Darwinism

Robert Savillo, an unknown in the evo-ID wars, has entered the fray with an attack against Ann Coulter’s treatment of evolution in her new book Godless (go here for Savillo’s screed). Savillo takes me to task for letting Ann’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” pass editorial scrutiny: Ann Coulter’s “Flatulent Raccoon Theory” Robert Savillo Media Matters for America June 2006 . . . According to the weblog of William Dembski, a supporter of intelligent design, all of the above-mentioned falsehoods, misinformation, and distortions can be attributed to his “generous tutoring.” The evidence reveals that Coulter’s two chapters on the theory of evolution display her own ignorance toward the subject while providing an avenue to make ad hominem attacks against scientists, progressives, and Read More ›

Evolution and Me ‘The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance’ GEORGE GILDER National Review July 17, 2006 . . . Turning to economics in researching my 1981 book Wealth & Poverty, I incurred new disappointments in Darwin and materialism. Forget God — economic science largely denies intelligent design or creation even by human beings. Depicting the entrepreneur as a mere opportunity scout, arbitrageur, or assembler of available chemical elements, economic theory left no room for the invention of radically new goods and services, and little room for economic expansion except by material “capital accumulation” or population growth. Accepted widely were Darwinian visions of capitalism as a dog-eat-dog zero-sum struggle impelled Read More ›

More for amusement than anything else, I sometimes check the latest reviews of my books and those of my colleagues on Amazon. Here’s the beginning and end of a review of Icons of Evolution (authored by my good friend Jonathan Wells) posted three days ago:

***********************************************
A review by a medical researcher, June 27, 2006
Reviewer: Ian R. Peters (Boulder, CO USA)

I want to make 2 things clear before I start discussing this book.

(1) I have read this book thoroughly. I have taken the time to analyze the
arguments that Jonathan Wells makes.

(2) I am a medical researcher and have quite a bit of background on this
subject. This is not to say that I’m infallible, because as Wells clearly
demonstrates a biology degree can mean that you can still be wayyy off base.
Still, I would like to point out that I have some knowledge of the subject.

Wells’ book is a product of someone who has little or no understanding of
the subject matter. A perfect example is his discussion on homology. Wells
tries to show that the argument for evolution is a circular one because, he
says, evolutionists use analogous structures as support for evolution and
vice versa. But the thing is, we biologists don’t use JUST homologous
structures as evidence for evolution. There’s a whole lot of evidence that
is taken into account including genetics, biochemical systems and
comparative embryonic analysis.

…[snip]…

The theory of evolution has helped us to better understand the world around
us, including how/why bacteria adapt to antibiotics and how we can fight
avian flu. Without it, I know that the work that I and countless others do
would not have any meaning. Modern biology has given us a lot and evolution
provides the framework for it all.

If you think this book is right and evolution is a work of fiction, then
just be glad that your doctor knows better. We need more trained biologists
in this country to help keep our world healthy and I fear works like this
one will deter young people from becoming productive scientists.
*****************************************

Curious, I looked up Ian R. Peters on the University of Colorado-Boulder web site (I found him here). He’s a 5th year senior (i.e., undergraduate) in biological sciences and philosophy.

Isn’t Darwinism wonderful? It empowers someone who has not yet earned a bachelor’s degree to call himself a “medical researcher” and tell Jonathan Wells — with a Ph.D. in biology and twenty years of experience in medical laboratories — that he has “little or no understanding of the subject matter.”

But Darwinism doesn’t merely empower. It also nourishes self-esteem. It’s why we desperately need courses in evolutionary logic:

Read More ›

Check out SALVO: http://www.salvomag.com. It’s hard-hitting and in-your-face without being ponderous. I love the “fake” ads, like The Center for Human Enhancement’s ad that features a stylized human head with the caption “be perfect” and the recommendation to “visit upgrademe.com.” Denyse O’Leary as well as other allies have pieces in the premier issue (autumn 2006), which is now out. The first issue focuses on the materialist reduction of soul.

Here is the archive for the NCSE webpage going back to 1996: http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.natcenscied.org. Let me know if you find anything interesting.

[This just in from a colleague in Kansas:] We are distributing the multicolored brochure titled “Frequently Asked Questions About the New Kansas Science Standards” and explaining the message in more detail: A genuine scientific controversy over evolution clearly exists — its historical character alone guarantees that evolution contains subjective and controversial “narratives” about what happened. However, institutions in positions of authority are denying it. “There is no controversy over evolution! — anyone who would deny it is a religious fool.” They are in a bind, because any substantive discussion of the core issues shows on its face the existence of controversies over what evolution means and how random mutation and natural selection can explain the history of life and macroevolution. Read More ›

Darwin’s tortoise dies http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/darwins-tortoise-aged-176-dies/2006/06/23/1150845377114.html Father time has finally caught up with the world’s oldest animal in captivity. Giant Galapagos tortoise Harriet has died of a suspected heart attack at the ripe old age of 176 on the Sunshine Coast. She was a star attraction at Steve Irwin’s Australia Zoo since the 1980s and even features in the Guinness Book of Records for her longevity. Her history is as colourful as the hibiscus flowers she lovingly munched on. It is believed Harriet was one of three animals naturalist Charles Darwin brought back from his trip to the Galapagos Islands in 1835 and which led to his theories of evolution and natural selection. A few years later, Sir Charles gave them to Read More ›

My last post describes 67 scientific academies around the world weighing in to support evolution. Not to be left behind, the Episcopalian intelligentsia and leadership have just done the same.

Both houses, Bishops and Deputies, of the Episcopal Church General Convention have approved the following resolution. The Episcopal Church is therefore now on record in supporting good science, recognizing that biological evolution is good science, and supporting good science education. And if you believe that, you need your head screwed on straight.

Here is the text of the final version:

* FINAL VERSION – Concurred
Resolution A129
Title: Affirm Creation and Evolution

Resolved, the House of Deputies concurring, That the 75th General Convention
affirm that God is Creator, in accordance with the witness of Scripture and
the ancient Creeds of the Church; and be it further, Resolved, That the
theory of evolution provides a fruitful and unifying scientific explanation
for the emergence of life on earth, that many theological interpretations of
origins can readily embrace an evolutionary outlook, and that an acceptance
of evolution is entirely compatible with an authentic and living Christian
faith; and be it further Resolved, That Episcopalians strongly encourage
state legislatures and state and local boards of education to establish
standards for science education based on the best available scientific
knowledge as accepted by a consensus of the scientific community; and be it
further Resolved, That Episcopal dioceses and congregations seek the
assistance of scientists and science educators in understanding what
constitutes reliable scientific knowledge.

The following explanation for the resolution is not part of the Resolves but
was entered with them so that bishops and deputies would have a context for
the resolution: Read More ›

Do traceable lines of descent exist that might ultimately permit characterization of the genomes of organisms basal to the clades for the highest categories? The answer to this question increasingly appears to be no. Recent work on genomic structures demonstrate that all living organisms are genetic composites: mosaics and chimeras composed of bits and pieces of multiple genomes derived from multiple sources.
…
The base of the universal tree of life appears not to have been a single root, but was instead a network of inextricably intertwined branches deriving from many, perhaps 100 or more, genetic sources. The traditional version of the theory of common descent apparently does not apply to kingdoms as presently recognized. It probably does not apply to many, if not all, phyla, and possibly also not to many classes within the phyla. (from Malcom Gordon’s paper on monophyly)

When Intelligent Design advocates talk to evolutionists concerning the origin-of-life, the standard response is almost always something like “Evolutionary theory says nothing about the origin of life. Whether it was RNA world, or a special act of creation, evolution is an entirely different subject than abiogenesis.” However, I think that this argument is illegitimate. In fact, large-scale evolutionary theory depends thoroughly on specific notions of abiogenesis.

Read More ›

Eryn Brown of The New Republic contacted Bill in regards to whether “there been much other talk about the game[Spore] in ID circles”. Except for the post made here on UD I have not heard much mention of it although that’s most likely due to the game not being available yet. In my reply to Eryn I did note that I thought “there were some comparisons that could be made with Spore. For example, the modular design mentioned by Marc Kirschner can be compared to the animation system of Spore, where various sub-components will dynamically adjust to fit together and function as a new whole.” Read More ›

Well, it started up at the end of May, so it’s not all that new. This goes to show you that conservatives can be just as close-minded as anybody else. What we need now is liberal support for ID and we’ll be all set! Go here to check it out.

Here you can listen to an entertaining anti-ID rant made by Henry Rollins. As you listen to it, remember that Rollins and others like him are only interested in defending the integrity of science. 😆 (HT: Krauze of Telic Thoughts) [Somebody please do a transcript of this and post it here. This is too good not to put into print. –WmAD]

Question: What is a sure sign that a scientific methodology has a big problem?
Read More ›

In a previous post one commenter exclaimed: “…it is perfectly reasonable to say that, since no evolutionary prediction has ever been contradicted by data, that it reasonably won’t be any time soon.” Darwinian theory predicts everything, but only after the fact. It predicts that people will be selfish, and that they will be selfless. Predictions must precede what they predict. Predictions that predict everything predict nothing. This is yet another example of after-the-fact, just-so storytelling, in the grand tradition of Darwinian logic and reasoning.

Scroll to about 30 lines up from the bottom for testimony of what Pianka told preached to his students in Biology 304 at UT Austin last semester. I don’t root for ebola, but maybe a ban on having more than one child. I agree . . . too many people ruining this planet. The student doesn’t root for ebola but it seems clear the student is implying that Professor Pianka does root for it. Though I agree that convervation biology is of utmost importance to the world, I do not think that preaching that 90% of the human population should die of ebola is the most effective means of encouraging conservation awareness. I found Pianka to be knowledgable, but spent Read More ›