Is Science True?

In my experience, everyone bases their "arguments on certain metaphysical suppositions, scientists and non-scientists included. As a good friend and student of E. A. Burtt, I have found his Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science to be extraordinarily useful in this regard. In fact, I have begun work on what I hope will be a companion volume: Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Biological Science, in which I will examine the assumptions that underlie the science of biology as it is practiced today.

One of the bedrock assumptions underlying both modern physics and modern biology is non-teleology: the assumption that natural processes do not include any teleological input. I personally think that this is wrong, and base my objection to this idea on Ernst Mayr's monumental book, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology, published in 1988. Mayr argued very persuasively that teleological explanations are entirely appropriate in biology insofar as they refer to the development and maintenance of living organisms. According to Mayr, both of these processes (and indeed all biological processes) are directed by programs (i.e. genomes, etc.) that pre-exist the entities and processes that they specify and regulate. In the jargon of the current debate, genomes and other developmental programs are "designs" for the assembly and operation of living organisms.

However, Mayr also argued very strongly that the origin of biological programs – that is, the various mechanisms of biological evolution – need not (and apparently do not) include any teleological component. Like all physical processes, there is no detectable "grand design" (much less a Grand Designer) which/Who has formulated beforehand the programs that regulate life. In other words, teleology is entirely appropriate when applied to life and the operation of living programs, but not when applied to the origin of life or the origin of living programs.

So, what does this say about the question of whose opinions to trust when considering these issues? My first criterion is skepticism: if someone claims to know the truth about anything at all (including, of course, the contents of their own mind), my immediate reaction is intense skepticism. Science (at least that version of it that has been practiced since the 17th century) isn't about truth. It's about reasonable confidence in explanatory models, all of which are grounded on a metaphysical assumption of the usefulness of methodological naturalism. Notice I wrote "usefulness", not "truth", because as far as I can tell the only "truth" that exists on either side of the evolution/ID divide is a version of Colbert's "truthiness". It feels like "truth", but isn't really. In my opinion, "experts" are people who keep these distinctions in mind at all times, and do not easily (if ever) use absolute statements when talking about nature.

For example, I have an immediate, knee-jerk negative reaction to the title of Jerry Coyne's book, Why Evolution is True, and indeed to much of what he writes for the general public. Consider a similar title, Why Quantum Mechanics is True, or if you prefer Why the Gas Laws are True. How would a physicist react to titles such as these? I hope (and my general experience has been) that they would object to the word "true", and also perhaps to the question "why". Physics isn't about "truth" and doesn't usually ask about "why" things happen. Physics is about "useful" and "consistent" and "empirically testable" models of reality, and it's about "how" things happen, not "why" they happen.

Indeed, in the natural sciences (including biology) the answer to the question "how" is the same as the answer to the question "why". How do birds come to have wings? They inherit a genetic and developmental program that, via interactions with their environment, produces those structures we call "wings". Why do birds come to have wings? Same answer. How have birds acquired these genetic and developmental programs? They evolved by natural selection and other evolutionary mechanisms. Why have birds acquired these genetic and developmental programs? Again, same answer.

Speculating as to whether the biological processes by which the programs that specify and regulate living organisms and processes are somehow externally/supernaturally directed seems to me to be metaphysical arguments, rather than scientific ones. Interesting, compelling even, but not part of science, at least as it has been practiced for a very long time.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Evolution, Information, and Teleology in Biology

I am currently in the middle of a debate at Uncommon Descent, the leading "intelligent design" website. The debate focuses on the concept of "information": what it is, where it comes from, and what its properties are. In thinking about these questions, I have been struck by how central they are to biology in general and evolutionary biology in particular.

When one uses the term "information", one can be referring to at least four different phenomena: Shannon information, Kolmogorov information,complex specified ("Orgel") information[1], and meaningful information. To me, it appears that the first three types of information – Shannon, Kolmogorov, and complex specified information – are fundamentally different from meaningful information.

What do we "mean" when we say that something is "meaningful"? To me, "meaningful" information is encoded information in which the "bits" of information "encode" (or "stand for") other bits of information via analogy. A meaningful "bit" therefore "stands for" some other bit.

Furthermore, two bits of information that stand for each other necessarily not identical, even if they are written (i.e. symbolized) using exactly the same symbols. That is, two copies of the same symbol may "mean" the same thing, but they are not the "same" symbol, except via analogy. To be the "same" symbol, there could only be one symbol which "stands for itself". This is simply a reinterpretation of Aristotle's law of non-contradiction.

Moreover, it seems to me that not only is meaningful information necessarily analogical, it is also necessarily arbitrary, in the sense that the analogical relationship between the bits of a message and the concept with which those bits is associated is not "natural" (i.e. it is not the result of physical necessity), but rather "non-natural" (i.e. the result of arbitrary semantic association).

For example, consider the meaningful word "two". I can substitute the numeral "2" for the English word "two" without changing the meaning of the word. Indeed, the following words all "mean" the same thing: 2, ii, II, 10 (binary), dué, deux, duo, twa, zwei, etc. [see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%28number%29 ] This list can be infinitely extended: 0 + 2, 1 + 1, 2 + 0, 3 - 1, 4 - 2, etc. (and, of course, zero plus two, one plus one, two plus zero, three minus one, four divided by two, ten divided by five, etc.). All of these words and phrases "mean" exactly the same thing: that which we refer to with the English word "two" (or, if you prefer, the Arabic numeral "2").

In the previous example, all of the words and phrases are encoded analogies of the concept of "twoness", none of them are more or less "twoish" than any other (You're twoish? That's funny, you don't look twoish), and indeed none of them are necessarily "twoish" at all. That is, the meaningful relationship between the various words and phrases and "twoishness" is arbitrary or, more precisely, non-natural. We may refer to such meaningful (and ultimately arbitrary) relationships between the "name" and "the thing named" as semantic associations, to distinguish them from non-arbitrary natural relationships.

It appears to me that arbitrary semantic associations such as those symbolized by the numeral "2" are fundamentally different from the natural relationship between the number of protons in an atomic nucleus and its chemical properties. Regardless of what one "calls" a nucleus with two protons ("helium" is the most common name for it, but there are others), and no matter which of the words or phrases one chooses to refer to the number of protons in the nucleus, the chemical and physical properties of the nucleus remains the same [see helium for more about the properties of this element]. Ergo, the "twoness" of the protons in the nucleus of helium is a non-arbitrary, "natural" property of such nuclei, and is therefore not a form of meaningful information.

By contrast, saying that the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom of helium has no more effect on the natural properties of such a nucleus than if one says that there are deux (or twa or zwei) protons in such a nucleus. No matter what you call it nor how you refer to the number of protons in its nucleus, helium is helium is helium (pacé Gertrude Stein).

Given the foregoing, it should be clear that the first three types of information I listed at the beginning of this comment are not necessarily meaningful. That this is the case for Shannon and Kolmogorov information is widely accepted. However, it is also the case for some (but not all) forms of complex specified ("Orgel") information. For example, if one constructs a string of random nucleotides (or any random string of bits), if that string does not subtend a promoter sequence, it will not "code" for the amino acid sequence of a polypeptide. Furthermore, unless such a string subtends a "binding region" (i.e. a sequence to which a protein or RNA molecule may bind via hydrogen bonding) it will also not have a regulatory function in a larger biochemical/cellular system. Under these circumstances, such a random string will not "encode" for any structure or function, but still possesses what Leslie Orgel [1] referred to as "complex specified information".

Ergo, "meaningful information" is analogical information; it "stands for" something else. Furthermore, the relationship between a bit of meaningful information and the thing it stands for is a functional relationship. That is, the meaningful bit specifies the function of the thing for which it stands (i.e. not "Richard Stans"). This means that meaningful information is necessarily teleological, as "functions" are semantically equivalent to "goals" which are semantically equivalent to "ends".

So, teleology must exist in any functional relationship, including those in biology. The question is not "is there teleology in biology"; no less an authority on evolutionary biology than the late Ernst Mayr (not to mention Franciso Ayala) emphatically stated "yes"! The real question (and the real focus of the dispute between EBers and IDers) is the answer to the question, "where does the teleology manifest in biology come from"? EBers such as Ernst Mayr assert that it is an
emergent property of natural selection, whereas IDers assert that it comes from an "intelligent designer". It has never been clear to me how one would distinguish between these two assertions, at least insofar as they can be empirically tested. Rather, the choice of one or the other seems to me to be a choice between incommensurate metaphysical world views, which are not empirically verifiable by definition.

This is not, however, to say that the distinction between evolutionary and non-evolutionary models of reality is purely and solely a matter of choice of metaphysics. On the contrary, the empirical evidence for evolution is overwhelming, as is the evidence for at least some of the characteristics of living organisms having arisen as the result of natural selection. What is still a matter of dispute is where meaningful information "comes from": does it arise as an emergent property of natural processes (such as natural selection), or must it be "read into nature" from some non-natural source?

That is the question...

REFERENCE CITED:

[1] Orgel, L. (1973) The origins of life, Chapman & Hall, London, UK, pg. 189:

"...living organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures that are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity."

P.S. Shannon information, Kolomogorov information, and Orgel information need not be perceived to exist, but meaningful information does.

P.P.S. As for the second law of thermodynamics, it seems clear to me from what I know about biology (the only natural science that deals with meaningful information) that both encoding and decoding meaningful information requires the transformation of energy from a condition of lower to higher entropy. This is always the case when meaningful information is “transformed”, whether one is referring to the replication of DNA, the transcription of DNA into RNA, the translation of mRNA into polypeptides, the catalysis of biochemical reactions via enzymes, the transduction of changes in the physical environment into action potentials in the sensory nervous system, the transduction of action potentials in the motor nervous and musculoskeletal systems into behaviors, or the playing of a game of chess (regardless of whether one uses a board and pieces).

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Gauss, ID, and the Red Queen Hypothesis

Robert Sheldon has posted a blog entry at Uncommon Descent that is a masterpiece of misdirection, misunderstanding, and mendacity. His post is linked to a longer post at TownHall.com, which I would like to analyze in some detail, as it represents a paradigm of the kind of twisted "logic" that passes for "science" among supporters of "intelligent design". Let's start at the beginning:

First of all, Sheldon asserts that

"a "Gaussian" or "normal" distribution...is the result of a random process in which small steps are taken in any direction."

This is a gross distortion of the definition of a Gaussian distribution. To be specific, a Gaussian distribution is not "the result of a random process in which small steps are taken in any direction". On the contrary, a Gaussian distribution is "a continuous probability distribution that often gives a good description of data that cluster around [a] mean (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaussian_distribution). There is a huge difference between these two "definitions".

• The first – the one invented by Robert Sheldon – completely leaves out any reference to a mean value or the concept of variation from a mean value, and makes it sound like a Gaussian distribution is the result of purely random processes.

• The second – the one defined by Gauss and used by virtually all statisticians and probability theorists – assumes that there is a non-random mean value for a particular measured variable, and illustrates the deviation from this mean value.

Typically, a researcher counts or measures a particular environmental variable (e.g. height in humans), collates this data into discrete cohorts (e.g. meters), and then constructs a histogram in which the abscissa/x axis is the counted/measured variable (e.g. meters) and the ordinate/y axis is the number of individual data points per cohort (e.g. the number of people tallied at each height in meters). Depending on how broad the data cohort, the resulting histogram may be very smooth (i.e. exhibiting “continuous variation”) or “stepped” (i.e. exhibiting “discontinuous variation”).

Graphs of variables exhibiting continuous variation approximate what is often referred to as a “normal distribution” (also called a “bell-shaped curve”). This distribution is formally referred to as a Gaussian distribution, in honor of its discoverer, Carl Friedrich Gauss (this, by the way, is one of only three accurate statements conveyed by Sheldon in the post at TownHall.com). While it is the case that Gaussian distributions are the result of random deviations, they are random deviations from a mean value, which is assumed to be the result of a determinative process.

In the example above, height in humans is not random the way Sheldon defines “random”. If it were, there would be no detectible pattern in human height at all, and we would observe a purely random distribution of human heights from about 0.57 meters to about 2.5 meters. Indeed, we would see no pattern at all in human height, and every possible height would be approximately equally likely.

Instead, we see a bell-shaped (i.e. “normal” or “Gaussian”) distribution of heights centered on a mean value (around 1.6 meters for adults, disregarding gender). The “tightness” of the normal distribution around this mean value can be expressed as either the variance or (more typically) as the standard deviation, both of which are a measure of the deviation from the mean value, and therefore of the variation between the measured values.

Sheldon goes on to state in the post at TownHall.com that “[s]o universal is the "Gaussian" in all areas of life that it is taken to be prima facie evidence of a random process.” This is simply wrong; very, very wrong – in fact, profoundly wrong and deeply misleading. A Gaussian distribution is evidence of random deviation from a determined value (i.e. a value that is the result of a determinative process). Indeed, discovering that a set of measured values exhibits a Gaussian distribution indicates that there is indeed some non-random process determining the mean value, but that there is some non-determined (i.e. “random”) deviation from that determined value.

Why does Sheldon so profoundly misrepresent the definitions and implications of Gaussian distributions? He says so himself:

“Because many people predict that Darwinian evolution is driven by random processes of small steps. This implies that there must be some Gaussians there if we knew where to look.”

This is only the second accurate statement conveyed in the OP, but Sheldon goes on to grossly misrepresent it. It is the case that the “modern evolutionary synthesis” is grounded upon R. A. Fisher’s mathematical model for the population genetics of natural selection, in which the traits of living organisms are both assumed and shown to exhibit exactly the kind of “continuous variation” that is reflected in Gaussian distributions. Fisher showed mathematically that such variation is necessary for evolution by natural selection to occur. In fact, he showed mathematically that there is a necessary (i.e. determinative) relationship between the amount of variation present in a population and the rate of change due to natural selection, which he called
the fundamental theorem of natural selection.

But in his post at TownHall.com Sheldon goes on to strongly imply that such Gaussian distributions are not found in nature, and that instead most or all variation in nature is “discontinuous”. Along the way, Sheldon also drops a standard creationist canard: “Darwin didn't seem to produce any new species, or even any remarkable cultivars.” Let’s consider these one at a time.

First, most of the characteristics of living organisms exhibit exactly the kind of variation recognized by Gauss and depicted in “normal” (i.e. “bell-shaped”) distributions. There are exceptions: the traits that Mendel studied in his experiments on garden peas are superficially discontinuous (this is Sheldon’s third and only other accurate statement in his post). However, almost any other characteristic (i.e. “trait”) that one chooses to quantify in biology exhibits Fisherian “continuous variation”.

I have already given the example of height in humans. To this one could add weight, skin color, density of hair follicles, strength, hematocrit, bone density, life span, number of children, intelligence (as measured by IQ tests), visual acuity, aural acuity, number of point mutations in the amino acid sequence for virtually all enzymes...the list for humans is almost endless, and is similar for everything from the smallest viruses to the largest biotic entities in the biosphere.

Furthermore, Darwin did indeed produce some important results from his domestic breeding programs. For example, he showed empirically that, contrary to the common belief among Victorian pigeon breeders, all of the domesticated breeds of pigeons are derived from the wild rock dove (Columba livia). He used this demonstration as an analogy for the "descent with modification" of species in the wild. Indeed, much of his argument in the first four chapters of the Origin of Species was precisely to this point: that artificial selection could produce the same patterns of species differences found in nature. No, Darwin didn’t produce any new “species” as the result of his breeding experiments, but he did provide empirical support for his theory that “descent with modification” (his term for “evolution”) could indeed be caused by unequal, non-random survival and reproduction; that is, natural selection.

To return to the main line of argument, by asserting that Mendel’s discovery of “discontinuous variation” undermined Darwin’s assumption that variation was “continuous”, Sheldon has revived the “mutationist” theory of evolution of the first decade of the 20th century. In doing so, he has (deliberately?) misrepresented both evolutionary biology and population genetics. He admits that the “modern evolutionary synthesis” did indeed show that there is a rigorously mathematical way to reconcile Mendelian genetics with population genetics, but he then states

”…finding Gaussians in the spatial distribution of Mendel's genes would restore the "randomness" Darwin predicted….But are Gaussians present in the genes themselves? Neo-Darwinists would say "Yes", because that is the way new information should be discovered by evolution. After all, if the information were not random, then we would have to say it was "put" there, or (shudder) "designed".

And then he makes a spectacular misrepresentation, one so spectacular that one is strongly tempted toward the conclusion that this massive and obvious error is not accidental, but rather is a deliberate misrepresentation. What is this egregious error? He equates the “spatial distribution of Mendel's genes” (i.e. the Gaussian distribution of “continuous variation” of the heritable traits of organisms) with “the distribution of ‘forks’ (i.e. random genetic changes, or “mutations”) in time (i.e. in a phylogenetic sequence).

He does so in the context of Venditti, Meade, and Pagel’s recent letter to Nature on phylogenies and Van Valen’s “red queen hypothesis”. Venditti, Meade, and Pagel’s letter outlined the results of a meta-analysis of speciation events in 101 species of metacellular eukaryotes (animals, fungi, and plants). Van Valen’s “red queen hypothesis” states (among other things) that speciation is a continuous process in evolutionary lineages as the result of “coevolutionary arms races”.

Van Valen suggested (but did not explicitly state) that the rate of speciation would therefore be continuous. Most evolutionary biologists have assumed that this also meant that the rate of formation of new species would not only be continuous, but that it would also be regular, with new species forming at regular, widely spaced intervals as the result of the accumulation of relatively small genetic differences that eventually resulted in reproductive incompatibility. This assumption was neither rigorously derived from first principles nor empirically derived, but rather was based on the assumption that “continuous variation” is the overwhelming rule in both traits and the genes that produce them.

What Venditti, Meade, and Pagel’s analysis showed was that

“… the hypotheses that speciation follows the accumulation of many small events that act either multiplicatively or additively found support in 8% and none of the trees, respectively. A further 8% of trees hinted that the probability of speciation changes according to the amount of divergence from the ancestral species, and 6% suggested speciation rates vary among taxa. “

That is, the original hypothesis that speciation rates are regular (i.e. “clock-like”) as the result of the accumulation of small genetic changes was not supported.

Instead, Venditti, Meade, and Pagel’s analysis showed that

“…78% of the trees fit the simplest model in which new species emerge from single events, each rare but individually sufficient to cause speciation.”

In other words, the genetic events that cause reproductive isolation (and hence splitting of lineages, or “cladogenesis”) are not cumulative, but rather occur at random intervals throughout evolving lineages, thereby producing “…a constant rate of speciation”. Let me emphasize that conclusion again:

The genetic events that cause reproductive isolation…occur at random intervals throughout evolving lineages, thereby producing “…a constant rate of speciation”.

In other words (and in direct and complete contradiction to Sheldon’s assertions in his blog post), Venditti, Meade, and Pagel’s fully support the assumption that the events that cause speciation (i.e. macroevolution) are random:

“…speciation [is the result of] rare stochastic events that cause reproductive isolation.

But it’s worse than that, if (like Sheldon) one is a supporter of “intelligent design”. The underlying implications of the work of Venditti, Meade, and Pagel is not that the events that result in speciation are “designed”, nor even that they are the result of a determinative process like natural selection. Like Einstein’s anathema, a God who “plays dice” with nature, the events that result in speciation are, like the spontaneous decay of the nucleus of a radioactive isotope, completely random and unpredictable. Not only is there no “design” detectible in the events that result in speciation, there is no regular pattern either. Given enough time, such purely random events eventually happen within evolving phylogenies, causing them to branch into reproductively isolated clades, but there is no deterministic process (such as natural selection) that causes them.

Here is Venditti, Meade, and Pagel's conclusion in a nutshell:

Speciation is not the result of natural selection or any other “regular” determinative process. Rather, speciation is the result of “rare stochastic events that cause reproductive isolation.”

And stochastic events are not what Sheldon tried (and failed) to assert they are: they are not regular, determinative events resulting from either the deliberate intervention in nature by a supernatural “designer” nor are they the result of a regular, determinative process such as “natural selection”. No, they are the result of genuinely random, unpredictable, unrepeatable, and irregular “accidents”. Einstein’s God may not “play dice” with nature (although a century of discoveries in quantum mechanics all point to the opposite conclusion), but Darwin’s most emphatically does.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

The Searchers

AUTHORS: William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II

SOURCE: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. San Antonio, TX, USA – October 2009, pp. 2647-2652

COMMENTARY: Allen MacNeill

First, congratulations to Drs. Dembski & Marks! Publication is the life blood of all career academics and the living heart of the intellectual process. It takes courage and hard work (and a little bit of luck) to get your original work published, and more of the same to weather the criticism that inevitably ensues. But, just as one cannot have a fencing match without an opponent, real progress in any intellectual endeavor cannot come from consensus, but only from the clash of ideas and evidence.

And so, to specifics:

I have no quibble with most of the mathematical analysis presented. Indeed, given the assumptions upon which the authors' Conservation of Information (COI) theory is based (with which I do not necessarily agree, but which are clearly presented in their paper), the analysis presented is apparently not completely outside the domain of No Free Lunch (NFL) theorems in general.

However, the same cannot be said for the application of these ideas to biological evolution. To be specific, consider the following quote [Dembski & Marks (2009) pg. 2651, lines 2-5]:

"From the perspective of COI, these limited number of endpoints on which evolution converges constitute intrinsic targets, crafted in part by initial conditions and the environment." [emphasis added]

This is indeed the crux of the issue vis-a-vis biological evolution. While it is clearly the case that Simon Conway-Morris asserts that there is an apparently limited number of biological "endpoints", it is neither the case that Morris' viewpoint represents the core of evolutionary theory, nor that his point is relevant to the analysis of COI presented in Dr. Dembski and Marks' paper.

To be specific, the highlighted qualifier from the quote above – crafted in part by initial conditions and the environment – is precisely the issue under debate between evolutionary biologists and supports of intelligent design (ID).

Taken at face value, this qualifying simply phrase means that, given specific starting conditions and a specific time-varying environmental context, the various mechanisms of evolution (e.g. mutation, natural selection, genetic drift, inbreeding, etc.) tend to converge on a relatively limited set of genotypic and phenotypic "endstates" (i.e. what could be loosely referred to as "evolutionary adaptations").

This is simply another way of defining evolutionary convergence, and in no way constitutes evidence for intrinsic evolutionary teleology. On the contrary, it simply provides support for the hypothesis that, given similar conditions, similar outcomes result.

Furthermore, it assumes that virtually all characteristics of living organisms are adaptations (that is, genotypic/phenotypic characteristics that fulfill some necessary function in the lives of organisms). However, this is manifestly not the case, nor is it an absolutely necessary component of current evolutionary theory. On the contrary, many (perhaps the majority) of the characteristics of living organisms are not adaptive. This is certainly the case at the level of the genome, as evidenced by the neutral and nearly neutraltheories of molecular evolution.

Finally, Morris' (and, by extension, Dembski and Marks') position completely omits any role for historical contingency, which both the fossil and genomic record indicate are of extraordinary importance in macroevolution. As Dembski and Marks state, the "endpoints" (perhaps it would be more precise to refer to them as "way stations") of macroevolution depend fundamentally on initial conditions and the environment. But this is not fundamentally different from Darwin's position in the Origin of Species:

"The complex and little known laws governing variation are the same, as far as we can see, with the laws which have governed the production of so-called specific forms. In both cases physical conditions seem to have produced but little direct effect; yet when varieties enter any zone, they occasionally assume some of the characters of the species proper to that zone." [Darwin, C. (1859) Origin of Species, pg. 472, emphasis added]

Moreover, Dembski and Marks' analysis completely ignores the appearance (or non-appearance) of new genotypic and phenotypic variations, and on the accidental disappearance of such characteristics (via extinction), without regard to the adaptive value of such characteristics, or the lack thereof.

In other words, Dembski and Marks' analysis, while interesting from the standpoint of what could be called "abstract" search algorithms, completely fails to address the central issues of evolutionary biology: the source of evolutionary novelty (i.e. the "engines of variation"), the effects of changing environmental conditions on the actual forms and functions of living organisms, and the fundamental importance of historical contingency in the ongoing evolution of genotypes and phenotypes.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

The Longest Running Failed Prediction in Creationism

AUTHOR: G.R. Morton

SOURCE: Answers in Science

COMMENTARY: Allen MacNeill

First, today is the 150th anniversary of the original publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species. So many people have written about this event that it would be superfluous for me to write about it here. However, some of what has been written about the Origin lately, mostly by creationists and supporters of "intelligent design", is that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection is "crumbling" and will soon be "dead".

Admittedly, I have written recently that the "modern evolutionary synthesis" is dead (see here for more), but in doing so I have taken pains to point out that the theory of evolution itself is most assuredly not dead. On the contrary, it is very much alive. Indeed, it has never been more vigorous than it is today.

But that's not what the creationists are saying. What they're saying (or trying to say) is that the whole concept of evolution itself is dead: the Earth and everything on it was created a relatively short time ago, and even if life on Earth has changed (a little), all of that change has been guided by the deity of the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, etc.) Indeed, just this morning a new podcast was launched at the website of the Discovery Institute, in which neo-Paleyist and ID creationist John West asserts once again that "Darwinism is dead".

Is this news? And is it new? How long have creationists been predicting the demise of Darwin's theory of evolution? Apparently, they've been doing so since a few decades before Darwin published it. G. R. Morton has compiled a short list of quote from creationists predicting the impending overthrow of the theory of evolution (you can read it here). He introduces his anthology of science denialism with this:

In recent reading of [Dr. William] Dembski and other ID proponents I saw them make a claim which has been made for over 40 years. This claim is one that the young-earthers have been making. The claim is that evolution (or major supporting concepts for it) is increasingly being abandoned by scientists, or is about to fall. This claim has many forms and has been made for over 162 years. This is a compilation of the claims over time. The purpose of this compilation is two-fold. First, it is to show that the claim has been made for a long, long time. Secondly, it is to show that entire careers have passed without seeing any of this movement away from evolution. Third, it is to show that the creationists are merely making these statements for the purpose of keeping hope alive that they are making progress towards their goal. In point of fact, no such progress is being made as anyone who has watched this area for the last 40 years can testify. The claim is false as history and present-day events show, yet that doesn't stop anyone wanting to sell books from making that claim.

Morton's quotations from creationists begins with a quote dating to 1825, 34 years before Darwin published the Origin of Species. Apparently, what many historians have asserted was true: that the idea of evolution was "in the air" in the mid-19th century, and that Darwin simply codified and provided evidence for an idea that was already becoming generally well-known and at least partially accepted. The fact that Alfred Russell Wallace came up with the same mechanism that Darwin did for descent with modification — natural selection — is further evidence for the idea that evolution was "in the air" at the time.

It still is, and even moreso. Not only has the theory of evolution not "crumbled", it is currently undergoing its most rapid expansion since 1859. Darwin's original theory was limited strictly to biological evolution, but now his theory is being extended into astrophysics, geology, economics, psychology, sociology, and even literature and art history. It is this tremendous success that upsets the opponents of Darwin's theory, and that impels them (in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary) that the most widely accepted, most generally applicable, and most analytically powerful theory in all of science is on its way out.

In other words (and true to their creationist roots), they stare reality in the face and deny it.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Comfortable Creationists Wimp Out at Cornell

Many people have recently heard about how creationist and televangelist Ray Comfort has been planning to distribute 170,000 copies of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species at the 100 top colleges and universities in America.

Well, the appointed day (19 November) for Ray's distribution of the Origin came and went, but apparently no creationists showed up at Cornell to pass out Ray's "abridged" copy of the Origin of Species with Ray's laughably mendacious introduction. I really wanted to get a copy, eagerly pressed into my grasp by the hot little hands of a freshly scrubbed creationist, but after checking every likely location — from Ho Plaza in front of the Straight (where there were a few empty folding tables, sitting forlornly in the rain) to the plaza between Olin and Uris libraries (where a few damp smokers contemplated "The Song of the Vowels") to Trillium (where Cornell's elite meet to eat) to Mann Library (the second largest agriculture and biology library in the world...where is the first, exactly?) to Appell Commons (where you can work up a sweat before downing your stir fry)...nada, nobody, zip, just grey sky and freezing rain. And so my quest for another artifact from the culture wars went unsatisfied...

Apparently, Ray got worried that people like me would make things "unComfortable" for his minions, so he secretly ordered them to go out a day early. But, this is the Age of Twitter, and so a lot of Godless Evilutionists were out in force on Wednesday...but, no Comfortable creationists then either. Looks like I picked up that bunch of bananas for nothing — *sigh*

By the way, Ray Comfort has apparently been making a career out of lying lately, asserting that his version of the Origin would be passed out at Cornell yesterday, and that his bastardized version would be available in its entirety. Although I didn't get my copy, I have been informed by people at other academic institutions who did that, on the contrary, he's apparently cut out precisely those chapters that have proven most inconvenient for creationists in the past. And, he's added a fifty-page "introduction" that's filled with laughably inaccurate so-called "arguments" against the content of Darwin's masterpiece.

Furthermore, his apparently false claim that he was printing 170,000 copies of his version of the Origin was apparently intended to push his version to the top of Amazon.com's search results for the Origin of Species, where members of the uninformed public who were interested in reading Darwin's masterpiece during this bicentennial year (it's the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth and the 150th anniversary of the first publication of the Origin of Species) would innocently buy his bastardized version with his mendacious introduction. A clever public relations gambit — gaming Amazon.com's popularity algorithm — but I guess he forgot about the reviewer's comments at Amazon, where his lying and propaganda techniques and public relations tricks have been exposed by people more interested in the truth than making money by shilling for Jesus (who would have been horrified by Ray's tactics, and probably by his theology as well).

So, why did Ray's minions wimp out at Cornell? Maybe because Cornell is well-known for being the Ivy League university most dedicated to the principles of modern science, including evolutionary biology — we've got the best department of ecology and evolutionary biology in the world, and Cornellians (including our presidents) have been well-known for speaking out against bad science since the beginning.

Or maybe because Ray's followers were "discomfited" by our ever-present November drizzle...

...whatever.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

The Modern Synthesis is Dead - Long Live the Evolving Synthesis!

It has been almost exactly a century and a half since Darwin's Origin of Species was first published, and half a century since the conference at the University of Chicago where the "triumph" of the "modern evolutionary synthesis" was celebrated. So, isn't it a little odd that some well-respected scientists and historians of science are proclaiming in this celebratory year that the modern evolutionary synthesis is dead?

For example, Eugene Koonin, senior investigator at the National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, and National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland, has published two essays on the current status of the "modern evolutionary synthesis":

The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475.

Abstract: The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the On the Origin of Species could prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis. The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.

and

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics.
Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034.

ABSTRACT: Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.

A big deal, right? Well, not really. Will Provine and I have been saying that “the modern evolutionary synthesis is dead” for years. Indeed, Will Provine coined the phrase “the hardening of the synthesis” to describe the narrowing of focus in evolutionary theory during the first half of the 20th century to concepts entirely reducible to mathematical models, especially theoretical population genetics.

Ironically, Dr. John Sanford and Dr. William Dembski (among others in the ID camp) have not moved beyond this narrow focus on theoretical population genetics, and so have apparently missed the fact that evolutionary biology has evolved far beyond the narrow theoretical focus of the mid-20th century. Some ID supporters have also suggested that Dr. Koonin might be taking a “big career risk” in stating the obvious. I don't think so. On the contrary, what Dr. Koonin has pointed out is that evolutionary biology today is broader, more generally applicable, and less narrowly focused than at any time since the publication of the Origin of Species 150 years ago. Being an evolutionary biologist today is like being a physicist in 1905 — a whole new world of theoretical and practical empirical research is opening up, with new discoveries being made every day.

As just one example, Kyoto-prize-winning evolutionary biologists Peter and Rosemary Grant have reported on something that Darwin could only speculate about: the systematic empirical documentation of the “origin” of a new species (reported here yesterday). Creationists have of course moved the goalposts, arguing that they accepted all along that new species could arise from existing ones, it’s just microevolution, which of course everyone accepts. This, despite the fact that speciation has always been considered to be the first (and perhaps most important) stage in macroevolution, and that less than two decades ago creationists were confidently stating that “true” speciation had not only never been observed, it couldn’t ever be observed because it can’t happen.

Now the leaders of the ID movement — people like Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. William Dembski — publicly state that they fully accept that descent with modification from common ancestors (i.e. evolution) has happened, that microevolution (i.e. natural selection, sexual selection, and genetic drift) are also fully supported by the evidence, and that the “real” focus of disagreement is over the “engines of variation” that produce the raw material upon which the “engines of evolution” operate. They’ve come a long way, but they’ve missed the parade by a couple of decades. So it goes…

I would say that Dr. Koonin's essays on where evolutionary biology is today are quite close to the the mark. The concept of natural selection as the foundation of evolutionary change has been largely superseded, mostly through the work of Motoo Kimura, Tomoko Ohta, and others, who have shown both theoretically and empirically that natural selection has little or no effect on the vast majority of the genomes of most living organisms.

However, ID supporters should find this sea change in evolutionary biology to be cold comfort. The overall effect of the advances in our understanding of how genomes and phenotypes change over time has had the same effect on evolutionary theory that the rise of quantum mechanics had on classical physics. Einstein famously asserted that “God does not play dice”, but a century of physics research has shown him to be more wrong about how the universe works at the quantum level than ever.

The same is true for the “evolving synthesis”. Rather than revert to a neo-Paleyan paradigm (as proposed by Behe, Dembski, and their supporters), evolutionary biology has gone in the opposite direction, the same direction that quantum mechanics has taken. According to the “modern synthesis” of the last century, the genome was “homeostatic”, “organized”, and “regulated” primarily by natural selection. Sure there were purely random processes also going on (such as genetic drift), but most evolutionary change was both adaptive and coherent over time.

Here's what Dr. Koonin writes (see above):

"There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation."

Kimura, Ohta, Jukes, and Crow dropped a monkey wrench into the "engine" at the heart of the modern synthesis — natural selection — and then Gould and Lewontin finished the job with their famous paper on “the spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm”. The rise of evo-devo over the past two decades has laid the groundwork for a completely new and empirically testable theory of macroevolution, a theory that is currently facilitating exponential progress in our understanding of how major evolutionary transitions happen. And iconoclasts like Lynn Margulis, Eva Jablonka, Marian Lamb, Mary Jane West-Eberhard, and David Sloan Wilson are rapidly overturning our understanding of how evolutionary change happens at all levels, and how it is inherited.

So, as I have said many times before, when ID supporters set their sights on “neo-Darwinism” as a target for criticism, they set their sights on a model that has been all but abandoned. The carnival has moved on and ID supporters are fighting battles that evolutionary biologists left behind a half century and more ago.

And so, on this 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origin of Species, evolutionary biologists can raise a frosty glass and say


The modern synthesis is dead — long live the evolving synthesis!


************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

The ID Cookie Crumbles...

During this year of celebration of Darwin and evolutionary biology, Intelligent Design (ID) supporters are fond of asserting that a branch of the biological sciences that currently accounts for over 100 regularly published journals (containing over 1000 peer-reviewed scientific reports) per year, over 1000 books published by reputable scientific publishers per year, and involving grant and foundation support amounting to several billion dollars per year is "crumbling", while ID, which accounts for not one peer-reviewed scientific journal and one peer-reviewed book (published over a decade ago) is replacing it.

I can go to Mann Library here at Cornell (the second largest library of biology in the world, comprising over a million books and bound periodicals) and find the equivalent of an entire floor devoted to evolutionary biology. I couldn't carry this month's issues of the various journals devoted to evolutionary biology to the loan desk, even if I used a large laundry basket and made several trips. I have a paltry selection of the most current books on the subject of evolution in my personal library: only 1000+ volumes published in the past ten years or so. If I had unlimited funds, I could buy ten times as many, and still could not keep up with the field.

Virtually every large university in the world has a department of ecology and evolutionary biology. Here at Cornell we have such a department, with almost two dozen professors and dozens of graduate students, and there are at least five other departments at Cornell who number evolutionary biologists among their members. There are almost half a dozen undergraduate and graduate organizations devoted to the scientific aspects of evolutionary biology at Cornell; branches of such societies are found worldwide.

By contrast, there are two tenured professors in the entire world who explicitly support ID, only one of whom is in a department devoted to an empirical science (the other teaches at a theological seminary). Neither of them is currently engaged in empirical research intended to validate ID.

Of the 35+ undergraduate IDEA clubs (a very liberal estimate) that were founded during the heyday of ID (the late 1990s and early 2000s), not one is currently maintaining a website or apparently meeting regularly. And according to Google Trends, interest by the news media in ID has fallen almost to zero since the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial in late 2005, while interest in evolutionary biology is at an all-time high and still increasing with no end in sight.

So, based on the empirical evidence, which is "crumbling", evolutionary biology or ID?

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Why I Post Comments on Creationist and ID Blogs

A fellow blogger asked me recently "Why waste your time posting [at creationist and ID blogs] at all? You do not seem to have a receptive audience." Other people ask me why I generally treat creationists and ID supporters with respect, rather than taking every opportunity to heap scorn and ridicule upon them. Here's what I hope is an adequate explanation to both of these questions.

I post comments at creationist and ID blogs (when I have the time, which is definitely not all the time) because I expect that there are a lot of people who read these comments without participating directly in such debates. This is why I try to keep as civil a tone as possible, especially when my opponents use ad hominem arguments, character assassination, insults, and ridicule. The contrast between their tactics and mine undermines their credibility (and, by extension, that of their soi dissant “science”). Indeed, some commentator’s comments are so insulting that I refuse to respond to them, and I believe that this does not pass unnoticed by readers who are not yet irrationally committed to one side or the other.

Also, as a teacher (currently in my 35th year of teaching at Cornell University), I feel a professional responsibility to correct some of the more egregious misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the science of evolutionary biology which are promulgated at creationist and ID blogs. Some of these misrepresentations clearly stem from ignorance, and in a gratifying number of cases some the commentators whom I have corrected have thanked me for the information and references I have provided.

However, other misrepresentations are apparently part of a deliberate and ongoing effort to distort the public record and deliberately misrepresent the relevant scientific information for political and religious purposes. I strongly believe that this kind of mendacity should be exposed for what it is, and for what it isn’t (i.e. it isn’t science).

Furthermore, I have always tried to emulate the long-standing Quaker tradition of “speaking truth to power”, which is the opposite of “preaching to the choir”. It means confronting directly what I perceive to be misunderstanding (and what I perceive to be deliberate mendacity), rather than limiting my interactions to people with whom I already agree. I agree with Charles Darwin, who said that he paid much more attention to the criticisms of people who disagreed with him than the praise of people who agreed with him. Like Darwin, I find that debating with people with whom I disagree helps me greatly to clarify my own position on the relevant issues, and to help my opponents clarify theirs. I believe that it would be a terribly boring (and non-progressive) world in which everyone agreed upon every subject, and so I am grateful to some of the commentators here for helping me improve my understanding of the relevant issues and my ability to argue persuasively for what I perceive to be the best supported position.

Like Hegel, I believe that genuine synthesis usually arises out of the clash between thesis and antithesis, and that progress in human understanding is almost always gained at the price of diligence, honesty, and honor. As my fencing master often says, “a gentleman is always gracious and dignified in defeat, humble and gentle in victory”. I have to the best of my ability tried to account myself according to this standard of conduct, and believe that the world would be a better place if everyone tried to do so.

Finally, to the best of my ability, I try to “fight the good fight” in defense of what I understand to be an accurate description of reality. I expect my opponents to do the same. When they do, I tell them so. Indeed, if they do a good job, I congratulate them, especially if they persuade me to change my mind, as the result of sufficiently convincing arguments. However, when my opponents depart from honorable and honest argumentation and stoop to ad hominem attacks, character assassination, insults, and ridicule, I call them on it and I inform them in no uncertain terms that I will no longer respond to them.

The same principles apply to this blog, and can be read here.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Rescuing Darwin from His Detractors (and Supporters)

TITLE: Rescuing Darwin

AUTHOR: Paul Fayter

SOURCE: The United Church Observer

SUMMARY: Ever since the Origin of Species was first published 150 years ago, scientists and creationists have tried to spin the religious views of Charles Darwin their way.

COMMENTARY: This article by Paul Fayter (appearing on a website sponsored by The United Church Observer, a Christian organization) directly contradicts many of the assertions made by some evolutionary biologists and most ID supporters, including most of the egregious distortions in Benjamin Wiker's recent book,
The Darwin Myth: The Life and Lies of Charles Darwin.

Unlike Wiker and most ID supporters, Paul Fayter has spent a significant fraction of his professional life studying Charles Darwin and his work. Here's what he found:

- Darwin was not an atheist when he wrote the Origin of Species and therefore could not possibly have written it as an "apology" for his atheism;

- the most important factors in his eventual agnosticism were 1) the death of his daughter, Annie, and 2) his view that a benevolent deity would not have created a world with such horrors as parasites (and the indiscriminate death of innocents);

- that despite his agnosticism, Darwin remained a "practicing" member of both the Church of England and his local parish church;

- that despite his embrace of the science of evolutionary theory, he did not descend into a life of libertinism and immorality, nor did he distort his theory to support any political position (including eugenics or "social darwinism");

- he remained a dedicated scientist, a loving husband, a doting father, a devoted member of his parish, and an unwavering opponent of slavery and its concomitant evils; and

- he also remained what would now be considered to be a "theistic evolutionist" until his death.

Here is Faytor's conclusion:

Darwin was able to reconcile the power and glory of a good and loving God with nature's cold indifference and manifest cruelty - the infamous and pitiless "survival of the fittest" - by viewing struggle, pain, suffering and death not as the direct will of God but as the result of the impersonal operation of universal laws. The process of evolution by means of natural selection was deadly and wasteful, and yet, as Darwin concluded in The Origin, it had a higher, nobler purpose. Higher species would evolve. The Creator - the God of scientific theism - lawfully drew good out of evil and progress out of pain.

Near the end of his life, Darwin thought it impossible to conceive that "this immense and wonderful universe" was "the result of blind chance or necessity." No, it still seemed that the world had been willed into being. "I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man," he wrote in his autobiography, "and I deserve to be called a Theist." At the same time, Darwin believed that "the mystery of the beginning of all things" was simply unsolvable; and so he also declared, "I for one must be content to remain an agnostic."

All of this directly contradicts Wiker's biography of Darwin and the opinions of most ID supporters. Demonizing Darwin, especially when there are very good (and unbiased) biographies of Darwin (not to mention his own, very candid autobiography) does nothing to harm Darwin's scientific reputation. By contrast, the fundamental misunderstanding among many ID supporters of how real science is done does quite a bit to harm ID's scientific reputation.

Neither evolutionary biology nor ID will be advanced or forestalled as scientific enterprises by pro- or anti-hagiographies of Charles Darwin (or any other individual scientist or ID supporter). This will happen only when sufficient field and laboratory work has been done and the results published in reputable scientific journals to decide between them. So far ID supporters have chosen to pursue a political program and the vilification of world-renowned scientists, rather than do the requisite science. Until they decide to abandon ad hominem arguments and actually focus on the science, they will remain (like "scientific creationism") a cautionary footnote to the history of the triumph of evolutionary biology.

In closing, I find it quite significant that only ID supporters refer to Darwin as a "little God". Like all evolutionary biologists, I consider him to have been a dedicated and talented observer of nature and a genuinely good person, but (like all of us) a plain and simple (and, of course, fallible) human.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen

Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Banana Diet

There has been a lot of speculation lately about the status of "intelligent design". Last December, I posted an essay on the demise of the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness clubs. At that time it was clear that the IDEA club movement at American colleges and universities was dead. Despite protestations to the contrary, the available data indicate that this is still the case.

Which leads to a more interesting question: what is the current status of the intelligent design "movement"? This question is even more significant this month, as November 24th marks the 150th anniversary of the original publication of Charles Darwin's Origin of Species, the founding document of the science of biology and the most influential book ever published in the natural sciences. Although some ID supporters assert that ID is compatible with evolutionary theory, it is clear from even a cursory examination of their views that the majority of ID supporters are opposed to the idea of evolution in virtually all of its versions.

Which brings me to the point of this blogpost: what impact has ID had on mainstream evolutionary theory, and which of these alternative explanations for the origin of adaptations and the diversity of life is gaining in veracity and which is losing? One way to answer this question is to analyze the frequency with which the terms "evolution" and "intelligent design" appear in internet searches and in news stories in the mainstream media. To assess this, Google has a marvelous tool: Google Trends. The following two graphs were produced using Google Trends. I have copied the graphs directly from the relevant web pages, adding only the red line at 1.5 (on the Y axis) to make possible comparison of relative values.


The first graph (above) shows the frequency of the term "evolution" as it appeared in Google searches and in news articles on the web over the past six years. What the upper graph shows is that Google search volume for the term "evolution" has fluctuated over the past six years, but held relatively steady. The lower graph shows that there has been a steady increase in news articles about evolution over the past six years.


The second graph (above) shows the frequency of the term "intelligent design" as it appeared in Google searches and in news articles on the web over the same six years. As you can see, these graphs are markedly different than those for "evolution". These graphs show that prior to 2005 there were very few searches and almost no news stories for "intelligent design". In 2005 this pattern changed abruptly: by the end of the year, there were over ten times as many Google searches for the term "intelligent design", and a concomitant spike in news articles on the same subject. This spike corresponds to the Kitzmiller vs. Dover Area School District trialin Dover, Pennsylvania, in the course of which the ID movement gained national attention. The decision in that trial, issued by Judge John E. Jones (a Republican, appointed by President George W. Bush), was widely hailed as a massive defeat for the ID movement.

This assessment is borne out by the remainder of the graph. As you can see, both internet searches and news articles on ID have declined precipitously since December of 2005, falling to almost unmeasurably low levels.


This graph (above), comparing the search volume and news article frequency of the terms "evolution" (in blue) and "intelligent design" (in red) is even more revealing. Here it can easily be seen that both search volume and news articles on "evolution" have consistently dwarfed those for "intelligent design", even during the period covering the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. Furthermore, there is a steady upward trend in the frequency of news articles on evolution, while the frequency of news articles on intelligent design has fallen to almost unmeasurable levels.

So, what are we to make of these trends? Clearly, interest in evolution is on a steady upward course, which just as clearly reflects its importance in the sciences. As I have written elsewhere, the fundamental concepts of the theory of evolution by natural selection have been steadily spreading into all of the branches of biology, and have recently begun to transform such disparate fields as psychology, literature, and even diets and nutrition and art.

By contrast, interest in intelligent design exploded in 2005 and has crashed since then. What other phenomena exhibit this same "boom and bust" pattern? One such transitory phenomenon is the explosion in fad diets. For example, this graph shows the Google search volume and news article frequency for the term "banana diet" (the choice of this term was at least partly in honor of young Earth creationist and ID supporter, Ray Comfort):


The similarity between this graph (above) and the graph for "intelligent design" is striking, and is probably no accident. As many critics of ID have asserted, the ID movement has essentially consisted of a public relations campaign, rather than a scientific research program. Public relations campaigns, like advertising campaigns in general, often show the "boom and bust" pattern shown in the "intelligent design" and "banana diet" graphs. This is because public relations campaigns do not depend on veracity, but rather on appearance. The supporters of ID (such as the Discovery Institute in Seattle, WA) have consistently promoted ID as a scientific research program, but even a cursory examination shows that, while there is abundant evidence that ID is a quasi-religious movement, there is virtually no empirical research being conducted by its supporters.

And so, as we approach the 150th anniversary of the founding of the rapidly expanding science of evolutionary biology, we may note in passing that this anniversary can also be used to mark the demise of the ID movement, a phenomenon with all of the earmarks of a passing fad and all of the scientific content of the banana diet.

************************************************

As always, comments, criticisms, and suggestions are warmly welcomed!

--Allen