start off with the materialistic hypothesis that all we have is matter/energy and the forces of physics, then there is only one option--matter/energy together with the forces of nature over time have produced life, that is, evolution of some sort.

Lennox goes on:

USEFUL WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG POSTS

Wintery Knight continues to produce excellent blog posts.  He's especially good on Christian apologetics, politics and economics.   Here are some posts I looked at tonight and found helpful:

    -  "Rick Santorum for President of the United States"  - (I heartily agree!)    

    -  "A Christian and a postmodern relativist debate atheism and Christianity"

    -  "Michael Murray explains how to talk about religion in the public square."

    -  "Bad news for believers in naturalistic explanations of the Cambrian explosion"

Wintery Knight appended a note as he closed out 2011:

I also wanted to report to you that Wintery Knight was recently named to the Top 40 Conservative Blogs for the fourth quarter of 2011 by John Hawkins of Right Wing News. And we were also received one of the Fabulous 50 Blog Awards from Doug Ross. We tied for “Best Political Blogging”. I also want to thank Brian Auten of Apologetics 315 for frequently linking to my posts on Christian apologetics and theology in his Weekly Apologetics Bonus Links.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION WITH DAVID BERLINSKI (VIDEO)

Peter Robinson's interview with David Berlinski is a lot of fun to watch.  The interview focuses on Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.  The full 42 minute video can be seen here.   If you prefer, you can watch it in five part segments at the NRO website:

Part 1  David Berlinski introduces The Devil’s Delusion.

Part 2  David Berlinski discusses why he thinks Darwin’s theory is flawed.  

Part 3   Is the Big Bang theory consistent with Christian beliefs? David Berlinski responds.

Part 4  David Berlinski discusses right and wrong.    

Part 5  Can scientists disprove the existence of God? David Berlinski responds.

What initially attracted me to the video was the extraordinary quote I came across on the NRO website linked to Part 5, quoting Berlinski:

 “The Old Testament is the greatest repository of human knowledge and wisdom in the history of civilization, any time, any place…. [E]very attitude current today in the discussion from Richard Dawkins to me to Christopher Hitchins, the lonely pastors in the Bible Belt on Sunday morning ranting from a particular text, is discussed in the Bible. There is a character in the Bible who expresses that point of view and there is sympathy expressed for that point of view and there are reservations expressed for that sympathy. It is enormously complex, rich, and dramatic piece of work.”

This is all the more fascinating coming from a self-described secular Jew and agnostic.  David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has published widely across multiple academic disciplines.  Wikipedia has more...   Note also his book, The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays. 

On the subject of Darwinism and evolution, it's a good idea to regularly consult Evolution News and Views, something I need to do myself.

Blogger "Wintery Knight" has a great many posts on evolution worth perusing.

SELECT POSTS FROM WINTERY KNIGHT BLOG

I have some catching up to do with what Wintery Knight has been up to.   Following is a selection.  All are worth "clicking through" to read:

-  How good are the arguments in the new book by Richard Dawkins?

-  Skincare company uses aborted fetal tissue in anti-aging cream

-  American Library Association silent as librairies ban books about ex-gays

- UK Woman gets police visit after writing letter protesting gay pride parade (Must read)

- Hindu/Christian debate on anti-conversion law in India

- New books of interest to Christian apologists

         Update:  One of the books listed is Dr. Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell about which Charles Colson has important things to say.  Dr. Douglas Groothuis, for his part, rhapsodizes:

The book is no less than magisterial, an adjective that curmudgeons such as myself seldom use. At every level--philosophical, scientific, historical and literary--it is a superb treatise.    Reading every word of its 508 pages of text (not counting end notes)--as I did--repays the reader greatly.

FAITH & EVOLUTION

I came across a new website (new to me at least) named Faith & Evolution which looks quite terrific.  Rather than clobber with polemics, it offers reasoned articles, videos, and resources (plus calm and detailed responses to antagonists) making it something of a "first stop" for anyone investigating and entering the current discussion on evolution and Intelligent Design. The site was developed by the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.  

A lead article begins:

Francis Collins [author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006)] feels that intelligent design poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence. But the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution—minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function—though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions.

Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that  must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps .    [more...]

** Blogger Wintery Knight put up a post today titled, "Does the new Ida fossil prove evolution? and wrote,

Whenever you have questions about evolution and culture, there is only one blog that you really need to read, and that’s Denyse O’Leary’s Post-Darwinist. She has written no less than THREE stories on the Ida fossil, so let’s take a look at see what she’s found.   [Read on . . .]

Evolution and Religion

The Pew Research Center has done some interesting surveys regarding views of evolution from different religious perspective:

Read more here.   (HT: BetweenTwoWorlds)

Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule

Casey Luskins wrote a guest article for U.S. News & World Report:

Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.

Strategy 1: Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination
Darwinists have adopted a discourse of demonization where they try to attack their opponents as dishonest, deceitful, or even worse—uncool and medieval! We should be suspicious of this tactic because . . .  [more]    (HT- Ed Morrissey at HotAir)

-  Gallup poll: "On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution"

DAVID BERLINSKI DEFENDS THE MOVIE "EXPELLED"

David Berlinski is a secular Jew who appears in Expelled (the movie questioning Darwinists who disgorge at the thought of Intelligent Design).  He has replied  to John Derbyshire, a National Review writer and committed Darwinist.  Berlinski's article exhibits exceptional writing talent, and skewers Derbyshire's  intemperate dismissal of a movie he refuses to see.  Berlinski is the author of The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.

BEN STEIN'S "EXPELLED": A MUST-SEE MOVIE (With an additional note on Hitler and Darwinism)

Update 5/6/08 - I have a new post today, David Berlinski Defends the Movie "Expelled"

Update 4/20/08 (later) - Tim over at Random Observations overs an invaluable survey of media reviews which can only be described as "ranting and hysterical".  Tim offers judicious and appropriate responses.  I recommend you click through to read his post.

Update 4/20/08 - The movie is generating a lot of controversy, as expected.  Brent Bozell had the same reaction I did.  He went into the movie bored and came out stunned. Dinesh D'Souza has an AOL article focusing on Richard Dawkins' idea that the origin of life on earth may have been the result of a visit from highly-evolved aliens.  Chuck Colson dispels a number of myths about the movie.  Marvin Olasky's review in World Magazine substantiates the Nazi reliance on evolutionary theory to undergird the holocaust.  Another article examines "Michael Shermer's 'fact-free' attack on Expelled."  Many of these articles can be found on the Discovery Institute website and doubtless many more will be posted there as the controversy continues.  On the other side of the argument,"The National Council for Science Education has opened a website as a rebuttal to the movie.   

- I went to see Ben Stein's movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed  last night (opening night).  It completely exceeded my expectations.  The juxtaposition  of modern visuals and interviews with background historical movies and other images (complete with touches of humor), will hold the attention of both youngsters as well as adults.  Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins becomes a ridiculous figure in the final interview.

David Klinghoffer has an excellent article showing that Expelled's claim that Darwinism was a crucial part of Nazi ideology is based on impeccable scholarship.  Klinghoffer writes: