Gil Dodgen, who is a concert pianist (as well as a present, former, and possibly late hang glider), offered some useful thoughts on this pop sci amusement by Drake Bennett in the Boston Globe on the alleged origin of music.

The evolutionary benefits of our affinity for food (nutrition) and sex (procreation) are easy enough to explain, but music is trickier. It has become one of the great puzzles in the field of evolutionary psychology, a controversial discipline dedicated to determining the adaptive roots of aspects of modern behavior, from child-rearing to religion.

One thing I want to draw attention to is that this story actually backs away from uncritical acceptance of the claims of evolutionary psychology.

Yes. Evo psycho is described above as “a controversial discipline”, rather than as “the latest in scientific understanding of our origins.” Hmmmm. (Well, of course, evo psycho should be described as a controversial discipline at best, but whodathunk that the pop sci media would get around to considering the possibility that it is?

The main problem with evo psycho is that its subject, like that of exobiology , has never been observed. Its subject is early humans but we only know modern humans. (Simply living under primitive conditions is not pixie dust and will not turn a modern human into a Pleistocene caveman; it would merely demonstrate that no evolution took place.)

Better still, an actual skeptic was interviewed for the Boston Globe story. That’s not usual, so let’s enjoy it: Read More ›

The term “blinders” is tossed about a lot, but some folks may not know what they are.  Blinders are a part of a horse’s or a mule’s tackle.  They are small blocks of leather that fit on the outside of the animal’s eyes to keep it from looking to its side.  Their purpose is to keep the animal looking only to the front so that it will not be startled or distracted by things that would otherwise be in its peripheral vision.  Here is a picture of a horse wearing blinders.   

The purpose of physical blinders leads easily to the metaphor of intellectual blinders.  A person is said to be “wearing blinders” if he is incapable of understanding another person’s point of view. 

A couple of days ago I said that some scientists’ metaphysical commitments make them blind to data that disconfirms their theory.  My comment was met with howls of indignation by commentators who insisted that “science” is pristine, self-correcting and ideology-free.  Nonsense.  Everyone’s perception is colored by their preconceived ideas about the nature of reality (including mine by the way).  Part of the human condition is that, to one degree or another, we all wear blinders.  The solution is not to deny the obvious, but to embrace it.  Only when we admit that we have a blindside, that our perceptions are influenced by our presuppositions, will we be able to keep our minds open enough to perhaps turn our head and see what was previously masked by our blinders. 

Darwinists are not exempt from this phenomenon.  Their views are colored by their metaphysical commitments just like all of the rest of us.  This does mean they are necessarily bad people.  It just means they are people. 

Stephan Jay Gould, bless him, was especially good at recognizing this phenomenon in his fellow evolutionists.  Here are some gems from his writings: 

  Read More ›

I cannot believe I am hearing this nonsense again! The debate over the teaching of purposeless evolution in the school system retails more urban legends than a group of high school girls smoking in the women’s can.

In the Correspondence section of Nature, we can read, from U Kutschera , Institute of Biology, University of Kassel, Heinrich-Plett-Strasse 40, D-34109 Kassel, Germany (Nature 443, 26(7 September 2006) | doi:10.1038/443026b), yet another defence of Theodosius Dobzhansky, as a Darwinist poster boy for theistic or even Christian faith, sort of:

Dogma, not faith, is the barrier to scientific enquiry

[ … ]

He collaborated for many years with Ernst Mayr, who, when asked about his religious views, replied: “I am an atheist. There is nothing that supports the idea of a personal God. On the other hand, famous evolutionists such as Dobzhansky were firm believers in a personal God. He would work as a scientist all week and then on Sunday get down on his knees and pray to God” (Skeptic 8, 76-82; 2000.

In about 1950, Dobzhansky and Mayr founded our modern ‘atheistic’ evolutionary theory. Their work showed that Christians and atheists can cooperate to develop scientific theories, as long as religious dogma is not mixed up with facts and experimental data. Unfortunately, this is exactly what young-Earth creationists and intelligent-design theorists are doing. They should read the 1973 essay in which Dobzhansky – an open-minded, non-dogmatic theist – thoroughly refuted their irrational claims.

Dobzhansky was, of course, free to believe whatever he wanted, but in what sense was he a Christian or a theist?

Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones, who keeps up with these things better than anyone I know, has the goods on Dobzhansky’s real state of faith. He writes me,

Dobzhansky really was an orthodox believer. That is, if you don’t count “fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death”!:

and quotes :

Dobzhansky was a religious man, although he apparently rejected fundamental beliefs of traditional religion, such as the existence of a personal God and of life beyond physical death. His religiosity was grounded on the conviction that there is meaning in the universe. He saw that meaning in the fact that evolution has produced the stupendous diversity of the living world and has progressed from primitive forms of life to mankind. Dobzhansky held that, in man, biological evolution has transcended itself into the realm of self-awareness and culture. He believed that somehow mankind would eventually evolve into higher levels of harmony and creativity. He was a metaphysical optimist.” (Ayala, F.J. & Fitch, W.M., Genetics and the origin of species: An introduction,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, Vol. 94, July 1997, pp.7691-7697, p.7693.

Now, I have to admit, I smile when I think of the middle Americans who go away from a meeting with the Darwinist spokesfolks, vastly relieved to hear that Dobzhansky was a “religious man,” and then they can go back to sanctified materialism with a good conscience. They certainly do not want to know that Dobzhansky’s views would hardly qualify him to be considered a Christian, let alone Orthodox, because the basic statements of the Creed stand in fundamental opposition to them.

Steve Jones offers some more information that might help: Read More ›

Apparently, there is a big confab right now at the Vatican to decide what to say about intelligent design vs. evolution. A friend insisted, for some reason, that I offer an opinion. Heck, everyone is doing that, it seems. Ever since Pope Benedict XVI said, in his inaugural mass, that we are not “some casual and meaningless product of evolution,” the Catholic Church has found itself in the spotlight, asserting, against the adminbots and pundits of a materialist society, the we are purposeful and meaningful. The fact that I am a Catholic myself makes me less willing, not more willing, to butt in, but  how about this: Recover your heritage! Recover the traditional Catholic idea of evolution, which is not a Darwinian Read More ›

My most recent post talked about why Fr. George Coyne was asked to retire from the Vatican Observatory, after his vigorous campaign to oppose the Vatican’s efforts to distance itself from Darwinism (or “evolutionism,” as Cardinal Schoenborn likes to call it).

I shouldn’t have to point this out, but hey. Sidelining Fr. Coyne does not mean that the Vatican is weighing in on the interminable US school board wars.

Yes, the Pope used the term “progetto intelligente,” which is a functionally equivalent rendering of “intelligent design” in a homily. But only a naive person would imagine that the Catholic Church, which is thousands of years old, would stake all on current specific ideas of American biochemists, mathematicians, or astronomers.

Why? It need not. Philosopher David Stove has already demolished Darwinism by doing nothing more than unpacking what neo-Darwinists really expect us to believe, to help them preserve their theory.

And if you really believe all that the Darwinists wish, Read More ›

Once the discussion of biological origins opens up in the way the good Cardinal proposes (see below), it’s over for standard evolutionary theory. To be sure, the distinction between “evolutionism” as philosophy and “evolution” as science is valid and at first blush may seem like a way to keep evolution safe. But this distinction is one that the figureheads of evolution, such as Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, and Francisco Ayala, deliberately muddy to preserve evolution as materialism’s best safeguard.

As this discussion opens up, people are increasingly going to “get it,” and as they do they’ll realize that Darwin’s legacy is the biggest scam in the history of ideas. Right now what keeps the theory afloat is not overwhelming evidence (yes, there are “mountains and mountains of evidence” as Richard Dawkins puts it, but the quality of this evidence in establishing evolution’s grandiose claims is abysmal). Rather, what keeps the theory afloat is strict enforcement of ideological purity.

With Catholic leaders like Cardinal Schönborn taking the lead in opening up the discussion, this scam will become increasingly difficult to perpetuate. Any bets when the Darwinian house of cards will come crashing down? I’m not talking about nobody believing it anymore. Rather, I’m talking about people not having any longer to show undue deference to it — a new age when they can ridicule it openly, and its defenders must actually defend the theory rather than merely sneer at those who disbelieve it.

Cardinal Schönborn Proposes Evolution Debate
Calls for More Science, Less Ideology
Date: 2006-08-25, Code: ZE06082508
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=93781

RIMINI, Italy, AUG. 25, 2006 (Zenit.org).- Cardinal Christoph Schönborn is
proposing an ideology-free debate on the theory of evolution, and wants to
clarify the Church’s position on the topic. Read More ›

Casey Luskin noted a while back at Evolution News that a recent article in Nature noted that many universes theory is not testable:

Since the early 1980s, some cosmologists have argued that multiple universes could have formed during a period of cosmic inflation that preceded the Big Bang. More recently, string theorists have calculated that there could be 10 [to the]500 universes, which is more than the number of atoms in our observable Universe. Under these circumstances, it becomes more reasonable to assume that several would turn out like ours. It’s like getting zillions and zillions of darts to throw at the dart board, Susskind says. “Surely, a large number of them are going to wind up in the target zone.” And of course, we exist in our particular Universe because we couldn’t exist anywhere else. It’s an intriguing idea with just one problem, says Gross: “It’s impossible to disprove.” Because our Universe is, almost by definition, everything we can observe, there are no apparent measurements that would confirm whether we exist within a cosmic landscape of multiple universes, or if ours is the only one. And because we can’t falsify the idea, Gross says, it isn’t science. (Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006).)

But, Luskin writes, “National Academy of Sciences member and Nobel Laureate Leonard Susskind was given print-space–in fact he had a highlighted box-quote–saying that we should not reject the multi-verse hypothesis on the grounds that it isn’t testable.”

Nature reports:

Susskind, too, finds it “deeply, deeply troubling” that there’s no way to test the principle. But he is not yet ready to rule it out completely. “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science,” he says. (Geoff Brumfiel, “Outrageous Fortune,” Nature, Vol 439:10-12 (January 5, 2006)

I love it! “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science …” Why so foolish? Because, while it doesn’t conform to science, it does conform to materialism? Read More ›

“sophophile”  wonders whether I’ll reconsider my statement that Darwin doesn’t matter if Michael Shermer has to write a book on why he matters – on the basis of sophophile’s research into book titles. [sophophile: Oh, WHY don’t these people have proper names? Isn’t this “Internet handle” thing becoming a bit childish after all these years?]  At any rate, sophophile  writes: Denyse O’Leary insists: First, I find the title of Shermer’s book interesting. If Darwin really mattered, Shermer wouldn’t be writing a book insisting that he does. Let’s test that reasoning on a few other book titles taken from Amazon.com: Why Religion Matters Class Matters Why Gender Matters Science Matters Why Geography Matters Race Matters Why Sinatra Matters Culture Matters Why New Orleans Read More ›

Which claims in the ID versus Darwinism/materialism debate are extraordinary? ID asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for life (thoroughly documented by astrophysicists in increasingly excruciating detail), the origin of living systems from non-living matter, and the evolution of a single cell into humans capable of inventing science, technology, art and philosophy, are best explained by design. Design is a straightforward conclusion that screams at most people from all quarters, which is why only a small percentage of the American populace accepts blind-watchmaker evolutionary theory. ID is an ordinary claim, and evidence for it is mounting rapidly, on scales from the astronomically huge to the submicroscopically small. Materialistic philosophy asserts that the fine tuning of the universe for Read More ›

University of Bristol (England) bacteriologist Alan H. Linton went looking for direct evidence of speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of twenty to thirty minutes, and populations achieved after eighteen hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another … Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic [i.e., bacterial] to eukaryotic [i.e. plant Read More ›

This is a fire rainbow — one of the rarest naturally occurring atmospheric phenomena. The picture was captured this week on the Idaho/Washington border. The event lasted about one hour. Clouds have to be cirrus, at least four miles in the air, with just the right amount of ice crystals; and the sun has to hit the clouds at 58 degrees. It’s the gratuitousness of such beaty that leads me to rebel against materialism.

Can You Say Hidden Agenda? by Jason Miller August 6, 2006 at 21:17:33 The Discovery Institute’s True Raison d’être and Why We Need to Be Deeply Concerned Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based think tank which champions socially conservative causes, has become heavily invested in the “debate” between Darwinists and those who wish to introduce Intelligent Design into public school classrooms. According to their Website, Discovery’s stated mission is: “… to make a positive vision of the future practical. The Institute discovers and promotes ideas in the common sense tradition of representative government, the free market and individual liberty.” Finding a handful of academics willing to act as its shills, Discovery’s ultimate goal is to subvert the prevailing paradigm of modern science Read More ›

Here are two books you’ll want to put in your Amazon.com cart and read this fall. I’ve blurbed each of them. For Wells’s book I wrote: “Darwinists will be furious over this book, gnashing their teeth and vilifying its author — because biologist Jonathan Wells masterfully exposes their bizarre delusions and replaces them with what they hate most: logical arguments and evidence for intelligent design.” For Wiker and Witt’s book I wrote: “With the science of intelligent design now well in hand, the question arises about its wider cultural implications: in a world where materialism fails and where intelligent design is evident, how should we think about ourselves in the grand scheme of things? A MEANINGFUL WORLD masterfully answers this Read More ›

Evolution and Me ‘The Darwinian theory has become an all-purpose obstacle to thought rather than an enabler of scientific advance’ GEORGE GILDER National Review July 17, 2006 . . . Turning to economics in researching my 1981 book Wealth & Poverty, I incurred new disappointments in Darwin and materialism. Forget God — economic science largely denies intelligent design or creation even by human beings. Depicting the entrepreneur as a mere opportunity scout, arbitrageur, or assembler of available chemical elements, economic theory left no room for the invention of radically new goods and services, and little room for economic expansion except by material “capital accumulation” or population growth. Accepted widely were Darwinian visions of capitalism as a dog-eat-dog zero-sum struggle impelled Read More ›

Below is a letter to me by Darrel Falk, a biologist on the faculty at Point Loma Nazarene University. Darrel and I have known each other for several years, and even though our views on ID diverge, we respect each other. The letter here is in response to my recent blog entry at UD on Ken Miller and Francis Collins’s possible openness to ID at the origin of life (go here). Note that Francis Collins wrote the foreword to Darrel’s book Coming to Faith with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology, a book for which I also wrote an endorsement (although I have my differences with the book, I think it is one we need to engage).

In giving me permission to post this letter, Darrel remarked, “I have always greatly admired your sincerity. I have sensed a number of times how much you really want ID to be a true scientific force and not just a political force. Most recently this was clearly (and sincerely) evident in your statements in the Phillip Johnson Festschrift [i.e., Darwin’s Nemesis]. I believe you really have a vision that Intelligent Design should be of the highest quality biology. It is with that in mind that I hope you (and those who read your blog) will take my comments in the form of constructive criticism. I hope that people within the movement don’t become defensive, but will simply ask the question, ‘Does Falk have a point worth considering?’” To this he added, “I personally hope that Intelligent Design will evolve into a force that partners with science rather than a force which opposes it. If it would do that, I believe its influence would live on in ways that extend beyond the positive things it has already done.”

Here, then, is the letter (unedited; the ellipses were there in the original). I’ve interspersed comments in backets using boldface.

====================== Read More ›