So many media outlets have voted themselves the guardians of the bottom-up theory of life and the opponents of the top-down theory of life. Consistent with their mission, they seem to compete for what they can get wrong about intelligent design or any other idea that insists that mind comes first. Evidence has nothing to do with it. The Post-Darwinist skewers the nonsense.
The Center for Inquiry’s new branch office in DC has issued a “Declaration on Science and Secularism” in which they lament the increasing appeal of ID among the unwashed masses. There’s a simple way for this problem to go away: stop stealing the money of the unwashed masses (in the form of taxes) to underwrite an ideologically driven materialistic conception of science; instead, get your money from secular elites like Paul Allen, George Soros, Charles Simonyi, etc. For the text of the Declaration, go here: http://www.cfidc.org/declaration.html.
“You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.” — Who said it and how does it apply to the ID-evolution controversy?
Chromosomal sex determination in the platypus discovered to be a combination of mammal and bird systems. The resemblance to birds is now more than just superficial. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6568
Here are articles that came out just since last night on the challenge to Darwinian orthodoxy in the UK. It looks as though Truth in Science is causing a media storm. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/11/27/id_blighty http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/learningenglish/newsenglish/witn/2006/11/061127_intelligent.shtml http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2006/11/27/6092 http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,1958138,00.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/28/ncreation28.xml http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/28/ncreation128.xml http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/6187534.stm http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/28/ncreation228.xml http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/10924.html http://www.christiantoday.com/article/intelligent.design.filtering.into.british.schools.as.darwin.debate.intensifies/8526.htm
From Anti-evolutionists raise their profile in Europe in the November 23, 2006 issue of the prestigious scientific journal Nature.
Read More ›
Take a look at Ross McKitrick’s recent remarks on the subject of position statements from professional societies: http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/11/23/should-scientific-societies-issue-position-statements-by-ross-mckitrick He argues against the practice of societies issuing position statements. This has direct application to the ID debate and the public statements issued by the AAAS, NAS, AAS, etc. Here are two particularly insightful paragraphs from McKitrick’s post: Official statements celebrate group think and conformity. They effectively demote members who disagree with some or all of the statement to second-class status within their profession, regardless of the quality of their own individual work or their reasons for disagreement. And they create divisions and alienation within the profession. Having issued a party line, it cannot be a surprise that partisanship emerges, with all Read More ›
Here is my review of Francis Collins’ The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, New York, 2006), with a look at the other reviews. Collins is a snapshot in time: the Christian scientist reassuring everyone that materialist science is no threat – on the very eve of the big blowout. Some might think I haven’t been nice enough to him. Well, if nice is all you want … next time ask Mary Poppins to write a review. Introduction Part One:How genome mapper Collins became a Christian Collins owes his conversion to C.S. Lewis, but he typifies the petering out of Lewis’ legacy. Too many people have relied on Lewis and too few have followed in his Read More ›
Baylor University, which in the past has figured large in the debate over ID (see here), continues to struggle with its Christian identity. Check out the following blog entry by Hunter Baker, and especially comment #5: http://www.southernappeal.org/index.php/archives/2124.
Why Are They So Angry? Granville Sewell There are a lot of articles out there on the web intended to refute my writings on Intelligent Design, but if there is one that isn’t full of anger and personal insults, I haven’t located it yet. Other ID proponents have experienced similar reactions to their writings, and must have also wondered, why are they so angry? I think we all know that the source of this anger is not, as our critics claim, a fear that drawing the obvious conclusions from the scientific evidence for design in Nature threatens the foundations of science. It is clear to me that we will never reach many of these people by simply uncovering more evidence, Read More ›
In this UD thread, Mentok brought up something that, it seems to me, is quintessentially behind the ID versus materialism controversy: Is there, ultimately, any purpose or meaning behind anything, especially our lives?
With thanks to William Lane Craig, the author of Ecclesiastes, and Carl Sagan, I offer the following:
Check this out: The Strange Case of Dr. Darwinist and Mr. Creationist What a hoot! This guy is as dumb as the guy who robs a liquor store and leaves his ID behind. Inspector Clouseau would be proud to have such a proficient protégé. With clumsy enemies like this, who needs friends?
It’s funny how Paul Myers, Richard Dawkins, Eugenie Scott, et al say that evolution isn’t about religion yet you can’t swing a dead cat without hitting one of their rants on religion. But that’s not the point of this article.
I have a problem with these people in that they arbitrarily limit what science can potentially explain. The so called supernatural remains supernatural only as long as there’s no metric by which to measure it. Once a metric is discovered the supernatural becomes the natural.
Paul quotes someone on the virgin birth of Christ saying that it defies everything science has revealed in regard to mammalian reproduction. This is utter dreck. Even (especially!) Myers should know that meiosis is a two stage process wherein the first stage results in the production of two perfectly viable diploid cells. The second stage of meiosis then splits these two cells into four haploid gametes. Interrupting the process at the completion of the first stage results in parthenogenesis. Indeed, there are number of organisms in nature that have lost the second stage of meiosis and now reproduce parthenogenetically. See here for more detail. Moreover, it has also been scientifically established that an XX genome can produce phenotypical male offspring. Morever, while all observed XX males in humans are sterile, pathenogenetic populations can still reproduce sexually if sexual reproduction still exists in the species (Da Vinci Code fans will be happy to know this). While it was widely believed that mammals had completely lost the ability for parthenogenetic reproduction, in 2004 researchers in Tokyo managed to create viable parthenogenetic mice. So Paul, science now reveals that the virgin birth of a human male is quite possible. Put that in your pipe and smoke it. What I want to know now is whether ignorance or dishonesty explains why you’d quote someone who claims the virgin birth of Christ defies everything we know about mammalian reproduction. Neither explanation becomes you of course and it gives me immeasurable delight to put you in the proverbial position of choosing between a rock and a hard place. 😆 Read More ›
I suspect that the “junk DNA” hypothesis was originally made on explicitly Darwinian grounds. Can someone provide chapter and verse? Clearly, in the absence of the Darwinian interpretation, the default assumption would have been that repetitive nucleotide sequences must have some unknown function. Source: University of Iowa Date: November 21, 2006 From http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061113180029.htm Scientists Explore Function Of ‘Junk DNA’ University of Iowa scientists have made a discovery that broadens understanding of a rapidly developing area of biology known as functional genomics and sheds more light on the mysterious, so-called “junk DNA” that makes up the majority of the human genome. The team, led by Beverly Davidson, Ph.D., a Roy J. Carver Biomedical Research Chair in Internal Medicine and UI professor Read More ›
First Richard Dawkins calls Michael Ruse the Neville Chamberlain of the evolution-ID debate. Now PZ Myers attacks Eugenie Scott for being too soft on us. It reminds me of the old joke about fascists in South America after World War II sitting around a table and musing: “Yep, we’re going to do it again, but this time no more Mr. Nice Guy.” What’s next PZ? Internment camps of ID proponents — or do you prefer interment camps? Eugenie Scott in Kansas Key line: “Take off the comfy cardigan, Dr Scott. Scientists have a role to play in our culture, and it’s not as the pleasant, soothing flim-flam artists, mumbling consolation and excuses in return for a donation on the offering Read More ›