Again, not to harp too much on the creationists, but the tend to be the more prolific of the WWW denialists. Today alone they have a wonderful example of "poisoning the well"/ad hominem, they're propagating that tiresome Al Gore smear (again poisoning the well/ad hominem), but those logical fallacies are too easy. Instead let's talk about this article, "Who doubts common descent? You’d be surprised" by Denyse O'Leary as a perfect example of selectivity, or in this specific instance, quote-mining.

She selects two quotes in particlar, the first from Malcom Gordon of UCLA in his essay The Concept of Monophyly: A Speculative Essay.

"The phenomenon of a monophyletic origin for the universal Tree of Life probably did not occur ... At the macro-scale life appears to have had many origins."

The second from W. Ford Doolittle's inaugural address to the NAS

"Darwin claimed that a unique inclusively hierarchical pattern of relationships between all organisms based on their similarities and differences [the Tree of Life (TOL)] was a fact of nature, for which evolution, and in particular a branching process of descent with modification, was the explanation. However, there is no independent evidence that the natural order is an inclusive hierarchy, and incorporation of prokaryotes into the TOL is especially problematic. The only data sets from which we might construct a universal hierarchy including prokaryotes, the sequences of genes, often disagree and can seldom be proven to agree. Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true."

Why don't we do these fine scientists a favor and publish the full quotes. Here's the full abstract from Malcom Gordon's paper.

The concept of monophyly is central to much of modern biology. Despite many efforts over many years, important questions remain unanswered that relate both to the concept itself and to its various applications. This essay focuses primarily on four of these: i) Is it possible to define monophyly operationally, specifically with respect to both the structures of genomes and at the levels of the highest phylogenetic categories (kingdoms, phyla, classes)? ii) May the mosaic and chimeric structures of genomes be sufficiently important factors in phylogeny that situations exist in which the concept may not be applicable? iii) In the history of life on earth were there important groups of organisms that probably had polyphyletic, rather than monophyletic, origins? iv) Does the near universal search for monophyletic origins of clades lead, on occasion, to both undesirable narrowing of acceptable options for development of evolutionary scenarios and sometimes actual omission from consideration of less conventional types of both data and modes of thought, possibly at the expense of biological understanding? Three sections in the essay consider possible answers to these questions: i) A reassessment is made of major features of both the concept and some of its applications. Recent research results make it seem improbable that there could have been single basal forms for many of the highest categories of evolutionary differentiation (kingdoms, phyla, classes). The universal tree of life probably had many roots. Facts contributing to this perception include the phylogenetically widespread occurrences of: horizontal transfers of plasmids, viral genomes, and transposons; multiple genomic duplications; the existence and properties of large numbers of gene families and protein families; multiple symbioses; broad-scale hybridizations; and multiple homoplasys. Next, justifications are reassessed for the application of monophyletic frameworks to two major evolutionary developments usually interpreted as having been monophyletic: ii) the origins of life; and iii) the origins of the vertebrate tetrapods. For both cases polyphyletic hypotheses are suggested as more probable than monophyletic hypotheses. Major conclusions are, as answers to the four questions posed above: probably not, yes, yes, and yes.

And, for Dr. Doolittle's sake let's just tack on the next sentence in that paragraph that O'Leary smartly left out.

This is not to say that similarities and differences between organisms are not to be accounted for by evolutionary mechanisms, but descent with modification is only one of these mechanisms, and a single tree-like pattern is not the necessary (or expected) result of their collective operation.

Hmmm. Pretty typical denialist tactic there. Neither of these scientists is really expressing skepticism about evolutionary theory, or evolutionary mechanisms being responsible for things like increasing biological information, bacterial resistance, or speciation, all of which the DI denies. They're criticizing the tree-of-life model as incomplete in describing all the ways new species branch off from their ancestors. The implication being that if there are scientists who feel that the current model of phylogeny or whatever is not fully descriptive, clearly that means that evolution is "controversial" or there is reason to throw out the whole thing.

It also highlights the fundamentally deceptive nature of the denialist. What do you think? Did O'Leary accurately depict these scientists statements? Or does this feel deceptive to you?

Labels: Denyse O'Leary, Discovery Institute, Evolution denialism

This is what denialism.com is all about, the fact that someone like Denyse O'Leary thinks they know how to think, when they really don't. Check out this essay on why ID should be considered by scientists.

When people examine a new idea for the first time, they often approach it from a basis of older, assumed ideas which cause confusion. They can't really evaluate the new idea properly until the source of confusion has been identified.

In discussing the intelligent design controversy with people, I sometimes hear the following comment:

If scientists conclude that something is designed, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won’t be able to find out anything more about it.

Ok we're starting with a straw man here. Design doesn't make things easier it complicates things with questions like, "who designed the designer?", and "how does this help us make predictions about the natural world?" If God did it, and he's a mysterious guy, that gives us no insight into biology, because who knows why a deity does anything? He's always been so fickle in the past. I guess in a way it's "easy" because it allows you to stop thinking about science, but it certainly doesn't make science any easier. Onward and downward:

On rare occasions, time is permitted for a thoughtful response, so here's one:

Let us look at a real life example: Suppose we say: If the fire marshall's office (FMO) concludes that a fatal fire has been set deliberately, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won't be able to find out anything more about it.

Wow! An analogy! How about that. Instant dismissal. Give me data or give me death. Anyway, she goes on with this analogy, and on, and on. Finally she's done, and what's next? Another analogy!

Should scientists refuse to consider design a possibility because they are “objective”? Well, how about this: Suppose the FMO gets a call from a leading local politician announcing that he wants the arson investigation called off because the FMO has no business assuming that someone might have wanted that building torched?

If the FMO thinks it has reasonable grounds for pursuing its present line of inquiries, should it meekly accept that argument? Should we assume that the politician obstructing the investigation is “objective”? Or rather that he is trying to defend somebody or something? In the same way, materialists attempting to suppress ID-friendly scientists are hardly “objective” in the matter.

The reason the outburst above is confused is that the speaker assumes that design is not a conclusion that can be arrived at by considering evidence and moving on to identify patterns. Underlying that assumption is a lifetime of steady indoctrination by materialism.

Suppose I took a fish and skinned it, then danced in a circle and sang a song about a daisy, it's still not data, so go away. I guess in a way it is that dastardly materialism they so frequently complain about that causes me to believe in evolutionary theory. But the material in question is data. This materialism canard is just another way of saying conspiracy anyway (Scientists won't listen to those wise IDists because they're just too interested in spreading atheistic/materialistic ideology). Therefore I give Denyse a score of 2/5 for denialism for this argument (one point for analogies and logical fallacies, one point for conspiracy). Not a stunning piece of denialism, but it's getting there.

Labels: Denyse O'Leary, Evolution denialism