Evolution

Could Florida’s Darwinian regulations be “evolving” from “fact” to free inquiry? In More on the vote on evolution and Florida’s new science standards Leslie Postal reports that teaching Evolution in schools is now mandated, but officially as the “scientific theory of” Evolution.

Will students now be able to seriously study evolution as “a scientific theory” – with all the testing, probing, and skepticism required by the scientific method? Or will they be Expelled for exercising their unalienable rights to free speech? – that founded the Declaration of Independence (which heads the US Codes Organic Laws) and are preserved by the First Amendment.
In a Special Report on the American Spectator Ben Stein writes::

Read More ›

La Mirada, Calif. — Ben Stein, known for his lead role in the film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off and his Comedy Central show Win Ben Stein’s Money, believes in liberty and truth. In recognition of this, Biola University’s masters in science and religion program will present him with the 2008 Phillip E. Johnson Award for Liberty and Truth on March 27, a month before the release of his major controversial motion picture, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. In his new movie Expelled, Stein wonders whether humans were designed by an intelligent being or whether we were simply the result of an ancient natural accident. In his search for an answer, he discovers an elitist scientific establishment that punishes the scientific proponents Read More ›

The same publisher that brought you DARWIN’S BLACK BOX and THE EDGE OF EVOLUTION (i.e., The Free Press) is paying Richard Dawkins $3.5million for his next book, to be titled ONLY A THEORY? I’m told, however, that other titles are still in the running, including MERELY A HYPOTHESIS MERE DARWINISM (this and the last to attract fans of C. S. Lewis) THE NADIR OF SCIENCE DARWIN’S DEAD IDEA EVOLUTION: THE ILLUSION OF POSSIBILITY DARWINISM DEVOLVING EVOLUTION: THE SENESCENT YEARS $3.5million is a lot of money. The question I have is whether Dawkins still worships exclusively in the temple of Darwin or if he now also attends services at the temple of Mammon.

Discussions of evolution (theistic and materialistic) have too often been cast within a Darwinian framework.  From M. A. Corey’s special pleading for deistic evolution (see his Back to Darwinism [1994]) to the recent sparring match between Robert A. Larmer and Denis O. Lamoureux in a series of exchanges in Christian Scholar’s Review (see issues for fall 2oo6 and fall 2007), discussions are invariably cast within a framework of how much or how little theism Darwinism will admit.  Seldom is Alfred Russell Wallace (1823-1913) ever brought up.  But, in fact, Wallace completely revised the theory he independently founded.  I suggest he did so within a much older Hermetic tradition in science.  What, you ask, does Wallace have to do with Hermeticism?  I’ll admit on its face it appears unlikely. But such a seemingly strained connection is relaxed considerably by seeing Wallace less as an evolutionist-turned-crackpot and more as a prescient thinker himself evolving a teleological view of nature on the one hand and seeing Hermeticism as less a curious exercise in medieval and early modern superstition and more as a viable metaphor for a more integrated worldview on the other.  By re-visioning both we may indeed find the foundation for a historically coherent — certainly a more historically rooted — ID paradigm.

Read More ›

This sort of behavior from Dawkins cannot withstand the light of day. “Sheldrake Exposes Dawkins as Fundamentalist Pseudoskeptic” In a commentary on his website, biologist Rupert Sheldrake recounts his experience in — almost — appearing in The Enemies of Reason, a British documentary written by well-known biologist and public advocate for atheism Richard Dawkins. He describes how he was recruited to appear in the documentary with promises that there would be an opportunity for scientific discussion. But when he tried to engage in such a discussion, both Dawkins and they director made it clear that they were not interested in discussing evidence. The TV programme was intended to debunk, not give a fair view of the scientific evidence: “Richard seemed Read More ›

Experimenters have recently found that genes–whereby they mean particular sequences of DNA–can “find” one another without the intervention of proteins or other factors. It appears to be strictly an effect caused by electrical charges along the DNA strand; the longer the ‘gene’ (that is, sequence length), the greater theapparent ease in ‘finding’ one another. The experimenters feel that this finding is a help for figuring out what happens during homologous recombination.

Here’s part of what they say: The researchers observed the behaviour of fluorescently tagged DNA molecules in a pure solution. They found that DNA molecules with identical patterns of chemical bases were approximately twice as likely to gather together than DNA molecules with different sequences.

Professor Alexei Kornyshev from Imperial College London, one of the study’s authors, explains the significance of the team’s results: ‘Seeing these identical DNA molecules seeking each other out in a crowd, without any external help, is very exciting indeed. This could provide a driving force for similar genes to begin the complex process of recombination without the help of proteins or other biological factors. . . .’

The article from ScienceDaily is here.

I have an OOL question: This study strongly suggests that similar DNA sequences have a preferential attraction for one another. And the longer the similar sequence, the greater the attraction. If that is the case, then, if a particular ‘gene’ began to ‘replicate’, wouldn’t the replicated ‘genes’ congeal together?

Read More ›

Because of a prediction, a very strong prediction, I made on another thread, I’ve had reason to look into just what has been happening to Darwin’s finches way off on the Galapagos Islands.

Here is a paper published last year in Science Magazine by the Grants, experts in Darwin’s finches. I looked at their paper, looked at their data, and have come to the conclusion that what I predicted as the ultimate explanation to changed beak sizes is the more reasonable interpretation of the data they present.

But before we even get to the data, here’s a remark from a National Geographic website review of the article that supports my basic position:

“ Researchers from New Jersey’s Princeton University have observed a species of finch in Ecuador’s Galápagos Islands that evolved to have a smaller beak within a mere two decades.
Surprisingly, most of the shift happened within just one generation, the scientists say.”

The shift happened in ONE year? What kind of population genetics are at play here?

Well, to the data:
Read More ›

“The energy in the ATP molecule powers all biological processes. Thus, the synthesis of ATP is essential for life.” Sir. John Walker, The ATP Synthase Group, MRC Dunn Human Nutrition Unit ATP Synthase has been frequently discussed at Uncommon Descent including Intelligent Engineering or Natural Selection 15 July 2006 “Our job is to follow the money, track and document the flow of funds, and thereby help prove the underlying criminal activity.” Eileen Mayer, Chief, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division I propose that one of the most important concepts in Intelligent Design vs evolution is to “follow the energy trail“. This will be especially important in examining the origin of life. Energy processes are central to design of dynamic systems. Read More ›

As you read this article from the Washington Post, ask yourself how far such research would get without enzymes and a host of other materials “borrowed” from existing life-forms. “From scratch” properly should mean “made only with chemicals available in a realistic prebiotic environment.” That’s not what we’re dealing with here. And even if we were getting back to chemicals available in a realistic prebiotic environment, could the same be said for the investigator inteference of Craig Venter and his colleagues? Wouldn’t it be safer to say that they are acting as intelligent designers and not as mere accelerators of existing blind evolutionary processes? Synthetic DNA on the Brink of Yielding New Life Forms By Rick Weiss | Washington Post Read More ›

The case of Nathaniel Abraham — a biologist who does not “believe” in evolution, got fired for it, and is now suing his erstwhile employer — is getting some play in the press (see Boston Globe and Chronicle of Higher Education). The question this raises is whether it is legitimate to fire someone who knows all that he needs to know about evolution to successfully practice his discipline but still does not believe in evolution. More generally, to be a member of the guild, do you have to believe something that you are capable of successfully applying? One of the commenters at the Chronicle of Higher Education remarked that you can’t continue to employ a mathematician who believes 1 plus Read More ›

* Can or should the State of Texas remain neutral on origin theories? * Can politicians enforce such a principle? * Would remaining neutral violate the First Amendment? Consider the following recent events that offer a remarkable contrast to the case of denying tenure to astronomer Gonzalez: ——————– State science curriculum director resigns Move comes months before comprehensive curriculum review.Click-2-Listen By Laura Heinauer AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF Thursday, November 29, 2007 “The state’s director of science curriculum has resigned after being accused of creating the appearance of bias against teaching intelligent design. Chris Comer, who has been the Texas Education Agency’s director of science curriculum for more than nine years, offered her resignation this month. Chris Comer is accused of misconduct, insubordination. Read More ›

While I was growing up during the 1950’s and 1960’s the word “scientific” was bandied about with abandon. Anything that was labeled “scientific” was immediately given credibility, because of the tremendous achievements of the hard sciences like mathematics, chemistry, physics, and engineering. There were phrases like “better living through chemistry” in advertisements. When I became interested in games-playing artificial-intelligence research I found books with titles like Scientific Checkers. In the 20th century the meaning of the word science took on almost the equivalent of the meaning of the word holy. Anything that was scientific was good and true, by definition. Anything that was unscientific was suspect at best, and probably the result of ignorance and nefarious intentions at worst. In Read More ›

Below is a fascinating report in the NYTimes about a long-retired professor who found that his work was being cited by “creationists” and THEREFORE decided to retract it. But, as an attorney friend points out, the very concept of “retraction” is inapplicable here. A retraction is something the original author is entitled to do ONLY IF he has discovered, by re-examining his original data or reasoning or mathematics, that it was flawed. That’s not what happened here. Instead, we have a situation in which — if we take the scientist (Homer Jacobson) at face value — later work by other people implies that the earlier work was wrong for some other reason. The proper action in such a case is Read More ›

In Kitzmiller et al vs Dover, the issue over whether or not Darwinian Evolution could be allowed critical evaluation by students, rather than be presented as established fact, was settled once and for all. Furthermore, any consideration of an alternate theory was off the table. All across the land, scientists cheered, since at least for now, science had been saved from an ‘assault by religion’. Just after the decision was handed down, Ohio’s State Board of Education in a 9 to 8 vote kept with their lesson plan, saying in effect, “go ahead and sue us” [Toledo Blade Op Ed 1/14/06]. Although many school districts had been considering broadening their standards to allow a more open discourse, many shelved their Read More ›