Richard Dawkins should be very pleased that his efforts at educating the British public have met with such overwhelming success. He has much to look forward to in his retirement:

Britons unconvinced on evolution
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4648598.stm

Over 55s were less likely to opt for evolution than other groups

More than half the British population does not accept the theory of evolution, according to a survey.
Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design should be taught in school science lessons. Read More ›

I made a new category “Comment Moderation” to explain the policy at Uncommon Descent. All I’m doing for now is collecting Bill Dembski’s previous statements on it in one place (here) and further stipulating that nothing has changed. 4/16/05 Comments about Comments 5/15/05 About This Blog 11/30/05 Why I ruthlessly edit comments on this blog

University of Pittsburgh Professor of Anthropology Jeffrey H. Schwartz has consistently swum against the neo-Darwinian mainstream, and this new 30Jan2006 paper in the New Anatomist with University of Salerno Professor of Biochemistry Bruno Maresca is no exception. The starting point of their argument is clear: Neo-Darwinism has failed and does not fit the evidence. For instance, in the section titled “Molecular and Morphological Contradiction” (pp. 39-40), Maresca and Schwartz write: Read More ›

Here’s the transcript of the NPR interview with Vonnegut that I mentioned yesterday on this blog: Read More ›

Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
by William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (Editors)
Cambridge University Press, 2004

Review by Gal Kober on Jan 22nd 2006
http://mentalhelp.net/books/books.php?type=de&id=2982

The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of ape.” Karl Marx (Introd. to a Contrib. to a Critique of Polit. Economy, 1957)

Intelligent Design and the war waged by its proponents against evolutionary biology and the naturalistic practices of science are more a matter of public affairs than they are philosophical or scientific issues. Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, a volume recently published by Cambridge University Press, aims at providing “a comprehensive and even-handed overview of the debate concerning biological origins,” and specifically, the more vocal aspects of this ‘debate’, namely, the conflict between evolutionary biology and supporters of intelligent design. Although it succeeds in doing that, it also has a seriously negative side. Read More ›

How much do most of us really know about the other mammals we have so much in common with? Or perhaps I should ask how little do most of us really know. Here’s a thought provoking article from naturalist Dr. Daphne Sheldrick who spent 30 years working with elephants in the wild and in captivity.

Elephant Emotion By Daphne Sheldrick Read More ›

Science and the Church: What it means to question Darwinism
by Herbert London

http://www.cruxproject.org/ScienceChurch.htm

Christoph Cardinal Schonborn, the Catholic archbishop of Vienna, recently
caused a firestorm in intellectual circles when he made the rather obvious
argument that Darwinism has many unexplained characteristics. The New York
Times responded reflexively by suggesting that the Church was turning away
from “modern science.” Read More ›

MOST of the small satellite galaxies around the Andromeda galaxy are lined up in a single plane that slices through its spiral disc, an alignment that suggests the satellites are floating on a river of dark matter.

Read More ›

Michael Ruse has the unique distinction of contrbuting essays both to Phillip Johnson’s Festschrift (see here) and to that of Richard Dawkins — and both in 2006. The latest Oxford U Press catalog of new & recent titles in philosophy has the following entry: Richard Dawkins: How a Scientist Changed the Way We Think, edited by Alan Grafen and Mark Ridley. Essays by Daniel Dennett, Steven Pinker, Matt Ridley, James Watson, Simon Blackburn, Michael Ruse, Michael Shermer, and the Bishop of Oxford (!), among others.

Go here for a surprise: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5165342 (the surprise comes at about 4:30 into the NPR story).

Interview
The Outsiders
New Scientist, 21 January 2006, 44-46.

Most of them have no formal scientific training. Often scorned by professionals. they
endure a constant battle to find funding. Yet amateur scientists continue to make a
significant contribution in just about every field. Caroline Williams asked three of the
most successful about their work: Forrest Mims III, who has taught NASA a thing or two
about ozone monitoring. Jerry MacDonald, discoverer of some of the most important
Palaeozoic fossils ever found, and Pierre Morvan, a world expert on ground beetles. They
all share a passion for exploration, an unusual route to academia -and the need for a day
job.

Forrest Mims III

Forrest Mims III set up a network to monitor ultraviolet radiation and ozone levels,
first in his home state of Texas and then across the world, using a hand-held device he
invented himself. He also proved that NASA’s ozone- monitoring satellite was giving false
readings, after which NASA and other climate scientists started taking him more seriously.
Most recently, he has been looking at the effects of smoke, dust and haze on sunlight and
ecology. He makes a living writing books about science, lasers, computers and electronics.

Q: Your hand-held ozone monitor became a crucial tool in monitoring stratospheric ozone
levels, which protect life on the Earth’s surface from damaging ultraviolet radiation. How
did you come to invent it?

A: I became interested in measuring levels of UV radiation when I learned that the US
government had closed down its UV-monitoring network in the late 1980s. I then realised
that you could measure the ozone layer by looking at UV light at two different wavelengths
where it is absorbed by the ozone. So I built some ultraviolet detectors at home and in
1990 I began making daily measurements. I now have almost 16 years’ worth of data and I
have published many scientific papers about my findings. Read More ›

Bob Reeves of Lincoln’s Journal Star had this to say regarding Creationism, Evolution, and Intelligent Design today. What Mr. Reeves and others don’t seem to get is that the locus of the issue which is generating so much controversy these days is not the progress of science vs. the authority of the Bible; rather, it’s the reluctance of mainstream science and academia to accept the validity of a concept which keeps a valid scientific theory like evolution from becomming an unscientific ideology. Mr. Reeves entitled his piece “When science and religion converge”. We do, in fact, seem to be witnessing a convergence of science and religion–just not in the way Reeves sees it.

How WordPress Handles Moderated Comments

Read More ›

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4620922.stm

Lead researcher Dr Tania Singer said: “Men expressed more desire for revenge and seemed to feel satisfaction when unfair people were given what they perceived as deserved physical punishment.

“This type of behaviour has probably been crucial in the evolution of society as the majority of people in a group are motivated to punish those who cheat on the rest.

“This altruistic behaviour means that people tend to protect each other against being exploited by society’s free-loaders, and evolution has probably seeded this sense of justice and moral duty into our brains.”

Read More ›