November 2015

My discussion with Larry Moran over the last few days ranged over several topics, including the current debate among neutral theory advocates like Dr. Moran, and those who believe natural selection remains the primary driving force.  The discussion put me in mind of a post I put up several months ago in which I said: Is there any “core” proposition on which all proponents of modern evolutionary theory agree. By “core” proposition, I do not mean basic facts of biology that pretty much everyone from YECs to Richard Dawkins agrees are true. I mean a proposition upon which the theory stands or falls, and, as I said above, sets it apart from other theories and accounts for its unique purported Read More ›

Neutral theory is a relative newcomer in evolution theory.  Nevertheless, prior to neutral theory proponents of materialist evolutionary theory still got red in the face, stamped their feet, and yelled that evolution is a “fact, fact, fact” as spittle flew from their lips. This highlights the fallacy of the “fact, fact, fact” mantra.  If neutral theory is true, then those who were shouting that their particular version of materialist evolutionary theory is a fact, fact, fact prior to neutral theory were wrong. In other words, when they chant that mantra materialist evolutionists want you to believe that their particular version of the mechanism driving evolution is a fact. But that is obviously false if that mechanism changes. Apples fall to Read More ›

  Biochemist Michael Denton has a new book in the works, Evolution: Still a Theory in Crisis. His 1985 book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis first brought before a general public the reasons Darwinism might not be the single greatest idea anyone ever had, which of course earned the agnostic biochemist (who did not doubt that evolution occurs) a mass of abuse from tenured Darwin drones and their then-exploding troll nursery. No surprise that; anyone who is focused on hegemony is not focused on evidence. In the thirty years that followed, masses of evidence supporting Denton’s doubt began to accumulate, and the trolls’ job has been to beat it back into the shadows. We can listen to some of them Read More ›

One of the challenges commonly met with in re-thinking origins science from a perspective open to design, is that the evolutionary materialist narrative is too often presented as fact (not explanation), and there is also a typical failure to recognise that materialist ideology cannot be properly imposed on science. Likewise, there is a pattern of failing to address the issue of the self-falsifying self-referential incoherence of such materialism. It is appropriate to highlight these issues through this basics series. In this case, we have a live case in point, here: GD, 173: >>There are some parts of evolutionary theory that are so well supported that they can be considered facts. Widespread (if not necessarily universal) common ancestry. Mutation, selection, and Read More ›

Mike1962 reminds me of this from Lewis: Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. In most modern scientists this belief has died: it will be interesting to see how long their confidence in uniformity survives it. CS Lewis, Miracles And that reminded me of Lee Smolin’s thesis in his book, The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time: 1) There is only one universe at a time. Our universe is not one of many worlds. It has no copy or complete model, even in mathematics. The current interest in multiverse cosmologies is based on fallacious reasoning. 2) Time is real, and indeed the only aspect of Read More ›

From New Scientist: Sometimes evolution just doesn’t have a choice. Reptiles have evolved to resist toad poisons four separate times, and each time they have made precisely the same biochemical changes to do it. What’s more, an even wider range of animals show similar adaptations in response to these toxins, giving us by far the most extensive illustration of so-called convergent evolution to date. “so-called” convergent evolution? Yup. That’s what it is called. Gotta problem with that? This striking convergence on a few evolutionary outcomes probably occurs because sodium channels play such a critical role in cells. “There are very few options for a gene to modify itself to develop resistance without impairing function,” says Casewell. “It suggests that in Read More ›

They don’t get it, but what else is new? From Nobel Laureate Frank Wilczek, “Why Physics is Beautiful”: The beauty of physical law is too impressive to be accidental. It has led people throughout history to believe that some tasteful higher being created us, and that we inhabit a consciously designed world, like our notional Super Mario. But this is an extravagant hypothesis, which goes far beyond the facts it is meant to explain. Before adopting it, we should explore more economical alternatives. The answer likely lies within us. Beautiful things are those in which we find pleasure and seek out. They are, in neurobiological terms, things that stimulate our reward system. That explains why parents tend to find their Read More ›

Many Darwinists are fond of quoting Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote “nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution.” It is good to know there are folks like wd400 — himself an evolutionary biologist — who believe in modern evolutionary theory but acknowledge that biologists can get along perfectly well without even understanding evolution, much less depending on it as Dobzhansky would have had us believe. In a comment to a prior post wd400 writes: Unfortunately a lot of molecular biologists (Collins included) don’t understand much about evolution. Here is a partial list of the awards won by Dr. Collins (per his Wiki entry): While leading the National Human Genome Research Institute, Collins was elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post Seversky writes: Materialism has given us all the science and technology that we now take for granted. *Palm slaps forehead* This statement is demonstrably false.  And that demonstration is readily available to anyone with the slightest curiosity about the subject. Here is a little primer on the subject published in the LA Times today: The myth of the eternal war between science and religion – Robert Barron – Nov. 12, 2015 Excerpt: But this myth is so much nonsense. Leaving aside the complexities of the Galileo story, we can see that the vast majority of the founding figures of modern science — Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, Descartes, Pascal, Tycho Brahe — were devoutly religious. Read More ›

Michael Egnor, here, at Evolution News & Views: Regardless of the strengths and weaknesses of the evolutionary argument that humans are descended from apes, the differences between humans and apes are so profound as to render the view that humans are apes abject nonsense. It is important to understand the fundamental difference between humans and nonhuman animals. Nonhuman animals such as apes have material mental powers. By material I mean powers that are instantiated in the brain and wholly depend upon matter for their operation. These powers include sensation, perception, imagination (the ability to form mental images), memory (of perceptions and images), and appetite. Nonhuman animals have a mental capacity to perceive and respond to particulars, which are specific material Read More ›

Further to johnnyb’s “Intelligent Design Creationism” as a Label”: The word salad “cdesign proponentsists” was cited as evidence of something  in comments 4 and 40. For readers confused by “cdesign proponentsists’” here’s the widely circulated story from an atheist blog at Patheos: Pandas, it turns out, went through several editions: in its first (1983) edition, it was titled Creation Biology, then renamed in 1986 to Biology and Creation, then renamed again in 1987 to Biology and Origins, finally becoming Of Pandas and People. The plaintiffs subpoenaed the book’s publisher, the Foundation for Thought and Ethics, to obtain these prior drafts, and found something amazing. The earlier drafts, as you might expect from the titles, made repeated references to creationism. But Read More ›

From the University of Edinburgh: Until now, the oldest evidence of complex animals – which succeeded more primitive creatures that often resembled sponges or coral – came from the Cambrian Period, which began around 541 million years ago. Scientists had long suspected that complex animals had existed before then but, until now, they had no proof. … Genetic family tree data suggested that complex animals – known as bilaterians – evolved prior to the Cambrian Period. The finding suggests that bilaterians may have lived as early as 550 million years ago, during the late Ediacaran Period. … The team studied fossils of an extinct marine animal – known as Namacalathus hermanastes – which was widespread during the Ediacaran Period. The Read More ›

Some have. And they are said to “turn paleontology on its head.” F. protensa is 520 mya or so. (They had brains back then?) From Eurekalert: Science has long dictated that brains don’t fossilize, so when Nicholas Strausfeld co-authored the first ever report of a fossilized brain in a 2012 edition of Nature, it was met with “a lot of flack.” … His latest paper in Current Biology addresses these doubts head-on, with definitive evidence that, indeed, brains do fossilize. … The only way to become fossilized is, first, to get rapidly buried. Hungry scavengers can’t eat a carcass if it’s buried, and as long as the water is anoxic enough – that is, lacking in oxygen – a buried Read More ›

As we have been discussing, in 2006 Francis Collins said that Darwinism predicts (in the sense of retrodiction) that mutations located in “junk DNA” will accumulate steadily over time. A couple of years ago I said that Darwinist predictions (again, in the sense of retrodiction) about junk DNA turned out to be wrong, while ID Proponents predictions (this time in the actual sense of making an assertion about future findings) turned out to be true. It is good to know that even Collins admits this:  Earlier this year he confessed that his use of the term “junk DNA” was wrong, even hubristic.  At the 33rd Annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco on January 13, 2015 he said: I Read More ›

[It] is now obvious that the root is we are dealing with a domineering parasitical ideology in the course of destroying its host; through its inherent undermining of responsible rational freedom, the foundation of a sound life of the mind. Immediately, science, science education, the media and policy are being eaten out from within. KF Indeed.  The immediate context of KF’s observation is the seeming inability of the Darwinists to understand plain English over the past few days.  Allow me to establish some context.  In a post over at his Sandwalk blog Larry Moran quoted me when I wrote: For years Darwinists touted “junk DNA” as not just any evidence but powerful, practically irrefutable evidence for the Darwinian hypothesis. ID Read More ›