Paul Nelson

Just a couple of links to enliven your morning… This Science Daily story describes a paper from the latest PLOS Biology, on the role of ORFans in generating species-specific traits in animals. Konstantin Khalturin and his co-authors at the Christian-Albrechts-University in Germany note the “substantial fraction” of ORFans — genes without known homologs — in every genome thus far sequenced, and argue that the origin of unique morphologies may rest in part with these unique genes: Understanding the molecular events that underlie the evolution of morphological diversity is a major challenge in biology….All genome and expressed sequence tag (EST) projects to date in every taxonomic group studied so far have uncovered a substantial fraction of genes that are without known Read More ›

Science writer and biologist John Timmer recently published an online review of the textbook Explore Evolution, a review which has picked up some play around the web. To gain a sense of the review’s accuracy, consider this: Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. Reflexin? Nope. Not a protein. And not what Schwabe has studied. The rest of the review is at this level, or below. We look forward to replying to Mr. Timmer.

On Thursday, 16 October 2008, the University Philosophical Society of Trinity College, Dublin — the world’s oldest debating society (founded 1684) — will sponsor a debate on evolution, creation, and materialism. The debate will occur at 7:30 pm in the Debating Room of the Graduates’ Memorial Building (that’s the building in the photograph above), just off the College’s Front Square. The evening’s discussion will open with a paper read by Bob Bloomfield of the British Museum [scroll down in the link for Bloomfield’s biography and current work]. Responses will then follow from David Berlinski, Fellow at the Discovery Institute, Stephen Moore, of the Northern Ireland based Giants’ Causeway Creation Committee, and me. Opposing will be Christopher Stillman, Fellow Emeritus in Read More ›

It’s open access: check it out.

The Ian Ramsey Centre, Oxford A couple of weeks ago, I reported on the program for the upcoming Ian Ramsey Centre conference, “God, Nature, and Design” to be held July 10-13, 2008 at St. Anne’s College, Oxford University. An updated list of contributed papers has been posted. The list is noteworthy both for the range of topics considered, and the variety of home institutions of the authors. Should be a lively meeting.

Journalist Susan Mazur continues her series of remarkable articles about dissenters from neo-Darwinism with a compelling interview of Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, professor of cognitive science at the University of Arizona, and co-author (with Jerry Fodor) of the forthcoming book What Darwin Got Wrong. In the interview, Piattelli-Palmarini points out that many academic biologists muffle their unhappiness with the received neo-Darwinian theory, either out of fear of being ostracized, or from worries about being exploited by intelligent design advocates. Jerry Fodor’s quips about having to join the federal Witness Protection Program, because of his public dissent from neo-Darwinian theory, lend some humor to this reality. If Expelled could be expanded to a multi-part television series, interviews with non-Darwinian evolutionary theorists such as Read More ›

Another fascinating book I’m finding hard to put down is David Sedley’s masterful treatment of ancient Greek debates about intelligent design, Creationism and Its Critics in Antiquity (University of California Press, 2008). What Sedley means by “creationism” is not the Henry Morris / ICR / AIG variety, although philosophically of course there is conceptual overlap. Rather, as he puts it, What I intend by creationism is…the thesis that the world’s structure and contents can be adequately explained only by postulating at least one intelligent designer, a creator god. (p. xvii) The existence of such debates outside the historical sphere of biblical authority, Sedley argues, is of more than passing interest, and provides his main motive for writing the book. His Read More ›

Recently, while speaking in southern California, I heard from a nationally-recognized academic expert on the ID / evolution debate that he refused to see Expelled, at least in its current theatrical release. “I don’t think I want to give any money to those guys,” he said dismissively. That’s OK — money is money, and the 9 or so bucks he might have spent on Expelled would show up in the box office totals — but at least this person hasn’t yet delivered himself publicly of opinions about the movie. No such niceties for ID critic John Derbyshire, who doesn’t actually need to see a movie before opining about it, as David Berlinski points out at National Review Online.

Word from the conference organizers is that many more papers were submitted to this conference than could possibly be accepted. “A very large number of excellent papers was submitted,” they write, “of which we were only able to accept a fraction.” GOD, NATURE AND DESIGNHistorical and Contemporary PerspectivesSt Anne’s College, OxfordJuly 10th – 13th 2008 Invited (plenary) speakers include Michael Ruse, Richard Swinburne, Ron Numbers, John Hedley Brooke, Stephen Snobelen, and Holmes Rolston III (their bios are here). The line-up of contributed papers is remarkable for its depth and diversity. More papers will be added to this list as the acceptances come in. Y’all better book your place at the conference, like, now.

Elliott Sober’s new book, Evidence and Evolution: The Logic Behind the Science (Cambridge University Press, 2008, 392 pp.) is now out, and worth your attention. A wide range of topics often discussed here — such as the theory of universal common descent (pro and con), the explanatory merits (or lack thereof) of natural selection, arguments for evolution based on biological imperfection, the logical structure of inferences to intelligent design — receive careful analytical attention from Sober. Cambridge provides enough of a sample here to whet your appetite, I think. Here’s a non-ironic blessing: May God grant us thoughtful critics. Sober has long been one such critic of ID, not to mention of much evolutionary reasoning, and I welcome this book Read More ›

I went down to the demonstrationto get my fair share of abuse — The Rolling Stones, “You Can’t Always Get Want You Want” But you might just get what you need, if you’ve got a burning question or two about the Expelled controversies. Darwin-to-Hitler, doesn’t Sternberg still have his Smithsonian position, the Pepperdine students were extras, the cell animation is plagiarized, Dawkins and P.Z. Myers and all the rest were tricked into granting interviews, Darwin’s Descent of Man was quote-mined, why didn’t Ben Stein just use Google Maps to find the Discovery Institute, ID is religious ’cause Expelled admits it, Yoko Ono is suing…whatevah. Bring Your Questions for Profs. John Bloom, Mike Keas and Paul NelsonMonday, April 287:30 p.m. to Read More ›

You know: teach the controversy, and all that. Meaning — after you watch this clip from bloggingheadstv — he’s going to come in for heavy criticism in the comments. Horgan has always kept his own counsel, which makes him interesting to read (one is bound to find something provocative — I remember thinking that his book The End of Science was wrong wrong wrong, but it made me reflect deeply about the nature of scientific inquiry) and to watch. In the same clip, George Johnson wonders about the “niche” occupied by non-religious critics of evolutionary theory. Why do such people exist?

On Saturday, 19 April 2008, philosopher of psychology Angus Menuge debated blogger and biologist P.Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota-Morris. What follows is Menuge’s summary of their interaction; his slides are available here.

Like the choice between competing political institutions, that between competing paradigms proves to be a choice between incompatible modes of community life. Because it has that character, the choice is not and cannot be determined merely by the evaluative procedures characteristic of normal science, for these depend in part upon a particular paradigm, and that paradigm is at issue. When paradigms enter, as they must, into a debate about paradigm choice, their role is necessarily circular. Each group uses its own paradigm to argue in that paradigm’s defense. — T.S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions The book fascinated him, or more exactly it reassured him. In a sense it told him nothing that was new, but that was part Read More ›

Details here. I wish their ship of inquiry calm seas and a prosperous voyage. To invoke the University of Chicago’s motto, which has never failed to inspire me: “Crescat scientia, vita excolatur” — “let knowledge grow from more to more, and so be human life enriched.”