Intelligent Design

David Hart addresses the Mysteries of Consciousness over at FT.

A friend of mine likes to invest in stocks. He understands computer companies so he trades only those stocks. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward investing strategy. Evolutionists also limit themselves. They investigate only those phenomena that are the result of strictly natural causes. This limitation makes for a simple and straightforward research strategy, though it does create a blind spot.  Read more

Eric Werner of the University of Oxford published a blog piece in PLOS which I have liberally edited below. I think it is an important development in thinking about design in biology.

“The chimp really started people wondering if genes can account for the difference between humans and animals. Since the genes of chimps and humans are 98.8% identical, the differences between chimps and humans cannot be the result of the information in those few different genes.

Humans, chimps and mice are very different even if made of the many of the same parts. The information for construction and structure lies not in the information that describes the parts, rather in an architectural plan that is used by agents to construct the organism.

The information resides in the genome, but not in the genes. It is in the network architecture that consists of coding and non coding areas that determine the timing and spatial patterning of cells that ultimately results in the development of the organism.

Many traits are the result of the mutation of genes. However most genes are instructions for building parts so a mutation in a gene results in a change of a part not the overall architecture. The information for the form is not in the parts-genes. It is in the control architecture, the regulatory networks of control units, most likely contained in the vast non parts coding regions of the genome.

Read More ›

The fossil record cannot usually tell us about the soft body parts or the behavior of its specimens. For these, we look to the extant species. But now a clever finding reveals an odd behavior in carpenter ants from the distant past.  Read more

For anyone interested in current evolutionary thinking, the Darwin/Chicago 2009 conference has posted their video talks online. I haven’t had a chance to watch any, but many of them look interesting.

We continue to examine the work of authors George Johnson and Jonathan Losos in their biology textbook, The Living World ((Fifth Edition, McGraw Hill, 2008). In their chapter on evolution and natural selection, these accomplished evolutionists begin by (1) misrepresenting the relationship between microevolution and macroevolution and biological variation here, (2) making a non scientific, metaphysical, truth claim that just happens to mandate the truth of evolution here, and (3) making the grossly false statement that the fossils themselves are a factual observation that macroevolution has occurred here and here.  Read more

Evolutionist’s come in a wide variety of religious flavors. Even in the Christian wing of evolution-dom, the details of how God and evolution are to be understood vary. There is, for example the bottom-up view where God controls the world via sub-atomic particles all working together to effect macro events. Or, at the other end of the spectrum, there is the top-down view where God controls events in a way analogous to the way humans perceive their willed actions. From my perspective, I simply move my arm. I do not initiate nerve impulses in order to activate muscle contractions leading to appendage movement. It’s almost difficult to find a view that doesn’t fit into the spectrum somewhere. But once again Read More ›

gpuccio made the following comment on my post Almost Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Design. I always like your posts, which get to the core of issues with admirable simplicity and efficacy. This is my mission and message. The Darwinistic chance-and-necessity-creative-engine nonsense as an explanation for all that exists in living systems — that is currently promoted as “irrefutable science with overwhelming evidence” — is completely out of the ballpark of reality, evidence, and reason. It’s not a close call. It’s a slam dunk that Darwinism cannot account for what we observe in living things. Figuring this out is trivially easy. Darwinists want us to believe the following: Screw things up. Throw wrenches randomly into Read More ›

One common objection which is often raised regarding the proposition of real design (as opposed to design that is only apparent) is the criticism that design is unable to be falsified by the ruthless rigour of empirical scrutiny. Science, we are told, must restrict its explanatory devices to material causes. This criterion of conformity to materialism as a requisite for scientific merit is an unfortunate consequence of a misconstrual of the principal of uniformitarianism with respect to the historical sciences. Clearly, a proposition – if it is to be considered properly scientific – must constrict its scope to categories of explanation with which we have experience. It is this criterion which allows a hypothesis to be evaluated and contrasted with our experience of that causal entity. Explanatory devices should not be abstract, lying beyond the scope of our uniform and sensory experience of cause-and-effect.

Read More ›

As we learn more, this is becoming increasingly, transparently obvious. Random errors can screw things up, and — in very rare circumstances — provide a survival advantage in a pathological environment. The notion that random errors filtered by natural selection can account for all that is found in biological systems is a pathetically illogical, hopelessly improbable explanation for the information-processing machinery of the cell. Chemistry is not the basis of life. Chemistry is the medium; information is the message. On the subject of chemistry: The ID movement has thrown a satchel charge of trinitrotoluene into the Darwinian faux-edifice, and blown it to bits (pun intended).

Timothy Larsen has written an interesting piece in The Times Higher Education supplement Opinion: Stop turning the other cheek – The US academy should treat discrimination against Christian students or scholars as seriously as it would racism or sexism He writes; “Nevertheless, scholars ought to be concerned that Christians often report that the academy is a hostile environment. Are academics generally glad that such a perception exists? If not, how might it be dispelled? If it is based on genuine experiences, what can be done about a climate that tolerates religious discrimination? If the two stories presented here are merely assailable, anecdotal evidence, then why not gather information on this issue more systematically? Do academic institutions ever try to discover Read More ›

In 2009, outspoken Darwinist and opponent of intelligent design, PZ Myers, presented a lecture at the Atheist Alliance International 2009 conference in Burbank, California. The Richard Dawkins Foundation kindly posted it on youtube: As per usual, Myers blasts Intelligent Design and the Discovery Institute for allegedly erroneously presuming that complex structures only arise from intelligent agents, implicating that one needs to demonstrate something other than complexity to demonstrate intent. Curiously, PZ Myers adamently asserts in his introductory remarks that he has attended ID conferences and lectures; that he as read the literature and hence qualifies as an authorotative expert on the topic of Intelligent Design. One can only wonder whether Myers was awake during these lectures that he claims to Read More ›

You probably learned in high school biology class that the new DNA data has powerfully confirmed evolution. Take any gene and it reveals differences between the species exactly as we would expect. And this sentiment is not limited to high school textbooks. As the Chair of a university Biology department once wrote to me, “DNA sequences provide an absolute and irrefutable record” that evolution is a fact. “Virtually every single gene sequence we examine,” he explained, “can be seen to be represented in closely related species and in more distantly related species with increasing numbers of nucleotide changes as we look at more distant species.” It was, he concluded, “absolute proof, in hard copy, reiterated in every single gene of Read More ›

A friend writes, regarding this information regarding some information about science philosopher Karl Popper on a Scientific American blog: “It’s the first time I’ve read that Popper later regretted allowing himself to be browbeaten on the subject of the irrefutability of Darwinism.” In “A Dubitable Darwin? Why Some Smart, Nonreligious People Doubt the Theory of Evolution”, John Horgan writes (Jul 6, 2010) The philosopher Daniel Dennett once called the theory of evolution by natural selection “the single best idea anyone has ever had.” I’m inclined to agree. But Darwinism sticks in the craw of some really smart people I don’t mean intelligent-designers (aka IDiots) and other religious ignorami but knowledgeable scientists and scholars. He goes on to trash knowledgeble scientists Read More ›

An interesting conference bringing together ID proponents and theistic evolutionists is coming up in Austin this October:  The Vibrant Dance of Faith and Science (http://vibrantdance.org). The organizers are hoping to bring unity to the science-faith debate: Our Mission is to inspire, educate, and unify pastors, scientists, Christian leaders, and concerned lay people, as well as seekers and skeptics, with the growing congruence of scientific discovery with our Christian faith and to explore the implications and applications of that congruence. The key word here is CONGRUENCE. The problem is that ID theorists and theistic evolutionists see such congruence in very different terms. For ID theorists who are also Christians (some are not), evidence of design in nature mirrors the faith claim that God by wisdom created Read More ›