Intelligent Design

In my previous post I gave a typical example of evolutionary thinking and asked readers to identify the usual metaphysics that is interwoven. Here is the example:  Read more

Evolutionists claim evolution is a fact as much as gravity is a fact. As with gravity, we may not yet understand the details of evolution, but evolution in one way or another is an undeniable fact. Well is it? One evolutionist is certain and wrote this to me:  Read more

Bioethicist Gregory Kaebnick, Ph.D., has an interesting take on the recently announced synthetic cell created by a team of researchers led by J. Craig Venter at the J. Craig Venter Instititute (JVCI). In a recent article in The Scientist entitled Is the “Synthetic Cell” about Life?, Kaebnick writes:

…the technical accomplishment is not quite what the JCVI press release claimed. It’s hard to see this as a synthetic species, or a synthetic organism, or a synthetic cell; it’s a synthetic genome of Mycoplasma mycoides, which is familiar enough. David Baltimore was closer to the truth when he told the New York Times that the researchers had not created life so much as mimicked it. It might be still more accurate to say that the researchers mimicked one part and borrowed the rest.

The explanation from the Venter camp is that the genome took over the cell, and since the genome is synthetic, therefore the cell is synthetic. But this assumes a strictly top-down control structure that some biologists now question. Why not say instead that the genome and the cell managed to work out their differences and collaborate, or even that the cell adopted the genome (and its identity)? Do we know enough to say which metaphor is most accurate?

Read More ›

Most of the time, scientific research seeks to build on theoretical foundations that have been carefully constructed by the wider research community, often over many years. If a theoretical framework is found to be robust, it gains widespread assent, with few interested in challenging it. Those who are attracted to the idea that science develops progressively are the least likely to talk about challenges. For them, any change is a minor modification of the theoretical edifice. Thomas Kuhn referred to these theoretical frameworks as ‘paradigms’, and the progressive refinement of that framework as ‘normal science’. Kuhn pointed out that anomalies do not trigger the practitioners of ‘normal science’ to question the paradigm, but they either treat them as problems waiting Read More ›

Evolutionists have little doubt about their idea. Indeed they consistently claim it to be an undeniable scientific fact. As one textbook explained, “The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves … it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.” I was trying to explain this fact when I discovered I couldn’t. Quite the opposite, there are substantial scientific problems with evolution. My proposition to evolutionists is that I will help their cause if they will help me understand. I will be an evolutionist if they can explain why it is a Read More ›

Question: should the following statement get a science professor ousted from teaching?

the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science.

Richard Dawkins

And for exploring aspects of this most momentous hypothesis in all of science, Dr. Crocker was removed from teaching at George Mason.

As reported by Casey Luskin at www.EvolutionNews.org

there are cases documenting genuine discrimination against scientists who support intelligent design (ID). One of those incidents took place at George Mason University (GMU), where Caroline Crocker was ousted from teaching biology because she challenged to neo-Darwinian evolution and favorably mentioned ID in the classroom. Dr. Crocker later appeared in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, but now many more details about Caroline Crocker’s story are revealed in her new autobiographical book, Free to Think: Why Scientific Integrity Matters.
Read More ›

‘Non-coding’ pieces of RNA can encode short proteins that regulate genes, researchers have found. Various non-coding RNA molecules do not produce protein but either regulate gene expression or carry out other functions in the cell. Many researchers question whether the rest of the apparently non-coding RNA made in cells has any function. Some believe many RNA molecules in the cell are merely junk — the accidental by-products of the process that transcribes RNA from a DNA template. “We missed microRNA for decades — maybe we missed ‘micropeptides’ for even longer.” Researchers in Japan have found a ‘non-coding’ RNA that directly codes for four peptides, short chains of amino acids from 11 to 32 amino acids long, that act to regulate Read More ›

It is well known that orb-weaving spiders put droplets of adhesive all over their webs to catch prey. Although there have been many attempts to study the nature of these adhesives, it is only recently that experiment designs have allowed the mechanism of adhesion to be analysed properly. Single adhesive droplets have been probed at varying extension rates. “Here, by directly probing single adhesive droplets used by spiders, we demonstrate the importance of the mechanics of adhesive in dramatically enhancing adhesion. We show that glue drops function as a viscoelastic material instead of as a viscous material and that the elasticity of the principle adhesive in this system, the glycoproteins, increases adhesion by two orders of magnitude in comparison with Read More ›

The Spanish Paseos Por La Naturaleza (A Walk Through Nature) series continues with a review of Biologic Institute researcher Douglas Axe’s thesis on the probabilistic barriers that make a neo-Darwinian explanation for the origin of protein folds untenable.  Given his scientific background, Axe is well qualified to argue against the undirected origin of protein structure and convincingly counters those who extravagate over the much-heralded modular transfer of folds between proteins. The Paseos Por La Naturaleza series aims to further strengthen the global influence that the Intelligent Design movement already enjoys and raise awareness of important academic resources that are today challenging orthodox Darwinism and revitalizing the call for a fresh perspective on scientific discourse. The fifth installment can be found at: Como Read More ›

A recent Oxford conference has celebrated the long service to science and religion by John Polkinghorne. This Guardian ‘Comment is Free’ blog post by Mark Vernon is of interest because it discusses Polkinghorne’s belief about causal gaps with top down intentional causality. Chaos Theory Polkinghorne and God Vernon comments that “it’s not an epistemological gap that’s being appealed to in John Polkinghorne’s work, but rather an ontological causal openness. Hence the possibility, at least, of making the link with divine action.” Science and Values

A child once informed his friends his toy bulldozer could dig all the way through the Earth. But wasn’t the Earth too big? No, look at the Grand Canyon—it is proof of what such small shovels can do. Such childish logic, amazingly, shows up repeatedly in evolutionary “theory.” It is a treasure trove of bizarre and silly claims and justifications which rises to the surface, as with the child’s reasoning, when the evolutionist is questioned about his convictions. Consider, for example, the oft heard evolutionary mechanism of random mutation followed by natural selection which, like the toy bulldozer, apparently can do just about anything. When queried about this most amazing idea, the underlying evolutionary logic is revealed.  Read more

One of reasons evolutionists find their theory to be so compelling is the so-called “shared error” evidence. Designs that are shared between species are evidence for evolution, but junk that is shared between species are veritable proofs for evolution. This evolutionary interpretation of shared junk is yet another example the religious foundation of evolutionary thought. We might say it is another example of evolution’s junk religion.  Read more

At Scientific American John Horgan has provided a helpful reminder of Karl Popper’s skepticism of evolutionary theory and why it doesn’t matter. The great philosopher found evolution to be “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” He was browbeaten by evolutionists into a forced retraction but in fact he remained a skeptic as evidenced when Horgan interviewed him in 1992. “One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed to Horgan, banging his kitchen table.  Read more