Earlier today, we were discussing Massey University (New Zealand) evolutionary biologist’s attempt to jam non-Darwinian processes into Darwinism. Because, essentially, if Darwinism means what it has meant in the last 50 years (the Tree of Life), it is not true. So Darwinism must now incorporate material that Darwinists would otherwise reject, so that at least something about it can be true.

Friends write to say that we can expect many more articles like this in the near future, for example

a new Open Access article by Maureen O’Malley and Eugene Koonin: Read More ›

In response to the question, “Many prominent scientists – including Darwin, Einstein, and Planck – have considered the concept of God very seriously. What are your thoughts on the concept of God and on the existence of God?” American Nobelist in Chemistry (1972) Christian B. Anfinsen (1916-1995) replied: “I think only an idiot can be an atheist. We must admit that there exists an incomprehensible power or force with limitless foresight and knowledge that started the whole universe going in the first place.” – 1972 Nobel Prize for Chemistry – cited in Margenau and Varghese, ‘Cosmos, Bios, Theos’, 1997, 139) Other interesting reflections here. Thoughts? We have atheists among our commenters.

And the situation is far too important to justify stopping to find out what is going on.

Here, “Granite geek” David Brooks warns, “Creationism trying to sneak into New Hampshire laws” (July 4, 2011):

… two possible bills may come up in the fall to get creatonism into the classroom. One would mandate teaching “intelligent design”, the other would mandate teaching evolution “as a theory”.

Both lawmakers agree there are theological/philosophical elements to their proposals – one wants to examine how much atheism is being the push for evolution in classes; the other is concerned by the lack of a deeper meaning in evolution. I argue in the column that evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings, but I also note that the argument is irelevant: Science classes should teach science.

The Granite one seems unaware that just saying that “evolution, linking us to the understandable reality of the universe, has more meaning that an arbitrary creation by some other-worldly being or beings” means that he has a definite theological position, and saying that “Science classes should teach science” only raises the question of what he means by “science.”

Happily, he answers that. Read More ›

When suppression fails, they rewrite history. In “Darwin’s Theory of Descent with Modification, versus the Biblical Tree of Life,” Massey University molecular biologist David Penny admits that Darwin did not coin the expression “Tree of Life,” as in “Darwin’s Tree of Life”:

There is a strong urban myth that Charles Darwin introduced and/or advocated a “Tree of Life” for the classification of living organisms. This has recently been highlighted by Lawton [1], but dates back to at least Doolittle [2].

Yes, and the publicly funded smart set still worship faithfully, so why interfere? Surely not because that’s false? With Darwinism, what isn’t false?* NO, Penny is offering a strategy for co-opting non-Darwinian findings in the history of life as, really, inspired by Darwinism! He goes on, Read More ›

And didn’t star Ronald Reagan opposite a chimp.

On July 8, a documentary on the fate of Nim opens in U.S. theatres (trailer). In “Project Nim: A chimp raised like a human” (New Scientist 4 July 2011), Rowan Hooper tackles the question of why:

What on earth were they thinking of? Nim was put in diapers and dressed in clothes. He was breastfed by his human surrogate mother, Stephanie Lafarge. “It seemed natural,” she says.Lafarge’s daughter, Jenny Lee, has a better explanation: “It was the seventies”. Jenny was 10-years-old when Nim came to live with her family. Read More ›

Here. Why, that is, it would make more sense if it wasn’t designed. A friend has asked UD readers, on a pleasant summer evening, to count the fallacies in the video. Rube shouts in: Name one healthy body part you’re sure you’d be better off without.

OK let’s try this again. One more time, this time with pictures. In their celebrated volume  Blueprints, evolutionists Maitland Edey and Donald Johanson argued that “What God did is a matter for faith and not for scientific inquiry. The two fields are separate. If our scientific inquiry should lead eventually to God … that will be the time to stop science.” Similarly for evolutionist Niles Eldredge, the key responsibility of science—to predict—becomes impossible when a capricious Creator is entertained:  Read more

I’m generally happy to answer questions from anyone, if I think they’re interesting enough. Recently the following seven questions were brought to my attention. I thought they merited a response, so here goes. The answers given below are my own; readers are free to disagree if they wish.

1. Does a spider web, a bee hive, a mole burrow, a bird nest, a termite mound, or a beaver dam have “biological function”, and do they have “information”?
Read More ›

In “Robustness and fault tolerance make brains harder to study,” Shyam Srinivasan and Charles F Stevens (BMC Biology 2011, 9:46 | doi:10.1186/1741-7007-9-46) explain the impediments to complete understanding of what is going on in a brain, examining a recent study of a crab neural network (Jomah crab or Cancer borrealis):

Abstract: Brains increase the survival value of organisms by being robust and fault tolerant. That is, brain circuits continue to operate as the organism needs, even when the circuit properties are significantly perturbed. Kispersky and colleagues, in a recent paper in Neural Systems & Circuits, have found that Granger Causality analysis, an important method used to infer circuit connections from the behavior of neurons within the circuit, is defeated by the mechanisms that give rise to this robustness and fault tolerance.

Nonmaterialist neuroscientists call it neuroplasticity – brains are always reorganizing themselves.

The authors conclude, Read More ›

Non-materialist neuroscience: “You can’t fire your brain but you can retrain it.” Here’s an interview with a non-materialist neuroscientist, Jeffrey Schwartz, who is friendly to ID covers what’s wrong with materialism in neuroscience, and introduces a non-materialist approach to the treatment of phobias, compulsions, and addictions, as used in his new book, You arenot your brain.: For the past six years, Schwartz has worked with psychiatrist Rebecca Gladding to refine a program that successfully explains how the brain works and why we often feel besieged by bad brain wiring. Just like with the compulsions of OCD patients, they discovered that bad habits, social anxieties, self-deprecating thoughts, and compulsive overindulgence are all rooted in overactive brain circuits. The key to making Read More ›

Some participants were flagged down at the airport afterward. Here are some great interviews (vid) at Ricochet (Claire Berlinski, editor), a “secret” conference of prominent idea people who are fed up with the cult. These feature Robert Marks and Rabbi Moshe Averick. Read More ›

At New Scientist (29 June 2011) we learn from Ken Croswell that “Dying stars hold the promise of alien life”:

WELCOME to Procyon B, a nearby star that’s light years away from the sun, and not only in distance terms. Unlike the healthy star we circle, Procyon B is dim and dying. Having thrown off its outer layers, it is puny compared with the sun. And it is so dense that were you able to scoop up a spoonful of its material, it would weighs tonnes. So unlike our sun is Procyon B, in fact, that those seeking extraterrestrial life have long overlooked the star’s potential.

University of Washington astronomer Eric Agol thinks we are too ready to dismiss such places. Read More ›

Thanks to a kind donor, we can sponsor an essay contest this summer.

We’ve all heard what the effect would be of accepting design as a cause in nature alongside of law and chance: Science hurtles back to the dark ages, fascism wipes out democracy, Armageddon arrives, and – worst of all – people who question Darwinism keep their jobs. Change the channel, and that’s just not happening.

So let’s look at real-world consequences. Here’s the question: How would acceptance of design, alongside law and chance, as a fundamental cause in nature change the way we do science?

Eligible entrants: High school, college, or university undergrads, worldwide.

Prizes: $200 first prize, $100 second prize

And people are talking about it. In this vid and pdf from his lecture at the university’s Graham School (October 2010), he lays out his thinking:

4. The DNA record tells us that major steps in genome evolution have involved rapid genome-wide changes.5. We know of molecular processes that allow us to think scientifically about complex evolutionary events – particularly about the rapid evolution of genomic circuits
and multi-component adaptations.

As author of Evolution: A view from the 21st century, he has also said at Fermilab (2010) that arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins “lives in a world of fantasy,” stressing as above that “evolutionary theory needs mechanisms for very rapid, coordinated change.”
Read More ›