Denyse O'Leary

Recently, a comment by a Lance Duval appeared in the combox for the Post-Darwinist’s “Marsupial frogs: Another reason to check out of Darwinism”. Duval trashed ID embryologist Jonathan Wells, arguing that Darwin never really believed in recapitulation of embryos and that it has not been taught in textbooks since the 1920s.

Now, a little background: Jonathan Wells is possibly the most hated of the ID guys because his books, Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, catalogue many unsubstantiable claims made in recent textbooks in support of Darwinian evolution. So I asked Wells for a response, and here it is:

Lance Duval really should do his homework … here are some quotes you might find useful (all of them in Icons of Evolution, 2000): Read More ›

A kind UD reader sends word of a news story and paper on E coli bacteria’s strategy for becoming resistant to antibiotics. The reader comments, “It would seem that this paper outlines processes that are decidedly non-Darwinian. Indeed, in very significant ways E. Coli. seems designed to resist antibiotics. Take a look, pass it along, I would think it would be an interesting topic for discussion on your site.” Any thoughts, combox? Pardon me if this has been raised before. By the way, I also posted a bunch of new stuff at The Post-Darwinist.

Recently, while I was getting ready for a meeting on the Darwinism-ID issue, a person who was wrestling with the issues took the trouble to engage me in an e-mail dialogue. I thought the questions he raised were interesting. I have reworded them to avoid violating privacy, and have reproduced my responses.

1. Darwinism does not explain the complexity of nature. But how is that a repudiation of macroevolution or evidence for Divine intervention? We have merely pointed out a flaw in an existing theory; we have not shown that God did it. What if another theory comes along to explain it all in the future? What if Lavoisier, after disproving the phlogiston theory of burning, then concluded that – insofar as phlogiston doesn’t explain chemical interactions – burning must be a miraculous process?

From Denyse: Darwinism does not explain the complexity of nature? To the extent that it doesn’t, the fact is, we don’t know how evolution occurred. That’s not – at least not to me – a repudiation of macroevolution. But I refuse to accept Darwinism on faith alone. I already have a faith that doesn’t need Darwinism. Darwinism was originally packaged as science, and if it doesn’t make it as science, it just doesn’t make it. Read More ›

Before an ID arts site got started, I had been reviewing movies and books that are relevant to the intelligent design controversy at the regular Access Research Network site.

These folk provide many resources on the intelligent design controversy, and if you are looking for books or other materials, you should know that buying through them helps fund ID research.

Anyway, here are brief intros and links to reviews I wrote:

March of the Penguins: Why was there such a fuss about the “intelligent design” implications of this film?

Should you permit your children to see March of the Penguins? Not if you want to raise them as unquestioning Darwinists ….

What the Bleep Do We Know?: Well, somehow, I don’t think we know this, anyway …

This film addresses the reasons, based in quantum mechanics, for doubting the radical materialist view of the universe. I’m all for doubting radical materialism, but I don’t quite think this approach is the answer, and here’s why. Read More ›

At CNN, A. Chris Gajilan asks, Are humans hardwired for faith? Maybe we religious robots can’t help it,

Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God. He says there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power.

but on the other hand, maybe we are religious freaks,

Scott Atran doesn’t consider himself an atheist, but he says the brain scans offer little in terms of understanding why humans believe in God. He is an anthropologist and author of “In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.”

Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation.

Now, before you decide which of these points of view sounds more plausible to you, please note one thing: Read More ›

Writing letters to a broad public is all the rage nowadays, so I thought I would try my hand at it too:

Dear thinking Christians/theists/non-materialists,

Some people have expressed deep concern over the sudden surge in anti-God/anti-spiritual activists, opposed to traditional spiritualities.

Yes, it is a good idea to keep an eye on these anti-spiritual movements, but – based on decades of watching social trends and covering controversies – I do not think that these people should be our main concern. They are acting out of desperation. The materialism they espouse is simply not confirmed by evidence and not working in society either. Worse, even the most generous and favorable media attention has not made them look or sound attractive. More publicity will only deepen the hole they are digging themselves into.

In my experience, a far more serious concern is the gutting of a spiritual tradition from within. Along those lines, be on the lookout for the following trends, whether in your church mosque, synagogue, or whatever: Read More ›

There’s been a fair amount of speculation based on media reports. But media reports are almost never a good source of information on Catholic teachings, so let’s wait and see. Most deadtrees see their role as promoting materialism. So even if they understood what the Pope was saying, reporters would feel duty bound to garble it.

Jay Richards, a research fellow at the Acton Institute and co-author of Privileged Planet [remember the Smithsonian uproar? No no, not the one that involved Rick Sternberg, the other one]  offers some thoughts as to why such reports are almost never a useful source of information:

I suspect there’s a translation problem here. Reading between the lines, it looked like Benedict said some pretty strong things. Of course he’s challenging scientism and calling for a broader concept of reason than is contained in experimental science. Read More ›

I had not realized that I had become a fundamentalist until several people wrote to me, wondering what had happened.

(Fell? Hit my head?)

Regular readers of this space (devout thanks to both of you) know that I am still a Catholic, and may wish to read the claim and my response, linked below.

[Update: The problem has been fixed! As a kind poster noted at the PostD, it now reads, correctly, “Roman Catholic” in the online version. Now I won’t spend years putting out fires – plus, I can send all those snakes back to Petco and get a refund before something terminally stupid happens.]
Read More ›

Recently, there was a bit of correspondence between moderators of our list about the question of whether aggressive Darwinists can be accused of being like Nazis.

Now, my own view on this subject is as follows: I don’t really care whether Darwinists who routinely launch or justify persecutions against non-materialists are offended. It’s absolutely fine with me if they realize that their actions are closely observed and recorded. Read More ›

Here is my review at the ID arts site of the eminent Canadian science fiction writer Rob Sawyer’s interesting approach to the intelligent design controversy in his novel Calculating God (2000), along with an interview I did with him nearly a decade ago.

Here at Uncommon Descent, a longish combox discussion started recently – which spread here after I reposted some of my own comments at the Post-Darwinist – on whether the intelligent design guys would gain or lose credibility if they kicked out the young earth creationists (YECs, the folk who believe that the Bible teaches that the earth was created in 144 hours and therefore it must be true).

My own view is that it is politically astonishingly naive to think that the intelligent design-friendly scientists who accept universal common descent would gain anything by starting a big fight with: Read More ›

When people examine a new idea for the first time, they often approach it from a basis of older, assumed ideas which cause confusion. They can’t really evaluate the new idea properly until the source of confusion has been identified.

In discussing the intelligent design controversy with people, I sometimes hear the following comment:

If scientists conclude that something is designed, then they are just taking the easy way out, and they won’t be able to find out anything more about it.

The comment – actually, more often a passionate outburst – come at such an oblique angle that it requires a bit of unpacking – all the more so because it is frequently followed up by other, similar ones. On rare occasions, time is permitted for a thoughtful response, so here’s one: Read More ›

Apparently, one of the Thumbsmen has claimed that Bill Dembski overstated/misstated (or whatever) Darwin’s contempt for the feckless* Irish, with their endless stream of brats (combined, of course, with his approval of the thrifty and allegedly cautiously procreative Scot).

Which is hilarious, because contempt for the Irish was part and parcel of Darwin’s Brit toffery – a social code everyone in those days understood. The Potato Famine, when so many thousands starved to death within easy reach of abundant food exported from Ireland, would be incomprehensible apart from it. Indeed, I heard its fell echoes a century later, as a child in a far distant land.

No, Dembski did not misquote Darwin. Darwin meant exactly what he said. The problem is that what Darwin meant is incompatible with the theory he is famed for advancing. Read More ›

Here is neuroscientist Mario Beauregard’s article in Progress in Neuroscience, identifying areas of progress in non-materialist neuroscience. Yes, that’s right. Beauregard is doing something that is supposed to be unthinkable for a neuroscientist. He is blowing off materialism, based on evidence. The skinny: Materialist neuroscience argues that the mind does not really exist. The mind is merely the functions of the brain or a simulacrum thereof. So you do not really have a mind, let alone a soul or free will. Materialist neuroscientists have not proven this proposition; it is a logical deduction from the materialism they have already accepted. Go here, here, and here for a few examples. Non-materialist neuroscience means neuroscience that assumes that the mind really exists. Read More ›

Well, Bill sure put Darwin’s big E (eugenics) out there for everyone to see , The reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: “The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits: the frugal, foreseeing, self-respecting, ambitious Scot, stern in his morality, spiritual in his faith, sagacious and disciplined in his intelligence, passes his best years in struggle and in celibacy, marries late, and leaves few behind him. … “ … and wouldn’t you know that the squalid, unaspiring Irishman has hardly sobered up from the Feast of St. Patrick, when … The thing about human eugenics is that Read More ›