Barry Arrington

I am reading Douglas Futuyma’s Evolution, which, like his previous textbook Evolutionary Biology, will probably become the standard college text on evolution. On pages 48 and 49 Futuyma lists the “proofs” of evolution. I find the list interesting not so much for what it includes but for what it excludes – transitions in the fossil record. If the leading college text on evolution no longer appeals to transitions in the fossil record as proof that evolution occurred, is it safe to say that the case on the fossil record is now closed, and the Darwinists have ceded the field to their victorious opponents? Just asking.

“Just so story” is a phrase one hears often in the origins debate. Etymologically, the phrase is traced to a series of children’s stories by Rudyard Kipling in which he gave comical accounts of how various animals acquired their peculiar traits, including “How the Camel got his Hump,” “How the Rhinoceros got his Skin,” and “How the Leopard got his Spots.”

Following are two “just so stories.” Let’s see if you can guess which one is Kipling and which one is Darwin.

Read More ›

I thought GilDodgen’s June 10 post about the odds of writing a simple computer program by chance was very interesting. It put me in mind of the old “infinite monkey theory.” You know the one: “If infinite monkeys were typing on infinite typewriters, sooner or later they would type out the complete works of the Bard. I googled it and found this site http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/index.html that is testing it out. They have a random number generator simulating the monkeys. When I looked they had typed 8.91 raised to the 71st power of pages, and the most they had been able to get was 37 letters from Shakespeare. See this site now: http://everything2.com/title/Monkey+Shakespeare+Simulator

No paleontologists reported finding any transitional forms today – yet another stunning confirmation of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Seriously, I hope some of our Darwinists friends who post comments on this site can help me understand how evolutionary theorists deal with their cognitive dissonance when they consider the issue of gradualism and the general absence of transitional forms from the fossil record.

Now on the one hand, you have Charles Darwin, who understood that if his theory were true there must have been a whole universe of transitional species. He understood that the fossil record did not support this view, but hoped that in the future this would be remedied by determined paleontologists finding ever more proof of his theory.

“But just in proportion as this process of extermination has acted on an enormous scale, so must the number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record.”

Origin of Species, chapter 6

Read More ›

This reply is too long to put in the comments section to the previous post, so I am making a new post.

Frank writes: “There is an important difference between believing things to be true a priori and having faith.”

BarryA replies: It depends on what you mean by “faith.” The first entry in the American Heritage Dictionary is what I mean: “Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.”

Take your example. Yes, it is true that you don’t accept 2+2=4 on faith. But back up a couple of steps and you’ll find faith at a deeper level. You believe this mathematical formula is true, because you believe in the law of non-contradiction, which in turn means you believe we live in a non-chaotic universe in which there is meaning and in which logic prevails. You believe this not because you can demonstrate it to be true (Popper says, correctly I think, that universal statements can never be verified), but because you have a confident belief that it is true – i.e., you believe it on faith.

Read More ›

Good news Haeckel lovers and everyone else who is fascinated by morbid 19th century charlatans. We all know Ernst Haeckel’s ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny/ embryonic recapitulation/doctored drawings. But one of his lesser known contributions to literature is a book called The History of Creation (this is the short title; the long title is set forth below), in which he divides people up into different species. The book was on most Nazis’ “must read” list. Dr. David C. Bossard has graciously scanned in both volumes of the massive work. It is very interesting reading. Here’s the full title of the book Dr. Bossard has scanned in: Ernst Haeckel, The History of Creation: Or The Development of the Earth and its Inhabitants by Read More ›

“Quote Mining” is a pejorative term used to refer to the practice of compiling quotations, often from one’s opponents. As anyone who has studied evolution for any length of time knows, one need not quote ID proponents or creationists for authority against evolution or Darwinism. The Darwinists themselves can be quoted for practically every proposition that an ID proponent or a creationist would advance. When this is done, however, Darwinists often level the charge of “quote mining,” and accuse their opponents of taking the quotations out of context. For example, in his 1973 article “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.” Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote:

Their [i.e., creationists’] favorite sport is stringing together quotations, carefully and sometimes expertly taken out of context, to show that nothing is really established or agreed upon among evolutionists. Some of my colleagues and myself have been amused and amazed to read ourselves quoted in a way showing that we are really antievolutionists under the skin.

Read More ›

Check our George Will’s column today, http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp, where he recounts the “global cooling” hysteria of the early 70’s. Here’s a quote:

“While worrying about Montana’s receding glaciers, [Montana Governor] Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling.

Read More ›

This just in. My morning paper reports that LPGA pro Natalie Gulbis has an extra vertebra in her back that enables her to bring her club so far around she has her back to the target. The random mutation that led to Ms. Galbis’ extra vertebra apparently confers a golfing advantage on her, which in turn allows her to make millions of dollars whacking a little white ball around a park. Her golfing wealth makes her more attractive to prospective mates, which makes it more likely that she will pass on her DNA containing the “extra vertebra” trait. Maybe there’s something to NS after all.

This is a letter I sent to First Things today.

Dear Editors of First Things:

Robert T. Miller argues that Judge Jones’ decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District was correct even though Miller admits that Intelligent Design (ID) is not religion (Darwin in Dover, PA, April 2006). Miller’s conclusion is plainly a non sequitur. The Establishment Clause has one and only one purpose – to prevent the establishment of religion. If Miller is correct and ID is not a religion, a policy promoting the teaching of ID does not, by definition, operate to establish religion. Therefore, such a policy cannot violate the Establishment Clause. The inescapable conclusion given Miller’s own premises? Judge Jones erred when he ruled that teaching ID violates the Establishment Clause.
Read More ›

In my prior post I said (actually, as one commenter pointed out, I meant to say), ID gives us reason to hope for freedom from Darwinism and its implications with respect to objective morality. One commenter asked what ID has to do with establishing an objective basis for morality. The answer, of course, is nothing. ID is a scientific theory. It is not a system of ethics or even the basis for a system of ethics. As has been pointed out many times, ID says nothing about the nature of the designer or his/her/its ultimate purposes. The designer may be supernatural, but the theory does not posit a supernatural designer; nor is the existence of a supernatural designer necessary for its validity.

That said, ID does have implications for ethics and morality.
Read More ›

My name is Barry Arrington. I am an attorney in Denver, Colorado specializing in complex litigation and constitutional law. My passion is defending constitutional liberties, especially those guaranteed by the First Amendment. I am also very interested in Darwinism’s connection to the law. How, you might ask, is a theory of biological origins connected to the law? Good question. I will answer it by recounting an email I sent not long ago to Joseph Bottum, the editor of First Things. I am a great fan of FT and think Mr. Bottum does a great job as editor, but recently he went seriously astray in a post on FT’s blog when he suggested we should deemphasize the debate over Darwinism because Read More ›