Sorry, but you don’t deserve evidence — you’re not peer-reviewed!
|April 19, 2007||Posted by William Dembski under Darwinism, Evolution|
I asked Walter ReMine to write up his recent experiences debating Haldane’s Dilemma:
Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane’s Dilemma
By Walter ReMine
For many years I have publicly claimed Haldane’s Dilemma is a major unsolved problem for evolution. A problem so severe it threatens macroevolution as a “fact” and evolutionary genetics as an empirical science. The problem, briefly, is that evolutionary geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane (1957), discovered an important argument that limits the speed of evolution. Under his calculations, an ape-human-like population, given a generous ten million years, could substitute no more than 1,667 beneficial mutations — which, according to evolutionary geneticists, are each typically a single nucleotide. All the human adaptations within that time would have to be explained with this small number of substitutions. For more information, see here: http://tinyurl.com/3dtzjq.
The issue at the moment is: Evolutionists are withholding key evidence.
Toward a solution, evolutionary geneticist, Leonard Nunney, published a paper reporting his computer simulations. He claimed his computer simulations show rates of beneficial evolution much faster than the Haldane limit. Evolutionists now cite Nunney’s computer simulation as a refutation of my position.
Starting December 19, 2006, I sent emails to Prof. Nunney, expressing my interest in his paper, and requesting access to his simulation software. (I also emailed one of his colleagues, in his same evolutionary genetics department.) I received no answer. After several emails, across several months, I eventually reached Professor Nunney by phone on April 5th. He acknowledged he had received my emails, and said he had not responded because I “do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)
I again requested his software for my examination of his published results and methods. He declined, saying he will not share his software with “people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)
I’m sure Prof. Nunney is a fine person, but this is bad public policy. Nunney’s simulation is claimed as a solution to Haldane’s Dilemma. (Quite falsely, I would add.) And Nunney’s work was done at a tax-supported institution, (the University of California, Riverside). And Haldane’s Dilemma is part of a high profile public controversy directly affecting our politics, and our public schools – where evolutionists exert monopoly control. Evolutionists have an obligation to be forthcoming on the matter. Yet they are withholding their evidence.
The NCSE connection —
The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is the leading organization fighting against creation/ID/anti-evolution. Their Public Information Project Director, Nick Matzke, edited articles on Haldane’s Dilemma, at various sites (including Wikipedia and
ResearchID.org), to praise Nunney’s computer simulation, and to smear me for not addressing it.
So I contacted NCSE requesting their position on Nunney’s withholding of the computer simulation. I received a response from NCSE’s Deputy Director, Glenn Branch. Despite me giving NCSE direct knowledge of the affair, from a first person participant, he said he had no “independent knowledge” of the matter (Is that something NCSE consistently requires?), and therefore he is “unable to comment.” If they have no “independent knowledge,” it is simply because they do not seek it. It’s not difficult in this case.
NCSE has a problem: They cannot continue smearing me for “not addressing” Nunney’s simulation, while simultaneously condoning
Nunney’s refusal to turn over the simulation. NCSE is trying to have it both ways.
I also asked NCSE for their appraisal of the Wikipedia article on Haldane’s Dilemma. I have publicly condemned the Wikipedia article as a monument to evolutionists’ persistent efforts to suppress, deny, obfuscate, confuse, and misrepresent Haldane’s Dilemma. Given that NCSE is aware of the article, and even edited the article itself: Does NCSE regard the Wikipedia article as a suitable representation of this controversy? Glenn Branch answered indirectly, by acknowledging he understands how wiki operates — if they were dissatisfied with the Wikipedia article, it is possible to edit it.
NCSE has another problem — it has a hand in editing and condoning articles that grossly mishandle Haldane’s Dilemma.
Haldane’s Dilemma is a scandal several decades long already – and the scandal keeps getting worse.
— Walter ReMine