That Moonie creationist with a degree in developmental biology, Jonathan Wells, floated an actual hypothesis a while back: he postulated that the centrioles were little turbines that generated a force with their rotation. I never saw it as much of a support for Intelligent Design; it was an idea about how centrioles function that did not rule out that they arose by evolutionary mechanisms. Wells seemed to think it was significant because he was inspired by an analogy with a human artifact, but la de da…I don’t think benzene rings are actually made of snakes, despite Kekule’s inspiration.
Anyway, now Ian Musgrave hammers another stake through that idea’s heart: Wells’ hypothesis is falsified.
Speaking of Wells, he’s about to release a new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design. The book will be published by Regnery August 21st. I can’t wait to read what is surely a rehash of Icons.
Is it just me is are these folks producing books with a political slant far more often then they produce anything remotely scientific which of course could be done with one book.
It seems to me this entire ID endeavor has long ago ceased to be about anything other than a money and power grab.
PZ:
If the hypothesis put out by the Rev. Wells had survived numerous attempts at falsification that in and of itself would not provide evidence either for or against ID. There is nothing wrong with reasoning from analogy, as Wells did here, as long as it leads to a testable hypothesis, a minimal standard that almost no ID advocate has even attempted to meet.
Musgrave implies that the curious silence of the pro-ID crowd with respect to a paper that features a ‘design-based’ testable hypothesis is due to embarrassment with the weakness of the science. Maybe, but it also might have something to do with fundamentalists who are embarrassed by their association with a Moonie fellow traveler.
In any case, as much as I really despise Wells I can’t help wishing that more ID types would do what he did, and put out a testable hypothesis.
SH
There was an IDea from Seattle
To make mo’ money from prattle
on god-in-the-gap
and similar yap
but it only appealed to the cattle.
It’s not a matter of fundamentalists distancing themselves from a follower of Moon. They’re happy to have people of diverse views — It makes the ‘big tent’ idea actually seem real. I suspect it’s more a matter of distancing themselves from failure. You don’t hear to much soul searching or ‘gee, that didn’t pan out’ stuff from the DI. Their Department of Double-Speak/Media Relations doesn’t do mea culpa; Never has, never will. I don’t think they can even spell it.
Ooooh, it’s “Politically Incorrect”? If it’s that counterculture, it must be cool and hip.
Really! It’s so politically correct these days to be politically incorrect. Yawn. The Disco Institute tries so damn hard.
Loved the poem. How about a pastiche of Langston Hughes?
We real cool. We
slip I.D. into school. I.D.
jazzed june. I.D.
die soon.
Whatever:”Their Department of Double-Speak/Media Relations doesn’t do mea culpa; Never has, never will. I don’t think they can even spell it.”
I beg to differ,most of them have some training in theology, which would include some greek and, more importantly, latin.
Its not their language skills that are at issue, its their science, and critical thinking skills.
Keanus:
“…The book will be published by Regnery…”
Figures…
Good adaptation, Kristine, but “We Real Cool” is by Gwendolyn Brooks, not Langston Hughes.
I got the new Wells book delivered from amazon.com earlier this week.
As for: “Is it just me is are these folks producing books with a political slant far more often then they produce anything remotely scientific …,” CV’s of the “experts” in Kansas and in Dover, PA are accessible in those archives, so it’s easy to see how much “remotely scientific” work has been published by Behe et al. since they’ve been doing this.
As for Regnery: Russell Kirk’s publisher must be spinning in his grave. Also Clare Booth Luce, seeing how the foundation bearing her name is now sponsoring Ann Coulter’s campus appearances.
I am confused by all this as Wells made no testable hypothesis about design. I see nothing here that would in anyway demonstrate design.
This is all very silly. If I speculate about how a biological process or structure works and I claim I got my idea from an analogous designed item, and I turn out to be right – that is suppose prove the biological structure was designed – come on.
If design is supernatural, there will never be proof of design only speculation. This ID of the gaps is and will continue to wither as science knowledge increases.
If design is natural, then it can be proved by finding the evidence in some case of the pre-existing design concept and the process of design implementation.
This is all there is to it. Prove design by evidence of the design process or claim it as supernatural and put your faith in it. BUT the only predictable hypothesis of design is one that predicts a specific design process.
Meaning of course: Icons of Evolution, aka A Scientifically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
Speaking of Ann Coulter:
her Luce talk on GODLESS is at
http://www.booktv.org/ram/feature/0806/btv080606_4.ram
From this, you will learn that there is not a shred of evidence supporting evolution. Its adherents (who aren’t really scientists anyway, they’re just biologists–it’s not like they are physicists or chemists or any kind of real scientists) believe it anyway because that is their religion.
Benzine rings aren’t made OF snakes, they’re made BY snakes!! Big difference. Just ask the snakes!
The Ann Coulter video link does not seem to be working right now.
The link (which might be working later), with a description of the event, can be found this weekend at
http://www.booktv.org/General/index.asp?segID=7327&schedID=444
The talk will be aired on C-SPAN2 8/13 Sat night/Sun AM from 1:00 am – 2:30 am EDT.
On a plane!