Science and Culture Today | Page 1299 | Discovering Design in Nature

You decide. 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

Multiple choice quiz. Where did the following words first appear? “We need to move forward in our human evolution and not regress to the flawed passions of the crusades, the suppression of science by religion, or the intolerance of theocracy over freedom of the human spirit.” Was it:A. The latest blog post from PZ Myers?B. The bumper sticker on some 1968 VW Bus owned by a hippie commune?C. The manifesto of the Allied Atheist Alliance?D. The latest Dean’s newsletter from Philip A. Pizzo, Dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine? If you guessed… …D, you’re correct. As I reported recently, Dean Pizzo’s latest December 1, 2008 newsletter extols those who would make scientific research “free” by keeping it “protected Read More ›

Recently I used the analogy of a genetic disease (spinal bifida) that kept afflicted men out of the army in WWI to point out the vacuousness of “evolutionary” explanations for disease. The “evolutionary adaptation” provided by the handicap may have led to a transient increased prevalence of men with spina bifida in England, but from the standpoint of medicine, the evolutionary vignette was of no tangible value. Medicine needs more than stories about differential survival, which is the only unique thing that evolutionary biology offers to medicine. The genuine accomplishments of medical science and practice, for which Darwinists persistently claim credit, such as the understanding of bacterial antibiotic resistance or heterozygote advantage in the protection from disease (such as the protection from malaria conferred on people with sickle cell trait), have come about because of superb work by medical scientists in molecular biology, microbiology, genetics, and epidemiology. They didn’t place phone calls to their colleagues in evolutionary biology to do their work. Darwinian fairy tales, such as “X-Linked Color Blindness Evolved to Help Paleolithic Male Hunters See Camouflage,” added nothing to the important research already going on in medicine.

Darwinists were not pleased with my observations, and Mike Dunford seems to have drawn the “respond to Egnor” short straw. He responded first with the requisite personal sneers:

The recent Dean’s Newsletter from Philip A. Pizzo, Dean of the Stanford University School of Medicine, announces a statement from the “Scientific Advisory Board” of the Koch Foundation that recommends creating a brave new world of censorship. According to Dean Pizzo’s newsletter, when giving an award recently to a biology researcher, the Koch Foundation’s “Scientific Advisory Board” stated: “Research must remain free and therefore has to be protected from non-scientific influences such as ‘Creationism,’ ‘Fundamentalism,’ ‘Intelligent Design,’ or other non-scientific ideas or religious convictions.” Ignoring their inappropriate lumping of intelligent design with “creationism,” “fundamentalism,” “non-scientific ideas” and “religious convictions,” it seems that in the Koch Foundation’s vision of the future, being “free” means that ID cannot have any influence upon Read More ›

I recently pointed out that Darwinian stories about the evolution of diseases were of no tangible use to medical science. Few physicians and medical scientists and educators with genuine experience with medical education, research, and practice, and who are not ideologically committed to the materialist-atheist metaphysics for which Darwinism is the creation myth, honestly believe that evolutionary biology is important to medicine. There are many important disciplines in medicine today, such as microbiology, epidemiology, molecular and population genetics, and mathematical biology, that deal with the real science for which evolutionary biologists routinely claim credit, and these genuine medical disciplines, unlike evolutionary biology, are very important to medicine. We’ve done very well for more than half a century without Darwinian medicine. The recent drive to introduce Darwinian Medicine 2.0 into medical education was initiated by Darwinists. They weren’t invited.

Alfred Russel Wallace, who along with Charles Darwin discovered and advanced the theory of evolution, was, unlike Darwin, a deeply spiritual man who was convinced that materialistic natural selection did not fully explain the origin of man. Unlike so many of his philosophically materialistic scientific colleagues, Wallace was a fierce critic of eugenics and the arrogant scientism of his day. Wallace wrote: Segregation of the unfit is a mere excuse for establishing a medical tyranny. And we have had enough of this kind of tyranny already…the world does not want the eugenist to set it straight … Eugenics is simply the meddlesome interference of an arrogant scientific priestcraft.1 Commenting on our modern scientific priestcraft, Steven Lenzer has a superb essay Read More ›

On Charles Darwin’s 200th birthday (February 12, 2009), students everywhere can speak out against censorship and stand up for free speech by defending the right to debate the evidence for and against evolution. Let’s turn Darwin Day into Academic Freedom Day.

As regular ENV readers are aware, we just launched the grassroots Academic Freedom Day campaign. Our goal is to transform the bicentennial of Darwin’s birth on Feb. 12, 2009 from an uncritical celebration venerating Darwin to a day that highlights the need for academic freedom to debate the evidence for and against Darwinism. As a follow-up to the release of Expelled this year, we want to continue to raise awareness of efforts by Darwinists to stifle scientific inquiry at all levels, and we want people to sign the Academic Freedom Petition. The centerpiece of our campaign is the website www.academicfreedomday.com.

Announcing the Academic Freedom Video & Essay Contest

Darwin once wrote,

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

That famous quote will be the touchstone for students to communicate their support for academic freedom to explore the evidence for and against Darwinian evolution. The video and essay contest is open to high school and college students and will be judged based on creativity, accuracy, and persuasiveness. One grand-prize winner will be announced and have his or her entry officially unveiled at academicfreedomday.com on Academic Freedom Day, Feb. 12th 2008. For details on entering the contest, go to: www.academicfreedomday.com/actUp.php.

We need your help in promoting the contest to ensure that as many students as possible hear about it and are able to participate.

Here are five things that you can do to help us promote the Academic Freedom Day Video & Essay Contest:

David Chalmers has a thoughtful blog post about the growing importance of the problem of consciousness in the debate over intelligent design. Chalmers, a leading philosopher of the mind, is a particularly clear and honest thinker, and his elaboration of “the hard problem of consciousness” alone warrants much gratitude from those of us who are trying to formulate a vocabulary for the thoughtful discussion of the problem of consciousness.

Chalmers is not a theist, but he believes that consciousness is a fundamental property in the universe, in the same way that matter and natural laws are properties in the universe. In that sense, he is a dualist. He does not, however, believe that the necessity for an immaterial explanation for the mind poses a problem for Darwinism:

The problem of consciousness is indeed a serious challenge for materialism. In fact, I think it’s a fatal problem for materialism, as I’ve argued at length… [b]ut it simply isn’t a problem for Darwinism in the same way. Even if one rejects materialism about consciousness, Darwinism can accommodate the resulting view straightforwardly.

Chalmers explains:

[Note: For an extensive response to critics of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, please see: NCSE Exposed at NCSEExposed.org]Here’s something you can do to help support academic freedom: Bring Ben Stein to your campus by scheduling a screening of the provocative documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. We can help students obtain a license to show Expelled featuring Stein or the documentary Icons of Evolution featuring biologist Jonathan Wells (based on the bestselling book of the same name). Each film highlights the fight to maintain academic freedom in academia and the sciences for those who speak out against Darwinian evolution.This is a high-profile event that will raise the issue and help foster discussion on your campus. Screening a movie will attract a Read More ›

All natural functional biological complexity arose through the mechanism of non-teleological heritable variation and natural selection.

That’s the Neo-Darwinian synthesis, in a nut-shell, and it’s the cornerstone of biology.

The Neo-Darwinian synthesis may be divided into two professions, so to speak, the union of which constitutes the orthodoxy. Jacques Monod called them “chance” and “necessity,” and it’s a useful shorthand.

Monod’s “chance” means absence of design. Chance means random in the sense of lacking teleology. There is no purpose in the raw material of Darwinian evolution. Of course, that doesn’t mean that the “random heritable variation” generator doesn’t obey natural laws. It does, like everything else, but it has no foresight. It’s random like flipping a coin is random. The coin obeys all the laws of physics, yet the outcome of the flip is random, in the sense that there’s no design to the result. If there is design, then the flip is dishonest, and not random at all.

Of course, most biological events that happened are invisible in the mists of deep time. Randomness is difficult to ascertain in modern casinos, and randomness is damned difficult to ascertain in the Precambrian. This not to say that we can’t draw reasonable inferences from the available evidence, but drawing self-evident inferences from helical blueprints and purposeful arrangements of parts “isn’t science,” so the Neo-Darwinian inference to chance is confessional, not empirical.
Monod’s “necessity” means survival; more rigorously, it means relative reproductive advantage. Natural selection. Whatever got here won the “relative reproductive advantage” death match. That’s what “survived” means. It got here.
So here’s the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, colloquially: