Teach Origin of Species Chapter 14!
…the first creature, the progenitor of innumerable extinct and living descendants, was created.
…
To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…Charles Darwin,
Origin of Species, Chapter 14
Dr. David P. Barash writes in a op-ed to LA Times:
I also look forward to the possibility that, thanks to advances in reproductive technology, there will be hybrids, or some other mixed human-animal genetic composite, in our future.
This may seem perverse, because even the most liberal ethicists shy away from advocating the breeding or genetic engineering of half-person/half-animal. Why, then, am I rooting for their creation?
Because in these dark days of know-nothing anti-evolutionism, with religious fundamentalists occupying the White House, controlling Congress and attempting to distort the teaching of science in our schools, a powerful dose of biological reality would be healthy indeed. And this is precisely the message that chimeras, hybrids or mixed-species clones would drive home. Read More ›
LAWRENCE, Kan. – The University of Kansas is sponsoring a three-month series of lectures about evolution and intelligent design, and organizers hope it will spark a broad public discussion…. The only speaker who appears to support intelligent design is Michael Behe, a Lehigh University biochemistry professor and author. (Hat Tip: Mike Gene of TelicThoughts) More…
Book coverThe Politically Incorrect Guide To Darwinism and Intelligent Design
Bill mentioned the book earlier here, but when the Discovery Institute sent me the photo, I just had to post it!
Read More ›With all the talk about Jerry Coyne lately, I just had to dig up this oldie but goodie from Phil Johnson. I think we should feel sorry for Jerry Coyne. His own work has contributed to the destruction of Darwinism, and he seems to be suffering from a condition I call metaphysical panic, resulting from the shaking of a worldview he had always assumed to be unchallengeable. Persons suffering from metaphysical panic tend to lash out in impotent rage while making wildly illogical arguments. I encounter this sad condition regularly. MORE ÂÂ
In science’s pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics.
Jerry Coyne
I provide here some snapshots of the Biology 467 Evolution and Design class at Cornell. Allen MacNeill is the professor and Hannah Maxson is a student representing the IDEA club.  Whether what we hear is something we like or dislike, it still constitutes a data point which we should not dismiss. Even if I may disagree with Allen, he is to be commended for trying to keep the dialogue on the issues open. He has done his utmost to get students to read ID literature and to study it to depths few people in the USA have ever explored in a college classroom setting so far. I post now some random snapshots of the class as it enters it final week.
(adapted from: Analogy, Induction, and Specious Arguments.)
Equivocation is a powerful technique if one has an indefensible position. For example, here is a way that one can argue that feathers cannot be dark:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.
Around 2003, Shallit and Elsberry put together a paper attempting to refute ID’s claims. They did not succeed in their attempt, but in the process they left behind a legacy in the art of equivocation and bluffing.
Read More ›Here is an exchange between Hannah Maxson (a rising senior with a triple major in the sciences at Cornell) and professor Allen MacNeill along with the various members of Uncommon Descent (UDers), Pandas Thumb (Pandas), ISCID, BSG, IDEA, NCSE, and other Cornell students and alumni.
Read More ›
(adapted from a discussion at Evolution and Design )
All right guys, a potential area of ID research. Who knows how long it may take to uncover, but here is where Explanatory Filter (EF) methods may help and where IDers can make a killer breakthrough for their theory if they succeed. There will be money, fame, and glory if this enigma is solved by IDers.
With the aid of smoke and mirrors and beautiful women, David Copperfield can make the impossible seemingly happen before the very eyes of live audiences. He is an illusionist by profession, and is so adept at what he does, he has become one of the highest paid celebrities in the world (57 million a year).
It is one thing for cleverly crafted theatrical illusions to be consumed for entertainment. It is another when theatrical illusions in computer simulations are used as evidence in a landmark federal case like Kitzmiller versus Dover.
This will be the first installment of a 3 part series where I will explore the work on evolutionary algorithms by Chris Adami, Dave Thomas, Wesley Elsberry, and Jeff Shallit. (In no way am I claiming the theatrics of their evolutionary algorithms were deliberate or meant to mislead or deceive. I simply use the phrase to hammer the point that these simulations are little better than theatrical illusions.)
Avida is the premier computer simulation in the anti-IDist arsenal. It supposedly illustrates Darwinian evolution, creates an instance of artificial life, provides a refutation of Behe’s irreducible complexity, and disproves Dembski’s assertions of information conservation and specified complexity. It has been featured in prestigious scientific journals, was offered as evidence in Kitzmiller vs. Dover, brought a measure of fame to its promoters, and possibly paid a few mortgages.
Discovery Institute attorney and scientist (and IDEA co-founder) Casey Luskin has posted this article on more of Ken Miller’s mis-steps under oath and in public. See: Ken Miller’s “Random and Undirected” Testimony. Luskin earlier pointed out Miller’s misrepresentations under oath here. I figured you all might want a thread to discuss this, so here it is!
(Adapted from a discussion at Evolution and Design and from material in Trevors and Abel’s peer-reviewed paper, Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life, featured in Cell Biology International, 2004.)
The Explanatory Filter in ID literature outlines a textbook method for detecting design. If one finds a physical artifact, the artifact is inferred to be designed if the features in question are not explainable by naturalistic explanations, namely:
1. natural law, or
2. chance
(I will explain later why I define “naturalistic explanations” this way.)
However, two objections often arise:
A. How can we be sure we won’t make some discovery in the future that will invalidate the design inference?
B. How can we be sure we’ve eliminated all possible naturalistic causes, particularly since we have so few details of what happened so long ago when no one was around?
Uncommon Descent is part of the relentlessly enthusiastic online ID community that is committed to opening minds to the truth about our origins.
I hope this essay will enlighten readers on the art of seeing through the misrepresentations used against ID proponents and their literature. Combating misrepresentation is vital to defeating the Sith Lords of Darwinism. But the first step in combating misrepresentation is first recognizing it, and recognizing it is a primary skill for one aspiring to become a Jedi Master in the internet ID wars.
Read More ›Access Research Network (ARN) is selling T-Shirts.
