Evolution Disclaimer
Here’s the closing disclaimer on a GodTube video about evolution (hat tip to bornagain77):
Faith and Reason in the OOL Context
Paul Giem’s comment to my Faith and Reason post below is so good, I thought it deserved its own post. Read on to see how Paul demonstrates decisively that in the origin of life context (OOL) the materialists’ faith commitment is the sort of blind-leap-in-the-dark-in-the-teeth-of-the-evidence stretch of which they delight in accusing theists of making.
Olivia Judson: “Let’s not call what we’re doing ‘Darwinism’.”
Olivia Judson is on a mission to control the damage to Darwin’s hemorrhaging theory. Her latest at the NYTimes is to suggest that we stop using the term “Darwinism” because the field of evolutionary biology is so much richer than what Darwin gave us. Others have tried that strategy with equal laughable disingenuity (e.g., Paul Gross in criticizing David Berlinski for Berlinski making Darwinism the target of criticism). CAPTION: OLIVIA JUDSON BUSY AT HER RESEARCH But Judson gives the game away: [Darwinism] suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.” He wasn’t, and it has. Read More ›
I am a machine. No, I am a tree. Here’s the problem with analogy …
A friend writes to say that nonsensical materialism is now being marketed to engineers, via IEEE, the largest professional engineering society in the world, with over 365 000 members.
This article, “I, Rodney Brooks, am a robot”, appeared in the IEEE Spectrum which is the magazine that goes to all members:
I am a machine. So are you.
Of all the hypotheses I’ve held during my 30-year career, this one in particular has been central to my research in robotics and artificial intelligence. I, you, our family, friends, and dogs—we all are machines. We are really sophisticated machines made up of billions and billions of biomolecules that interact according to well-defined, though not completely known, rules deriving from physics and chemistry. The biomolecular interactions taking place inside our heads give rise to our intellect, our feelings, our sense of self.
Accepting this hypothesis opens up a remarkable possibility. If we really are machines and if—this is a big if—we learn the rules governing our brains, then in principle there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be able to replicate those rules in, say, silicon and steel. I believe our creation would exhibit genuine human-level intelligence, emotions, and even consciousness.
There is no single, simple set of rules that governs the operations of the human brain or the mind that inhabits it.
It would make as much sense to say, “I am a tree” as “I am a robot.” In some ways, more. Trees are life forms, like humans. There are at least some qualities that we share with trees (we need water, nutrients, and oxygen, and we grow, reproduce and die. We have roots and branches. And the older we are, the harder it is to move us without excessive damage.
Still, we are not trees. And we certainly are not robots.
The fact that we can say “I am” anything at all, or “I am not” that thing certainly apprises us that we are not trees or robots. Philosophers call it the “hard problem” of consciousness, the sense of self.
As Mario and I pointed out in The Spiritual Brain, the “computer” theory of how the human mind works is badly in need of an early retirement.
Note: I don’t know where the sign is from, but am told it is somewhere in Britain.
Also from The Mindful Hack
How not to study science … Read More ›
PeerGate review scandal at American Physical Society
The American Physical Society alleged that Lord Monckton‘s paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered was not peer reviewed when Monckton in fact thoroughly revised his paper in response to APS peer review. Monckton immediately demanded retraction, accountability and an apology.
The Editor of the American Physical Society‘s Forum on Physics and Society launched a debate on global warming, inviting Lord Monckton to submit a paper for the opposition. After news that a major scientific organization was holding a debate on IPCC’s global warming, someone at the APS posted an indirect front page disclamation plus two very bold red disclamations in the Forum’s contents, and into the paper itself:
————————-
Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article’s conclusions.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley . . .”
————————-
Alleging that a Peer of the Realm violated scientific peer review – when in fact Lord Monckton had spent substantial effort responding to the APS’s peer review – is just not done! As circulated by Dr. Benny Peiser to CCNet, and as noted by Dennis T. Avery at ICECAP,Lord Monckton responded immediately, emphatically demanding redress and an apology as follows: Read More ›
Antony Flew reviews — and rips — Dawkins’ THE GOD DELUSION
Antony Flew, formerly the most prominent atheist in the English speaking world, goes after Dawkins, his successor as head atheist: The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’). MORE
EXPELLED DVD — to be released October 21st
Amazon.com is selling it for the pre-order price of $18.90.
So much for the “scientific consensus” regarding man-made global warming
As I recall, there’s another consensus in science…something in biology about how we got here… Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate Michael Asher (Blog) – July 16, 2008 9:35 PM The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming “incontrovertible.” In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,”There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC Read More ›
How to Be an Intellectually Fulfilled Atheist — Or Not
Coming this October… Book description (pre-order for $9.60 at Amazon): “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin,” writes Richard Dawkins, “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” This little book shows that atheism must seek intellectual fulfillment elsewhere by decisively demonstrating the need for intelligence in explaining life’s origin. This is the best overview of why traditional origin-of-life research has crashed and burned and why intelligent design is necessary to explain the high-tech engineering inside the cell. It is no longer possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist because life’s origin requires an intelligent cause—this book shows why.
Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!
There may yet be hope for the First Amendment and common sense copyright.
———————-
Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!: Judge Rules in Favor of Expelled Producers; Film To Be Re-Released In Theaters This Summer
(PRWEB) July 17, 2008 — The producers of the controversial film, Expelled, are celebrating their first legal victory in the lawsuit brought against them by Yoko Ono, for including John Lennon’s song Imagine in their documentary. Last month, a federal court in Manhattan denied Ono’s request for an injunction against the film that would have forced it out of theaters nationwide. The producers are celebrating this victory by announcing that the film will be re-released theatrically this summer across the United States. Read More ›
Is there a “religious” impulse?
To look at this account of the religious fervour surrounding Barack Obama by Michael Medved, one would think so. Consider
Author Garen Thomas makes similar observations in “Yes We Can: A Biography of Barack Obama”, a newly published book for children. “There has emerged a new leader who seems to be granting Americans a renewed license to dream. Barack Obama has proven repeatedly that he can touch people from all genders,” (not just both of them, you’ll note, but all of ‘em), “political affiliations, and across racial divides. There are few times in your life when you have a real opportunity to alter the course of history and put civilization back on a course toward prosperity and unity for all races and genders.” All of them—again. “If you were to look at dates in your history books, you might see centuries pass before something remarkable and worth noting occurred, when one person or a group of people stood up for change, making an enlightened leap in the evolution of the human story.”
It goes on. Take your anti-nausea prescription before you follow it up.
Now, some, including Logan Gage at the Discovery Institute, think that innate religiosity proves that religion is an innate human impulse. I have never agreed with that, and in The Spiritual Brain neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and I made clear that there is no innate religious impulse. Here’s the skinny:
If you have a human mind, you naturally wonder about stuff like
– Are there laws that govern the universe? Can I influence them in any way?
– Could beings greater than myself be in charge of what happens? Can I contact them?
– I know I will die, but what will happen then? What happened to my parents and grandparents?
– Does it matter how I live? Can I change anything by thinking or praying about it?
– Why do bad things happen to good people?
And so forth.
I am not convinced that we need anything more than a human mind to ask these questions because the mind will generate them when in contact with reality, for the same reasons as mathematics works.
If I am wrong, I would like to hear a reasonable explanation why that is so.
Also, at the Post-Darwinist:<< Read More ›
Science journalist trashing the Darwin industry? … I have a twin somewhere?
Is Susan Mazur writing a book that exposes the Darwin industry instead of protecting it?
Her e-book title is “Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry”
Sunday, 6 July 2008, 12:32 pm | Article: Suzan Mazur
—–
2 Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?
3 Jerry Fodor and Stan Salthe Open the Evo Box
4 Theory of Form to Center Stage
[ and further … ]
Susan, you mean, no more of the “dancing with the biologists” on Galapagos rubbish (and, person who wrote that silliness, you know who you are … ) A real accounting at last? Read More ›
Is ID getting anywhere? Three thoughts, and a suggestion, and other news
I’ve been covering the ID controversy for about seven years now, as one of only a handful of journalists to make a specialty of it.
Along the way, I have encountered several j’s who were scared off by threats of career ruin. I thought that too bad.
If your stories are consistently about stuff that’s in the news, it’s actually hard to ruin your career covering them.
When people ask me whether ID is making an impact, I usually focus on three criteria I developed back then and monitor routinely: Read More ›
Roy Spencer on Intelligent Design
Roy Spencer is a global warming skeptic and the author of the hypothesis that the water cycle acts as the earth’s thermostat. In a previous article I attributed that hypothesis to “the father of climatology” and that was incorrect. The father of climatology is Reid Bryson. He is a global warming skeptic though.
Roy Spencer is just as qualified (if not moreso) as Bryson. From wiki:
Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Spencer is a recipient of NASA’s Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Anyhow, I only knew Spencer from the climatology work and I just happened to see an article he wrote about evolution and ID. I reproduce it below the fold…
Faith and Reason
The comment threads to several recent posts have contained spirited discussions of faith, reason and the relationship between the two. This issue comes up quite often on this blog, so I decided it was time to devote a post to it. Many of the comments assume a dichotomy, namely that materialists operate solely within the sphere of reason, and theists operate solely within the sphere of faith. In this post I will demonstrate that this dichotomy is not only false, but obviously false. I will show that everyone operates in varying degrees in both spheres. I will then show that far from being a bastion of pure reason, materialism actually requires greater faith commitments than theism.