Denyse O'Leary

I am pleased to report that The Spiritual Brain is going into Polish translation. Maybe this is hopeful. For a long while we couldn’t sell TSB abroad because some commentators said the book was “too religious”. I have no idea why. The book isn’t especially religious unless … you mean if any book threatens materialists … ? But wouldn’t people want to know why materialism probably isn’t true? Well, I guess Poles do, and good for them. Given that Darwinism is the creation story of atheism, one question it all raises for me – and this was raised by a relative a decade ago – why is Darwinism even public business? Who cares why the tyrannosaur died? Whether Neanderthal man Read More ›

Sometimes, when discussing the much misunderstood Scopes Trial, I have referred to the textbook from which Scopes was teaching, Hunter’s Civic Biology, which seems to have been an amalgam of civics and biology, with a dose of eugenics thrown in, and smug assertions about “highest” or “lowest”. Bad idea. Enough already with total subject confusion, ecological misunderstanding, and useless social conflict. Here’s an interesting site where Ron Ladouceur gives us a tour of exotic textbooks of our storied past. I am glad my own biology teachers focused on the cell theory of life, the germ theory of disease, and the life and times of the endangered ribbon snake (= ecology). There is only so much students will take away when Read More ›

Here’s a great reason for rejecting pop neuroscience, titled “We are neuroscientists and we come in peace”: Peace? Hmmm. Just try coming to war here and see what happens. Just when it seemed things could get no worse, Hank Greely of Stanford Law School pointed to several areas of potential friction between neuroscience research and widely held religious beliefs (findings that point to consciousness, or a form of it, in nonhuman animals, for example, might undermine the notion that humans occupy a unique position in the world) and asked whether neuroscientists might get dragged into the type of culture war waged by evolutionary biologists and creationists. … “What Makes The Human Brain Unique”? What makes the human brain unique?: Has Read More ›

Anika Smith, at the Discovery Institute, informs me that: Those who live in the Los Angeles area are invited to attend a gala premiere screening of Illustra Media’s new documentary, Darwin’s Dilemma: The Mystery of the Cambrian Fossil Record next Sunday, October 25th at 7:00 pm at the University of Southern California. The event is sponsored by the American Freedom Alliance. This premiere was originally scheduled for the California Science Center, but the Center canceled the event just a few days ago, leaving the organizers virtually no time to find a new location. If you live in the Los Angeles area, you can show your support for free speech … That might be a very good idea. Especially if you Read More ›

For Uncommon Descent Question 10: Provide the Code for Dawkins’ WEASEL Program, we have declared a winner – 377 responses later – and it is Oxfordensis: It seems that Dawkins used two programs, one in his book THE BLIND WATCHMAKER, and one for a video that he did for the BBC (here’s the video-run of the program; fast forward to 6:15). After much beating the bushes, we finally heard from someone named “Oxfordensis,” who provided the two PASCAL programs below, which we refer to as WEASEL1 (corresponding to Dawkins’s book) and WEASEL2 (corresponding to Dawkins’s BBC video). These are by far the best candidates we have received to date. Go here for more. Note: Apparently, Bill Dembski is taking care Read More ›

Abuses of Power in Science: An Interview With Darwin Skeptic David Berlinski Mathematician and novelist Berlinski, interviewed here, is always fun. His Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its scientific pretensions is both sharp and funny. As a secular Jew, he is not arguing for religion, but rather making the point that science is not atheism’s best friend by any means: •Has anyone provided a proof of God’s inexistence? Not even close. •Has quantum cosmology explained the emergence of the universe or why it is here? Not even close. •Have the sciences explained why our universe seems to be fine-tuned to allow for the existence of life? Not even close. •Are physicists and biologists willing to believe in anything so long as Read More ›

Even though I am not a creationist by any reasonable definition, I sometimes get pegged as the local gap tooth creationist moron. (But then I don’t have gaps in my teeth either. Check unretouched photos.) As the best gap tooth they could come up with, a local TV station interviewed me about “superstition” the other day. The issue turned out to be superstition related to numbers. Were they hoping I’d fall in? The skinny: Some local people want their house numbers changed because they feel the current number assignment is “unlucky.” Look, guys, numbers here are assigned on a strict directional rota. If the number bugs you so much, move. Don’t mess up the street directory for everyone else. Paramedics, fire Read More ›

Time Magazine addresses the problem that neuroscientists who think the mind is real often discuss (John Cloud, October 13, 2009):

How people react to a medication depends in large part on how they think about it.

Exactly why the placebo and nocebo responses arise is a puzzle, but a fascinating article in Wired magazine noted earlier this year that the positive placebo response to drugs has increased during clinical trials over the past few years. The article speculated that drug advertising – which exploded after 1997, when the Food and Drug Administration began allowing direct-to-consumer ads – has led us to expect more from drugs. Those expectations, in turn, have made us feel better just for popping a pill. (Placebo responses can also occur simply when you book appointments with doctors[*] or psychotherapists[**].)

No surprise, really. If your problem is,

– *Why should I pay $159.95 plus tax for a medication? Dunno. Maybe some consumer research would pay off.

But if the question is Read More ›

I am sure glad someone is writing about this, though glad it isn’t my own job.

The problem is that judges and jurors will mistakenly assume that technologies that are demonstrably valid medical diagnostic tools yield equally valid conclusions when they are used to map the neural correlates of deception and other forms of cognition.

I think what this person is trying to say is this (though he sure can’t just come right out and say it): Neuroscience can tell you if an elderly person’s brain problems are the likely cause of serious cognitive deficits. That’s very useful; one can make better decisions for that person’s care, decisions that respect his dignity too.

If neuroscience claims to tell us whether Jimmy “the jimslamm” is lying, well, yes of course he is. If his lips are moving and intelligible sounds are coming out of his mouth, he is lying. I’ve dealt with lots of people like him so I can tell you for free and save you trouble.

But what is he lying about this time? I don’t like this new neurolaw craze for a number of reasons. I think Jimmy should just take his chances with a skilled Crown*. A fair fight.

*In Canada, a prosecution attorney

[The abstract] Read More ›

In “God vs. Science Isn’t the Issue”, William McGurn (Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2009) notes,

In contrast to the majority of scientists whose wondrous discoveries seem to inspire humility, today’s advocates of scientism can be every bit as dogmatic as the William Jennings Bryans of yesteryear. We saw an example a week ago, when the New York Times reported that many scientists view “outspoken religious commitment as a sign of mild dementia.”

The reporter was Gardiner Harris, and the object of his snark was Francis Collins—the new director of the National Institutes of Health. Dr. Collins is perhaps best noted for his leadership on the Human Genome Project, an effort to map the genetic makeup of man. But he is also well known for his unapologetic talk about his Christian faith and how he came to it.

Mr. Harris’s aside about dementia, of course, is less a proposition open to debate than the kind of putdown you tell at a private cocktail party where you know everyone in the room shares your orthodoxies. In this room, there are those who hold that God cannot be reconciled with what science has discovered about the human body, the origin of the species, and the beginnings of the universe. The more honest ones do not flinch before the implications of their materialist principles on our understanding of human dignity and human rights and human freedom—as well as on religion.

A couple of thoughts:

– Whoever said God vs. science was an issue? The whole idea was invented and is kept alive by materialist atheists, whose comments about “dementia” tell you something worth knowing.

– I have noticed that working scientists tend to be humble in the face of the facts, which is a good place to begin any type of true knowledge. The practitioners of scientism, by contrast, behave like cult members.* Recently, I was listening to one of them hold forth as an after-dinner speaker, proclaiming that on many science stories there is only one side. Well, that’s all right then; we can all just mindlessly shout in unison. Oh wait. Cue the pop science press on any subject to do with neuroscience. It is genuinely hard to imagine a neuroscience story so stupid they wouldn’t run with it. Read More ›

According to Michael Brooks (New Scientist, 06 October 2009), in Don’t be such a scientist, Randy “Flock of Dodos” Olson advises DID you spot James Cameron’s mistake in Titanic? Leo DiCaprio is about to drown in the north Atlantic ocean, yet the constellations of the southern hemisphere are aglow in the sky above. Who cares? Scientists, apparently. The mistake “ruined” the movie for Neil de Grasse Tyson, director of New York’s Hayden Planetarium, Randy Olson says. It’s the kind of reaction that gets scientists a bad rap, and Olson – himself a scientist and film-maker – suggests it pays to skip the pedantry and concentrate on the bigger picture. While small factual errors can be irksome, they are not life-threatening, Read More ›

Leading Darwinist Richard Dawkins Dodges Debates, Refuses to Defend Evolution as The Greatest Show On Earth Seattle – Richard Dawkins, the world’s leading public spokesman for Darwinian evolution and an advocate of the “new atheism,” has refused to debate Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, a prominent advocate of intelligent design and the author of the acclaimed Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009) in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. “Richard Dawkins claims that the appearance of design in biology is an illusion and claims to have refuted the case for intelligent design,” says Dr. Meyer who received his Ph.D. in the philosophy of science from the University of Cambridge in England. “But Dawkins assiduously avoids addressing the Read More ›