2006

Does Luria-Delbruck really mean that mutations are random? Or might it indicate something else?
Read More ›

Darwinists want to argue that natural selection is teleological. That cellular systems are able to ‘find’ solutions to life’s challenges because of the cell’s ability to reproduce. Using an analogy to mathematical problem solving, this is, in reality, no more than implementing an iterative process. And, as such, the question to be asked is: do we, even now, have a computer powerful enough, and a scientific sophistication capable enough, to find the kinds of solutions nature has found? Article after article are now appearing that tell us the answer is ‘no’.

But, prescinding from this question, let’s look at the latest such article, one dealing with ‘microtubules’. Microtubules form the very structure of cells; they give cells their 3-dimensional character. Cells couldn’t reproduce without microtubules. And what is it we see now? Microtubules represent an engineering skill that is completely beyond anything humans have been able to do so far. But, if microtubules are essential to cell reproduction, then how could this possibly be the result of an ‘iterative’ process? Who engineered this miracle of design? This is more than just a challenge for abiogenesis advocates. If ‘iterative’ processes are completely unable to explain what we see here, what does this say about our confidence in invoking them when it comes to other engineering marvels we find in Nature?

Read More ›

“One thing we will discover is that buried deep within the DNA of humans, Vulcans (even Klingons) and other intelligent bi-pedal races is a mathematical code, something buried so deep and of such complexity that it could not possibly have occurred by chance.” http://bztv.typepad.com/newsviews/files/ST2004Reboot.pdf

Many people who argue against Intelligent Design’s position on transitional forms often don’t have any clue what it is that is actually being said. I’d like to take a moment to clear it up. If anyone disagrees with my commentary (especially ID’ers — I’d hate to misrepresent other’s opinions), please post below. My main point in writing is not so much a defence of the concept (though I do attempt that) but rather to show why it makes sense even in the absence of special creation, and why its use is not limitted to people who agree with special creation, but anyone who believes in a telic form of evolution.

Read More ›

With the aid of smoke and mirrors and beautiful women, David Copperfield can make the impossible seemingly happen before the very eyes of live audiences. He is an illusionist by profession, and is so adept at what he does, he has become one of the highest paid celebrities in the world (57 million a year).

It is one thing for cleverly crafted theatrical illusions to be consumed for entertainment. It is another when theatrical illusions in computer simulations are used as evidence in a landmark federal case like Kitzmiller versus Dover.

This will be the first installment of a 3 part series where I will explore the work on evolutionary algorithms by Chris Adami, Dave Thomas, Wesley Elsberry, and Jeff Shallit. (In no way am I claiming the theatrics of their evolutionary algorithms were deliberate or meant to mislead or deceive. I simply use the phrase to hammer the point that these simulations are little better than theatrical illusions.)

Avida is the premier computer simulation in the anti-IDist arsenal. It supposedly illustrates Darwinian evolution, creates an instance of artificial life, provides a refutation of Behe’s irreducible complexity, and disproves Dembski’s assertions of information conservation and specified complexity. It has been featured in prestigious scientific journals, was offered as evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, brought a measure of fame to its promoters, and possibly paid a few mortgages.

Read More ›

Here’s an email I received today that gave me a chuckle and that I thought might amuse the readers of this blog: From: RJDownard@snip Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:11:02 EDT Subject: Ann Coulter’s New Book To: william.dembski@snip Dear Bill I see that you, Michael Behe, and David Berlinski are commended by Ann Coulter in her new book apropos the “generous tutoring” she obtained at your hands. I am presently in the process of analyzing her anti-“Darwiniac” arguments point-by-point at Talk Reason (with courtesy postings at Panda’s Thumb as well) , and so naturally am curious about the extent and content of those tutorials, and to what degree those tutorials could have contributed to her written conclusions. I also notice Read More ›

Consider the following quote: Like Behe, William Dembski, and the wedge-pedigreed scientists of the Discovery Institute, Coulter never really takes on evolutionary biology, presumably because she is unwilling or unable to read recent, peer-reviewed research by actual biologists. Here is who wrote it: Jennie Lightweis-Goff is a PhD candidate in the Department of English at the University of Rochester. Her forthcoming single-authored publications include “Sins of Commitment” in Senses of Cinema (July 2006). Phillip Lightweis-Goff is a self-employed artist, an activist for social change, and an avid student of history and anthropology. They live together in Rochester, New York. Here is the full article: http://www.countercurrents.org/goff100706.htm

Given Francis Collins’s view of evolution, how does science support the idea of “genetic code as sacred speech”? Or is this simply a faith move? From the Washington Post, Sunday, July 9, 2006; BW05 Reason to Believe A leading geneticist argues that science can lead to faith. Reviewed by Scott Russell Sanders THE LANGUAGE OF GOD A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief By Francis S. Collins Free Press. 283 pp. $26 . . . The God in whom Collins believes is no aloof Prime Mover who set the show in motion and withdrew to watch. He’s a deity who intervenes (albeit rarely) in the course of things. Why God permits the suffering of innocents is a puzzle Collins does not Read More ›

Michael Shermer has a piece on confirmation bias in the current SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN (go here). He writes: . . . In science we have built-in self-correcting machinery. Strict double-blind controls are required in experiments, in which neither the subjects nor the experimenters know the experimental conditions during the data-collection phase. Results are vetted at professional conferences and in peer-reviewed journals. Research must be replicated in other laboratories unaffiliated with the original researcher. Disconfirmatory evidence, as well as contradictory interpretations of the data, must be included in the paper. Colleagues are rewarded for being skeptical. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We need similar controls for the confirmation bias in the arenas of law, business and politics. Judges and lawyers should call Read More ›

Cosmological fine-tuning for the existence of life is so well established that it is essentially beyond question at this point, unless one is willing to put blind faith in wildly-fantastic speculation about an infinitude of in-principle undetectable alternative universes. A huge amount of complex, specified information was clearly infused into the origin-of-the-universe process. Not only did matter, energy, space, and the physical laws of the universe come into existence at this point, but time itself did as well. This means that the cause of the universe must exist outside of matter, energy, space, the physical laws of the universe, and even time. This raises an interesting question about design and temporal supernatural intervention: If the source of the universe exists Read More ›

… it’s probably a duck. I was reading John Lynch’s blog Stranger Fruit and ran across this comment by Tiax who is a frequent commenter from the loyal opposition here: It strikes me as odd that they would use the word ‘intuitive’ when the folks at Uncommondescent are so happy to point out the very intuitive nature of design detection. “This looks very designed to me” is often a good enough rationale It strikes me as odd that people who have no problem believing that a few fossilized bone fragments or teeth “that look like a transitional species” is always a good enough rationale to call it a transitional species would complain about us calling something with the appearance of Read More ›

How is it that when cognitive psychologists and computational intelligence engineers detect user intent, they are doing science, but when ID theorists detect design in biological systems, they aren’t? There’s a double standard here. ID might fail as a science — methods of design detection might be defective or fail to yield a positive result, but to say that their application does not even constitute science, as Judge John E. Jones III ruled in Kitzmiller v. Dover, is on its face ludicrous. Consider the following letter from a colleague: Bill, I wondered if science did any studies on “intent detection” so I searched Google. The focus has always been on the phrase “design detection” so it never occured to me Read More ›

Should public schools censor scientific evidence just because it challenges Darwin’s theory of evolution? Or, should teachers present ALL the scientific evidence, including both the strengths and weaknesses of evolutionary theory? The overwhelming majority of Americans believe that when biology teachers present the scientific evidence supporting Darwin’s theory of evolution, they should also teach the scientific evidence against it. According to the Kansas State Board of Education: “Regarding the scientific theory of biological evolution, the curriculum standards call for students to learn about the best evidence for modern evolutionary theory, but also to learn about areas where scientists are raising scientific criticisms of the theory.” However, there are some in Kansas, and around the country, now using their voices to Read More ›

Here’s my proposal: XX = Paranoid Delusion YY = Mental Health I solicit other comparisons for this thread.

Robert Savillo, an unknown in the evo-ID wars, has entered the fray with an attack against Ann Coulter’s treatment of evolution in her new book Godless (go here for Savillo’s screed). Savillo takes me to task for letting Ann’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” pass editorial scrutiny: Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” Robert Savillo Media Matters for America June 2006 . . . According to the weblog of William Dembski, a supporter of intelligent design, all of the above-mentioned falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions can be attributed to his “generous tutoring.” The evidence reveals that Coulter’s two chapters on the theory of evolution display her own ignorance toward the subject while providing an avenue to make ad hominem attacks against scientists, progressives, and Read More ›