Organizational and dynamical aspects of a small network with two distinct communities: Neo-creationists vs. Evolution Defenders

Social impacts and degrees of organization inherent to opinion formation for interacting agents on networks present interesting questions of general interest from physics to sociology. We present a quantitative analysis of a case implying an evolving small size network, i.e. that inherent to the ongoing debate between modern creationists (most are Intelligent Design (ID) proponents (IDP) and Darwin’s theory of Evolution Defenders (DED)). This study is carried out by analyzing the structural properties of the citation network unfolded in the recent decades by publishing works belonging to members of the two communities. With the aim of capturing the dynamical aspects of the interaction between the IDP and DED groups, we focus on two key quantities, namely, the degree of activity of each group and the corresponding degree of impact on the intellectual community at large. A representative measure of the former is provided by the rate of production of publications (RPP), whilst the latter can be assimilated to the rate of increase in citations (RIC). These quantities are determined, respectively, by the slope of the time series obtained for the number of publications accumulated per year and by the slope of a similar time series obtained for the corresponding citations. The results indicate that in this case, the dynamics can be seen as geared by triggered or damped competition. The network is a specific example of marked heterogeneity in exchange of information activity in and between the communities, particularly demonstrated through the nodes having a high connectivity degree, i.e. opinion leaders.

[1]  M. Newman,et al.  Finding community structure in networks using the eigenvectors of matrices. , 2006, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[2]  K. Bailey.  The Great Monkey Trial , 1968 .

[3]  Rainer Hegselmann,et al.  Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence: models, analysis and simulation , 2002, J. Artif. Soc. Soc. Simul..

[4]  David Bawden,et al.  Book Review: Evolution and Structure of the Internet: A Statistical Physics Approach. , 2006 .

[5]  J. Buckeridge.  Creationism and intelligent design: a critique , 2008 .

[6]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[7]  Albert-László Barabási,et al.  Statistical mechanics of complex networks , 2001, ArXiv.

[8]  Matteo Marsili,et al.  The rise and fall of a networked society: a formal model. , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[9]  Ginestra Bianconi,et al.  Clogging and self-organized criticality in complex networks. , 2004, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[10]  S H Strogatz,et al.  Random graph models of social networks , 2002, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[11]  Robert T. Pennock.  Creationism and intelligent design. , 2003, Annual review of genomics and human genetics.

[12]  Werner Ebeling,et al.  The application of evolution models in scientometrics , 2005, Scientometrics.

[13]  Claudio Castellano,et al.  Defining and identifying communities in networks. , 2003, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[14]  M E Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. I. Network construction and fundamental results. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[15]  Erno Gyeresi.  No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased Without Intelligence [review] / William A. Dembski. , 2002 .

[16]  Michael J. Behe,et al.  Reply to My Critics: A Response to Reviews of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution , 2001 .

[17]  Ronald Rousseau,et al.  Q-measures for binary divided networks: Bridges between German and English institutes in publications of the Journal of Fluid Mechanics , 2008, Scientometrics.

[18]  R. Lewontin.  ‘The Selfish Gene’ , 1977, Nature.

[19]  Ronald Rousseau.  Q-measures for binary divided networks: An investigation within the field of informetrics , 2005, ASIST.

[20]  M. Newman,et al.  Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[21]  S. Ott,et al.  Predator-Prey Encounters Studied as Relative Particle Diffusion , 2006 .

[22]  P. Ball.  Critical Mass: How One Thing Leads to Another , 2004 .

[23]  Samuel R. Friedman,et al.  A New Measure of Linkage Between Two Sub-networks 1 , 2004 .

[24]  Serge Gallam.  Majority rule, hierarchical structures, and democratic totalitarianism: a statistical approach , 1986 .

[25]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  Self-citations, co-authorships and keywords: A new approach to scientists’ field mobility? , 2007, Scientometrics.

[26]  M. Ausloos,et al.  Coexistence of opposite opinions in a network with communities , 2007, physics/0703266.

[27]  Marcel Ausloos,et al.  The logistic map and the route to chaos : from the beginnings to modern applications , 2006 .

[28]  M Ausloos,et al.  N-body decomposition of bipartite author networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[29]  F. Schweitzer,et al.  SOCIAL IMPACT MODELS OF OPINION DYNAMICS , 2001 .

[30]  M Ausloos,et al.  Uncovering collective listening habits and music genres in bipartite networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[31]  Katarzyna Sznajd-Weron,et al.  Opinion evolution in closed community , 2000, cond-mat/0101130.

[32]  William A. Dembski,et al.  No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence , 2001 .

[33]  M E J Newman,et al.  Community structure in social and biological networks , 2001, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[34]  M. Newman.  Erratum: Scientific collaboration networks. II. Shortest paths, weighted networks, and centrality (Physical Review e (2001) 64 (016132)) , 2006 .

[35]  A. Pękalski.  Evolution of population in changing conditions , 2002 .

[36]  K. Börner,et al.  Mapping topics and topic bursts in PNAS , 2004, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[37]  Wolfgang Weidlich.  Synergetic modelling concepts for sociodynamics with application to collective political opinion formation , 1994 .

[38]  William A. Dembski.  The Design Inference: Index , 1998 .

[39]  R. Dawkins.  The God Delusion. Richard Dawkins , 2006 .

[40]  Andrzej Pękalski.  A model of population dynamics , 1998 .

[41]  Andrzej Pekalski,et al.  A short guide to predator-prey lattice models , 2004, Computing in Science & Engineering.