In response to this blog, I answer that it is true that all attempts at inventing life randomly have come up short, as have all attempts at creating life lawfully. The paradox is that neither chance nor order can explain what we observe. Yet this does not mean that OOL research is “flatlined”, for we are learning a great deal, even as we discover what doesn’t work–as Edison famously said. Darwin undoubtedly believed in the fecundity of primordial ooze, yet 150 years of study have shown both the complexity and fragility of that polysaccharide glycopeptide. The biologist Jacques Monod may claim that his OOL research has led him to the Abyss of meaninglessness where a faith in Man’s existence was Read More ›

Recently some astronomers have dramatically increased their estimates of how many planets in our little corner of the Cosmos might fall in the habitable zone around red dwarf stars!  There could be as many as 60,000,000,000 such habitable planets in the Milky Way alone! Based on data from NASA’s planet-hunting Kepler spacecraft, scientists have predicted that there should be one Earth-size planet in the habitable zone of each red dwarf, the most common type of star. But a group of researchers has now doubled that estimate after considering how cloud cover might help an alien planet support life. “Clouds cause warming, and they cause cooling on Earth,” study researcher Dorian Abbot, an assistant professor in geophysical sciences at the University of Read More ›

From EvolutionNews.org Judging the success of an idea in reaching and convincing a large audience is a tricky business. In putting your case to the public in books and articles, are you making progress, just holding steady, or losing ground to competitors? What you want is a solid, unambiguous metric. Hmm, as a measure of success in getting a particular argument before a large chunk of the thoughtful, book-reading public, how does a spot on the New York Times bestseller list sound? That would do nicely. And in fact it is just what we are very pleased to report. As careful readers will already have discerned from the headline, Stephen Meyer’s new book, Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Read More ›

Now that Eugenie Scott is retiring Director of the NCSE, I nominate Elizabeth Liddle as Eugenie’s replacement. But in the meantime the NCSE might have to count on their Deputy Director Glenn Branch to fill in until they find Eugenie’s replacement. In paging through the NCSE website, I found something that made me chuckle. Glenn is a student of pseudo-science! Glenn Branch is Deputy Director of NCSE. Formerly a graduate student in philosophy at UCLA, where he won prizes both for scholarship and teaching, he is conversant with the philosophical debates surrounding creationism and “intelligent design”; he is also a long-time student of pseudo-science So what does this student of pseudo science do? He tries to thwart the advancement of Read More ›

“If they pressured Springer to reject the papers out of hand, that would have been wrong.” (See Nick Matzke – Book burner.) Tepid, but we’ll take what we can get. WJM writes: “What happened is that Nick and others exercised thuggish intimidation on Springer and Springer, acting in fear of what a few devoted people can do to reputations (especially via the internet) should they set their mind to it, pulled the book from publication at the last minute.” Liddle responds: “IF this is what happened, I condemn it.” Better except for the unnecessary qualification, because everyone familiar with the whole sordid affair knows that is exactly what happened.

Far from attempting to redeem herself, Elizabeth Liddle has actually doubled down on her censorship/fascism apologetics (see comment 113 to my post). Liddle admits that the book Biological Information—New Perspectives had already been peer reviewed. She admits that it was on the verge of publication. But, she notes, after Matzke’s publication on Panda’s Thumb all of a sudden Springer “decided that additional peer review would be necessary” before pulling and ultimately dumping the book. Liddle writes: “This is not surprising: if a lot of scientists write to a publisher and say: we have reason to think that this may not have been properly reviewed, then it’s only responsible to send out for further review.” Oh really? A lot of scientists Read More ›

WJM writes (See Nick Matzke – Book burner):  “Does Liz think that Nick, not having even read the papers, has a sound reason to reach out to the editorial board and “warn” them about publishing work he hasn’t even read?” Liddle responds:  “As much right as Springer had to offer to publish them, having not read them. And indeed to rescind the offer when alerted as to the nature of the conference.” Huh?  Lest anyone forget, Springer’s publication decision was not in the early stages.  They were on the verge of sending the book out the door.  It already had a Library of Congress number for goodness sake.  Yet, Liddle suggests that Springer had never read the papers and was Read More ›

In one of the comments to my last post,  Elizabeth Liddle writes:  “If Nick Matzke or any ‘liberal’ lays so much as a match to a children’s library book I shall be the first to protest.” Yet Liddle refuses to condemn Matzke for his efforts to suppress the publication of the papers from a conference before he had ever seen, much less read, them, which, of course, has the exact same effect as burning the books before they are distributed.  She dismisses this as “editorial judgment,” writing: To call . . . censorship merely “editorial judgement” would indeed be “Orwellian”. But to call the requirement that scientific papers meet a minimum standard of rigor before they are endorsed by a Read More ›

A month or so ago, I alerted UD readers that atheists in Florida were about to place their stone monument of the Ten “commandments” of atheism.  Well, today they have unveiled their monument to atheism in front of the Bradford County, Florida, courthouse, right near a monument listing the traditional Ten Commandments from the Old Testament scriptures.  Personally, I have no problem with the monument itself being placed in a public square.  We’re a pluralistic society, all ideas are welcome and open for debate.  That is what freedom of speech is all about.  (As a side note, contrast that with Nick Matzke, the suppressor!) “When you look at this monument, the first thing you will notice is that it has Read More ›

Nick Matzke famously got the publishing company Springer to suppress the publication of the papers of a conference held at Cornell.  See here. He did this without having seen, much less read, any of the papers.  Obviously, his motivation could not have been the content of the papers.  He was motivated by the mere fact that several of the conference participants were well-known ID proponents. Let us do a little thought experiment.  Suppose that Nick had published his famous piece on Panda’s Thumb a few days later, and the head of Springer had called him up and said, “Hey, Nick, I’ve got some bad news and some good news.  The bad news is that it is too late to stop publication of Read More ›