Intelligent Design

In a recent UD thread, several UD members have taken issue with the ID concept of frontloading. Frontloading is a question which certainly merits more discussion than it usually gets, and here I want to clear up a few things regarding frontloading that are usually missed.

I am a big fan of frontloading even though I don’t believe it is entirely true. The reason for this is that, first of all, I think that there are many theoretical systems which are good in a limited scope, but bad in a larger scope. However, it takes the people dedicated to fleshing out the widest scope of their theories in order for the rest of us to see where exactly the theory succeeds and fails, and what its limitations are. I take the approach to watch the frontloaders cook up their most grand of theories, and for myself to take the practical step of eating the meat and spitting out the bone. And, because I find value in their work, I am also willing to help them a little in the kitchen.
Read More ›

I’ve toyed with the idea of front-loading, but it seems to me that there are major problems with it. The front-loading of the universe with the laws of physics to eventually make a life-hospitable planet seems like a reasonable hypothesis and logical conclusion. But the front-loading of living systems presents major problems. There is no evidence that the front-loading of the information in living systems can in any way be compared to the front-loading of the laws of physics in the universe for the eventual creation of a life-permitting planet. This seems to me to be an unwarranted extrapolation, comparing apples to oranges. Of course, this raises the question of interventionism. It seems logical that the laws of physics that Read More ›

Earth systems science is concerned with the relationships between the various components that comprise the Earth as a system, notably environmental and biosphere interactions. Over the years, a wide spectrum of views has been expressed by scholars. At one extreme, the environment is the dominant influence, driving evolution within the biosphere (which is interpreted as being largely moulded by environmental forces). As an example, many have considered that changes in seawater chemistry and atmospheric oxygen levels triggered the Cambrian Explosion. At the other extreme, the Earth’s environment can be perceived as the product of the biosphere. This is the position of Nicholas Butterfield, who has written a paradigm-shifting essay saying: “it is clear that animals figure disproportionately in the maintenance Read More ›

Dimmer switch here: NASA’s Hubble Rules out One Alternative to Dark Energy ScienceDaily (Mar. 14, 2011) — Astronomers using NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope have ruled out an alternate theory on the nature of dark energy after recalculating the expansion rate of the universe to unprecedented accuracy.Some believe that is because the universe is filled with a dark energy that works in the opposite way of gravity. One alternative to that hypothesis is that an enormous bubble of relatively empty space eight billion light-years across surrounds our galactic neighborhood. If we lived near the center of this void, observations of galaxies being pushed away from each other at accelerating speeds would be an illusion. This hypothesis has been invalidated because astronomers Read More ›

Recently, Bantay, a commenter on a post addressing the origin of language, quoted

…because Darwinists need to chase their tails by denying precisely what language itself affirms (meaning, order, and purpose)”

and asked

Does that mean that when Dawkins speaks, it is meaningless, orderless and purposeless?

Well, let me try to unpack that a bit.

Conversation with friend

Recently, I was on a road trip with a friend who wanted me to listen to this wow! CD by a dynamite Catholic preacher, who was into Thomism. (Thomism, sometimes neo-Thomism, is an attempt to use the teachings of medieval theologian Thomas Aquinas to counter materialism, Darwinism, etc.)

He made clear he was not talking about (nonsense like) intelligent design or creationism when he offered “proofs for God” going back to ancient times. I listened carefully, and then my friend asked me what I thought.

I sensed I’d better not just make social noise (= Isn’t he wonderful! Isn’t he profound! Take that,atheists!). So I thought about it, then said,

He is a good preacher, but I believe his arguments will have no impact whatever today, and at present are merely a distraction. Here is what I learned, writing The Spiritual Brain:

The Darwinist does not believe in the reality of the mind, and as a result, arguments from reason and logic are dismissible, because they are simply the natural selection of your successful genes operating on your neurons to produce delusions that cause you to pass on your genes. Tht is why people continue, through the generations, to find them persuasive. As materialist cognitive psychologist Steve Pinker, has said, “Our brains are shaped for fitness, not for truth.”

To get some sense of how this plays out, Read More ›

I recently promised that I would discuss the latter half of chapter 4 of Daniel Fairbanks’ 2010 book, Relics of Eden, in which Fairbanks attempts to demonstrate common ancestry based on considerations of maternally-inherited mitochondrial and paternally-inherited Y-chromosomal DNA sequences. Or, put more accurately, Fairbanks attempts to demonstrate that humans and chimpanzees are more closely related than either is to gorillas. Fairbanks’ methodology here, however, presupposes (and does not demonstrate) that indeed there is such a hereditary relationship linking humans, chimpanzees and gorillas. If one chooses to interpret mere genetic similarities as evidence for common descent then, indeed, within the framework of that paradigm, Fairbanks’ conclusions may be allowed to stand. But given that modern Darwinians are not even close to articulating a plausible — or even viable — naturalistic mechanism which can account for such evolution from a common ancestor, are we not justified in, at the very least, reserving our judgment until such a mechanistic basis is forthcoming?

The majority of Fairbanks’ arguments for common ancestry (such as shared mobile element or intron inserts, and shared “mistakes”) can be readily accounted for in terms of a common mechanism (i.e. constraints on integration, or similar genetic instabilities or mutation “hotspots”). And there is no decisive way to distinguish common ancestry from common design with regards to unqualified appeals to “similarity”. Does it not stand to reason that a designer might use similar genes and tools to perform similar functions in different organisms?

In fact, if we are going to let all the evidence speak, then why not take into account the evidence against common ancestry? Since we’re on the topic of the Y-chromosome, what about this study published in Nature just last year, which yielded evidence that the male-specific portions of the human and chimp Y chromosome “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” suggesting “wholesale renovation,”? The Nature News report noted that,

The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who led the work. “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”

Read More ›

The mechanisms of living systems are based on the most sophisticated computer program ever written. Attempts to deny this obvious fact relegate those who support materialism to the lowest level of illogical speculation. This is the antithesis of true science — the pursuit of knowledge and understanding. Arguing with people who cannot perceive obvious truth is an exercise in futility. They will go to their graves, hopelessly lost, and their lives will not only have been meaningless, they will have been less than meaningless, even toxic, because the anti-scientific lie they propagated most assuredly must have poisoned many lives, as mine once was. My qualifications in making these assertions are impeccable, because I was once a victim of the nihilism Read More ›

Since self-organization theory, the Darwin lobby, and the Texas science standards have all been in the Inbox lately, it’s only fair that we have a look at the Texas Darwin  lobby’s view of self-organization or self-replicating life (standard proposed in 2009):

(9) Science concepts. The student knows the significance of various molecules involved in metabolic processes and energy conversions that occur in living organisms. The student is expected to:

(D) analyze and evaluate the evidence regarding formation of simple organic molecules and their organization into long complex molecules having information such as the DNA molecule for self-replicating life.

The response from the Darwin lobby’s house expert John Wise is

This is a clear example of the incorporation of intelligent design/creationist language into student expectations and parallels the “complexity of the cell” language found in the new TEKS (7)(G). The problematic assertion here stems mainly from the writings of Discovery Institute Fellow William Dembski. Dembski asserts that an intelligent designer must be involved in the creation of meaningful information whenever “specific complexity” is found because his own “Law of Conservation of Complex Specified Information” prevents natural selection from increasing the amount of information in a genome (see reference 1 and citations within). Dembski’s argument requires that information be complex (have a very low probability of being produced by random processes) and that it be “meaningful.” Meaningful information in the case of genetic sequences such as in DNA can be inferred to be those that increase the fitness of an organism (make it well adapted or better adapted to its environment).

Gosh, whatta reason. A lot of us here are Bill Dembski fans/friends/friendly critics/people he lets park in his back yard for free. So far as I know, Dembski was never a self-organization of life fan and has nothing to do with the development of the theory. Indeed, the self-organization guys have been known to critique his theories too.

The skinny: Read More ›

Last summer, I had the tremendous opportunity to travel to Seattle, Washington, and take part in Discovery Institute’s yearly summer seminar for undergraduate and graduate students. Truth be told, it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I had the chance to interact at a one-on-one level with key ID scholars including William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Richard Sternberg, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Jay Richards, and Bruce Gordon (and more!). I also made many good friends from all over the world, most of whom I have remained in contact with even until now. If you are a postgraduate or undergraduate student who is keen on ID and is swithering on whether or not this is for you, then I strongly encourage you to apply! Not only will you get connected with many phenomenal like-minded people, you will never think the same way about ID and evolution ever again! Best of all, if you are accepted for the program, you needn’t pay a cent! Travel expenses, lodging, meals, the lot, are fully funded.

Even if your academic discipline isn’t in the natural sciences, you needn’t worry — there is a program which is specifically geared towards those with a background in social sciences, humanities, law or theology!

Below are the details and information you need to APPLY.

Read More ›

Here’s an article about Chernobyl. Quite fascinating—and extremely long!! The pertinent pages are the last two: pp. 6-7. The biologist working at Chernobyl is studying the effects of cesium and strontium, presumably the by-products of fission present at Chernobyl after the reactor failure. It’s been 25 years since the accident. They’ve been studying animals for 17.

What are the results? For the most part, life is abundant at Chernobyl. It’s become a new Garden of Eden (less man, for the most part). But NO new life forms.

What about changed life forms? Well, . . . yes. Here’s what they say:
On the surface, Igor says, the wildlife seems to be thriving, but under the fur and hide, the DNA of most species has become unstable. They’ve eaten a lot of food contaminated with cesium and strontium. Even though the animals look fine, there are differences at the chromosomal level in every generation, as yet mostly invisible. But some have started to show: there are bird populations with freakishly high levels of albinism, with 20 percent higher levels of asymmetry in their feathers, and higher cancer rates. There are strains of mice with resistance to radioactivity—meaning they’ve developed heritable systems to repair damaged cells. Covered in radioactive particles after the disaster, one large pine forest turned from green to red: seedlings from this Red Forest placed in their own plantation have grown up with various genetic abnormalities. They have unusually long needles, and some grow not as trees but as bushes. The same has happened with some birch trees, which have grown in the shape of large, bushy feathers, without a recognizable trunk at all.

All of these documented changes are defects of one kind or another, making them “less fit” in normal populations. This is true of the animals more than for the plants; but even for the plant life present, what good is a birch tree without a trunk? Can you call it a tree?

Now, with all the great amount of variety that mutations can cause in such an irradiated environment, one would think that this would be a great place for Darwinian mechanisms to work their ‘magic’. But that is not what we see. We see deterioration. We see life becoming less fit, not more. We don’t see new species; we see old species that have become bizarre, with “genetic abnormalities”.
Read More ›

In “Chernobyl, My Primeval, Teeming, Irradiated Eden” (Outside, March 2011), Henry Shukman finds this: Twenty-five years after the Soviet-era meltdown drove 60,000 people from their homes in the Ukraine, a rebirth is taking place inside the exclusion zone. With Geiger counter in hand, the author explores Europe’s strangest wildlife refuge, an enchanted postapocalyptic forest from which entirely new species may soon emerge. THE WILD BOAR IS STANDING 30 OR 40 yards away, at the bottom of a grassy bank, staring right at me. Even from this distance I can see its outrageously long snout, its giant pointed ears, and the spiny bristles along its back. It looks part porcupine, a number of shades of ocher and gray. And it’s far Read More ›

I wanted to flag up an interesting-looking forthcoming title which I recently happened across on Amazon. The book (by Haig Kazazian) is entitled “Mobile DNA: Finding Treasure In Junk”. The book’s back-cover synopsis reads as follows: Haig Kazazian reviews our current scientific understanding of mobile DNA and its role in the evolution and function of genomes and organisms, offering an in-depth portrait of the developing perspectives and research strategies pursued by the workers in his own laboratory. He presents an engaging history of the field, showing how advances have presented unexpected new questions, and how new tools and techniques have promoted further progress. Coverage includes: multiple types of mobile DNA; retrotransposition and other key concepts; important mobile DNA research advances Read More ›

For us here at UD, this article doesn’t need much explanation. It certainly fits into the “Genetic Entropy” scheme, and what Michael Behe has demonstrated of late. This is just for your information. Enjoy! How’s this for a quote: The finding mirrors accumulating evidence from other species that changes to regulatory regions of DNA – rather than to the genes themselves – underlie many of the new features that organisms acquire through evolution. And think of all those who say over and over: “Evolution is a change in gene frequency.” Well, I guess it isn’t. It’s a change in gene regulation. It appears to be the end of “gene-centrism” (and, with it, classical population genetics as we’ve known it).

Over the past several weeks, I have been reviewing the case presented by Daniel Fairbanks for common ancestry in his 2010 book, Relics of Eden. For my previous articles on this topic, see my discussion of the first three chapters here, here and here. Chapter 4 of Fairbanks’ book is entitled “Solving The Trichotomy”. In this chapter, Fairbanks addresses what he calls the “trichotomy problem”— that is, of humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, which two of the three are most closely related to each other? In the latter half of his chapter, Fairbanks draws evidence from mitochondrial DNA and nuclear DNA studies in support of the traditional view that humans and chimpanzees are the closest genetically related. Before turning to this question, however, Fairbanks offers an array of evidence in view of confirming the standard evolutionary view that the mitochondrion is derivative of alpha-proteobacteria and became incorporated into the now-eukaryotic cell by virtue of an endosymbiotic event. I am going to divide my discussion of this chapter into two separate articles — in the first (this article), I am going to address the purported case for the endosymbiotic origin of mitochondria. In the second, I will discuss Fairbanks’ comments on the “trichotomy problem”.

When I held my former views on common ancestry, I was greatly compelled by the array of evidence often marshalled in support of the endosymbiotic origin of the eukaryotic mitochondrion. Indeed, if such a claim is true, then the proposition of the common ancestry of all eukaryotic life seems to be close at hand. This, I think, is an important area to discuss, for the argument — if sound — does not only establish the common ancestry of our order, primates. It also serves to support the somewhat grander claim that all extant eukaryotes are derivative of a common ancestral progenitor. But the important and fundamental question must be raised: Is this argument sound? Does the evidence support this claim? It is to this question that I now turn.

Read More ›