I’ve been meaning to post this to give the Uncommon Descent community a chance to respond to an essay by Jack Krebs. Jack Krebs is president of a militant pro-Darwin organization in Kansas, and he writes in ID Moving On in Fighting the Culture War:
Read More ›
Check out Jeffrey K. McKee’s book The Riddled Chain. McKee, as you might recall, stood in the way of Bryan Leonard completing his dissertation work at Ohio State University (blogged here). As Jonathan Wells noted in his Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, “Bryan Leonard is a high school teacher who for the past few years has been working on a Ph.D. in science education. His dissertation research focused on these questions: When students are taught the scientific data both supporting and challenging macroevolution, do they maintain their beliefs over time? What empirical, cognitive, and /or social factors influence students’ beliefs? . . . Although Leonard had gone through normal procedures and received proper approval to conduct research, OSU professors Brian McEnnis, Steve Rissing, and Jeffrey McKee accused Leonard of ‘unethical’ conduct, primarily on the grounds that his research was predicated on ‘a fundamental flaw: there was no valid scientific data challenging macroevolution.’ Leonard’s research, they claimed, involved ‘deliberate miseducation of these students, a practice we regard as unethical.’†(pp. 189-190)
Regarding Leonard’s graduate thesis advisors, Glenn Needhman and Robert Disilvestro, McKee wrote in an e-mail:
“DiSilvestro, Needham have become viewed as parasitic ticks hiding in the university’s scalp, who just got exposed by a close shave. I learned in Boy Scouts to twist the ticks when taking them out, so their heads don’t get embedded in the skin. Others prefer burning them off. What fate awaits OSU’s ticks remains to be seen.”
A colleague of mine collected a number of interesting quotes from McKee’s book, especially on the relation between evolution and materialism. Read More ›
Here is the latest: Around the US, and around the world, intelligent design is in the college classroom. 100+ universities and colleges listed as including intelligent design in their class plans. Universities are investigating intelligent design analytically and synthetically. Biology, physics, philosophy of science, philosophy, politics, and religion classes are evaluating the research and publications of ID theorists and scientists. Below is our confirmed list of classes, some of which are reoffered, some not. Classes listed here are not necessarily strictly about intelligent design, but they do have discussion, assignments, and/or a unit on intelligent design. (more)ÂÂ
Gil Dodgen, who is a concert pianist (as well as a present, former, and possibly late hang glider), offered some useful thoughts on this pop sci amusement by Drake Bennett in the Boston Globe on the alleged origin of music.
The evolutionary benefits of our affinity for food (nutrition) and sex (procreation) are easy enough to explain, but music is trickier. It has become one of the great puzzles in the field of evolutionary psychology, a controversial discipline dedicated to determining the adaptive roots of aspects of modern behavior, from child-rearing to religion.
One thing I want to draw attention to is that this story actually backs away from uncritical acceptance of the claims of evolutionary psychology.
Yes. Evo psycho is described above as “a controversial discipline”, rather than as “the latest in scientific understanding of our origins.” Hmmmm. (Well, of course, evo psycho should be described as a controversial discipline at best, but whodathunk that the pop sci media would get around to considering the possibility that it is?
The main problem with evo psycho is that its subject, like that of exobiology , has never been observed. Its subject is early humans but we only know modern humans. (Simply living under primitive conditions is not pixie dust and will not turn a modern human into a Pleistocene caveman; it would merely demonstrate that no evolution took place.)
Better still, an actual skeptic was interviewed for the Boston Globe story. That’s not usual, so let’s enjoy it: Read More ›
While we are on the subject of media/new media, here’s an interesting account of legacy mainstream media (LMSM) spin on an issue unrelated to the ID controversy – US immigration policy.*
The chosen example merely shows that LMSM can slant any controversy as long as everyone who has a say on the news desk is absolutely convinced about who the winners will ultimately be.
In LMSM, such stories usually get framed as a black and white morality play. On the ID issue, for example, doubts about Darwinism – of whatever kind – are treated like this: Bad or irrelevant “religion” attempts takeover of good and useful “science.”
Okay, so go be a profane, beer-swilling unbeliever somewhere if you like. But if you dare to wonder whether school kids should be told some of the textbook stretchers and fudgies, you are one disloyal bunny. It’s bad enough that you even know that the books are full of stretchers and fudgies , where Darwinism is concerned.
Next thing we hear, you will be handling diamondback sidewinders for Jesus way down deep in some East Carolina swamp** …. Hey, you read your fate here first.
This situation is not new. Doubts about Freudianism were routinely framed, years ago, as evidence of psychological problems, and doubts about Marxist economics were not tolerated from people who ate macaroni and cheese in order to pay off a mortgage. There is no middle ground or alternative viewpoint in a morality play.
What’s new is the challenge created by the new media, which empower alternative viewpoints like no other has ever done. To see why, consider what, precisely, is changing.
The blogosphere, the Web, and e-mail have undermined the newsgathering function of major media as such. They are not needed the way they used to be. Read More ›
Young readers do not want to rely on a god-like figure from above to tell them what is important, and they certainly do not want news presented as gospel. The media world can no longer lecture; it must become a place for conversation. – press lord Rupert Murdoch, Chairman, News Corporation, quoted as part of the advertising for a conference on the growth and importance of the blogosphere (January 29–31, 2007). Now, say what you want about Murdoch, he made money in media. Darwinists profess ongoing amazement that the public does not just gasp and obey when Darwin lobbies huff that there are no reasonable, science-based objections to Darwinism. They clearly do not grasp what Murdoch is saying. Pronouncements from Read More ›
This editorial from the Akron Beacon Journal – against allowing any student to know that Darwinism could be questioned on factual grounds – is an interesting bit of social history because it is complete boilerplate, beginning to end. You can deduce a large proportion of the pieties of middle-class Americans (courts are right, professional bodies are right, organizations of “concerned scientists” are to be trusted … well, even when they are not right or trustworthy, they are actually right and trustworthy because it is NEVER right to allow oneself to be disturbed by thinking that they might be wrong or untrustworthy …. ) An intriguing fact about the times we live in is that, in my experience, the people who Read More ›
In Illusion of Knowledge I and II we discussed epistemological categories. In particular, we analyzed what it means to “know†and whether there is a difference that makes a difference between scientific conclusions supported by “direct†observations and scientific conclusions based upon inference. We also discussed how certain we have to be about a conclusion before we can say that we “know†it is true. We used the Standard Model of cosmology (expanding universe, Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy) as the launching point for our discussion. I have always been careful to say that it is not my purpose to disparage the Standard Model. This is an exercise in epistemology (about which I have something to say), not cosmology Read More ›
SEPTEMBER 29, 2006 – 7PM USF SUN DOME DARWIN or DESIGN?  On September 29, 2006 at 7PM, the debate about Darwinian Evolution continues as well known speakers on the topic attempt to further ‘resolve the conflict.’ This event will occur at the University of Southern Florida (USF) Sun Dome. Get your tickets now!! Featured speakers include Dr. Michael Behe – Biologist and author of “Darwin’s Black Box” – and Dr. Jonathon Wells – Biochemist and author of “Icons Of Evolution.” Both are experts on the current debate regarding Darwinian Evolution and the Intelligent Design Movement.  This event is sponsored by Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) ( www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.org). PSSI is dedicated to educating the public on the inadequacy Read More ›
Eminent evolutionist Jerry Coyne has a piece in the Times Literary Supplement (here) in which he urges us to turn the penetrating glare of empiricism on all claims (not just the claims of science). Curiously, in the same article he implies that Darwinism is not only unimpeachably true, but that only by accepting it can we save the planet.  The article is a strange mixture of oil and water, empiricism and dogma. Coyne begins by discussing Marx, Freud and Darwin, whom, he says, many consider to be the preeminent thinkers of their time. It is a commonplace that the former two have now been thoroughly debunked, yet it does not seem to occur to Coyne that the same may happen Read More ›
This is in regard to the Pharyngula thread where PZ Myers bashes Ken Miller. I think it’s been made clear by Bill and Denyse what’s a bad atheist. In reading the comments on Myers’ screed a person named “plunge” demonstrates what a good atheist thinks and relates it to science. Plunge asserts he is an outspoken atheist but he sure sounds like an outspoken agnostic to me. I find it a little irritating that atheist and agnostic are commonly conflated because that throws me into the atheist camp when in reality I am simply unsure one way or the other – in a no man’s land between theists and atheists. Read More ›
Bill Dembski noted that the inimitable PZ Myers has attacked Ken Miller, anti-ID Catholic poster boy, for thinking there is any evidence for theism.
I agree that PZ is having another junior moment, but it is nonetheless instructive.
National Center for Science Education’s Eugenie Scott, who knows more about retailing crude Darwinism to middle American shopaholics than anyone, has insisted, “One clergyman with a backward collar is worth two biologists at a school board meeting any day!”
 (Yes, she really apparently told Science and Theology News that in April, 2002. I would be curious to know if she would say the same thing in the same terms today.)
When I first started writing By Design or by Chance?, my recent book on why there is an intelligent design controversy in North America today, I found constitutional lawyer Phillip Johnson’s comments on theistic evolution (the point of view Miller espouses) illuminating. Johnson is the godfather of the ID guys, but don’t let that deter you. He wrote that it is culturally okay to say
As a Christian, I believe by faith that God is responsible for evolution.
but
It is emphatically not acceptable to say, “As a scientist, I see evidence that organisms were designed by a preexisting intelligence, and therefore other objective observers should also infer the existence of a designer.”
because
The former statement is within the bounds of methodological naturalism, and most scientific naturalists will interpret it to mean nothing more than ‘It gives me comfort to believe in God, and so I will.’ The latter statement brings the designer into the territory of objective reality, and that is what methodological naturalism forbids.
Miller, alas, seems to have drawn some conclusions from believing in God that do not amount simply to joining a mob against ID – hence genuine Darwinists attack him.
But what intrigued me most about Johnson’s analysis was his thoughts on the hatred directed against ID biochemist Michael Behe. Read More ›
Here are some of my favorite quotes from Judge Jones regarding the Dover trial (page numbers are from his Dover decision). In the next few weeks I expect they will be put to good use for the public’s general amusement. Stay tuned. CAPTION: Praise Darwin Or Else… QUOTE: “We will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from … requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution.†(p. 138) CAPTION: Where’s The Peer Review? QUOTE: “Intelligent design is not supported by any peer-reviewed research, data or publications.†(p. 87) CAPTION: Nobody Better Than Me QUOTE: “No other tribunal in the United States is in a better position than are we to traipse into this controversial area [of intelligent Read More ›
The term “blinders†is tossed about a lot, but some folks may not know what they are. Blinders are a part of a horse’s or a mule’s tackle. They are small blocks of leather that fit on the outside of the animal’s eyes to keep it from looking to its side. Their purpose is to keep the animal looking only to the front so that it will not be startled or distracted by things that would otherwise be in its peripheral vision. Here is a picture of a horse wearing blinders.  ÂÂ
The purpose of physical blinders leads easily to the metaphor of intellectual blinders. A person is said to be “wearing blinders†if he is incapable of understanding another person’s point of view.ÂÂ
A couple of days ago I said that some scientists’ metaphysical commitments make them blind to data that disconfirms their theory. My comment was met with howls of indignation by commentators who insisted that “science†is pristine, self-correcting and ideology-free. Nonsense. Everyone’s perception is colored by their preconceived ideas about the nature of reality (including mine by the way). Part of the human condition is that, to one degree or another, we all wear blinders. The solution is not to deny the obvious, but to embrace it. Only when we admit that we have a blindside, that our perceptions are influenced by our presuppositions, will we be able to keep our minds open enough to perhaps turn our head and see what was previously masked by our blinders.ÂÂ
Darwinists are not exempt from this phenomenon. Their views are colored by their metaphysical commitments just like all of the rest of us. This does mean they are necessarily bad people. It just means they are people.ÂÂ
Stephan Jay Gould, bless him, was especially good at recognizing this phenomenon in his fellow evolutionists. Here are some gems from his writings:ÂÂ
 Read More ›
Here is a portion from John Wilson’s review of Randy Balmer’s THY KINGDOM COME: HOW THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT DISTORTS THE FAITH AND THREATENS AMERICA–AN EVANGELICAL’S LAMENT (go here). Balmer follows the familiar pattern of someone who started out going to conservative Christian schools, did well, went on to high-profile secular schools, retained the vestiges of his faith but takes as his greatest pleasure in life knowing that he is so sophisticated that none of his secular colleagues will ever call him to account for the offense of the Gospel. By the way, if you are curious about my sartorial habits, you can look at the debate here. The Dembski-Silver debate was discussed on this blog here.
What really disappointed me about Balmer’s book was the absence of the depth, the nuance, the texture, the alertness to human complexity that made his portrait of the aging Jimmy Swaggart so powerful. Consider, for example, the chapter in Thy Kingdom Come entitled “Creationism by Design,” which includes Balmer’s account of a debate between William Dembski, one of the leading figures in the Intelligent Design movement, and the distinguished molecular biologist Lee Silver. Here is how Balmer introduces Dembski:
 Read More ›