Krauthammer Mangles ID

Charles Krauthammer doesn't exactly provide an honest treatment of so-called intelligent design in his most recent column. Krauthammer says ID is

a self-enclosed, tautological "theory" whose only holding is that when there are gaps in some area of scientific knowledge -- in this case, evolution -- they are to be filled by God. It is a "theory" that admits that evolution and natural selection explain such things as the development of drug resistance in bacteria and other such evolutionary changes within species but also says that every once in a while God steps into this world of constant and accumulating change and says, "I think I'll make me a lemur today."

But that definition of ID is simply incomplete. ID is at its essence an attempt to falsify the theory of evolution, not a replacement theory of the origins of life and speciation. You can accept ID as a challenge to evolution without adopting a supernatural replacement theory. However, the scientific establishment is not exactly eager to accept ID on these terms because it has no naturalistic alternatives to evolution. To understand ID you must first understand that the theory of evolution depends on two key elements: Genetic mutation and the process of natural selection. Genetic mutations are the randomizing change element. Take them away and you have an endlessly repeating, static gene pool. Natural selection pushes random change in the direction of recognizable speciation. It does this by encouraging the replication of genetic mutations that provide organisms an adaptive advantage. Remove natural selection and the gene pool would seem to churn randomly with no discernable, sustained direction. Intelligent design simply identifies specific biological structures (or processes) for which natural selection could not have provided directional impetus because a) those structures require multiple evolutionary steps to exist; and b) none of the intermediate steps in the evolution of the structure could have provided an adaptive advantage. A key concept in understanding ID is "irreducible complexity". Something is irreducibly complex if it requires all of its parts to be useful at all. The most common non-biological example is the traditional, spring-loaded mousetrap. If you remove any element of the trap it becomes a pile of useless parts, not a less-effective mousetrap and not particularly useful for other purposes. Common examples of irreducibly complex biological structures include the bacterial flagellum and blood coagulation. Remove natural selection as an influence in the formation of an irreducibly complex biological structure and you're arguing that several completely random genetic mutations either occurred at the same time in the same organism or persisted in the same part of the gene pool for millions of years until they were all present to provide an adaptive advantage. The probability of these sequences of mutations occurring completely randomly is effectively zero. The name "intelligent design" derives from the claim that it takes a designer to account for the formation of these irreducibly complex structures. But whether you take that step or not the challenge of irreducible complexity to evolution must be answered. Krauthammer says ID is not scientific because it's not disprovable, or falsifiable. Using his definition of ID that may be true. But in truth there are at least two ways to rebut ID:

• Demonstrate that structures claimed to be irreducibly complex are not, that the individual component parts are adaptively useful in some way
• Propose a plausible alternative mechanism for their formation that doesn't depend either on outside intervention or natural selection

It's late so I'll leave it at that for now. I'm sure the argument over ID won't end any time soon. :)

Skins' Statistical Beating Continues

Washingon's ghastly fumble fortunes returned again today with an 0-for-4 recovery performance that was just bad enough to cost them yet another game. (If you have no idea what I'm talking about see this post.) Over the past two games against the Eagles and Buccaneers the Redskins actually covered a league average 50 percent of fumbles, but today's performance dropped the team to 9-of-39 on the season, just a bit above their nadir a few weeks ago. The Skins effectively lost control of their playoff destiny by losing to the Raiders. They're now the fourth ranked team contending for two NFC wildcard spots, one game behind 6-4 Atlanta and two games behind the 7-3 Giants and Bucs. Washington could perhaps afford one more loss and squeak into the playoffs, as long as it isn't during the three-game All-NFC East stretch to end the season. We'll see...

---

Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Korn: Norv Sticks Dan, Wilbon: Skins Suck, Porter is DC Local.

Post Still Missing Skins Fumble Story

The Washington Post's Jason La Canfora manages to write a 900 word feature on the Redskins' turnover differential without mentioning their fumble recovery problems. See here, here, and here for details on Washington's poor fumble luck.

Confirmed Case of Mad Lib

Canadian Cynic didn't like my last post contrasting real political persecution in North Korea with the American left's paranoid fantasy version.

His response is--recounting an Iraqi crime during the 1991 invasion of Kuwait that proved untrue. Which is of course completely irrelevant and demonstrates my point that there's little chance of engaging in rational discourse with the angry left.

Cynic is skeptical because he feels the North Korean Christians who were killed demonstrated less refined spycraft than he would expect of the average Ludlum-tutored Westerner.

Perhaps the story is untrue. We may never know for certain. But even smart people make fatal mistakes. And everyone in the world is not as bright as Cynic.

If the report I described isn't well-documented enough for his tastes he might browse over to Amazon's Political Oppression & Imprisonment section where he'll find enough sobering material to occupy him for several years.

Sad as it is I'm not surprised by his response. Confronting the hard truth that you're the Veruca Salt of dissidentry can't be easy.

---

Open trackbacks from: Mudville Gazette.

Popping Skulls

"Crushing dissent" is one of the nonsensical catch-phrases the angry left slings around rather freely these days when discussing the Bush administration. Attempting rational conversation with anyone who says such things is a rather futile pursuit and so I generally ignore them. Occasionally, though, it's good to highlight just how foolish and ignorant of the world such folks really are. The New York Sun runs a terribly sad story today which accomplishes precisely that. In 1996 North Korean soldiers building another empty highway for Kim Il Sung discovered a Bible and a list of 25 names while demolishing an empty house. Those on the list were identified as the members and leaders of a secret Christian church, which perhaps met in the house. Everyone on the list was immediately arrested at their workplaces and imprisoned. Several weeks later the parishoners were brought to the road construction site where their church had been discovered. An audience of spectators "arranged in neat rows" awaited them. Five of the Christians were identified as church leaders: one pastor, two assistant pastors, and two elders. These five were bound hand and foot and made to lie in front of an asphalt roller. As the 20 church members and other spectators watched, the five leaders were accused of being Christian spies, and ordered to deny their faith and pledge to serve only Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il. The five said nothing. "Some of the fellow parishioners assembled to watch the execution cried, screamed out, or fainted when the skulls made a popping sound as they were crushed beneath the steamroller."

---

Open trackback links from: The Political Teen, Stop the ACLU, Mudville Gazette, Basils Blog.

Rockefeller the Weasel

Senator Jay Rockefeller has been roundly ridiculed this week for his comments during an interview with Chris Wallace last Sunday.

Most of the mockery has focused on two answers, one where Rockefeller says he warned the governments of Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria in early 2002 of President Bush's already-made decision to invade; and the other where he half-heartedly denies responsibility for his vote to authorize force against Iraq.

But there's another particularly weaselly aspect to his comments that I've not seen mentioned elsewhere. Rockefeller says he warned the Arab governments of Bush's intent to invade in January of 2002:

I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq, that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.

A bit later in the interview he's challenged to take responsibility for the vote he cast in October of 2002 and says:

I'm responsible for my vote, but I'd appreciate it if you'd get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions.

His first answer fits nicely with the left's line that Bush decided to invade Iraq early on and then manufactured intelligience to support his aims. The second answer is the same excuse John Kerry used in the presidential debates last year: That he voted for the war resolution only to give Bush negotiating leverage with the UN and Iraq.

But Rockefeller says he knew nine months before his vote that Bush had made up his mind to invade! Like I said, weaselly.

Gruden Goes For Two: Foolish Folly or Genius Gamble?

Washington's painful one-point loss to Tampa Bay yesterday was about as gut-wrenching a seesaw battle as I've seen in a while, with huge momentum-changing plays every few minutes, four critical instant-replay reviews, and one unreviewable blown call.*

The most interesting sequence of the game came after the Bucs' final touchdown. With the score 35-34 in Washington's favor Tampa Bay opted to kick the extra point and tie the game. Washington's Shawn Springs and Walt Harris timed the snap and flew around the left and right ends to block the kick (Harris was credited). But wait: They both jumped offsides giving the the Bucs another chance from the 1.

Rather than kicking again Gruden deployed his heavy set and Mike Alstott plowed in for the score and the 36-35 lead. Or did he? Replays seemed to show Alstott's elbow down short of the goal line, and the replay official ducked under the hood to sort it out. Deciding there wasn't conclusive evidence to convict, er, overturn the line judge who called the score, he let the conversion stand. The Redskins received the kickoff, gained one first down to near midfield, and then ran four plays gaining zero yards, handing the ball and the game to the Bucs.

So was Gruden's call for two the best choice? The announcers certainly thought so, comparing his decision favorably with Dick Vermeil's touchdown call to win the game in last week's Kansas City vs Oakland matchup. I wasn't so sure.

In that instance the Chiefs elected to go for the win with five seconds on the clock, meaning Oakland had no chance to get the ball back and score. As Gregg Easterbrook pointed out last week in his NFL.com column, the Chiefs had probably an 80-90 percent chance or better of scoring from inside Oakland's 1, while kicking to send the game into overtime offered no better than a 50 percent shot at victory. In Sunday's game, however, the Redskins would get the ball back and only needed a field goal to recapture the lead. Gruden's call increased the Skins' chances of winning outright if Alstott failed, and didn't prevent the Skins from winning even if Alstott scored. On further review, it turns out that not only was Gruden's call probabilistically the right one, but he should have gone for two points and the win even before the Skins' offsides penalty moved the ball a yard closer. To calculate this I coarsely modeled the likeliest outcome paths with back-of-the-envelope estimates of the probabilities involved at each step.

One path, for example, was Bucs Go For 2/Bucs Score/Bucs Stop Wash. This is the path that actually occurred, and it happens be the single likeliest path out of the 16 paths I modeled.

Some other likely paths were Bucs Kick XP/Bucs Make Kick/Wash 50 Yd Dr/Wash 42 Yd FG and Bucs Kick XP/Bucs Make Kick/Bucs Stop Wash/Bucs OT Win or Wash OT Win. The least likely path was Bucs Kick XP/Bucs Miss/Bucs Onside Rec/Bucs 30 Yd Dr/Bucs Miss FG.

According to my model, the Bucs chances of winning were just 32 percent had they opted to kick the extra point and 55 percent by going for two (assuming an 80 percent chance of converting). If there had been no Skins penalty and you drop the Bucs chances of converting from the 2-yard line to 70 percent, that's still the better option with a 48 percent chance of ultimate victory!

The key is that by going for two the Bucs eliminate the outcomes where the Redskins have two opportunities to win. In other words, if the Bucs kick for the tie, Washington gets a chance to win in regulation (33 percent) and another chance of winning in overtime (50 percent). When the Bucs go for two they lose outright nearly 20 percent of the time but the other 80 percent of the time Washington just gets one 33 percent chance of victory. (Actually the Bucs lose outright 19 percent of the time--the other one percent they recover their onside kick, drive 30 yards with no timeouts, and kick a 42 yard field goal!)

UPDATE: I read today that NFL teams make just over 50 percent of two-point conversions from the 2-yard line. I'm not sure whether that number is accurate--it wasn't from an authoritative source. If it is, the sample size may be fairly small. I'd prefer to look at the percentage of all plays from the 2 which scored. But even assuming the worst-case 50 percent odds of success, going for two is still the slightly better option in this scenario, offering a 35 percent chance of winning vs a 32 percent chance of winning when teams kick the extra point!

One interesting side note on my probability estimates: I guestimated the average kicker's chance of hitting a 42 yard field goal at 65 percent. Ned Macey at FootballOutsiders happened to mention today that NFL kickers hit 62 percent of all 46-yard field goals. That was a pretty darn good guestimate! NFL.com stats so far this season show kickers hitting 69 percent of 40-49-yard field goals.

UPDATE II: More actual probabilities: On fourth-and-goal from the 1-yard line over the past four seasons teams score 67 percent of the time overall and 74 percent of the time when they run.

UPDATE III: I was asleep at the switch on this one (not paying much attention to the blog over Thanksgiving weekend) but thanks to Gregg Easterbrook for the link from his NFL.com column!

---

Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Skins Blame Selves, Wilbon, Wise, Kornheiser, Gruden: Easy Choice, Gibbs Gouges Refs, Skins Peek at Giants, Turner Still Stinks.

---

* Joey Galloway's out-of-bounds catch at Washingon's 3 in the first quarter was unreviewable because the official said Galloway was forced out of bounds by the defender.

---

Model Details

(Click for larger Image.) Each step includes outcome descriptions, the probability of each outcome, and the number of outcome occurences. The orange rows indicate an ultimate Bucs win, the red indicate an ultimate Skins win. For example, here are the steps in the topmost path which starts when the Bucs Go For 2:

1. Bucs score 80 percent of the time (16 of 20 outcomes on branch)

2. Wash drives 50 yards 50 percent of the time (80 of 160 outcomes on branch)

3. Wash kicks a 42 yard field goal 65 percent of the time (1040 of 1600 outcomes on branch)

4. No more decisions on this path so Wash wins 100 percent of the time (20,800 of 20,800 outcomes on branch).

Thank You John Edwards And Ilk

My wife's Ob-Gyn, Dr. Linda M. Brownlee, notified us today that she's shuttering her practice in Roswell, Georgia, and taking a job with Kaiser Permanente. Despite having never been sued for malpractice her insurance premiums increased 50 percent this year to $105,000. She'll earn a stable salary from Kaiser without worrying about huge premium increases cutting into her income every year.

Kaiser apparently self-insures its doctors to keep their costs down. I'm sure they also have a full stable of lawyers ready to fight malpractice suits to the bitter end. Ironically, many of the same liberals who hate Wal-Mart also oppose tort reform. Their efforts will likely speed the walmartization of health care as the industry consolidates into fewer and fewer large corporations for just these reasons. (Not that I'm anti-Wal-Mart by any means.)

Georgia finally limited pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice suits to $250,000 in February of this year. But premiums had already risen rapidly for years (though Georgia's increases are far from the worst in the country). It seems unlikely that the just-passed law would apply to existing malpractice cases so we may not see much effect for a few years.

The trial-lawyers' stock answer to rising insurance rates is that they're caused by underperforming insurance company investments (low interest rates + stagnant stock market). Sure, maybe that accounts for a portion of the rise (along with catch-ups from supposedly lower than normal rates in past years). But please! The insurance companies didn't base their old rates on Dow 100,000 -type performance! And despite its losses since 2000, the S&P 500 has still gained an average of 10 percent per annum since 1980 (from 115 to 1225), not including dividends.

No, I think the trial lawyers knew they were losing the battle for public opinion. Too many people have felt the personal pinch, in one way or another, of rising health and malpractice insurance premiums. Their association flacks cast around for a story with which to deflect blame and astutely latched on to the flat stock market and low interest rate line which, true or not, everyone can understand.

Really, the argument over responsibility for insurance premium increases is a distraction. We know there are lots of frivolous or unscientifically based lawsuits and ridiculously large damage awards (though these are often reduced on appeal). They range from big class action jobs like the silicone breast implant cases that sent Dow Chemical into bankrupty; to asbestos cases that continue to multiply and bankrupt dozens of companies only remotely associated with the stuff; to the building stream of Vioxx suits against Pfizer; to hundreds of suits blaming individual Ob-Gyns for cerebral palsy and the like. Off the top of my head I can name several friends and relatives that have been directly harmed or undeservedly helped by frivolous suits:

• My aunt who's a family practioner in Houston works part-time at a free health care clinic. She doesn't want to work full-time and high malpractice premiums make it very difficult for her to join a normal private practice part-time (I believe the premiums for her work at the clinic are paid out of government or charitable funds). CLARIFICATION: My aunt does pay her malpractice premiums but out of pre-tax income. She has stopped delivering babies so her costs aren't nearly as high as those of an obstetrician, but they have still increased by over 600 percent over the past eight years.

• My uncle (her husband) is an anesthesiologist who's been sued at least once or twice. In the case I'm familiar with a woman with some type of chronic condition (perhaps diabetes) failed to take her medicine and was rushed to the hospital on the verge of death. She needed a rapid IV infusion to live so he used much larger needles than normal, which resulted in some nerve damage in her arms. His thanks for saving her life was a malpractice lawsuit over the nerve damage.

• A friend of my wife received $60,000 from the silicone breast implant lawsuit against Dow. Not that she had any health problems or that there was ever any evidence that the implants in general caused problems. She was just automatically signed up as a member of the plaintiff class by virtue of being a Dow customer.

• A coworker who once worked as a contractor for Microsoft will soon receive nearly $100,000 in damages from the temp worker lawsuit filed against Microsoft several years ago. Again, he was simply added to the class action suit, though he was wronged in no way by Microsoft (nor were any other of the plaintiffs--they simply didn't like an employment arrangement that kept their hands out of the stock option pie). Indeed, as a result of the case, current contractors at Microsoft receive fewer benefits than in the old days to ensure they have no grounds for claiming de facto permanent employment.

• A college acquaintaince won $150,000 by smashing his hand while in high school. Essentially, he hit the lottery by screwing around with his buddies in shop class.

Right now there's a class-action suit ramping up over scratched iPod Nano screens. How much longer will we let these legal leeches and their thieving symbiant plaintiffs bleed us?

Keeping Cool

Today in Washington people who've spent their lives doing useful, productive things are being publicly berated by preening camera hogs who mostly waste other people's time and money. At times like this I simply remind myself that politician damage control is the core strength of our constitutional republic and let it go...

The Fumble Beat

Since Redskins fumble recoveries are my storyline of the month I simply must respond to Thomas Boswell's column. Boswell hinges his column on the premise that Washington beat the Eagles on lucky fumble recoveries. Huh?! I guess he hasn't kept up with my work on the subject. ;)

The Skins were a bit luckier than usual Sunday night. In a close and sloppy game they were just lucky enough to win, but they still recovered less than 50% of the game's fumbles--just 2 of 5. If they'd recovered at their normal rate this season they would almost certainly have lost as each fumble was a potential game turner. Let's review.

The Eagles fumbled out of bounds twice, once each inside their 30 and 20 yard lines. That's an almost guaranteed 3 points if Washingon recovers either one.

The Redskins fumbled three times, once each inside the Eagles 30 and 20 yard lines, and once inside their own 40. They recovered two of these. The first recovery was inside their own 40 and prevented a probable Eagles field goal. After the second recovery they scored an immediate touchdown. The one that got away prevented a probable Washington field goal.

On those five fumbles hinged (conservatively) 19 points. If Washington recovers them all they win by 16 points instead of 7. On the other hand, had the Skins lost all five as they did in New York a week ago, Philly ekes out a 3-6 point win.

The game wasn't pretty. I'd like to see improvement in a few areas--like the 2.7 yard-per-carry rushing average. But in context the season is going well. Halfway through Washington has played just one team with a losing record and a handful of division leaders and runners up. Despite this and the poor fumble luck they're a solid 5-3.

The road ahead doesn't look much easier with just two more sub-.500 opponents on the calendar. But after so many years as the NFC East doormat, it's certainly nice to be in the thick of things again!

---

Other Washington Post Redskins stories: Beating the Bully. Credit to the H-backs. Not Half Bad.

On the Ground In Thailand

My brother Kevin, a third-year resident at St. Vincent's Hospital in Jacksonville, and his wife arrived safely in Thailand yesterday for a two-week medical missions trip. They'll be providing primary care in some fairly wild and remote areas of Thailand so I expect it will be an interesting and eye-opening experience. I've invited him to write about it here when he returns so stay tuned...

Skins Fumbling Season?

Two weeks ago I pointed out that the Washington Redskins' negative turnover differential was mostly caused by extremely poor luck at recovering fumbles. At that point the team had recovered just 3 of 18 fumbles on offense and defense, and I expected those numbers to improve significantly.

Instead, over the past two weeks (including a 52-17 blow-out victory at San Francisco and a 36-0 whipping by the New York Giants) their recovery rate has worsened to 4 of 26 (15%). Since both teams have an even chance of recovering any given fumble, that's like flipping a coin 26 times and getting only four heads. The chances of this happening are just 1 in 3,333--about the same as the chances of tossing 12 heads or tails in a row! Ai-yi-yi!

The NFC East-leading Giants, on the other hand, lead the NFL with a fumble recovery rate of 71%. The second place Dallas Cowoys are also well ahead of the curve with a recovery rate of 62%, while the Philadelphia Eagles are dead average at exactly 50%.

So how much difference did fumbles make last Sunday? The Redskins fumbled three times, and New York recovered inside Washington's 30-yard line each time, leading directly to 17 points. The Giants fumbled twice (inside Washington's 10 and on their own 42) and recovered both times, allowing them to kick a field goal in the first instance and preventing a probable Washington field goal in the second. That's a 23-point swing in a 36-point Giants' victory--not inconsequential by any means. Yet New York so thoroughly dominated Washington on Sunday they'd almost certainly have won even without the fumble advantage.

---

Current Washington Post Redskins stories: Arrington Working. Patten Frustrated. Redskins Right Side Wrong. Defensive Line Weakened. Arrington May Start.