scordova

There is a Clash of the Titans going on between world renowned evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne and biochemist Michael Behe. Behe is making toast out of Coyne in the recent exchanges as documented over at Amazon. Here are 4 relevant links. Enjoy: Response to Critics: Jerry Coyne Back and Forth with Jerry Coyne, Part 1 Back and Forth with Jerry Coyne, Part 2 Back and Forth with Jerry Coyne, Part 3 PS Earlier, Bill pointed out the apparent convergence of features between Jerry Coyne and Herman Munster here. I think I have also discovered yet another convergence, one between Jerry Coyne and toast.

[slight correction and update follows]
Read More ›

In Intelligent Design: Strengths, Weaknesses,
and the Differences John Morris, president of ICR, writes:

The differences between Biblical creationism and the IDM should become clear. As an unashamedly Christian/creationist organization, ICR is concerned with the reputation of our God and desires to point all men back to Him. We are not in this work merely to do good science, although this is of great importance to us. We care that students and society are brainwashed away from a relationship with their Creator/Savior. While all creationists necessarily believe in intelligent design, not all ID proponents believe in God. ID is strictly a non-Christian movement, and while ICR values and supports their work, we cannot join them.

Good grief. Is thermodynamics or statistical mechanics Biblical or non-Biblical? If these disciplines can’t be shown to be Biblical, then is Morris suggesting these ideas can’t be defended or studied or promoted by the ICR? Given that Maxwell (a creationist) and Boltzmann (a Darwinist) were pioneers in the formulation of statistical mechanics and atomic theory, I suppose by John Morris’s standards, these great theories are non-Christian theories, therefore the ICR can’t join in their promotion and study.

I suppose the ICR would have issue with James Clerk Maxwell (likely a YEC himself), whose famous equations have ushered in the modern world. His famous equations require an old universe. Thus, if the ICR had it’s way, a great scientific discovery would be rejected on account that it was “unbiblical”.
Read More ›

Dawkins displays his formidable command of the English language in Inferior Design, a review of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution. Of all the anti-Behe reviews I’ve read, this was the most convincing, at least on rhetorical grounds, but certainly not on evidential nor scientific grounds.

Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution. He writes:

It is evident by the fact that Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse have written book reviews of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, that the best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design. That only makes sense because Darwin himself wrote much about intelligent design and devoted an entire book, The Origin of Species, in a failed attempt to refute intelligent design.

We see peer reviewed literature by Zuckerkandl, Ayala, Koonin, and others referencing intelligent design. Here is a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology: The intelligent design of evolution where the authors assert:

The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory…
….
Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

In preparing another thread, I came across the photograph of one of the most famous evolutionary biologists, John Maynard Smith. The photograph above was of Maynard-Smith when he was a bit younger. The photograph below is one of the last photographs of Maynard-Smith published, and it appeared in a memorial article written by Richard Lewontin in the prestigious Journal Science in 2004 [see: Retrospective: In Memory of John Maynard Smith (1920-2004)]

Look at the close up of the book on his shelf:

It’s none other than Michael Behe’s, Darwin’s Black Box, right beside Charles Darwin’s autobiography.
Read More ›

Access Research Network (ARN) is a great place for serious ID enthusiasts. In fact, even Darwinists like Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross give their endorsement:

ARN [Access Research Network]….offers a host of resources, many of which may be downloaded without cost….

ARN is a treasure trove of ID materials…a vital arm of the Wedge…

Forrest and Gross,
Creationism’s Trojan Horse

Thus, I’m pleased to announce that ARN has just recently loaded 62 video clips available on YouTube. Feel free to check out these 62 wonderful ID clips.

Visit:
http://www.youtube.com/user/AccessResearch

Read More ›

Ken Miller just published a review of Michael Behe’s book, Edge of Evolution. Here is Miller at his best:

but Behe has built his entire thesis on this error. Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is “beyond the edge of evolution”, he proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97–101; 2006),

Ken Miller
Falling over the edge

Miller falsely accuses Behe of not following the Science (2006) paper, yet it’s hard to imagine that Miller missed the widely available public response by Behe of that very study. How could Miller accuse Behe of not following the study, when Behe said:

The study by Bridgham et al (2006) published in the April 7 issue of Science is the lamest attempt yet — and perhaps the lamest attempt that’s even possible — to deflect the problem that irreducible complexity poses for Darwinism
….

Read More ›

This is a continuation of a discussion of Teleology and ID in physics, ID-inspired least action principles

Teleologically-inspired Least Action Principles have become very foundational in modern physics. Tipler argues, “teleology is alive and well in physics.” One of my favorite critics, Bob OH, demanded more proof ID inspired a major area of scientific research.

On April 15, 1744, the pioneer of the Principle of Least Action, Pierre Louis Moreau de Maupertuis presented:
Derivation of the laws of motion and equilibrium from a metaphysical principle

Newton states that the uniform motion of the planets reveals an Intelligent Designer…

However, the probability is not zero and, hence, the uniformity of planetary motion is not a necessary proof of an Intelligent Designer.
….
There is another consideration. The two alternatives, Intelligent Design versus pure chance, are based on our inability to find a physical cause for the uniformity of planetary motion within Newton’s system. However, other philosophers have hypothesized a fluid that transports the planets or at least regulates their motion; if true, that might explain the uniformity of planetary motion (rather than an Intelligent Designer or pure chance) and would be no more proof of God’s existence than any other motion imposed on matter.
Read More ›

Teleology has been completely rejected by evolutionary biologists. This rejection is unfortunate, because, teleology is alive and well in physics

Frank Tipler,
World Renowned Cosmologist on Sci Phi Show!

Much of the discussion of ID has been in biology. But the notion of ID and teleology has permeated the history of physics from the beginning to the present day.

Commenting on the history of physics, Tipler with his co-author Barrow describe the ID-inspired least action principles that are the foundation of many theories in physics:

The principle of least time was the bases of the next use of a minimal principle, by the seventeenth-century French mathematician and lawyer Fermat
……
Fermat’s work led the German philosopher Leibniz to argue in a letter written in 1687 that in as much as the concept of purpose was basic to true science, the laws of physics should and could be expressed in terms of minimum principles Read More ›

I attempted mathematics….but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps in algebra….I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

Charles Darwin,
writing of his ineptitude and dislike of math

The inability of Darwin and his followers to make the math of their ideas work continues to haunt them. Another mathematical problem for Darwinism comes in the form of the failing molecular clock hypothesis, a statistical theory of molecular evolution. The hypothesis was the brainchild of arch-Darwinist Schlemiel Zuckerkandl (Zuck for short).

It’s gratifying that a hypothesis which Zuck received so much recognition for 45 years ago is now being bludgeoned to death by empirical data, much to the delight of ID proponents. The most recent example of the failure of Zuck’s idea is reported in When did placental and marsupial mammals split?, we read:

“We’re in total discord with the molecular dates,” Wible says. He thinks genetic clocks fail to account for the post-Cretaceous burst of mammalian evolution.
Read More ›

Biologist John Lynch seems to think there is surprising silence over Behe’s book. I speculated that his perception is due to the fact that there are so many pro-ID or ID-sympathetic books and activities out there now. In addition to the activities of the ID community, there is renewed activity in the creationist community. There are at least two creation museums opening in 2007 — one in the USA and one in Canada!

It was through Uncommon Descent that important pro-ID books have gotten some promotion like ReMine’s Biotic Message and Sanford’s Genetic Entropy, or Barrow and Tipler’s Anthropic Cosmological Principle. I will hopefully post in detail on ReMine’s Biotic Message and Davies The Mind of God. It should be noted Barrow and Davies won an almost combined 3 million dollars in the form of Templeton Prizes for their (perhaps unwitting) ID-sympathetic works. Some of the best ID literature is in places you’d least expect!

Uncommon Descent will from time to time point out other books like Tipler’s Physics of Christianity and now this (unwitting) ID-sympathetic book by renowned scientist Owen Gingerich: God’s Universe

The attempted refutation of Behe’s work by the Darwinists has been so anemic that even the prominent names in the Darwinist blogsphere are beginning to lament the lackluster performance of their All-Stars against Michael Behe.

For example, Jason Rosenhouse, one of the most brilliant authors at PandasThumb, has decided to break ranks and openly criticize world-renowned Darwinist Jerry Coyne.

In Coyne Lays an Egg, Rosenhouse writes:

[Coyne’s] review of [Behe’s Edge of Evolution] EoE is a terrible piece of work. It’s all snideness and ridicule with very little in the way of good arguments. It really infuriates me when someone like Coyne is given such a terrific platform, several thousand words in a classy magazine like The New Republic, and then writes as if the whole project is beneath him.
….
Behe will have a good time lambasting Coyne for not reading very carefully.

Read More ›

Renowned Darwinist Sean Carroll is by all counts part of the Darwinist All-Stars. He made a lame attempt to refute Behe’s recent book in a review published by the prestigious journal Science. Carroll writes: pyrimethamine resistance in malarial parasites (6)–a notable omission given Behe’s extensive discussion of malarial drug resistance Carroll argues Behe omitted mention of pyrimethamine resistance! But what did Mike actually write? He did not omit mention of pyrimethamine resistance: One successor drug is called pyrimethamine. Interestingly, malaria can counter it with a single amino acid substitution. That single amino acid change makes malaria one hundred times more resistant to the drug. Is Carroll’s fabrication the best the Darwinist All-Stars can offer? Mike Behe has written the editors Read More ›

Have you noticed that heroes are often scoundrels too (at least in the movies)? Can we say Rhett Butler or Han Solo?

Recall this romantic scene from The Empire Strikes Back:

Scoundrel I like the sound of that

Han: Hey! Your worship, I’m only trying to help.
Leia: Would you please stop calling me that?

Han: Sure…Leia.
Leia: You make it so difficult sometimes.

Han: I do. I really do. You could be a little nicer, though. C’mon admit it, sometimes you think I’m alright.
Leia: Occasionally, maybe, when you aren’t acting like a scoundrel.

Han: Scoundrel? Scoundrel…I like the sound of that. Read More ›

New Textbook Seeks to Improve Teaching of Evolution as reported by Rob Crowther. “Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals,” emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. “Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science.” Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both Read More ›