“you must calibrate every molecular clock that you do”… Reed A. Cartwright on The Panda’s Thumb
“We can also expect that estimates, derived from the molecular clock assumption, can be very wrong and contradictory.” ibid
The other side is making much about my having attained yet another “new low” in being the creative force behind the Judge Jones School of Law (go to www.overwhelmingevidence.com). Just to be clear, my aim in this flash animation was not to shake up the convictions of convinced Darwinists. Rather, my aim was to render Judge Jones and his decision ridiculous in the eyes of many young people, who from here on will never take Darwinian evolution or him seriously. If the cost of accomplishing this is yet another lowering of my estimation in the eyes of PT or Richard Dawkins, that’s a price I’m only too glad to pay — heck, I regard that as a benefit of the Read More ›
In a masterful display of witty rhetoric… Response from Richard “Girly Man” Dawkins “Anybody who resorts to tactics of desperation like this has to be a real loser. Dembski is a loser”…
Dana Carvey or David Heddle? You be the judge… Something new for the CV “This is damn embarrassing.” “This post was on the adult blog, Uncommon Descent” Doctor Heddle, you’re not half as embarrassed as I’ll be if you reveal the author of that email offering to make you an author on Uncommon Descent. 😛
Over at www.overwhelmingevidence.com there is a flash animation featuring Judge Jones spouting inanities (inanities that he actually did write or say). There’s been a design inference made that it’s my voice in the Jones animation. A disgruntled former UD commenter KeithS slowed it down and lowered the pitch. Well, it’s true, it actually is me. But that’s only temporary. We are inviting Judge Jones to do himself. Stay tuned.
As I was reading the appendix to the report from Congressman Souder’s office an email from Sue Richardson, a research associate at the National Museum of Natural History, struck me as a fine example of the attitudes pervading the science establishment. I reproduce it here. Read More ›
Judge Jones — by accepting widespread praise for the most salient and important part of his decision in its written form, without acknowledging the true authors — has implicitly taken credit for what was not his. In my view, this constitutes de facto plagiarism, and it should be called what it is. What say you?
The staff investigation has uncovered compelling evidence that Dr. Sternberg’s civil and constitutional rights were violated by Smithsonian officials. See Rob Crowther’s links: here
Lauren Sandler in her book Righteous (p. 204-205) offered the following:
intelligent design proponents keep quiet about the idea that [Judge] Jones’s decision opens new legal support to teach thier views in philosophy and religion classes. “We do not question that many of the leading advocates of ID have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors. Nor do we controvert that ID should continue to be studied, debated, and discussed….” Jones wrote, suggesting that intelligent design is a legitimate field of study outside biology class. This is a victory to an intellignt design movement…
Read More ›
The basic elements of NeoDarwinian evolution, showing a gene on a molecular clock epicycle (A) with a fossil deferent (C) and a phenotype equant (B). More
ID is dead and has been defeated by real science. But if so, why is Judge John E. Jones III the plenary speaker at the big Botany & Plant Biology Joint Congress this summer (see below)? Could it be that the scientists at this meeting have failed to defeat ID on scientific grounds and thus are looking to do it in on legal and political grounds? Plenary Speaker Judge John E. Jones III Plenary Address Sunday, July 8, 7:30 pm Title & Location to be Announced ———————————— In 2005 Judge Jones presided over the landmark case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District, after which he held that it was unconstitutional to teach intelligent design within a public school science curriculum. Read More ›
Dates from the molecular clock: how wrong can we be? by Mario Pulquérioa and Richard Nichols, School of Biological and Chemical Sciences, University of London More
Back in 1985 Denton wrote of the Molecular Clock Hypothesis which was concocted by Schlemiel Zuckerkandl:
…the idea of uniform rates of evolution [molecular clocks] is presented in the literature as if it were an empirical discovery. The hold of every evolutionary paradigm is so powerful that an idea [molecular clocks] which is more like a principle of medieval astrology than a serious twentieth-century scientific theory has become a reality for evolutionary biologists…the biological community seems content to offer explanations which are no more than apologetic tautologies.
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985)
Well this principle of “medieval astrology” used by evolutionary biologists continues to come apart.
Read More ›
Reed Cartwright at PT offers the following assessment of the Biologic Institute as described by Celeste Biever in her recent NEW SCIENTIST article (go here for Biever, here for Cartwright). Clearly, the Discovery Institute has established the Biologic Institute a few decades too late. The Institute for Creation Research and the Creation Research Society have been doing research to challenge naturalism for a long time. They are so prestigious in the field that they have even created their own research journals for publishing their papers. This does not bode well for the Discovery and Biologic Institutes because they will have a hard time breaking the stranglehold that those two research centers have on the industry. For decades now, the ICR Read More ›
The latest edition of New Scientist has some juicy articles including one on the new ID-friendly scientific reseach organization, Biologic Insitute. See TelicThoughts: Trojan Horses. The other surprise is the case of ID-friendly creationist John Baumgardner who has been published in prestigious scientific journals like Science and Nature. He was presented along side 2 Nobel Laureates as a maverick thinker. See: Opinion special: Lone voices in science.