Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Paleontologist Richard Leakey Says We Are Descended From Apes

You know for many years I’ve been taking care to avoid saying men evolved from apes because the pedant dominated science establishment is quick to point out that we and apes descend from a common ancestor and anyone who thinks we evolved from apes clearly doesn’t understand evolution. So now we have arguably the most recognized living name in paleontology, Richard Leakey, blurting out the proverbial “I’m so stupid I don’t know what common ancestry means”. What are we to make of that? I’m sure our good pedant friends in the science establishment, through Panda’s Thumb or some member blog, will let us know upon reading this. HT to Larry at I’m From Missouri.

Programmers Only Need Apply

In the latest issue of Nature, a team of researchers report that using RNA interference techniques to re-activate a tumor suppressor, p53, they were able to induce a “cellular senescence program that was associated with differentiation and the upregulation of inflammatory cytokines.”

The use of the word “program” highlights that proponents of NDE have an even sterner task at hand: explaining how the logical loop of a “program” can be built up using NDE mechanisms. There is a ring of “irreducibility” to the idea of a “program”, since each part of a “program” is indispensable and likewise an integral part of the program’s intended output. Genetics is looking everyday to be more and more like an exercise in computer programming–just as IDists have predicted. Behe and Snoke’s paper shows the huge improbability of placing two amino acids side-by-side via gene duplication and random mutation. Now NDE must do much more than that. When can we expect them to give up?

Here’s the link:

Read More ›

Another UK science professor stands up for ID

Stuart Burgess is Professor of design and nature in the department of mechanical engineering at Bristol University. He argues that intelligent design is as valid a scientific concept as evolution. …. I’ve been designing systems like spacecraft for more than 20 years. One of the lessons I’ve learnt is that complex systems require an immense amount of intelligence to design. I’ve seen a lot of irreducible complexity in engineering. I have also seen organs in nature that are apparently irreducible. An irreducibly complex organ is one where several parts are required simultaneously for the system to function usefully, so it cannot have evolved, bit by bit, over time. Against The Grain: ‘There are strong indications of intelligent design’ (HT: Nota Read More ›

PZ Steals My Thunder, (actually AA’s)

This from Ooblick.com, Andrew Arensburger’s Blog. He’s planning a re-enactment podcast of the Dover trial, and is looking for voice talent to participate. PZ Myers advertised it on his website, so was jokingly named as Casting Director, and I guess that I have to shoulder the blame for that, since I’m the one who lied about PZ Myers’ casting directorship, and now I’m having to take the heat.

Andrew said he had asked PZ to advertise the project, since he has a large audience. Well OK Andrew, now you have your thunder back. You’re the casting director, and anyone interested can reach you at Ooblick.com/pandas/ (record corrected), and please Andrew, don’t get on DonaldM so hard. You know, chutzpah is not such a bad quality to have (actually ḥuá¹£pâ). By Wikipedia’s definition, “Chutzpah can be used to express admiration for non-conformist but gutsy audacity.” Does that not fit PZ or what!?

I thought it would be nice to help Andrew with the podcast, so I offered a few suggestions, not just for a podcast, but for a four act play that would definitely bring in some bucks. So I commented on his blog, an put forth some ideas:

Don’t believe everything you read Andy, but thanx anyway for taking me literally! And good luck with you podcast. I really think a four act play would be better, tho. Here’s a compendium:
Read More ›

Dembski’s pseudo-mathematical posturings

Here’s a critique of the mathematics of the design inference from an assistant professor of religious studies. The combination of ignorance and arrogance on the part of this individual is staggering. Compare here with the following: You¹re probably referring to the pseudo-mathematical posturings of William Dembski. Dembski is a fraud whom nobody should take seriously. Here¹s why: Dembski¹s model of ³specified complexity² assumes that when attempting to determine the likelihood of a given pattern coming about randomly, that you have the pattern in mind from the outset. In other words, that evolution is a teleological process. But evolution is NOT teleological. It is not more unlikely, from a mathematical perspective, that, say, an eye should develop from a process of Read More ›

BCSE Reaction to David Anderson and Fundamentalists

I’ve enjoyed following the ID debate in the UK, and especially David Anderson’s BCSE Revealed blog. The BCSE is the British Centre for Science Education, whose role in the UK appears to be analogous to that of the NCSE in the US.

David recently posted the comment below the fold concerning BCSE’s portrayal of him, his blog, and fundamentalists. I particularly enjoyed the sewer rat comment.
Read More ›

Schoenborn on Dover in NYTimes

Cardinal Schoenborn suggests that Darwinists are every bit as dogmatic as the Catholic Church has been accused of being. February 8, 2007 Cardinal: Schools Quiet Evolution Debate By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Filed at 12:28 a.m. ET NEW YORK (AP) — An influential Roman Catholic cardinal whose comments on evolution are closely followed condemned a court decision Wednesday that barred a Pennsylvania school district from teaching ”intelligent design” in biology class. Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn of Vienna said in a lecture that restricting debate about Darwin’s theory of evolution amounts to censorship in schools and in the broader public. ”Commonly in the scientific community every inquiry into the scientific weaknesses of the theory is blocked off at the very outset,” Schoenborn said Read More ›

‘The ID Files’, Interviews with Salvador Cordova, Michael Behe and more …

SciPhi guy Jason Renie has put up a free online Audiobook, actually a set of four interviews with proponents and detractors of ID. The other two Interviews are with Michael Shermer and Nick Matzke. Go here.

Comments I just posted at the site:

“First let me applaud Jason Rennie for some interesting dialogues. In his opening remarks, his pro ID perspective shows, but in the interviews he remained largely neutral. That kind of interview approach works well in this type of controversy, where emotions run high. Personally, if it were I interviewing Michael Shermer, I fear I would have become unrestrained, and challenged him on many of the points he made. But for this kind of objective comparison, Rennie’s approach is best. Read More ›

Design problems at Airbus

Design errors stemming from slightly incompatible versions of the same computer-aided design program will cost Airbus two years and $6 billion in lost profits (go here). Airbus engineers, working with programs simulating real, tangible objects and physical laws which are nearly perfectly understood cannot manage to model the correct length of wires for its lighting without making small errors that result in catastrophic setbacks. Meanwhile, climatic scientists have nevertheless created absolutely perfect models for the world’s weather patterns extending 100,000 years back and forwards in time (and yet they still can’t tell you if it’s going to rain on the weekend). Likewise, Darwinists have conclusively shown that living creatures, far more complex than the new Airbus plane, are the result Read More ›

The American Cancer Society FINALLY Notices DCA

Thanks to so many people making so much racket on the internet this potential wonder-drug is finally getting noticed. Let’s keep up the pressure. New Cure for Cancer: Truth or Dare? by Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, American Cancer Society, for ABC News There is the medical equivalent of a tsunami wave building out there, only we don’t know where this one is going to land. It is called DCA, and we at the American Cancer Society are suddenly receiving requests for information about something few if any of us had heard about as a cancer treatment until this past week. Read the rest at the link and also visit Dr. Len’s Cancer blog.