2009

Do you remember when I said “when a thing is untrue, if we say it is true we get contradictions” (The Darwinism contradiction of repair systems)? Here I will deal with another contradiction of Darwinism: that we could name its “bionic antinomy”.

According to Wikipedia “Bionics (also known as biomimetics, bio-inspiration, biognosis, biomimicry, or bionical creativity engineering) is the application of biological methods and systems found in nature to the study and design of engineering systems and modern technology.” In fact, whether we analyze the history of technology, we find how often technical innovations and systems take inspiration from natural models. For some of the more recent examples of biomimetics see The 15 Coolest Cases of Biomimicry. This article synthetically defines bionics as “biologically inspired engineering”. Read More ›

The cloud patterns in two photos taken during the Spanish Civil War are identical, according to a column by George Will: In a slightly less dramatic photo of another falling soldier, taken by Capa at the same time – the cloud configuration is the same as in “Falling Soldier” – the soldier falls on the same spot. The interesting thing is, don’t blame photoshop; these pix were created in 1936. Will goes on to note, quite properly, that photographer Capa had an honourable career as a war photographer (a highly dangerous profession), which came to an abrupt end when he stepped on a land mine. But it seems likely now that he manipulated an iconic photo. For the evidence base Read More ›

Intelligently Designed Nanotechnology

As Casey Luskin reveals in this episode of ID the Future, eminent biologists have said that they must continually remind themselves that what they see in biology evolved, and was not designed. But now engineers are turning to biology to replace human technology because biological pathways provide superior solutions to biomedical-technological needs. Is this trend more consistent with an evolved biosphere, or an intelligent designed one? Listen to this podcast and decide for yourself.

Listen here.

Yes, but sometimes people don’t see the forest for the trees. Read More ›

The following is a crude 1-minute silent animation that I and members of the IDCS Network put together. God willing, there will be major improvements to the animation (including audio), but this is a start. Be sure to watch it in full screen mode to see the details.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SrIDjvpx7w4

The animation asserts that if harmful mutation rates are high enough, then there exists no form or mechanism of selection which can arrest genetic deterioration. Even if the harmful mutations do not reach population fixation, they can still damage the collective genome.

The animation starts off with healthy gingerbread men as parents. Each spawns ginger kids, and the red dots on the kids represent them having a mutation. The missing ginger limbs are suggestive of severe mutations, the more mild mutations are represented by ginger kids merely having a red dot and not severe phenotypic effects of their mutation. The exploding ginger kids represent Selection doing its thing and removing the less functionally fit from the population. The persistence of red dots on the ginger kids represents persistence of bad mutations despite any possible mechanism of selection.

Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller (of Muller’s ratchet fame) suggested that the human race can’t even cope with a harmful rate of 0.1 per new born. The actual rate has been speculated to be on the order of 100-300.

The animation uses a conservative harmful rate of 1 and argues (with some attempts at humor) that deterioration would thus be inevitable even with a harmful rate of 1 per new born.

I save discussion in the comment section the relevant but technical topics of truncation selection, sexual reproduction, recombination, synergistic epistasis, compensatory mutations, relief from Muller’s ratchet etc. These highly technical topics should be addressed and were not included in the animation. We can discuss them in the comment section.

However, the essential problem of mutation rates and deterioration is depicted by the animation. How this cartoon is illustrative of reality (when we consider the technicalities such as recombination, sexual reproduction, synergistic epistasis), can be discussed in the comment section.
Read More ›

Check out this editorial in the Washington Examiner by Casey Luskin. The title is “Let’s restore civility to the debate on evolution and intelligent design.” Casey was superbly rational, reserved and eloquent, as usual. But check out the comments, which reveal trademark, frothing-at-the-mouth, apoplectic, near-convulsive, Darwinian-fundamentalist hysteria — which validates Casey’s thesis. Why such hysterical, vulgar passion? I’ll let UD readers reach their own conclusions.

Neuroscience is, unfortunately, increasingly taken over by what I often describe as neurobullshipping. You know, neuroeconomics,, neurolaw … It basically amounts to determining which regions of the brains of carefully chosen subjects light up when certain propositions are introduced.

Relief at last!

Here, at New Humanist, Raymond Tallis rallies the neuroskeptics (“Neurotrash”, Volume 124, Issue 6, November/December 2009). ‘Bout time someone did, I’d say. What’s really good is that it comes from an unexpected quarter, at least for me.

He writes,

Hardly a day passes without yet another breathless declaration in the popular press about the relevance of neuroscientific findings to everyday life. The articles are usually accompanied by a picture of a brain scan in pixel-busting Technicolor and are frequently connected to references to new disciplines with the prefix “neuro-”. Neuro-jurisprudence, neuro-economics, neuro-aesthetics, neuro-theology are encroaching on what was previously the preserve of the humanities. Even philosophers – who should know better, being trained one hopes, in scepticism – have entered the field with the discipline of “Exp-phi” or experimental philosophy. Starry-eyed sages have embraced “neuro-ethics”, in which ethical principles are examined by using brain scans to determine people’s moral intuitions when they are asked to deliberate on the classic dilemmas. Benjamin Libet’s experiments on decisions to act and the work on mirror neurons (observed directly in monkeys but only inferred, and still contested, in humans) have been ludicrously over-interpreted to demonstrate respectively that our brains call the shots (and we do not have free will) and to point to a neural basis for empathy.

Yes, pop neuroscience is beginning to sound more like “evolutionary” psychology all the time.

Responding to Tallis’s article’s title, “Neurotrash”, I wrote to friends to say, more or less, Read More ›

In the post below Andrew Sibley links to an extraordinary article in The Times about the link between Darwinism and the recent spate of school shootings, and in the comments Leviathan steps up to give us the obligatory “this doesn’t disprove Darwinism” response.  Leviathan, you are missing the point.  I read the article and there is not one word in it that attacks Darwinism per se.  For all you or I know the author could be a Darwinian fundamentalist.  I take it that the point of the article is that some school shooters are influenced by Darwinian theory.  That is undeniable.  Actually, I take that back.  I am sure there are Darwinian fundamentalists out there who would deny that any Read More ›

A friend has alerted me to this book and article in The Times online. Charles Darwin and the children of the evolution The headline makes the statement “The naturalist outraged the church, prompting a bitter debate that still sets creationists against evolutionists. Now a sinister link has emerged between his work and the recent spate of high-school killings by crazed, nihilistic teenagers.” Read the article here The book is available “The Political Gene: How Darwin’s Ideas Changed Politics” (Picador, £18.99) by Dennis Sewell is available at the BooksFirst        or at amazon.co.uk http://science-and-values.blogspot.com/

When I was a kid we used to learn useful stuff in school, one item of which is never get between a she-animal and her offspring. Here’s some stuff that happens in the Canadian wilderness: A defence of angry bears. (Actually, I think the bear in this case is a he-bear, but a she-bear would behave exactly the same.) In this next one, the cat wins, and you will see why: This is a defence of angry cats. But, if you watch it through, it is not a defence for bear behinds.

I’ll be speaking on the Texas A&M campus at Rudder Theater from 7:00 to 9:00pm tomorrow (Thursday) November 12, 2009. For the flyer describing my talk, click here.

The phrase “Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement” sounds innocent enough. Who could be against such an agreement? But in fact it appears to be a pretext for a massive invasion of privacy, motivated in part by the entertainment industry seeking to maintain copyrights. But once unleashed, such an assault on freedom will know no bounds. What if Big Brother finds on your laptop that you think ID supports certain traditional moral views, and what if any articulation of such views comes to be regarded as a hate crime?

IPFW religious forum explores the nature of science Staff reports Tuesday, 10 November 2009 08:33 www.fwdailynews.com The Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne (IPFW) University Religious Forum will host “Understanding the Nature of Science: Why Intelligent Design is Considered a Pseudo-Science” with Jeff Nowak, Ph.D., Thursday, Nov. 19, from noon to 1:15 p.m. in IPFW Walb Student Union, Room G21. The presentation is free and open to the public. A simple lunch is served; donations are accepted. Reservations are not necessary. The series is sponsored by IPFW Campus Ministry. Nowak is an associate professor of science education at IPFW and director of Northeast Indiana Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (NISTEM) Education Resource Center. He will discuss why people believe the theory Read More ›

Here is a video of Robert Wright’s lecture on the evolution of compassion. I’ve written on this recently at UD here.

My point in the other blog was to note that if compassion has an evolutionary explanation for its existence, then so does not being compassionate, and so does every other aspect of our entire humanity by being the product of the same process. This leaves one with no more ultimate standard to use to judge whether we should or shouldn’t be compassionate, for whatever we try to use for the standard is itself subject to the trial. And of course this includes all thoughts, not just ones we call compassion and being in-compassionate. The explanation of our thinking resulting from evolution necessitates that all thoughts, even contradictory ones, have the same grounds in evolution. And this brings us to the difficulty: On this premise, there could be no escape from evolution to find a more solid ground on which to make judgments about any other thoughts that are, themselves, also the result of evolution. Evolutionary Psychologists like Robert Wright, very contradictorily, contends that evolution has given us false beliefs, not seeing that the judgment he is using also comes from the same process as the one he claims produced the false belief. If evolution gives us false beliefs, what grounds have we to trust it in any other regard? This excerpt from C. S. Lewis’s essay The Abolition of Man may help to clarify the matter; and let’s say that our evolved capacities of thought (including compassion) are called Instincts for the sake of argument:

Read More ›

Getting Over Our Love for Darwin
By William A. Dembski
Posted Tuesday, November 03, 2009

http://www.texanonline.net/default.asp?action=article&aid=6474&issue

Charles Darwin published his “Origin of Species” in 1859. There he presented the classic formulation of his theory of evolution. Lady Ashley, reacting to the theory at the time, remarked, “Let’s hope that it’s not true; but if it is true, let’s hope that it doesn’t become widely known.” Lady Ashley’s second hope has failed: Darwin’s theory is everywhere and has now become textbook orthodoxy. This year, universities around the globe are celebrating the 150th anniversary of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” as well as the 200th anniversary of his birth.

But what about Lady Ashley’s hope that Darwin’s theory is false? Darwin presented a bleak picture of ourselves: we are mere modified apes; we are the “winners” in a brutal competitive evolutionary process, most of whose players are “losers,” wiped off the evolutionary scene before they could leave a legacy; the traditional Christian view that we are made in God’s image is simply a story we tell to convince ourselves that we’re special. 

Intelligent design supporters like me view Darwin’s theory as untrue and even as laughable: The theory purports to give a materialistic account of life’s development once life is already here, but it has a gaping hole at the start since matter gives no evidence of being able to organize itself from non-life into life. The fossil record, especially the sudden emergence of most animal body plans in the Cambrian explosion, sharply violates Darwinian expectations about the historical pattern of evolutionary change. The nano-engineering found in the DNA, RNA, and proteins of the cell far exceeds human engineering and remains completely unexplained in Darwinian terms.

Darwin lovers are quick to reject such complaints.  Read More ›