Evolution

Some UK opinions for/against ID in The Herald: “It seems to me that the atheistic contributors to the debate on intelligent design ignore one essential point which none of them seems to want to confront. In an examination of the question of our genesis, one fact is ignored: all speculation, analysis and conjecture as to the nature and genesis of our universe is carried out by means of the mind and of the intelligence which mankind possesses. Any conclusion reached is an expression of belief. . . . ” See full Letter Whales provide illustration of the evidence for intelligent design

Judgment Day, a Nova documentary on the Dover case, will be aired next month. In a report about this documentary, one reads the following: “Judgment Day captures on film a landmark court case with a powerful scientific message at its core,” said Paula S. Apsell, NOVA Senior Executive Producer. “Evolution is one of the most essential and least understood of all scientific theories, the foundation of biological science. We felt it was important for NOVA to do this program to heighten the public understanding of what constitutes science and what does not, and therefore, what is acceptable for inclusion in the science curriculum in our public schools.” The phrase that jumps out here is “least understood of all scientific theories.” Read More ›

PZ Myers of Pharyngula has stood up on the side of academic freedom at Baylor University for Robert Marks, II. Baylor episode is getting wider circulation Posted on: September 4, 2007 3:07 PM, by PZ Myer “The story of the Robert Marks debacle has now made the pages of The Chronicle of Higher Education. If the account is accurate, I’m going to do something you’ll only rarely see: I’ll take the side of the creationist. . . . The problem is that Baylor was more than a little ham-fisted in intruding on Marks’ academic freedom. I categorically reject Marks’ whole philosophy and I’d probably call him delusional, but … it is the professor’s job to talk freely about wacky ideas Read More ›

Michael Behe’s The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism, was released this June 2007. Most scientific establishment reviews have been negative. e.g. See Wikipedia. However, now that schools and universities have awakened from summer, Edge of Evolution is running at Amazon.com Sales Rank: #8,778 in Books. Popular in these categories: #3 in Books > Professional & Technical > Engineering > Bioenginering > Biochemistry #4 in Books > Science > Evolution > Organic #9 in Books > Religion & Spirituality > Religious Studies > Science & Religion Behe’s revised edition of Darwin’s Black Box, 2nd Rev. edition 2006, is also doing well: Amazon.com Sales Rank: #5,452 in Books. Popular in these categories: #2 in Books > Science Read More ›

IDers like to portray evolution as being built entirely on an edifice of darwinian natural selection. This caricature of evolutionary biology is not too surprising. Most molecular, cell and developmental biologists subscribe to the same creed, as do many popular science writers. However, it has long been known that purely selective arguments are inadequate to explain many aspects of biological diversity.

Michael Lynch, May 2005

Read More ›

Here is ad hoc, paradigm-driven, rationalistic science at its best: (paraphrase follows) “We know that humans and gorillas had a common ancestor. This finding of an extremely early but largely modern gorilla means that the ancestor must have been much earlier than we thought.” This, along with the Egyptian footprints, ought to be telling a different story, it seems to me. But, in order to see that story you have to adopt an empericalist view of science and be willing to run with the data rather than forcing the data into your paradigm. Read More

CAIRO (Reuters) – Egyptian archaeologists have found what they said could be the oldest human footprint in history in the country’s western desert, the Arab country’s antiquities’ chief said on Monday. “This could go back about two million years,” said Zahi Hawass, the secretary general of the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities. “It could be the most important discovery in Egypt,” he told Reuters. Archaeologists found the footprint, imprinted on mud and then hardened into rock, while exploring a prehistoric site in Siwa, a desert oasis. Scientists are using carbon tests on plants found in the rock to determine its exact age, Hawass said. Khaled Saad, the director of prehistory at the council, said that based on the age of Read More ›

It seems like every other day there’s an article where scientists are discovering the presence of genes thought to have arisen late in evolution to be already present in ancient forms, so-called “living fossils”. In this case what we see in this particular “living fossil”, the shark, is the presence of genetic activity that is associated with ‘digit formation’ in limbed animals. Previously, scientists thought that there was some late phase additional activity which, we may say, was ‘added onto’ fin development. Here’s a quote: “We’ve uncovered a surprising degree of genetic complexity in place at an early point in the evolution of appendages,” said developmental biologist Martin Cohn, Ph.D.” As I say, these types of articles seem commonplace, yet Read More ›

It understandable that scientists make mistakes, but one would hope an entire scientific discipline could get at least one fact right once in a while. My friend Casey Luskin, an attorney and scientist at the Discovery Institute, reports: Paleoanthropologists Disown Homo habilis from Our Direct Family Tree.

Chuckie’s Ghost visits me regularly and let’s me know what’s happening inside the belly of the beast. Here’s the latest: The 2007 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference in London included a “social” occasion in which Richard Dawkins, Steve Jones, and Lewis Wolpert all participated in a “debate” in the London Museum of Natural History. It was not a conventional debate in that the conference organizers had solicited questions from the registrants prior to the conference on the web and then selected individuals to ask their questions. The panel then took turns responding. Although the topic was supposed to be how complexity could arise from evolution, none of the questions ever really got to the point. It will be interesting to Read More ›

Moorad Alexanian makes an interesting comment here: Lee Smolin wrote in his third book, The Trouble with Physics, “He sees string theory as not a theory–only a set of curious conjectures in search of a theory. True, it has great explanatory power, but a viable theory must have more than that. It must make predictions which can be falsified or confirmed.” One can similarly say of Darwinian Theory of evolution, “I see evolutionary theory as not a theory–only a set of curious conjectures in search of a theory. True, it has great explanatory power, but a viable theory must have more than that. It must make predictions which can be falsified or confirmed.” Ken Miller and Richard Dawkins would respond Read More ›

Is it fair to judge scientific theories by their offspring? For the greatest theory ever conceived, Darwinian evolution has begotten an idiot in evolutionary psychology. Here’s Fred Reed on the topic: I find in Psychology Today a piece called “Ten Politically Incorrect Truths about Human Nature,” explaining various aspects of behavior in Darwinian terms. The smugness of that “politically incorrect” is characteristic of those who want a sense of adventure without risk. Nothing is more PC than an evolutionary explanation, unless it explains obvious racial differences that we aren’t supposed to talk about. OK, the authors are going to explain why we mate as we do. “Blue-eyed people,” they write, “are considered attractive as potential mates because it is easiest Read More ›

Coyne contra Behe in The New Republic; Behe contra Coyne at Amazon; and now Coyne contra Behe at TalkReason. The following comment by Coyne caught my eye: Both Richard Dawkins (in his review of The Edge of Evolution in The New York Times) and myself have noted Behe’s remarkable reluctance to submit his claims to peer-reviewed scientific journals. If Behe’s theory is so world-shaking, and so indubitably correct, why doesn’t he submit it to some scientific journals? (The reason is obvious, of course: his theory is flat wrong.) Let me suggest another reason: Coyne is wrong and doesn’t want Behe upsetting his applecart.

Perhaps I’ve been too hard on the NCSE, always referring to the group as the National Center for Science Education Selling Evolution and questioning the organization’s integrity and purpose. So, to make amends, I’m helping to circulate this advertisement for a position they are trying to fill. Note the paragraph in bold. I expect many who read this blog would be qualified to fill this position. Help wanted The National Center for Science Education, a non-profit organization that defends the teaching of evolution in the public schools, seeks candidates for a position in its Public Information Project. Staff members in the Public Information Project provide advice and support to local activists faced with threats to evolution education in their communities. Read More ›