Commenter DK asks:

What is the official ID position on junk DNA? Has anyone proposed that it might be a mechanism to cause wholesale change in other parts of the DNA?

I thought this subject might be good for its own discusson thread so here it is. I don’t believe ID has any more “official” position on it than NDE does. It is largely regions of DNA with no known function and that isn’t to say it has no function at all. IDists tend to say there is a lot of function waiting to be discovered in it under the rubric that design is less wasteful than chance processes. The NDE position tends more toward much of it being detritus of an evolution driven by chance processes. Read More ›

I debated Lee Silver last year at Princeton and reported it on this blog (for a video of the debate, go here). Silver is a Princeton bioethicist with a Ph.D. in biology. He and Peter Singer are soulmates. Fundamentalists? We? Bad science, worse philosophy, and McCarthyite tactics in the human-embyro debate. An essay by Patrick Lee & Robert P. George We have in many places argued for the humanity and fundamental dignity of human beings in the embryonic stage of development and all later stages. In defending embryonic human life, we have pointed out that every human adult was once an embryo, just as he or she was once an adolescent, and before that a child, and before that an Read More ›

I do not usually bother with anonymous posts at the Post-Darwinist, but some strike me as interesting. Take this one on ID-friendly law prof Frank Beckwith’s tenure case: Beckwith is not a law professor. He does not have the requisite education to be a law professor. He has no juris doctorate. Therefore, he can only teach at the undergraduate level. And even then, he can only teach the “philosophy of law.” Not law itself. Now, at the time, I wondered why the hoo-haw a person so knowledgeable about the state of law teaching should wish to send me an anonymous post. But people who detract from the reputation of others – particularly those others who may be their superiors in Read More ›

I’d left the conference early on Friday night. The house was packed out and the U organizer worried about the Fire Marshal’s opinion of people sitting on the stair grades, so I ceded my seat.

(So much for “ID is dead …” Not in Toronto, anyway.)

Thus I missed the presentation by emeritus chemist Dr. David Humphreys, in support of the view that the molecules of life give evidence of purposeful design. I bet they do. I also missed the presentation by astronomer Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe.

When I got back early Saturday morning, there was a distinct buzz because Ross had “witnessed” during his presentation. Read More ›

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918202123.htm

Applying techniques derived from classical and quantum physics calculations may radically reduce the time it takes to simulate the way that proteins fold.
Read More ›

I seem to have a talent for raising the ire and indignation of anti-ID folks. Check out the number of comments here (126 comments at this writing). This is a good sign for ID, because it’s obvious that my posts strike sensitive nerves. Defending the indefensible is a difficult task that requires a great deal of passion. But wait, there’s more, at no additional charge! Check out this article. Random mutation and natural selection really is miraculous. It not only explains the intricacies of the machinery of the cell, it explains the intricacies of the bat’s echolocation system and its integration with the bat’s flight-control system. Examples like this reveal why Darwinian fundamentalists are in a state of panic. They Read More ›

It is my personal opinion that rising biology enrollments parallel ID’s popularity. I personally believe interest in ID encourages study of biology and conversely developments in biology have continued to fuel interest in ID. However, it would be pre-mature at this time to assert this as a quantitative argument. I can only offer it as a personal and qualitative opinion, but considering the modern ID movement’s beginning was in 1984, I will let the reader simply consider the numbers I provide below and draw their own conclusions.

Nevertheless, I think people like Brian Alters (see Brian Alters Drivel) can not rigorously demonstrate the opposite claim, namely, that interest in ID somehow diminishes interest in science, particularly biology. I would actually argue Darwinist behavior is tarnishing biology and making the field have the appearance of being disreputable and unattractive. It would be better for the world of science to drop its promotion of Darwinism.

Something to consider statistically from the National Academy of Sciences of the USA:
National Academy of Sciences Press

Overall, the number of freshman biology majors increased from about 50,000 in the early 1980s to over 73,000 in 2000.2 In terms of actual bachelor’s degrees awarded in the biological sciences, there was a decrease from about 47,000 in 1980 to 37,000 in 1989 and then a relatively sharp rise to over 67,000 in 1998. This was followed by a slight decline to about 65,000 in 2000.

Read More ›

More complicated than previously thought… gee, ya think? 😛 A new review in Science by Lemons and McGinnis that surveys Hox gene clusters in different lineages shows that the control of the Hox genes is much, much more complicated than previously thought. Source

This story has been of ongoing interest. Here is the latest.

SSHRC doubts the science of evolution
In rejecting a proposed study, the eminent science council shows it has become infected with postmodern drivel
By Dan Adleman

In the summer issue of Humanist Perspectives, Gary Bauslaugh reports that the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) has rejected Dr Brian Alters’ application for a grant to study the “detrimental effects of popularizing anti-evolution’s ‘Intelligent Design Theory’ on Canadian students, teachers, parents, administrators and policymakers.” Read More ›

I just learned the following from a colleague in Finland: 1. The first Finnish edition of your book [i.e., Intelligent Design] has been sold out (1500 copies) 2. 30% of Finns do not believe in Evolution — which shocked our educators Both statistics are surprising. Finland is a country of only about 3,000,000, so proportionately the book has way outsold its American counterpart (which sold about 60,000 copies here). Also, for a country as atheistic and materialistic as Finland, to have this level of disbelief in standard evolutionary theory is indeed shocking.

On Friday evening, September 29, 2006, several of us (Mike Behe, Jonathan Wells, Ralph Seelke and I — I was a last minute add on) spoke to a crowd of almost 4,000 people at the University of South Florida’s Sun Dome in Tampa, usually devoted to sports events such as basketball games. The event was sponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI). It was organized by Tom Woodward (author of Doubts About Darwin), Rich Akin, and some hard-working volunteers. The audience consisted mainly of people interested in learning about ID — students, faculty, and parents. There were a few Darwinists present, who contented themselves largely with handing out leaflets (“ID Is Not Science”) and shouting “Darwin” as they Read More ›

A commenter, from my first post-conference sketch, asks,

Denyse: thanks for your first anecdotal response. I have read elsewhere (on this blog?) that the current generation may simply have to die off, given the faith system/creation myth of naturalism/darwinism. A key issue then is what the young people think, both graduate and undergraduate students. What were the objectives of the organizers? How evenly balanced were the ID friendly and evolution friendly speakers? What was the temper of the questions asked? Finally, how well received was the notion of a testable creation model?

Well, the blog’s imputed elsewhere may have been thinking of Thomas Kuhn’s quotation from Max Planck,

“a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it” (Kuhn, 1962).

I call Planck right in this, especially when a system – whether it is the Ptolemaic universe or Darwinism – is a creation story or validation of religion of some kind.

Let’s not forget Ben Wattenberg reminding Richard Dawkins on NPR of his own words in The Selfish Gene,

Living organisms had existed on earth without ever knowing why for 3,000 million years before the truth finally dawned on one of them. His name was Charles Darwin.

– Richard Dawkins on Ben Wattenberg’s PBS Think Tank (1996)

Wattenberg’s comment was “That sounds to me like a religious statement. That is a – that is near messianic language.”

Dawkins, of course, denied that, saying Read More ›

Two top-of-mind events, for now:

(In the order of remembrance of things past, not necessarily long term importance)

1. The depth of the crisis with Darwinian evolution became apparent to me when I watched and listened to the Darwinian biologists present.

For these people, Darwinism is a cult. They simply cannot understand objections to Darwinian evolution as actual objections. For example, the fact that very few instances of speciation are actually observed makes it very difficult to test Darwinian evolution against other kinds. This may be an accident, to be sure, but it is an accident with consequences. It means that the “overwhelming evidence” that supposedly exists for Darwin’s theory is really just overwhelming belief on the part of people like themselves.

But there they sit, placid with overwhelming belief, like pious grannies – and mistaking it for overwhelming evidence. Read More ›