Here is a gem for you:   The idea of nanotechnology is founded in the premise that it will be possible to construct machines with atomic scale precision (Feynman, 1961; Drexler, 1981; Drexler, 1986). Biology provides many examples that this is possible; we “merely” need to learn what has been achieved by evolution and copy it. But eventually we must determine what the engineering limitations of molecular machines are. [emphasis mine]   (Thomas D. Schneider. Nanotechnology. )   Here are some examples of scientists attempting to emulate the engineering marvels of ID (Oops! I meant EVOLUTION):     (Small Visions, Grand Designs) I am wondering why evolution has not already produced a bacterial propeller such as the one engineered by Read More ›

It is frustrating for me to see that even most ID proponents are ready to concede a Darwinian explanation for any complex structure which does not seem to be irreducibly complex. If someone could show, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could have been constructed through many gradual improvements, would I find a Darwinian explanation reasonable? Heck no. It seems reasonable only if you assume that random errors are only occurring in the DNA. Gil Dodgen gave a brilliant analogy in a Sept 28, 2006 post at UD: he said that if you really want to simulate evolution with computer programs, you should introduce random errors not only in the string simulating DNA, but also in your entire program, the Read More ›

On  July 7, 2005 Cardinal Christoph Schönborn wrote an article Finding Design in Nature  that seemed to level serious criticism at Darwinism and neo-Darwinism.   “Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science,” wrote Schönborn, “the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real.”  More recently the Cardinal has elaborated upon his position in his latest book Chance or Purpose: Creation, Evolution, and a Rational Faith (Ignatius Press, 2007).  The work itself emanating as it does from such a well-positioned Catholic leader, one intimate with the Pope, is worthy of some extended comment.

 Schönborn’s book is in some senses confusing.  On the one hand the Viennese Cardinal has some harsh criticism for Darwinian evolution as a metaphysical worldview.  On the other hand Schönborn takes the reader on a much murkier journey in which he appears to defend Darwin’s Origin as a “stroke of genius.”  Freeing himself from the dogma of independent creations, Darwin developed a theory of natural selection and common descent that was, according to  Schönborn, a product of “honest and intense intellectual struggle” (p. 53).  The Cardinal essentially supports Darwin’s biological mechanisms as secondary causes, which “can thus perfectly well be reconciled with belief in creation.  The natural causes,” he writes, “are an expression of the activity of creation”  that occurs throughout all aspects of creation.   Schönborn has a purpose in mind here, namely, to make a distinction between the so-called science of Darwin and the metaphysics of Darwinism in an effort to make Darwin’s biological theory implicitly compatible with theism.  Here begins the Cardinal’s troubles. Read More ›

A commenter quoting George Church on the ribosome in Paul’s thread reminds me of how I came to be on this side of the ID controversy.

For decades I’d uncritically accepted the notion that life could emerge from chemicals bumping together in a primordial soup and that once started it could evolve through mutation and selection into what we see today. In 1991 I read something from the ID camp that, among other things, pointed to some closely related proteins differing by just several point mutations where any of the mutations occurring singly would be fatal and where all of them occurring at once was statistically almost impossible. In other words, there was no path from A to B that natural selection could take. I suspected what they were saying might be true but in 1991 I didn’t have the time to do any due diligence on what was claimed but a seed of doubt about neo-Darwinian evolution had been planted.

Read More ›

It’s not even six a.m. here in EST, and already 230 people have visited the Post-Darwinist (one of my two solo blogs), either to read my nine predictions if ID is true or hear whether it’s true that most Discovery Institute fellows are, like, fundies. Or else to read about the Pope vs. howler monkey stand-ins at an Italian U …

I notice where several Darwinists want me to understand that I am not much good at making predictions. Well, I have news for them. Back in 2001, I predicted that intelligent design would be BIG news by mid-decade, while some Darwinist or other was reshaping neo-Darwinism to fit the facts (retrodiction) or prophesying ID’s death every six months (malediction?). I, meanwhile,  sold a book on the basis of my prediction (By Design or by Chance? Augsburg 2004) and got named as co-author on another one (The Spiritual Brain, Harper One, 2007).  And who was right on the facts? Read More ›

A commenter here remarked that negative predictions that ID makes such as we won’t ever demonstrate an unassisted way that a flagellum could evolve are not valid predictions. Yet I’ve heard Darwinists claim that we won’t find a pre-Cambrian rabbit or human and dinosaur fossils together. Are those then not valid predictions of Darwinian theory? Help me out here. My momma always said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Was she wrong?

Recently, some commenters at one of my home blogs, the Post-Darwinist, have urged me to address the question of whether it is true that most Discovery Institute fellows are evangelical Christians. I suppose so, except for the ones who are Catholics, agnostics, or Moonies or something. Go here for reasons why the accusation is basically garbage and – way more important to you – the early beginnings of a list of reasons not to believe Darwinism.

Recently,  this question was sent to Bill Dembski by a TV chase producer: … can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true? I gather Dembski sent that guy some predictions, but I’ve been busy, so I didn’t get around to compiling any suggestions till now. Figured I’d post them here. Including Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed. Eventually, researchers will give up on ideologically driven nonsense and address the history that IS there. They will focus on discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity. Positive prediction: Discovering the true mechanisms of bursts of Read More ›

“The energy in the ATP molecule powers all biological processes. Thus, the synthesis of ATP is essential for life.” Sir. John Walker, The ATP Synthase Group, MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit ATP Synthase has been frequently discussed at Uncommon Descent including Intelligent Engineering or Natural Selection 15 July 2006 “Our job is to follow the money, track and document the flow of funds, and thereby help prove the underlying criminal activity.” Eileen Mayer, Chief, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division I propose that one of the most important concepts in Intelligent Design vs evolution is to “follow the energy trail“. This will be especially important in examining the origin of life. Energy processes are central to design of dynamic systems. Read More ›

Never heard of a beefalo? Aw, don’t be shy. It’s what happens when Buffalo bull meets Cow gal or versa vice. You probably don’t hang out in places like that, so to you it’s just a dinner entree. This is a cross between genera, not species.  Fertile hybrids of genus bos and genus bison, separated for many thousands of years, form the basis of an industry in Western North America. What does that mean for theories of how different species come to exist?  Jane Harris-Zsovan of The Design of Life team says, The existence of the beefalo and its cousins, the dzo and zubron, show us that – after millennia of separation – the gene pool of individuals in the genus Read More ›

Looking at a cell is like looking into the future of our own designs. That’s my favorite sentence from The Design Matrix by Mike Gene (a book from which I took copious notes, and am still digesting). But the reason there’s a picture of biologist George Church in this blog entry, not to mention a quote from Church as the title, is the release by editor John Brockman of the transcript of a fascinating roundtable about the nature of life. Held this past August at Brockman’s farm in Connecticut, the roundtable ranges over a wide array of topics, including intelligent design, synthetic biology, the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, and the effect of the genomics revolution on the Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post StephenB raises some interesting questions: 

{1}Free will requires the presence of a nonmaterial-mind independent of the brain. {2}a non-material mind independent of the brain indicates free will.  . . .  In philosophy, [this type of proposition] is known as a bi-conditional proposition, which means, If A/then B. Also, If B/then A.  Usually, that pattern does not hold in logic, but it does hold here. [If one disavows] the existence of the mind, it is time to make the corresponding assertion about volition—go ahead and reject free will and complete the cycle.  Take the final step and concede that all of our attempts to persuade each other are futile.  We are nature’s plaything, and the laws of nature operating through our “brain” dictate our every move.

Given [the materialist’s] perception of reality, why [does he] bother to raise objections at all [to the proposition that mind exists independently of the brain].  If your world view is true, then [all the commenters] on this blog do what we do only because fate requires it of us. We are, for want of a better term, determined to think and act as we do.  Since we have no volitional powers, why do you appeal to them?  Why raise objections in an attempt to influence when it has already been established that only non-material minds can influence or be influenced? Why propose a change of direction when only intelligent agencies have the power to do that?  Since brains are subject to physical laws of cause and effect, they cannot rise above them and, therefore, cannot affect them.  Brains cannot influence brains.  Why then, do you ask any of us to change our minds when, in your judgment, there are no minds to change?

Read More ›

Greg Bear has been writing hard sci-fi novels in recent years where the plot revolves around recent biotech discoveries. “Darwin’s Radio” received high acclaim even in Nature Magazine for the depth of knowledge of genetics, endogenous retroviruses, and human evolution that Bear displayed in the fictional work. In my opinion “Vitals” is of the same caliber. This biotech thriller revolves around the concept that intelligent bacterial networks have been mankind’s unseen, unknown overlords since time immemorial. In fact I, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, have written on UD about the notion that humanity’s purpose is to discover habitable earth-like planets and design vehicles that can deliver single-celled life to them. In other words we are the means by which bacteria can survive the Read More ›

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the interviews of Dembski, Gonzalez, and Behe in the recent article here. I wanted to talk about something Gonzalez said in the interview. Specifically the transformation from ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) optimist to ETI pessimist. I’ve undergone a similar transformation for the same reasons. Indeed, when I received my monthly Scientific American in 2001 with Gonzalez’ “The Galactic Habitable Zone” featured on the cover I was delighted to see that someone was seriously working on filling in the blanks in Drake’s Equation and that the work was important enough to make the cover of my favorite and primary source of what was happening in the world of science. As an avid reader of what’s called “hard” Read More ›

These interviews were originally conducted by Mario A. Lopez, with collaboration from Eduardo Arroyo Pardo for the Pro-ID Spanish website, Ciencia Alternativa. http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1438 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1451 http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1449   These also appear in El Manifiesto from Madrid, Spain: http://elmanifiesto.com/articulos.asp?idarticulo=808 http://elmanifiesto.com/articulos.asp?idarticulo=1396 Enjoy!