2006

In a previous post one commenter exclaimed: “…it is perfectly reasonable to say that, since no evolutionary prediction has ever been contradicted by data, that it reasonably won’t be any time soon.” Darwinian theory predicts everything, but only after the fact. It predicts that people will be selfish, and that they will be selfless. Predictions must precede what they predict. Predictions that predict everything predict nothing. This is yet another example of after-the-fact, just-so storytelling, in the grand tradition of Darwinian logic and reasoning.

The evolution of intelligent design Intelligent design gets a place in the philosophy classrooms of secular Knox College By Liz Kemmerer (April 27, 2006) Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., recently completed its first run of a one-of-a-kind course taught by a one-of-a-kind professor. In December, Martin Roth, a professor of philosophy of science at the secular private college taught a short philosophy course titled “Intelligent Design” to explore the topic historically and critically. A concentrated course, it made its debut during the college winter break from Nov. 29 to Dec. 16 with students meeting for three-hour sessions three times a week for three weeks. . . . “I want to see what topics the students were interested in, what they Read More ›

Here’s a report from a colleague about a debate last night in Seattle:

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

A packed house at Seattle’s Town Hall saw Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute debate Dr. Peter Ward of the University of Washington on the topic of “Intelligent Design v. Evolution.” Meyer was excellent in his overall presentation. In my view, Meyer convincingly prevailed.

The two had previously debated on a local Seattle radio program. That radio debate was a rather lopsided exchange, with Meyer clearly outshining Ward. Meyer made clear and reasonable arguments about the theory of intelligent design (ID) from scientific data, whereas Ward had offered little-to-no scientific response. Instead, Ward simply attacked Meyer’s personal motives and made wild claims that students learning about the theory of intelligent design would somehow result in scientific decline and an undermining of our national security.

Back to Town Hall. This time Ward did not rely so thorougly rely upon wild claims about the theory of ID being the death of science itself. But attacks of that sort still seemed to be the mainstay of his arguments. He claimed that if students were to learn about the theory of intelligent design that the United States would fall behind in science and technology to China, Japan and other nations. Allowing the teaching of the theory of ID would lead to “intellectual mediocrity” in America, he stated. (To a large number of boos from the audience, I might add.)

Ward, in fact, asserted that ID is not a theory at all. He claimed it wasn’t science because science excludes the supernatural. Ward also repeatedly asked Meyer why he used the terms “neo-Darwinian” or “Darwinist.” At a later point in the debate, Ward claimed that ID proponents used those terms as a caricature to knock down. He also insisted that ID was neither testable nor falsifiable.

Specifically, Ward challenged Meyer to explain how the theory of ID could be tested or falsified. Meyer stated that the competing explanations of Drs. Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller concerning the bacteria flagellum and Type III Secretory Systems is something that could be tested to determine which one came first. Meyer countered that neo-Darwinian evolution had been heuristically unfruitful in leading science to think that non-encoding DNA was simply “junk.” Meyer insisted that design assumptions more readily led one to conclude there was purpose in such “junk DNA.” And he also cited Dr. Jonathan Wells’ hypothesis concerning centrioles and its implications for cancer as research inspired by a design theoretic. Furthermore, Meyer cited recent article in Science purporting to “refute” Behe’s ideas concerning irreducible complexity. Meyer insisted that they disputed the weak claims to have refuted irreducible complexity, but that the important fact was that the scientists were taking the idea seriously enough to try to combat it through scientific research and argument.

Read More ›

Socialists: Give apes human rights Tuesday, April 25, 2006 Spain Herald: http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for “the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings.” The PSOE’s justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans. The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests “the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species.” Read More ›

In this essay, deist Peter Murphy charges those he calls “active” or “dogmatic” atheists with being “scientifically illiterate, illogical, and cynical”. Poor Mr. Murphy. I guess he just doesn’t realize that by challenging materialistic dogma established fact, he’s just exposed himself as a Bible thumpin’ Christian fundy. I wonder what role in that dastardly Wedge Strategy he fulfills. 😛

Can someone find out just how extensive some of the passages were that paralleled Megan McCafferty’s work? If we feed these parallels into the Explanatory Filter, are we entitled to draw a design inference and thus conclude that Viswanathan was plagiarizing? –WmAD Teenage Author Apologizes to Novelist Apr 26 9:29 AM US/Eastern BOSTON Teenage author Kaavya Viswanathan said Wednesday she was shocked to see so many similarities between her acclaimed first book and two novels by Megan McCafferty and maintained they were unintentional. “When I was writing, I genuinely believed each word was my own,” Viswanathan said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show. She said she hopes McCafferty can forgive her. “The last thing that I ever wanted to Read More ›

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. 🙂 . . . Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us: **Its sacraments (abortion) **Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade) **Its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal) **Its clergy (public school teachers) **Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free) **Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the “absolute Read More ›

Go here and here for an account of a conference held last weekend by the New York Academy of Sciences entitled “Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science” (See here for the conference webpage, and here for the event flyer). With a Darwinian all-star lineup (Bruce Alberts, Ken Miller, Rob Pennock, etc.), speakers instructed the audience how to best indoctrinate students and maintain Darwinian control of the academy.

This past term (Jan – Apr 2006), the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto offered a graduate course called “HPS 1046H – Teleology, Adaptation and Design”, taught by Denis Walsh. Here is the summary: HPS1046: Special Topics: Teleology, Adaptation and Design (D. Walsh) Evolutionary biology, unlike other natural sciences, appears to deploy teleological explanations. Teleological explanations appear to be appropriate because organisms appear to be designed for specific purposes. The course discusses various attempts to naturalize, or eliminate, biological teleology. We discuss the relation of natural selection and adaptation, the adaptationist programme in evolutionary biology, normativity and function and arguments for intelligent design in biology. The relevant links: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/html/g_cour_g.html http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/html/g_cour_c.html http://philosophy.utoronto.ca/people/profile.html?id=390 Read More ›

Christianity Today, Week of April 24 The Other ID Opponents Traditional creationists see Intelligent Design as an attack on the Bible. by Rob Moll | posted 04/25/2006 09:30 a.m. This week, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary named creationist Kurt P. Wise to replace outgoing Intelligent Design proponent William Dembski. The theological and scientific differences between Dembski and Wise are deep and wide. Intelligent Design and creationism are not co-conspirators trying to overthrow Darwinian evolution. . . . MORE: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/117/22.0.html

Read More ›

Pat Hayes of Red State Rabble has composed a rather prolix essay in which he sings the praises of Barbara Forrest and her monumental role in exposing ID as repackaged Creationism. Naturally, Pim van Muers at Panda’s Thumb and Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars are chiming in.
Read More ›

… Or is Ebert just another clueless bonehead whose imagined expertise is in exact disproportion to his actual knowledge … Dr Dembski, Below is a letter to the editor from today’s Boulder Daily Camera (www.dailycamera.com) regarding a panel discussion at the recent University of Colorado at Boulder’s annual Conference on World Affairs. Roger Ebert has been a regular at the conference for decades, and in recent years has been serving on panels beyond his noted area of expertise (in the style of Bill Maher’s “Politically Incorrect”, they will toss together a mix of panelists from many backgrounds to make things interesting). Still, reading that Ebert was defending Darwinism with such confidence was a big surprise to me. (Note “Boulder High” Read More ›

For those who haven’t seen it, check out this episode of The Root of all Evil. Note the editorial comments about the persecution of the “rational atheist minority,” Christian fascism, atheists suffering career damage, and the McCarthy era. What irony.

When IDists hypothesize that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex they explain that the hypothesis may be falsified by a detailed and plausible pathway whereby random mutation and natural selection could have built it up. We don’t ask that it be proven that’s how it happened only that it be demonstrated it can happen that way. Charles Darwin himself in The Origin of Species, chapter 6, anticipated this argument against his theory and acknowledged it would spell doom for his theory:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

150 years later Darwin’s critics believe they have found a complex organ, the bacterial flagellum, which could not possibly have been formed via numerous, successive, slight modifications.

This is all well and good and certainly does not prove Darwin’s theory is wrong because, as even Darwin must have known, proving a negative is impossible. We can never, ever know that no Darwinian pathway is possible. All we can know is that no proposed pathway can explain it. Fortunately for IDists science doesn’t require proofs. According to our most widely accepted philosophy of science what science does require in cases like these is a method of falsification. In science one needn’t prove a negative if there exists a way to falsify the positive. This is what separates pseudo-scientific theories that explain everything, and thus explain nothing from real scientific theories.

This takes us back to the beginning where I explained that the hypothetical irreducible complexity of the flagellum may be falsified by showing any possible and plausible Darwinian pathway. The hypothesis that the flagellum is irreducibly complex is good science.

Now for the challenge. I had challenged a commenter here (Tiax) to explain to me a scientific method by which the theory that the bacterial flagellum evolved via random mutation plus natural selection could be falsified. My challenge was met with the sound of crickets chirping. Therefore I am putting this challenge in a more prominent position.

If no scientific method of falsfication can be provided then the so-called evolution of the flagellum is nothing but pseudo-science. My position is that Dembski’s design detection theory is indeed science and that it is the only falsification method by which hypothetical flagellum evolution can be rescued from the pseudo-science trashheap. If design detection isn’t science then neither is any theory of the flagellum evolving. Maybe Judge Jones needed to dismiss more than just design detection as “not science”, eh?

Who can provide for me a scientific method by which the theoretical Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum can be falsified?

Fair warning: I’m not allowing any comments here that do not propose a scientific method of falsifying Darwinian evolution of the flagellum so don’t waste your time composing anything else.

Read More ›