Philip Skell

Transcription

Hello again, Casey Luskin. I'd like to talk to you about the recent email newsletter I received. It's called Nota Bene, and it included a link to an article called "Evaluating Nature's 2009 "15 Evolutionary Gems" Darwin-Evangelism Kit" I'd like to point out for you, Mr. Luskin, where you used a few common fallacies. I'm sure you will appreciate the corrections, because I know how committed you are to rationality and honesty. First, I note that you mock the cover art on the Nature brochure as resembling religious tracts. You compare it to Jesus and lion-lamb imagery. The difference here is that Darwin was in fact a naturalist, what we might today call a zoologist and he is pictured with the subject of some of his books. If Jesus had been a lion tamer, I think it might have been appropriate imagery to picture him with a lion. If he were a vet, a lamb might not be inappropriate. However, he is reported to have been a carpenter and perhaps that's why he's frequently pictured in the context of lumber and nails. You next point out that Nature was originally published in part to popularize the new theory of evolution by TH Huxley and others. This is true. It is also true that it is the most cited interdisciplinary science journal. The very pinnacle, with an impact factor of over 34. And your attempt to smear this journal based on your disagreement with the nature of its founding in 1869 constitutes a fallacy called the Genetic Fallacy, where a conclusion is based on something's origins, rather than its current meaning or context. We could really use your argument in a textbook, it's so clearly fallacious. Next, Mr. Luskin, you use a classic creationist fallacy of creating a distinction without a difference, micro and macroevolution. Such terms both refer to the same common mechanisms. Allelic change over time WITHIN a species and allelic change over time BETWEEN species is still just allelic change over time. You could have gotten this information from the very brochure you are reviewing in your article. The mechanisms of evolution, such as genetic drift, selection, mutation, aneuploidy, polyploidy, coevolution, migration, and gene conversion work both within species and between them. Where, indeed, would we define the end of micro and beginning of macro in terms of the mechanisms of change? I suspect: only at your level of comfort with the science. Interestingly, you minimize the number of items in the brochure that relate to macroevolution. "Most", you say, might be "best views as "microevolutionary" gems" I would point out your spelling and grammar errors, but I'm too polite to say that it should be "best be viewed" not "be best views" But I am not too polite to say that, by my count, 12 of the 15 items are about changes above the species level. The remaining three deal with subspecies population dynamics. 12 of 15, it should be noted, is a majority, so your claim that "Most might be best views as microevolutionary gems" is factually false. Here's another rather blatant fallacy, this time a fallacy of substitution. You state correctly that the packet says ""Most biologists take for granted the idea that all life evolved by natural selection over billions of years ... natural selection is a fact, in the same way that the Earth orbits the Sun is a fact." and then argue that if that statement is true, then we will find no notable scientific dissent from the view that "all life evolved by natural selection". If you are arguing against the second part of the quoted statement, then you should use the same terms. Natural selection is NOT disputed by any serious biologist I know of. The first part of the quoted statement, that "Most biologists take for granted that all life evolved by natural selection" uses the term "most" which is a generalization supported by polls of scientists that show over 99% of research biologists support the modern theory of evolution. However, you substitute "all" in place of "most" in your proposed test and claim that we shouldn't be able to find scientists who disagree. Therein lies the primary fallacy. But then, dear Casey, you begin the use of personal quotes. You first quote Suzan Mazur, a journalist, as though she were an authority on scientific acceptance of evolution. However, she's not a very credible source. She wrote a book on an evolution theory scientific conference that was described by attendees as speculative fiction. Her non-scientific opinion isn't very good supporting evidence for the prevalence of anti-evolutionary thought in research biology. Here we hit the primary underlying fallacy of your article, Mr. Luskin. You frequently confuse opinions for evidence. It might edify you to know that science is not a courtroom with a jury voting on theories. There is no democracy in research. You cite the opinions of 800 scientists who signed a statement, but you should know that this means as much to me as if you got 800 mathemeticians to agree that 2+2 equals 5. I would want to see the math. Well, for intelligent design creationism it doesn't matter how many park rangers and engineers you can produce to vote your way on the jury. In science, we count evidence submitted in peer review and you came empty handed, Casey. There's more quote mining and argument from authority. You managed to quote creationist chemist Phillip Skell and Nobel winning Professor of Geoscience Lynn Marguilis, but as I previously stated, I'm not terribly interested in their opinions on the topic, only their empirical data. The next to last problem in your article isn't so much a fallacy as a lack of due diligence on your part. You state that if evolution is as factual as heliocentrism as claimed in the brochure, why don't we see an active effort to combat geocentrism. You claim that this is because no-one of consequence disagrees. You apparently missed the modern geocentrists. They are quite serious, and have published serious books and papers. In fact, Gallup polls suggest that up to 19% of Britons, 18% of Americans, and 16% of Germans believe the sun revolves around the Earth. This is apparently because of a religious commitment, not unlike the commitment many people have to a literal Biblical creation. Some of them are also quite fond of your work, as I understand, and it's important not to alienate your supporters, so I would "ix-nay" the "elio-centrism-hay". The last fallacy in your article, Mr. Luskin, is the claim that the journal Nature is being too passionate in making their case and therefore suppressing academic freedom, a phrase that is bordering on mantra for the Discovery Institute. The brochure itself is a summary of current findings and theories. Along with summaries and discussion, it contains citations of original research papers containing evidence to support the described conclusions. Academic freedom is your right to go into the field, or into the lab, and produce data to challenge or falsify these existing models. I haven't seen much research from the DI, nor from its wholly owned subsidiary, the Biologic Institute. Get out there and excercise your academic freedom, Casey! Pick up a pipettor and get to work. Let me be clear here, because this is something the Discovery Institute really needs to get their heads around. Academic freedom is not the right to make whatever claims you like and have them respected. We don't all have an inherent equal opportunity to scientific equality. That's what you seem to think, that everyone should have the right to publicly state whatever views they want and not be subject to ridicule and criticism. Those without evidentiary support are not entitled to equal time with theories supported by hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers. Let me give you a very clear definition of academic freedom, Mr. Luskin. It's the right to do research, engage in scholarship, and develop theories and then attempt to present them in the appropriate forum. But the ideas themselves are not guaranteed any success. The scientists who attempt to subvert the scientific burden of proof will be slapped down, as your colleagues have been. They may be denied access to serious journals if their cases have no scientific merit. That is not a violation of their academic freedom, it is the process of peer-reviewed publication. If they can't hack it, I suggest they look for other work. Likewise, professors who are unable to support their claims with empirical experimentation will find themselves edged out by more productive scientists who do. There are a lot of us out here, and not that many tenure track spots. Don't be surprised when someone's politics or ideology gets in the way of their research, that they get left behind in the dog-eat-dog world of research. I understand that you plan on extending your criticism of Nature's brochure on evolution to an eight part series. Hopefully you will receive this open letter before you make too many more of the same fallacies. I'm sure you share my enthusiasm for science and logic, so I know you'll want to make the appropriate changes. Sincerely, C0n0c0rdance. p.s. Good luck on your next court case. I'll do my best to attend, and I'll even bring my friends.