Blind Guides

_{Cornelius Hunter

July 27, 2010

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Biology textbook authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos are leaders in the life sciences. They are accomplished researchers and professors from leading universities—they are also blind guides. In their otherwise well written and highly produced textbook The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008), Johnson and Losos badly misrepresent science and make fallacious arguments when they present evolution to the student. It is yet another example of smart people spreading lies and foolishness. Read more

Comments

StephenB @ 93 "if you want to argue that the Darwinists in question were really being honest, then by all means, make your case. Perhaps you can persuade me that it was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding." I made my case in 72. You attempted to rebut it with this statement: “Clearly, the authors’ intent was to use fraudulant pictures in order to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process.” Which is an INTERPRETATION on your part in regards to the intent of the authors to mislead somebody. So what exactly is it you think they are misleading their readers into believing? What do you mean by "the same similarities that are present later in the process are also present earlier in the process"? Do you mean that the authors imply that vertebrate embryos start out with a tail and gill slits? That's obviously NOT what any of the authors imply, because every biology text book that includes anything about embryology will inform the reader about zygotes, blastulas, gastrulas, etc.; Or are you claiming that earlier embryos are more dissimilar than the embryo stages depicted in the illustration, and that that's why the choice of illustration is misleading? Oh, and a kind-of-crucial side note: All 10 books listed in 65 use illustrative drawings of embryos - not a SINGLE one uses Haeckel's drawings. Do they look similar to Haeckel's drawings? Sure they do - they are drawings of embryos of the same or similar vertebrate species!!! Are you gonna accuse every illustrator of every book of fraud now, because they might have made a drawing of something that looks similar to something that someone else used for fraudulent purposes?molch_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Your comment reminds me of a comment made a while back by communication scholar, Fred Casmir. He has called it the “fit, damn you, fit” syndrome. He likens it to the famous piece in Greek Mythology known as the PROCRUSTEAN BED.
Thanks for that story, very appropriate.Clive Hayden_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

SA, What should give pause; a set of 1870's faked pictures contrived when horses pulled buggies required Miller in Levine to post a page on the world wide web as a means to explain that they intended on changing their textbook.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT}

Ha! SB, thanks. Personally, I think my mesquite-grilled MahiMahi with a pinch of Herbs de Providence is much better.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

Inasmuch as I am not objecting to your book, I can’t imagine what you are talking about. Well, my book was by Miller and Levine (I googled it) and they were also on your list of dishonest books. It took me a while to realize that I was looking at the 2004 version and you listed a version from 1998. Sorry, I can be a ditz sometimes. I'm glad the 2004 pictures are truthful. I'd hate to think my teacher was lying.San Antonio Rose_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:21 PM
3
03
21
PM
PDT}

Upright Biped, has anyone ever told you that your word pictures, metaphors, and analogies are delicious?StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:17 PM
3
03
17
PM
PDT}

Molch @88. --"So, you seriously believe".... Yes. On the other hand, if you don't like the way I characterized the dishonest activity, feel free to describe the lie in your own words. I am very open minded about these things. Or, if you want to argue that the Darwinists in question were really being honest, then by all means, make your case. Perhaps you can persuade me that it was all just an unfortunate misunderstanding.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
03:11 PM
3
03
11
PM
PDT}

---San Antonio Rose: "But the book I used in bio had photographs of embroyos to show the similarities of development in different species. What are you objecting to?" Inasmuch as I am not objecting to your book, I can't imagine what you are talking about.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

SA, Haeckel published the drawings in 1874 if I remember correctly. Recent textbooks, as recent as 1998 for Ken Miller for instance, were still using the drawings, yet they were known to be faked all the way back in Haeckel's day. It appears that the willful distortion was allowed to persist for something of 120 years - give or take - while the theory that it was used to promote became the most merchadised scientific idea of all time. It's a little like slipping a wee bit of booze in the punch for a hundred or so years - then asking if anyone wants anything else. Now in context: ID proponents cannot, despite all attempts, even embarrass materialists into doing the simplest of things, things like 1) don't conflate (a) with (b), or 2) allow me to define my argument then you may attack it, or 3) don't misrepresent what was said, or 4) don't attack something I didn't say as placemat for answering what I did say, or 5) if I do not introduce a subject in my argument, then it is not a part of my argument, or ...well, you get the picture. What ID often objects to is that the argument from design is not granted even a moment of respect with regard to the evidence or the argument behind it - yet in their own camp, the evidence is a loose as a two-dollar hooker, and if someone should willfully misrepresent the argument from design, then the crowd holds up the cups and grunts for some more of that tasty punch. This is not a characature of events, it is a fact within academia.Upright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
02:49 PM
2
02
49
PM
PDT}

Folks: Simply compare the already linked with the onward discussion, lest the factual reference gets simply buried in a blizzard of tangential discussion and specious objections. First, on recent textbooks continuing to use known misleading drawings until a few years ago in misleading ways, then also on a wider range of misleading icons including the embryos. Observe, refusal to acknowledge where something went wrong, just as previously there was no willingness to accept that attempted rejection of non-contradiction reduced to absurdity, and no willingness to recognise that a necessary cause is a cause. Not to mention refusal to acknowledge the known source of codes, algorithms, digital complex functionally specific information etc etc Fallacy of the ideologised, closed mind in action. Sad. Gkairosfocus_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
02:40 PM
2
02
40
PM
PDT}

The discussion is about whether or not it is honest to use them to create the wrong impression, knowing that they are inacurrate and misleading. I'm confused and I'm not even a blond. LOL I get that Heackel fudged his drawings to prove his point, which is now pretty much discredited. So, I can see where using those drawings is bad even if they are being used to illustrate a concept totally differnt than Heackels. But the book I used in bio had photographs of embroyos to show the similarities of development in different species. What are you objecting to? The photos being misleading? Or the idea that the embryos of different species are very similar? TYIA!San Antonio Rose_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT}

Stephen B So, you seriously believe that this statement: “(1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos.” establishes the truth of this statement: "Clearly, the authors’ intent was to use fraudulant pictures in order to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process." ???molch_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
02:01 PM
2
02
01
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "Haeckel’s recapitulation theory was wrong, but the discussion here is about whether his drawings were actually fraudulent>" NO, IT IS NOT. The discussion is about whether or not it is honest to use them to create the wrong impression, knowing that they are inacurrate and misleading. The argument about whether they were really fraudulant is an entirely different discussion, though I don't hesitate to call them that. I certainly do not want to increase the number of variables in this discussion with those who branch out in a hundred different irrelevant directions even with one variable. There are enough willful disctractions as it is.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

(note to self) Must remember ProcrustesUpright BiPed_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Clive @83: Your comment reminds me of a comment made a while back by communication scholar, Fred Casmir. He has called it the "fit, damn you, fit" syndrome. He likens it to the famous piece in Greek Mythology known as the PROCRUSTEAN BED. As the same named website describes it, "NEAR ELEUSIS, in Attica, there lurked a bandit named Damastes, called Procrustes, or "The Stretcher." He had an iron bed on which travelers who fell into his hands were compelled to spend the night. His humor was to stretch the ones who were too short until they died, or, if they were too tall, to cut off as much of their limbs as would make them short enough. None could resist him, and the surrounding countryside became a desert." Thus, the Darwinist attitude about evidence is much the same as Procrustes attitude about the unfortunate travelers--"fit, damn you, fit."StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Haeckel's recapitulation theory was wrong, but the discussion here is about whether his drawings were actually fraudulent. Here's a good discussion of the accuracy of his drawings. http://home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Haeckel--fraud%20not%20proven.pdfPetrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
Meanwhile, my quesion for you persists. Are Darwinists who knowingly use [used] Haeckel’s drawings lying or are they [were they] telling the truth.
Even Eugenie Scott admitted that the pictures were fraudulent and misleading, and she claimed that was perfectly okay, because the fraudulent pictures represented a larger truth of evolution and common descent. This is, of course, arguing in a circle, for it was the fraud that evidenced the conclusion of evolution and common descent, and the conclusion cannot then be settled, and the fraud used because we "know" the conclusion to be true. I know that you know all of this already, just thought I would mention Eugenie Scott's take on it. Even known frauds will be used by evolutionists because it "evidences" the larger and true picture of evolution, so they say. The problem is that the evidence does no such thing, and they have no other grounds, other than metaphysical assumptions, to claim evolution as true to begin with. Since, to them, ID or anything like it, is off the table to begin with, something like evolution has to be the truth; and the explanation, and whatever evidence that can retro-fit into that preconception will be used and stuffed into it, made to fit; and if it doesn't fit, well, that's okay, because they know it to be true regardless. It is, of course, circular.Clive Hayden_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Nevermind. I found several articles on the "hourglass pattern of development," something I've never seen depicted or discussed in a textbook.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:13 PM
1
01
13
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden @77. That was an incredible quote.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT}

Clearly, the authors’ intent was to use fraudulant pictures in order to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process. ---Petrushka: "I don’t see any reference to that at the DI link." Did you overlook this: "(1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos."StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
01:07 PM
1
01
07
PM
PDT}

I don't see it in any of four links I've followed.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:53 PM
12
12
53
PM
PDT}

Clearly, the authors’ intent was to use fraudulant pictures in order to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process.
I don't see any reference to that at the DI link. http://www.discovery.org/a/3935Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:51 PM
12
12
51
PM
PDT}

Petrushka,
I’m actually curious about what’s wrong with promoting settled science. I know you don’t think common descent is settled, but working biologists, including most credentialed ID proponents accept it.
This bit may help you: "It is not, as some seem to fancy, that we think there is anything particularly Christian about electrons, any more than there is anything essentially atheistic about atoms. It is not that we propose to base our philosophy on their physics; any more than to base our ancient theology on their most recent biology. We are not "going to the country" with a set of slogans or party-cries, like Electrons for the Elect, or For Priest and Proton. The catastrophic importance for Catholics, of this collapse of materialism, is simply the fact that the most confident cosmic statements of science can collapse. If fifty years hence the electron is as entirely exploded as the atom, it will not affect us; for we have never founded our philosophy on the electron any more than on the atom. But the materialists did found their philosophy on the atom. And it is quite likely that some spiritual fad or other is at this moment being founded on the electron. To a man of my generation, the importance of the change does not consist in its destroying the dogma (which was after all a detail, though a very dogmatic dogma), "Matter consists of indivisible atoms." But it does consist in its destroying the accepted, universal and proclaimed and popularised dogma: "You must accept the conclusions of science." Scores and hundreds of times I have heard, through my youth and early manhood, the repetition of that ultimatum: "You must accept the conclusions of science." And it is that notion or experience that has now been concluded; or rather excluded. Whatever else is questionable, there is henceforth no question of anybody "accepting" the conclusions of science. The new scientists themselves do not ask us to accept the conclusions of science. The new scientists themselves do not accept the conclusions of the new science. To do them justice, they deny vigorously that science has concluded; or that it has, in that sense, any conclusion. The finest intellects among them repeat, again and again, that science is inconclusive." (emphasis mine). G. K. Chesterton, The Well and the Shallows http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/Well_And_Shallows.txtClive Hayden_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "Embryos resemble each other to the degree that the species are related by descent. That’s a simple fact accepted by anyone who looks. Photographs are even more convincing." Of course photographs are more convincing. That is why Darwinists often use them to create a false impression. In any case, your personal [and long winded] opinions about evolution @73 are not relevant to the question on the table. As the references plainly show, the Haeckel drawings, which represent later stages, de-empasize the fact that earlier stages show greater differences. In other words, the authors plainly meant to mislead their readers by making it appear that the similarities shown in the fraudulant pictures are present earlier in the process, which they are not. Oviously, you missed the whole point of the complaint. ---"So what are biology textbooks using these drawings for? To illustrate the fact that embryos of different vertebrate families show lots of similarities – a lot more similarities than they show to embryos of non-vertebrate organisms. Is that a lie? No. As is clear from your comment, you either don't understand what the authors were trying to do or else you choose not to face the facts of the matter. Clearly, the authors' intent was to use fraudulant pictures in order to mislead readers into believing that the same similarities that occur later in the process are also present earlier in the process. They obviously felt that providing a more accurate account would have weakened their case. Thus, they are were lying. This is so comical. On the one hand, our adversaries argue that Darwinists no longer commit this dishonest act and haven't done so for almost 50 years. Then, when called on it, they suddenly claim that it is not really dishonest. You've gotta love it.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Inasmuch as ID advocates differ on the matter, it might be prudent to address a specific individual rather than appeal to an indeterminate “you.” Pronouns are hard to follow
Reasonable request. I think it applies to several people posting on this thread, but anyone who accepts common descent is free to disassociate himself from my comment. I perceive varying degrees of acceptance for common descent. Some folks seem to accept divergence at thge biological family level, some reject speciation. What embryology does is confirm what fossils and DNA also confirm. the underlying biochemistry of all living things is similar. And the embryonic similarities and differences are proportional to the degree of relatedness assumed by common descent. It's one strand in a large web of evidence.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:31 PM
12
12
31
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "I’m actually curious about what’s wrong with promoting settled science. ---I know you don’t think common descent is settled, but working biologists, including most credentialed ID proponents accept it." Inasmuch as ID advocates differ on the matter, it might be prudent to address a specific individual rather than appeal to an indeterminate "you." Pronouns are hard to follow.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

This reference
1) They show embryo drawings that are essentially recapitulations of Haeckel's fraudulent drawings — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the actual differences between early stages of vertebrate embryos; (2) They have used these drawings as evidence for evolution — in the present day — and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thought; (3) Even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory, they have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.
1. Embryos resemble each other to the degree that the species are related by descent. That's a simple fact accepted by anyone who looks. Photographs are even more convincing. Even more important are the fine structures not shown by drawings and photographs. Even more important are the sequences of development. 2. Well, duh. Embryology and development is slam dunk proof that species are related, even if you choose to believe that a designer deliberately made them to look like they are cousins. 3.The similarities are not overstated. As in number one, the more closely you look at the fine structure and the sequence of development, the more obvious it is that you are looking at organisms having the same development systems. The whole enterprise of ID is to compartmentalize evidence as if forensic cases are made of unrelated elements. "Your honor, it's true that the defendant's fingerprints are all over the crime scene, but that merely indicates he was there at some time during his lifetime." "Your honor, it's true that the defendant has powder burns on his wrist, but lots of people fire guns without committing a crime." Etc, etc. Embryology by itself doesn't prove evolution, but it proves that the similarities and differences in the sequence of development fit the same nested hierarchy as all other observations of species. It also proves beyond doubt that structures in the embryo diverge in from commonality in the early stages to divergences in later stages. The divergences occur at exactly the stages entailed by common descent.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:09 PM
12
12
09
PM
PDT}

"Are Darwinists who knowingly use Haeckel’s drawings lying or are they telling the truth?" Are people who knowingly use line drawings of air planes lying or are they telling the truth? If they are using those line drawings to illustrate that real air planes don’t have engines, because the line drawing shows no engines, then they are lying. If they are using the illustrations to give the reader an idea of the general body design of an air plane, are they lying? No. The purpose of illustrations is to represent certain key features of the real object. And artistic license is a part of making illustrations of any kind (like the leaving out of many key features of real planes, e.g. engines). Did Haeckel use that artistic license, emphasizing similarity between early embryonic stages of different vertebrate families, to unduly further his hypothesis by pretending that there were only similarities, but no differences? Yes. The fact that Haeckel exaggerated certain features in his illustrations and then used these illustrations to draw conclusions that were mostly based upon the claimed absence of other features is indeed a good reason not to use these illustrations any longer. However, the inference that these drawings are supposed to illustrate in modern textbooks - that vertebrate families share common ancestry - is NOT based upon a claim that features not depicted in these illustrations are truly absent, but they are based upon true similarities between the real embryos, for which Haeckel's drawings are an illustrative, if somewhat exaggerated example. Do modern textbooks claim that there are no features of early embryonic stages of different vertebrate families BEYOND what's evident from Haeckel's drawings, including a number of differences AND a number of other similarities? No. So what are biology textbooks using these drawings for? To illustrate the fact that embryos of different vertebrate families show lots of similarities - a lot more similarities than they show to embryos of non-vertebrate organisms. Is that a lie? No.molch_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

---Petrushka: "What parts of the “remaked” drawings are incorrect? It’s a serious question." Is it serious enough to prompt you to follow through on the reference kf and I provided [which provides all the pretty pictures and the uses to which they were put]. Meanwhile, my quesion for you persists. Are Darwinists who knowingly use [used] Haeckel’s drawings lying or are they [were they] telling the truth. If you are not up to answering this question, I can do it for you. First, though, I want to make sure that you are going to avoid it indefinitely. If that is the case, just tell me plainly so I can respond appropriately.StephenB_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
11:44 AM
11
11
44
AM
PDT}

I'm actually curious about what's wrong with promoting settled science. I know you don't think common descent is settled, but working biologists, including most credentialed ID proponents accept it. And most of the Darwin skeptics still act the undeniable facts of embryology. Embryos resemble each other because their genones resemble each other, whether the resemblance is the result of actual common descent, or the result of a designer with a sense of humor.Petrushka_{July 29, 2010
July
07
Jul
29
29
2010
11:25 AM
11
11
25
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply