2007

I have posted below an article by Sam Zaramba, the Director General for Health Services for the nation of Uganda entitled “Give us DDT.”   Dr. Zaramba argues that the ban on DDT was misguided and has resulted in countless unnecessary deaths in Africa.

I  have limited personal experience with this issue.  A couple of years ago my daughter and I traveled to Kenya (just east of Uganda).  We met with many nationals, many of whom had the tell tale yellowish tinge to the whites of the eyes of malaria sufferers.  I will never forget one father in particular, who literally begged us for money for malaria treatment for his daughter.  He could not afford the $10.00 cost of treatment.  Our hearts were broken, and of course we helped as much as we could, but we realized our efforts were a drop in a vast ocean of pain caused by the disease.

When I got home I did some research and was horrified to learn that the malaria epidemic in Africa is perhaps the most preventable health care tragedy in the history of the world.  We could eradicate African malaria if only we would allow them to use DDT to combat the mosquitos that spread the disease.  I also learned that everything I thought I knew about DDT was flat wrong.  Not only is DDT safe, scientists have known this for decades.

It turns out the DDT ban was based on a combination of junk science and moral preening by the environmental movement.  It as if greenies said, “What are a few million African lives so long as we affluent Westerners can feel good about having ‘done something’ even if that something means nothing?” 

As it turns out, the western environmental movement’s push for polices that will kill millions of Africans is far from over.  The drive to force LDC’s (lesser developed countries) to reduce their CO2 emissions will delay the electrification of the continent by decades, and millions will die as a result of lung cancer and other respiratory diseases caused by smoke inhalation from indoor wood fires –- a very real cost for environmental gains that are, to say the least, speculative. 

Read More ›

Stuff you might want to know if you are not just a bunch of chemicals running around in a bag: Evolutionary psychology: Why Clan of the Cave Bear makes more sense as a novel than as a science. Atheist gives millions to Catholic schools Quantum weirdness and consciousness New neuroscience blog questions pop science media’s neuro-this and neuro-that. Articles of interest on atheists, materialists, consciousness, and tenured authoritarian crackpots Re chemicals, bag = you – I think that expression was originally coined by Dean Hamer of “God Gene” fame.

Have you noticed that heroes are often scoundrels too (at least in the movies)? Can we say Rhett Butler or Han Solo?

Recall this romantic scene from The Empire Strikes Back:

Scoundrel I like the sound of that

Han: Hey! Your worship, I’m only trying to help.
Leia: Would you please stop calling me that?

Han: Sure…Leia.
Leia: You make it so difficult sometimes.

Han: I do. I really do. You could be a little nicer, though. C’mon admit it, sometimes you think I’m alright.
Leia: Occasionally, maybe, when you aren’t acting like a scoundrel.

Han: Scoundrel? Scoundrel…I like the sound of that. Read More ›

David DeWolf, professor of law at Gonzaga University and a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute, explains in today’s Boston Globe why questions about teaching evolution can either be silly and tendentious (“Okay, who doesn’t believe in evolution?” — duh) or thoughtful. Alas, not many media types — let’s be honest — want to do the thoughtful thing. Doesn’t play in the headlines the way the silly questions do: “Senator Mockworthy Sez Earth is Flat, His Constituents Agree.” (‘Flat’ Left Undefined To Allow for Maximum Hilarity; Mockworthy Answers the Question Anyway.) Nor is thoughtful readily used for short clips on the Daily Show or Colbert Report. Still, one can hope. If most people know that the question was dumb, they’ll Read More ›

For those UD readers who are not familiar with it, I recommend visiting ARN. On the right-hand side of the home page you will see a section entitled “The ID Report.” Here, UD’s very prolific author and commentator, Denyse O’Leary, posts on a regular basis. So do other authors, and one of my favorites is Roddy Bullock of idnetohio. In this recent ARN essay, Roddy does an excellent job of summing up UD’s mission statement. Below is an excerpt. I encourage UD readers to check out Roddy’s contributions at ARN whenever they become available. Naturalism, the unscientific crutch for unguided, purposeless Darwinism, turns scientific inquiry on its head. Suddenly a philosophy that presumes only unintelligent causation becomes gatekeeper to the Read More ›

Yeah, the show’s back in town. And with most of the original cast, too.

I mean the poll, recently reported by USA Today, that shows that 66% of Americans think that the statement, “Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years” is definitely or probably true.

This is wonderful poll question for people who believe that Uncle Sam’s alter ego is Santa Claus. I wonder how much public money Darwin lobbies in high science will screw out of US taxpayers in order to try to change their minds – with about as much success as they have had in the past – zilch.

As I pointed out in By Design or by Chance?, the human history that most people would recognize is certainly less than 10,000 years old. Read More ›

We need to face the fact that it may still be a very long time before the majority of scientists will take seriously the idea that a designer may have been directly involved in the origin and development of life. However, it may not be nearly so long before they will at least finally acknowledge that science has no clue about the “natural” causes involved. I have written a short article, submitted to several publications without success so far, which encourages readers to think about what it will be like when this happens. It will, in my opinion, be a much improved world. Here begins the article, entitled “How Evolution Will Be Taught Someday”: A 1980 New York Times News Read More ›

Sean Carroll writes a review of Michael Behe’s new book “Edge of Evolution” for Science Magazine titled God as Genetic Engineer. Professor Behe can’t respond to this for at least a week so let’s give him a hand by fisking it. Please keep your comments topical, focused, and well supported by evidence arguing against the reviewer’s conclusions. Read More ›

Review of “The Edge of Evolution, The Search for the Limits of Darwinism,” by Michael J. Behe. Read it at TheBRITES.org.

Behe’s focus and where he finds major problems with chance and necessity is in nano-molecular cellular machinery rather than the gross anatomical level such as scales becoming feathers or limbs turning into wings. That is also where I find the NeoDarwinian explanations most deficient. In that context could someone please describe for me the “dynamic fitness landscape” that could drive the evolution of this: Good luck.

Dirty snow may warm Arctic as much as greenhouse gases

“In the past two centuries, the Arctic has warmed about 1.6 degrees. Dirty snow caused .5 to 1.5 degrees of warming, or up to 94 percent of the observed change, the scientists determined.” Read More ›

UD Subscriber Magnan pinches his nose closed long enough to fisk Mark Chu-Carrol’s vitriolic spittle strewn imbecilic diatribe “review” of Michael Behe’s new book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism in a comment here. I reproduce it in its entirety. Now that someone has responded to it point by point I hope those who have been losing sleep over it can get some rest. Read More ›

I’ve just seen the Publisher’s Weekly review of Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard’s and my book, The Spiritual Brain: A Neuroscientist’s Case for the Existence of the Soul:

Following C. S. Lewis’s dictum that “to ‘see through’ all things is the same as not to see,” neuroscientist Beauregard and journalist O’Leary mount a sweeping critique of a trend in “the pop science media” to explain away religious experience as a brain artifact, pathology, or evolutionary quirk. While sympathizing with the attraction such “neurotheology” holds, the authors warn against the temptation to force the complex varieties of human spirituality into simplistic categories that they argue are conceptually crude, culturally biased, and often empirically untested. In recently published research using Carmelite nuns as subjects, Beauregard’s group at the University of Montreal found specific areas of brain activation associated with contemplative prayer. But these patterns are quite distinct from those associated with hallucinations, autosuggestion, or states of intense emotional arousal, resembling instead how the brain processes “real” experiences. Insisting that “we have never entertained the idea of proving the existence of God,” the authors concede that “the results of our work are assumed to be a strike either for or against God” and that “on the whole, we [don’t] mind.” Never shrinking from controversy, and sometimes deliberately provoking it, this book serves as a lively introduction to a field where neuroscience, philosophy, and secular/spiritual cultural wars are unavoidably intermingled. (Sept.)

It was great that the reviewer homed in on some of what Mario and I are trying to do – expose the sheer shoddiness of so much materialist thinking in neuroscience in the area of spirituality. Read More ›

New Textbook Seeks to Improve Teaching of Evolution as reported by Rob Crowther. “Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals,” emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. “Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science.” Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both Read More ›

There have been a few limited skirmishes in Virginia over ID in the universities. Up until now the public school issue has been quiet. But are things set to change?

Ed Brayton brought this article to my attention: Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

How were the oceans, puppies and human beings formed? Was it through evolution, creationism or something in between?

It’s a heavy topic that’s generated debate for years. That discourse landed in Chesterfield School Board members’ laps…

Intelligent design proponents urged the School Board to include that theory in the school system’s science curriculum so students can consider differing viewpoints in the classroom. But, federal law requires school systems to remain neutral on the topic, making it illegal for teachers to prompt discussions involving intelligent design or creationism.

Read More ›