Intelligent Design

The mind does not exist – or anyway it cannot cause anything to happen, right? Well, it would be very convenient for materialists if that could be shown to be true.

Here, commenter Magnan writes, in response to my recent post on dealing with Darwinist hate,

Such a deep dynamic could explain, for instance, why parapsychology is nearly as implacably opposed today as in the early days of psychical research, 1870-1900 (at least this is my impression).

Well they have certainly tried to implacably oppose it.

But actually, Magnan, things are changing a little bit – though it took way too long, to be sure. Professional unidirectional skeptics are giving up on trying to disprove the idea that there are no paranormal phenomena.

It’s about time. History lesson: Read More ›

Remember the dark days of vestigal organs? You know, back when there was a list of 180 vestigal organs? Or remember the days of junk DNA – when repetitive DNA, large regions of non-protein-coding DNA, and all sorts of mobile DNA were assumed to be non-functional simply because the investigators had assumed Darwinism rather than design?

And there’s lots more DNA that doesn’t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, “tandem repeats”, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesn’t seem to be used in the body itself. Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. … Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% – considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it. [Copied from Research Intelligent Design which cites: Richard Dawkins (1998) “The Information Challenge.” the skeptic. 18,4. Autumn 1998.]

Well, it seems that those people who “spent earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA” have been the real winners in the past (and likely upcoming) decade of genome research.

In any case, it seems despite the repeatedly failed efforts to assign vestigality to a range of structures, some people keep pursuing the case.

Read More ›

I did a local radio show this morning, on which perceptive host Robert White asked me how I cope with hostility in connection with The Spiritual Brain and other books – trolls, votebots, idle anonymous threats, and such.

I think I rather surprised him by pointing out that I didn’t really care much.

Essentially, I can’t do anything about the fact that science, which was supposed to dramatically confirm atheism (remember when?), hasn’t done anything of the kind. Read More ›

Now it’s personal. 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 ›

Here is a gem for you:   The idea of nanotechnology is founded in the premise that it will be possible to construct machines with atomic scale precision (Feynman, 1961; Drexler, 1981; Drexler, 1986). Biology provides many examples that this is possible; we “merely” need to learn what has been achieved by evolution and copy it. But eventually we must determine what the engineering limitations of molecular machines are. [emphasis mine]   (Thomas D. Schneider. Nanotechnology. )   Here are some examples of scientists attempting to emulate the engineering marvels of ID (Oops! I meant EVOLUTION):     (Small Visions, Grand Designs) I am wondering why evolution has not already produced a bacterial propeller such as the one engineered by Read More ›

It is frustrating for me to see that even most ID proponents are ready to concede a Darwinian explanation for any complex structure which does not seem to be irreducibly complex. If someone could show, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could have been constructed through many gradual improvements, would I find a Darwinian explanation reasonable? Heck no. It seems reasonable only if you assume that random errors are only occurring in the DNA. Gil Dodgen gave a brilliant analogy in a Sept 28, 2006 post at UD: he said that if you really want to simulate evolution with computer programs, you should introduce random errors not only in the string simulating DNA, but also in your entire program, the Read More ›

A commenter quoting George Church on the ribosome in Paul’s thread reminds me of how I came to be on this side of the ID controversy.

For decades I’d uncritically accepted the notion that life could emerge from chemicals bumping together in a primordial soup and that once started it could evolve through mutation and selection into what we see today. In 1991 I read something from the ID camp that, among other things, pointed to some closely related proteins differing by just several point mutations where any of the mutations occurring singly would be fatal and where all of them occurring at once was statistically almost impossible. In other words, there was no path from A to B that natural selection could take. I suspected what they were saying might be true but in 1991 I didn’t have the time to do any due diligence on what was claimed but a seed of doubt about neo-Darwinian evolution had been planted.

Read More ›

It’s not even six a.m. here in EST, and already 230 people have visited the Post-Darwinist (one of my two solo blogs), either to read my nine predictions if ID is true or hear whether it’s true that most Discovery Institute fellows are, like, fundies. Or else to read about the Pope vs. howler monkey stand-ins at an Italian U …

I notice where several Darwinists want me to understand that I am not much good at making predictions. Well, I have news for them. Back in 2001, I predicted that intelligent design would be BIG news by mid-decade, while some Darwinist or other was reshaping neo-Darwinism to fit the facts (retrodiction) or prophesying ID’s death every six months (malediction?). I, meanwhile,  sold a book on the basis of my prediction (By Design or by Chance? Augsburg 2004) and got named as co-author on another one (The Spiritual Brain, Harper One, 2007).  And who was right on the facts? Read More ›

A commenter here remarked that negative predictions that ID makes such as we won’t ever demonstrate an unassisted way that a flagellum could evolve are not valid predictions. Yet I’ve heard Darwinists claim that we won’t find a pre-Cambrian rabbit or human and dinosaur fossils together. Are those then not valid predictions of Darwinian theory? Help me out here. My momma always said what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Was she wrong?

Recently,  this question was sent to Bill Dembski by a TV chase producer: … can you or they provide any samples of things that intelligent design theory has predicted, which researchers have later determined to be true? I gather Dembski sent that guy some predictions, but I’ve been busy, so I didn’t get around to compiling any suggestions till now. Figured I’d post them here. Including Complete series of transitional fossils will not usually be found because most proposed series have never existed. Eventually, researchers will give up on ideologically driven nonsense and address the history that IS there. They will focus on discovering the mechanisms that drive sudden bursts of creativity. Positive prediction: Discovering the true mechanisms of bursts of 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 ›

Looking at a cell is like looking into the future of our own designs. That’s my favorite sentence from The Design Matrix by Mike Gene (a book from which I took copious notes, and am still digesting). But the reason there’s a picture of biologist George Church in this blog entry, not to mention a quote from Church as the title, is the release by editor John Brockman of the transcript of a fascinating roundtable about the nature of life. Held this past August at Brockman’s farm in Connecticut, the roundtable ranges over a wide array of topics, including intelligent design, synthetic biology, the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe, and the effect of the genomics revolution on the Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post StephenB raises some interesting questions: 

{1}Free will requires the presence of a nonmaterial-mind independent of the brain. {2}a non-material mind independent of the brain indicates free will.  . . .  In philosophy, [this type of proposition] is known as a bi-conditional proposition, which means, If A/then B. Also, If B/then A.  Usually, that pattern does not hold in logic, but it does hold here. [If one disavows] the existence of the mind, it is time to make the corresponding assertion about volition—go ahead and reject free will and complete the cycle.  Take the final step and concede that all of our attempts to persuade each other are futile.  We are nature’s plaything, and the laws of nature operating through our “brain” dictate our every move.

Given [the materialist’s] perception of reality, why [does he] bother to raise objections at all [to the proposition that mind exists independently of the brain].  If your world view is true, then [all the commenters] on this blog do what we do only because fate requires it of us. We are, for want of a better term, determined to think and act as we do.  Since we have no volitional powers, why do you appeal to them?  Why raise objections in an attempt to influence when it has already been established that only non-material minds can influence or be influenced? Why propose a change of direction when only intelligent agencies have the power to do that?  Since brains are subject to physical laws of cause and effect, they cannot rise above them and, therefore, cannot affect them.  Brains cannot influence brains.  Why then, do you ask any of us to change our minds when, in your judgment, there are no minds to change?

Read More ›

I thoroughly enjoyed reading the interviews of Dembski, Gonzalez, and Behe in the recent article here. I wanted to talk about something Gonzalez said in the interview. Specifically the transformation from ETI (Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) optimist to ETI pessimist. I’ve undergone a similar transformation for the same reasons. Indeed, when I received my monthly Scientific American in 2001 with Gonzalez’ “The Galactic Habitable Zone” featured on the cover I was delighted to see that someone was seriously working on filling in the blanks in Drake’s Equation and that the work was important enough to make the cover of my favorite and primary source of what was happening in the world of science. As an avid reader of what’s called “hard” Read More ›