The blog Panda's Thumb
is the most important blog refuting scientific
arguments (or ostensibly scientific arguments)
by advocates of Intelligent Design and creationism.
I have made a series of guest posts there:
Note -- in 2016 Panda's Thumb migrated to a new software system for
comments. For the moment, comments on old posts are missing. Some of the
comments -- the first page worth for each post -- are visible if one looks up
the page on archive.org (the Wayback machine, where the PT site archives will
be found here). The old comments have been
saved and will ultimately reappear at PT, once the necessary migration work can
and after that I became part of the Panda's Thumb "crew" so my posts were not
guest posts. Posts after that are:
- (5 May 2008) A population-genetic argument by creationist Sal Cordova
for the ineffectiveness of natural selection. I pointed out that his
calculation gives a
misleading impression. (And
-- in comment no. 2 -- is a 2010 comment at Uncommon Descent showing that Cordova has learned
nothing from that exchange).
- (1 August 2009) Not about creationism or ID, but a happy birthday to Lamarck.
- (21 August 2009) Theologian and mathematician William Dembski and
electrical engineering professor Robert Marks have published a peer-reviewed
Dembski argues supports Intelligent Design. Why it is just as supportive of more mundane views of the world.
- (24 August 2009) More on why Dembski and Marks's argument, which they believe
shows intervention in the world by a Designer to make fitness surfaces smooth,
not refute evolutionary biology.
- (and here
is a comment I made later at Dietmar Eben's
blog summarizing my conclusions about the implications of Dembski and Marks's “Search for a
- (12 December 2009) How Cornelius Hunter, a biophysicist and old-earth
creationist, fails to put forward a scientific theory.
- (February 18, 2010) How the weeds in our back yard show that if an argument by creationist mathematician
Granville Sewell (published by the Discovery Institute) is correct, the
Second Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.
- (13 April 2010) How a Bayesian calculation of the posterior probability
of evolution being correct, made by Cornelius Hunter,
that he have some alternative scientific theory (which he refuses to put
forward), and how the mathematical
statistician Peter Olofsson rather thoroughly thrashed Hunter by making
just these points in the comments at Hunter's own blog.
- (1 August 2010) Happy 266th birthday to Lamarck.
- (28 September 2010) Why a calculation at the Uncommon Descent
anti-evolution blog supposedly showing that humans and chimps differ in DNA
sequence by a lot more than 1% is totally wrong.
- (27 February 2011) Oh no! It's Granville Sewell again. This time he
has published a paper in Applied Mathematics Letters repeating his old
arguments, without any acknowledgment that they are absurd and have been
demolished. Here I
once again make fun of him by pointing out that he has “proven”
that weeds can't grow in your garden and for that matter, neither can flowers!
(Apparently, AML rescinded its acceptance of Sewell's paper after some people
complained and pointed out its fatuity. But here is a video he
has since posted on 6 June 2011 repeating the same discredited argument.
Sewell subsequently had a lawyer pressure AML, which agreed to pay him $10,000
for violating their own rules for publishing papers. It sounds as if AML had
little valid review in the first place, accepted the paper on insufficient
grounds, and then paid Sewell the $10,000 but without agreeing to reinstate
the paper and publish it, perhaps because they know it is a silly paper.)
- (27 March 2011) A commentary by me on Complex Specified Information (CSI)
and whether it is important to get it formally defined in terms of information
theory to understand William Dembski's argument about The Design Inference (I
say not, the problem with his argument is elsewhere). This was in reaction
to the article by "MathGrrl" at Uncommon Descent where, in spite of being
an opponent of Intelligent Design, she was allowed to post there asking for
the pro-ID commenters to define what they meant by CSI. They couldn't.
- (25 May 2011) Oh no! It's “niwrad” again, over at Uncommon Descent, making
the same argument that I
criticized earlier. Now it's comparing two human
genomes, and finding that they are much more different than people say.
This done by (1) asking how many contiguous blocks of 30 bases are identical
in the two genomes, while (2) keeping a straight face. I have pointed out the silliness in all this and suggested the use of
blocks of 1000 sites instead, to make the degree of difference much greater.
- (5 June 2011) At Uncommon Descent, the engineer Gil Dodgen once again
posted the dramatic conclusion that “Darwinism” has collapsed but
that evolutionary biologists are in denial about this obvious fact. That is
not new -- he's always dramatically concluding that. But this time he got
carried away and said that ID apologists “continue to mount what I
perceive as increasingly indefensible assaults on the creative powers of the
Darwinian mechanism of random errors filtered by natural selection”.
agree: these assaults are indeed indefensible!
- (1 August 2011) The annual celebratory post for the birthday
The discussion in the comments starts out interesting but degenerates into
trollery. The troll ends up putting forward a non-theory, misunderstanding
Lamarck's theory thoroughly, and asserting that I am not an expert in
behavior or biochemistry (both true but irrelevant to that discussion) but
somehow seems to think he is an expert in those areas (very much not true).
These are in addition to numerous comments at PT on posts by others.
- (23 August 2011) On Uncommon Descent, poster Eric Holloway had
that even critics of William Dembski's 2002 book No Free Lunch admitted
that his argument did apply to evolution. And declared that the critics
had not refuted the NFL argument which showed that natural selection would be
ineffective. So I showed how Dembski's argument has been refuted by many
all had the same powerful argument, one that Holloway ignored.
- (9 September 2011) Denyse O'Leary (writing under the pseudonym "News") at
Uncommon Descent quoted a passage from my 2007 paper while misunderstanding it
thoroughly. To top things off she called me a "Darwin lobbyist" whose salary
"is paid for under protest by people who dont believe it". So I put up a
post pointing out how wrong she is. In the comments at their site, Gil Dodgen
then calls more names (while misunderstanding the issues) and no one answers
the reasonable questions of one commenter who wonders what they are talking
- (13 September 2011) A post in memory of the late Peter H. A . Sneath, who
died on 9 September.
- (17 November 2011) It's
Granville Sewell yet again!
of his Second Law of Thermodynamics refutation of evolution. I posted
again at PT, pointing out my previous posts and the earlier ones by others
thoroughly refuting them. I described his argument as unanswerable -- but only
because at Uncommon Descent he had the Comments feature turned off (as he does
on all his posts). So we did the answering in Panda's Thumb, instead. Sewell
did not, alas, join that discussion. That led on to
a very long thread on the Second Law of Thermodynamics and evolution.
- (11 January 2012) An obituary of James F.
Crow, a friend and
mentor to many evolutionary geneticists, and a major figure in theoretical
population genetics. This includes a couple of photos I
took of Jim (one with Motoo Kimura) from 1972. If the pictures are not
side-by-side, widen your browser window and they will be properly laid out and
- (17 April 2012) An obituary of Robert R. Sokal, who cofounded numerical taxonomy with Peter Sneath. He
was also, somewhat against his will, a pioneer of numerical methods for
inferring phylogenies. With F. James Rohlf, he wrote the widely-used
statistics textbook Biometry. The obituary quotes extensively from
a good one written by Bob Sokal's colleague Michael Bell. If you cannot
get the photos of Sokal to align properly, try widening your browser window.
- (1 August 2012) The annual birthday
post celebrating Lamarck, a great pioneer of evolutionary biology. In this case his 268th birthday.
- (26 March 2013) It has been announced that Stephen C. Meyer, the leader of
the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, is to publish a book,
Darwin's Doubt, which starts with the Cambrian Explosion and uses this
to explain "the theory of intelligent design" and deal with criticisms of it.
suggested we help him out, that we list some of the important issues that he might
- (7 April 2013) Writing at the Discovery Institute's site Evolution News
and Views, William Dembski complained about our Panda's Thumb thread on
what Stephen Meyer should say in his book. He set out to refute me on
whether Complex Specified Information could be used to detect Design. This thread on Panda's Thumb is an extensive reply to Dembski,
vindicating my argument against the CSI/Design method.
- (1 August 2013) The annual birthday
post celebrating Lamarck, pioneer of evolutionary biology. We had
reached his 269th birthday. My remarks about celebrating with
"Picardy calvados" caused some controversy.
- (27 August 2013) Not a post about creationism or ID. I posted a
of the 1963 March On Washington. Includes a photo of the
march pin that I bought there, and still have.
- (July 23, 2014) I express astonishment at the dramatic conclusions of
some engineers and physicists about the "evolution" of airplanes, and
their ringing declaration that the study of evolution "belongs in physics".
- (1 August 2014) The annual celebratory post of the birthday of Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine
de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck and pioneer of evolutionary biology. 270
candles on the cake!
- (2 October 2014) William Dembski gave a talk on August 14, 2014 at the Computations in
Science seminar at the University of Chicago, a seminar run in part by
Dembski's thesis advisor Leo Kadanoff. It was subsequently made
available on video. This post argues against the Search For a Search argument
which was the basis of Dembski's talk, critiquing two of the papers by
Dembski and Robert Marks that he cited for the points in his talk.
- (30 January 2015) A new website, the Third Way of Evolution was
established last year, and came to my attention
by being publicized in a post at Uncommon
Descent. It has statements by 43 scientists and
engineers indicating their disagreement with the
Modern Synthesis, and urging one or another
alternative. I brought this to the attention of
Jerry Coyne, who posted on it. This Panda's
Thumb post The Third Way of Evolution announced, but fails to cohere
calls it to the attention of the Thumb's
readers, leading to a discussion. The main
problem with the Third Way is that it seems to be 43 ways, not one.
- (29 March 2015) William Dembski, Winston Ewert, and Robert Marks have
defended their Search For a Search argument, arguing (correctly) that I
misconstrued their argument. In this response at Panda's Thumb, I have been
joined by Tom English. We pointed out that when my argument is corrected
to deal with Dembski, Ewert, and Marks's actual model, it turns out that
their argument becomes even weaker. Just having organisms that reproduce,
and having the ordinary laws of phyics, makes evolutionary processes
far more effective than they are in Dembski, Ewert, and Marks's
mathematical model of "search".
- (5 August 2015) The annual happy-birthday post
for the birthday of Jean-Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de
Lamarck. But a few days late this time.
- (8 November 2015) I finally posted a
response to Winston Ewert's defense
of the DEM paper. He had pointed out that in the 29 March post by me and Tom
English we did not question any of the theorems in the Dembski-Ewert-Marks
paper. Yes, we didn't, we said we didn't. What we did question was the
conclusions DEM draw, that their Active Information requires Intelligent
Design. In the 29 March posting we had showed it doesn't require ID. This post documents
statements by all three of those authors that show that they want people to
draw this invalid conclusion from their DEM paper.
- (4 May 2016) A retired German plant breeding researcher (and creationist),
Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, posted an argument at the Discovery Institute's
blog Evolution News and Views, that random noise from deaths
of the many offspring that organisms produce will be fatal to natural
selection, creating a noise that will overwhelm modest differences in fitness.
Actually we do know about that -- it is called genetic drift. And when you do
the calculations, the results look bad for Lönnig, as I explain in a PT
- (8 April 2017) A creationist blogger, Mark Champneys, commented on
an old 2011 post where I made making fun of Granville Sewell's arguments that the 2nd
Law of Thermodynamics ruled out evolution. He argued that Sewell was right,
but Champneys's argument was actually different from Sewell's. He argued that
the origin of photosynthesis was ruled out, not the operation of
photosynthesis. To allow more discussion of Champneys's argument I posted
post. Alas, Champneys never showed up to join the discussion.
- (7 November 2018) At the Discovery Institute's "Mind Matters" series of blog posts,
Holloway has declared that Intelligent Design can "be demonstrated mathematically through
information theory", that this was shown by William Dembski, and that on reading criticisms
of Dembski's work "I have not been able to discover a precise reason why they think Dembski is
wrong" and that critics of Dembski "actually tend to agree with Dembski when the topic lies within their respective realms of
expertise." So I posted a reply
pointing out all the demolitions of Dembski's work that Holloway missed or
misunderstood. Just as he did with critiques of Dembski's use of the No Free Lunch Theorem in
2011 (see above). A parallel post was made at The Skeptical Zone so discussion could occur there
too (link in my PT post).
- (11 March 2019) Holloway did it again. This time he declared that the main reason
scientists were becoming "more skeptical of evolution" was that they saw that evolution could
not explain consciousness. Once again I asked
for clarification. And pointed out that he had not countered criticisms of his
previous arguments about conservation of information.
- (29 April 2019) Holloway subsequently made a comment on a post at The Skeptical Zone making
the same dismissal of criticisms of Dembski's argument as before. So I replied to
the dismissal again and linked to the previous Panda's Thumb post where links to all the
criticisms of Dembski can be found. Just in case Holloway cannot find them.
- (14 May 2019) In the preceding thread it was pointed out that contrarian computer scientist David Gelernter
had published an article in the Claremont Review of Books declaring that he was "giving up"
on Darwin's theory of evolution, which he justified mostly by citing a book by Stephen Meyer and a paper by Douglas
Axe. I put up a thread on this to enable discussion without disrupting the discussion
of Holloway's assertions.
Incidentally, my article in Reports of the National Center for Science Education:
Felsenstein, J. 2007. Has natural selection been refuted? The arguments of William Dembski.
Reports of the National Center for Science Education 27 (3-4): 20-26.
is available online (free) here.
In addition, I have been honored by having joined a most distinguished
group of opponents of creationism and Intelligent Design, having actually
met the famous Dr. Steve Steve. The
good doctor's assistant, Reed Cartwright, photographed us together at the
Portland Convention Center in June, 2010 at the Evolution2010 meetings.
I was so excited that my hair stood on end! (At my age you're so happy
to have any hair that you don't care which way it goes).
Here is Dr. Steve Steve's account of this.
Dr. Steve Steve's role in the debate can be examined
where all posts about him at PT are collected.