Intelligent Design

If there’s a Nobel Prize for alarmist nincompoopery physicist Herbert Kroemer deserves it. Over on Panda’s Thumb they’re trumpeting this article with its extraordinarily hyperbolic opening claim by Kroemer The Theory of Intelligent Design, and other attacks on the science of biological evolution, are not merely attacks on the concept of evolution, but attacks on science itself — all of science. No Herb, ID only attacks bad science and only a rather restricted bit of that in that we attack the claim that evolution is understood to be an unguided, unplanned process as 38 of your Nobel brethren declared in a letter to Kansas. Pray tell, Herb. Exactly what repeatable test demonstrated that all of evolution over the course of Read More ›

Over on Telic Thoughts Jack is asking about ID’s position on common descent here, here, and here. I’m going to assume this is an honest question.

ID has no position on common descent.

ID is the theory that certain patterns in nature can be best explained by intelligent agency.

Read More ›

36 ID critics were asked to answer the question below the fold. Within 27 minutes of receiving the poll Wesley Elsberry contacted everyone he thought might’ve received the poll advising them how to answer it. Wesley, for those of you who don’t know, is a prominent member of the National Center for Selling Evolution Science Education. The NCSE is an organization the U.S. Office of Special Counsel says conspired with the Smithsonian Institution to discredit Rick Sternberg in response to Sternberg allowing an ID sympathetic paper to be published in a biology journal connected with the Smithsonian.
Read More ›

We often hear neoDarwinian narrative apologists tell us that they would be hamstrung in conducting their research if they didn’t know the neoDarwinian story was true. Au contraire says NAS member Phil Skell and 70 eminent researchers he asked about it recently. Read on below the fold…
Read More ›

[From a biologist colleague:] Ross and Pawlina’s histology textbook (2006; ISBN 0781750563) demonstrates a remarkable ignorance of genetics (it’s otherwise a good text) in its discussion of the parietal cells in the stomach (which are the cells that make hydrochloric acid):

“Recently, it has been hypothesized that parietal cells may have originated from a bacterium called Neurospora crassa (TJ: it’s actually a fungus) that previously existed in a symbiotic relationship with the cells of the human stomach. The basis for this hypothesis is that the human proton pump (H+/K+ ATPas) found in parietal cells bears a strong genetic similarity to proton pumps found in this bacterium. The bacterial DNA is thought to have been translocated and subsequently incorporated into the nucleus of the stem cells, probably with the help of a virus.”

This seemed awfully bizarre, so I found the abstract for the original article, pasted below. Such a scenario seems to be impossible. It’s one thing for a microorganism to exist in a symbiotic relationship with the host organism. However, for such a horizontal gene transfer to take place, the DNA would have to be transferred to the gonads if the gene would be passed along to subsequent generations.

I guess that’s what happens when you assume that sequence similarity automatically means a common ancestry (of the gene). A more likely scenario is that both cells require a protein with the same function so they have a similar sequence by design.

Once again, an ID perspective seems much closer to reality than the Darwinian (Lamarckian?) just-so stories. Read More ›

. . . Everyone, it seems, has a problem with peer review at top-tier journals. The recent discrediting of stem cell work by Woo-Suk Hwang at Seoul National University sparked media debates about the system’s failure to detect fraud. Authors, meanwhile, are lodging a range of complaints: Reviewers sabotage papers that compete with their own, strong papers are sent to sister journals to boost their profiles, and editors at commercial journals are too young and invariably make mistakes about which papers to reject or accept. Still, even senior scientists are reluctant to give specific examples of being shortchanged by peer review, worrying that the move could jeopardize their future publications. . . . MORE [See also Frank Tipler’s article on Read More ›

Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved or defended is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one or more of the premises. It is a type of circular reasoning in which the truth of what one is trying to prove is assumed from the outset. One encounters a lot of question-begging arguments in defense of blind-watchmaker evolutionary theory.

Question-begging reasoning can appear in unexpected places…
Read More ›

This editorial opinion reminded me of a conversation I was having with a colleague the other day about how completely misunderstood the concept of Irreducible Complexity can be to some people. When folks hear the word “complexity” they naturally assume the concept applies only to complex systems – such as the New York City economic system referenced in the article. In his example, the author claims IC is “an empty idea” because removing one business from the NYC economy does not render it non functional as IC predicts. Silly man. Viewing IC through the blinders of an extremely complex system that in fact is not IC to begin with and using that as a demonstration that IC is bogus is Read More ›

The University of California is being litigated against by the Association of Christian Schools and Calvary Chapel Christian School of Murrieta, CA for religious discrimination. See here and here. Given the confusion over the scientific status of ID and it’s incorrect conflation with creationism, how do you think this upcoming judgment might effect the teaching of ID (or not) in high schools? Is it acceptable that the force of law prohibits private schools from teaching their beliefs in addition to those driven by secular standards lest their graduating students be rejected by public universities?

Wisconsin legislator, university profs want ban of Intelligent Design in public schools Feb 8, 2006 By Art Toalston Baptist Press MADISON, Wis. (BP)–In an unprecedented political move to protect evolution, a Wisconsin state representative -– backed by 13 professors from the University of Wisconsin -– has introduced a bill that could ban the teaching of Intelligent Design and creationism in the state’s public schools. MORE

Here at last is Kansas City’s singing sensation the Mutations performing “Overwhelming Evidence”: www.uncommondescent.com/videos/Overwhelming_Evidence.wmv OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE (to the tune of “Ain’t No Mountain High Enough,” adapted by Jonathan Wells) Listen, people Evolution’s true We can promise you, Cause we’ve got evidence, people. You say our textbooks lie, But only in your eyes, Cause you’re creationists, While we are scientists. At the end of the day, The truth is what we say ­ Cause we’ve got Overwhelming evidence, Overwhelming evidence, Overwhelming evidence ­ To prove that our theory’s true. Oh, the peppered moths Aren’t where we thought It’s a big mistake And the photos are fake. We know it’s unreal, But it’s no big deal ­ Cause we’ve got Overwhelming evidence, Read More ›

When crop circles were first encountered no one seriously believed they weren’t intelligently designed. Why? Because no known or reasonably possible natural (natural defined as no intelligent agency involved) sequence of events could adequately explain how they were formed. Read More ›

Here is the proposed Wisconsin bill defining science: Wisconsin_Bill. Ask yourself what the effect would be if the adjective “natural” were removed from the bill.

Approximately 15 UW-Madison faculty attended the press conference at which this bill was announced, including the following:

Professor Michael M. Cox, assistant Chair of the Department of Biochemistry at UW-Madison
Rick Amasino, Professor of Biochemistry, UW-Madison
Alan Attie, Professor and assistant chair of Biochemistry, UW-Madison
Marv Wickens, Professor of Biochemistry, UW-Madison
Elliott Sober, Professor of Philosphy, UW-Madison
Ronald Numbers, Professor, History of Science, UW-Madison
Julie Mitchell, Assistant Professor of Biochemistry and Mathematics, UW-Madison
Dr. David Baum, Professor of Botany, UW-Madison

For the actual press release, go here.

Note that Ron Numbers and Elliott Sober have been prominent ID critics. Ron was on the review committee that deep-sixed Baylor’s Polanyi Center (go here). And while Ron did endorse my book THE DESIGN REVOLUTION (go here), more recently he has taken to comparing ID with Nazi and Stalinist manipulation of science, as in his endorsement for Chris Mooney’s THE REPUBLICAN WAR ON SCIENCE: Read More ›

I’m offering $1000 to the first teacher in Wisconsin who (1) challenges this policy (should it be enacted) by teaching ID as science within a Wisconsin public school science curriculum (social science does not count), (2) gets him/herself fired, reprimanded, or otherwise punished in some actionable way, (3) obtains legal representation from a public interest law firm (e.g., Alliance Defense Fund), and (4) takes this to trial. I encourage others to contribute in the same way. Thank you Wisconsin.

Bill bans creationism as science
By Judith Davidoff
February 7, 2006
Source: http://www.madison.com/tct/news/index.php?ntid=71780&ntpid=4

Creationism or intelligent design could not be taught as science in Wisconsin public schools under a first-of-its-kind proposal announced today by Madison state Rep. Terese Berceau.

Under the bill, only science capable of being tested according to scientific method could be taught as science. Faith-based theories, however, could be discussed in other contexts.

Alan Attie, a biochemistry professor at UW-Madison, said the bill puts Wisconsin on the map in the ongoing controversy over evolution and intelligent design.

“We can be the un-Kansas,” Attie said in an interview. Read More ›

I spoke on ID at the Lied Center at the University of Kansas on January 23rd to an audience of about 1500. For both the talk and the lively Q&A, go here: http://www.kucru.com/Artist%20-%20Track%201(1).mp3 http://www.kucru.com/Artist%20-%20Track%201.mp3