Some Aristotelian Neo-Thomists (E. Feser call them “A-T philosophers”) accuse intelligent design (ID) of being an expression of the modern mechanistic reductionist quantificationist mindset, and of denying an immanent teleology in nature. I would argue that the difference between internal and external teleology shouldn’t divide ID and A-T. ID doesn’t deny immanent teleology in nature, and has no specific commitment to external teleology or mechanistic thinking. Teleology is synonymous with function, end, purpose, or goal. Design means conceiving hierarchies of functions. Therefore design and teleology are but the two faces of the same coin. So why can one say with confidence that a living being has internal teleology and a machine has only external teleology? Because the living, manifested beings Read More ›

Here. A reader writes to draw our attention to the Third Way of evolution: The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon intervention by a divine Creator. That is clearly unscientific because it brings an arbitrary supernatural force into the evolution process. The commonly accepted alternative is Neo-Darwinism, which is clearly naturalistic science but ignores much contemporary molecular evidence and invokes a set of unsupported assumptions about the accidental nature of hereditary variation. Neo-Darwinism ignores important rapid evolutionary processes such as symbiogenesis, horizontal DNA transfer, action of mobile DNA and epigenetic modifications. Moreover, some Neo-Darwinists have elevated Natural Selection into a Read More ›

When you just have to say something, but don’t want to be slow-roasted alive by desperate and unprincipled colleagues: So you want to be a whistleblower? A lawyer explains the process One obvious way to report research misconduct is to follow internal institutional procedures. Most research institutions have a genuine interest in promoting good science and addressing misconduct. In some instances, however, a potential whistleblower may have legitimate reasons to believe that the institution will not address his/her concerns. This may be for a number of reasons, including institutional apathy, the professional standing of the individuals involved, or a desire to avoid bad publicity. In such cases, a whistleblower may need to consider other ways to report the research misconduct. Read More ›

In response to a commenter on the post “Suzan Mazur’s new book: The Paradigm Shifters” (When you see who is listed on the cover, you will definitely want this book), a reader writes, Science, like living things, changes over time. Who’da thunk it? The “paradigm” is still not shifting towards Christian or any other kind of creationism, though. Well, first, the changes anticipated were toward ever more Darwinism, Darwinizing everything. See evolutionary psychology and cosmic Darwinism. Darwinism was the single greatest idea anyone ever had, remember? And so now … I have no idea what will happen, only that a long-awaited change is underway. Nature permitted a dismissive review of Dawkins’ second instalment on himself, when they might have permitted Read More ›

Further to: What’s happened since Icons of Evolution (2002)?, anticipating a 2016 edition, Not only that, but long-exploded Icons were still in 22 taxpayer-funded textbooks in 2011. Probably still are. Part of the reason is certainly the efforts of the Darwin-in-the-schools lobby. But there is an economic issue as well. I used to be a textbook editor, among other things. It takes a long time and a lot of work to develop rigorous new teaching materials. One must, for one thing, recruit up-to-date teachers who can write. By contrast, just regurgitating the same old same old onto the printing press, in conformity to guidelines, is easy and profitable. And if the textbook committees are not asking for any changes, it Read More ›

Professor Jerry Coyne’s credibility as a New Atheist is now in tatters, after the publication of yesterday’s devastating rebuttal by philosopher Edward Feser, on top of the one he wrote last week. Additionally, Coyne has undermined his scientific credibility by declaring that “it’s simply wrong to suggest that there’s any real scientific ‘debate’ about macroevolution.” (Coyne made this comment in a post which took a gratuitous swipe at a Canadian science text titled, Human Biology, Anatomy and Physiology for the Health Sciences by Wendi Roscoe, Professor in the Health Science department at Fanshawe College, London, Ontario. Professor Roscoe’s ratings are stellar and as far as I can ascertain, she is a convinced evolutionist. Roscoe’s “crime,” in Coyne’s eyes, was to Read More ›

Here: Theory fails to forbid travelling backwards in time. But practice suggests it might just as well be forbidden. Perhaps that is for the best. If backward time travel were possible, some fool would no doubt try testing the grandfather paradox, another invention of time-travelling fiction writers. In this, a visitor to the past kills his or her grand-father before the conception of the protagonist’s own parent, meaning the protagonist could never have been born, and the murder could not have taken place. The grandfather paradox—the observation that causality cannot work backwards—is probably crucial to an understanding of the arrow of time. It is implicit in explanations that rely on thermodynamics and the like, but has not yet been translated Read More ›

From Nature: How scientists fool themselves – and how they can stop This is the big problem in science that no one is talking about: even an honest person is a master of self-deception. Our brains evolved long ago on the African savannah, where jumping to plausible conclusions about the location of ripe fruit or the presence of a predator was a matter of survival. But a smart strategy for evading lions does not necessarily translate well to a modern laboratory, where tenure may be riding on the analysis of terabytes of multidimensional data. In today’s environment, our talent for jumping to conclusions makes it all too easy to find false patterns in randomness, to ignore alternative explanations for a Read More ›

Here. On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with Felipe Aizpún, author of The Fifth Way and Intelligent Design (La quinta vía y el diseño inteligente) and prolific writer on ID and the debate over origins. Aizpún shares how intelligent design is both a scientific and philosophical argument, and discusses Thomist philosophers’ opposition to ID. [20 min approx] Let’s hope Aizpún is more charitable than I’m (O’Leary for News) inclined to be. What with a paradigm shift well under way*, all I can say is, don’t let them get away with claiming afterward that they meant something else. Not after all the supercilious abuse they have handed out to people who are far more likely to be Read More ›

Readers will remember Suzan Mazur, author of Altenberg 16 and The Origin of Life Circus. Her latest is The Paradigm Shifters: Overthrowing “the Hegemony of the Culture of Darwin”: Major scientists from a dozen countries present evidence that a paradigm shift is underway or has already taken place, replacing neo-Darwinism (the standard model of evolution based on natural selection following the accumulation of random genetic mutations) with a vastly richer evolutionary synthesis than previously thought possible. The subtitle is owed to the late Carl Woese. See Carl Woese, discoverer of a whole domain of life, regretted not overthrowing Darwin regretted not overthrowing Darwin When you see who is listed on the cover, you will definitely want this book. Follow UD Read More ›

Did we miss this? Johns Hopkins history of medicine prof Nathaniel Comfort offers, in Nature, a decidedly dismissive review of the second volume of Richard Dawkins’ autobiography, Brief Candle in the Dark: My Life in Science: A curious stasis underlies Dawkins’s thought. His biomorphs are grounded in 1970s assumptions. Back then, with rare exceptions, each gene specified a protein and each protein was specified by a gene. The genome was a linear text — a parts list or computer program for making an organism —insulated from the environment, with the coding regions interspersed with “junk”. Today’s genome is much more than a script: it is a dynamic, three-dimensional structure, highly responsive to its environment and almost fractally modular. Genes may Read More ›

Over the last several days I’ve been watching StephenB thrash RDFish in this post. Several times SB has asked Fish this question: Is a murderer a different kind of cause than accidental death or is it not? Now obviously Fish is in a pickle, between the proverbial Scylla and Charybdis so to speak.  If he says that a murderer is in the same category of causation as accidental death, he will look like an idiot, because everyone knows they are not.  But if he says they are in different categories, then SB has him right where he wants him, because the next, obvious, question will be: what makes them different?  And the answer to that question is also obvious; death Read More ›

From RealClearScience: Disproved Discoveries That Won Nobel Prizes Including Perhaps the most clear-cut example hearkens all the way back to 1926, when Johannes Fibiger won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for “for his discovery of the Spiroptera carcinoma.” In layman’s terms, he found a tiny parasitic worm that causes cancer. Subsequent research conducted in the decades following his receipt of the award would show that though the worm definitely existed, its cancer-causing abilities were entirely nonexistent. So where did Fibiger go wrong?More. Blogger Ross Pomeroy cites inadequate technology and improper controls, plus no one knew much about cancer back then. One suspects also a desire that cancer be simple, but alas, it isn’t. With so many Nobels awarded, doubtless many Read More ›

Further to What’s happened since Icons of Evolution (2002)? Well, for one thing, Darwin’s textbook finches took a beating (no speciation) From The Evolution Revolution by physicist Lee Spetner: The proximate biochemical signal evoking the change in beak shape [of Galapagos finches] has been discovered to be a protein growth factor Bmp4. The more Bmp4 that is made, the broader and deeper is the bird’s beak. This protein acts as a signal to the development of the craniofacial bones which determines the beak’s shape. If my suggestion is correct that the hormones triggered by environmental inputs affect embryonic development, then those hormones induce these growth factors to form the finch beak….The built-in mechanism of the NREH [Non Random Evolutionary Hypothesis] enables the bird Read More ›

Icons of Evolution (Jonathan Wells, Regnery, 2002) is 13 years old. A friend, forensic engineer Stephen Batzer, summarizes, I think that there are three “show stoppers” since then. 1. That Darwin’s finches are simply races of the same bird. There has been no speciation. 2. That the tree of life is not viable. “It’s a bush!” they respond. Well, then Darwin was wrong, and the model is wrong. If it’s a *bush* it isn’t a *tree*. The Darwinian model is common descent and gradual differentiation. That has been shown to be false, because of #3. 3. ORFAN (Orphan) genes. Where do novel genes come from? If common genes mean common descent, then novel genes mean intervention and an innovator. The Read More ›