Intelligent Design

In a recent article in USA Today, Professor Jerry Coyne made the following claim:

I’ve never met a Christian, for instance, who has been able to tell me what observations about the universe would make him abandon his beliefs in God and Jesus. (I would have thought that the Holocaust could do it, but apparently not.) There is no horror, no amount of evil in the world, that a true believer can’t rationalize as consistent with a loving God.

Allow me to introduce myself. My name is Vincent Torley, and I’m a Christian whose faith in God, Jesus Christ and Intelligent Design is falsifiable. I have the greatest respect for your acknowledged expertise in the field of biology, and I don’t wish to question it for a moment. My Ph.D. is in philosophy, not science. For the record, I accept that the universe is approximately 14 billion years old, and that all living things spring from a common ancestor that lived approximately 4 billion years ago. However, I do not believe that non-foresighted processes (random mutations plus natural selection, in popular parlance) are adequate to account for the complexity we observe in organisms today, or that natural processes suffice to explain the origin of life. Here is a list of observations that would cause me to abandon belief in God, belief in Christianity and belief in Intelligent Design.

Read More ›

In the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case, federal judge John Jones was heavily influenced by the first expert witness, evolutionist Ken Miller. As Jones later recalled, he “was taken to school.” Unfortunately what Miller “taught” Jones was a series of scientific misrepresentations. Miller focused on two examples from molecular biology: a pseudogene and a fused chromosome. In both cases Miller gave Jones many facts but the lessons were carefully tailored to misrepresent both the science and evolutionary theory.  Read more

Philosophers and scientists who know their business recognize that any attempt to seek knowledge presupposes the existence of a rational universe ripe for investigating. The fact that we even bother to make the effort says something about our nature. As Aristotle says, “all men by nature want to know.” That is why the discovery of a new fact or truth can be a joy for its own sake. To be sure, knowledge also provides practical benefits, empowering us to pursue a self-directed life style, but it also edifies us, leading us on the road to self-actualization. To be intellectually healthy is to be curious.

On the other hand, we can, by virtue of our free will, act against our natural desire to know. For better or worse, there are some truths that many of us would prefer not to know about. The compelling nature of an objective fact can pull us in one direction while the force of our personal desires can pull us in the opposite direction. When this happens, a choice must be made. “Either the thinker conforms desire to truth or he conforms truth to desire.”–E. Michael Jones

Because we experience this ambivalence about the truth, we must be on guard against two errors: (a) talking ourselves out of things that we should believe [hyperskepticism] or (b) talking ourselves into things that we should not believe [gullibility]. Hyperskeptics attempt to justify the first error by calling attention to the second error, as if there was no reasonable alternative to either extreme. On the contrary, the ideal solution is to seek a rational midpoint –to balance a healthy skepticism about unconfirmed truth claims with a healthy confidence in truths already known. The one thing a thinker should not do is be skeptical or open-minded about the first principles of right reason, without which there is no standard for investigating or discoursing about anything “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”– G. K. Chesterton

In the spirit of public service, then, I present this little test for analyzing our readers’ proclivity for hyperskepticism. Hopefully, those who indulge will not find any predictable patterns, since I strove to keep them at a minimum. Read More ›

Review Of Programming of Life By Donald Johnson, ISBN-10: 0982355467

There are some science writers that quite simply have a knack for combining the detail of their subject of expertise with a talent for exposition that a wide audience can easily understand. Donald Johnson is one of them. After carefully defining the various types of information- functional, prescriptive and Shannon- that information theorists have set out in their realm of study, Johnson takes the reader on a tour of cellular gene expression by focusing on the digital code of DNA. Shannon information, which provides a mathematical measure of improbability without regard to functionality does not help us in the description of life since the digital code of DNA is rich in what Johnson terms “functional prescriptive information”. Read More ›

In reflecting on the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District court case over which he presided, federal judge John Jones recalls that he “was taken to school.” Ever since his liberal arts days at Dickinson College, Jones has never doubted evolution. But his knowledge of the biological details, what little there was to begin with, was by 2005 quite stale. All that changed in the Kitzmiller case where Jones learned from various expert witnesses. It was, Jones recalled, “the equivalent of a degree in this area.” And Jones is confident his new knowledge served him well. “Folks who disagree with my opinion will tell you I never got it right,” he explains, “but I’m confident that I did.” Did Read More ›

In Isaac Asimov’s 1958 futuristic short story “The Feeling of Power,” Myron Aub is a technician who rediscovers arithmetic. Aub’s future world is one dominated by computers which do all the number crunching and people who not only are mathematically-challenged but, more importantly, don’t see the point. What good is math anyway? Today evolution has had a similar effect on our thinking. Just as computers can dull our mathematical skills, evolution dulls our critical thinking skills.  Read more

“Keep walking back with your kite.  There you go.  Now stop where you are.  The distance between you and me right now is equivalent to about half the height of California redwoods—the tallest trees on earth.  Can you imagine that?” This was my stab at an illustration of how tall trees can really get.  But my eight year old son was having none of it.  “Wind all that string around the reel Dad, and let’s go home!”  Disappointed as I was with his response to my efforts, it was plainly obvious that he had to see something a lot more well-grounded than an unwound length of string tied onto a diamond-shaped piece of flyable canvas. Read More ›

Since I am a cell biologist and immunologist by training, it is with great interest that I read Kathryn Applegate’s May BioLogos posts drawing parallels between adaptive immunity and evolution. In the first essay she claims that antibody “production requires randomness at multiple levels” and that God may use random processes to create “life over long periods of time.” In the second post Dr. Applegate goes on to suggest that evolution uses “the same kinds of mechanisms, except the mutations occur in germ cells…”

These are interesting hypotheses, but I am not convinced that the elegant processes whereby B cells differentiate and germ cells are formed actually give rise to the conclusions drawn. Good science is dependent on accurately distinguishing between data, interpretation of data, extrapolation from data, and even speculation; in these posts this has not been adequately accomplished. In fact, even the science is faulty in places. To explain, the data shows that B cells manufacture over 1015 different antibodies using less than a couple of hundred gene segments. They accomplish this feat by rearrangements and excision of DNA sequences—these occur in a highly regulated fashion that has been extensively described in the literature. These facts have been established by interpretation of vast amounts of data.

However, I would like to suggest that the claims that B cell differentiation is 1) random, 2) a model for the way that God created life, and 3) that evolution “works” by B-cell-like mutations in the germ cell line, or 4) that germ cell formation is in any way analogous to antibody formation are based on a one-sided explanation of the science and much speculation. Dr. Applegate states that God could have done it this way; I do not dispute this. After all, if He is God, it is logical that He can do whatever He wants. Read More ›

I’m debating Michael Shermer at Washburn University in Topeka Kansas tonight at 7:00pm CST. The topic of the debate is on ID and its scientific status. The debate is being streamed here (scroll down): http://www.challengewashburn.com

Shortly after World War II Mochitsura Hashimoto was summoned to the United States to give testimony in the trial of Charles McVay. Hashimoto’s and McVay’s fates intersected just after midnight, July 30, 1945, when the Japanese submarine I-58, commanded by Hashimoto, sunk the cruiser, the USS Indianapolis, commanded by McVay.  Read more

Amazon.com product description: “This is currently the best book covering the relationship between genome and computer architectures.” – JOHNATHAN BARTLETT, Author / Publisher / Speaker / Director of Technology —– This book highlights the informational aspects of life that are generally overlooked or ignored in chemical and biological evolutionary scenarios. Each cell of an organism has millions of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and each must be investigated using that domain’s principles. Yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life’s information domain, a Read More ›

Virginia Ironside and Bob Brown advocate euthanasia. If Ironside had a child who was in terrible pain, she would hold a pillow over its head, as she would for any living creature that was suffering. Likewise Brown, the Australian Greens leader, explains that abolishing the federal statute that outlawed euthanasia would be his first legislative priority.  Read more

Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr on ID here.

In his post below Clive Hayden quotes Dr. Bruce Gordon: “spontaneous creation” minus “any cause illustrates the lack of an explanation rather than scientific comprehension.” nikkipolya objects: “The popular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is also anything but comprehensible. Yet, it correctly explains most of the phenomena at the atomic level. Comprehensibility is a problem that only exists in the brain. You are trying to correlate two unrelated problems.” nikkipolya does not appear to understand Gordon’s basic point. The equations of quantum mechanics describe certain regularities (i.e., “laws”) of sub-atomic phenomena. In no sense do the equations of quantum mechanics explain how or why those regularities came into existence in the first place Thus, at its base, nikkipolya’ objection depends on Read More ›