Top Science Stories for 2008 Leave out Darwin but Point to Intelligent Design

At the beginning of 2008, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences stated in its booklet Science, Evolution, and Creationism, that “Evolutionary biology has been and continues to be a cornerstone of modern science.” It seems that their assertion did not pan out very well for the rest of 2008. Two groups recently released lists of top science news stories and breakthroughs for 2008: The Access Research Network and the leading journal, Science. None of their top breakthroughs came as a result of evolutionary biology. Science‘s top breakthrough was a method where scientists discovered how to harvest stem cells from living patients, a find which has huge potential for treating diseases. This is an extremely important scientific breakthrough, to be sure, Read More ›

How Kenneth Miller Used Smoke-and-Mirrors to Misrepresent Michael Behe on the Irreducible Complexity of the Blood-Clotting Cascade (Part 1)

During the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial three years ago, biologist Kenneth Miller claimed that biochemist Michael Behe’s arguments in Darwin’s Black Box regarding the irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade were false. Miller’s testimony led federal district court judge John Jones to assert in his decision that “scientists in peer-reviewed publications have refuted Professor Behe’s predication about the alleged irreducible complexity of the blood-clotting cascade.” But an analysis of Miller’s arguments demonstrates that he refuted Behe in no way whatsoever, and that in fact it was Behe who refuted Miller at trial, although Judge Jones ignored Behe’s testimony. Miller continues (I am told) to go around lecturing on this topic, claiming that the blood-clotting cascade of lower vertebrates demonstrate that Read More ›

Advice to an Arrogant Medical Priesthood: Wash Your Hands

There is an internet cottage industry of physicians and scientists who regularly excoriate alternative medicine and other non-traditional or even fringe approaches to health or to scientific understanding. Steven Novella, Orac, and a host of other faux “defenders of science” decry the danger to the public from vaccine “denial,” homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, among others. Now, I agree with my medical colleagues that the scientific basis for most of these practices or viewpoints is missing or minimal. I don’t believe that the scientific evidence supports the view that vaccines cause autism. I am not a supporter of “alternative medicine,” and I objected when an effort was made some years ago to expand alternative medicine here at Stony Brook. Alternative medicine, like Read More ›

“Rather than going out on a limb with a new idea, scientists tend to stick with the pack”

Science journalist Suzan Mazur has been reporting extensively about scientists’ doubts about Darwinian evolution and a forthcoming paradigm shift — a shift that we are assured by the likes of Eugenie Scott is not coming, does not exist, and is simply a ploy by “creationists.” Scott, and dogmatists like her, continue to insist there is no controversy or disagreement amongst scientists about the mechanisms that Darwin championed, namely natural selection acting on random mutation. Mazur’s interviews underscore what we’ve been saying all along. There is a controversy, and it deserves to be heard. Mazur and those she interviews and covers are not friendly to the idea of intelligent design. In an interesting twist,

A Lively New Interview with Expelled writer Kevin Miller

[Note: For a more comprehensive defense of Ben Stein’s documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, please see: NCSE Exposed at NCSEExposed.org] Over at alivingdog.com, blogger Gord Wilson has just posted a lengthy interview with the lead writer of Expelled, Kevin Miller. The interview is enlightening on several levels, and covers a wide range of topics from media suppression, to the lawsuits against the film, to Richard Dawkins appearance. Well worth reading. G: I would say what his argument doesn’t explain is Richard Dawkins. It doesn’t explain why he’s so passionate, why he’s so smart, why he writes so well. And if he’s right, the game’s over. K: Why does it matter to him? I came to that question over and over. Read More ›