DaveScot recently offered a post entitled “Biologists Are Not Design Experts” in which he commented about Darwinian (i.e., blind-watchmaker) evolution apologists who propose that those in other disciplines should keep their noses out of Darwinian evolutionary theory, presumably because these would-be naysayers are not experts in blind or (as Phillip Johnson so eloquently puts it) comatose watchmaking.

In reply to a commenter, DaveScot retorts: “Keep in mind this [Dave’s original post] is a response to a Panda’s Thumb article saying scientists ought to stay within their expertise. They of course are directing it specifically at mathematicians like Dembski and Berlinski telling them to butt out of biology, plus non-specifically to any of the scientists on the Dissent from Darwinism list that aren’t biologists. I’m just giving them a taste of their own medicine.”

The problem is that Darwinian evolutionary theorists (and their spinoff cohorts in evolutionary sociology and psychology, who really should seek medical or other counseling to put them back in touch with reality) have lost touch with the rest of the scientific community.

Read More ›

In an unsurprising act of cowardice, not a single Darwimpian defender of the faith scientist had the balls fiber to stand up to our fearless leader in Kansas yesterday.
Read More ›

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-01-03-infidelity-study_x.htm

Some men cheat on their partners. So do some women. Now researchers say it is more than a wandering eye that might cause a woman to stray.

This conclusion was based on two studies of college men and women using questionnaires where the test group was asked how they felt (how scientific) about other men/women outside of their steady relationships. Read More ›

From: “Biosciences” [biosciences @mail.medicine.uiowa.edu]
To: [select U of Iowa faculty — ID proponents were bypassed]

Dear colleagues:

The issue of “Intelligent Design” has received a great deal of attention in recent months. Local interest in this issue spawned a recent panel discussion “Intelligent Design: in your classroom?” sponsored by the student group, U of I Freethinkers. The substantial attendance and lively discussion at this event indicates a strong interest by the University of Iowa community in this important topic. Read More ›

There an interesting piece in The American Scientist by Pat Shipman on how best to swat down ID. It’s interesting not because its arguments against ID or on behalf of evolution are strong, but because of the psychology it portrays: panic, damage control, and denial (the denial being that there might be anything fundamentally amiss with conventional evolutionary theory). As you read it, think of the cigarette companies 50 years ago attempting to swat down claims that cigarette smoking is dangerous to your health. Shipman is a company man to the core, representing vested interests that have everything to lose. Read More ›

The Evolutionary Computation Technical Committee of the Computational Intelligence Society recently recently drafted the following statement at its Montreal meeting (go here for the full report; note that the minutes of this meeting will eventually appear here): Read More ›

In The Design Revolution, I characterized theory change as follows: Read More ›