Last news cycle, skim milk was virtuous; now it’s just a fad. Meanwhile, from the Ian Leslie at the Guardian: If, as seems increasingly likely, the nutritional advice on which we have relied for 40 years was profoundly flawed, this is not a mistake that can be laid at the door of corporate ogres. Nor can it be passed off as innocuous scientific error. What happened to John Yudkin belies that interpretation. It suggests instead that this is something the scientists did to themselves – and, consequently, to us. We tend to think of heretics as contrarians, individuals with a compulsion to flout conventional wisdom. But sometimes a heretic is simply a mainstream thinker who stays facing the same way Read More ›

Recently, we noted a claim that nature prefers hexagons, but a reader has written in to say that nature prefers squares. He adduces in evidence: Science published an interesting paper last year about the fact that the square shape of the seahorse tail creates a robust, rigid, yet flexible tail, more so than the typical circular/cylindrical shape you see in animal tails. Explanation: Most animals and plants approximate a cylinder in shape, and where junctions occur (as with branches of trees or limbs on animals), those corners are “faired,” meaning smoothly curved so that one surface grades into the next (1). When living organisms deviate from the norm, there’s usually a good biomechanical reason: a clue to some specific problem Read More ›

More on James Tour here: A prominent chemist who was recognized this year as one of the 50 most influential scientists in the world says most scientists do not understand how evolution could explain the existence of life. Dr. James Tour is a well-known professor at Rice University, specializing in chemistry, nanoengineering, and computer science. Over the last 30 years, Tour has authored over 500 research publications, and he was recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Scientists in the World Today” by TheBestSchools.org. Tour has also received awards and recognitions from the American Chemical Society, Thomson Reuters, Honda, NASA, and others. See also: A world-famous chemist tells the truth: there’s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution (also Read More ›

Oops. One last religion news item just landed: A friend writes to say that these guys didn’t get the memo from theistic evolutionists that an explanation by natural selection doesn’t refute intelligent design: From Thiago Hutter, Carine Gimbert, Frédéric Bouchard and François-Joseph Lapointe, “Being human is a gut feeling,” Microbiome, (2015) 3:9: Before Darwin, intelligent design arguments (such as the ones found in Paley) explaining the organization found in biological individuals via divine creation were the norm. Since Darwin, the origin of organization of biological individuals is to be explained thanks to designer-free adaptive processes. Individuals were functional wholes whose parts-integration was the result of evolution by natural selection. (public access) More. Some people believe natural selection somehow naturally produces Read More ›

Science 1, Evolution 0,  See more

Closing our religion coverage for the week: In a 2014 article in Christian Research Journal, “The New Theistic Evolutionists: BioLogos and the Rush to Embrace the ‘Consensus’ (not online), Luskin writes: Of course, when BioLogos claims “it is all intelligently designed,” they mean that strictly as a faith-based theological doctrine for which they can provide no supporting scientific evidence. Indeed, it’s ironic that BioLogos accuses ID of “removing God from the process of creation” when Collins writes that “science’s domain is to explore nature. God’s domain is in the spiritual world, a realm not possible to explore with the tools and language of science.” Under Collins’s view, God’s “domain” is seemingly fenced off from “nature,” which belongs to “science.” Since Read More ›

Hey, peace—for all its faults, it’s still a free country. And after Karl Giberson and Peter Enns, one’s entitled to at least wonder about stuff like that… Anyway, Waynesburg University (Pennsylvania) biology prof Wayne Rossiter writes at Shadow of Oz blog: Unfortunately, Dr. Paul Wallace (an astronomer and ordained Baptist minister) has proven Daniel Dennett’s point, “Darwin’s idea — bearing an unmistakable likeness to universal acid: it eats through just about every traditional concept, and leaves in its wake a revolutionized world-view, with most of the old landmarks still recognizable, but transformed in fundamental ways.” Of course, Wallace’s new book was supposed to be transformational in its ability to meld science and faith as one common body. Nonetheless, it’s clear that Read More ›

From Jonathan McClatchie: Here is the recording of my recent debate at Monash University in South Africa with agnostic philosopher Charles Villet, on “Does God Exist?” It includes quite a bit of ID material. More. Follow UD News at Twitter!

New Scientist advises us that “evolution” can help us understand the migration crisis in Europe. But of course. Provided we believes what they believe, “evolution” can by definition enable us to understand anything. Just find a peg on which to hang whatever is happening. Migration is, we are told, “a characteristic of our species,” “evolution made us xenophobes,” and “we’re a stay-at-home species.” Or that “rich countries need immigrants.” And “Only a new international body can cut through the bluster on the emotive but much misunderstood migration ‘crisis.’” Contradiction’s no problem; we haven’t evolved so as to understand how to deal with it properly. If you can stand all the enlightenment, sign up and pay. Note: It would be nice Read More ›

From Nathaniel Scharping here: The words and body language we use during social interactions belong to a set of mutually understood categories. When people deviate from this set of normative behaviors, we sense that something is off. And if something isn’t right, we don’t feel comfortable. More. That makes sense. Actual human interactions are much more complex than pop psychology. This is something to keep in mind: “I think that none of the behaviors described as creepy in our study were actually tied to danger,” McAndrew wrote. … McAndrew also asked participants whether they thought creepy people knew they were, well, creeps. The response was overwhelmingly “no,” indicating that no one thinks people are willingly trying to be creepy. Instead creepiness Read More ›

From ScienceDaily: Although it’s widely known that modern humans carry traces of Neanderthal DNA, a new international study led by researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine suggests that Neanderthal Y-chromosome genes disappeared from the human genome long ago. Apparently, 2.5 to 4 percent of DNA sequences are thought be from Neanderthals. Question: Has anyone tried doing that with any other discrete group? Why is not yet clear. The Neanderthal Y chromosome genes could have simply drifted out of the human gene pool by chance over the millennia. Another possibility, said Mendez, is that Neanderthal Y chromosomes include genes that are incompatible with other human genes, and he and his colleagues have found evidence supporting this idea. Indeed, one Read More ›

Vincent Torley wrote about the Canadian national mag’s effort here: To give credit where credit is due, Professor Bart Ehrman, in his recent scholarly attack on the reliability of the New Testament, at least took the trouble to draw upon the latest scientific research relating to the fallibility of human memory, even though he overlooked equally impressive research demonstrating the reliability of memory, both within a community and within the mind of an eyewitness, over the course of time. However, Brian Bethune’s hatchet job on Jesus attempts to cast doubt on His very existence, citing the work of one historian (Richard Carrier) who is not recognized as a New Testament scholar, and whose methodology is highly dubious. I am forced Read More ›

In the comments box at Miller’s Mendacity, Barry Arrington asks It is getting to the point that refuting the nonsense is almost beside the point. No one believes it, least of all those who say they do. As you’ve been saying for some time now, the really interesting story here is the psychological story. Why do people profess belief in the obviously false? Okay: Why do people profess belief in the obviously false? A couple notes: – The belief that randomness produces information (central to Darwinism) is obviously false. It’s never been demonstrated because it can’t be. It is assumed. It is assumed for the same reasons as the existence of a multiverse or a naturalist explanation for consciousness are assumed. Read More ›

Says Philip Ball at Nautilus: The ancient Greek philosopher Pappus of Alexandria thought that the bees must be endowed with “a certain geometrical forethought.” And who could have given them this wisdom, but God? According to William Kirby in 1852, bees are “Heaven-instructed mathematicians.” Charles Darwin wasn’t so sure, and he conducted experiments to establish whether bees are able to build perfect honeycombs using nothing but evolved and inherited instincts, as his theory of evolution would imply. More. Note how in pop science culture, a simple question like Why hexagons? turns into a hymn of praise to Darwin vs. others. You know, the author of the single greatest idea anyone ever had. Incidentally, this kind of thing is what makes Read More ›

At Patheos, the prophet RJS asks: Is ID Dead?, meaning of course that it is: A decade ago Intelligent Design with a capital I and a capital D was a hot topic. A major trial testing the teaching of the ID in Pennsylvania was decided in late 2005 and Stephen C. Meyer’s massive book Signature in the Cell was published in 2009. It was a common topic in evangelical churches – viewed as a way to combat the evil influence of evolution. Quite frankly, it was a topic I was ready to see disappear. The controversy was tainting most conversations about Christianity in my circles at the University. Today there are other points of contention and Intelligent Design has moved Read More ›