Over on the website of the UK Centre for Intelligent Design, Anthony Latham (author of The Naked Emperor: Darwinism Exposed) has an excellent article on a recent review article in Nature on the role of molecular chaperones in protein folding. Latham writes, The journal Nature has just published a detailed and fascinating review about the way proteins in our bodies are helped by other proteins, known as chaperones, to become functional. Proteins are the most complex molecules in our bodies and are involved in virtually all biological processes. Our cells typically manufacture over 10,000 different proteins, synthesised on ribosomes as chains of up to several thousand amino acids. For a protein to function it must fold to its ‘native state’ Read More ›

In an incredible display of irrational thinking, scientists studying the availability of amino acids as life was forming concluded this: “We found that chance alone would be extremely unlikely to pick a set of amino acids that outperforms life’s choice, . . . Here we found a very simple test that begins to show us that life knew exactly what it was doing. This is consistent with the idea that there was natural selection going on.” This type of thinking, wherein “life” is linked to “natural selection” although NS is impossible without life first existing, only demonstrates the degree to which modern scientists have effectively become ‘brainwashed’. It is political correctness come to science. What an incredible quote: “Life knew Read More ›

In “Where We Stand: No Adam, No Eve, No Gospel”(June 6, 2011), Christianity Today, tells us, editorially speaking, “The historical Adam debate won’t be resolved tomorrow, so stay engaged.” It is hard to see why, from their performance, that anyone should stay engaged in whatever they have to say about that. We first noted their “Just up-from-apes” Adam and Eve story in early June. I was heading into the United States with a biophysicist who is a Christian (and has suffered much hatred on that account), and we talked for some time about the problem of Christian “good works” selling out to materialist theory, a problem that greatly concerned him. I wrote about the CT story, and got a swift Read More ›

Says political theorist John West here: Earlier this summer, Perry’s education commissioner recommended for use supplementary science curricula that fail to offer any critical analysis of Darwinian claims, contrary to the state’s own science standards. At the same time, Perry’s education commissioner allowed his staff to spike the one proposed curriculum that did try to follow the Texas science standards. Presumably, he thinks everyone who supports him is dumb as a post. More on him here. West thinks Bachmann is sincere, by contrast, based on her record in Minnesota. More on her here.

On a great cruise. Here’s a conference that investigates the nature of time: his conference will bring together leading researchers across a wide range of fields within physics and cosmology, as well as from computer science, complex systems, biology, philosophy, and psychology. The participants will discuss a number of interrelated foundational questions related to the nature of time. – How does time “flow”? – Why does time have a direction? – How does the universe evolve? – What does it mean to record a memory? – What does it mean to perform a computation? – What happens as we think? – How does complexity emerge? – How do organisms age? – How do species and genomes evolve? All perfect thing Read More ›

Matteo writes: “But for too many, the tastiest cake is the one you can have and eat, too. I suppose a lot of folks want just enough determinism to make God an impossibility, but not so much as to make themselves an impossibility.”

Nutty Statistics Professors. Dr. Liddle wrote: “I was taught stats by a somewhat eccentric professor who would fail papers if you gave a p value! He’d return the paper with red ink all over it,saying “DO NOT DO THIS”. And would withhold a pass mark until you’d deleted it.” This put me in mind of my own advanced statistics professor.* Every day he would spend the first 20 minutes of class going on and on about his real passion — the study of paranormal activity. I still groan inwardly thinking it about all these years later. BTW, as much as I pick on her, I really like Dr. Liddle. I may have mistaken her stubborn insistence on sticking to her Read More ›

In this exchange with Elizabeth Liddle, William J. Murray gives one of the most succinct and insightful rebuttals of determinism I have ever seen: Murray’s Argument: Determinists are no more capable of framing a determinist argument without using libertarian assumptions and phrases than Darwinists are capable of framing discussions of biology and evolution without using design assumptions and phrases. The determinist uses “we”, “I”, and “our”, and the acts of such agencies, as if they are libertarian commodities – first sufficient causes in and of themselves, ignoring the necessary causation of what produces the sensation of personhood and the sensation of choosing and the sensation of making contingent models. The sensation of self, thought, act, concept, reflection, choice and meaning Read More ›

Dr. Torley sometimes buries some beautiful stuff in the comment threads of his posts. I am determined to dig them out to display to a wider audience. Here’s one. In response to a comment on his free will post he writes: Thank you for a thought-provoking response. I have to say that despite the impressive level of argumentation, I was not persuaded that a determinist gains anything by taking responsibility for past mistakes. You offer the example of the two women, one of whom takes responsibility for her past while the other one does not. You appeal to a complicated metaphysic of alternative universes to justify your point that by taking responsibility for your past, you can change your future. Read More ›

Skeptical mathematician Peter Woit explains here (Not Even Wrong, August 18, 2011): The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton announced today that Jim Simons and Charles Simonyi will donate $100 million to the Institute, in the form of matching funds for a $200 million campaign mainly aimed at increasing the endowment. For some idea of previous fund-raising by the IAS, see here. Simons and Simonyi have donated significant sums to the IAS in the past, including $6 million from Simonyi to endow a professorship for Witten. The IAS has about 25 permanent professors, with salaries reaching above $300K/year. To get some idea of the scale of the new endowment funds, if they all went to new permanent professorships (unlikely), the Read More ›

Who speaks for Biologos? Recently a divergence of opinion has arisen between Dennis Venema and others at Biologos over a literal understanding of Adam and Eve. Now a fresh question has arisen between Venema and a post by Mark Noll. Dennis Venema gives reasons over at Biologos why he came to reject intelligent design and accept evolution. From Intelligent Design to BioLogos, Part 4: Reading Behe He writes that ID ‘was an argument from analogy, ignorance and incredulity.’ Instead he was ‘looking for an argument from evidence.’ However, ID need not be seen as an argument from analogy, but is an inference to the best explanation involving univocal thinking. As Mark Noll writes, also over at Biologos, The Bible and Read More ›