Intelligent Design's Day In Court On NOVA

About Michael White

Welcome to Adaptive Complexity, where I write about genomics, systems biology, evolution, and the connection between science and literature, government, and society.

I'm a biochemist

... Full Bio

Michael
White

Last night the PBS series NOVA featured a two-hour show on the 2005 Dover, PA Intelligent Design trial. If you missed it, go check out clips and some great evolution resources at the show's website. As a creation/evolution junkie, I had previously read all of the trial transcripts, but reading transcripts was no substitute for seeing and hearing the major participants on camera. And while the big players from the Discovery Institute refused to be interviewed, NOVA managed to get just about everyone else on camera, including one of the defense's expert witnesses and the two ex-school board members who started the whole mess. These guys made it abundantly clear in their own words that intelligent design in Dover was not about improving science education - it was all about pushing creationism among the students.

The show was generally well done, in spite of some badly acted (not to mention tacky) courtroom reenactments. There were excellently illustrated segments discussing science's success in some areas where intelligent design advocates have claimed there are problems, such as transitional fossils and the bacterial flagellum. I was happy to see that the show also spent time discussing how the development of genetics, and much later, genomics, were big tests of evolution. Darwin's ideas enabled scientists to make predictions that were borne out decades later in scientific fields that Darwin knew nothing about.

The most entertaining part of the show were the interviews with the two ex-school board members (who were caught lying during the trial) and a local Dover pastor. The founders of intelligent design have gone to great lengths to paint their ideas as serious science, not creationism. And yet on the show we hear Dover's local intelligent design advocates explain that they pushed intelligent design in school because they were concerned that the malleable students of Dover were having their good Christian faith weakened by evolution - not because the board members cared (or knew anything about) a good science education. Alan Bonsell and Bill Buckingham made it repeatedly clear that their main beef with evolution is that it offends their religious beliefs.

Judge John Jones, who presided over the trial, made a sobering statement towards the end of the show. He said that before this case he would have never have imagined that he would receive threats after an Establishment Clause case. Jones and his family were placed under the protection of the US Marshals for a time after his ruling, due to threats of physical harm Jones received. Of course I'm biased, but I can't imagine that Jones would have received such threats had he ruled the other way. And while I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of creationists would never, ever make such threats, much less act on them, the incident does expose the hatred that some people feel towards those who work to keep our science curricula untainted by religious dogma. This was a nasty episode in creation/evolution history, but with luck this trial will produce a lull in the battle for a couple of years. Unfortunately, we all know that this controversy is not over.

Comments

You might be interested in reading my article here on Scientific Blogging "Science not Scientists?" which gives a great example of just how equally subversive the scientific community can be on this issue.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/16/07 | 15:34 PM

In your piece that you refer to, a Dr. Vernon Grose, "a former member of the National Transportation Safety Board" is quoted as asking:

"Pray tell," he demands, "where are the specific, observable, testable, confirmable data – obtained through observations and experiments – concerning [Darwin's view of] origins? There are none. And there never will be."

Some guy with a PhD (apparently not in biology) objects to evolution, and when the scientific community opposes him, he writes a book about how non-objective scientists are? I don't see how this is an example of the scientific community being subversive or overly aggressive. This guy scores pretty high on John Baez's crackpot index.

More seriously, in the same piece you quote Werner von Braun's intro to Grose's book:

"He properly calls for objectivity rather than scientific consensus."

I think von Braun is wrong. Yes, individuals can be wrong, and the scientific consensus can be wrong, but a strong scientific consensus usually our best bet for an objective viewpoint - it's a consensus because a variety of very smart, highly trained people from many, many different backgrounds, and yes, religious beliefs, have agreed on it. These are people who have the technical training to evaluate the evidence and arguments for themselves; unlike the average layperson, they don't have to pick their favorite authority.

When we have a strong consensus, that's usually a good sign. The most rapidly changing areas of science are where we have no strong consensus.

Michael White | 11/16/07 | 16:08 PM

One more thing - apparently Dr. Grose's doctorate is an honorary one. Lot's of people have honorary doctorates, but they don't usually go around representing themselves as Dr. Somebody unless they actually went to school for a PhD.

Michael White | 11/16/07 | 16:17 PM

I agree that 'consensus' sometimes doesn't mean what it should mean, since the word itself is more political than scientific, but I don't think the consensus in biology is actively engaged in subversion.

You can't get 5 biologists to agree on where to go for lunch much less have any kind of wink-wink conspiratorial effort regarding evolution. Like most scientists, they are somewhat competitive and tend to buck authority when it comes to being told to toe the line about one idea or another.

ID science tends to be negative - 'evolution can't explain this' whereas biology is about explaining things with the understanding that it takes time to figure it all out and there can be errors along the way. Anyone who insists evolution is invalid unless it can explain everything today is using bad logic.

Conceptually I bet I am in the bulk of Americans who have no issue with intelligent design provided it gets some actual science behind it. But I wouldn't give it equal billing just because religious people want it that way.

We had one physics writer who signed up here and immediately proposed a new value for Pi (!) leading our Featured physicist, Georg von Hippel, to write me one of his understated emails saying "Could we at least move him from "Physics" into "Culture"?

As you can imagine, I got a big laugh out of that and wrote back, "Shouldn't we at least teach the controversy???"

:-)

Hank Campbell | 11/16/07 | 16:39 PM

No doubt consensus can be wrong, and consensus can be used as a bludgeon against new ideas. But that's only a problem when the new ideas are well founded, produced by people who actually know what they're talking about.

Culturally, Americans seem to love an Edison - the lone genius with very little training who can buck the establishment and achieve new things. But Edison represented the end of an era - today, there is no way some guy without a physics degree is going to come along and revolutionize quantum mechanics, or make better processors than Intel.

For better or for worse, it's really, really hard to beat the scientific consensus unless you're already a player in the field. Unless you have some serious biology training and really understand evolution as it stands today, you're not likely to come up with a science-based critique that has any merit.

Michael White | 11/16/07 | 17:01 PM

That's a key point. I have found one, and I mean only one( and as you can imagine, I spend a pretty good amount of time looking for quality writers), person whose work could even remotely be used to validate ID, and it was an article on number theory ( peer reviewed ) not biology. He never wrote me back.

And I tried to get Francis Collins last year when I was just starting this, but he didn't want the drama.

Other than that, at some people have to accept that there isn't more biological focus on ID for a reason - and that reason is not conspiracy or atheism.

Hank Campbell | 11/16/07 | 17:22 PM

I agree with most of what you say, Hank. Except in this case we are speaking about a specific historical truth relating to a textbook controversy. It happened whether anyone cares to acknowledge it or not. Vern Grose was sucked into this thing by chance, not design.

The fact is the NAS jeopardized their credibility by trying to intercede. (I know several people on the NAS and have no problem at all with that group)(today)

I'll also state that I deal with this type of thing on a daily basis, thus the investigative thrust of most of my efforts. I can also say that as a legal investigator for more years than I'd like to admit, often times things are not as they seem.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/16/07 | 17:34 PM

The point is not whether Grose was sucked into this thing by chance - the point is that he has an untenable view of evolution's scientific status, and that has colored his view of the scientific community as hopelessly biased about evolution.

My point is that Grose does not have enough of a grasp of what the science of evolution really is to be making the statements he makes. If I made similar comments on fields I know nothing about, I would be rightfully dismissed as a crackpot.

Michael White | 11/17/07 | 11:54 AM

Perhaps your selling yourself short. You would never get "crackpot" out of me, unless it was warranted. Having strong opinions about anything does not mean one is a crackpot. If you don't agree with Grose, do you also disagree with the other 3,000 scientists who agreed with him?

And of course, I would imagine I would be called a "crackpot" everyday of the week according to your rules.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 12:03 PM

Perhaps I should explain more about John Baez's crackpot index. It's partly tongue-in-cheek because nobody gets zero on the crackpot scale - the first rule listed is that everyone starts off with some crackpot points.

But the whole idea behind the crackpot index is to make light of the incessant, nutty claims about fundamental science that scientists are bombarded with by people who don't even have a rudimentary understanding of the field. Physicists often get letters about perpetual motion machines or supposed elementary mistakes that Einstein made in General Relativity. Biologists often get the kinds of claims that Grose made in his book (or at least in the blurb on his book's website) - such as his claim that the common ancestry of apes and humans is unscientific and not supported by evidence. People who make these kinds of claims generally don't even have enough of a background to understand why their claims are wrong.

Regarding Grose's 3,000 scientists - in the US you will not find 3,000 genuine professional biologists who agree with Grose's claims about creation science which he made during the California textbook controversy.

The Discovery Institute sometimes circulates lists like this (named 'scientists who doubt Darwin), and they never get up to 3,000, even when they loosen the definition of scientist to include theologians who majored in chemistry in college years before.

Michael White | 11/17/07 | 16:35 PM

First off Dr. I am quite familiar with the crackpot index, as I have encountered same on numerous occasions. No explanation is necessary.

Unfortunately, you still don't get it. (Or maybe you do?)

This IS NOT about "creation science" it is about the teaching of evolution as FACT. There is a big difference.

Personally, I don't think there is anything such as creation science. ID is not a science, While evolution can theoretically be proven scientifically, unfortunately, that might prove to be a rather daunting task in the case of ID.

The issue is one of TRUTH, not science. IF ID is TRUE then "It is what it is" so to speak. IF evolution is valid, then one should be able prove it scientifically.

Your statement about the 3,000 scientists is genuinely misleading. The fact is it happened. If you were only able to find 1 scientist TODAY that wouldn't change anything.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

And the issue of 3,000 30,000 or 300 means what? to you specifically?

I mean, if I could find 100 scientists TODAY, wouldn't that be significant, re: "consensus?" I would think so.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 16:53 PM

I first want to say, that it's nice to see some comments here. I'm sure Hank would agree. And while this may be a little "heated" it's certainly within bounds.

I do object to your credential stance, which I believe (and know from experience) is misguided. The notion that only experts can have substantive thoughts on scientific issues for example is preposterous.

Currently, I am engaged in a scientific paper on bullet lead analysis, I have no "credentials" in the area. My rebuttal to a recent scientific paper will be published in the Annals of Applied Statistics, a peer reviewed journal. When I initially corresponded with Dr. Bradley Efron, one of the world's premiere statisticians, and editor-in-chief of AOAS, I queried him on whether they would even accept a paper from a layman..... his rather refreshing response was...well of course... as they say in "The Treasure of Sierra Madre",
"you don't have to show us no stinkin' badges". The paper will
be judged by the same standards as all others.

brad efron

Quite the opposite reaction to that of this thread's author.

I have a friend in Ohio, who is a musician by trade with no formal science training. He was instrumental in assisting the NAS in their analysis of the acoustic evidence in the JFK case. Without his work, we may still be debating the issue.

Also, in that regard 3 PhD's who examined that evidence concluded that there were in fact gunshots on that tape. Unfortunately for the good Drs. the tape wasn't even recorded in Dealey Plaza, nor was it contemporaneous to the assassination. I expose this blunder in my forthcoming book.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/16/07 | 17:59 PM

I think your silence speaks volumes.

Personally, I believe in representing controversial issues in an appropriate manner. Slinging unjustified ad hominem remarks is plainly poor debating.

As one who is admittedly "biased" and apparently feels that any dissent from the Darwinian dogma is akin to religious dogma, it would appear any fruitful discussion of the issues may well be only wishful thinking.

I think we should all ask questions and remain critical thinkers. However, statements made by anyone, expert or layperson should always be evaluated in light of the evidence that stands behind those statements.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/16/07 | 19:04 PM

My silence means I have other things that make demands on my time.

Two points - although Grose objects, the intervention of the NAS on the issue of teaching creationism in schools has been an important safeguard for the integrity of science education. Grose may claim that there is no way evolution could ever be supported by scientific evidence, but he's wrong. Hundreds of papers every week by professional biologists contradict him.

Second, a credential itself may not matter, but training does. While the layman may be able to help solve some mystery that relates somehow to science, untrained people are not going to make significant advances on important problems in basic science. Some guy with no training is not going to solve quantum gravity, or revolutionize our understanding of evolution. People like that aren't even going to solve smaller problems basic science problems, like discovering the function of an uncharacterized gene. In today's basic science research, technical training is critical.

Michael White | 11/17/07 | 11:49 AM

Oh God, me too......I'm busier than a bee.

I'm not very sure about your "evidence" on a weekly basis.

You still don't have it right, the issue was evolution as science FACT. And not only Grose objected, but so did 3,000 other scientists. Are you at all familiar with this case?

Re: Your second: I see we have now moved on to "training"..In any event, I disagree with the thrust of your argument.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 11:58 AM

That humans and chimps shared a common ancestor about 5-6 million years ago is a fact, supported by abundant evidence in both the fossil record and in the record in our genomes. Any textbook on biology that denies that is wrong.

Just so that other readers can see how far off the deep end Grose really is, here is the blurb about his book from Amazon:

"The historic Science Textbook Struggle -- a worldwide battle about the origin of the universe, life, and man -- erupted without warning. It caught the scientific illuminati completely by surprise. Why? Because science textbooks had become filled with wild, unbelievable stories about the beginning of everything. And those tales were simply not scientific! The universe starting with a Big Bang, life arising out of a soup of lifeless amino-acids, humans produced by apes . . . those myths had only replaced ancient Greek mythology and were being passed off as scientific truths! Caught in the crossfire between educators, news media, textbook publishers, religious notables, and world renowned scientists -- including nineteen Nobel laureates -- was a private citizen. Father of six schoolchildren, he had only one goal: to prove that science never will have answers for origins! He was up against the arrogance of scientists who were determined to disguise their private beliefs as being the only explanations for the origin of the universe, life, and man. This story concludes with a great victory for objectivity -- with more than 200 changes being made in textbooks -- over the objections of the National Academy of Science"

As I said in another comment, you will not find 3,000 genuine professional biologists who agree with such claims.

Michael White | 11/17/07 | 16:43 PM

You certainly have a smorgasbord of objections, none of which (or almost none) address the point properly. You posted a blurb from a book review, not what the scientists signed off on. You also lump in there the 200 changes to textbooks, as if it would take a scientist to agree or disagree with that FACT.

Very poor debating Dr.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 17:07 PM

I think rather than wasting much more time on this since you obviously don't have a handle on what Grose did, or what he actually believes, I suggest you take the time and follow the link provided to the Heritage Foundation where Grose apeared in May. View the video, and then you will understand. http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev052407a.cfm John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 18:45 PM

Partial Listing.....

I don't have 3,000 here, but what I did was run through a database I have and filter it fairly well. Sticking to all US scientists (I believe 1 or 2 from the UK, Canada, and Germany slipped by)

Not ALL are biologists, and not all hold PhD's. But I think it's pretty fair considering how quickly I assembled it. You can label them Darwin dissenters, crackpots, or whatever you wish. The list is fairly up to date. I believe 1 or 2 are deceased.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Philip Skell Emeritus, Evan Pugh Prof. of Chemistry, Pennsylvania State University Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Lyle H. Jensen Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Biological Structure & Dept. of Biochemistry University of Washington, Fellow AAAS

Paul Ashby Ph.D. Chemistry Harvard University

Dean Kenyon Emeritus Professor of Biology San Francisco State University

Stanley Salthe Emeritus Professor Biological Sciences Brooklyn College of the City University of New York

Donald Ewert Ph.D. Microbiology University of Georgia

Russell Carlson Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of Georgia

Scott Minnich Professor, Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochemistry University of Idaho

John A. Davison Emeritus Associate Professor of Biology University of Vermont

Michael Behe Professor of Biological Science Lehigh University

Michael Atchison Professor of Biochemistry University of Pennsylvania, Vet School

Thomas G. Guilliams Ph.D. Molecular Biology The Medical College of Wisconsin

Abraham S. Feigenbaum Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry Rutgers University

Neal Adrian Ph.D. Microbiology University of Oklahoma

Joseph Atkinson Ph.D. Organic Chemistry MIT

Jeffrey M. Jones Professor Emeritus in Medicine (Ph.D. Microbiology and M.D.) University of Wisconsin-Madison

Ben J. Stuart Ph.D. Chemical & Biochemical Engineering Rutgers University

Raymond Bohlin Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of Texas, Dallas

David Richard Carta Ph.D. Bio-Engineering University of California, San Diego

Lydia G. Thebeau Ph.D. Cell & Molecular Biology Saint Louis University

Gary Kastello Ph.D. Biology University of Wisonsin-Milwaukee

Thomas M. Stackhouse Ph.D. Biochemistry University of California, Davis

John B. Cannon Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Princeton University

Donald Clark Ph.D. Physical Biochemistry Louisiana State University

Thomas Deahl Ph.D. Radiation Biology The University of Iowa

David DeWitt Associate Professor of Biology Liberty University

Robert DiSilvestro Ph.D. Biochemistry Texas A & M University

Kenneth Dormer Ph.D. Biology & Physiology University of California, Los Angeles

Daniel Ely Professor, Biology University of Akron

Pattle Pun Professor of Biology Wheaton College

Bruce Evans Ph.D. Neurobiology Emory University

Suzanne Sawyer Vincent Ph.D. Physiology & Biophysics University of Washington

Clarence Fouche Professor of Biology Virginia Intermont College

Mark Fuller Ph.D. Microbiology University of California, Davis
University

Mark Geil Ph.D. Biomedical Engineering Ohio State University

Ibrahim Barsoum Ph.D. Microbiology The George Washington University

Jim Gibson Ph.D. Biology Loma Linda University

John W. Balliet Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology University of Pennsylvania,
Post-doctoral Fellowship, Harvard Medical School

James A. Ellard, Sr. Ph.D. Chemistry University of Kentucky

Richard Gunasekera Ph.D. Biochemical Genetics Baylor University

James Harman Associate Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry Texas Tech University

William Harris Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry University of Minnesota

Walter Hearn Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois

Roland Hirsch Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Michigan

Marko Horb Ph.D. Cell & Developmental Biology State University of New York

Cornelius Hunter Ph.D. Biophysics University of Illinois

Malcolm W. MacArthur Ph.D. Molecular Biophysics University of London (UK)

Rafe Payne Ph.D. Biology University of Nebraska

Mark P. Bowman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Pennsylvania State University

Albert J. Starshak Ph.D. Physical Chemistry Illinois Institute of Technology

David Jones Professor of Biochemistry & Chair of Chemistry Grove City College

Dave Finnegan Staff Member (Ph.D. Chemistry, University of Maryland) Los Alamos

Michael Kinnaird Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Charles Koons Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Minnesota

Martin LaBar Ph. D. Genetics & Zoology University of Wisconsin, Madison

Kurt J. Henle Professor Emeritus (Ph.D. Biophysics, University of Pennsylvania) University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

Lane Lester Ph.D. Genetics Purdue University

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center

Harry Lubansky Ph.D. Biological Chemistry University of Illinois, Chicago

Daniel L. Moran Ph.D. Molecular & Cellular Biology Ohio University
Fulbright Scholar

Jed Macosko Ph.D. Chemistry University of California, Berkeley

Christopher Macosko Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Princeton University

Julie Marshall Ph.D. Chemistry Texas Tech University

Tony Mega Ph.D. Biochemistry Purdue University

Carl Poppe Ph.D. Physics University of Wisconsin

Art Nitz Ph.D. Anatomy & Neurobiology University of Kentucky

Terry Morrison Ph.D. Chemistry Syracuse University

Scott Northrup Chair and Professor of Chemistry Tennessee Tech University

John Omdahl Professor of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology University of New Mexico

Fazale Rana Ph.D. Chemistry Ohio University

Rebecca Orr Ph.D. Cell Biology University of Texas, Southwestern

David Reed Ph.D Entomology University of California, Riverside

Dan Reynolds Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin

Daniel Romo Professor of Chemistry Texas A&M University

Harold Toups Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Louisiana State University

Steve Maxwell Associate Professor of Molecular and Cellular Medicine Texas A&M University, H.S.C.

Andrew Schmitz Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Iowa

Jacquelyn W. McClelland Professor (Ph.D. Nutritional Biochemistry) North Carolina

Wayne L. Cook Ph.D. Inorganic Chemistry University of Kentucky

Timothy Standish Ph.D. Environmental Biology George Mason University

Richard Sternberg Ph.D. Biology (Molecular Evolution) Florida International University

Also: Ph.D. Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) Binghamton University

Mark Swanson Ph.D. Biochemistry University of Illinois

Royal Truman Ph.D. Organic Chemistry Michigan State University

Clifton L. Kehr Ph.D. Chemistry University of Delaware

Linda Walkup Ph.D. Molecular Genetics University of New Mexico Medical School

David Van Dyke Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry University of Illinois, Urbana

James R. Brawer Professor of Anatomy & Cell Biology (Ph.D., Harvard) McGill University (Canada)

Weimin Gao Microbiologist Brookhaven National Laboratory

Gerald Wegner Ph.D. Entomology Loyola University

Jonathan Wells Ph.D. Molecular & Cell Biology University of California, Berkeley

Charles Detwiler Ph.D. Genetics Cornell University

Terrance Murphy Professor of Chemistry Weill Cornell Medical College

Christopher Williams Ph.D. Biochemistry Ohio State University

Georg A. Speck Ph.D. Biology, Molecular Pharmacology University of Heidelberg (Germany)

Henry Zuill Emeritus Professor of Biology Union College

Don Olson Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry Purdue University

Mark Toleman Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology Bristol University (UK)

Robert O. Kalbach Ph.D. Physical Chemistry University of South Florida

Gregory J. Brewer Prof. of Neurology, Medical Microbiology, Immunology and Cell Biology Southern Illinois University School of Medicine

Roger Lien Ph.D. Physiology North Carolina State University

Joseph Lary Epidemiologist and Research Biologist (retired) Centers for Disease Control

Richard S. Beale, Jr. Ph.D. Entomology University of California, Berkeley

Yvonne Boldt Ph. D. Microbiology University of Minnesota

William B. Collier Ph. D. Physical Chemistry Oklahoma State University

Lisanne D’Andrea-Winslow Ph. D. Cell Biology & Biochemistry Rutgers University

Charles B. Lowrey Ph.D. Chemistry University of Houston

David C. Kem Professor of Medicine University of Oklahoma College of Medicine

A. Cordell Perkes Ph.D. Science Education Ohio State University

Charles G. Sanny Prof. of Biochemistry Oklahoma State University Ctr. for Health Sciences

Richard W. Pooley Professor of Surgery (retired) New York Medical College

Arthur Chadwick Ph.D. Molecular Biology University of Miami

James G. Tarrant Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Texas, Austin

Jeffrey E. Lander Ph.D. Biomechanics University of Oregon

William McVaugh Associate Professor of Biology Department of Natural Sciences, Malone College

Jarrod W. Carter Ph.D. Bioengineering University of Washington

Christian Heiss Post-Doctoral Associate Complex Carbohydrate Res. Ctr., Univ. of Georgia

James A. Huggins Chair, Dept. of Biology & Dir., Hammons Center for Scientific Studies Union University

Paul S. Darby Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Georgia

L. Kirt Martin Professor of Biology Lubbock Christian University

Douglas Axe Director (Ph.D. Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology) Biologic Institute

Joel Brind Professor of Biology Baruch College, City University of New York

Ivan M. Lang Ph.D. Physiology and Biophysics Temple University

John G. Hoey Ph.D. Molecular and Cellular Biology City University of New York Graduate School

Theodore J. Siek Ph.D. Biochemistry Oregon State University

Christian M. Loch Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics University of Virginia

Charles A. Signorino Ph.D. Organic Chemistry University of Pennsylvania

Luke Randall Ph.D. Molecular Microbiology University of London (UK)

Mark A. Chambers Ph.D. Virology University of Cambridge (UK)

Daniel Howell Ph.D. Biochemistry Virginia Tech

Peter C. Iwen Professor of Pathology and Microbiology University of Nebraska Medical Center

Wesley M. Taylor Former Chairman of the Division of Primate Medicine & Surgery New England Regional Primate Research Center, Harvard Medical School

Don England Professor Emeritus of Chemistry Harding University

Wayne Linn Professor Emeritus of Biology Southern Oregon University

John S. Roden Associate Professor of Biology Southern Oregon University

Donald W. Russell Adjunct Assistant Clinical Professor University of North Carolina School of Medicine

Dennis M. Sullivan Professor of Biology and Bioethics Cedarville University

Mark C. Porter Ph.D. Chemical Engineering MIT

Anita McElroy Ph.D. Biology University of California, San Diego

James G. Bentsen Ph.D. Chemistry M.I.T.

Justin Long Ph.D. Chemical Engineering Iowa State University

Donald F. Smee Research Professor (Microbiology) Utah State University

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/18/07 | 09:45 AM

I rest my case...........Obviously you didn't read the article. I understand you may not have read Dr. Grose's book. (perhaps you should) Are you aware that over 3,000 scientists signed off on the situation?

Ad hominem remarks like "crackpot" are usually the sign of a rather weak case. I'll leave your credentializing for someone else to comment on.

And of course, it would be a little difficult to argue with Dr. Von Braun at this point, wouldn't it? But I'm sure he would be heart-broken to hear of your objections to his thoughts.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/16/07 | 16:26 PM

I read your article - it's about a guy who wrote a book discussing how the scientific establishment responded to, among other things, his claim that evolution has no basis in science. And therefore the scientific community is just as biased as any other group. It's a common argument made by people who don't accept evolution.

I'm not arguing with von Braun - I'm disagreeing with his ideas about objectivity.

If I spouted off about risk management the way Grose goes off about evolution, I would be a crackpot too. This has nothing to do with a weak case for evolution, and everything to do with recurring creationist phenomenon of people who have no education in evolution claiming that professional biologists are all horribly deceived about their own discipline.

This type of thing falls in the same league with people who pester physicists with inventions that violate the first law of thermodynamics - they're crackpots. You can't make any case, weak or strong, with people like that.

Michael White | 11/16/07 | 16:44 PM

First of all the book isn't about some guy who objects to evolution. Again, you say you have, but you haven't really read the article. You are also mistaken re: Grose's credentials which I will post here for you. Perhaps you should think again about the term "crackpot?"

I can also post the names of the 3,000 scientists from around the world who seem to disagree with you on this issue, if you like.

Vernon L. Grose, BS, MS, DSc.

Described in Business Week as a founding father of the application of systems methodology to managing risk, he enjoys worldwide recognition as an authority in that field. His interdisciplinary perspective on the subject is based on over 50 years of personal involvement – having served as an executive in three major corporations, university professor in Europe as well as the United States, and consultant to such firms as AT&T, EXXON, and IBM.

Holding a BS in Physics, MS in Systems Management, and honorary DSc, he was a member of the Applied Physics Staff at The Boeing Company from 1952-59, where he performed the first Boeing tests that combined three dynamic environments simultaneously and wrote the development test program for the Minuteman ICBM.

He originated the widely-adopted SMART (Systems Methodology Applied to Risk Termination) technique for managing every type of risk – legal, political, social, economic, and technological – which was successfully utilized to combat terrorism at the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles.

Dr. Grose was affiliated with Litton Industries in 1959-62 as Director of Reliability as well as Program Manager for Project SPARR, an Air Force program of basic and applied research on space system problems. In 1962, he joined Northrop Ventura as Director of Applied Technology – responsible for all engineering test activities and the disciplines of chemistry, metallurgy, reliability, configuration management, and value engineering on the Earth Landing Systems for NASA Projects Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo. As Chief of Reliability at Rocketdyne, a division of Rockwell Corporation, he continued his involvement in the Gemini and Apollo Programs.

Dr. Wernher von Braun appointed him to the NASA Safety Advisory Group for Space Flight in 1969. Three appointments by the National Academy of Sciences have involved his systems management background: Panel on Human Error in Merchant Marine Safety (1972), Committee on Research Needs to Reduce Maritime Collisions, Rammings, and Groundings (1978), and Panel on Causes and Prevention of Grain Elevator Explosions (1978).

From 1966 to 1982, he was Vice President of Tustin Institute of Technology in Santa Barbara, California – responsible for all management curricula and system technology studies.

The Peoples Republic of China invited him in 1981 to address their Academy of Sciences in Beijing on the systematic management of risk.

President Reagan appointed him to the National Transportation Safety Board in 1983 and the National Highway Safety Advisory Commission in 1986. His appointment to the NTSB was based on his extensive participation in all transportation modes – maritime, rail, pipeline, highway, aviation, and space. As a Board Member, he headed the NTSB “Go-Team” investigation of major accidents.

The White House assigned him for one year to the Associate Administrator for R&D at the Environmental Protection Agency to implement systematic management of risk. On another White House assignment as Expert Consultant to the NASA Chief Engineer, he pioneered a model for commercial enterprise in space. In 1997, Vice President Gore solicited his expertise for the White House Commission on Aviation Safety and Security.

His 2006 book SCIENCE BUT NOT SCIENTISTS: How Everything Began – Chance or Creation? recounts his central role in winning the most significant victory for science since the Scopes Trial of 1925. Reviewers of his best-selling Prentice Hall book, MANAGING RISK: Systematic Loss Prevention for Executives, called it “the most influential book on the subject in this decade.” Widely used in universities, it is now in its third printing. His professional papers have been published internationally in over 60 journals and periodicals.

A featured guest on the Today Show, Good Morning America, Prime Time Live, CBS Newswatch, ABC 20/20, BBC-London, O’Reilly Factor and many other television programs, he has given over 100 interviews on CNN as their Risk and Aviation Analyst. He provided over 170 news interviews related to the 1996 explosion of TWA Flight 800. Dr. Grose is a FOX News Contributor and was being interviewed just as UAL 175 impacted the World Trade Center Tower 2 on 11 September 2001. His viewpoints have been published in such periodicals as Time, USA Today, US News & World Report, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Christian Science Monitor.

His biography appears in Liftoff by James C. Hefley that describes the personal faith of astronauts and space scientists. He is listed in WHO’S WHO In the West, Dictionary of International Biography, Men of Achievement 1973, International WHO’S WHO of Intellectuals, and WHO’S WHO In The World.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/16/07 | 17:09 PM

This is the same biography that I linked to in my second comment at the very top of this discussion. Grose only has an honorary doctorate. So does Tim Russert, but we don't go around calling him Dr. Russert.

And I would be interested in your list of 3,000 scientists, as well as details on just what exactly they signed on to.

Michael White | 11/17/07 | 16:48 PM

Kind of "hung-up" on that Dr. thing, aren't we "Dr.?"

Just for the record Grose doesn't make an issue of calling himself Dr. As a matter of fact, I believe you are the first person to object to it. At least that I am aware of.

I thought we got past that credential thing, but alas, we haven't.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 17:10 PM

Oh, BTW, I could drum up a gaggle of MD's who would object to YOUR use of "Dr."...Been there, done that.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 17:20 PM

Well, historically speaking until the rise of Harvard Medical in the mid 19th century the M.D.'s were the ones who were ridiculed for calling themselves 'doctor.' Medical Doctor was regarded as somewhere above village shaman but real doctors were Ph.D.s.

Hank Campbell | 11/17/07 | 19:26 PM

Well, if it will pull any weight around here......I am also a "Dr.".........a title bestowed upon me by my admiring fans in my younger days as a disc jockey.

Dr. Jay...."Dr. of Discology".....honorary of course :-(

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/17/07 | 19:39 PM

I guess my general point is that this is basically a thankless endeavor and no one with a PhD would do it unless they genuinely care about science and society.

Who wants to go to school for 20 years and up just to get kicked around by non-experts on a website? No one at all unless they believe that science is for the benefit of mankind. So there are scientists who fall into the kind of insular miasma you're mentioning, but none of them write here.

Putting 'dr' in quotes about a post-doc biologist who is writing about biology and disputing the scientific authority of someone who has an honorary PhD not in biology seems a little rude.

Hank Campbell | 11/17/07 | 23:30 PM

Yes, it may be thankless.......

And if it is, then it's thankless for all involved. Don't you think? I wasn't mentioning anyone in any "insular miasma"

Vern Grose doesn't have a PhD, honorary or otherwise, it's a DSc. degree.

I certainly wasn't trying to be rude, and frankly think I've gone out of my way not to be. It was Dr. White who started off with the "crackpot" remark re: Vern Grose. Not a very uncommon tool when instituting an argument by authority.

Dr. White doesn't have to agree with me or Vern Grose, and we don't have to agree with him. But it's unfortunate that Dr. White hasn't even taken the time to determine what it is in fact he disagrees with, or what Vern actually said and did. That's why I suggested he take the time and visit the Heritage Foundation link I provided and view the video of Vern when he spoke there in May. (And hopefully, view it all including the question and answer period after Vern concludes his talk)

http://www.heritage.org/Press/Events/ev052407a.cfm

I didn't realize critique of posted work here was considered "kicking someone around." Dr. White seems to take the stance, that because he said it, and someone "less qualified" may disagree he can merely bludgeon that dissent away by pontification. I mean, if that's the case then this whole exercise is indeed "thankless" wouldn't you say? Are you saying then that I for instance should just take as gospel what Dr. White, or any other PhD says without question? I thought I knew you a little better than that Hank. And just as an aside, if I took that stance, I'd be unemployed, as would many other of my colleagues in law.

The particular incident outlined in Vern's book took place nearly 40 years ago. I'm not too sure how old Dr. White is, or you are for that matter Hank, but Vern and I are a little older, I should think. Which essentially means nothing, except it's evident neither of you seem to be familiar with this particular historical event.

So, I will certainly apologize, even though I'm really not sure what for.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/18/07 | 05:34 AM

John, you don't owe me an apology for anything - I didn't find anything offensive. On the credential issue, I got my degree at a medical school, and I would joke with my med student friends about how their degree only toook 4 years of work while mine took 5 and a half years. Their response would be that mine took 5.5 years because I didn't get to work before 7 am like med students did.

However Grose's doctorate is a different thing - an honorary doctorate is an award, usually given to an honored commencement speakers. It is not an academic qualification. Calling oneself Dr. because of an honorary doctorate, the way Grose does on his website, usually suggests an insecurity with one's academic credentials.

I wasn't around during the California textbook controversy but it is well-documented. Ronald Numbers, the best academic historian on the subject and author of The Creationists interviewed Grose by phone. Numbers writes that Grose offered so-called compromise language for the state science curriculum leaving 'creation science' as science (and not religion) and demoted "evolution to the level of a mere speculative theory." (p. 244 in Numbers' book).

Grose's 'theory not fact' claims are a classic creationist tactic. Grose was right to be opposed by the NAS in his efforts to dismiss evolution as unscientific. You really won't find 3000 real biologists (that is, scientists actually doing professional research in biology) that think evolution is unsupportable by the evidence, or who agree with Grose's claim that "...those tales were simply not scientific! The universe starting with a Big Bang, life arising out of a soup of lifeless amino-acids, humans produced by apes..."

You haven't made it clear just what those scientists you listed were signing on to.

Michael White | 11/18/07 | 11:41 AM

Well, I appreciate the beginning of your reply at least. Thank you for that.

First off, as I said Grose himself rarely mentions Dr. But this issue is a red herring.

As for the rest of it, let's just take Numbers. You really need to follow my link to the Heritage Foundation and listen to Grose. Here's his actual position, without the added butchering. He DOES NOT believe creationism is science. Yes he does believe that evolution IS NOT FACT, but a theory. What he believes, and I think rightly so, (and he is referring to origins) most explicitly. Is that BOTH are not science, but belief systems. So, Numbers either misquoted, or slanted it the way he preferred.

As for the NAS, they have a federal charter as you know. The Ca. issue was a state education debate. The NAS over stepped their bounds. Grose delivered his manuscript to MacMillan in 1976. I'll let you listen to that story from Grose himself. You also may be interested in some recent goings on at the Smithsonian.

After all the heat from this issue the NAS published it's declaration AN AFFIRMATION OF FREEDOM OF INQUIRY AND EXPRESSION that is what the 3,000 scientists from around the world signed on to. Not all were biologists. The NAS has regrettably in recent years moved away from those precepts in the issue of creationism/evolution. Perhaps, I wasn't that clear about this initially.

In any event, I have provided quite a long list of scientists, (most PhD's most in biology who have serious questions re: Darwinism)

I would again urge you to listen to Dr. Grose at the Heritage Foundation to get an accurate take on his views.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/18/07 | 12:16 PM

More broadly, NMNH officials have made clear their intent to prevent any scientist publicly skeptical of Darwinian Theory from ever being appointed as a Research Associate, no matter how sterling his or her professional credentials or research.

Any comment on this, or my list of scientists?

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/19/07 | 19:59 PM

First, I have to apologize for not being able to sustain these long discussions - I just don't have the time to keep going in the comment section, and thus you get long intervals where I'm not around to comment. I'm sure you're busy too. But many of my blog posts do and will involve various detailed aspects of evolution, and I invite you to come by and discuss some of these more detailed aspects in future columns.

Plus, you should know there are no hard feelings on my part - I don't mind arguing - you don't have to be overly concerned with what you say about me. I hope I haven't offended you (I don't think I have). As long as we keep it civil, I'm sure Hank will be happy.

I will make some final comments about your list of scientists - you said you filtered it from a database you have. That still doesn't tell me exactly what these people are signing on to. Many of them are familiar - from common lists circulated by various creationists institutes. These common lists have common weaknesses, partially detailed here.

I once posted about the first guy on your list, Phil Skell, who has never done any research relating to evolution, nor proven that he has any clue about the technical content of the subject.

Many others on the list have openly discussed their fairly conservative Christian faith in forums like the American Scientific Affiliation (an organization of religious scientists); the cognitive dissonance between their faith and science provides a strong motivation to question any part of evolution they don't understand.

Many scientists are put on these lists with only past scientific affiliations. For example, Charles Detwiler, who is affiliated on your list with Cornell, is a professor at Falwell's fundamentalist Liberty College - er University (sorry - edited to correct this).

And lack of understanding is the most important common flaw on these lists - none, not one of these people ever publishes (peer-reviewed or not) substantial research backing up their claims about evolution. They rarely even get specific enough about their problems with evolution to formulate a coherent, testable hypothesis.

This is in contrast to the thousands of serious professional research biologists who every week publish hundreds of detailed research papers exploring various aspects of evolution.

Michael White | 11/19/07 | 23:00 PM

No apology needed, I certainly understand.

Frankly, I enjoy this debate, and quite obviously you are an extremely intelligent man.

I have a few gripes relating to your debating style, which unfortunately is colored with various arguments by authority, (in this case yours mostly) which is a rather common tactic employed by those who really don't want to discuss the issues.

I published an article relating to the aerodynamic issues in the TWA 800 case. Not 1 of the supposed 30 or so physics people around here made a comment. And I mean no comments, so I guess I really can't gripe too much in a way. In that instance I WANT someone to pick apart those calculations, not pontificate one way or the other. But that hasn't happened.

In any event, I still don't think you understand exactly what Vern Grose's position is. And I do object to him being labelled a "crackpot" in jest or otherwise.

As for the publishing of research papers one way or the other, that certainly gets to the point. I certainly don't believe there are "no facts" one might plug into an evolution hypothesis, the question is what do those facts really say.

I'll be happy to comment on your future writings.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/20/07 | 06:07 AM

Steven Novella, Dr. Novella for you John :-), also did a write-up on this. I first learned of him when I did the article on The Least Known War In Science: Does HIV Cause AIDS? but I read his blog once in a while. He does good stuff.

He also reminded me of Dr. Henry Gee's angry response at being quote-mined by those Discovery Institute folks.

I am a religious person and I believe in God. I find the militant atheism of some evolutionary biologists ill-reasoned and childish, and most importantly unscientific -- crucially, faith should not be subject to scientific justification. But the converse also holds true -- science should not need to be validated by the narrow dogma of faith. As such, I regard the opinions of the Discovery Institute as regressive, repressive, divisive, sectarian and probably unrepresentative of views held by people of faith generally. In addition, the use by creationists of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of public values and morals.

I think that says a lot about most biologists. There are some on the fringes using science to slam religion but for the most part it's live and let live out there. Most of us don't go to church to get our cholesterol checked and we don't look to science for moral guidance.

Hank Campbell | 11/18/07 | 23:05 PM

Obviously.............

There are kookoos on both sides. But truly, I think most people, scientist and layman alike many times miss the point in this whole debate while trying to tout their views.

I think Vern Grose has a very intuitive take on the whole thing. But if you don't listen to what he has to say -- not a blurb from a book-review, you'll just never appreciate it.

Since you're analyzing some of the creationist kookoos in your post. You may want to read my new article "We'll turn your Brown eyes Blue" right here on SB. In that article we look at some of the kookoos on the evolution side, at none other than the prestigious Smithsonian.

John FiorentinoFiorentino Research

johnfiorentino (not verified) | 11/18/07 | 23:17 PM

Evolutionist: "Evolution is a fact with solid evidence"
Creationist: "Not really, here's why"
Evolutionist: "Who are you to question evolution? What is your qualification? You're a crackpot"
Creationist: "I don't have qualification in highly evolution infested system"
Evolutionist: "Until you do, we're not going to listen ... "

Anonymous (not verified) | 06/26/09 | 03:35 AM

More Adaptive Complexity articles

About Michael White

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

More Adaptive Complexity articles

About Michael White

Related Articles Here On Scientific Blogging

Comments

Add a comment

Know Science And Want To Write?

What People Are Saying

Books By Writers Here