Intelligent Design

In a column explaining why Teddy Roosevelt had his flaws as a US Prez (“Choosing the right role model, October 5, 2008”), George Will offers some interesting information: Having read Darwin’s “The Origin of Species” at age 14, and having strenuously transformed himself from an asthmatic child into a robust adult, he advocated “warrior republicanism” (Hawley’s phrase). TR saw virtue emerging from struggle, especially violent struggle, between nations and between the “Anglo-Saxon” race and lesser races. Blending “muscular Christianity,” the “social gospel” — which sanctified the state as an instrument of moral reclamation — and Darwinian theory, TR believed that human nature evolved toward improvement through conflict. Well, that’s classical Darwin fascism, believe it or not (and I don’t). TR Read More ›

What Makes Science ‘Science’? Trainee teachers don’t have a clue, and most scientists probably don’t either. That’s bad news.

So says James Williams, kvetching in The Scientist, 22(10) October 2008, Page 29:

As a science educator, I train science graduates to become science teachers. Over the past two years I’ve surveyed their understanding of key terminology and my findings reveal a serious problem. Graduates, from a range of science disciplines and from a variety of universities in Britain and around the world, have a poor grasp of the meaning of simple terms and are unable to provide appropriate definitions of key scientific terminology. So how can these hopeful young trainees possibly teach science to children so that they become scientifically literate? How will school-kids learn to distinguish the questions and problems that science can answer from those that science cannot and, more importantly, the difference between science and pseudoscience?

And, in “Why the Philosophy of Science Matters” (The Scientist, October 2008), Richard Gallagher follows up, grousing:

You might expect that newly minted science graduates – who presumably think of themselves as scientists, and who I’d thought of as scientists – would have a well-developed sense of what science is. So it’s pretty shocking to discover that a large proportion of them don’t have a clue. At least that’s the case in the UK, going on the evidence of our Opinion author James Williams (“What Makes Science ‘Science’?”). He found that a sizeable proportion of science graduates entering teacher training couldn’t define what is a scientific fact, law or hypothesis.

No, but why should that matter? Gallagher goes on to announce that the reason this ignorance is a problem is that the grads won’t be able to properly diss “climate change deniers, GM modification scaremongers, or creationists.” Read More ›

David Berlinski & Brad Monton vs. Denis Alexander & Larry Krauss on the topic of ID. For details go here: www.st-andrew.com/content/7794_GreatDebate_Email.pdf

Blue: Intelligent Design; Red: Darwinian Evolution; Orange: Scientific Creationism; Green: Theological Evolution Any questions? Source: Google Trends Update: Due to whiny protesters who say Darwinian evolution isn’t fair, I shortened it to evolution. And just to be fair I shortened intelligent design to design.

Steve Fuller offers his thoughts on the removal of Michael Reiss from his position at the Royal Society, and what it means for academic freedom. Fuller believes that the furore over Michael Reiss’s comments signifies a worrying trend that is bad for freedom to do science. He comments further on the Index for Freedom site that. “All theories with the grand explanatory aspirations of creationism or evolutionism are based on worldviews that people have believed for reasons other than their specific scientific payoff. The challenge then for the science educator – especially the science textbook writer — is to demonstrate how such worldviews provide the basis for valid scientific research.” Read more – Steve Fuller – Science shouldn’t shut down Read More ›

Following up on the USA Today fantasy: “All is well in Britain between faith and science … scientists holler for Jesus in pulpits … ” In case anyone wonders how angry the angry god of British science is – against anyone who believes in the existence of another God – read on: In “Blinded by a divine light” (Guardian, September 28, 2008), Harry Kroto, a 1996 Nobelist and part of a cabal who went after sinner Michael Reiss explained, I do not have a particularly big problem with scientists who may have some personal mystical beliefs – for all I know the President of the Royal Society may be religious. However, I, and many of my Royal Society colleagues, do Read More ›

Here’s a textbook example of spin in the legacy media: We are told on the USA Today blog that in Britain all is well in “faith and science” due to “theistic evolution”: While impossible to quantify, a surprising number of prominent British researchers at the pinnacle of their fields, with worldwide reputations in the physical and biological sciences, proclaim their evangelical Christian faith. And they are not perfunctory adherents, merely showing up for Sunday worship; they believe in acting on their beliefs. Some have taken up weekend pulpits. Their roster includes Sir John Houghton, former head of the United Kingdom’s Meteorological Office; Sir John Polkinghorne, a particle physicist, Anglican priest and author of numerous books on science and religion; Sir Read More ›

We’ve all seen the detective films where the forensic scientist is always a source of useful information about the crime, right? I’m a great fan of such films myself, Brit lit P.D. James being one of my favourite mystery stars. For psychological insight, she is rarely matched. However, in real life, if you are accused of a crime to which forensic evidence is relevant, things may be quite different. If you know you are innocent, you might be well advised to pray hard that the forensic team is any help. In “C.S.Oy” in Slate (August 12, 2008) Radley Balko and Roger Koppl reveal, A study of the first 86 DNA exonerations garnered by the Innocence Project estimated that faulty forensic Read More ›

When I read this, I am having Sarah Palin nightmares. I dreamt last night that she was a member of a club where they rode snowmobiles and wore the claws of drowned and starved polar bears around their necks. I have a particular thing for Polar Bears. Maybe it’s their snowy whiteness or their bigness or the fact that they live in the arctic or that I have never seen one in person or touched one. Maybe it is the fact that they live so comfortably on ice. Whatever it is, I need the polar bears. I don’t like raging at women. I am a Feminist and have spent my life trying to build community, help empower women and stop Read More ›

One question: When Brit cleric Michael Reiss, the sinner in the hands of an angry god, got the boot from his Royal Society job for accidental blasphemy against Darwin*, some expressed regret. I wonder how many of those same people would feel anything other than satisfaction at the fate of the Expelled scientists?

Few probably, because, as the Reiss affair demonstrates, it is no longer possible for Darwin’s devotees to think about his theory in a rational way. Words uttered against it cannot be entertained in any context; however, one is still permitted to modestly regret the fate of accidental blasphemers like Reiss.

That attitude becomes characteristic, after a while, of people whose viewpoint none dare challenge. Intellectual freedom means, essentially, their freedom from criticism or challenge.

There was an interesting case of that very thing in Toronto recently – unrelated but instructive:

As Toronto broadcaster and columnist Michael Coren recounts, Heather Mallick, a “largely anonymous journalist, a legend in her own lunchtime”,

… is now the subject of controversy because she called American Republicans “white trash,” said Sarah Palin looked like a porn actress and made repugnant personal comments about the governor of Alaska’s family. She did all this on the CBC website, paid for by public dollars. The content of the diatribe is less Oscar Wilde and more Oscar the Grouch, but it’s become major news in the United States.

… None of this matters very much; what does matter is that once again the Canadian public is obliged to fund this nonsense. (Toronto Sun, 27th September 2008)

Mallick is, in her own humble way, a counterpart of the Brit toffs. She belongs to the unassailable, tax-supported “arts” sector of society, just as they belong to the unassailable, tax-supported “science”sector. Neither she nor they are accountable, as are ordinary mortals.

Now Mallick claimed the protection of “freedom of speech,” which is quite fair except for one thing. As Coren goes on to tell us,

Beyond the abuse of public money, however, is hypocrisy. Last year I was approached by the editor of a newspaper called The Women’s Post and asked if I would write a column for her, providing what publisher Sarah Thomson called “a conservative voice.” She explained that she already had plenty of liberal writers but wanted some balance.**

One of those left-wing writers employed by The Women’s Post was Mallick. When she heard about me being offered a column she became extraordinarily angry and threatened to resign. The good people at The Women’s Post called the enraged journalist’s bluff and it was goodbye to our control freak comrade. So when Mallick’s defenders cry about unfettered expression and the right to offend they ought to know of whom they speak.

It is interesting to see a basic attitude represented in both arts and sciences. What Brit science needs right now is a Sarah Thomson. Guess they better hurry up with those adult human cloning experiments … .

Also just up at Colliding Universes, my blog about competing theories of our universe (not intended to be science fiction; it just sounds that way sometimes): Read More ›

In yet another unexpected finding from the world of comparative genomics a gene that gives a jellyfish its sting is found all over the place. All sorts of explanations are flung at it. Horizontal gene transfer, vertical gene transfer, and convergent evolution were all run up the flagpole to see which garners more salutes. 🙄

Click the link below for a nice jellyfish picture and hotlinks in the references or just read the text below the fold.

How the jellyfish got its sting

From a bacterium, surprisingly.
Amber Dance

Jellyfish may owe thanks to a humble bacterium for their ability to sting prey. Scientists have found that one of the genes necessary for them to sting is similar to a gene in bacteria, suggesting the ancestors of jellyfish picked up the gene from microbes. The research is published this week in Current Biology[1].

“The result was a great surprise,” says developmental biologist Nicolas Rabet of the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France, who led the team.

Read More ›

The following essay was originally Antony Flew’s “Theology and Falsification” that Flew read before the Socratic Club in 1950 in Oxford. C.S. Lewis was the president of the Socratic Club at that time. I replaced all of the “theological” language with “evolutionary” language. It seems very relevant in modern discussions of evolution. By the way, Flew is now a theist, and what convinced him was the intelligent design argument.

Read More ›

In a private forum I recently stated: “It is possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity.”

In response I was asked: Where is the demonstration that “It’s possible for Darwinian processes to generate life of any order of complexity”?

I composed the following in reply:

Read More ›

Science writer and biologist John Timmer recently published an online review of the textbook Explore Evolution, a review which has picked up some play around the web. To gain a sense of the review’s accuracy, consider this: Another PhD the authors found is Christian Schwabe, who apparently has established a career studying a protein called reflexin, along with its relatives. Reflexin? Nope. Not a protein. And not what Schwabe has studied. The rest of the review is at this level, or below. We look forward to replying to Mr. Timmer.

In a visit down under, Lawrence Krauss is busy convincing people that there is no evidence for design in the universe. Notice in this quote he says that if he were able to see organised matter conveying symbolic meaning, then this would, for him,  constitute evidence. “At a time when religion and science are going back to war, and battles over intelligent design and creationism are heating up, new discoveries are seized on by both sides to prove or disprove the existence of God. There are those who say that, while scientific discoveries are pushing evolution further away from religious belief, cosmology is unveiling mysteries that point to the existence of God. Krauss, however, says that is just “wishful thinking”. Read More ›