Long time followers of this site will remember that my grandfather used to collect small stones he called “arrowheads.”  He had the misguided notion that these small pieces of flint had complex and specific chip patterns that he attributed to intelligent agency, i.e., Indians making tips for their arrows.  Later in life I learned that my grandfather was deluded.  Scientists assure us that unguided natural processes are perfectly competent to produce even the most extraordinarily complex phenomena, and the “design” some people insist on inferring from complexity is merely an illusion.  And my grandfather’s misguided resort to agency to explain these chip patterns is an example of the dreaded “Indian-of-the-Gaps” mode of thinking in action.  See my post here The other day I Read More ›

The Chicago Reader, a publication I used to read when living in Chicago, reports on my recent blog post at UD about Jerry Coyne, comparing him to Herman Munster (for the comparison, go here): Meanwhile, in what seems like an odd move, creationists have chosen to play on Coyne’s home court by claiming to be scientists themselves, and presenting “intelligent design” as an alternative scientific hypothesis to Darwinian evolution (though its advocates put forth no testable predictions). Last year in the case Kitzmiller v. Dover, Pennsylvania federal judge John E. Jones III ruled against that claim after a lengthy trial, but the efforts continue. Coyne’s latest New Republic article (June 18) takes on the new book by intelligent-design advocate Michael Read More ›

In his new book, “The Edge of Evolution,” (another masterpiece) Michael Behe looks in considerable detail at the struggle for survival between humans and the malaria parasite where, in the last 100 years, the evolution of more organisms and generations can be studied than were involved in the entire natural history of mammals. He finds that natural selection can indeed be credited with some “change”, but concludes Far and away the most extensive relevant data we have on the subject of evolution’s effects on competing organisms is that accumulated on interactions between humans and our parasites. As with the example of malaria, the data show trench warfare, with acts of desperate destruction, not arms races, with mutual improvements. The thrust Read More ›

A friend draws my attention to a recent squawk in TRENDS in Biochemical Sciences Vol.32 No.7 (July 2007) by Barbara Forrest and Paul Gross, who – so far as I can tell – make a career out of opposing the intelligent design theorists. Squawks about the alleged threat posed by the ID theorists are nothing new – this one (“Biochemistry by design”) is aimed mainly against Mike Behe – but my friend called my attention to the fact that it mentions me (and my colleague Mustafa Akyol) – and in a most curious context too …

At a blog called “biologists helping bookstores,” a Pasadena-based woman whose handle is Shandon explains how she deliberately misshelved Mike Behe’s Edge of Evolution, and a number of other books – distributing them around the store according to her private tastes. Now, you might think that Shandon (hereafter Misshelver) is restricting the right of others to read. But whoever she is and whatever her connection to biology, she does not see it that way at all. Anyway, see how she describes her modus operandi.

I’ve just read a most interesting book by Oxford historian Alister McGrath, arguing that we are currently looking at the twilight of atheism. That’s certainly my impression, judging from the remarkably ill-advised antics of the recent anti-God campaign. One thing the campaign made quite clear is that materialism is not some neutral middle ground on which we can happily do science experiments together. On the contrary, these people are militant, and that could be trouble for you if you are a theist or non-materialist of some kind. For the rest go here.

In a beautifully written article in the New Yorker, Ian Parker describes how he shared the hot, damp work of studying the elusive bonobo (lesser chimpanzee) – long lauded as sexy and peaceful – with one of the only people in the world who actually knows much about them in the wilds. Well, people who actually studied the “hippie ape”, came away with a different view. UPDATE! Note this update on the most interesting combox discussion that developed overnight.

When I asked a gifted Canadian physicist what he thought of Frank Tipler’s The Physics of Christianity, he said, “in one word: wacky”. But readers will expect more than one word from me, and I think there is more than that to be said for Tipler’s book. Frank Tipler is in an unusual position. He is a Christian physicist who is an exponent of “many worlds” theory. This theory, according to which new universes are constantly generated by each choice that we make, is typically shunned by Christian physicists (including my friend, mentioned above). Apart from its dizzying implications, many worlds theory seems to make life’s choices meaningless. (Tipler does not appear to see it that way.) Now, one good Read More ›

I first determined to make a point of reading historian Richard Weikart’s meticulously researched book, From Darwin to Hitler because Darwinists were very clearly upset by the implications of his work. Some seemed obsessed with proving Weikart, who teaches at California State University (Stanislaus) not only wrong but dishonest and irresponsible – which he certainly isn’t. I am glad I read this magisterial work, because I now understand much better the relationship between 19th century Darwinism and the rise of Hitler. Weikart unearths so many old, almost buried 19th and early 20th century German sources. Indeed, one can only wonder at his patience, systematically reading through the many, many articles and books of long-dead eugenicists, imperialists, pacifists, socialists, and such. Read More ›

Here’s a book that came out last month that readers of this blog should be aware of: Science’s Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism (Paperback) by Cornelius G. Hunter (Author) Book Description Had evolutionists been in charge, they wouldn’t have made the mosquito, planetary orbits would align perfectly, and the human eye would be better designed. But they tend to gloss over their own failed predictions and faulty premises. Naturalists see Darwin’s theories as “logical” and that’s enough. To think otherwise brands you a heretic to all things wise and rational. Science’s Blind Spot takes the reader on an enlightening journey through the ever-evolving theory of evolution. Cornelius G. Hunter goes head-to-head with those who twist textbooks, confuse Read More ›

The recent North American polls I’ve seen recently show several key trends:

1. Both evolution and creation are widely accepted, and the distribution of numbers is roughly stable over the years. No dramatic proof or disproof of Darwin’s theory that would change many minds has occurred. That said, it is quite likely that many people believe contradictory things.

2. Americans are (or think they are) well aware of the arguments on either side, and generally do not want the issues politicized.

3. Canadian responses differ markedly from American ones in several ways, principally because the issues have not been politicized in Canada. The reasons why they have not are worth noting. Read More ›

I’ve been reading a lot of the classic literature lately on mutation and selection from the 20s, 30s, and 40s. It’s interesting to read old science material with the advantage of hindsight. It’s like watching a movie — you might know what’s going to happen next, but the characters don’t. And so, reading Muller’s experiments with X-ray induced mutations, and other similar literature, I realize that while performing these experiments, they are really shooting in the dark. They know this thing called “evolution” happened (the existence of fossils is the key evidence factor for them), and now they have found a way to mutate genes. And they think that the combination of these is going to solve the riddle of evolution. All of this reminds me of my first experiences with an Apple II GS computer back in the 80s.
Read More ›

I hope I am not interrupting a heated exchange over pepperology* but I thought I’d share this:

A reader of the Post-Darwinist wrote me to ask, how it could  a plant evolve by Darwinian means to look like a wasp – as we are meant to believe.

I replied:

Well, the Darwinian theory is that the wasp and the orchid evolved by slow steps toward this resemblance, purely by natural selection.

That is, the plants and insects that looked most like each other were naturally selected for.

Somewhat like an accidental version of Swan Lake.

I have the same reaction as you. I don’t think it likely happened that way. Read More ›

To: Dembski

From: O’Leary

Re: Compensation for Thumbsmen

July 25, 2007

Bill, pursuant to your recent comments on the guy in charge of promoting the ID biz conf over at the Thumb, how much ARE we paying our shills anyway? I have been trying to get figures for several months now, but accounting is backlogged due to the recent surge in memberships, donations, and book sales.

Taken as a group, the Thumbsmen are highly productive – an excellent investment. I can’t think of any venture of ours that has been as successful in providing worldwide recognition for the ID community and for anti-materialist ideas in general.

However, the productivity of individual Thumbsmen varies wildly. I cannot determine which ones we should tell to go freelance until I know what each is actually costing our public relations budget. Also, some of them are overdue for a pay raise, don’t you think? We wouldn’t want to tempt them to accept an offer to work against us.

The ASA division continues to underperform. Read More ›

Dr David Seargent from NSW Australia has just published PLANET EARTH and the Design Hypothesis In many respects, our planet is a cosmic anomaly. Moreover, it is anomalous in such a way as to provide an excellent environment for complex life in what appears to be a largely hostile universe. Is this simply a fortunate coincidence, or does it speak of something more fundamental, even an underlying intelligent design in nature? To answer this question, we must isolate the characteristics of design and determine whether these are apparent in the natural world. The ensuing discussion will take us beyond the important contributions of mathematician and philosopher W. Dembski and biologist M. Behe to the concept of “Transitive Complexity” (TC). It Read More ›