Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community
Category

Intelligent Design

Ken Poppe’s RECLAIMING SCIENCE FROM DARWINISM

Back in June I made a post here at UD that included my foreword to Ken Poppe’s book RECLAIMING SCIENCE FROM DARWINISM (see here). In the post, I did not indicate the book to which it would be a foreword since the book was not yet out and I didn’t want to jeopardize its reception. As it is, the publisher sanitized the foreword. Below the fold is the original as I had intended it.

Let me urge you to get Poppe’s book. It is available at Amazon.com here.

Cover of Reclaiming Science from Darwinism

Read More ›

The Acceptance of Evolution and the Path of Compliance

Here’s an old study that I recall reading about as an undergraduate psychology major. It is about groupthink, those who adopt it and those who don’t. As you read it, ask youself who in the debate over evolution and ID is following the path of compliance and, alternatively, the path of independence (note that the distinction is not quite as neat as pro-ID and anti-ID): “Opinions and Social Pressure” by Solomon Asch http://www.panarchy.org/asch/social.pressure.1955.html

Other problems for Human Evolution, Nachman’s U-Paradox

Cornell geneticist John Sanford pointed out many problems confronting the theory of Darwinian evolution, particularly human evolution. (See: Genetic Entropy ) Many of his arguments were subtle. Among them was his discussion of a somewhat obscure paper: Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans by Nachman.

Nachman writes:

The high deleterious mutation rate in humans presents a paradox.

What Nachman’s paper discusses is the idea of purifying selection (getting rid of bad mutations). If a population on average is receiving 3 deleterious mutations per individual, each female would have to be making 40 offspring to provide sufficent population resources to purge the bad mutations out of the population. But only 3 deleterious mutations per individual might be extremely optimistic. What if we’re dealing with more?
Read More ›

News fix if you can’t sleep

I hope to blog on Larry Arnhart wondering why family values conservatives do not embrace Darwinism tomorrow. Meanwhile, if you need a news fix, go here, here, and here, where I have been posting news and comments from the ID controversy for several days, between stabs at various jobs.

Michael Behe On Falsification

In the DVD Case For A Creator, in the Q&A section, Michael Behe was asked, How would you respond to the claim that intelligent design theory is not falsifiable? Behe responded: The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth. Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well, all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a bacterium, go into his lab and grow that Read More ›

O’Leary’s recent columns of interest : On neuroscience implications/applications of intelligent design

For links to all go here.

1. A recent ChristianWeek column: Faith@Science: The God gene? Spot? Circuit? Okay, maybe a Module?

(Note: This is the column I wrote shortly after finishing my work on The Spiritual Brain, explaining why notions of a God spot, gene, module, or circuit in the brain are completely ridiculous.)

For more go here. Read More ›

Thoughts on recent books on the intelligent design controversy: Some ways to spend your holiday cash

Excerpts from Denyse’s comments on some recent books: Of course, I have forgotten or omitted lots of worthy titles, but fundamentally it was much easier then [five years ago] than now to rhyme off the key titles you would need to read to really keep up with the ID controversy. Today, you need a library shelving cart and a budget to match. Publishers who might have avoided the ID controversy in the past do not seem as afraid to touch it any more. … (Note: Lots of dull rants have been published all across the board, but presumably you, gentle reader, are only interested in hearing about books that could conceivably be of interest to a lay public.) So where Read More ›

The Digital Evidence for Flagellar Evolution

When biological evidence fails to establish Darwinian evolution, go instead for digital evidence. Here at last digital proof positive for the Darwinian evolution of the bacterial flagellum (if Kitzmiller v. Dover wasn’t enough to sink ID, this surely will): For more on digital evolution, check out MSU’s Digital Evolution Lab. For the logic underlying digital evidence for evolution, see my piece Evolutionary Logic.

MacLaurin Institute Lecture Series

For a great, free, downloadable MP3 lecture series visit: http://www.maclaurin.org/mp3_group.php?type=MacLaurin+Campus+Lectures There’s lots of interesting stuff on ID, Darwinism and related topics by such people as Denyse O’Leary, Mustafa Akyol, Michael Behe, Del Ratzsch, John Angus Campbell, Alvin Plantinga, and more.

Don’t fire him . . . Just make his work-situation a living hell

The Scientist reports today on the unfolding Congressional probe into the Sternberg case. The following paragraph caught my attention: NCSE spokesman Nicholas Matzke said his group was not part of an effort to dismiss Sternberg. “A lot of people at the Smithsonian were mad because their journal was dragged into a political issue. We wanted them to focus on the science and not persecute or discriminate against Sternberg on religious grounds,” Matzke told The Scientist. “We advised them not to fire Sternberg,” he said, “and they eventually followed our advice.” My understanding is that the NCSE did everything just short of asking the Smithsonian to fire Sternberg (does the “S” in “NCSE” stand for sleazy?). But hey, let’s not beat Read More ›

The Vise Strategy Revisited

Barbara Forrest, the official historian for the anti-ID side, has a piece of revisionist history in the latest Skeptical Inquirer (see here). It is titled “The Vise Strategy Undone.” Since I’m the inventor of the Vise Strategy and one of the principal targets of her piece, let me offer a few corrections: (1) I wrote up the Vise Strategy for the Thomas More Law Center to assist them in interrogating the expert witnesses on the other side (for the full Vise Strategy go here; by the way, I gave this to the Thomas More people as a freebee). Forrest’s piece suggests that the Vise Strategy was tried and found wanting. In fact, the Thomas More attorneys never implemented it — Read More ›

ID is Dead?

They say ID is dead yet they just can’t stop talking about it on Panda’s Thumb. I counted 21 mentions of “ID” and “Intelligent Design” on just the home page without expansion of any articles or comments. If they believe ID is dead that means the thumbsters are necrophiliacs. Gross. I’ll add that to their growing list of character flaws; The Church Burnin’ Necrophiliac Ebola Boys. But hey, I just kid those fine folks. I understand that as chance worshippers they’re in the business of not letting go of dead ideas. Hey Wesley! Can you spell non sequitur? I knew you could. 😛