scordova

In addition to the engineers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians who dissent from Darwin, anywhere from 33% to 60% of medical doctors dissent from Darwin (see Nearly Two-Thirds of Doctors Skeptical of Darwin’s Theory of Evolution, HCD Research Poll, also check out PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS WHO DISSENT FROM DARWINISM).

Pro-ID sympathies are reflected by the fact a moderately pro-ID book received an endorsement by the Dean of Harvard’s medical school, Dr. Joseph Martin.

Today is the opening day of the http://researchid.org website. Readers are invited to visit it. Here is a letter from the founder:

The intelligent design community needs dynamic and interactive websites where professionals and students can gain valuable information about ID, and at the same time contribute their own knowledge and information to the site. Today is the grand opening of just such a synergistic website called ResearchID.org. To fulfill this need for vibrant interaction, ResearchID.org is a knowledgebase compiling and synthesizing research on intelligent design.

Read More ›

Europeans resist “mad cow disease” because their ancestors were selected for cannibalism….Jews were selected for higher intelligence than other peoples because of the calculational demands of money-lending…

Read More ›

Biologist Stanely Salthe at Binghamton University is at the top of the Discovery Institute’s Dissent from Darwin honor roll. Stanley Salthe I am a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory — which was my own erstwhile field of specialization in biology. My opposition is fundamentally to its sole reliance on competition as an explanatory principle (in a background of chance). Aside from being a bit thin in the face of complex systems, it has the disadvantage, in the mythological context of explaining where we come from, of reducing all evolution to the effects of competition. …….Being materially empty, it appears capable of explaining almost anything, and so we need to be cautious about its use. Is it a Borgesian cognitive poison? Read More ›

Intelligent design will open doors to scientific exploration which Darwinism is too blind to perceive. The ID perspective allows us to find designed architectures within biology which are almost invisible to natural selection. Thus, the ID perspective is a far better framework for scientific investigation than the Darwinian perspective. What do I mean, and how will I justify my claim?

Let me illustrate my point with some anecdotes. I was piloting a small airplane in the spring of 2002. My airplane suffered a potentially serious systems failure during the flight. Read More ›

This is a picture of the famous geneticist JBS Haldane (no kidding). He is notoriously known for “Haldane’s Dilemma” which is a current rage in ID circles.

Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome
by John Sanford (October 2005)

In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter. The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book.

Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.
Read More ›

Ultimate Questions

“Scientific knowledge is a malleable body of information that changes over time, as new tools are applied and new facts are integrated,” says Bryce Paschal, an associate professor of biochemistry and molecular genetics at U.Va. “Good science identifies weak links in what is known. Science should acknowledge the shortcomings in evolutionary science, especially as regards what is known about transition species.”

An expert on nuclear transport and cell signaling, Paschal might seem an unlikely candidate to serve as faculty adviser for the IDEA Club….

“Regardless of the number of simple organisms on this earth, and regardless of how many simple molecules are found on other planets, the notion that we evolved by random mutation from a pool of amino acids requires more ‘faith’ than I am capable of mustering,” he says.

Much to the IDEA club’s relief, Bryce Paschal was tenured a few months before becoming the IDEA faculty adviser. I can tell you from first hand knowledge that some individuals who would otherwise be willing to be IDEA advisers declined to do so because of job risk. I’m very grateful for Dr. Paschal’s willingness to be an IDEA adviser.

(thanks to Russ for alerting me to the article)

Read More ›

here is a quote mine:

A Wakeup Call for Science Faculty

I believe that intelligent design should be taught in college science classes…

-Bruce Alberts, December 2, 2005

Apparently, the critics of ID are taking Albert’s words to heart because 36 universities as reported by ID at the Academy have courses with ID content in them. Joseph Campana at ResearchIntelligentDesign.org is trying to track ID content in various courses at universities in the United States and elsewhere. The list I linked to was gleaned from news sources and word of mouth. If anyone is aware of corrections or additions to the list, feel free to post them here and/or contact the authors of the list.

Unlike the public schools, the universities are viewed even by critics of ID as an appropriate place to discuss ID. Niall Shanks, Eugenie Scott, and even Bruce Alberts are favorable to the idea of ID being discussed in the universities. So “ID in the Academy” is something both sides want (albeit for opposite reasons)!

Read More ›

J.B.S. Haldane first described the ‘cost of substitution’ and its limitation on the speed of evolution. That gave rise to a problem (see, for example, Dodson), known today as Haldane’s Dilemma. The problem is more severe in organisms with low reproduction rate and long generation time, such as the higher vertebrates: elephants, whales, apes and humans, etc. Evolutionary geneticists saw this as a compelling issue. Maynard-Smith and Kimura each cited it as the main reason for their revolutionary new views of evolutionary process.

Read More ›

(In an effort to help my IDEA comrades at Cornell I revisit the issue of Genetic-ID. My previous post on the issue caused some confusion so I’m reposting it with some clarifications. I post the topic as something I recommend their group discuss and explore.)

The corporation known as Genetic-ID (ID as in IDentification, not ID as in Intelligent Design) is able to distinguish a Genetically Modified Organism (GMO) from a “naturally occurring” organism. At www.genetic-id.com they claim:

Genetic ID can reliably detect ALL commercialized genetically modified organisms.

I claim that detecting man-made artifacts (like a GMO) is a valid instance of applying the Explanatory Filter.

The Explanatory Filter is used all the time (implicitly):

The key step in formulating Intelligent Design as a scientific theory is to delineate a method for detecting design. Such a method exists, and in fact, we use it implicitly all the time. The method takes the form of a three-stage Explanatory Filter.

Read More ›

Intelligent Design by Cesium-137 (thanks to Joe Manzari for alerting me to this development.)

Many people do not understand what the Explanatory Filter represents, it represent “ordinary practice” of detecting design.

Explanatory Filter from the book Design Inference

The Explanatory Filter faithfully represents our ordinary practice of sorting through things we alternately attribute to law, chance, or design. In particular, the filter describes

how copyright and patent offices identify theft of intellectual property

Read More ›

Read More ›

I reported earlier that Professors admit they’ll deny tenure to IDers. There are now hints the anti-ID crowd are increasingly willing to deny diplomas to PhD students, master’s students, and undergraduates. Based on news reports I’ve read and studies such as those by Steve Verhey, presently, I estimate 1/4 to 1/3 of biology freshman accept ID. The anti-ID crowd knows rising numbers of pro-ID biology students receiving diplomas are a threat to the status-quo.

The Cornell IDEA club has commentary on this report by Nobel Intent (Bill Dembski provided other links at New York Academy of Sciences keeps the world safe for Darwinism) on a recent war planning conference:

Declaration of War?

Branch’s final topic was how to handle a situation where a biology department winds up with a creationist as a graduate student. This was both of general interest, as creationists tend to use their degrees as rhetorical weapons, and of personal interest, as I was part of the Berkeley class that produced the noted Discovery Institute fellow Jon Wells. Unfortunately, his conclusion was that there are no easy answers. He did, however, note that graduate departments exist to serve the scientific community by providing qualified individuals to perform research and teaching services. There is no ethical requirement for graduate faculty to be complicit in the training of someone who is ultimately going to actively harm the field.

No easy answer? The easy answer is to not make someone’s acceptance of ID a factor whatsoever! Simple!

Read More ›