Darwinism

Imagine if you will a rather pathetic little boy oppressed by a domineering father and overshadowed by older sisters assuming maternal roles that directed his every move.  Under such conditions it’s not surprising that certain survival strategies would be employed by the boy to establish his place in the family pecking order.  Thus it was, according to biographers Adrian Desmond and James Moore, that a young Charles Darwin stole his father’s peaches and plums only to “discover” them later in heroic fashion and would invent “deliberate falsehoods” in order to gain attention.  In school he would regale classmates with stories of fantastic birds and remarkable flowers, flowers he could change into different colors.  “Once,” write Desmond and Moore, “he invented an elaborate story designed to show how fond he was of telling the truth.  It was a boy’s way of manipulating the world” (1).  But what happened when the boy, whose insatiable need for attention never waned, became a man.  How might he then manipulate the world?  This question, which few have dared to even pose, has been asked and answered in a provocative new book by former BBC writer/producer, Roy Davies titled, The Darwin Conspiracy: Origins of a Scientific Crime, just released by Goldensquare Books (http://darwin-conspiracy.co.uk/). 

Read More ›

To listen to this song in mp3, click here. SHE’S GOT NO BRAIN By Jim Rogers Little machines that go Integrated just so Blueprint incognito What makes it grow Put together so fine Personalities shine Words of poetry rhyme How can you know What a wonder it is It’s a silly thing to think we’re dumber Than Mother Nature who’s got no brain For evolution it’s quite the bummer Because she can’t explain What clearly needs a brain Mother Nature’s got no brain Nanotechnology In cell biology Professors eulogize It’s Darwin I surmise DNA transcription Protein configuration Gene translocation Godly revelation What a wonder it is It’s a silly thing to think we’re dumber Than Mother Nature who’s got no Read More ›

Olivia Judson is on a mission to control the damage to Darwin’s hemorrhaging theory. Her latest at the NYTimes is to suggest that we stop using the term “Darwinism” because the field of evolutionary biology is so much richer than what Darwin gave us. Others have tried that strategy with equal laughable disingenuity (e.g., Paul Gross in criticizing David Berlinski for Berlinski making Darwinism the target of criticism). CAPTION: OLIVIA JUDSON BUSY AT HER RESEARCH But Judson gives the game away: [Darwinism] suggests that Darwin was the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega, of evolutionary biology, and that the subject hasn’t changed much in the 149 years since the publication of the “Origin.” He wasn’t, and it has. Read More ›

There may yet be hope for the First Amendment and common sense copyright.
———————-
Yoko Ono Lawsuit Expelled!: Judge Rules in Favor of Expelled Producers; Film To Be Re-Released In Theaters This Summer
(PRWEB) July 17, 2008 — The producers of the controversial film, Expelled, are celebrating their first legal victory in the lawsuit brought against them by Yoko Ono, for including John Lennon’s song Imagine in their documentary. Last month, a federal court in Manhattan denied Ono’s request for an injunction against the film that would have forced it out of theaters nationwide. The producers are celebrating this victory by announcing that the film will be re-released theatrically this summer across the United States. Read More ›

Is Susan Mazur writing a book that exposes the Darwin industry instead of protecting it?

Her e-book title is “Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry”
Sunday, 6 July 2008, 12:32 pm | Article: Suzan Mazur

—–

<oreword

Introduction

Chronology

Evolution Tribes

1 The Altenberg 16

2 Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

3 Jerry Fodor and Stan Salthe Open the Evo Box

4 Theory of Form to Center Stage

5 The Two Stus

[ and further … ]

Susan, you mean, no more of the “dancing with the biologists” on Galapagos rubbish (and, person who wrote that silliness, you know who you are … ) A real accounting at last? Read More ›

Published online 9 July 2008 | Nature 454, 150 (2008) A former Texas official is suing the state’s education agency, saying that its policies passively endorse creationism. In a complaint filed with a district court on 1 July, Christina Comer, a former director of state science education, alleged that officials tacitly condone the teaching of creationism through a policy of neutrality. Comer oversaw Texas’s science curriculum until last November, when she was forced to resign for circulating a notice of a talk entitled “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse”. In her termination notice, Comer was told that the education agency endeavoured to “remain neutral” on the issue of creationism. Comer’s complaint argues that board neutrality violates the separation of church and state. Read More ›

I just received this press release from Seattle’s Discovery Institute: Governor Bobby Jindal Signs Historic Science Education Act On Evolution and Education Baton Rouge – Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal signed into law the Louisiana Science Education Act, ensuring the state’s teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution. “The bill is a bold statement protecting the freedom of teachers to discuss both the scientific evidence for and against Darwinian evolution and other controversial scientific theories,” said Casey Luskin, an attorney and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at Discovery Institute. “The bill does exactly what it says, which is to allow teachers and school districts to ‘use supplemental textbooks and other instructional Read More ›

BOOK REVIEWED–In Pursuit of the Gene: From Darwin to DNA by James Schwartz Harvard University Press: 2008. 384 pp. Fruitful collaborations were formed in Thomas Hunt Morgan’s fly genetics lab. When I was a student, ‘doing genetics’ meant crossing two different strains or species. Now it means sequencing DNA, preferably human. Between these two poles lies the history of genetics, a pathway fraught with sharp turns, steep gradients and dead ends — and engagingly recounted in James Schwartz’s new book. Despite its subtitle, In Pursuit of the Gene is not a comprehensive history of genetics, but focuses solely on classical genetics. Schwartz, a science writer, begins with Charles Darwin’s ill-fated ‘pangenesis’ theory of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and runs Read More ›

Cross posted at The Christian Watershed

One of the biggest issues trends in the West – especially in America – is for people to go ‘green’ in what they do. Whether it be from getting a hybrid vehicle, to eating organic foods, to just installing energy efficient light bulbs, it is not considered chic to be ‘green.’

Though I happen to believe this is just a trend (I believe American society, at least the younger generation as a whole, to be nihilistic, narcissistic, and ‘empty-selves,’ thus concern for something other than themselves won’t last long), it is a trend that is much needed in the current world. I think all can agree that humans in the last two centuries have done a horrible job being good stewards of the environment.

On quick look at the Los Angeles skyline and we can see exactly what pollution can do. Global Warming aside, the fact does remain that Co2 emission is harmful for the environment and humans (look at asthma rates per capita in bigger cities as opposed to those in the country). This also doesn’t ignore the landfills that are constantly taking up space, the burning of fossil fuels, the toxic waste dumps that are harming land, and just random trash being strewn about on the sides of the road. Humans have done an absolutely horrible job at taking care of this world.

Should this environmental crisis surprise us though? Consumerism and humanism – focusing on ourselves and ignoring other species and even other humans – has left us blind to the effects of our desire for more. We are now left in desperate need for a solution, but can science help us? Read More ›

I watch very little television, but I enjoy The History Channel (THC). I’ve learned a lot from it. When it comes to hard science and engineering they do a very good job. I’ve particularly enjoyed their programs about the history of aviation, since I’m a software engineer in the aerospace R&D industry with hundreds of hours of airtime in hang gliders and have a special interest in aerodynamics and aviation history.

When it comes to aviation, THC gets it right, virtually all of the time.

It was thus with trepidation that I watched “How Life Began” last evening. The title of the show was a dead giveaway about what I would see, hear, and experience. The title of the show should have been “How Did Life Begin?” and the answer should have been, “No one has the faintest idea.”

But no, we are presented with endless speculation that doesn’t withstand even the most trivial scrutiny, and are given the impression that “science” has the solution well in hand, with only minor details to be filled in.

We are also greeted with the usual obligatory assurances that “religion” and “evolution” are perfectly compatible, if one has a proper intellectually and materialistically enlightened interpretation of religion*. White-collared Fr. Coyne is prominently displayed as an apologist for this thesis, and assures viewers that “intelligent design” is superbly unnecessary as an explanation for the origin of life. Eugenie Scott would be proud of him.

The big problem with “How Life Began” is that no hard questions are ever asked, much less addressed. We take a journey into the Life, Inc. factory, where all the mysteries of the origin of life are explained.

Read More ›

Core ID and ID-compatible hypotheses have various predictions. For example, there’s the confirmed predictions related to junk DNA and genetic nature of the platypus, the predictions about designer drugs, long-term preservation mechanisms for conserving information that is not currently implemented, and retroviruses being capable of being used to implement designed changes. At this time the scientific research we have so far does not provide conclusive positive evidence for some of these predictions, although there are tantalizing glimpses that such predictions may become known to be true. There’s also some types of observed changes that happen so rapidly and repeatedly that they would seem to defy being within the domain of strictly Darwinian processes. But such research is just beginning. (And Ken Miller claims that ID cannot make predictions and research cannot occur…)

But then there’s the predictions specific to ID-compatible hypotheses such as front-loading.
Read More ›

I’ve known Karl Giberson over a decade. In the early days, he was a respectful critic of ID. That now seems to have changed with the publication of his most recent book, Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution (go here for the Amazon listing). The subtitle is curious. Ordinarily one believes in a religion and attains competence in a field of scientific inquiry (does it matter if I believe that quarks really exist? isn’t it enough that I can apply the standard model?). Giberson’s subtitle inverts our ordinary epistemic attitudes (was it intentional?). The title is more interesting still — Saving Darwin. Why should anyone want to save Darwin? Aren’t his ideas strong enough so Read More ›

Michael Ruse writes: “Ken Miller’s new book, Only a Theory, Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, is everything we have come to expect from him — informed, witty, and above all deeply serious about matters of concern to us all. He takes so-called intelligent design theory apart, piece by piece, showing it for the sham that it is. In its stead, Miller makes a very strong argument for the truth and beauty of evolutionary thinking and begs that we not keep this wonderful science from our children.” “He takes so-called intelligent design theory apart…” I presume he does this in the same manner that he unspun the bacterial flagellum, with unsupported speculation that doesn’t withstand even the most simplistic Read More ›

Darwin Defeated in the Bayou: Louisiana Encourages ‘Critical Thinking’ Richard Monastersky | Chronicle of Higher Education | June 12, 2008 The title of this article is self-explanatory (teaching Darwin critically seems now to be becoming the big thing at the state level). Here are some of the reactions: “It’s Louisiana. If they can abuse it, twist it, or turn it upside down from the original intention…they will.” “Raise the kids as stupid as there parents and there parents and what do you get, religion.” “The idea that one can distinguish between ID and astrology is ludicrous.” “Critical thinking should only be applied to approved beliefs.” “Didn’t God invent astrology? I don’t have proof but I have faith therefore I think Read More ›

Muller received the Nobel Prize for “for the discovery that mutations can be induced by x-rays”. He studied the effects of mutation on populations, and indirectly spawned ideas which were elaborated in the book Genetic Entropy by Cornell geneticist John Sanford.

The theory of genetic entropy has the potential to overturn Darwinism on empirical grounds alone. Darwinism argues for inevitable progress, genetic entropy argues the opposite.

The thesis of genetic entropy can be explored by considering the amount of mutation in the human genome at present. Muller offers his thoughts:

it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…

it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…

it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements.

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford
Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy

“u” is the mutation rate. As John Sanford observes, Darwinian selection cannot keep pace with reality. Deterioration of the genome seems to be in evidence, and the efficacy of Darwinian mechanisms has been essentially falsified with respect to the human genome. Here is an excerpt of Sanford commenting on Muller’s work:

Muller calculated that the human fertility rate of that time (1950) could not deal with a mutation rate of 0.1. Since that time, we have learned that the mutation rate is a least 1,000-fold higher than he thought. Furthermore, fertility rates have declined sharply since then.

John Sanford

Walter ReMine was kind enough to point me to a more modern day version of Muller’s concerns: Why have we not died 100 times over? by Kondrashov (also from Cornell).
Read More ›