Creationists Lose Again

In 2005 the Association of Christian Schools International (ACSI) sued the University of California who had decided that their school qualifications were unsuitable as entry qualifications. This was due in part, to the use of creationist-leaning biology textbooks published by Bob Jones University Press and A Beka Books (including Biology: God's Living Creation and and Biology for Christian Schools.

Michael Behe was an expert witness for the ACSI, with Donald Kennedy and Francisco J. Ayala expert witnesses for UC.

The trial judge granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the ACSI appealed.

The Appeals Court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the University of California's policy was constitutional.

Money quote

"The plaintiffs have not alleged facts showing any risk that UC's policy will lead to the suppression of speech. ... the plaintiffs fail to allege facts showing that this policy is discriminatory in any way. ... The district court correctly determined that UC's rejections of the Calvary [Baptist School] courses [including a biology class that used Biology: God's Living Creation] were reasonable and did not constitute viewpoint discrimination. ... The plaintiffs assert a myriad of legal arguments attacking the district court's decision, all of which lack merit."

So no change there then.

Another victory against creationism, but as Larry Moran keeps saying, the fact that these battles are being undertaken in court is a failure, despite the fact that we keep winning.

Also this is the second time Michael Behe has been an expert witness for the loosing side.

More on this from the NCSE

Palianation

Sarah Palin joins Fox News.

Like noone saw that coming!

Why Dinosaurs Hate Christmas

Back by popular demand.

Did you know that most dinosaurs hate Christmas? It’s true, they do. And it’s not because they couldn’t get a handle on the present wrapping (or unwrapping for that matter) either. No, there is a very good reason why Dinosaurs hate Christmas.

However, before explaining why dinosaurs hate Christmas, lets deal with some startling new information. Everyone is familiar with the standard explanation for the extinction of the dinosaurs. I've included a common representation of the event.

However, startling 'evidence' has been presented which suggests another reason for what happened. The evidence is still officially hidden by the authorities, but one startling image has been smuggled out and is shown here for the first time.

It is claimed that it was an early experiment on propulsion systems that went wrong and had to be ejected. Shocking as this image is, there are some who claim that it is a forgery and just another shot by those at war with Christmas.

However, this is not the reason that dinosaurs hate Christmas. To understand that we need to know what dinosaurs are.

In his classic 1842 publication on dinosaurs, Richard Owen named and defined the Dinosauria as:
a group of exceedingly large, pachydermous reptiles from the Second Age . . . includes Megalosaurus, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus.

In 1997, Tom Holtz provided a different definition:
the last common ancester of Megalosaurus andIguanodon and all its descendants.
If it's changed since then, blame Holtz, but any changes will be mainly deckchair shuffling on the SS Chicxulub.

Anyhow, the thing about this definition is that, nestled between the Megalosaurs and the Iguanadons, are the Dromaeosaurs, and directly related to the Dromaeosaurs, and so one of the descendants mentioned above, is a little group called Aves!

So with the mass slaughter of birds dinosaurs every Christmas, wouldn't you hate Christmas?

If you insist in participating in this slaughter, at least make sure you cook your dinosaur correctly:

1. If your dinosaur is frozen, fully thaw it.

2. Don’t stuff the dinosaur. By the time the stuffing reaches a safe temperature, the meat is overcooked.

3. Cover the dinosaur breasts with ice while the rest of the dinosaur warms to room temperature. Don’t leave the dinosaur out for more than 3 hours. At this point, the breast will be about 4 centigrade (40^o Fahrenheit), while the rest of the meat will be at 16 centigrade (60^o Fahrenheit).

4. Put the dinosaur in the oven and cook according to your favorite recipe.

5. With a meat thermometer, check temperature. Take out of the oven when legs reach 82 centigrade (180^o Fahrenheit) and breast hits between 68 and 71 centigrade (155^o and 160^o Fahrenheit).

Ho Ho Bleedin' Ho.

Let It Snow, Let it Snow, Let it Snow.

Snow at Christmas. Yay.

Well, snow just before Christmas anyway. And no, it's not snowing in Australia, I'm in London for Christmas and January.

Missed the Eurostar debacle by a few days, so snow and an uneventful trip from Paris to London by train. Things are looking good.

Chocs and wine at the ready, Saturnalia is go. Lo lo lo.

Livelife 3 - Tiliqua rugosa

Dip and strike?! We don't need no stinkin' dip and strike!


This blue tongue lizard was clearly not fooled by the request to take a dip and strike on an outcrop of late Neoproterozoic cap carbonate in the Flinders Ranges. He was also clearly unimpressed with the fact that he was standing at the end of the 'Snowball Earth' and the start of the Ediacaran Period. There's just no pleasing some lizards!

The fat tail shows that he was in good condition as that's where they store their fat reserves.

Blue tongues, shinglebacks, or sleepy lizards, as they are commonly known, are members of the skink family (Scincidae).

The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and the Smithsonian

I intend to write a set of blog posts addressing the comments and thoughts on Darwin’s Dilemma from people who have seen the film. This is useful because people who do not have a background in the Cambrian Explosion or palaeontology are the people that the Discovery Institute is hoping to mislead. So what such people are taking away from the film, the messages that the Discovery Institute is hoping to instill, the questions raised in people’s minds, etc., are worth addressing.

Previous posts: The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and
Charles Doolitte Walcott (part 2)
James Valentine
Prof Paul Chien
Cambrian Ediacaran Extiction
Cambrian Diversity
Charles Doolittle Walcott

The California Science Center in Los Angeles was scheduled to show Darwin's Dilemma of October 25th, but has just announced that it has cancelled the performance. The Discovery Institute is making the usual claim of censorship, and that the cancellation was due to the Smithsonian putting pressure on the California Science Center. The Smithsonian? Well yes, the Smithsonian. But to understand this you have to understand the Discovery Institutes tactics here.

This is all part of the Discovery Institute's desperate attempt for legitimacy through the tactic of 'legitimacy via association'.

This operates by having recognised scientists in you product (even if you have to mislead them into appearing, and they do not support the claims of intelligent design creationism), showing a product in a museum (Seattle) or other science venue, which, by association, validates the claim that the content is scientific.

In their latest attempt at 'legitimacy via association', the Discovery Institute issued a press release promoting Darwin's Dilemma being shown at the California Science Center in Los Angeles, by referring to the Center as the Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate. See the tactic?

'We are showing Darwin's Dilemma at the California Science Center which is THE SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTE'S WEST COAST AFFILIATE! SEE? SCIENCE CENTER! SMITHSONIAN! ARE WE LEGIT OR WHAT?!'

The problem for the Discovery Institute is that this particular dishonest tactic is easy to expose.

Firstly, the claim that the California Science Center is the Smithsonian Institution's west coast affiliate. Is it? Actually, while it is a west coast Affiliate, it isn't the west coast Affiliate. The Smithsonian is currently affiliated with 20 fine Californian institutions:

• Aerospace Museum of California - McClellan
• Agua Caliente Cultural Museum - Palm Springs
• Arts Council for Long Beach - Long Beach
• Blackhawk Museum - Danville
• California Science Center - Los Angeles
• Cerritos Library - Cerritos
• Chabot Space and Science Center - Oakland
• Discovery Science Center - Santa Ana
• Fresno Metropolitan Museum of Art and Science - Fresno
• Hiller Aviation Museum - San Carlos
• Japanese American National Museum - Los Angeles
• LA Plaza de Cultura y Artes - Los Angeles
• Mexican Heritage Plaza - San Jose
• Millard Sheets Center for the Arts at Fairplex - Pomona
• Museum of Latin American Art - Long Beach
• Riverside Arts and Cultural Affairs Division, Riverside Metropolitan Museum - Riverside
• San Diego Air and Space Museum - San Diego
• San Diego Natural History Museum - San Diego
• Sonoma County Museum - Santa Rosa
• Western Center for Archaeology and Paleontology - Hemet

But lets look further up the west coast, north to the State that flies on her own wings. Any Smithsonian Affiliates there? Well yes,

• Evergreen Aviation and Space Museum - McMinnville

But wait there's more west coast to go. Up to the Evergreen State. Any Smithsonian affiliates there? (you know the answer, right?)

• Whatcom Museum of History and Art - Bellingham
• The Museum of Flight - Seattle
• Wing Luke Asian Museum - Seattle
• Northwest Museum of Arts and Culture - Spokane

Hang on. Say what? Two in Seattle?! Isn't the Discovery Institute headquartered in Seattle? They missed two Smithsonian Affiliates right there in their home town?! Oops.

All in all, 25 Smithsonian Affiliates on the west coast.

OK, that's exposes the falsehood of the claim that the California Science Center is the Smithsonian Affiliate on the west coast, but what about the affiliate link anyway, what does that mean?

Clearly the Discovery Institute would want you to think that Affiliates are the Smithsonian in the regions, but what is an Affiliate?

Smithsonian Affiliations offers broader opportunities than those found in standard museum loan programs. In addition to artifact loans, Smithsonian Affiliations helps member organizations identify appropriate resources within the Smithsonian to accompany exhibit loans: education and performing arts programs, expert speakers, teacher workshops, and technical assistance.

So Affiliates are entirely independent from the Smithsonian, and being an Affiliate simply means that they can gain access to the Smithsonian collections to support their own exhibitions. The Smithsonian has no control over the day to day operations of any Affiliate.

So, the California Science Centre is just one of 25 Smithsonian Affiliates on the west coast, and being an Affiliate simply means you get access to the Smithsonian collections, and the Smithsonian has no day to day control over Affiliates.

All this may appear to be nitpicking, but this slight of hand (or in this case slight of phrase) is the modus operandi of the Discovery Institute's dishonest tactic of 'legitimacy via association'.

Of course there would be no need of the tactic of 'legitimacy via association' if your claims weren't scientifically vacuous, but this is the Discovery Institute.

The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and Charles Doolittle Walcott (Part 2)

I intend to write a set of blog posts addressing the comments and thoughts on Darwin’s Dilemma from people who have seen the film. This is useful because people who do not have a background in the Cambrian Explosion or palaeontology are the people that the Discovery Institute is hoping to mislead. So what such people are taking away from the film, the messages that the Discovery Institute is hoping to instill, the questions raised in people’s minds, etc., are worth addressing.

Previous posts: The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and
James Valentine
Prof Paul Chien
Cambrian Ediacaran Extiction
Cambrian Diversity
Charles Doolittle Walcott

I wrote some initial comments on this topic here, but I’ve got a more detailed account of this particular piece and things make a little more sense. I’ll include the relevant sequence and add notes to expose the falsehood and deception.

Also, note that Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson (like Prof Paul Chien) have no background in palaeontology or palaeobiology, nor apparently in the history of geology.

Stephen Meyer:'Like Darwin, Walcott thought that the Cambrian explosion was an illusion. He was convinced that the fossils were there. They were just inaccessible to scientific discovery. And he expected that they would eventually be found someplace buried deep beneath the oceans.'

Wow, a correct summary by Stephen Meyer! Yes, Walcott thought that the Precambrian sediments with fossils would be found far out to sea for the reasons stated here. He named the period of non-deposition on the continents at this time the Lipalian.

Narration: 'For decades, Walcott’s hypothesis was widely accepted, but untestable. However, later in the 20th century, new technologies [ocean oil platform] led to empirical conclusions.'

Nice of Stephen Meyer and Paul Nelson to pass the lie to the narrator rather than tell it themselves.

No, Walcott’s idea was not widely accepted at the time, let alone for decades. It was quietly forgotten:

He [walcott] suggested that a widespread unconformity at the top of the Proterozoic represented an interval oftime, the Lipalian, in which such an earlier fauna developed elsewhere, but was not recorded in any outcrop. The concept of naming a gap to represent a major missing segment of geologic time, did not result in any comment from the geologic community and the Lipalian Interval vanished (Yochelson 2006)

In the meantime people were finding Precambrian fossils right here on land, oblivious to the fact that they were supposed to be looking for them way out to sea:

Glaessner, M (1959) Precambrian Coelenterata from Australia, Africa and England. Nature. 183. P.1472-1473.

Ford T.D. (1958) Precambrian fossils from Charnwood Forest. Proceedings of the Yorkshire Geological Society. 31. P.211-217.

Stephen Meyer: ‘Once the oil companies started to drill offshore, they brought up what are called drill cores, and inside the core were hunks of sedimentary rock, and some of those rocks contained fossils. But none of them were made by animals that lived before the Cambrian explosion.’

This is an attempt to pretend that geologists were hoping to find Precambrian fossils in drill core. But the idea is nonsense, since it had been known for a long time that there were no Precambrian rocks out to sea and besides, people do not as a general rule drill Precambrian rocks for oil. Almost all offshore oil wells bottom out well before any Precambrian rocks are reached, so we wouldn’t expect to see Precambrian rocks, let alone fossils.

Besides, oil drilling is too close inshore to be useful. Real deep sea drilling didn’t take place until the 1980s, with the the Joint Oceanographic Institutions for Deep Earth Sampling Ocean Drilling program.

Narration: ‘Since the 1960s, scientists have also used radioactive minerals and evidence of changes in the earth’s magnetic field to analyze and date undersea sediments. From extensive surveys they have created this digital map that defines the age of the sea floor.’

Correct, which is why geologists were not hanging out for drill core to find Precambrian fossils. They already knew that the sea floor was too young. The Discovery Institute can’t have it both ways – hanging out for drill core at the same time as knowing the sea floor was too young.

Stephen Meyer: ‘We now know that the oldest rocks on the bottom only date back to the Jurassic period, which means that on the standard geologic time scale, they’re hundreds of millions of years younger than the rocks below the Cambrian strata.’

"We now know"? "We NOW know"? Stephen, we knew 40 YEARS ago! Again, the Discovery Institute can’t have it both ways – hanging out for drill core at the same time as knowing the sea floor was too young.

Paul Nelson: ‘If you are looking for the ancestors to the Cambrian groups, the last place you would expect to find them is out somewhere on the sea floor. Those rocks are much too young.’

Well gee Paul, we’ve known that for 40 years, and have had Precambrian fossils on land for over 50 years, but thanks for pointing that out.

OK, it is clear now that the Discovery Institute is trying to lay the groundwork for Intelligent Design creationism by trying to paint geologists as holding onto Walcott’s Lipalian idea as the only hope to explain the lack of Precambrian fossils.

Their version of events does not tally with reality, but then this is the Discovery Institute.

Yochelson, E.L. (2006) The Lipalian interval: A forgotten, novel concept in the geologic column. Earth Science History. 26(2), p.251-269

The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and James Valentine

---

Update

Professor Valentine has endorsed the use of his statement on this site.

---

I intend to write a set of blog posts addressing the comments and thoughts on Darwin’s Dilemma from people who have seen the film. This is useful because people who do not have a background in the Cambrian Explosion or palaeontology are the people that the Discovery Institute is hoping to mislead. So what such people are taking away from the film, the messages that the Discovery Institute is hoping to instill, the questions raised in people’s minds, etc., are worth addressing.

Previous posts can be found here, here, here, and here.

Dr James Valentine appears in Darwin's Dilemma and has released a statement regarding his participation.

24 September 2009 What James Valentine Really Thinks About Evolution Dr. James Valentine, an evolutionary biologist and Professor Emeritus in the Department of Integrative Biology at the University of California at Berkeley, is featured in the intelligent design movie Darwin’s Dilemma. I wish to clarify my role in the new film Darwin’s Dilemma. When I was interviewed about a decade ago for the material used in this movie, I was unaware that this interview might appear in a film promoting intelligent design. My appearance should not be misconstrued as support for any creationist agenda. I support evolution. I disagree with the view that the best explanation for the Cambrian record is the action of an “intelligent designer” instantaneously creating phyla. Had the filmmakers bothered to read my book On the Origin of Phyla, they would have understood that I do not support a creationist interpretation of the Cambrian explosion or the fossil record. Scientific findings in many fields, including my own (paleobiology) as well as geology, geophysics, geochemistry, developmental biology, and systematics, have led to a synthesis of the events surrounding the Cambrian explosion that is in full accord with well-established evolutionary principles. When watching Darwin’s Dilemma, I ask viewers to note: My interview statements do not criticize evolution My interview statements do not promote creationism or intelligent design Even though my interview is interspersed with several intelligent design advocates, I do not share their interpretation of the Cambrian record I would like viewers to know: I think evolution is the best scientific interpretation of the fossil record While the religious views of individuals should be respected, scientists also merit respect earned by generations of hard work in their fields. Dr. James Valentine University of California, Berkeley

Apparently the film makers also forgot to tell Simon Conway Morris (who also appears in the film) the true reason for the interview and intent of the film.

So the experts on palaeontology and palaeobiology that appear do not support the central creationist tenet of the film, which is why, of course, they have Prof Chien as the spokesperson - someone with no background in palaeontology or palaeobiology.

What is it with creationism film makers and their inability to tell the truth about their intentions?

The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and Prof Paul Chien

I intend to write a set of blog posts addressing the comments and thoughts on Darwin’s Dilemma from people who have seen the film. This is useful because people who do not have a background in the Cambrian Explosion or palaeontology are the people that the Discovery Institute is hoping to mislead. So what such people are taking away from the film, the messages that the Discovery Institute is hoping to instill, the questions raised in people’s minds, etc., are worth addressing.

Previous posts can be found here, here, and here.

This post is in response to Ian’s comments here, and addresses the presence of Prof Paul Chien as a 'spokesperson' for the Early Cambrian Chinese fossils.

Ian Writes:

Paul Chien is a marine biologist at the University of San Francisco and Discovery Institute fellow. According to the USF website, “Prof. Chien is interested in the physiology and ecology of inter-tidal organisms. His research has involved the transport of amino acids and metal ions across cell membranes and the detoxification mechanisms of metal ions”. While the movie presents him as someone who has “done research in the renowned fossil beds of Chengjiang, China”, there’s no evidence to suggest that Chien is a palaeontologist or that he has published any of this findings (outside of Discovery Institute publications). In the movie, Chien is shown visiting the Chengjiang site. If you listen carefully to the what is said, it appears that he did so simply as an interested member of the public, not as an involved researcher. But the viewer is left with the distinct impression that he worked at the site. The movie’s website goes further, claiming that “Dr. Chien has done research in the renowned fossil beds of Chengjiang, China”. While this is possible, I saw nothing in the movie that actually supports this assertion.

Ian's not alone. I couldn't find any publications in peer-reviewed science journals by Prof Chien on the Chengjiang fauna. However, I'd be pleased to list them here if anyone knows of any.

It appears that Prof Chien is not a palaeontologist, he has no palaeontology experience, he has done no palaeontological research. Prof Chien is not an evolutionary biologist, nor a paleobiologist.

And Nigel Hughes says, “As far as I know, P.K. Chien is not a paleontologist and has published no peer-reviewed papers in paleontology. He is not a ‘player’ in scientific issues related to the Cambrian radiation”. David Bottjer observed that “Chien has tried to produce straight science papers on the Chengjiang fossils, but so far I don’t believe that there have been any publications. He has a Chengjiang fossil collection . . . but even if he does have a lot of specimens, that is not proof that he has or can do anything scientific with them; lots of amateurs (non-scientist) individuals have large fossil collections. From my interactions with him in China I can say that Chien knows nothing about the science. He is interested in creationist goals. (Forrest and Gross 2005 p. 56)

So why is Prof Chien used?

According to Kevin Padian, curator of the Museum of Paleontology and professor of paleontology and evolutionary biology at the University of California-Berkeley “Dr Chien admits that he has no expertise or training in paleontology. He admits in interviews that he came into the issue believing that evolution is not true (Forrest and Gross 2005 p. 56)

Prof Chien is also a CSC Fellow of the Discovery Institute, and has translated Phillip Johnson's book Darwin on Trial into Chinese. Prof Chien is the Discovery Institute's spokesperson for Early Cambrian Chinese fossils because noone with actual experience would associate with the Institute and Intelligent Design

Hmm. So having Prof Chien as a spokesperson for Early Cambrian Chinese fossils is kind of like having Orly Taitz as a spokesperson for the legality of the Obama Presidency. No, that’s not fair, at least Orly has legal qualifications, but this is the Discovery Institute.

Forrest, B. and Gross, P.R. (2005) Creationism's Trojan horse: the wedge of intelligent design. Oxford University Press.

The Cambrian Explosion, the Discovery Institute, and Cambrian Ediacaran Extinction

I intend to write a set of blog posts addressing the comments and thoughts on Darwin’s Dilemma from people who have seen the film. This is useful because people who do not have a background in the Cambrian Explosion or palaeontology are the people that the Discovery Institute is hoping to mislead. So what such people are taking away from the film, the messages that the Discovery Institute is hoping to instill, the questions raised in people’s minds, etc., are worth addressing.

Previous posts can be found here and here.

This post is in response to Ian’s comments here, and addresses what appears to be a misrepresentation of the Ediacaran fauna.

Ian writes:

While the movie spends a lot of time on the Doushantuo microfossils, little is said about the remainder of the Ediacaran fauna. They’re basically characterised as outliers, unusual organisms that bear little relation to the groups of organisms present in the Cambrian. And they were said to have disappeared before the beginning of the Cambrian.

So the Ediacaran fauna became extinct prior to the Cambrian. Anyone want to bet that the Ediacaran fauna became extinct before the Cambrian? Anyone? Anyone want to put their money where the Discovery Institute’s mouth is? Anyone? No? Aww . . . you people are no fun. Either that or you’ve learned about the Discovery Institute.

Ediacara-type fossils are rare in the southwestern United States, and Cambrian occurrences of soft-bodied Ediacaran-type fossils are extremely rare. We report both discoidal and frondlike fossils comparable to Ediacaran taxa from the western edge of the Great Basin. We describe one specimen of a discoidal fossil, referred to the form species ?Tirasiana disciformis, from the upper member of the Lower Cambrian Wood Canyon Formation from the Salt Spring Hills, California. Two fragmentary specimens of frond-like soft-bodied fossils are described from the middle member of the Lower Cambrian Poleta Formation in the White Mountains, California, and the upper member of the Wood Canyon Formation in the southern Kelso Mountains, California. On the basis of similarities with fossils from the lower member of the Wood Canyon Formation and from the Spitzkopf Member of the Urusis Formation of Namibia, these specimens are interpreted as cf. Swartpuntia. All fossils were collected from strata containing diagnostic Early Cambrian body and trace fossils, and thus add to previous reports of complex Ediacaran forms in Cambrian marine environments. In this region, Swartpuntia persists through several hundred meters of section, spanning at least two trilobite zones. (Hagadorn et al 2000)

Hagadorn, J.W., Fedo, C.M. and Waggoner, B.M. (2000) Journal of Paleontology. 74(4). p.731-740