Science and Culture Today | Page 1382 | Discovering Design in Nature

What happens when a professor of neurosurgey who is a Darwin-skeptic and just happens to be a brain surgeon visits a popular Darwinist blog? He leaves with unanswered questions. Last week Rob Crowther highlighted how Dr. Michael Egnor visited Time magazine’s science blog where a reporter admitted his Darwinist bias and was unable to answer Egnor’s question: “how much new information can Darwinian mechanisms generate?” Egnor is professor of neurosurgery and pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook and an award-winning brain surgeon who has been named one of New York’s best doctors by New York Magazine. Egnor recently took his questions to P.Z. Myers’ popular science blog Pharyngula, where Egnor continues–unanswered–to press Darwinists for how Darwinian mechanisms Read More ›

Last fall I posted a response to Chris Mooney’s chapter in The Republican War on Science where I rebutted much of what he said in his book against intelligent design (which can be read here). Recently, Mooney wrote an article in the LA Times, co-authored with Alan Sokal, where he stepped up the rhetoric against Darwin-skeptics, calling them “the worst science abusers.” Mooney always equates Darwin-skeptics with “religious fundamentalists” and even goes so far as to invoke the “denier of evolution” name-calling approach: Antibiotic-resistant bacteria do not spare deniers of evolution, and global climate change will not spare any of us. As physicist Richard Feynman wrote in connection with the space shuttle Challenger disaster, “nature cannot be fooled.” Apart from Read More ›

Jack Cashill has an insightful column on the progressive mindset, especially as exemplified by Darwin’s modern defenders. Where others see light, they see a threat to their way of life. And given their mastery of the media and academia, they do a great job of screening out the uncomfortable. Read the column here.

The New Yorker recently published a story by Jonathan Rosen: “Missing Link: Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles Darwin’s neglected double.” Picking up on a thought of G.K. Chesterton, Rosen notes that while he did “as much as anyone to overturn traditional religious assumptions, Wallace proceeded to horrify his fellow-evolutionists by concluding that natural selection could not in itself explain the uniqueness of man.” There must be intelligent guidance, claimed Wallace.

And this raises an interesting question: Would Judge Jones’ Kitzmiller v. Dover ruling have banned the views of the co-founder of evolution from Pennsylvania classrooms? A question already addressed in Traipsing Into Evolution:

In Think, a philosophy journal published by The Royal Institute of Philosophy, Phillip Johnson has published an article entitled “Intelligent Design in Biology: the Current Situation and Future Prospects” which assesses the current state of the debate over intelligent design. The full article may be read here. Johnson explains that, despite the advances of the 20th century, many Darwinists still use old arguments that merely reflect microevolution. Johnson writes regarding the Galapagos finches: To make the story look better, the National Academy of Sciences improved on some the facts in its 1998 booklet on Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science. This version of the story omits the beaks’ return to normal and encourages teachers to speculate that a Read More ›

Some Darwinists have recently tried to rewrite history, claiming that no one uses Haeckel’s embryo drawings anymore. But on December 2, 2006, Truth in Science, a British group which supports intelligent design, reported that London’s The Science Museum had colorized versions of Haeckel’s embryo drawings on their website. Before that time, the museum’s website had used drawings that looked like this: (Graphic provided courtesy of David Anderson of BCSE-Revealed.) Clearly Haeckel’s faked drawings were promoted by the museum as of December, 2006 as evidence for evolution. In fact, Truth in Science reported that the caption also read, “It seems that an efficient way of marking out the body plan arose millions of years ago, and has remained virtually unchanged throughout Read More ›

There have been times when our critics have seemed a little . . . well . . . silly. Most often, this happens when someone decides they don’t have to actually understand anything about the intelligent design position before they attack it. Krauze over at Telic Thoughts illuminates with a great example of a ridiculous straw-man argument. He writes:

One of the reasons I don’t take grandiose statements about how “many scientists reject intelligent design” seriously is because the average scientist has no clue as to what intelligent design is about, having only read some anti-ID editorials in the journals they subscribe to.

After the Kansas school board threw out objective science curriculum standards in favor of dogmatic Darwin-only teaching rules, Mike Gene at Telic Thoughts weighed in on the board’s redefining what science is. This was a big issue in 2005 that we reported extensively (see here and here). The board has adopted a definition of science out of step with most states’ in the nation.

[Edited] Bilbo of Telic Thoughts … [references] an early, notable use of the term “intelligent design,” this one by one of the 20th century’s leading scientists, agnostic Fred Hoyle:

On January 12th, 1982, Sir Fred Hoyle delivered the Omni Lecture at the Royal Institution, London, entitled “Evolution from Space,” which was later reprinted in a book by the same title … In it he discussed the overwhelming improbability of getting the enzymes needed for even the simplest form of life to function by chance.

… The difference between an intelligent ordering, whether of words, fruit boxes, amino acids, or the Rubik cube, and merely random shufflings can be fantastically large, even as large as a number that would fill the whole volume of Shakespeare’s plays with its zeros. So if one proceeds directly and straightforwardly in this matter, without being deflected by a fear of incurring the wrath of scientific opinion, one arrives at the conclusion that biomaterials with their amazing measure or order must be the outcome of intelligent design [my emphasis]. No other possibility I have been able to think of in pondering this issue over quite a long time seems to me to have anything like as high a possibility of being true. (27-28)

This post will provide a final discussion of an article in Scientific American entitled “A Simpler Origin for Life” by Robert Shapiro. Part I explained why the Miller-Urey experiment and the DNA-first hypothesis is deficient. In Part II, I explained Shapiro’s apt criticisms of the RNA-world hypothesis. Those who have abandoned the RNA-world hypothesis still seek a self-replicating molecule to qualify as the climax of chemical-origin of life scenarios–the “pre-RNA world.” However, Shapiro observes not only that “no trace of this hypothetical primal replicator and catalyst has been recognized so far in modern biology,” but also that “the spontaneous appearance of any such replicator without the assistance of a chemist faces implausibilities that dwarf those involved in the preparation of Read More ›