2012

  James Barham offers (March 12, 2012), “Another way of understanding Chekhov’s position is as the contrary of John Gray’s. That contemporary pessimist was observed here a while ago to be essentially saying to science and religion: “A plague on both your houses.” We may think of Chekhov as saying the exact opposite: We need both science and religion. Or, more exactly, we need the core of faith in the goodness of humanity that lies at the common root of both science and religion. Chekhov’s great subject is how we are to live our lives in the absence of all ideologies—how to get through the “long row of days” facing each of us. In this, he is the clear forerunner Read More ›

A professor of philosophy and bioethics at New York University is now saying that since humans caused global warming, humans should fix the problem. But since market-based and geoengineering solutions are too risky and ineffective, we need to engineer humans to consume less, for example, by making them smaller.  Read more

This is like the junkiest of junk, and it turns out to be so critical: From a PhysOrg article: To find out what was going on, the researchers began testing the DNA of several families that showed a proclivity for harboring the disease. Some actually had it, while some did not. Comparing the two allowed the team to track down which differences in their genes might be accounting for the presence of the disease. Much to their surprise, they found it lay within gene SLC7A2, which is known to be used by the brain during its development stage. But what was most remarkable was the fact that it was a single letter change, from an A to a G, found Read More ›

A couple of years ago I trotted out the “highly improbable things happen all the time” meme our Darwinist friends use to such advantage at my home poker game.  For those who don’t recall, this is what happened.  I dealt myself a royal flush in spades for the first 13 hands.  When my friends objected I said, “Lookit, your intuition has led you astray. You are inferring design — that is to say that I’m cheating — simply on the basis of the low probability of this sequence of events.  But don’t you understand that the odds of me receiving 13 royal flushes in spades in a row are exactly the same as me receiving any other 13 hands.  In Read More ›

In reply to a personal email I saw this morning, I have done a point by point markup of LT’s reply to my comment at no 10 in the current UD atheism and tolerance thread, here on. Let it be further understood that I am on record that the proper response to the now common dismissal of first principles of right reason, is that therapy is what is needed. Banning and moderation should be reserved for specifically disorderly behaviour. Finally, since there is an open thread as just linked, replies should be made there. END

Which came first the chicken or the egg? In evolution’s case, the question is between DNA or proteins. The DNA stores the data to make the proteins, but proteins do things (like get the data out of the DNA). It is all so circular: proteins operate on DNA to get the data to make … themselves. When a new individual is conceived, the zygote has both already in place to begin with. But how could this whole biological system evolve from a mud patch? And which came first, DNA or proteins? Twenty five years ago evolutionists hit upon a new just-so story to solve this riddle: It wasn’t DNA or proteins, but RNA, that worked the magic. RNA is what Read More ›