Science and Culture Today | Page 1421 | Discovering Design in Nature

Darwinist blogger and computer scientist MarkCC (why don’t they use their real names?) called me a lot of names a couple of days ago. The most profane was that I am a ‘bastion of s***headed ignorance.’ Profanity seems to be a particular problem with the computer-math Darwinists. A dysfunctional clad, perhaps. They’re dysfunctional because, as Aristotle wrote, effective rhetoric has three characteristics: logos, ethos, and pathos. Effective rhetoric appeals to the best in reason, ethics, and emotion. When I’m called unprintable names merely for expressing my skepticism about the relevance of Darwin’s theory to the practice of medicine, I’ve already won the ‘ethos’ and ‘pathos’ skirmishes. I can concentrate on the logos.

I have written in this blog that Darwinism is irrelevant to the practice of medicine. The truth of my assertion is, I think, fairly obvious, except to Darwin fundamentalists. Most of the Darwinists’ comments on my posts have been personal attacks on me, rather than carefully reasoned arguments. The thoughtful arguments that have been put forth are, I think, misguided, as I will discuss in upcoming posts.

The assertion that Darwinism is essential to medicine is usually is based on the argument that one or more of the following areas of science are dependent on Darwin’s theory:

• 1. Comparative medicine, which is the study of the similarity and the differences between humans and other organisms.
• 2. Medical genetics and molecular biology
• 3. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics

In addition, a common Darwinist argument is that the presence on medical school faculties of scientists who study some aspects of evolutionary biology is evidence that evolutionary biology is indispensable to medicine. That argument is flawed, but it does raise an important issue. I’ll address that issue here, and I’ll address the other issues, one by one, in ensuing posts.

Darwinist blogs are infamous for ridiculing those who question the party line until they change their mind, stop posting, or leave. But is this strategy employed by those higher in the Darwin-defense hierarchy? Richard B. Katskee, Assistant Legal Director at Americans United for Separation of Church and State and attorney for the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller case, illustrates in his article in First Amendment Law Review how this Darwinist tactic of ridicule and name-calling goes all the way to the top. Mr. Katskee attacks those who do not oppose ID as “succumbing to the basic deceit at the heart of intelligent design,” saying they “have been deceived.” He uses language to ridicule ID as uncool and evil, calling it a Read More ›

What is intelligent design and what scientific evidence supports it? How does it differ from Darwin’s theory of evolution? Is there a purpose to the universe? What new scientific facts are turning evolutionary theories upside down? Answers to these and other intriguing science questions are the focus of two special conferences called Darwin vs. Design. The first is in Knoxville, TN at the Knoxville Convention Center, all day Saturday, March 24. The second is April 13-14 at McFarlin Auditorium on the SMU campus in Dallas, TX.
Click here to register now.

Join journalist and New York Times bestselling author Lee Strobel and a panel of scientists at Discovery Institute’s Darwin vs. Design Conference as they explore the evidence for Darwin’s theory of evolution and explain the emerging scientific theory of intelligent design.
Conference attendees will interact with intelligent design scientists and experts whose discoveries in cosmology, biology, physics, and DNA present astonishing scientific evidence that is overturning the evolutionary thinking of the past. Conference-goers will hear firsthand the astounding implications these discoveries are having on our society, our politics, and our culture.
Featured speakers include:

How many Darwinists Does it Take to Have a “Debate” over Intelligent Design? Only one, as the Daily Democrat reports in an article entitled “Evolution vs. ‘Intelligent Design’ debated.” According to the DD, only Dr. Maureen Stanton, professor and chairwoman of the UC Davis Department of Evolution and Ecology, will “debat[e]” intelligent design vs. evolution. Apparently that’s the meaning of debate to some Darwinists.

Dave Thomas has published an op-ed in the Albuquerque Tribune entitled “Intelligent design supporters find new, creative ways to get their message out.” Predictably, Thomas uses invectives and misrepresentations to oppose a legitimate bill which would simply give teachers “the right and freedom, when a theory of biological origins is taught, to objectively inform students of scientific information relevant to the strengths and weaknesses of that theory.” I predicted that Darwinists* would attack the bill by trying to claim that it brings creationism, intelligent design, or religion into the classroom. As I’ve noted before, Darwinists* have no legitimate reason to make such attacks because the bill would protect the teaching of science, and science only, in the science classroom, as Read More ›

My recent post here about the irrelevance of Darwinism to the practice of medicine seems to have gotten under the skin of a medical resident at Penn State. Dr. Burt Humburg, blogging at Panda’s Thumb, unleashed a tirade, including a very clever word play on my name in the title of his post (Egnorance: The Egotistical Combination of Ignorance and Arrogance) and his very serious doubts about my competence and integrity. Burt has also been involved in the Kansas evolution struggle. You might say he has a dog in this hunt.

A recent article entitled “Scientists say Darwin’s ‘Tree of Life’ [TOL] not the theory of everything,” published on Physorg.com, explained that increasingly, “a minority of biologists and evolutionists have questioned the accuracy of the TOL hypothesis.” The basic problem is that similar genes appear in organisms in patterns which do not fit a universal “tree.” As one of the scientists quoted, W. F. Doolittle, elsewhere stated: “Molecular phylogenists will have failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate or because they have chosen the wrong genes, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” Doolittle attributes his observations to gene-swapping among microorganisms at the base of the TOL, and tries to Read More ›

Daniel Dennett was right, in a way. Scientific naturalism, like Darwinism, is a corrosive acid, eroding every crevice of our society. It’s now seeped into our sulci.

Jeffrey Rosen, in a March 11th New York Times Magazine essay “The Brain on the Stand; how neuroscience is transforming the legal system,” tells of the influence of neuroscience on legal concepts of culpability. He quotes Harvard neuroscientist Joshua Greene: “To a neuroscientist, you are your brain; nothing causes your behavior other than the operations of your brain. If that’s right, it radically changes the way we think about the law.” And, of course, it changes the way we think about everything. It isn’t surprising that a leading neuroscientist would cloak a philosophical assertion in a scientific assertion. It’s the currency of scientific naturalism.

Imagine that you purchase a “build it yourself” computer kit, and all the instruction manual said is “Step 1: Collect all necessary parts into a box.” This is essentially as far as evolutionary explanations by co-option get: Darwinists assume that by simply identifying the possible origin-location for one or a few structural components that they have explained how all of the parts became properly assembled to interact and produce the final functional structure. Mike Gene has a funny post where he links to computer assembly instructions which simply tell the user to tape the necessary computer parts inside a box. “Exiled from Groggs” thinks that this shows “The limitations of co-option.” It appears that scientists would agree. As one scientist Read More ›