 |
A new website has just launched in support of Dr. Granville Sewell's new book, In The Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design. Along with information about the book, there is a nice brief interview with Sewell that you will want to read.  Q. You express some doubt that even under “the right conditions, the influx of stellar energy into a planet could cause atoms to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants and spaceships and computers.” This, you say, ought to be “considered an open question” at least by scientists and the public alike. Why isn’t it?
A. A typical college physics text I read contains the statement “One of the most remarkable simplifications in physics is that only four distinct forces account for all known phenomena.” Most people just haven’t ever thought about things in this way, that if you don’t believe in intelligent design, you must believe this claim, that the four unintelligent forces of physics caused atoms on Earth to rearrange themselves into nuclear power plants, spaceships and computers. When they do think about it, they may start to see things a little differently. This is part of the “broader view” that is often missed by biologists, but noticed by mathematicians and physicists. Read the whole interview here.
Also, a heads up for those of you in Seattle. Dr. Sewell will be presenting his book at Discovery Institute on February 23rd. And for everyone else, next week ID The Future will podcast two interviews with Dr. Sewell about his views on intelligent design, origin of life theories, and why he thinks Darwin's theory about the struggle for life "easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science."
It's that time of year! ID the Future just kicked off a series of podcasts for Academic Freedom Week, taking a look back over the academic freedom stories in the media last year and a look ahead to the current struggles for academic freedom in the debate over evolution and intelligent design.
Leading off was today's interview of ARN Executive Director Dennis Wagner, who discussed with Casey Luskin the expelling of Ben Stein from the University of Vermont, the censorship of Michael Behe's Bloggingheads.tv interview, and the lawsuit against the California Science Center over their cancellation of the pro-ID film, Darwin’s Dilemma.
Stay tuned to the entire series of podcasts this week at IDtheFuture.com.
Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini are arrving late to the Darwin doubting party, but are welcome attendees none the less. Below are some welcoming remarks from leading scientific voices in the intelligent design community.
We just received a review copy of "What Darwin Got Wrong", the new book attacking Darwinian evolution by Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, two thorougly materalistic scientists. Why does that matter? Because typically materialists have been the most ardent defenders of Darwin's theory of natural selection. With the publication of this book, that is likely to change.
For those of you wondering what this is all about let me back up to 2007 when Fodor published his first piece of heresy in the London Review of Books, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings". That article led to Stanley Salthe, another materialist scientist who doubts Darwrinian evolution (and has signed the Dissent From Darwin statement to boot), to convene an e-mail discussion group that became what is now known as the Altenberg 16.
Science writer Susan Mazur reported on that meeting, and later wrote an entire book about the 16 scientists who were basically affirming what we'd been saying here at ENV for years -- Darwinian evolution is dead. She wrote: What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accommodate "other" new phenomena. She also reported what Fodor had experienced after going public with his initial doubts about Darwin. When I called Fodor to discuss his article, he joked that he was now in the Witness Protection Program because he'd been so besieged following the LRB piece. ... Fodor also told me that "you can't put this stuff in the press because it's an attack on the theory of natural selection" and besides "99.99% of the population have no idea what the theory of natural selection is". To his credit, he has stuck with his position, and has taken it to the next level by publishing What Darwin Got Wrong.
Since these doubts aren't anything new to many scientists who've been saying this for years, I thought I'd ask them what their initial thoughts about this book are. Here are a few responses.
On his website David Berlinski, author of The Deniable Darwin writes in part: What is encouraging about Jerry Fodor's and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's arguments in What Darwin Got Wrong is just that Fodor and Piattelli- Palmarini had the nerve to make them. What is discouraging about their arguments is just that it has taken them so long to acquire their nerve. Where have you been fellahs?
Every argument that they advance others have advanced before them. Who in particular? Me, for sure. I have called attention to the striking analogy between Skinner and Darwin for more than fifteen years now. Jonathan Wells, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design writes to say: Darwinian propagandists would like the public to believe that there is no scientific debate about the adequacy of evolutionary theory--though scientists have actually been debating it ever since The Origin of Species was published in 1859. Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini's book, What Darwin Got Wrong, is the latest contribution to this long-standing scientific controversy.
Darwin considered natural selection--survival of the fittest--to be the "most important" mechanism of evolution, but Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini (like many scientist before them) argue that it is not. Although they accept Darwin's idea that living things are descended from a common ancestor, Fodor and Piattelli-Palmarini cite abundant evidence against natural selection.
They call much of the "vast literature" on this subject "distressingly uncritical" and write "it is high time that Darwinists take this evidence seriously."
So the scientific debate continues--the debate that Darwinian propagandists say doesn't exist. Michael Behe, author of The Edge of Evolution writes to say: The smoke from Darwin’s 200 birthday candles had barely dissipated when Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini announce “What Darwin Got Wrong” — evolution’s mechanism. Natural selection just can’t cut the mustard, they explain. But since the proposal of a natural mechanism for evolution is the very reason for Darwin’s scientific and cultural importance, his achievement apparently has been way overblown by pretty much the entire biological community. Now, I wonder who else has been saying that for the last few decades? Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell writes to say: Fodor correctly understands that natural selection, Darwin's designer substitute mechanism, lacks the creative power that has long been attributed to it. Natural selection by definition only "selects" or favors functional advantage. What we have learned in biology over the last 50 years shows that at every level in the biological hierarchy -- whether we are talking about novel genes, proteins, molecular machines, signal transduction circuits, organs, or body plans -- functional advantage depends upon the occurrence of a series of vastly improbable and tightly coordinated mutational events. Careful quantitative analysis has shown that these events that are so improbable as to put thresholds of selectable function well beyond the reach of chance. The selection and mutation mechanism does not work because the mechanism of natural selection depends on too many improbable things going right before there is anything to select at all.
Life arose without design or direction from any intelligent agent. Would you believe it did so in a sun-warmed ocean surface? No? Would you believe an earth-heated vent at the bottom of the same ocean? Would you believe an office microwave that hasn’t been cleaned since the Bush Administration?
The past week’s startling news of backpedaling from the “primordial soup” theory rang a bell, though I wasn’t instantly able to say whose comedy routine it put me in mind of. Hm, was it Monty Python? ScienceDaily carries the story: For 80 years it has been accepted that early life began in a “primordial soup” of organic molecules before evolving out of the oceans millions of years later. Today the “soup” theory has been overturned in a pioneering paper in BioEssays which claims it was the Earth's chemical energy, from hydrothermal vents on the ocean floor, which kick-started early life.
Continue reading "Primordial Soup? Would You Believe..." »
A popular Darwinian meme is that humans and chimp genomes are ninety-something percent identical. It varies a bit, but usually hovers close to 99%. The meme hides all sorts of assumptions, of course, but the take home lesson for the headline reader is plain enough: we’re almost exactly the same as chimps.
Though the 99% number has received some qualifiers, and has even been referred to as a “myth” in Science, the basic idea remains firmly entrenched in the media collective consciousness.
But evidence seems to be piling up that the similarities are not nearly what has been advertised. Geneticist Richard Buggs has reflected on this, and has even predicted “that when we have a reliable, complete chimpanzee genome, the overall similarity of the human genome will prove to be close to 70% (and very far from 99%).”
It will be interesting to see how Buggs' prediction holds up over time. If he’s right, this will be one more switch from “meme” to “myth” in the Darwinian ledger.
Continue reading "Are Chimps and Humans Really All That Much Alike?" »
If that dictum looks like a bumper sticker, I apologize — but it’s true all the same. Most of the philosophy of science can be captured by a handful of bumper stickers. Anyway, keep the dictum in mind. In this second installment of the “Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes” blog series — part 1 is here — we’ll ask how the theory of common descent could be tested by fossils. The principle of “what evidence cannot question, evidence cannot support” will be our main guide.
Continue reading "Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested?" »
Brown University biologist Ken Miller often attacks ID proponent Michael Behe, and in doing so usually misrepresents his arguments, just as he has done when talking about the origin of the immune system.
In Only a Theory, Miller claims that when the plaintiffs' attorneys at the Dover trial did a literature-dump bluff on Behe during cross-examination—placing before him over 50 papers and nearly a dozen books purportedly explaining the evolution of the immune system—that Behe said that they were "not 'good enough.’" Miller even goes so far as to characterize Behe's response as follows: "Even when presented with every opportunity to make their case, the defenders of design resorted to little more than saying 'It's not good enough for me' in the face of overwhelming evidence for evolution."41 What did Behe really say?
If by overwhelming evidence for "evolution," Miller meant neo-Darwinian evolution, where random mutation and natural selection are the driving force generating biological complexity in an adaptive, step-by-step fashion, then Behe is on quite firm ground in doubting Miller's assertion of "overwhelming" evidence for the evolution of the immune system. Behe knew this, and thus stated during his cross examination about the immune system: "In many of [the papers] they're not actually discussing mutation. They're discussing similarities and sequences between parts of the immune system in vertebrates and some elements of transposons."42
Continue reading "Ken Miller and the Evolution of the Immune System: “Not Good Enough”?" »
Florida has all the fun. Fresh on the heels of the Signature in the Cell event in Tampa, we have learned from our friends at the C. S. Lewis Society that Discovery Senior Fellow David Berlinski will be speaking at a couple events this week, including "The Deniable Darwin: Has Science Buried Religion?" this Thursday, Feb 4th at 3:30 pm. The presentation will take place at Florida International University's Graham Center Room 140.
Following that, there will be Darwin vs. Design "Pizza Bash" featuring Dr. Berlinski and Dr. Tom Woodward this Saturday:
Pizza Kick-off: On Saturday, Feb 6th at 6:00 pm, at the First Alliance Church of Ft. Lauderdale (900 SW 31st Ave.) Dr. Tom Woodward and the C. S. Lewis Society are hosting a pizza-bash "meet and greet Berlinski/Woodward" for interested persons in the Ft. Lauderdale area and beyond. There is no charge; there will be a basket for free-will donations. RSVP is requested; email twdwrd@tampabay.rr.com to list name, phone and number of group coming.
Main Course at 7:00 pm: Dr. Woodward will give a powerpoint overview of the current Darwin-vs-Design clash. Then he will introduce and interview Dr. David Berlinski about the flaws that he sees in Darwinian theory and in the preachings of the "New Atheists" such as Richard Dawkins. Dr. Berlinski, self-described as a secular Jew, has emerged as one of the world's most powerful critics of Darwinian theory. His sizzling critique of the New Atheism, The Devil's Delusion, along with the newly released The Deniable Darwin, have caused a buzz about his startling insights.
For more information, contact Dr. Tom Woodward, Director of C. S. Lewis Society, at 727-642-8574 or twdwrd@tampabay.rr.com.
|
 |
Study Intelligent Design
Berlinski is back!
