Science and Culture Today | Page 1257 | Discovering Design in Nature

Thanks to various live-bloggers, you can read summaries of all of the University of Chicago Darwin 2009 conference presentations. The conference organizers have also promised to make video podcasts available of all the lectures shortly. By contrast, what follows below is — as they say in sports television — color commentary. This will be a longer post, because much was said that calls for comment.

Bottom line: this was an outstanding conference, where any ID theorist would have enjoyed himself, and learned a lot, if he didn’t mind a bit of mocking laughter along the way.

Evolutionists have long sought mechanisms for the origin of reproductive barriers between populations, mechanisms which are thought to be key to the formation of new species. A recent article in ScienceDaily finds that “Junk DNA” might be the “mechanism that prevents two species from reproducing.” Basically, so-called “junk”-DNA is involved in helping to package chromosomes in the cell. If two species have different “junk” DNA, then this prevents the proteins in the egg from properly packaging the chromosomes donated by the sperm. The organism does not develop properly. As the article, titled “Junk DNA Mechanism That Prevents Two Species From Reproducing Discovered,” explains: during early development, the proteins required for cell division come from the mother. The researchers speculate that Read More ›

NewsBusters has a great interview with David Berlinski by Kevin Mooney, who praises The Deniable Darwin as “a series of mind-bending essays.” Proving once again that he is a skeptic’s skeptic, Dr. Berlinski addresses the lack of criticism in science: “In the U.S. you have the separation of powers that keeps different branches in check, but this is not true for science, where there is now a lot of corruption,” he observed. “Science needs its own critics. The same skepticism that is used in research now needs to be turned back onto science itself.” Dr. Berlinski’s essays go a long way toward rectifying this situation, while his observations and insights quickly reveal how ridiculous the anti-ID crowd can be: But Read More ›

Epperson v. Arkansas was the first case regarding the teaching of evolution to reach the U.S. Supreme Court. The decision was handed down in 1968, where the Court effectively declared it illegal to ban the teaching of evolution. 1. Summary An Arkansas statute descended from the Tennessee “Monkey Law” made it a criminal misdemeanor for teachers in state-supported schools to teach evolution and to use textbooks that taught the theory.28 Despite this law, in 1965 the Little Rock, Arkansas School Board gave biology teacher Susan Epperson a new textbook containing material on evolution.29 To avoid criminal penalty and dismissal, she sought a declaration that the Arkansas statute was unconstitutional.30 The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Epperson and held that the Read More ›

More than a thousand people attended the second day of the Legacy of Darwin ID Conference this weekend in Castle Rock, Colorado. Saturday morning started off with a strong talk by Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, who synthesized the main points of his books Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution. Behe, in his usual winsome and accessible style, drove home just how much empirical evidence has accumulated in recent years demonstrating the sharp limits to the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection and random mutations.

During the question period that followed, two people offered long-winded “questions” to Behe that seemed to come straight from the talking points of the National Center for Science Education.

Updated photo from Friday night: Castle Rock, Colorado — Despite the first major snowstorm of the season, and unrelenting efforts by malicious Darwinists to prevent people from registering, a huge crowd of around 1,000 people showed up Friday night to hear Dr. Stephen Meyer present the DNA evidence for intelligent design based on his new book Signature in the Cell. Meyer, Michael Behe, David Berlinski, and myself are in Colorado to speak at the Legacy of Darwin ID Conference sponsored by Shepherd Project Ministries. On Saturday, Michael Behe will present the evidence against modern Darwinism from his books Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution; David Berlinski will talk about The Devil’s Delusion and The Deniable Darwin; and I Read More ›

Tuesday night at the Beverly Hills Library, with David Berlinski debating an atheist before a mixed crowd of friends and foes of religion, I experienced a lifetime first.

As a journalist writing about people and events, I’ve often had occasion to change or withhold someone’s name or otherwise disguise his identity. Almost always this is because the person in question never asked to be part of my story, is not a public personality and never sought to be, did nothing seriously blameworthy, but would be embarrassed by having his words or actions reported in public. So I don’t identify him. On Tuesday, listening to the debate, for the very first time in my experience I encountered a situation where someone was indeed seeking to make a name for himself but I felt nevertheless it would be cruel to give his name or institutional affiliation in my account of the event.

David Berlinski’s atheist opponent is that person. The poor guy! He was so hopelessly outgunned and outmanned as a thinker, debater, and speaker that I just can’t bring myself to give you his identity. He probably has his name on a Google Alert. Who doesn’t? Even it was entirely his free choice to put himself up again Berlinski in defense of his non-belief, I don’t have the heart to worsen his embarrassment.

The debate was sponsored by the tireless and infectiously enthusiastic Avi Davis of American Freedom Alliance. Dr. Berlinski spoke first and was, as ever, amazingly eloquent. He began by reframing what’s called the “Darwin debate” as something different. Rather than opposing sides in a conflict, for or against “Western civilization,” he generously portrayed the difference of views as an argument between passengers in a lifeboat on the open seas. Our civilization is a sinking boat on the ocean. We’re all, atheists, agnostics, and believers, trying to bail out the sorry craft. The argument is over how best to save all of us. There are no enemies here.

Berlinski went on to summarize Thomas Aquinas’ strong case for atheism and Aquinas’ own reply to that case. He spoke of the mysteries of existence, the origin of the universe, or matter and life, hardly stressing the case against Darwin at all. Afterward, in the Q&A, a questioner addressed him with hesitation: “Mr. Berlinski, you’re so eloquent it makes me pause before expressing myself publicly to you.”

Then the opponent got up. “I didn’t know we’d be talking about the origin of the universe,” he explained. “I would have studied more!”

This just gets better. Remember the International poll we highlighted earlier this week? British Darwinists, confused by the results (You mean our constant barrage of DARWIN RULZ msgs aren’t convincing anyone?), has taken to that old defense mechanism every psychologist knows too well: projection. That’s it! They must be confused about Darwin’s theory. After all, “scientific wording” like “intelligent design” tricks people into thinking what they couldn’t possibly think after all the money we’ve spent on advertising Darwin’s awesomeness.I almost wish they didn’t make it this easy: Surprisingly, this percentage [of support for teaching alternative theories] was higher than in the US — a comparative bastion of religious fundamentalism — and Egypt, where only a third as many people dissented Read More ›

The science writer Carl Zimmer posted an invited reply on his blog from Joseph Thornton of the University of Oregon to my recent comments about Thornton’s work. This is the last of four posts addressing it. References appear at the bottom of this post.

At the end of his post Thornton waxes wroth.

Behe’s argument has no scientific merit. It is based on a misunderstanding of the fundamental processes of molecular evolution and a failure to appreciate the nature of probability itself. There is no scientific controversy about whether natural processes can drive the evolution of complex proteins. The work of my research group should not be misintepreted by those who would like to pretend that there is.

Well, now. I’ll leave it to the reader of my previous replies to Thornton to decide whether she thinks they have scientific merit, and whether it is I or he who misunderstands the disputed facets of molecular evolution. As for “the nature of probability itself” and “no scientific controversy,” I will briefly address those here.