What do I mean by reality? I mean that which has existence apart from any idea any mind may have of it, and which would exist if there were no mind anywhere to entertain a thought of it. That which is real has being in itself. It does not depend upon the observer for its validity. I am aware that there are those who love to poke fun at the plain man’s idea of reality. They are the idealists who spin endless proofs that nothing is real outside of the mind. They are the relativists who like to show that there are no fixed points in the universe from which we can measure anything. They smile down upon us from Read More ›

“Genome Duplication Encourages Rapid Adaptation of Plants” (ScienceDaily, May 4, 2011) While nearly all animals have two sets of chromosomes — one set inherited from the maternal parent and the other inherited from the paternal parent — many plants are polyploids, meaning they have four or more chromosome sets. “Some botanists have wondered if polyploids have novel features that allow them to survive environmental change or colonize new habitats,” says Assistant Professor Justin Ramsey. “But this idea had not been rigorously tested.” Forcing duplication on wild plants (instead of the centuries old practice of forcing it on tame ones) produced quick results, as it does in tame ones: Ramsey compared the performance of the transplanted yarrows and found that the Read More ›

For one thing, “The end is far” is “science^TM,” not “religion^TM.”

Here, The Atlantic‘s Graeme Wood reports on “What will happen to us?: Forecasters tackle the extremely deep future” (Boston Globe, May 1, 2011), featuring recent Templeton winner Martin Rees and others on deep and distant futures, the theory being that it is now possible to be much more certain of the distant future than in the past:

The community of thinkers on distant-future questions stretches across disciplinary bounds, with the primary uniting trait a willingness to think about the future as a topic for objective study, rather than a space for idle speculation or science fictional reverie. They include theoretical cosmologists like Sean Carroll of the California Institute of Technology, who recently wrote a book about time, and nonacademic technology mavens like Ray Kurzweil, the precocious inventor and theorist. What binds this group together is that they are not, says Bostrom, “just trying to tell an interesting story.” Instead, they aim for precision. In its fundamentals, Carroll points out, the universe is a “relatively simple system,” compared, say, to a chaotic system like a human body — and thus “predicting the future is actually a feasible task,” even “for ridiculously long time periods.”

Past is past now …  Read More ›

From ScienceDaily (May 5, 2011),we learn more about “if it ain’t broke, don’t …” Horsetail grass decidedly ain’t broke: “Horsetail Plant Developed Successful Set of Tools for Extreme Environments – For Millions of Years” The authors discovered that in many ways the morphology and anatomy of this fossilized Equisetum is indistinguishable from those of species living today in two subgenera, Equisetum and Hippochaete. For example, it was evergreen, grew upright in a single straight stem, and had a double endodermis. Yet, there were some features that did not fit with any extant or fossil species of Equisetum — thus justifying the erection of a new species: Equisetum thermale.”Equisetum thermale appears to be the oldest record of the genus Equisetum and Read More ›

Agnostic Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller asks some questions in Dissent from Descent,

Modern evolutionary theory, as we have seen in these pages, is subject to vagaries of interpretation just as fundamental as those that ultimately floored astrology. Here is a list:

1. Is the overall process of evolution directed or undirected- Lamarckian or Darwinian? If we deliver a mixed verdict, then when and where does the directed yield to the undirected? Read More ›

Darwin’s argument contains so many questionable assumptions, starting with his views about God, that it cannot be evaluated strictly as a work of hard science. It is not rigorously empirical in the way Mendel’s “Experiments in Plant Hybridization” is. To pick up Mendel’s concise and carefully reasoned paper after reading the circular and often cloudy arguments of the Origin is to enter a different realm of thought. Unlike Mendel’s, Darwin’s case depends on extra-scientific suppositions, the first of which is that the explanation of all natural phenomena is strictly material. – Catholic writer George Sim Johnston: Did Darwin Get It right?: Catholics and the Theory of Evolution (Our Sunday Visitor. P. 23) Has anyone ever said that they “believe in” Read More ›

An unknown poet’s riff on “junk DNA”, arrived by post at the top secret UD bunker in an undisclosed, unimaginable location:

(Would go well to tune of “Way Up on Old Smoky” – here. Try it! )

On top of our genome
All covered with cash,
I see BioLogos
And they’re talkin’ trash. Read More ›

No, we don’t know why, but neither does this person. Not short of an opinion about Uncommon Descent, though:

In typical fashion, Uncommon Descent are hoping for the worst: The “Darwinism” killed his faith. (Must. Control. Rage. Must not stoop to their level…) Let’s hope their just being despicable and there’s nothing to their speculation other than malice. Giberson is a good man and we need him in this fight.

Hard to say why “public theology” student Arni Zachariassen, who is supposed to favour “Thoughtful Theological Reflection” (blog’s title), should be in a barely controlled rage. Did Uncommon Descenters say that Darwinism had killed Giberson’s faith? The consensus here is that he was “a bridge too far” for – that is, not a good fit with – the BioLogos organization.

(Note: – AZ has since clarified his position. See this comment.)

Put another way: Giberson was way better for us than for them. Read More ›

So junk DNA turns out to be “junque” DNA? You know the scenario – it was junk to the guy cleaning out his attic, but the dealer he sold it to for $3.00 got $10K from a collector. And all legal too. A perfect snapshot of the theistic evolutionist.

Over at ENV, Casey Luskin reflects on how Francis Collin’s slam dunk arguement for Darwinism (junk DNA) is “pushed Into Increasingly Small Gaps in Scientific Knowledge” (May 2, 2011), observing: Read More ›

In the University of Houston alumni mag Parameters (Spring 2011) , vision researcher Haluk Ogmen says: Computers beat the brain in many tasks, like large number multiplication and database searches,” he said. “But there are other tasks that no computer even comes close to what we can do. In the area of navigation, the most powerful supercomputers cannot even match insects. So what’s missing are the engineering design principles that capture the fundamentals of biological information processing. That’s my goal as an engineer, to reverse–engineer vision, memory, and cognition and see how our brains and minds work. Design principles in vision? See “Biologist goes to war against language” for the correct Darwinspeak protocols currently in force.

The controversial textbook, The Design of Life came up recently. (Did an origin of life researcher actually read it? Stunner.)

Instead of the approved textspeak about how hardworking scientists are slowly piecing together the origin of life, it contains eye-openers like these: Read More ›

While explaining how he believes complex biochemical information just happen to arise through random processes, Brown University’s Ken Miller dismisses Mike Behe’s mousetrap, introduced in Darwin’s Black Box. To show that it is not an example of irreducible complexity that points to design, he recounts a childhood recollection of a pupil using a mousetap to fire spitballs, which showed that the mousetrap could be used for something other than killing mice (pp 54-57). That is how Miller, who has just won the Stephen Jay Gould award for promoting Darwinism,  knew that ID biochemist Behe was wrong.

Ralph David Westall, an IS prof at California Polytechnic University, Pomona*, contacted Uncommon Descent to say, Read More ›

Douglas Axe has posted a response to criticisms of his work from Arthur Hunt and Steve Matheson, regarding his 2004 JMB paper, on the Biologic Institute website. In August of 2004 I received an email inquiry from plant biologist Art Hunt. He had written a draft for a blog piece aimed at reviewing a research article of mine that had just appeared in the Journal of Molecular Biology [1], and he wanted to know whether he had understood my work correctly. He clearly aimed to refute claims that were beginning to surface that my paper supported intelligent design, but he also wanted to make sure he wasn’t misconstruing my work in the process. He didn’t expect me to oblige—“I will understand Read More ›

Some wonder. A friend of Uncommon Descent wrote recently to say that

In a lecture (November 2008) at Case Western University, prominent origin of life researcher Robert Hazen, author of Genesis: The Scientific Quest for Life’s Origin, essentially admits that the burden of proof is on those who oppose ID, not those who propose it.

Some attribute such admissions to the dead stall of origin of life research for 150 years – except that popular media perpetually conflate bright ideas with concrete findings.

Here are some quotations from the transcript: Read More ›

Sunrise over the Dead Sea seen from Masada, Israel. Courtesy of Wikipedia.

I’ve written previously about Christopher Hitchens’ challenge: “Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.” Professor Jerry Coyne has come up with a new challenge of his own: “Tell me exactly what ‘knowledge’ religion has provided that is not derivable from secular reason.”

I’d be happy to oblige. I’ll submit two statements. The first is known to everyone. The second is taken from Professor Coyne’s own blog.

1. The sun will rise tomorrow.
2. Killing an unarmed man who does not resist arrest in a way that endangers his captors is murder and therefore wrong, even if that man happens to be Osama bin Laden.

For the record, I think Professor Coyne is right about the second statement, and I applaud his courage for making it. While I’m quite sure that Osama bin Laden got his just deserts, he should have also gotten a trial, if it was possible to capture him alive.

Now, Professor Coyne seems to be quite sure about the second statement, so I presume he would count it as “knowledge.” So my reply to Professor Coyne’s challenge is: can you derive either of the above two statements from secular reason?
Read More ›