Well, according to some at the BBC. From Philip Ball: Only a handful of physicists and philosophers have embraced retrocausality. Most consider backwards causality “too high a price to swallow”, says Wharton. But he feels that we only resist this idea because we are not used to seeing it in daily life. “The view that the past does not depend on the future is largely anthropocentric,” says Wharton. “We should take apparent backwards causation more seriously than we usually do. Our intuition has been wrong before, and this time symmetry on quantum scales is a reason to think we could be wrong again.” If time’s arrow is not quite as one-way as it seems, that raises one last question: why Read More ›

From Adrian Cho at Science: For nearly 20 years, physicists have known that the expansion of the universe has begun to speed up. This bizarre acceleration could arise because some form of mysterious dark energy is stretching space. Or, it could signal that physicists’ understanding of gravity isn’t quite right. But a new study puts the screws on a broad class of alternative theories of gravity, making it that much harder to explain away dark energy. The study is also path setting because it exploits an effect called weak lensing in which the gravity from closer galaxies distorts the images of more distant ones. “That’s the future,” says Bob Nichol, an observational cosmologist at the University of Portsmouth in the Read More ›

During the past two weeks, over at Evolution News and Views, Professor Michael Egnor has been arguing that it is the capacity for abstract thought which distinguishes humans from other animals, and that human language arises from this capacity. While I share Dr. Egnor’s belief in human uniqueness, I have to take issue with his claim that abstraction is what separates man from the beasts. Why the distinction between humans and other animals is real, but hard to express I have written over a dozen articles in the past, arguing that there is a real, qualitative difference between the minds of humans and other animals. As I’ve argued here, there appear to be several traits which are unique to human Read More ›

But you knew that, didn’t you? From Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter, author of In the Shadow of Oz, : I’ve jumped to the final (summary chapter, offered by Neil Spurway), because it is one of the more dramatic examples of just how far theistic evolution can go. Here we finally see someone willing to essentially throw in the towel. For starters, he offers “for me a naturalistic account of any aspect of being human is, quite simply, the only sort of account which can be correct.” He emphasizes that many of the things we believe make humans an exception to the animal kingdom (what has been called a “revolution” rather than an “evolution”) are simply points along Read More ›

Linguist Noel Rude on Tom Wolfe: Just read Tom Wolfe’s The Origins of Speech: In the beginning was Chomsky. It was so interesting and so well written I couldn’t put it down. Michael Denton, you might remember, enlisted Noam Chomsky in his recent critique of Darwin, even as now Tom Wolfe sees Daniel L. Everett as demolishing Chomsky. American linguistics–which in the 20 th century pretty much meant world linguistics– was dominated on the one side by structuralism and on the other by functionalism (the terms generally have mutated into cognitive; linguistics). Denton shows biology to have been similarly split in the 19th century. And, as Denton also reminds us, the biological functionalists supported Darwin whereas the structuralists doubted this Read More ›

From Johns Hopkins U: Johns Hopkins University researchers are the first to glimpse the human brain making a purely voluntary decision to act. Unlike most brain studies where scientists watch as people respond to cues or commands, Johns Hopkins researchers found a way to observe people’s brain activity as they made choices entirely on their own. The findings, which pinpoint the parts of the brain involved in decision-making and action, are now online, and due to appear in a special October issue of the journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics “How do we peek into people’s brains and find out how we make choices entirely on our own?” asked Susan Courtney, a professor of psychological and brain sciences. “What parts of Read More ›

From Alex Berezow and Tom Hartsfield at LA Times: The Journal of the American Medical Assn. recently published a very unusual article: a scientific study authored by a sitting president of the United States. That’s never happened before. In a sense, it’s cool that President Obama cares enough about science to want to publish a paper in one of the world’s leading medical journals. But JAMA has set a bad precedent. The article, on healthcare reform in the United States, is problematic not only in its content but in the threat it poses to the integrity of scientific publishing. Let’s set aside the debate on whether the specific numbers in the article are factual. (Of course, there is certainly room Read More ›

He’s back! At Amazon: Is Atheism more rational than Monotheism? Atheists claim so, but this fascinating, original and meticulously researched masterpiece proves otherwise. Exploring the Modern Atheistic movement in its failed attempts to confront the baffling scientific mysteries of the Origin of Life and Human Consciousness, Man’s Search for Meaning, and the relentless human drive to seek coherent abstract Moral Principles; Rabbi Averick demonstrates conclusively that nearly everything that modern atheist thinkers have to say about God is simply nonsense. A powerful and compelling presentation that reclaims the intellectual high ground for the rational believer in God in the 21st Century. Using razor-sharp logic, a rapier wit, and irony-laced humor, Rabbi Averick exposes the gaping flaws in atheistic ideology in Read More ›

From American Council on Science and Health, In Dr. Gowlett’s analysis, our ancestors’ first interaction with fire probably came following a lightning storm or other weather event that triggered natural wildfires. These wildfires would cause animals to scatter, making them easy pickings for early humans waiting on the periphery. (Other animals, such as hawks, are known to engage in such behavior.) Additionally, after the fire had subsided, the burnt landscape would have allowed for much easier foraging. Some of the foraged food would have been “cooked” by the wildfire, making it more edible and nutritious than when raw. As a result, one of the direct evolutionary benefits of fire was the ability to derive more energy from food. Powerful, hungry Read More ›

From Economist: “IN THE state of nature, profit is the measure of right,” wrote Thomas Hobbes, a philosopher with a dim view of human nature.More. The mag wants you to pay to find out, but we can tell you for free: We keep each other honest . See also: How can we believe in naturalism if we have no choice? Follow UD News at Twitter!

From guest blogger Amanda Freise at Scientific American: It’s Time for Scientists to Stop Explaining So Much Research shows that more facts don’t necessarily lead to changed minds, but my colleagues have a hard time accepting it Not to leave you in suspense or anything: This theory of science communication, the so-called “deficit model,” suggests that public skepticism of science is due to a lack of information and understanding, and can be overcome if more information is provided. But the model has been widely discredited. Simply giving someone information, no matter how much or how many experts stand behind it, just isn’t enough to convince them. So why, in the face of evidence, do some scientists continue to insist that Read More ›

From Jacob Aron at New Scientist:One of the world’s leading dark matter detectors has wrapped up a nearly two-year-long search for the mysterious particles, without finding a single whiff. The results suggest that the days may be numbered for the dominant model of dark matter. More. But then, this is from new Scientist, our favourite coffee room wowza. See also: New Scientist astounds: Information is physical Follow UD News at Twitter!

From Steve Novella at Neurologica: The scientific question of whether or not race exists is, in my opinion, not completely objectively answerable. It depends. Is Pluto a planet or dwarf planet? Astronomers can reasonably disagree about where to draw the line. More. If only people would just shut up after that, a lot of social problems would dissipate. I have never heard a good argument for the view that there has ever been more than one human race. I’ve seen plenty of damage done by the opposite view. See also: What we know about human evolution. Follow UD News at Twitter!

From Andrew Del Colle at Road and Track: “The truth is, our cars have evolved a lot faster than we have,” says David Logan, a team member on the project and road safety engineer at the Monash University’s accident research center. “Our bodies are just not equipped to handle the forces in common crash scenarios.” To deal with these forces, the team came up with Graham. Protecting his brain is a much larger skull intended to absorb forces and fracture upon impact. His face, concave and fatty, is less likely to be damaged. Instead of a silly wobbly neck, he doesn’t really have one at all, reducing the potential for spine and back injuries. His skin is also thicker to Read More ›

The following is section 2.3 of my new book  Christianity for Doubters. As the title indicates, much of this book is explicitly theological, but the first two chapters are about intelligent design. In the preface, I wrote “Of course, you do not have to believe anything in chapters 3-6 of this book or anything in the Bible to believe in intelligent design…. In fact, some intelligent design advocates are uncomfortable with a book that combines chapters on intelligent design with explicitly Christian chapters, because it might encourage those who claim that ID proponents do not understand the difference between science and religion. Most of us do understand the difference, we are just interested in both. And so are ID critics.” Read More ›