2007

Nobody else is apparently blogging here, deep in August, so here goes: – Did Dawkins actually read Behe’s Edge of Evolution ? Someone (hat tip to whoever) has pointed out that the New York Times review does not read as though he did. Hence the irrelevant riff on dog breeding. The basic problem, in my view, is that Behe outclasses Dawkins. Behe is a working biochemist who knows exactly what Darwinian evolution has and hasn’t done. Unlike Dawkins, who has contributed nothing of substance to science for many years, he does not make Darwinian evolution a substitute for religion. So it is safe for him to know what it can and cannot do. – What, exactly, is “evolutionary” public health? Read More ›

One of the most interesting journalists in Toronto is a friend of mine, David Warren, who – as if he did not have enough troubles – has gotten sick of bloviating Darwinists and decided to take them on. At least I am not alone any more. Far from it.

Writing to friends, Warren notes, “I have been remiss. I have allowed several months to do by without taking another kick at the Darwinoids. I endeavour to correct this oversight in my column for Sunday,” whereupon he directs us to his recent column for The Spectator:

I get such apoplectic letters, whenever I write about “evolutionism,” that I really can’t resist writing about it again. This is not, of course, because I have any desire to tease such correspondents. Perish the thought. Rather, when a writer finds he has hit such a nerve, he can also know that he is approaching a great truth.

In this case, we must ask ourselves why so many people get so excited about an area of science that should not concern them. For most of these correspondents know precious little science, and haven’t the stamina to engage in detailed argument. They are simply shocked and appalled that anyone would dream of challenging what they believe to be the consensus of “qualified experts,” whom they assume are a closed camp of hard-bitten materialists, with no time for religious or poetical flights.

The answer to this question is clear enough. People without a stake in a controversy pay little or no attention to it. They will hardly be vexed by assertions of one party or another, when the result of the controversy cannot touch their lives. It is rather when a person does have a stake, that he begins to care.

It follows that my most apoplectic correspondents have a stake in evolutionary controversies. They imagine themselves to have an impersonal interest in defending science against “religious superstition,” and the dangers to society that the latter might present. They in fact have strong and uncompromising religious beliefs of their own, which they are loath to have questioned.

Much of the “star chamber” atmosphere, that has accompanied the public invigilation of microbiologists such as Michael J. Behe, and other very qualified scientists working on questions of design in organisms and natural systems, can only be explained in this way. The establishment wants such research to be stopped, because it challenges the received religious order, of atheist materialism. Any attempt, or suspected attempt, to acknowledge God in scientific proceedings, must be exposed and punished to the limit of the law; or by other ruthless means where the law does not suffice.

Not to be missed.

An author friend asked Warren recently,

It seems like every other day there’s an article where scientists are discovering the presence of genes thought to have arisen late in evolution to be already present in ancient forms, so-called “living fossils”. In this case what we see in this particular “living fossil”, the shark, is the presence of genetic activity that is associated with ‘digit formation’ in limbed animals. Previously, scientists thought that there was some late phase additional activity which, we may say, was ‘added onto’ fin development. Here’s a quote: “We’ve uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in the evolution of appendages,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D.” As I say, these types of articles seem commonplace, yet Read More ›

Some insights can totally change one’s perspective. One of those insights for me was learning that time had a beginning at the origin of the universe. (Oops, “beginning” implies a point on the time line, so let’s change that to “a point of appearing.”) If time came into existence, then the cause of the universe could not have had a cause, or a history, or a beginning, or a designer, because all of these require that the cause of the universe be located on the time line of the universe, which did not exist prior to the creation of the universe. (Oops, can’t use “prior to” because that implies time.) Thus, the question of who designed the designer is meaningless Read More ›

The Washington Times reports there was a global warming scare in the 1920’s and 1930’s. http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070814/NATION02/108140063 Only problem is, shortly after the scare global temps trended downward for decades. As Dave says, the global warming house of cards is about to come down.

Even when we don’t do anything: In the post-imperial age, powerful nations no longer have to invade and kill. Simply by driving a Chevy Suburban, we can make the oceans rise and wipe the distant Maldive Islands off the face of the Earth. This is a kind of malignant narcissism so ingrained it’s now taught in our grade schools. -Mark Steyn Bill Dembski asked me to do a riff on this but I think the points are so self-evident commentary isn’t really needed… Mark Steyn: Warm-mongers and cheeseburger imperialists MARK STEYN Syndicated columnist Something rather odd happened the other day. If you go to NASA’s Web site and look at the “U.S. surface air temperature” rankings for the lower 48 Read More ›

Hey Newsweek: Why not just call us heretics? by FRANK MIELE If you wanted to see an example of biased journalism, a good place to start would be the Aug. 13 cover story in Newsweek about global warming. The issue’s cover says “Global Warming Is A Hoax,” but there is an asterisk, which leads to the statement “Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.” In other words, Newsweek has an agenda to promote global-warming hysteria, and they don’t feel any need to give equal time to a point of view they disagree with. Indeed Newsweek’s author Sharon Begley denounces global warming skeptics as “deniers,” a term which I think establishes the pseudo-religious quality Read More ›

In his post below Dave refers to Karl Popper’s famous white swan/black swan illustration.  Dave is, of course, quite correct to show how ID can be formulated within Popper’s paradigm, which was most cogently set forth in The Logic of Scientific Discovery in which the swan illustration appears.  Popper may be unique among philosophers in that his ideas have been given the force of law in the United States courts.  One need go no further than Judge Jones’ opinion in Dover (although there are other examples) to see this phenomenon at work.  For this reason all who seek acceptance of their work in the scientific community bow before Popper.  While I find Popper’s ideas compelling and often cite them myself, Read More ›

Some of the hype over recent US temperature records got deflated when NASA corrected a Y2K temperature processing error found by Steve McIntyre. (Aug. 13, 2007: McIntyre is upgrading server, and is temporarily  posting c/o Anthony Watts’ Watts Up With That) In Does Hansen’s Error “Matter?” ClimateAudit.org takes NASA to task for not clearly publicizing its corrections. NASA quietly corrected its GISS data of contiguous 48 states US temperature anomalies and corresponding US 48 state temperature anomaly graphs. IceCap reports the new top 20 rankings. Dust bowl 1934 now holds the hottest temperature record, with 1931, 1938 and 1939 also in the top ten. Of recent years, 1998 drops to second, and only 2006 and 1999 remain in the top Read More ›

If you observe something that has many of the same properties as an apple but you don’t know where it came from, you have observed apples growing on apple trees, then the most reasonable scientific hypothesis about the origin of the apple-like object is that it was produced by something like an apple tree. Indeed, to hypothesize that what you found just spontaneously formed on the ground from inanimate matter would be entirely unsupported.

For the ID hypothesis stated in terms of Karl Popper’s scientific hypothesis of white swans Read More ›

In Chicago recently during the American Society of Plant Biologists annual meeting, jet-setting celebrity Professor Steve Steve visited Charles Darwin. Darwin was wearing his Chicago Cubs batting helmet. He’s is a big fan of those heartbreakers, you know. They met in the office of a notorious ID guy: After Steve Steve left to resume his world travels, Darwin was heard quietly complaining to Nelson — in the politest English tones, of course — that he never got to go anywhere, had to sit on the bookshelf next to the paleontology volumes, and certainly never met Martha Stewart. Just didn’t seem right for the panda to get all the attention…

I just attended a briefing in Seattle about a film aimed at the US presidential election campaign, defending intelligent design, starring Ben Stein: Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. It details the cases of Rick Sternberg, Guillermo Gonzalez, and Caroline Crocker. For more go to the Post-Darwinist.

According to Nigel Calder, former editor of New Scientist, Richard Dawkins is “out of date” with his genetics. Listen to his opinion on how changes happen in science. This interview is edited from Australian ABC Science Show 11th August 2007. http://www.idnet.com.au/files/pdf/ssw_20070811.mp3

From the AP story regarding new discoveries debunking the Homo habilis evolved into Homo erectus theory (see Sal’s post below): “Susan Anton, a New York University anthropologist and co-author of the Leakey work, said she expects anti-evolution proponents to seize on the new research, but said it would be a mistake to try to use the new work to show flaws in evolution theory.  ‘This is not questioning the idea at all of evolution; it is refining some of the specific points,’ Anton said.  ‘This is a great example of what science does and religion doesn’t do.  It’s a continuous self-testing process.’” Interesting statement.  One suspects that what Anton really means is that, for her, science is a continuous self-testing Read More ›

It understandable that scientists make mistakes, but one would hope an entire scientific discipline could get at least one fact right once in a while. My friend Casey Luskin, an attorney and scientist at the Discovery Institute, reports: Paleoanthropologists Disown Homo habilis from Our Direct Family Tree.