Darwin wrote of himself:

I attempted mathematics [at Cambridge University ], and even went during the summer of 1828 with a private tutor (a very dull man) to Barmouth, but I got on very slowly. The work was repugnant to me, chiefly from my not being able to see any meaning in the early steps of algebra. This impatience was foolish, and in after years I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense. But I do not believe that I should ever have succeeded beyond a very low grade.

Autobiography (p. 58 of the 1958 Norton edition)

Read More ›

In a post earlier today Denyse responded to a student’s charge that ID is a “God of the gaps” scientific show stopper.  Apparently, the student assumes if a researcher performs a scientific investigation of a phenomenon and concludes that design by an intelligent agent is the best explanation for the phenomenon, the matter is then settled and all further scientific inquiry is foreclosed.  But that is not the way science works.  All scientific conclusions are tentative and contingent.  Popper put the proposition this way: “Science does not rest on solid bedrock.  The bold structure of its theories rises, as it were, above a swamp.  It is like a building erected on piles.  The piles are driven down from above into the swamp, Read More ›

See the cartoon below by Hiromi Makita in full size here and here in hi resolution. From: Japanese Scientists Growing More Interested in Intelligent Design by Rob Crowther.

Certain individuals associated with the Templeton Foundation see it as their duty to put as much distance as possible between the foundation and intelligent design. The most recent case is Billy Grassie’s explanation of how the Templeton Foundation could have been in their right minds when they awarded me a $100,000 book grant back in 1999: “The Case of the Missing Book: Setting the Record Straight on William Dembski, the Templeton Foundation, and Intelligent Design.” (Go here and here for earlier posts on this topic at UD). Grassie was responding to a piece by Joseph Campana at ResearchID.org (go here), and Campana has now provided a detailed reply (go here). I therefore don’t see the need to offer a detailed Read More ›

A student appended a comment to one of my blog posts, charging that intelligent design is just a God of the Gaps argument (if we assume design we cannot learn very much about the world), and asking for a response. Here it is, and here is an excerpt: “The concern you expressed above, that an inference of design means that “we wouldn’t learn very much about the world”, beautifully captures the default position of defenders of materialism – whether they claim to be churchgoers or not – and that may be where you first encountered it. (I am not saying that you are a materialist; I am saying that you have beautifully captured their default position.) Their view makes sense, Read More ›

Magicians have been doing it for centuries: using misdirection to keep attention off what is really going on. Darwinists have refined this art when it comes to defending their story: talk about religious motives, define “science” so that ID cannot be considered, fear-monger about the dangers of theocracy and the collapse of science education… etcetera, and so forth. Above all, divert attention from the substantive issues, like the origin of biological information. Listen to Michael Egnor here on that subject. Now for the just-for-fun part: Check out this PowerPoint file of a David Copperfield illusion. Who can solve it and identify the misdirection?

I am writing to draw the attention of anyone who may not have seen it to the NYT Magazine this past Sunday (March 4). The cover story, “Darwin’s God,” by one Robin Marantz Henig, takes the NYT’s usual wide-eyed, credulous approach to all things Darwinian—in this case, giving us an atrocious farrago of self-contradictory Evolutionary Psychology Just-So Stories for the origin of relgious belief. The badness of the article must be read to be believed, but just as a sample, my favorite non sequitur is on page 43. There it is recounted how 5-year-olds are already able to make the vital distinction between what people believe to be the case and what really is the case. This legitimate and very Read More ›

Both Skeptic Forum and Krauze at TelicThoughts are reporting that quotations of Jonathan Wells are appearing on Starbucks coffee cups. “Darwinism’s impact on traditional social values has not been as benign as its advocates would like us to believe. Despite the efforts of its modern defenders to distance themselves from its baleful social consequences, Darwinism’s connection with eugenics, abortion and racism is a matter of historical record, and the record is not pretty.” Dr. Jonathan Wells, biologist and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design This is the second Discovery Institute CSC fellow to appear on a Starbucks Coffee cup. The first was Wesley Smith. We need a cartoonist. How about a cartoon of Darwinists at Read More ›

Nobody seems to be blogging these days, including me, but a friend sent me something interesting: I’ve often said that the ID guys owe a good deal of their success to their opposition, and here is an example of just what I mean, kindly provided by ID embryologist Jonathan Wells’s Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006), about Paul Mirecki: From Chapter 15 (p. 173): Anti-Christian zealots are often in the forefront of attacks on intelligent design. In 2005, the chairman of the University of Kansas Religious Studies Department, atheist Paul Mirecki, proposed to teach a course titled “Intelligent Design Creationism and Other Mythologies.” Mirecki boasted on a web site that “fundies” would see the course as a Read More ›

Recently, a friend wanted some help in explaining to a hostile audience (1) why there is an ID controversy, (2) why it gets bigger, and (3) why it is not going away.

He was facing an audience, I expect, who would rather believe conspiracy theories than evaluate evidence.

His audience is probably a lost cause, but it may be worth a try if lunch is served.

Conspiracy theorists usually believe themselves more virtuous than their mythical conspirators, so their theories provide both pretended knowledge and pretended virtue at once. As a result, the theories are pretty hard to disconfirm by evidence. Read More ›

In a recent column on the “lost tomb of Jesus,” Frank Pastore observes ,

Poor James Cameron. He wanted some of that Da Vinci Code action so badly that he jumped on a 27 year old story line that everyone else in Hollywood had wisely passed on. He ignored so many early warning signs, too. When he was hav-ing trouble early on finding A, B, or even C list “scientific experts” who were willing to throw their careers away if they would only validate his silly theories – and they all continued saying no – he didn’t let that slow him down one bit. He pressed on and signed the minor league guys. And later, when the best he could come up with for his advance publicity hook was to claim statistically similar names and unrelated DNA samples – He still didn’t pull the plug – even though any-one who has ever seen just one episode of CSI is sharp enough to spit out the bait. Read More ›

After reading yet another Pim van Meurs (PvM) rant at Panda’s Thumb and seeing him reuse for the umpteenth time the phrase “scientific vacuity of intelligent design” I thought it would be fun to see how the meme is faring and what other monkeys are aping it. Click here to take a stroll through the simian section of the zoo. Watch out for flying feces.

It seems the Discovery Institute recently quoted PZ Myers in one of his more memorable faux tough guy ravings and to my delight Paul Myers, the red-faced raving labcoated academic pansy, in response treats us to another display of impotent, impudent juvenile rage over ID proponents. Imagine, as you read his latest rabble rousing speech, a small man reminiscent of Fidel Castro only in a white labcoat instead of olive drab military dungarees. He’s waving around a test tube and pipette instead of a 9mm Glock and AK-47. He rants to a crowd of nerdish college kids that aren’t old enough to shave and despite their best efforts to change the situation are all still virgins. Warning the juvenile sycophants about teh ne plus ultra danger of Intelligent Design like it was capitalism encroaching on the communist world and extoling the virtues of Teh Scientific Way like it was Marxism reincarnate. AND he gets fan mail. FAN MAIL! Proof positive he’s doing it right. Uber validation! What a dork. Fierce like a potted plant. ROFLMAO

Ready? Read on…

Get meaner, angrier, louder, fiercer
Category: Creationism
Posted on: March 1, 2007 11:45 PM, by PZ Myers

The IDists love to quote me, because I am rather militant in my opposition to their lies. They are particularly fond of one particular quote* that they’ve even used in their fund-raising literature. They think it’s damning; some of my fellow anti-creationists swoon and protest when they hear the words, but they tend to be faint-hearted anyway. But here’s what’s really amusing.

I get fan mail from people all the time who are overjoyed that someone out there on the evolution side isn’t an apologetic ditherer.

It’s hard to see in the graphs below because these are totals and February was a short month but the daily average number of unique visitors increased from the January all-time record of 5828 to 6430 in February which is a 10% increase. Interestingly, the total number of unique sites jumped dramatically from 39217 to 49751. I’m not sure what that’s all about yet.

In response to the post at ResearchID.org on Templeton’s funding of ID (go here), their Newsroom put up the following on its website: In response to errors and misrepresentations stated in the February 28, 2007 ResearchID.com blog post: The John Templeton Foundation has never made a call-for-proposals to the ID Community. The Henry Schaefer grant was from the Origins of Biological Complexity program. Schaefer is a world’s leading chemist, and his research has nothing whatsoever to do with ID. Bill Dembski’s grant was not for the book “Free Lunch”. Dembski was given funds to write another book on Orthodox Theology, which was not on ID, however he has never written the book. From our FAQ… Does the Foundation support I.D.? Read More ›