2017

From Amanda L. Glaze at Researchgate: Divided we fall: the evolution “controversy” as a driver for rethinking science education The present study demonstrates that university students across the United States, including science and education majors, harbor similar misunderstandings of the nature and practice of science as a discipline and way of knowing, inadequate levels of acceptance, and similar misconceptions to those held by the general public when it comes to evolution (Glaze, Goldston, & Dantzler, 2015; Ingram & Nelson, 2006; Nehm, Kim, & Sheppard, 2009; Rissler, Duncan, & Caruso, 2014; Rutledge & Mitchell, 2002; Sinatra, Southerland, McConaughy, & Demastes, 2003). Representations of students from around the United States allows for a comparison across regions that has been a limiting factor Read More ›

From Peter Fisher Epstein at Philosophy of Science: Abstract. According to the Fine-Tuning Argument (FTA), the existence of life in our universe confirms the Multiverse Hypothesis (HM). A standard objection to FTA is that it violates the Requirement of Total Evidence (RTE). I argue that RTE should be rejected in favor of the Predesignation Requirement, according to which, in assessing the outcome of a probabilistic process, we should only use evidence characterizable in a manner available prior to observing the outcome. This produces the right verdicts in some simple cases in which RTE leads us astray; and, when applied to FTA, it shows that our evidence does confirm HM. More. This is what philosophizing comes to these days. There is no Read More ›

  The book Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics continues to make waves. The Lab writes to say: A lot continues to happen surrounding the release of “Introduction to Evolutionary Informatics” by Robert J. Marks, William A. Dembski and Winston Ewert: Here’s a quick summary of media. – AI means the topic is Artificial Intelligence hype – EV deals with Darwinian Evolution (AI) Janet Mefford Today – A.I. Hype & Limitations with guest Robert J. Marks (American Family Radio) (AI) “Point of View” with Kerby Anderson. Robert J. Marks talks about AI hype (AI) “The Remnant Road” Raging Against the Machines with guest Robert J. Marks (AI) “Are Super Computers on the Verge of Becoming Our Overlords?’ Terry Lowry interviews Robert J. Read More ›

  From David Snoke at the Christian Scientific Society: Jack Collins presented a compelling argument for an “attribute” view of the image of God, that is, a view that the image of God means that we have attributes that are like God in some ways that animals aren’t. … Jeff Schwartz presented a lively and controversial discussion of mindfulness. We all learned what it is, how it is being taken very seriously by modern psychiatrists of all stripes, and how the data shows that it involves distinct states of the brain that can be identified. In a nutshell, mindfulness has three parts: Mike Egnor gave a talk full of brain science data in support of his position of Aristotelean dualism. Read More ›

The book is Geraint F. Lewis and Luke A. Barnes, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos: From reviewer Yann Benetreau-Dupin at physics archiv: There are in fact two ways to read this book. One is to see it as a response to Victor Stenger’s 2011 book The Fallacy of Fine-tuning: Why the Universe is Not Designed for Us. On this reading, A Fortunate Universe is a popular-level adaptation of Barnes’s article (Barnes, 2012) with a similar title.2 A second way to read this book is as a didactic work. On this second account, the issue of the fine-tuning of the universe for life is an opportunity to survey a vast array of facts, theories, and problems in Read More ›

Abstract at ScienceDirect: Science denialism poses a serious threat to human health and the long-term sustainability of human civilization. Although it has recently been rather extensively discussed, this discussion has rarely been connected to the extensive literature on pseudoscience and the science-pseudoscience demarcation. This contribution argues that science denialism should be seen as one of the two major forms of pseudoscience, alongside of pseudotheory promotion. A detailed comparison is made between three prominent forms of science denialism, namely relativity theory denialism, evolution denialism, and climate science denialism. Several characteristics are identified that distinguish science denialism from other forms of pseudoscience, in particular its persistent fabrication of fake controversies, the extraordinary male dominance among its activists, and its strong connection with Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Drexel University and Georgia Institute of Technology researchers have discovered how the Rad52 protein is a crucial player in RNA-dependent DNA repair. The results of their study, published in Molecular Cell, reveal a surprising function of the homologous recombination protein Rad52. They also may help to identify new therapeutic targets for cancer treatment. Radiation and chemotherapy can cause a DNA double-strand break, one of the most harmful types of DNA damage. The process of homologous recombination — which involves the exchange of genetic information between two DNA molecules — plays an important role in DNA repair, but certain gene mutations can destabilize a genome. For example, mutations in the tumor suppressor BRCA2, which is involved in DNA repair Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: A discovery of multiple toothpick grooves on teeth and signs of other manipulations by a Neanderthal of 130,000 years ago are evidence of a kind of prehistoric dentistry, according to a new study led by a University of Kansas researcher. As a package, this fits together as a dental problem that the Neanderthal was having and was trying to presumably treat itself, with the toothpick grooves, the breaks and also with the scratches on the premolar,” said David Frayer, professor emeritus of Anthropology. “It was an interesting connection or collection of phenomena that fit together in a way that we would expect a modern human to do. Everybody has had dental pain, and they know what it’s like Read More ›

From Wim Hordijk at the Evolution Institute: Evolution is still all too often (but wrongly) downplayed as “just a theory” in public discussions. This is partly due to an unfortunate misunderstanding of what a theory means in science, as opposed to its common language meaning. Evolution by natural selection is much more than just a hypothesis, and is as much a valid and well-accepted scientific theory as the theory of gravitation. What Darwin did for biology is on par with what Newton did for physics — and mathematics plays an important role in both theories. More. How come no physicist ever said, gravity is as real as evolution? Note: The ‘Evolution Institute’ sounds like a dodgy outfit, “Applying evolutionary science Read More ›

Over at FT, Michael Egnor, professor of neurological surgery at Stony Brook University School of Medicine, discusses the weaknesses of the materialist paradigm.  Sterile reductionist accounts bandied about in the 21st century are far less robust than the state of the art in the 13th century: We can do better science—and medicine—when we recognize that human beings have abilities that transcend reductionist material explanations. In this century of unprecedented advances in brain research, it’s remarkable that the deepest insights emerge from an ancient paradigm: Thomas Aquinas’s map of the soul.

From David Klinghoffer at Evolution News & Views: However, a forthcoming book by biologist J. Scott Turner, Purpose & Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It, is a real shot across the bow. Dr. Turner’s last book, from Harvard University Press, was The Tinkerer’s Accomplice: How Design Emerges from Life Itself. The new book, from HarperOne, is aimed not at an academic audience but straight at the broadest thoughtful reading public. Turner is a delightful, clear, and highly engaging writer, and he sets out his argument against smug Darwinism forthrightly. As he shows, biology itself is in crisis, having failed to grapple with the enigma of what life really is. More. J. Scott Read More ›

From RetractionWatch: The five papers in Nature are published as Brief Communications Arising, the journal’s way of flagging an important debate over a paper. The short papers provide new data to challenge a central part of a paper’s conclusions. The study’s authors, however, have responded to all five, defending their methods, especially their controversial decision to rely in part upon a visual inspection of mortality data in concluding there is a limit to human lifespan. Senior author Jan Vijg, a geneticist, told Retraction Watch: What else do we say? It boggles my mind how people can come up with these stupid arguments. You see there’s a plateau; mortality [for supercentenarians, people older than 110 years] is not going down and Read More ›

  Did Darwin really explain the origin of species?   My quote of the month is now up on my blog. This is an interesting one as it comes from an evolutionary biologist and critic of ID. I also focus on comments of a similar nature that have been made in more recent years. Surprise, surprise, Darwin’s work isn’t all it is cracked up to be.                                                H. Allen Orr on Darwin’s Failure    

From Geraint Lewis at New Scientist: A fundamental concept is coming back to the fore – that the universe may be fine-tuned for life. The idea is that physical laws and constants are inexplicably just right to support it; any different and we wouldn’t be around to ponder this. The notion that this might be so has been around for decades, but has sat on the sidelines, considered idle speculation or even outside the bounds of science. This article is carefully written, so as to undermine the facts and promote multiverse blather. Otherwise, it would not be in New Scientist at all. Underlying all of these potential explanations are serious philosophical questions. Is adopting the multiverse as a solution to Read More ›

From neuroscientist Raymond Tallis at New Atlantis: The project of understanding time is to try to get a clear and just idea of the nature of the relationship between the universe and the observer in respect of time. By rethinking time in this way, we may elude a form of naturalism that sees us as being at bottom material objects whose nature will ultimately be described by physics. We are more than cogs in the universal clock, forced to collaborate with the very progress that pushes us towards our own midnight. By placing human consciousness at the heart of time, it is possible to crack ajar a door through which a sense of possibility can stream. More. See also: Prof. Read More ›