“Neo-Darwinism is firmly accredited and highly regarded by science, though there is little direct evidence for it, because it beautifully fits into a mechanistic system of the universe and bears on a subject — the origin of man — which is of utmost intrinsic interest.” (Personal Knowledge, p.136)

On Common Descent v. Intelligent Design theories: Neither theory is proven, nor perhaps even provable, but both deserve to be on the table for discussion with equal value. The hysteria of Darwinists and atheists toward even discussing the concept of intelligent design exhibits a lack of confidence in their position, which, in and of itself, should be a part of the debate. It is unfortunate that so many public schools have capitulated to the pressures of the Darwinist-atheist coalition in its crusade to squelch any academic debate that may cast a shadow over its narrow, intolerant and tenuous suppositions. more here

In the fine tradition of quote mining (just kidding), I’d like to periodically dig up a provocative quote and observe the reaction on the net.

“
Genesis 1:26 tells us something very different. We are assured that our efforts to understand nature are valid, because our hearts and minds are fashioned in the likeness of God. Read More ›

I just received a notice from the Metanexus listserve regarding the spring lecture series sponsored by the Center for the Study of Science and Religion (CSSR) at the Earth Institute at Columbia University. It looks as though Philip Kitcher, a prominent philosopher of science at Columbia University, is taking a different tack in the science wars. Recognizing he has no case to make when it comes to demarcation criteria, he’s decided to argue that ID is an instance of dead science that should remain dead, after which he’ll outline what he thinks follows for religious belief from this state of affairs. Wednesday, April 26th, 2006, 6:30-8:00 Darwin, Design, and the Future of Faith Professor Kitcher will suggest that the best Read More ›

Intelligent Design for Anthropologists Chris Toumey U South Carolina Intelligent design is a threat to the knowledge that anthropology discovers and teaches about human origins and our place in the natural world. ³Scientific creationism² was an attempt to finesse the problem of the obvious sectarian basis of old-time creationism, and intelligent design is a clever way of re-packaging ³scientific creationism² after the US Supreme Court easily saw scientific creationism¹s unconstitutional religious basis in the 1987 Edwards v Aguillard case. Even though intelligent design is an intellectual dead end, it is very attractive to religious conservatives who want to discredit or suppress the principles of naturalistic, secular and empirical explanation that guide the study of evolution and other sciences. Why Oppose Read More ›

I recently posted a brief essay entitled “Beware of Question-Begging Computer Simulations” (linked below) in which I referenced an article by Eric Anderson. Since then Eric and I have corresponded by e-mail and he offers the following comments.

Gil

Read More ›

“Creationist theories about how the world was made are to be debated in GCSE science lessons in mainstream secondary schools in England. The subject has been included in a new syllabus for biology produced by the OCR exam board, due out in September.” more here…

Sahotra Sarkar (Departments of Philosophy and Integrative Biology at the University of Texas-Austin) will be debating Paul Nelson (Discovery Institute and Biola University) tonight at UT-Austin, in an event organized by the Undergraduate Philosophy Association there. The proposition for discussion is “Can the evolution of life on earth be explained by purely natural processes?” Thursday, March 9, 2006 7:30 PM, UTC 2.112A. Paul Nelson’s discussion paper is available here [link to pdf].

When Bill posted Debugging the Universe, it reminded me to post that an ID sympathetic paper had been accepted in the journal of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals Volume 25, Issue 4 , August 2005, Pages 845-859: Computational Universes by Karl Svozil of Institut für Theoretische Physik, Vienna, Austria: Suspicions that the world might be some sort of a machine or algorithm existing “in the mind” of some symbolic number cruncher have lingered from antiquity. Although popular at times, the most radical forms of this idea never reached mainstream. Modern developments in physics and computer science have lent support to the thesis …. discrete computational physics certainly represents an interesting, speculative and challenging research area. Many ideas from system science, interface Read More ›

Whether ID is science isn’t semantics
Judge John Jones gave two arguments for his conclusion that ID is not science. Both are unsound, says Alvin Plantinga
By Alvin Plantinga
(March 7, 2006)

Judge John Jones’ 139-page opinion in Kitzmiller et al. v. Dover Area School District raises questions that go far beyond the legalities of this specific case. I won’t offer an opinion on whether the judge’s decision is correct — although apparently he’s never met an objection to intelligent design he doesn’t like and some of his “findings” seem vastly more sweeping than is appropriate.

First, a general question: What sorts of issues can a judge decide just by fiat?

Jones rules, among other things, that:

* ID is just warmed-over creation science
* ID tries to change the very definition of science
* The scientific community has refuted the criticisms of evolution brought by the IDers
* ID involves a kind of dualism and that this dualism is doomed.

But how can one hope to settle these matters just by a judicial declaration? Read More ›

These three guys been reading the hate speech at Panda’s Thumb too long? Read More ›

Quantum information science is an arcane field that delves into the role of information in the physical world. Among the questions it asks are: What are the ultimate capabilities for storing, transmitting and manipulating information? Can radically new computers be developed by drawing upon quantum mechanics, the physics of the extremely small? And, is the universe itself some kind of computer, and if so what does this mean? The field’s cosmic implications are explored by two new books with similar titles. Programming the Universe: A Quantum Computer Scientist Takes on the Cosmos gives the perspective of Seth Lloyd, an MIT professor of mechanical engineering who has been a pioneer of quantum computing. Decoding the Universe: How the New Science of Read More ›

Richard Sternberg’s Testimony (courtesy of the Discovery Institute)

Perhaps there is no field of the biological sciences undergoing more rapid change than evolutionary research. Almost every day some new finding is reported that overturns— or seriously calls into question—long-standing assumptions and models. From the genome sequencing projects and studies of how genes operate to the discovery of new fossils, evolutionary biology is in a state of transition. Examples are simply too numerous to cover adequately. But here are a few. You have leaders in the field like W. Ford Doolittle presenting evidence that there is no “Tree of Life” but, instead, a complex web of gene sharing. Likewise, Carl Woese, one of the fathers of molecular phylogenetics, thinks the data support multiple, independent origins of organisms—that the notion of a Universal Common Ancestor is erroneous. Then again, evolutionary developmental biologists like Stuart Newman have performed experiments that suggest that animal body plans originated before genomes to “encode” them. I know it sounds radical, but he and other leaders in the field of “evo-devo” think that genes support development, but they don’t provide the blueprint. Read More ›

In the Scopes trial appellate opinion, Tennessee Supreme Court Justice Chambliss noted that Scopes’ lawyers prominently featured this statement from Prof. E. N. Reinke of Vanderbilt University: “The theory of evolution is altogether essential to the teaching of biology. . . . To deny the teacher of biology the use of [evolution] would make his teaching as chaotic as an attempt to teach . . . physics without assuming the existence of the ether.” (Go here. Didn’t Einstein’s fundamental work predate the Scopes trial by two decades?) It’s comforting to realize that critics of ID like Eugenie Scott, Ken Miller, and Daniel Dennett stand on the shoulders of such towering intellects as Prof. Reinke.

http://www.liberallyspeaking.com http://www.audiomartini.com Note: this won’t be up until tonight (3.8.06).