2010

Intelligent design (ID) critics Jerry Coyne, Kelly Smith, and Richard Dawkins have all argued that the allegedly circuitous innervations of the larynx from the brain by the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) is an “imperfect design” that refutes ID. What they rarely disclose, however, is that there are in fact nerves that innervate the larynx directly from the brain through the superior laryngeal nerve (SLN), without taking the longer path of the RLN–exactly as they demand. Thus, the larynx is in fact innervated from both above and below, by both the RLN and the SLN. This is clearly seen in the diagram below, from Elsevier’s Atlas of Regional Anesthesia, 3rd ed., hotlinked from here: As noted here, damage to the SLN Read More ›

New Scientist is reporting: “Last month, a team of astronomers announced the discovery of the first alien world that could host life on its surface. Now a second team can find no evidence of the planet, casting doubt on its existence.” Display content from YouTube Click here to display content from YouTube. Learn more in YouTube’s privacy policy. Always display content from YouTube Open video directly

In the prior post, I discussed challenges to the claim that our supposed fish-ancestry dictates that the recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) must take a circuitous route from the brain to the larynx. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that common ancestry between mammals and fish is the best explanation for the nerve’s path. Would that refute intelligent design? Evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne assumes that ID is incompatible with common ancestry, which it isn’t. As one pro-ID biologist wrote me on this topic, “this is only a problem for design if one assumes design means designed from scratch for each taxon, and if one believes that the designer would necessarily use the shortest distance between two points (in other words, Read More ›

It is difficult to escape the use of technological language in discussing cellular functions. Stephen Meyer has a section on information theory in Signature in the Cell and basically uses technological language or metaphors to describe DNA. The best language for describing DNA uses analogies to writing, copying and pasting, and software. Another example of this is in Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, where he uses a rotary motor to describe the function of a bacterial flagellum. This brings to mind an interesting question: what is the relationship between the development of technology and the discovery of the inner workings of the cell? They seem to go hand-in-hand.

Display “YouTube video player” from YouTube Click here to display content from YouTube. Learn more in YouTube’s privacy policy. Always display content from YouTube Open “YouTube video player” directly For more about the new book God & Evolution, go here: http://www.faithandevolution.org/god-and-evolution/

This interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer about his book Signature in the Cell was conducted some time ago, but is a very good introductory discussion of DNA manipulation, cellular engineering and attempts to create living cells with computer assembled DNA at its heart. Display content from www.discovery.org Click here to display content from www.discovery.org. Always display content from www.discovery.org Open content directly

In his book Why Evolution is True, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims that “Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we expect from evolution.” (p. 81) He makes this prediction because “[n]ew parts don’t evolve from old ones, and we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features–like the kiwi wing–that don’t work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers.” (p. 81) Thus according to Coyne, evolution predicts that some features will work well, some will work not-so-well, and some will work not at all. This is not exactly Read More ›

In my previous post in this series about the California Science Center (CSC), we saw that the CSC might not have rented its facilities to a pro-intelligent design (ID) group like the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) had they known about “the nature of the groups involved.” At the same time that the CSC learned that a pro-ID group had booked its facilities, on the other side of the country, head staff at the Smithsonian Institution were outraged that one of their affiliates was allowing a pro-ID event. The Smithsonian’s Chief Spokesperson, Linda St. Thomas, was so upset about CSC’s rental to a pro-ID group that she asked the Smithsonian’s Director of Affiliates, Harold Closter, to send a “cease and desist” Read More ›

Can you be an orthodox Darwinist and an orthodox theist? The plain answer is “no,” according to God and Evolution, an important new book coming out this fall. The book provides a thorough examination of the conflict between belief in God and Darwin’s theory of unguided evolution.

In the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory, Christians, Jews, and other religious believers have grappled with how to make sense of it. Most have understood that Darwin’s theory and materialistic theories of the origin of life have profound theological implications, but their responses have varied dramatically.

Some have rejected evolutionary ideas outright; others, often called “theistic evolutionists,” have sought to reconcile materialist theories including Darwinism with their religious beliefs, but often at the cost of clarity, orthodoxy, or both.