The Discover interview with non-Darwinist (whatever she may feel forced to claim) evolutionary biologist Lynn Margulis:

“All scientists agree that evolution has occurred… The question is, is natural selection enough to explain evolution? … This is the problem I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novelty is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direction set by natural selection… Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create. …I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change — led to new species. I believe it until I looked for evidence. … Read More ›

… allegiance to Darwinism has become a litmus for deciding who does and who does not hold a ”properly scientific’ world view. ‘You must choose between faith in God and faith in Darwin; and if you want to be a secular humanist, you’d better choose the latter.’ So we’re told. We doubt that those options are exhaustive. But we do want, ever so much, to be secular humanists. In fact, we both claim to be outright, card-carrying, signed-up, dyed-in-the-wool, no-holds-barred atheists. [ … ] Still, this book is mostly a work of criticism; it is mostly about what we think is wrong with Darwinism. The cry of their heart is to follow anyone or anything but Darwinism, for the sake Read More ›

Some years ago I read a book called “Lying for God”. It was a systematic emotionally laden deconstruction of YEC. I wondered with disbelief at the time, whether people who are YECs really would knowingly lie to promote their understanding of the world. That was a long time ago, and since then I have frequently come across many people who spout what seem to me to be lies to uphold all sorts of worldviews. It was with this background that I was intrigued by a headline in New Scientist “Biologists create self replicating RNA molecule“. This piece of writing is unashamedly designed to promote the RNA world wishful thinking hypothesis of the spontaneous generation of life. The post describes how Read More ›

In a recent and very courteously worded article entitled, St. Thomas and the Inadequacy of Intelligent Design, Professor Beckwith summarizes his main beef with ID as follows:

According to Dembski, we discover design in nature after we have eliminated chance and law… Design, therefore, is not immanent in nature. It is something that is imposed on nature by someone or something outside it.

This means that for Dembski as well as other ID advocates, nature’s order, including its laws and principles, need not require a mind behind it except for in the few instances where the explanatory filter allows one to detect design.

Beckwith sees this line of argument as dangerous, because its case for a Designer of Nature is merely probabilistic rather than certain, and thus vulnerable to being falsified by future scientific discoveries. He later contrasts this view which he ascribes to Professor Dembski with his own theological position, which he believes rests upon a more secure metaphysical footing:

For the Thomist, and for many other Christians, law and chance do not eliminate design. “Design” does not replace efficient and material causes in nature when the latter two appear impotent as explanations (i.e., Dembski’s “gaps”). Rather, efficient and material causes require final causes… What is a final cause? It is a thing’s purpose or end… For the natural processes – even if they are complete and exhaustive – seem to work for an end, and that end is its final cause. This is why, in his famous Five Ways (or arguments) to show God’s existence, St. Thomas includes as a fifth way an argument from the universe’s design as a whole, appealing to those scientific laws that make motion possible…

Here are two quick questions I’d like to ask Professor Beckwith.

1. Which would you regard as the best piece of evidence for God’s existence:

(a) the existence of meaningful instructions in the natural world;
(b) the occurrence of end-oriented processes in the natural world; or
(c) random behavior taking place in the natural world?

2. Which gap do you think is greater:

(i) the gap between (a) and (b), or
(ii) the gap between (b) and (c)?
Read More ›

  Bradley Monton, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder:Bradley Monton, associate professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado, Boulder: The theory of intelligent design holds that certain global features of the universe provide evidence for the existence of an intelligent cause, or that certain biologically innate features of living things provide evidence for the doctrine that the features are the result of the intentional actions of an intelligent cause which is not biologically related to the living things, and provide evidence against the doctrine that the features are the result of an undirected process such as natural selection. He adds, This is a doctrine that I endorse, though I realize that not all atheists will Read More ›

In “Left brain, right brain: researchers link neurology to political orientation” Andrew Duffy, Ottawa Citizen Postmedia News April 7, 2011) tells us,

The study, published in the online edition of Current Biology, found that people who identified themselves as liberal tended to have larger anterior cingulate cortexes (ACC), a region of the brain that monitors uncertainty and conflict.Meanwhile, those who identified themselves as conservative had larger amygdalas. Among other things, the almond-shaped amygdala processes emotions related to fear.

Researchers believe the physical differences reflect the nature of voters: that liberals tend to be more comfortable with uncertainty while conservatives are more sensitive to fear.

Observers have noted that Canada, mid-election, is currently a target for this sort of thing.

Those who read all the way down to the bottom will encounter the lines: Read More ›

The debate: Does Good Come From God II by Sam Harris vs William Lane Harris 7 April 2011 at Notre Dame is now on YouTube.

Part 1 of 9 – Harris vs Craig – Does Good Come From God Read More ›

When David Brooks’ Man: The Social Animal appeared, it was reviled by people as far apart otherwise as O’Leary and P.Z. Myers, for its Gadarene (and utterly tone deaf) slide into the fever swamps of evolutionary psychology.

These fetid bogs are usually inhabited by the Evolutionary Agony Aunt, the Darwinian brand marketer and the advocates of neurolaw (“your neurons fail, you’re in jail”). However, a review in thinkmag The Catholic Thing (“a forum for intelligent Catholic commentary”) not only heaps praise on the failed materialist novel but grabs it for Roman Catholicism.

Reviewer George J. Marlin offers Thomas Aquinas (complete with halo) to provide support for the descent, and offers

Although Brooks surveys the latest research on the human mind, he doesn’t teach Catholics anything all that new. What he does is confirm a lot of what generations of undergraduates were once taught about the human person at Catholic universities in their Thomistic philosophical psychology and ethics courses (it would be interesting to know how much this is still the case).

[ … ]

Brooks basically agrees that we have an intuitive moral sense and effectively explains how people can be taught to control irascible passions. It’s good that a columnist for The Times has surveyed recent scientific studies and reached that conclusion. But it’s best to recognize that his solid work, which some see as opening previously unexplored territory, is really a clearing of the way for a return to some of the oldest traditional truths.

Here’s a curious fact about Christian Darwinists: Read More ›

Overheard, on the “supernatural” and design in nature:

… the supernatural is not necessarily a religious idea.

Metaphysics was founded by Greek ancient philosophers and it has nothing to do with religion in the sense that it does not deal with concepts born out of Revelation but out of pure rationlity. Antony Flew ended up embracing rationality and intelligence in Nature but remained agnostic. Read More ›

This is a post about complex specified information (CSI). But first, I’d like to begin with a true story, going back to the mid-1960s. A Cambridge astronomer named Anthony Hewish had designed a large radio telescope, covering more than four acres, in order to pick out a special group of objects in the sky: compact, scintillating radio sources called quasars, which are now known to be the very active and energetic cores of distant galaxies. Professor Hewish and his students were finally able to start operating their telescope by July 1967, although it was not completely finished until later on. At the time, Hewish had a Ph.D. student named Jocelyn Bell. Bell had sole responsibility for operating the telescope and analyzing the data, under Hewish’s supervision.

Six or eight weeks after starting the survey, Jocelyn Bell noticed that a bit of “scruff” was occasionally appearing in the data records. However, it wasn’t one of the scintillating sources that Professor Hewish was searching for. Further observations revealed that it was a series of pulses, spaced 1.3373 seconds apart. The pulses could not be man-made, as they kept to sidereal time (the time-keeping system used by astronomers to track stars in the night sky). Subsequent measurements of the dispersion of the pulse signal established that the source was well outside the solar system but inside the galaxy. Yet at that time, a pulse rate of 1.3373 seconds seemed far too fast for a star, and on top of that, the signal was uncannily regular. Bell and her Ph.D supervisor were forced to consider the possibility of extraterrestrial life. As Bell put it in her recollections of the event (after-dinner speech, published in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol. 302, pp. 685-689, 1977):

We did not really believe that we had picked up signals from another civilization, but obviously the idea had crossed our minds and we had no proof that it was an entirely natural radio emission.

The observation was half-humorously designated Little green men 1 until a famous astronomer, Thomas Gold, identified these signals as rapidly rotating neutron stars with strong magnetic fields, in 1968. The existence of these stars had been postulated as far back as 1934, by Walter Baade and Fritz Zwicky, but no-one had yet confirmed their existence when Bell made her observations in 1967, and only a few astronomers knew much about them.

Here’s a question for readers: was Bell wrong to consider the possibility that the signals might be from aliens? Here’s another one: if you were searching for an extra-terrestrial intelligence, what criteria would you use to decide whether a signal came from aliens? As we’ll see, SETI’s criterion for identifying alien signals makes use of one form of complex specified information. The criterion – narrow band-width – looks very simple, but it involves picking out a sequence of events which is highly surprising, and therefore very complex.

My previous post, entitled Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner, or: Reasonable and Unreasonable Demands Relating to Complex Specified Information, dealt with complex specified information (CSI), as defined in Professor William Dembski’s paper, Specification: The Pattern that Signifies Intelligence. It was intended to answer some common criticisms of complex specified information, and also to explain why CSI, although defined in a mathematically rigorous manner, is not a physically computable quantity. Briefly, the reason is that Professor Dembski’s formula for CSI contains not only the physically computable term P(T|H), but also the semiotic term Phi_s(T). Specifically, Dembski defines the specified complexity Chi of a pattern T given chance hypothesis H, minus the tilde and context sensitivity, as:

Chi=-log2[10^120.Phi_s(T).P(T|H)],

where Chi is the specified complexity (or CSI) of a system,
Phi_s(T) is the number of patterns whose semiotic description by speaker S is at least as simple as S’s semiotic description of T,
P(T|H) is the probability of a pattern T with respect to the most plausible chance hypothesis H, and
10^120 is the maximal number of bit operations that the known, observable universe could have performed throughout its entire multi-billion year history, as calculated by theoretical computer scientist Seth Lloyd (“Computational Capacity of the Universe,” Physical Review Letters 88(23) (2002): 7901–4).

Some of the more thoughtful skeptics who regularly post comments on Uncommon Descent were not happy with this formula, so I’ve come up with a simpler one – call it CSI-lite, if you will – which I hope will be more to their liking. This post is therefore intended for people who are still puzzled about, or skeptical of, the concept of complex specified information. Read More ›

In “Chimp, Bonobo Study Sheds Light on the Social Brain”, ScienceDaily reports (Apr. 5, 2011) It’s been a puzzle why our two closest living primate relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, have widely different social traits, despite belonging to the same genus. Now, a comparative analysis of their brains shows neuroanatomical differences that may be responsible for these behaviors, from the aggression more typical of chimpanzees to the social tolerance of bonobos.”What’s remarkable is that the data appears to match what we know about the human brain and behavior,” says Emory anthropologist James Rilling, who led the analysis. “The neural circuitry that mediates anxiety, empathy and the inhibition of aggression in humans is better developed in bonobos than in chimpanzees.” [ … Read More ›

British physicist David Tyler, who posts here, has a comment in Nature on “Laird of physics” James Clerk Maxwell, particularly the Laird’s disquiet with materialism, a fact not noted in the article on maxwell: As the Victorian age matured, science leaders became increasingly materialistic. At a meeting of the British Association in 1874, President John Tyndall took the opportunity to advance his worldview (of materialism). In the audience was James Clerk Maxwell, who crafted this poem to express his disquiet: For poem, go here.

From AAAS’s ScienceInsider we learn: “Bill Allowing Teachers to Challenge Evolution Passes Tennessee House” (Sara Reardon, 7 April 2011): If the bill passes, Tennessee would join Louisiana as the second state to have specific “protection” for the teaching of evolution in the classroom. The effects of the Louisiana law, which passed in 2008, are still unclear. The bill allows teachers to “help students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught,” namely, “biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” Mediocrats are appalled: “Asserting that there are significant scientific controversies about the overall nature of these concepts when there Read More ›

In “Jules Evans on Neuroscience and Polytheism”, psychologist Evansoffers that we can make too much of claims that humans are ruled by unconscious motives (April 6, 2011). Such a claim forms a basis for “neurolaw” and “neuromarketing” ( also here (law and marketing as if you didn’t really exist). He notes,

The ancients’ idea that we can become ‘captains of our soul’ would seem to be up the creek without a paddle. And yet…We should remind ourselves that ancient philosophers didn’t say we were all born free, rational, moral and unified selves. They said we might perhaps become so, but only after years and years of training in mindfulness, self-examination, deliberative reasoning and impulse control. Most of us won’t put ourselves through this training, and will remain in a state of “civil war”, as Plato put it, with the multiple parts of our psyche constantly competing for power.I think this nuanced conception of human freedom, morality and rationality – as a latent capacity that can be developed through training – still holds up to scientific scrutiny.

For example, if we’re completely determined by our unconscious, automatic impulses, then how come Read More ›

A guy was involved with a push poll in a publically funded medium in Canada (currently heading to the polls), by which just about everyone comes out a “Liberal”: Here’s the first experiment. It only takes a minute. Go through the survey and answer every question with “no opinion” as your answer. Of course, skip the part where it asks you to choose parties or leaders (that would be taking an opinion). Surprise! The CBC push-poll says you’re a Liberal. Even though you gave absolutely no legitimate reason to be pegged as a Liberal. Like I say; Loewen and friends rigged the system. Now try a completely different approach. Go through the survey again and simply alternate clicking “strongly agree” Read More ›