Science and Culture Today | Page 1273 | Discovering Design in Nature

David Klinghoffer has recently posted some excellent (and entertaining) summaries of the highlights of Discovery Institute’s responses to the testimony of evolutionist experts David Hillis and Ronald Wetherington before the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE) on January 21, 2009. (See also Ralph Seelke’s response to Hillis.) One part of the response to self-proclaimed tree of life “expert” David Hillis that should not be missed is Discovery’s response to his bluffs and misrepresentations regarding the congruence of molecular and morphological phylogenies within the tree of life. Specifically, Hillis told the board that there is “overwhelming agreement correspondence as you go from protein to protein, DNA sequence to DNA sequence” when reconstructing evolutionary history using biological molecules. But anyone accurately testifying Read More ›

[Note: For a more comprehensive rebuttal to critics of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, please see: NCSE Exposed at NCSEExposed.org]

Dr. Caroline Crocker, whose story was told in Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, sent me the following report on a recent lecture by Michael Shermer, who also appeared briefly in Expelled to say that scientists who doubt Darwin are not discriminated against in academia. Dr. Crocker and others of course are proof that he is wrong.

I recently attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, “Why Darwin Matters,” but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena and said that his purpose was to “debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking.” So, I must go on to the content of the lecture–or lack of it.

What a disappointment! I was hoping to hear some reasoned thoughts, maybe even something to challenge my way of thinking. Instead we were subjected to

There’s an interesting column in today’s Vancouver Sun, “‘Scientism’ infects Darwinian debates An unflinching belief that science can explain everything about evolution becomes its own ideology”. Interesting because it is rare to see sceintism called out and criticized, especially by someone who shows his own high level of faith in evolution. According to the author, Douglas Todd: There are two major obstacles to a rich public discussion on Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and what it means to all of us. The most obvious obstacle is religious literalism, which leads to Creationism. It’s the belief the Bible or other ancient sacred texts offer the first and last word on how humans came into existence. The second major barrier to a Read More ›

Julie Berwald, a freelance textbook writer who testified against critical thinking on evolution last week before the Texas State Board of Education (TSBOE), has written an inaccurate and unhappy report at the highly partisan Wired Magazine website about the Texas Science Standards hearing on March 25. According to Berwald’s account, she stated: “It’s really hard to come up with scientifically based weaknesses to evolution.” The intelligent-design supporters exploded in protest. The chairman banged his gavel repeatedly. “I will not have that kind of outburst in this room. If it happens again, I’ll clear the room and we’ll only have the testifiers in here. I’ll do it!” This was Berwald’s first bluff. The problem is that Berwald, whose attention during her Read More ›

Nobody but a pedant enjoys being pedantic. But putting Darwinist experts in their place, particularly those who testified before the Texas State Board of Education, requires pointing out in detail their misleading simplifications of the fields in which they are supposed to be expertly qualified. Discovery staff have carefully combed the testimony of Professors David Hillis and Ronald Wetherington, finding numerous significant instances of egregious falsehood. Making this clear puts one in danger of seeming pedantic.

But it’s important, in part because we hereby challenge Hillis and Wetherington to defend their statements, in light of the detailed and devastating analyses that are now available online here and here. Of course, they won’t respond, nor, I guess, will anyone in the Darwin Lobby. Which tells you about all you need to know.

As discussed in Discovery Institute’s rebuttal to Wetherington’s January 21 testimony before the Texas State Board, his simplifications are as gross and unprofessional as those of Hillis. He reminds me of the Monty Python sketch “How to Do It,” where three smiley-faced presenters explain in under a minute and a half “how to play the flute, how to split an atom, how to construct a box girder bridge, how to irrigate the Sahara Desert and make vast new areas of land cultivatable, but first,” explains John Cleese, “here’s Jackie to tell you all how to rid the world of all known diseases.”

The whole issue before the Board was whether high school students deserve to be made aware of the debates in biology that go to the heart of whether Darwinian theory is remotely plausible anymore. A lot is at stake in those debates — nothing less than what it means to be human — so not skimping on the details would seem to be the appropriate course. This is not about obscure academic infighting. Yet again and again, Wetherington, like Hillis, assured the Texas Board that it was it all very simple and clear, there is no debate, it’s all been settled. Or as Cleese explains flute playing, “Well here we are. You blow there and you move your fingers up and down here.”

Last fall, John West blogged about a press release from Texans for Better Science Education (TBSE) about Chris Comer’s lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency (TEA), a lawsuit which has been highly touted by the NCSE and other evolution lobbyists as purported evidence of discrimination against evolutionists. They claimed that Comer was “expelled for real,” and the national newsmedia uncritically bought the story hook, line and sinker. As TBSE’s timeline of Chris Comer’s disciplinary problems observed, “News reports of Comer’s departure have parroted the claim that Comer was ‘fired’ because she opposed teaching ‘creationism’ and ‘intelligent design’ and supported evolution.” The reality is that Comer was not “fired” and her resignation came because (as West put it), “TEA documents … Read More ›

Everyone knows the scene in Annie Hall. Woody Allen as Alvy Singer is standing in line to see a movie and a pretentious twit of a Columbia professor behind him is going on in a loud voice about Marshall McLuhan. Alvy first berates the guy — “Aren’t you ashamed to pontificate like that? And the funny part of it is, Marshall McLuhan, you don’t know anything about Marshall McLuhan!” Then from behind a movie poster he pulls McLuhan himself, who agrees with Alvy: “I heard what you were saying. You know nothing of my work! How you got to teach a course in anything is totally amazing!”

Alvy then turns to the camera and wishes, “Boy, if life were only like this!“

Sometimes it is. This is a brief series about Darwinian “experts” who arouse the admiration of people who don’t know any better, and don’t particularly want to know, but who then turn out to have their facts all wrong. The first illustration is Professor David Hillis of the University of Texas. In his testimony to the Texas State Board of Education about teaching evolution, he referred to the research of Ralph Seelke, a University of Wisconsin biologist.

Seelke’s work tests evolution’s power to produce two necessary mutations in a case where the mutations, to produce a beneficial function, need to happen pretty much simultaneously. Realistically, it can’t happen. He finds that this represents an insuperable obstacle to evolution’s getting its job done. In his testimony, Hillis replied to a question from Board member Pat Hardy, with her touching faith in experts: “I was just curious about Dr. Seelke’s research. How does that demonstrate the weakness of evolution?”

Well, sort of.

From Biologic’s Perspectives:

Researchers at Biologic Institute have stunned the scientific community with the announcement today of a fully functioning automobile capable of replicating itself. Although simple autocatalytic versions of self-replication have previously been demonstrated, the complexity of the system described today–complete with GPS navigation, DVD player, and onboard WiFi–has taken everyone by surprise. In the minds of many, this discovery has forever altered the once fundamental distinction between life and non-life.
…
According to lead scientist Otto Cloner, “In the right kind of environment the process of self-replication just takes off. I still get goose bumps watching it.” The prototype self-replicator is a slightly modified version of the popular Jeep Wrangler–unmanned. When just one of these self-propelled prototypes is placed in an appropriate environment (one lacking any other self-propelled vehicles) magic happens. Or so it seems. Dr. Cloner himself takes the more modest view that “the replicative mechanism is really quite simple when properly understood”.

To better explain the replicative mechanism, check out the diagram below:

[Editor’s Note: This is cross-posted at Discovery Blog.]

Senior Fellows David Berlinski and Bruce Gordon spoke last week at the ninth annual “Physics and the God of Abraham” conference, held at Gonzaga University in Spokane. The event was organized by Fr. Robert Spitzer, President of Gonzaga, physicist and adjunct fellow of Discovery Institute. This year’s theme, “Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions,” was taken from the subtitle of Berlinski’s latest book, The Devil’s Delusion (Crown Forum, 2008).

Harvard University’s Harvey Mansfield has an excellent critique of evolution published by Forbes.com, where he is more commonly debating feminism or discussing Solzhenitsyn. In a book review of Men: Evolutionary and Life History, Mansfield takes a look at the moral implications of Darwinian theory when applied to the obvious differences between the sexes: What ought a man to do, given this discrepancy between men and women? Like many scientists, Bribiescas lives under the yoke of a crude positivism which denies that scientific fact has any ethical implications. “Darwinian evolutionary theory does not support any moral stance.” But of course it does. The trouble is not that Darwinian theory has no implications, but that it contradicts itself with two opposing implications. Read More ›