I often see misunderstanding of what ID is about. It’s about inferring design by critical analysis of a pattern and the ways that pattern could have come to exist. I find a comparison with a lottery to be the easiest way to understand this.
The observed effects of random mutation plus natural selection can account for temporary changes in finch beak size, pigmentation changes in moths, and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. It has never been observed creating novel 1) cell types, 2) tissue types, 3) organs, or 4) body plans. All four of those creative events must be explained by any theory of evolution. In the neoDarwinian theory or modern synthesis these are explained by the never observed accumulation of minor random mutations filtered by natural selection. Obviously taking the mechanism that changes the size of a finch beak and making it the mechanism that changes a bacterium into a finch is one heck of an extrapolation. However, I’m in a quandry over whether Read More ›
Pat Hayes at Red State Rabble tries to present the face on Mars as an example in false positives equivalent to the appearance of design in cellular machinery. When will uncritical thinkers like Pat Hayes cop to the fact that seeing the Virgin Mary’s face in a tortilla is not the equivalent of seeing design in an interdependent network of subcellular biological nanomachinery so complex it makes the US Space Shuttle and all the supporting infrastructure at Cape Canaveral, right down to every nut, bolt, transister, and bit of software code, look simple in comparison?
Myers says: Once upon a time, I was one of those nerds who hung around Radio Shack and played about with LEDs and resistors and capacitors; I know how to solder and I took my first old 8-bit computer apart and put it back together again with “improvements.” In grad school I was in a neuroscience department, so I know about electrodes and ground wires and FETs and amplifiers and stimulators. Here’s something else I know: those generic components in this picture don’t do much on their own. You can work out the electrical properties of each piece, but a radio or computer or stereo is much, much more than a catalog of components or a parts list. Electronics geeks Read More ›
Project Strawman Steve is nearing its 700th Steve and the Thumbsters are ecstatic.
Read More ›
Intelligent Design: Not Modern Science
by Father Jonathan Morris
Wednesday, February 15, 2006 — You religious folk may want to send me to the dog house after reading what I have to say today.
I’ve been thinking about the Kitzmiller vs. Dover School District case in Pennsylvania which touched off a blistering debate on the appropriateness of intelligent design theory (ID) in a public science curriculum. The case is over, but it’s not done with. You can bet that we’ll be seeing this or a similar case in the Supreme Court sometime soon. That’s why I want to get ahead of the news and look at it with you today. You may remember that the press presented the case as a duel between two conflicting visions of reality: liberal secularists vs. religious conservatives. A chance for a perfect headline: “Judge Sends Christians Packing.”
I’m genuinely confused. Can some of the more experienced IDers explain why critcism of evolutionary theory is supressed within the scientific community?
Comment by Kibitz — February 15, 2006 @ 7:19 pm
I cannot find the phrase phylogenetic stem cell used anywhere and suggest when we talk of possible mechanisms underlying guided, planned evolution we equate the hypothetical LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) with a hypothetical Phylogenetic Stem Cell to quickly convey the gist of the front-loaded hypothesis. This phrase should have instant meaning to anyone familiar with phylogeny and stem cells.
If there’s a Nobel Prize for alarmist nincompoopery physicist Herbert Kroemer deserves it. Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re trumpeting this article with its extraordinarily hyperbolic opening claim by Kroemer The Theory of Intelligent Design, and other attacks on the science of biological evolution, are not merely attacks on the concept of evolution, but attacks on science itself — all of science. No Herb, ID only attacks bad science and only a rather restricted bit of that in that we attack the claim that evolution is understood to be an unguided, unplanned process as 38 of your Nobel brethren declared in a letter to Kansas. Pray tell, Herb. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of evolution over the course of Read More ›
I started on a new hobby several months ago. I’m trying to grow Chinese Paddy Straw mushrooms (volvariella volvacea) in semi-sterile laboratory conditions. These mushrooms are delicious fresh in the button stage tasting like olive oil and cashews to me. For various reasons they are not available fresh in the United States and only a compatively tasteless canned mushroom is for sale here. Read More ›
Since we upgraded to WordPress 2.0 we’ve gotten a couple complaints about broken RSS feeds. Our admin says RSS was part of the upgrade but all the RSS readers he’s tried are working properly. If you have a reader not working properly could you post in the comments the reader you’re using? Thanks.
Over on Telic Thoughts Jack is asking about ID’s position on common descent here, here, and here. I’m going to assume this is an honest question.
ID has no position on common descent.
ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature can be best explained by intelligent agency.
36 ID critics were asked to answer the question below the fold. Within 27 minutes of receiving the poll Wesley Elsberry contacted everyone he thought might’ve received the poll advising them how to answer it. Wesley, for those of you who don’t know, is a prominent member of the National Center for Selling Evolution Science Education. The NCSE is an organization the U.S. Office of Special Counsel says conspired with the Smithsonian Institution to discredit Rick Sternberg in response to Sternberg allowing an ID sympathetic paper to be published in a biology journal connected with the Smithsonian.
Read More ›
We often hear neoDarwinian narrative apologists tell us that they would be hamstrung in conducting their research if they didn’t know the neoDarwinian story was true. Au contraire says NAS member Phil Skell and 70 eminent researchers he asked about it recently. Read on below the fold…
Read More ›
When crop circles were first encountered no one seriously believed they weren’t intelligently designed. Why? Because no known or reasonably possible natural (natural defined as no intelligent agency involved) sequence of events could adequately explain how they were formed.
Read More ›