Polish Catholic creationist spanked in Nature

[hecd2]

Three weeks ago, the Polish ultra-conservative politician and creationist, Maciej Giertych had a piece of correspondence supporting creationism published in Nature. PoG and others crowed over this, putting it forward as proof that there is a real creation/evolution controversy. I predicted then a strong reaction which has now transpired in tomorrow’s edition of Nature. Here is an edited selection:
From U Kutuschera of the Institute of Biology, University of Kassel:

Your Special Report “Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe” (Nature 444, 406–407; 2006

) mentions a seminar held in Brussels at the European Parliament on 11 October 2006, as part of a new strategy by supporters of intelligent design (ID) to disseminate anti-evolutionism among the general public of Europe. Two days later, the Catholic Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation and the creationist group Truth in Science published summaries on the Internet. A moderator of the seminar, Maciej Giertych, then published a Correspondence (“Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved” Nature 444, 265; 2006) claiming that his arguments are entirely scientific and denying any religious component to them. I believe, therefore, that it was a good decision by Nature to publish this Correspondence, as a wake-up call to scientists…
The German civil engineer Hans-Joachim Zillmer told the audience that the fossil record does not provide evidence for gradual macroevolution. Zillmer was announced as an expert in palaeontology and evolution, but he has not, according to the Web of Science, published any paper in the peer-reviewed literature. He is the author of popular books with titles such as Darwin’s Mistake (Adventures Unlimited Press, 2003) or Die Evolutionslüge (The Evolution Lie Langen Müller, 2005). In Darwin’s Mistake, Zillmer asserts that he has found human and dinosaur footprints in fossil-bearing sediments in a riverbed in Texas and concludes that these organisms lived together. Even creationists no longer claim that these supposed ‘human prints’ are genuine (see Nature 323, 390; 1986). Zillmer’s books state that biologists, geologists and the editors of most scientific journals are either misled or fools.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

From Gabriela Lorenc-Plucihttp://www.nature.com/__chars/n/special/acute/black/med/base/glyph.gifska, Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Kórnik, Poland:

Maciej Giertych signed his Correspondence letter (Nature 444, 265; 2006

) as an employee of the Institute of Dendrology, the Polish Academy of Sciences. As the director of the institute, I would like to point out that, although I respect Professor Giertych’s rights to express his views, they are not endorsed by our institute. In my opinion, creationism has no basis in science and should not be regarded as scientific.
From Joanna Rutkowska,Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University:

As a scientist I was surprised, and as a Polish scientist I felt ashamed, to read Maciej Giertych’s view published in Nature (Nature 444, 265; 2006). I would like to assure you that biologists in Poland do follow current scientific findings and would strongly disagree with several statements made in that letter.
There is no accepted scientific evidence for his most ridiculous claims: exclusively harmful mutations, reduction of genetic information or the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans. …

From Balthasar and Maidment, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Cambridge:

Although we acknowledge the need to allow publication of diverse opinions in the name of free speech, Nature has a responsibility, as a leading and widely read science journal, to uphold scientific standards and values. Unfortunately, in Maciej Giertych’s Correspondence letter (“Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved” Nature 444, 265; 2006), Nature fell short in this duty, allowing creationist pseudoscientific arguments to be presented as fact, without any supporting evidence.
The arguments used by Giertych are widely used by creationists, and, in their pseudoscientific tradition, evidence that discredits them is constantly ignored. For example, his suggestion that dinosaurs coexisted with humans, presumably based on supposed human footprints found alongside those of dinosaurs in the Glen Rose Formation of Texas (as expounded by Henry M. Morris in Scientific Creationism CLP Publishers, 1974) has been refuted: the ‘human’ footprints are now recognized as dinosaurian (R. Hastings J. Geol. Educ. 35, 4–15; 1987).

From Charlesworth and 34 others, University of Edinburgh:

We are astonished that Nature would publish a Correspondence as full of errors as that by Maciej Giertych (Nature 444, 265; 2006). For someone with degrees from the universities of Oxford and Toronto, Giertych displays a breathtaking ignorance…
Contrary to Giertych’s statements, the temporal ordering of rock layers by stratigraphy, and the extinction of dinosaurs some 65 million years before the existence of humans, are overwhelmingly established facts of geology and palaeontology. His claim that “No positive mutations have ever been demonstrated” is simply false. Disregarding the fact that it is illogical to rule out resistance to antibiotics and herbicides as examples of adaptations, as was done by Giertych, there are literally thousands of cases in which natural selection has been demonstrated in wild populations of animals and plants.Nature 444, 679-680 (7 December 2006)

Further, the contemporary literature on molecular evolution is filled with studies that provide evidence for a positive role of natural selection. Physicists do not spend their time debating the correctness of the atomic theory of matter; it is intolerable that biologists should constantly be forced to defend their unifying theory against ill-informed attacks.

To be continued

 

[hecd2]

Continuation

From Gary Hurd:

It is to be hoped that Maciej Giertych’s comments in Correspondence (Nature 444, 265; 2006) will generate a flood of refutations. Staying within my archaeological profession, Giertych’s claims that there are data suggesting that “dinosaurs coexisted with humans” or that there was a “major worldwide catastrophe in historical times” are simply false. These are claims regularly made by religious fundamentalists in support of creationism, exposing Giertych’s assertion that his objections are scientific.
In support of these claims, some creationists promote known frauds such as the Paluxy River ‘human footprints’ and the ‘dinosaur figurines’ from Acambaro, Mexico, which they misrepresent as modelled from living observations. There are many creationist interpretations of prehistoric rock art that owe more to Hermann Rorschach than to Richard Owen…Giertych’s Correspondence shows us the irrational basis of creationism in the twenty-first century and warns the international scientific community that this delusion is not restricted to American hillbillies.

There is much, much more in the same vein.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[ribozyme]

I’ll wait till I am able to access that edition of* Nature*. It might be in about two weeks.

Why did *Nature * publish Maciej Giertych’s nonsense to give creationists the attention they crave?

 

[PhilVaz]

You see, even the prestigious NATURE admits there is a controversy!!! This guy takes on three of the evil evilutionists of NATURE and wins!!! You know there’s a controversy, I know there’s a controversy, we all know there’s a controversy.Teach the controversy!!!

Phil P

 

[ribozyme]

You see, even the prestigious NATURE admits there is a controversy!!! This guy takes on three of the evil evilutionists of NATURE and wins!!! You know there’s a controversy, I know there’s a controversy, we all know there’s a controversy.Teach the controversy!!!

Phil P

I appreciate your sarcasm .

It is exactly similar to the Dawkins objection about debating creationists: pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/ .

 

[PhilVaz]

<< It is exactly similar to the Dawkins objection about debating creationists: pages.sbcglobal.net/amun_ra/ >>

Dawkins is AFRAID to debate Kent Hovind because Dawkins is afraid he will strangle Kent Hovind with piano wire after Hovind’s opening statement. If the I.R.S. does not get him first. You know it, I know it, Dawkins knows it. Kind of like Miss Anne Elk and her Theory About Dinosaurs.

Phil P

 

[tdgesq]

Continuation

From Gary Hurd:

There is much, much more in the same vein.

Alec
evolutionpages.com

What’s your point.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< What’s your point. >>

What’s the point??? What’s the point??? The point is obvious. The point is ahem ahem ahem ahem hmmm hm hm hmmmm ahem ahem ahem, the theory which belongs to me, which is mine is:

Kent Hovind knows more biology, geology, astronomy and physics in his vestigial tailbone than the prestigious NATURE knows in their collective vertebrate.

I did not come from a rock. Thank you. Ahem ahem ahem.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/BD16.gif

Phil P

 

[John_Taylor]

Debating the Controversy That Doesn’t Exist By: Paul Nelson at discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3416

In tomorrow’’s issue of Science, researchers Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe Thornton of the University of Oregon claim to have shown how an irreducibly complex system might have arisen by a process they call “molecular exploitation.” Their paper, “Evolution of Hormone-Receptor Complexity by Molecular Exploitation,” Science 312 (7 Apr 2006):97-101 and an accompanying commentary by Chris Adami are sure to stir lively discussion. Mike Behe has already weighed in, arguing that Bridgham et. al. haven’t even come close to answering the challenge of irreducible complexity. Tomorrow we’ll provide a detailed scientific response to the paper as well.

For the moment, however, we want to point out something that should be obvious, but may escape notice at first glance. The publications by Bridgham et al. and Adami will appear in Science, the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). The AAAS has taken a prominent public stance on the intelligent design controversy. And therein lies a mystery, of sorts.

What Scientific Controversy? Oh, That One…

Like nearly all national science organizations, the AAAS has repeatedly insisted that there is no scientific controversy about intelligent design. That must explain why Science this week will publish two scientific articles taking positions on the controversy. The one that doesn’t exist.

There is no scientific controversy about ID. But, just in case, here’s a new primary research publication claiming to test one of ID’s key concepts, irreducible complexity.

Skeptical observers might say that leading journals such as Science or Nature are happy to publish research articles addressing the intelligent design controversy, as long as those articles claim that ID is wrong. Skeptics might also note that the senior author on the Bridgham et al. paper, Joe Thornton, states on his University of Oregon webpage that one of his main research goals is “to illustrate how a complex, tightly integrated molecular system – one which appears to be ‘irreducibly complex’ – evolved by Darwinian processes hundreds of millions of years ago.” But of course we must remember that the concept of irreducible complexity has stimulated no research, which is why Professor Thornton is working hard to solve the problem.

Skeptics could feast on a rich buffet of such ironies. Or absurdities. The plain fact is that since the publication of Darwin’s Black Box (1996) and The Design Inference (1998), the problems, concepts, and arguments of intelligent design have steadily been making their way into the scientific (primary research) literature, brought there by scientists themselves as they respond to ID arguments. “There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about,” quipped Oscar Wilde, “and that is not being talked about” – and the central concepts of ID, such as irreducible complexity, are in no danger of not being talked about in science.

The problems ID raises for theories of naturalistic evolution are genuine, and must be solved if undirected natural processes really did bring about biological complexity.

Either those problems will be solved, or they will not. But the problems are not going away any time soon.

Since I see Evolution and Intelligent Design as both open to “scientific” investigation, I prefer the above spin

Keep the Faith
jmt

 

[PhilVaz]

John << Since I see Evolution and Intelligent Design as both open to “scientific” investigation, I prefer the above spin >>

Ken Miller debated Paul Nelson (MP3)

Full video and handouts from AEI available here

Paul Nelson is a young-earther in case you didn’t know.

Phil P

 

[tdgesq]

<< What’s your point. >>

What’s the point??? What’s the point??? The point is obvious. The point is ahem ahem ahem ahem hmmm hm hm hmmmm ahem ahem ahem, the theory which belongs to me, which is mine is:

Kent Hovind knows more biology, geology, astronomy and physics in his vestigial tailbone than the prestigious NATURE knows in their collective vertebrate.

Excellent reply Phil! Well, except for not the not-reading-the-post-part. The question was directed to the OP. Obviously. I like how you quote me then misquote me right below it. Lol! There was only one sentence in the entire post! I can tell that I have an intellectual giant on my hands here. Lol!

I mean, we learned about how hecd2 made the prediction that there would be a strong reaction to the article. We read the reactions. And we also learned. . . . . . . . . um, ya. That was about it. Why is this in the apologetics forum again? What question is being asked or assertion being made? I guess I better be more literal next time - if for no one else, then for Phil.

 

[tdgesq]

<< What’s your point. >>

What’s the point??? What’s the point??? The point is obvious. The point is ahem ahem ahem ahem hmmm hm hm hmmmm ahem ahem ahem, the theory which belongs to me, which is mine is:

Kent Hovind knows more biology, geology, astronomy and physics in his vestigial tailbone than the prestigious NATURE knows in their collective vertebrate.

I did not come from a rock. Thank you. Ahem ahem ahem.

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/BD16.gif

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

tdg << Why is this in the apologetics forum again? What question is being asked or assertion being made? I guess I better be more literal next time - if for no one else, then for Phil. >>

Find the original thread in here the apologetics forum, where some user named PoG was claiming the Polish scientist (among others) rejection of evolution was credible evidence that there is a “controversy” about evolution within science. That thread went on for 7 pages (50 posts per page). Much of that thread is about “polygenism” and Pius XII and Catholic dogma on creation, but there are other claims in there by PoG on the science, and the Polish scientist’s letter in NATURE gets mentioned. Which is where the response letters from NATURE are relevant in here.

Sorry, I get tired of the serious creation-evolution discussions, of which we’ve had THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS, perhaps BILLIONS and BILLIONS since May 2004 (yep I’ve been here from the beginning, and participated in virtually ALL of them), and have to throw in the occasional non-sensical silly post.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

tdg: Read this post by PoG forward in the thread I mentioned which talks about the NATURE letter by the Polish scientist.

These letters are also mentioned on the science blogs, so its current news. May not be relevant to apologetics except when Catholic dogma on creation is brought up in relation to it as in this thread.

Phil P

 

[hecd2]

I mean, we learned about how hecd2 made the prediction that there would be a strong reaction to the article. We read the reactions. And we also learned. . . . . . . . . um, ya. That was about it. Why is this in the apologetics forum again? What question is being asked or assertion being made? I guess I better be more literal next time - if for no one else, then for Phil.

Phil has replied to this and has laid out why it’s relevant to this board. Just to reinforce what he has said, PoG, in the relevant thread, espoused the view that an acceptance of evolution was tantamount to heresy. In support of this view and the position taken by the creationist Kolbe Center of which PoG is either a representative or an uncritical supporter, PoG cliamed that common descent is a scientifically controversial subject that leaves room for his idiosyncratic view of Catholic doctrine. In support of this, he quoted the Giertych correspondence which was published in Nature. I pointed out at the time that Giertych’s views were his own and did not come close to reflecting the overwhelmingly supported scientific consensus. There is, in fact, no scientific controversy. These letters support that view - the scientific community overwhelmingly rejects ideas such as human/dinosaur contemporaneity as absurd pseudoscience.

If we were to follow PoG’s ideas that an acceptance of evolution is heretical, Catholics would then be left with a stark choice: between accepting PoG’s perspective on magisterial teaching (his interpretation is strict young earth creationism) while rejecting the conclusions of multiple branches of science; or accepting the scientific conclusions, thus embracing, according to PoG, heresy.

Fortunately, as JPII, Bendedict and Schoenborn have all taught, it is possible to accept common descent and be a good Catholic. This whole topic sems to me to be relevant to apologetics, hence it’s presence in this forum.

Does that help?

Alec
evolutionpages.com

 

[noma]

The pandering of creationist nonsense makes all of Christianity look weaker for it.

 

[wildleafblower]

It appears Maciej Giertych was paddled by scientists on this thread And else where. (1)

In November 2006 scientific journal Science began to set new guidelines to guard against** fraud**. " The panel recommended a more careful evaluation of the role played by various authors in a study paper and urged Science to collaborate with other prestigious journals such as the British publication Nature on common standards to guard against fraud." (2)

Seems a ball is rolling …Ministers to ban creationist teaching aids in science lessons (3)

And elsewhere in the news today, I need to correct a typo on another thread! It isn’t funny when the word isn’t turns into an is. Mmmmmm oh, sooner or later I’ll make my way over to that other thread.

p.s. Phil, you need a nappy? Sometimes I get really silly when I’m tired. No harm done.

1. nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=Maciej+Giertych+&sp-c=10&sp-x-9=cat&sp-s=date&sp-q-9=&submit=go&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&sp-p=all
2. today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=scienceNews&storyID=2006-11-29T023829Z_01_N28264649_RTRIDST_0_SCIENCE-SCIENCE-JOURNAL-DC.XML
3. politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,1965988,00.html#article_continue

 

[wildleafblower]

Correspondence
Nature 444, 265 (16 November 2006) | doi:10.1038/444265d; Published online 15 November 2006, Creationism, evolution: nothing has been proved
Maciej Giertych
Institute of Dendrology, Polish Academy of Sciences, 62-035 Kórnik, Poland
Sir:
In your News story “Polish scientists fight creationism” (Nature 443, 890–891; 2006 doi:10.1038/443890c), you incorrectly state that I have called for the “inclusion of creationism in Polish biology curricula”. As well as being a member of the European Parliament, I am a scientist — a population geneticist with a degree from Oxford University and a PhD from the University of Toronto — and I am critical of the theory of evolution as a scientist, with no religious connotation. It is the media that prefer to consider my comments as religiously inspired, rather than to report my stated position accurately. (I found this on a blog)



Maciej Giertych is on the Advisory Council for the Kolbe Center for the Study of Creation, Defending Genesis from a Traditional Catholic Perspective!

kolbecenter.org/

 

[tdgesq]

PoG, in the relevant thread, espoused the view that an acceptance of evolution was tantamount to heresy. In support of this view and the position taken by the creationist Kolbe Center of which PoG is either a representative or an uncritical supporter, PoG cliamed that common descent is a scientifically controversial subject that leaves room for his idiosyncratic view of Catholic doctrine. In support of this, he quoted the Giertych correspondence which was published in Nature.

With this background, it makes sense. I suppose you can see why somebody who wasn’t part of that particular thread might be a little bit confused.