Evolution

[From a colleague:] There is a wonderful critique of Darwinism by the French zoologist Remy Chauvin. It is called Le darwinisme, ou La fin d’un mythe [Darwinism, or The end of a myth] (Editions du Rocher, 1997). It is even better, especially for polemical purposes, than the book by Chandebois, previously discussed on this blog. It includes close discussion of many specific cases, with calm and crushing objections (Kettlewell’s moths do not land on the trunks in nature, but under the leaves; Batesian “mimics” also occur among species, both of which are perfectly palatable to predators; etc., etc.). He also gives many statements of Darwinian reasoning that are so logically faulty and empirically vacuous that they would never be publishable Read More ›

With questions so basic as these, why is evolutionary theory taught with such confidence in our textbooks? THE QUESTIONS The Top 25 Essays by our news staff on 25 big questions facing science over the next quarter-century. http://www.sciencemag.org/sciext/125th > What Is the Universe Made Of? > What is the Biological Basis of Consciousness? > Why Do Humans Have So Few Genes? > To What Extent Are Genetic Variation and Personal Health Linked? > Can the Laws of Physics Be Unified? > How Much Can Human Life Span Be Extended? > What Controls Organ Regeneration? > How Can a Skin Cell Become a Nerve Cell? > How Does a Single Somatic Cell Become a Whole Plant? > How Does Earth’s Interior Read More ›

Orthodox Jews in S. Florida join debate on evolution vs. intelligent design
By James D. Davis
Religion Editor
December 12, 2005

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cdesigndec12,0,3441548.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

Evangelical Christians aren’t the only ones making evolution and intelligent design a cause célèbre: Leading Orthodox Jews have the topic in their sights as well — some of them gathering for a three-day conference this week in South Florida. Read More ›

In elementary logic, from premises P1: If A, then B and P2: A, one may conclude B. This rule is called modus ponens. Evolutionary logic now has a particular application of this rule which it is attempting to foist on science as a whole. It runs as follows: P1: If a claim or idea seems to support ID, then it needs to be rejected even if previously you thought there were good arguments to support it. P2: The claim or idea seems to support ID. C: Therefore it needs to be rejected regardless of the sound reasons you previously thought supported it. Here’s an example. According to Jack Cohen, Peter Ward has now gone back on his Rare Earth thesis Read More ›

[From a paper by one of my students:] According to Darwin’s theory, humans are separated from the animals only by a matter of degrees, not by categories. This is the working presupposition behind the evolutionary ethics of James Rachels. Thus, there can be no fundamental difference between “evil” committed by rhesus monkeys and that committed by the Great Apes –- Homo sapiens. This is where the reductio meets the ad absurdum. To argue that crimes committed by animals and those committed by humans are equivalent does not comport with reality and it does not jive with our experience. While we do have pet cemeteries, we do not have pet penitentiaries. No one incarcerates a Mantis religiosa for the copulatory consumption Read More ›

Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute, responds here to Laurie Goodstein’s piece “Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker” (blogged here). Note his point that “none of the critics quoted in your article supported the theory in the past” — Goodstein gave the impression that these critics had once been sympathetic to ID and then had become disillusioned. No, they were never on board.

December 10, 2005
Questioning Evolution
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/10/opinion/l10design.html?emc=eta1&pagewanted=print

To the Editor:

Contrary to “Intelligent Design Might Be Meeting Its Maker” (Week in Review, Dec. 4), more scientists than ever support intelligent design and criticize Darwinism. A recent European conference on intelligent design – held in Prague and ignored by The Times – attracted 700 attendees, and featured leading scientists from Britain, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as well as the United States. Read More ›

Simon Conway Morris is scheduled to do the 2006-07 Gifford Lectures on the topic “What organic evolution tells us about our place in the universe, not least in terms of religious perspectives and natural theology “: http://www.hss.ed.ac.uk/Admin/Gifford/

Theory of intelligent design making its way into Broward textbooks
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-cbook09dec09,0,6134369,print.story

By Chris Kahn
Education Writer

December 9, 2005

Broward County on Thursday narrowed its choices for high school Biology I textbooks to two finalists, both of which have been under scrutiny by Christian conservatives who want to change the way students learn about the origin of life.

Both have edited passages about evolution theory during the past few years after receiving complaints from the Discovery Institute. The think tank sponsors research on intelligent design, which argues life is so complicated, it must have been fashioned by a higher being. One of the books also has added a short section on creationism.

In the end, Broward teachers will have to decide which book works best based on their individual review of the whole textbooks, which include hundreds of pages of lessons, support materials and suggested activities. Read More ›

Shirley L. Tilghman, Princeton University’s president, happens also to be a molecular biologist. Now she joins the ranks of Cornell’s Hunter Rawlings in attacking ID.

Tilghman criticizes intelligent design
By Matt Davis
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2005/12/09/news/14090.shtml

In a lecture at Oxford University last week, President Tilghman
pointed out potential clashes among science, politics and religion and
defended Darwinian evolution against the challenges presented by
proponents of intelligent design. Read More ›

Twenty years ago: Darwinian biology teacher challenges students with “overwhelming evidence” for evolution, and students who believe in creation/design are left feeling confused and intimidated. The present day: Darwinian biology teacher is forced to expend a lot of energy finding plausible answers to all the challenges that ID-informed students are levying against evolution.

Go here for audio-on-demand and here for podcast. For the wave file of the debate, go here: http://www.audiomartini.com/Shermer_Dembski.wma

HOW THE DEBATE OVER DARWIN HASN’T EVOLVED by Gertrude Himmelfarb The New Republic Online Post date: 12.03.05, Issue date: 12.12.05 . . . Many Victorian clerics found it possible to reconcile not only evolution but natural selection as well with religion, while many secularists had reservations not about evolution but about natural selection. John Stuart Mill, for example, was impressed by the “knowledge and ingenuity” that Darwin brought to bear upon his thesis, but finally decided (as late as 1870) that it “is still and will probably long remain problematical.” Moreover, he added, even if it were proved, it would not be inconsistent with creation. He himself, he said, on the state of the evidence, believed in “creation by intelligence.” Read More ›

Concerning Nicholas Kristof’s NYTimes Op-Ed that appeared yesterday:

[From a colleague:] It is ironic that Mr. Kristoff chose to convey his disdain for the humanities by employing language rather than statistics or flow charts.

He writes that the officers of the Third Reich were steeped in Kant and Goethe,” but they were also whizzes in mathematics, the medical science, natural gas, and the technology of efficient transportation, for without
those four the Holocaust would have had far fewer victims. It is not the latter four that impart to Mr. Kistof his belief that the Third Reich was wrong. In fact, his notion that the humanities are less important than the
sciences is not a scientific judgment, but a philosophical claim about the order of things. Mr. Kristof must rely on that which he despises. If he had studied the humanities well, he would have not made such a freshman
philosophy student mistake. But then again, he writes for the New York Times.

Mr. Kristof writes that “the U.S. has bungled research on stem cells, perhaps partly because Mr. Bush didn’t realize how restrictive his curb on research funds would be.” That’s exactly how the Goethe-Kant reading Nazis would have put it if confronted with criticisms of their use of human subjects to find cures for the powerful. Anti-science in the German 1940s meant you were against fewer lampshades made out of people with names like Goldberg and Einstein. This is what happens when we take the “human” out of humanities and let the cultural barbarians dictate to us what is right and wrong. Read More ›

In the U.S., Darwin still needs defending By MICHAEL RUSE Saturday, December 3, 2005 Page D6 Darwin: Discovering the Tree of Life By Niles Eldredge Norton, 256 pages, $49 I am an English-born Canadian who now lives in Florida. I am here because Ontario universities still fire people for being old. The United States regards ageism as a moral wrong, on a par with sexism and racism. This is one of the many things I find right about the United States, along with Saturday mail delivery and good-quality Sunday newspapers. Yet after a lifetime of studying Americans — I have gone to school with them, I have argued with them, I have had sex with them, and now I live Read More ›