Science and Culture Today Discovering Design in Nature

Science and Culture Today | Page 1198 | Discovering Design in Nature

But Isn’t There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent?

In my previous post, we saw that Eugenie Koonin argued that a formal test of universal common ancestry (UCA) “is unlikely to be feasible” but yet he claimed that the evidence in support of UCA “by comparative genomics is overwhelming.” Such thinking is common among evolutionists, who seek to to demonstrate UCA by finding a consilience of multiple lines of evidence in favor of it. In his Nature paper, Douglas Theobald similarly seeks to support UCA through a consilience of multiple lines of evidence: UCA is now supported by a wealth of evidence from many independent sources, including: (1) the agreement between phylogeny and biogeography; (2) the correspondence between phylogeny and the palaeontological record; (3) the existence of numerous predicted Read More ›

Evolution News & Views Presents The 2010 Intelligent Design Christmas List

It’s the time of year to take stock… and figure out what books and DVDs are missing from your library so you can ask for them for Christmas! This year our list is handily organized by category: Science, Faith & Worldview and History, Culture and Philosophy.

Science

  • In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design by Granville Sewell. This collection of essays explains why evolution is a fundamentally different and much more difficult problem than others solved by science and why increasing numbers of scientists are now recognizing what has long been obvious to the layman: there is no explanation possible without design. Highly recommended for those who want mathematical proof that Darwin’s theory doesn’t add up. (You can get it for $11.21 here.)
  • Programming of Life by Donald E. Johnson. This book is Dr. Johnson’s second, and as we noted earlier, “full of helpful introductions to topics like statistics and information theory, chock-full with citations to the mainstream scientific literature. In particular, he cites to a growing body of technical literature of scientists who are skeptical of materialism.” It “focuses on elucidating the computer-like workings of the cell and their implications for materialism-based theories about life’s origins.” This is a great book for those following the debate and curious about the leading edge of the research. (You can get it for $12.45 here).
  • Intelligent Design Uncensored: An Easy-to-Understand Guide to the Controversy by William Dembski and Jonathan Witt. This book is a must for anyone wanting to understand the science of intelligent design explained to the layperson. It summarizes the case for design while also contributing to ID thinking with verve and style that isn’t just accessible, but pleasurable for the reader. (You can get it for $10.20 here.)
  • Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design by Stephen C. Meyer. The book that continues to stir up controversy far and wide is available in paperback. It’s a tour de force that made the Times Literary Supplement‘s “Books of the Year” last year and absolutely required reading for anyone interested in intelligent design. Unless, of course, you’re Francisco Ayala. (You can get it for $12.43 here.)
  • The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays by David Berlinski. This collection is a treasure trove of classic Berlisnki wit and perception, featuring more than 30 essays written over the last 15 years. The consummate skeptic, Dr. Berlinski dispels the modern superstition of scientism and clears the way for real science to be conducted. Recommended for skeptics, doubters, and anyone who
Read More ›

Douglas Theobald’s Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design

In my prior post, I explained why Doug Theobald used the wrong null hypothesis for testing common ancestry. The odds of two lengthy genes arriving at a highly similar DNA sequence by chance, or even evolutionary convergence, is extremely small. Unless there’s an underlying political motive, it shouldn’t take a paper in Nature to show that obvious point. Common descent is a much better explanation for these genetic similarities….

Unless, that is, you admit the possibility of common design. If you ignore common design, then the explanation for similarities between gene sequences must be common descent. Doug Theobald’s recent paper in Nature gets to his conclusion only by ignoring the possibility of common design and then equating common design (wrongly lumped with “creationism”) with unguided evolutionary development — a straw man comparison that is completely false.

Read More ›

P.Z. Myers on Abortion

P.Z. Myers on a faux online abortion poll:

“I’m about as pro-choice as you can get…”

Unsurprisingly, Myers is “pro-choice”. But Myers’ advocacy of “choice” goes further:

“…I’m even willing to say that I’m pro-abortion…”

“Pro-abortion”? Even committed pro-abortion zealots don’t generally endorse abortion explicitly, except to assert the right to ‘choice,’ as if one were choosing a salad dressing rather than deciding to take a human life.
Myers:

“[I] would like to encourage more people to abort…”

Read More ›

Celebrating Ten Years of Icons of Evolution

In the ten years since the book first appeared, Jonathan Wells’s Icons of Evolution (2000) has itself achieved iconic status among the primary texts in the literature of scientific Darwin-doubting. ENV will celebrate the anniversary all this month with a series of videos and interviews — Dr. Wells updating the “icons,” colleagues reflecting on the impact the book had on them, an enhanced website for the book, and more. For anyone interested in educating himself about the facts behind the slogans and propaganda that pass for much of the argumentation on behalf of Darwinism, Jonathan Wells’s sweetly reasoned, scientifically impeccable presentation gives the goods on peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, four-winged fruit flies, the tree of life, and other crusted barnacles that hang on and on and on.

A Berkeley PhD in molecular and cell biology, Wells is among the most lucid and accessible scientist-writers devoted to the modern project of critiquing Darwin. When I say the book is sweetly reasoned, I don’t only mean that it’s well reasoned but that there’s an appealing geniality, a sweetness, to the man’s writing that stands out in contrast to the donkey-like braying of a Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne, the sinister coilings of a Richard Dawkins, the ugly “humor” of a P.Z. Myers. Yes, you can get a sense of a person’s character, and perhaps too his credibility, from the words he uses.

Performing the service of crushing ten venerable chestnuts of evolutionary apologetics, familiar to generations from high school and college textbooks, Icons caused no little consternation among Darwin advocates. That was evident from the reaction of critics — who, however, hardly succeeded in laying a glove on Wells — but also from the fact that textbook publishers have to a limited extent taken his criticisms to heart. Haeckel’s phony embryo drawings, for example, are harder to find in brand new textbooks now than they were before, representing a telling strategic retreat.

Read More ›

Douglas Theobald Tests Universal Common Ancestry by Refuting a Preposterous Null Hypothesis

In March 2010, Douglas Theobald published a paper in Nature purporting to demonstrate “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.” According to his cheering squad at National Geographic, the paper “supports the widely held ‘universal common ancestor’ theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.” National Geographic is mistaken on one obvious point: Darwin wasn’t the first to propose universal common ancestry. But never mind that. The paper makes no official claim to be a response to scientific skeptics of universal common ancestry, but given Theobald’s notoriety as the author of the widely criticized “Talk Origins Common Ancestry FAQ,” his motivation is clear. If there were no doubts about universal common ancestry (“UCA”), his paper would be unnecessary. This becomes especially clear when you see the trivially obvious point his paper actually establishes as part of his “test” of universal common ancestry.

Read More ›

Michael Behe Wraps Up UK Tour Writing About Intelligent Design in The Guardian

Michael Behe has just wrapped up a speaking tour of the UK. Finishing it off over the weekend was a lecture at a conference at the Oxford Brookes University, and now a short column in The Guardian responding to Andrew Brown. My contention is that ‘the purposeful arrangement of parts’ to achieve a specific purpose is the criterion that enables us to recognise design. I argued that the conclusion of design in the bacterial flagellum and in many other biological systems is no different from discerning it for a mousetrap or a Ford Mondeo. So what makes Intelligent Design fundamentally different from Darwinism? The Darwinian view which dominates biology holds that the design we all see in life is merely Read More ›

Giving Thanks for Dr. Philip Skell

This past Sunday, science lost a bold and courageous voice for objectivity with the passing of Dr. Philip Skell. A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) since 1977, “Phil” was Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and his research included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry such as carbene molecules, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions. A 1997 article in the journal Pure and Applied Chemistry described some of Skell’s significant scientific contributions as follows:

Another class of intermediates, containing divalent carbon atoms, were suggested by John Nef early in this century but his ideas were generally rejected. However, the concept was revived with vigor when Philip Skell showed that: CCl,, dichlorocarbone, was formed as a reaction intermediate. Carbene chemistry almost immediately became the subject of extensive physical organic research.

Penn State University describes Skell’s research thusly:

Philip S. Skell, sometimes called “the father of carbene chemistry,” is widely known for the “Skell Rule,” which was first applied to carbenes, the “fleeting species” of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

Later in his career, Phil became a skeptic of neo-Darwinian evolution. His main position was that Darwinism does not serve as the cornerstone of biological thought that many claim it does. In 2007, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Skell and doing three interviews with him for Discovery Institute’s ID the Future Podcast.

Read More ›

© Discovery Institute