Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Darwinism’s great appeal: Empowering the ignorant and nurturing their self-esteem

More for amusement than anything else, I sometimes check the latest reviews of my books and those of my colleagues on Amazon. Here’s the beginning and end of a review of Icons of Evolution (authored by my good friend Jonathan Wells) posted three days ago:

***********************************************
A review by a medical researcher, June 27, 2006
Reviewer: Ian R. Peters (Boulder, CO USA)

I want to make 2 things clear before I start discussing this book.

(1) I have read this book thoroughly. I have taken the time to analyze the
arguments that Jonathan Wells makes.

(2) I am a medical researcher and have quite a bit of background on this
subject. This is not to say that I’m infallible, because as Wells clearly
demonstrates a biology degree can mean that you can still be wayyy off base.
Still, I would like to point out that I have some knowledge of the subject.

Wells’ book is a product of someone who has little or no understanding of
the subject matter. A perfect example is his discussion on homology. Wells
tries to show that the argument for evolution is a circular one because, he
says, evolutionists use analogous structures as support for evolution and
vice versa. But the thing is, we biologists don’t use JUST homologous
structures as evidence for evolution. There’s a whole lot of evidence that
is taken into account including genetics, biochemical systems and
comparative embryonic analysis.

…[snip]…

The theory of evolution has helped us to better understand the world around
us, including how/why bacteria adapt to antibiotics and how we can fight
avian flu. Without it, I know that the work that I and countless others do
would not have any meaning. Modern biology has given us a lot and evolution
provides the framework for it all.

If you think this book is right and evolution is a work of fiction, then
just be glad that your doctor knows better. We need more trained biologists
in this country to help keep our world healthy and I fear works like this
one will deter young people from becoming productive scientists.
*****************************************

Curious, I looked up Ian R. Peters on the University of Colorado-Boulder web site (I found him here). He’s a 5th year senior (i.e., undergraduate) in biological sciences and philosophy.

Isn’t Darwinism wonderful? It empowers someone who has not yet earned a bachelor’s degree to call himself a “medical researcher” and tell Jonathan Wells — with a Ph.D. in biology and twenty years of experience in medical laboratories — that he has “little or no understanding of the subject matter.”

But Darwinism doesn’t merely empower. It also nourishes self-esteem. It’s why we desperately need courses in evolutionary logic:

Read More ›

Accident or Design? Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins

Spider silk and diatom silica structures are just accidents. We can’t design stuff like this ourselves but when we take these two complex things found in nature and combine them then all of a sudden it’s a design! Wheeeeee! Aren’t we smart! Novel nanocomposites from spider silk–silica fusion (chimeric) proteins

New Counter-Culture ID-Friendly Magazine

Check out SALVO: http://www.salvomag.com. It’s hard-hitting and in-your-face without being ponderous. I love the “fake” ads, like The Center for Human Enhancement’s ad that features a stylized human head with the caption “be perfect” and the recommendation to “visit upgrademe.com.” Denyse O’Leary as well as other allies have pieces in the premier issue (autumn 2006), which is now out. The first issue focuses on the materialist reduction of soul.

The Miracle of Co-option

Over at evolutionnews.org (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/06/whats_up_with_ronald_numbers_a_2.html) Casey Luskin comments on an article coauthored by Ronald Numbers for the Journal of Clinical Investigation (“Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action”).

In this article we once again hear the bogus co-option argument as a proposed refutation of irreducible complexity: “…Michael Behe’s irreducible complexity argument ignores exaptation (co-option)…”

This claim of the refutation of IC by co-option is so ubiquitous that some people are actually starting to believe it. I therefore feel that it is my civic duty to refute this “refutation” of IC, which turns out to be a trivial exercise.

Read More ›

Two Just So Stories

“Just so story” is a phrase one hears often in the origins debate. Etymologically, the phrase is traced to a series of children’s stories by Rudyard Kipling in which he gave comical accounts of how various animals acquired their peculiar traits, including “How the Camel got his Hump,” “How the Rhinoceros got his Skin,” and “How the Leopard got his Spots.”

Following are two “just so stories.” Let’s see if you can guess which one is Kipling and which one is Darwin.

Read More ›

Jury Nullification – People Stripped of Their Power

This is a follow on to my earlier article urging people to write their congress persons in support of H.R. 2679, Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005.

What I want to talk about here is how the people have been stripped of their right to have a jury judge the law – commonly called jury nullification – and have a judge’s opinion substituted for that of a jury of peers as intended by the constitution. Read More ›

Cornell ID Course Blog Open to Public

The Cornell ID Course is open to any participants as long as they abide by the rules of engagement: The following rules will be strictly enforced: Ad hominem attacks, blasphemy, profanity, rudeness, and vulgarity will not be tolerated (although heresy will always be encouraged). However, vigorous attacks against a member’s position are expected and those who cannot handle such should think twice before they post. Long-running debates that are of interest only to a small number of individuals should be taken elsewhere, preferably via private email (i.e. if the moderator gets tired of reading posts concerning the population density [N] of terpsichorean demigods inhabiting ferrous microalpine environments, the posters will be encouraged to “settle it outside”). Pseudonyms are permitted but Read More ›

(Slightly Off-Topic) Introducing Another Bill–Bill Vallicella, the Maverick Philosopher

For those of you enjoying the antics of those bungling buffoons over at the PT circus (I know I am!), I’d like to warn you that too much of that stuff will rot your brain. Never fear, however. I’ve got just the thing to remedy that. Bill Vallicella (aka the Maverick Philosopher) has a blog on which he posts and discusses his philosophical ruminations. It’s a place I like to go when in need of some good mental excercise. Check it out!

Write to Your Congresscritters in Support of H.R. 2679

First, my thanks to occasional UD commenter and blogger Larry Fafarman for bringing this to my attention. This bill, introduced in the U.S. House with 50 cosponsers, seeks to bar awarding attorney’s fees in lawsuits involving the 1st amendment establishment clause and limit the awards to injunctive relief. The multi-million dollar attorney fees collected by the ACLU have had a chilling effect on the religious freedom clause of the 1st amendment. Because of this public officials no longer ask “is this the right thing to do?” but rather “can we afford to lose a legal battle with a vast hoard of ACLU attorneys?”. Financial intimidation like this is just plain un-American and wrong. Contact your representatives in the U.S. House Read More ›

The Triumph of Reason over Rhetoric at the Panda’s Thumb

DaveScot beat me to the punch (see previous post). Just so you don’t have to wade through the 515 (and counting) comments on the Ron Numbers thread (if you must consult it, go here), here are some highlights. It is heavily edited, of course, but what I left out is even dopier than what I kept in. It’s hard to believe that when NATURE needed to critique Steve Meyer’s piece that he published in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, it looked to guidance from the Panda’s Thumb. Read More ›

Trouble In Paradise (or “When Good Atheists Go Bad”)

Lenny Flank and PZ Myers, both positive atheists, are going for each other’s jugular on Panda’s Thumb. Myers thinks Flank is harming the cause because Flank refuses to agree that theists need to be lined up and shot and Flank thinks Myers is an idiot because Myers is alienating people in numbers so great that political defeat is inevitable. Flank is right of course. At any rate, the exchange is largely between the two of them and is at 510 comments and counting as I write this. For a laugh – check it out.