Okay, it’s not Stephen King, but no scholar ever is. Recently, the journal Synthese had to put a disclaimer on an article written by a Darwin lobbyist about Baylor scholar Frank Beckwith (philosophy and church-state studies*). I am happy to say that, as of this date, his has become the most downloaded article. That is a positive sign for academic life in general, just when we thought they’d fall clear down to China, and out into space. But there is, after all, a bottom somewhere. here is the first story on the subject (what happened), here is a backgrounder, and here are some reflections. * In previous posts, I had assumed he was a law prof, and will correct that Read More ›

Reading further into Suzan Mazur’s Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry, I learned something interesting: Scientists and philosophers who explore self-organization in evolution  also battle the armies of Fortress Tenure (trolls commanded by tax burdens). Mazur notes that zoologist and natural philosopher Stan Salthe, visiting scholar at Binghamton University says “his skepticism about natural selection has made him “poison” in some science circles.” He’s not by any means the only one whose name comes up. Materialist atheist philosopher Jerry Fodor (MIT) joked that he was in the Witness Protection Program for his skepticism of evolutionary psychology.[!] Meanwhile, Stuart Newman of New York Medical College warns, Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the Read More ›

Here tragic mishap says something I could not quite understand, and maybe Phaedros did: In discussing speech controls , as here, I said, Anyone who doubts the story should consider that, in the modern world, huge empires imprisoning billions of people and killing tens of millions, have been based on speech control (implicitly, thought control) backed by violence. Usually, the empires’ theories were wrong, their projects useless or destructive, and their end welcome. The pity is that no one was able to shut them down quickly by making everyone mutually incomprehensible about everything. he thought I sounded “like Jared Loughner” (the alleged perpetrator of the recent Tucson, Arizona, shootings at a handshaker where the Congresswoman was seriously wounded, and many Read More ›

While preparing a lecture, paleoanthropologist John Hawks considers the following division of opinion on the origin of language, grammar, etc: Whether language evolved as an accidental by-product of tool use, etc. or how the rules of grammar evolved, and the way in which language originated as a byproduct of tool use and how the rules of grammar evolved by natural selection (discussing Chomsky, Pinker, and Ramachandran. He is not satisfied with what he hears:

I still don’t believe it. Some archaeologists fetishize stone tools in this way, making them the end-all of human cognitive evolution. But let’s face it: chimpanzees and even capuchin monkeys perform multistep tool operations using the brains they have. Hafting a point on a stick seems like the pinnacle of progress only when points are all the ground yields up.Consider how many times a child will witness tools being crafted. Now consider how many times the same child hears spoken communication. The second is at least two or three orders of magnitude greater than the first. It’s not statistically credible for toolmaking to provide a cognitive basis for language. The opposite is vastly more likely.

Ironically, my current view is that much of language cognition really may be a spandrel – at least, in the broad sense promoted by Gould. (March 11, 2011)

Essentially, the spandrel is a supposed accidental byproduct of evolution by natural selection.

Now, in the face of a subject as momentous as language, just what project engages Hawks and his lecture subjects: Not to discover the origin of language but to develop a theory that follows with utter regularity from Darwinian evolution. That, of course, is precisely where the trouble begins.

As a lifetime professional communicator, I would say we know a few truths about human language: Read More ›

Lots of people think David Brooks’s evolutionary psychology romance (The Social Animal) flopped. That surprised me. Who knows, it may signal a wholesome change in the wind: Not every stale idea or exhibition of poor taste can be rescued by throwing the word “evolution” about or invoking “neuroscience.” Consider “Mean Street: What David Brooks Got Wrong and Montaigne Got Right” by Evan Newmark (The Wall Street JournalMarch 11, 2011): …sorry, but I won’t be reading the entire book. The magazine piece was enough for me. It just didn’t ring true – and for good reason. It isn’t. To make his case, Brooks invents “Harold” and “Erica”, two imaginary 21st century overachievers, and tells how their lives and fates are determined Read More ›

“Pssst! Don’t tell the creationists, but scientists don’t have a clue how life began” (Scientific American, Feb 28, 2011) :

Exactly 20 years ago, I wrote an article for Scientific American that, in draft form, had the headline above. My editor nixed it, so we went with something less dramatic: “In the Beginning…: Scientists are having a hard time agreeing on when, where and—most important—how life first emerged on the earth.” That editor is gone now, so I get to use my old headline, which is even more apt today.

He mentions Dennis Overbye’s New York Times origin-of-life story (A Romp Into Theories of the Cradle of Life” (February 21, 2011)), about which I had asked here, “Is this the kindergarten of science or its dotage?”, observing that Overbye “sounds like a man who knows a comic scene when he sees one.”

The RNA world is so dissatisfying that some frustrated scientists are resorting to much more far out—literally—speculation. The most startling revelation in Overbye’s article is that scientists have resuscitated a proposal once floated by Crick. Dissatisfied with conventional theories of life’s beginning, Crick conjectured that aliens came to Earth in a spaceship and planted the seeds of life here billions of years ago. This notion is called directed panspermia. In less dramatic versions of panspermia, microbes arrived on our planet via asteroids, comets or meteorites, or drifted down like confetti.

Horgan ends on a really classy note: He trashes creationists, as if they had anything whatever to do with how this mess originated, grew, deepened, and then sucked a whole lot of people in.

At this point, one wants to pull up a chair, pull out a notepad, and make some notes: Read More ›

In “Evolution Drives Many Plants and Animals to Be Bigger, Faster (ScienceDaily, Mar. 9, 2011), we learn: For the vast majority of plants and animals, the ‘bigger is better’ view of evolution may not be far off the mark, says a new broad-scale study of natural selection. Organisms with bigger bodies or faster growth rates tend to live longer, mate more and produce more offspring, whether they are deer or damselflies, the authors report. Researchers working at the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center compiled and reviewed nearly 150 published estimates of natural selection, representing more than 100 species of birds, lizards, snakes, insects and plants. The results confirm that for most plants and animals, larger body size and earlier seasonal timing Read More ›

Here, courtesy Thomas Lewis: Answer on NeuroscienceIs there a standard for distinguishing one type of love from another? As one of the authors of “A General Theory of Love,” I’ll take a stab at it. From the perspective of neuroscience, there are 3 basic forces that attract and bind people to one another. Each one is related to activity in certain brain networks. The 3 are: 1. Sexual desire. 2. Romantic infatuation 3. Attachment. We are informed, with respect to attachment, that it is a process of physiologic attunement and affection and affiliation. The basic and most fundamental form of attachment is that between mammalian parent and offspring, and other forms are elaborations of this basic mammalian caretaking and nurturing Read More ›

Last summer, I had the tremendous opportunity to travel to Seattle, Washington, and take part in Discovery Institute’s yearly summer seminar for undergraduate and graduate students. Truth be told, it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. I had the chance to interact at a one-on-one level with key ID scholars including William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Richard Sternberg, Stephen C. Meyer, Scott Minnich, Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Jay Richards, and Bruce Gordon (and more!). I also made many good friends from all over the world, most of whom I have remained in contact with even until now. If you are a postgraduate or undergraduate student who is keen on ID and is swithering on whether or not this is for you, then I strongly encourage you to apply! Not only will you get connected with many phenomenal like-minded people, you will never think the same way about ID and evolution ever again! Best of all, if you are accepted for the program, you needn’t pay a cent! Travel expenses, lodging, meals, the lot, are fully funded.

Even if your academic discipline isn’t in the natural sciences, you needn’t worry — there is a program which is specifically geared towards those with a background in social sciences, humanities, law or theology!

Below are the details and information you need to APPLY.

Read More ›

Going through Suzan Mazur’s Altenberg 16, after reading Bill Dembski’s post yesterday on genome mapper Craig Venter “coming out” as a disbeliever in the sacred teaching of common descent – in the very presence of Darwin’s high priest Dawkins* – I couldn’t help recalling New Zealand journalist Suzan Mazur’s effort to get a reaction from National Center for Science Education (the Darwin in the schools lobby), and its outcome: … when I called Kevin Padian, president of NCSE’s board of directors and a witness at the 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover trial on intelligent design, to ask him about the evolution debate among scientists — he said, “On some things there is not a debate.” He then hung up.- Suzan Mazur, Read More ›

Dawkins pal Jerry Coyne has noticed the ID Community’s reb, and in “Moshe Averick: another creationist rabbi”, he makes clear what he thinks of clergy who have actually noticed the unseen world: Perhaps I was wrong to assume that rabbis have higher respect for science, and less tolerance for theological bullshit, than do Christian preachers or Muslim imams. Let us take it as a given that no rabbi, whatever his learning, can have a high respect for truth if something he says displeases Jerry Coyne. That’s just the way the universe is. Having pointed out that our “maverick” is nobody’s fool (used to trade on the Chicago Exchange floor), Coyne invites his trolls to go after Averick’s comment about the Read More ›

I just couldn’t. From ScienceDaily (Mar. 9, 2011), we learn “Missing DNA Helps Make Us Human”: Tracing the expression of the protein through development, Kingsley and his colleagues concluded that the sequence contributes to the development of sensory whiskers found on the faces of many mammals, and prickly surface spines found on the penises of mice and many non-human primates. Previous studies show that complete inactivation of the androgen receptor gene lead to defects in whiskers and failure to form penile spines. Although humans still retain the androgen receptor gene, the loss of regulatory information for expression in whiskers and spines could help explain two human-specific anatomical traits: absence of sensory whiskers and lack of spines on human penises. Loss Read More ›

Here’s an article about Chernobyl. Quite fascinating—and extremely long!! The pertinent pages are the last two: pp. 6-7. The biologist working at Chernobyl is studying the effects of cesium and strontium, presumably the by-products of fission present at Chernobyl after the reactor failure. It’s been 25 years since the accident. They’ve been studying animals for 17.

What are the results? For the most part, life is abundant at Chernobyl. It’s become a new Garden of Eden (less man, for the most part). But NO new life forms.

What about changed life forms? Well, . . . yes. Here’s what they say:
On the surface, Igor says, the wildlife seems to be thriving, but under the fur and hide, the DNA of most species has become unstable. They’ve eaten a lot of food contaminated with cesium and strontium. Even though the animals look fine, there are differences at the chromosomal level in every generation, as yet mostly invisible. But some have started to show: there are bird populations with freakishly high levels of albinism, with 20 percent higher levels of asymmetry in their feathers, and higher cancer rates. There are strains of mice with resistance to radioactivity—meaning they’ve developed heritable systems to repair damaged cells. Covered in radioactive particles after the disaster, one large pine forest turned from green to red: seedlings from this Red Forest placed in their own plantation have grown up with various genetic abnormalities. They have unusually long needles, and some grow not as trees but as bushes. The same has happened with some birch trees, which have grown in the shape of large, bushy feathers, without a recognizable trunk at all.

All of these documented changes are defects of one kind or another, making them “less fit” in normal populations. This is true of the animals more than for the plants; but even for the plant life present, what good is a birch tree without a trunk? Can you call it a tree?

Now, with all the great amount of variety that mutations can cause in such an irradiated environment, one would think that this would be a great place for Darwinian mechanisms to work their ‘magic’. But that is not what we see. We see deterioration. We see life becoming less fit, not more. We don’t see new species; we see old species that have become bizarre, with “genetic abnormalities”.
Read More ›

Interesting story at Evolution News & Views about an exchange between Craig Venter (of human genome fame) and Richard Dawkins (of neo-atheist fame). Venter denies common descent, Dawkins can’t believe that he would even question it. For the exchange, which also includes Paul Davies, go here (start at the 9 minute mark). Origin-of-life researchers such as Ford Doolittle and Carl Woese have questioned for some time whether there even is a tree of life. Venter is now following in their train. What’s significant is not so much whether Venter is right (I think he is), but what his dissent from Darwinian orthodoxy suggests about the disarray in the study of biological origins. If common descent is up for grabs, what isn’t? Read More ›