As many UD readers know, I am a classical pianist by training since the age of seven. The piano and classical music have been a tremendous inspiration all my life, and this was my refuge during four decades in the hideous darkness of atheism. After 2.5 centuries, great, uplifting works of musical art such as Handel’s Messiah endure. But fear not, we have in the 20th century such great classics as those by the Rolling Stones with these inspirational lyrics: I can’t get no satisfaction, I can’t get no girly action. How far we have come since Handel’s masterwork! HT: Jonathan Wells

Lee Spetner, author of NOT BY CHANCE (a critique of neo-Darwinism), asked me to post this response to Tom Schneider: I just became aware of Tom Schneider’s “response” to my objection to his criticism of my calculation of probability (go here for Schneider). I don’t know whether he can’t read or if he has a mental block against admitting to criticism. He thinks that my probability p = 1/300,000 is the probability of an adaptive mutation. I clearly stated that it is the probability that a particular mutation will occur in a population and will survive to take over that population.”  He did not understand this clear statement and thought that I meant it to be the probability of a particular Read More ›

Jane Harris-Zsovan’s book, Eugenics and the Firewall: Canada`s Nasty Little Secret is now (J. Gordon Shillingford, 2010) in print. It details the surprising reach of the compulsory sterilization movement in early twentieth century Canada. Many across the political spectrum participated, until the practice was finally derailed by informed public opinion and the courts.

The book’s national launch will be Wednesday, November 17, 2010, 1:30-3:30, Galt Museum & Archives Store, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada. Harris-Zsovan chose that locale because “the Galt archives have been helping me from time I wrote my first history paper at University.”

Harris-Zsovan, who spent many hours poring over decades-old newspaper clippings, is bracing herself for controversy:

I’m inviting everyone I know and that includes people on the left, right and centre in Canada. I can’t wait to see them all chit-chatting in the gallery at the Galt! I’ve warned them all that they will be uncomfortable with parts of this book. They seem okay with that so far. But I hope that discomfort leads to a healthy discussion.

Well, I hope so too. Many of us have found that discussion of eugenic sterilization – discussion that includes any mention of the social Darwinism that underlies it – often leads to the frantic defense of some Shrine to Evolution. To say nothing of attacks on anyone who offers evidence. Indeed, the spin now turns so fast that in the United States, museum goers are informed that Darwin was not a racist or eugenicist, when there is simply no escaping the facts of the case.

Anyway, Jane’s is hardly a “take no prisoners” approach to unsavoury history: Read More ›

This from the Beeb: How cats lap water:

… cats use their tongues to delicately draw up water without breaking the surface of the liquid.

The scientists, who published their study in the journal Science, say this differs from dogs, who employ a messy scooping action to quench their thirst.

[ … ]

While humans and animals such as sheep or horses use suction to draw liquid upwards, and dogs curl their tongue into a cup-like shape to ladle liquid in, the footage revealed that cats use a more subtle mechanism to drink.

The study was inspired by Cutta Cutta the cat The scientists found that the tip of the cat’s tongue curls backwards, not forwards, as it darts down towards its bowl.

Then, instead of penetrating the surface of the liquid, the tongue just lightly touches it.

Dr Stocker explains: “The fluid comes in contact with the tongue and sticks to it, then the action of the tongue being drawn upwards very rapidly creates a liquid column.

“I would say cats know more about fluid mechanics than dogs.” – Roman Stocker, MIT

[ … ]

The team thinks cats may have adopted this more complex but neater approach because it means they are less likely to be splashed with water as they drink.

– Rebecca Morelle, “Mystery of how cats lap is revealed” (BBC 11 November 2010)

A cat graciously demonstrates:

Here is the method for faucets:

More catnip? Read More ›

The ability of species to adapt to changing and challenging conditions is remarkable and due to a wide variety of molecular mechanisms. Many of these mechanisms fall into the broad category of epigenetics of which we are still learning the details.  Read more

A key concept for Darwinism is adaptation. Traits are identified that confer survival and reproduction advantages to an organism. These traits are supposed to experience selection pressures that drive adaptive change and speciation. Consequently, traits are of central importance for theories of evoplutionary transformation, as is also time. However, when contemplating the flowering plants, even Darwin found them difficult to reconcile with his theory. Writing to J.D. Hooker in 1879, he described the evolutionary success of angiosperms as “an abominable mystery“. He was troubled by the abrupt origin and extraordinarily rapid diversification of flowering plants in the mid-Cretaceous. “The answer to whether any of the above traits are consistent predictors of diversity of a given rate of lineage growth depends Read More ›

Stephen Hawking has achieved the status of ‘celebrity scientist’. He writes books that sell well and has both presented and performed in television series. His latest book, The Grand Design, co-authored with Leonard Mlodinow, has been reviewed widely by both popular press and scientific journals. According to Michael Turner, who wrote the Nature review, these authors: “offer a brief but thrilling account of some of the boldest ideas in physics – including M-theory and the multiverse – and what these have to say about our existence and the nature of the Universe.” For more, go here. Blog conclusion: Paradoxically, scientific realism has been used to promote atheism against theism, but Hawking is now leading his band of atheists towards a Read More ›

It is common knowledge that evolution is supposed to be caused by random biological variation that helps with reproductive success. By definition such biological variation is more likely to be passed on to later generations and eventually to become established in a population. And, according to the theory, if such variation accumulates it leads to all kinds of biological novelties. One problem, however, is that biological variation is not for free. It arises as a consequence of sophisticated molecular machinery and this forces evolutionary theory to violate science’s dictum of simplicity. Scientific explanations should not consist of a series of coincidences and lucky strikes. In Darwin’s day the knowledge of biology was sufficiently rudimentary that this free lunch problem could Read More ›

Recently, Southern Seminary president Al Mohler responded to claims from Mark Sprinkle at BioLogos (Christian Darwinists’ site) that he had unfairly characterized them as not Christian

… in any but a nominal or diminished way, not authentic followers of Jesus no matter what we say and despite the evidence of the Holy Spirit both in us and working through us …

Sprinkle’s prescriptive advice follows,

I invite Dr. Mohler to refrain from condemning (even by faint praise) those whom the Spirit has sanctified and is sanctifying, and through whom He is calling more of the lost to Himself. More, I invite him to join me at the table as a brother and to put off the too-common practice of acting as if we know everything we need to know about those on the other sides of these issues from what we read on-line.

and then an invitation,

As Cornelius asked Peter “to stay with them for a few days” to see what the Lord would be teaching them together, I invite Dr. Mohler to come and see what I see in the hearts and lives of people in the BioLogos community.

Mohler denies he has ever said or implied that the BioLogists are not sincere Christians. Why would he? Lots of folk who follow a church-emptying theology lead exemplary private lives. And we are all thankful that judgment belongs to God alone. All that’s immaterial to the issues at hand.

Two problems I experience with “you will know we are Christians by our love, by our love” as an argument are that

1) I didn’t know this was an exam on virtue. I thought we were discussing the evidence re Darwinism (survival of the fittest) as the great engine of nature.

2) Anyway, protests of virtue sound like a bid for praise, as well as for the repentance of those who think evil of the folk at BioLogos.

When people imply that their lives are the witness to their theology – and no one has volunteered to be their Judge, as it happens – one must assume that one is overhearing a soliloquy, and speak no more.

Mohler points out, re the “Holy Spirit … working through us”:

That is an interesting statement, but it is nonsensical unless there is some means of evaluating what is and is not authentic evidence of the Spirit at work. And that, of course, would mean some kind of biblical and theological test. The effort to escape theology gets us nowhere.”

Here, in my view, is the BioLogists’ problem: Read More ›

When confronted with their own religious doctrine, evolutionists are quick to deny any such thing. Evolution is based on religious claims, but after making these claims evolutionists insist their religious beliefs are entirely gratuitous. Their religious claims, evolutionists explain, are merely criticisms of design and creation. After all, we need to explain to the creationists why their ideas are not scientifically supported. The fact of evolution, on the other hand, is simply a scientific conclusion. But this evolutionary rendition is, as usual, at odds with the facts.  Read more

I am not satisfied with our definition of “Darwinism” in the glossary over to the right of our home page. The definition is, I think, accurate as far as it goes, but it is incomplete and somewhat vague. In this thread I invite friend and foe alike to provide a brief definition of “Darwinism.” The best entry or a synthesis of the best entries will obtain pride of place as permanent fixture in the UD glossary. Thank you.

Al Mohler, my former boss at Southern Seminary in Louisville, has excellent theological instincts. On his blog today, he put his finger on what’s driving the theistic evolutionists at BioLogos: The BioLogos approach to the issue is now clear. They want to discredit evangelical objections to evolution and to convince the evangelical public that an acceptance of evolution is a means of furthering the gospel. They have leveled their guns at the Intelligent Design movement, at young earth creationism, and against virtually all resistance to the embrace of evolution. They claim that the embrace of evolution is necessary if evangelicalism is not to be intellectually marginalized in the larger culture. They have warned that a refusal to embrace evolution will Read More ›

The word “borked” has entered our lexicon as a result of the treatment Judge Robert Bork received during Confirmation Hearings for Supreme Court Justice of the U.S. To put it mildly, he was not treated very well. When Stephen J. Gould came out with his theory of Punctuated Equilibria, he, too, was not treated well by the Darwinian establishment until such time as he made clear that his theory was firmly a part of Darwinian thought. Now another geologist, Michael Rampino, has just set himself up for equal treatment. In a PhysOrg entry, Rampino points out what has been so obvious for so long a time: evolution is NOT gradual! It is episodic. He also seeks to go further back Read More ›

Here. From evolutionary medicine profs – your moral and intellectual superiors. Hat tip: The Sheepcat