Denyse O'Leary

In the Florida Times-Union, Abel Harding tells us, “Florida Legislature poised to battle over teaching evolution in schools”: Critics say that Wise’s legislation could open the door for teachers and students to challenge evolution, which they say is settled science.”You can have critical analysis of everything, but the idea that you should single out evolution for critical analysis is problematic,” said Joshua Rosenau, programs and policy director at California-based National Center for Science Education [the Darwin lobby]. “It’s recognized by the scientific community as the foundation of modern biology.” Hold it right there, Rosenau. Which parts, exactly, are settled science? Junk DNA? And does anyone really believe that Rosenau would be satisfied if critical thinking was also permitted on other Read More ›

Jonathan Wells’ book, The Myth of Junk DNA (Discovery, 2011), is now being advertised at Amazon:

According to the modern version of Darwin’s theory, DNA contains a program for embryo development that is passed down from generation to generation; the program is implemented by proteins encoded by the DNA, and accidental DNA mutations introduce changes in those proteins that natural selection then shapes into new species, organs and body plans. When scientists discovered forty years ago that about 98% of our DNA does not encode proteins, the non-protein-coding portion was labeled “junk” and attributed to molecular accidents that have accumulated in the course of evolution.

Recent books by Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins and others have used this “junk DNA” as evidence for Darwinian evolution and evidence against intelligent design (since an intelligent designer would presumably not have filled our genome with so much garbage). But recent genome evidence shows that much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions.

The Myth of Junk DNA is written for a general audience by biologist Jonathan Wells, author of Icons of Evolution. Citing some of the abundant evidence from recent genome projects, the book shows that “junk DNA” is not science, but myth.

Junk DNA was one of those ideas that just had to be true. Genome mapper and NIH head Francis Collins saw it as a slam dunk for his beloved Darwinism in his first book, The Language of God, (“Darwin’s theory predicts … That is exactly what is observed”) but seems to have changed his tune in his second, The Language of Life.

I’ll be interviewing Wells on the book next week, but in the meantime, two questions occur to me: To what extent did Darwinism cause the myth to be retained longer than it otherwise would be? Given that Darwinists must now be in search of another guiding myth, any idea out there which one it will be?

Now, one prediction: Read More ›

In “New Insight Into the Brain’s Ability to Reorganize Itself” (ScienceDaily, Mar. 19, 2011), we learn “It’s amazing how the brain is capable of reorganizing itself in this manner,” says Murphy, co-senior author of the study and researcher at U-M’s Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute. “Right now, we’re still figuring out exactly how the brain accomplishes all this at the molecular level, but it’s sort of comforting to know that our brains are keeping track of all of this for us.” In previous research, the scientists had found that restricting cell division in the hippocampuses of mice using radiation or genetic manipulation resulted in reduced functioning in a cellular mechanism important to memory formation known as long-term potentiation. But in Read More ›

Here at Slashdot we are informed by someone or other that “There is a Texas bill, HB 2454, proposed by Republican State Rep. Bill Zedler, that will outlaw discrimination against creationists in colleges and universities. More specifically, it says, ‘An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.’” Most of the comments are predictable, and it would be far too much to ask otherwise. It strikes me that there was a time when outlawing Read More ›

Common sense comes in for a bit of support in “Still Red in Tooth and Claw” (The Wall Street Journal, March 12, 2011), on animal morality: Though stories of seemingly altruistic animals tug at the heartstrings, humans are nature’s sole moralists.Nothing tugs at the anthropomorphic heartstrings, though, more strongly than accounts of compassion or altruism in the animal world. A spate of books by authors such as Steven M. Wise, Jeffrey Masson, Jane Goodall, Marc Bekoff and Frans de Waal accordingly offer up examples of animals acting not just intelligently but virtuously. Dolphins lovingly tend sick comrades, elephants grieve over the death of relatives, and apes stage daring rescues of people, injured birds or other beings in distress. In the Read More ›

Lenski’s the guy who studied all those generations of E. Coli bacteria, and discovered that over many thousands of generations, there were very few beneficial mutations. (Darwinism depends, not on mutations as such but on mutations that benefit the organism.) Recently, his work was the subject of an item, “Evolvability, observed” by Jef Akst (The Scientist, 17th March 2011 ), where we learn

Natural selection picks the most well adapted organisms to survive and reproduce. But what if the most beneficial mutations in the short term meant less room for adaptation in the future?[ … ]

Researchers at Michigan State University and the University of Houston in Texas took advantage of a long-term evolution experiment on Escherichia coli that’s been running for more than 50,000 generations. Characterizing archived strains from 500, 1000, and 1500 generations, the team identified two beneficial mutations that arose in some strains prior to 500 generations and eventually spread through the entire population. The researchers dubbed the strains that carried these mutations at 500 generations the eventual winners (EWs) and those lacking the mutations the eventual losers (ELs).

Andrew J. Fabich at Tennessee Temple University, who knows somewhat of bacteria, writes to say that none of the stuff about them is any big surprise, Read More ›

Steve Clark writes in “Naturalism, Science and the Supernatural” (Sophia, 24 April 2009). Abstract: There is overwhelming agreement amongst naturalists that a naturalistic ontology should not allow for the possibility of supernatural entities. I argue, against this prevailing consensus, that naturalists have no proper basis to oppose the existence of supernatural entities. Naturalism is characterized, following Leiter and Rea, as a position which involves a primary commitment to scientific methodology and it is argued that any naturalistic ontological commitments must be compatible with this primary commitment. It is further argued that properly applied scientific method has warranted the acceptance of the existence of supernatural entities in the past and that it is plausible to think that it will do so Read More ›

is not an illusion after all (New Scientist16 March 2011): But new, more precise measurements of supernovae, taken by the Hubble Space Telescope, clash with the simplest version of the void model. That model could be made to fit previous supernova measurements and other cosmological data, but only if the local expansion rate is about 60 kilometres per second per megaparsec or less. (One megaparsec is 3.26 million light years.) That was within the possible error of previous measurements, but the new, more precise measurements give an expansion rate of 74 kilometres per second per megaparsec, plus or minus 2.4. “It looks more like it’s dark energy that’s pressing the gas pedal,” says Adam Riess of Johns Hopkins University in Read More ›

A friend shares with me a courteous letter to the editor (“Atheists deny intelligent design of our universe”, March 17, 2011), It is the responsibility of parents to not only monitor what is taught in schools, but to provide information that is purposely excluded. It is painful to witness the lengths to which many atheists go in their attempts to deny intelligent design in both creation and perpetuation. Every time Hawking’s or others add a new layer of speculation concerning the origin of the universe, their information leaves another void that only God can fill.  I think the author, Michael Wolfe, is right. No responsible parent should take for granted what goes on in the classroom today. The days are Read More ›

And why not? It’s real. It’s actual. Paul Farhi tells us (March 16) The Washington Post suspended one of its most seasoned reporters Wednesday after editors determined that “substantial” parts of two recent news articles were taken without attribution from another newspaper. Oh, but wait. That implies purpose, a big no-no, if you go by Darwinist rules. Still, the guy was suspended. Does anyone other than me get sick of the hypocrisy? That incident the reporter was covering (Jared Loughner), by the way, led to a huge demand among our moral and intellectual superiors for control over private speech. I deal with the threat here. What keeps me going is a chance to serve coffee here.

A friend wants me to know about this latest BioEssays editorial, wailing about the use of teleological language in biology (= it happened so that). As in: …It is that innocent little word ‘to’ that transforms the meaning, giving enzyme Y the essence of ‘will’ – ‘to’ being short for ‘in order to ‘, or ‘with the purpose of’. Purpose can only be exercised by a supernatural entity in this situation.  So? Who’s that problem for? You? Me? The author? Darwin? Get ready to front zillions in taxes and maybe court cases, stopping people expressing themselves in a normal way, for one purpose only: to front Darwinism.

Having seen what the Texas schools Darwin lobby had to say about self-organization (no, we can’t talk about that in class because students might confuse it with ID), I couldn’t help wondering what they will have to say about say about, oh, convergent evolution. Maybe it’s just because I gotta write about that today, and need to hear the good word from Brother Charlie again, to keep me on the straight and narrow. Or not. But all that got me thinking, who are these people? Well, I asked around, and whattan earful! Apparently, they are a set of people around a former Texas governor , who treat the school system as a private playground for rich people. Makes complete sense. Read More ›

Before the hard ID guys get here …

John Farrell, at Forbes (Mar. 15 2011), wonders, “What Would “Evidence” for God Look Like?”, observing that Jerry (thank heaven he exists, so I don’t have to invent him*) Coyne has got himself inspired. Yup.

University of Chicago biologist Jerry Coyne was inspired by a recent discussion between Richard Dawkins and A.C. Grayling to defend the notion that there could be scientific evidence that might persuade him to believe in God. Coyne has tangled in the past with other atheists among the science bloggers who on a-priori grounds dismiss any such possible evidence.

Maybe I’m foolish or credulous, but I continue to claim that there is some evidence that would provisionally—and I emphasize that last word—make me believe in a god. (One can always retract one’s belief if the god evidence proves to be the work of aliens, or of Penn and Teller). I agree, of course, that alternative explanations have to be ruled out in a case like this, but remember that many scientists have accepted hypotheses as provisionally true without having absolutely dismissed every single alternative hypothesis. If a violation of the laws of physics is observed, that would be telling, for neither aliens nor human magicians can circumvent those laws.

While I agree with Coyne, there are good philosophical reasons traditional theists would offer for not expecting to be able to find scientific evidence either. But that’s opening up a can of worms.

The big problem, here as elsewhere, is: What would people accept as evidence? Read More ›

Coffee!! Intelligent design and evidence I note where the folks at ENV have been talking about Mike Behe’s still-spun flagellum = a bacterial motor assembly that cannot have been the result of chance. Read the discussion by all means, but first, pause a moment, and ask: So? So what? What kind of agenda does one need to have, that a big problem arises if the flagellum is not the result of chance? What kind of science – I use the word loosely here – is at stake? What would design stop us from doing that we should otherwise do? Now, as for evidence, this much I know is true: Few people actually pay any attention to it. The Darwinist has Read More ›

Gosh, if you go with the history … But this is now. Templeton award winner Francisco Ayala graces Baylor March 24/25 7:30 PM, Thursday 24 March, “Darwin’s Gift to Science and Religion,” public lecture.  1:30 PM, Friday 25 March, “The Molecular Clock of Evolution,” technical lecture. Prof. Ayala is a world renown geneticist, a former Catholic priest, and a high profile advocate for the compatibility of science and religion. In a series of books he has eloquently laid out the arguments for evolution, and particularly for natural selection, and detailed the history of the resulting debates that ensued from Darwin’s first publication of “On the Origin of Species”, which will be the subject of his talk on Thurs night. Dr. Read More ›