Month: January 2011
Playing “Science Says” Is a Political Game
This morning Discovery Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer has a piece up in Human Events detailing the problem with the oft-heard claim, “Science says . . .” President Obama echoed an often-heard lament when he complained recently that, among Americans, “facts and science and argument do not seem to be winning the day.” According to distressed cultural observers, public ignorance about science is evidenced by failure to accept global warming, “animal rights,” euthanasia and Darwinian evolution. The assumption is that doubting scientists’ claims means you have divorced yourself from reality. Yet steadily accumulating stories from the scientific community itself suggest grounds for doubting that scientists all pursue truth without fear or favor. Last year’s “Climategate” email leak from the University of Read More ›
Scientific Paper Reviews Dembski and Behe’s Methods of Detecting Intelligent Design
In a prior post I noted that a recent paper in International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, co-authored by Dissent from Darwinism list signer Dominic Halsmer, cited to the work of Guillermo Gonzalez as evidence for cosmic design. However, the paper also looks at design in the biological realm, citing the work of a variety of noteworthy proponents of intelligent design, including Walter Bradley, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, and William Dembski. The paper examines to the engineering of life, noting that “[b]iological systems are constantly undergoing processes that exhibit modularity, specificity, adaptability, durability, and many other aspects of engineered systems.” It quotes from William Dembski and Jonathan Wells’ book The Design of Life, stating: “Many of the systems Read More ›
Does Gene Duplication Perform As Advertised?
In my previous post, I highlighted a recent peer-reviewed paper which challenged a key tenet of neo-Darwinian evolution — specifically, the causal sufficiency of gene duplication and subsequent divergence to account for the origin of novel biological information. In this follow-up blog, I want to consider some of the case-studies examined in the paper and relay some of the conclusions drawn.
No Peer-Reviewed Support for ID? Darwinists Talk to the Hand
Reading the prominent Darwin boosters puts me in mind of Se�or Wences. He was the Spanish-born ventriloquist who won international affection for conducting conversations with his own hand. On his thumb and index finger, Wences used lipstick to paint a pair of lips, stuck on a couple of button eyes and a tiny wig and called the interlocutor, who spoke in a falsetto, “Johnny.” To the delight of audiences on the Ed Sullivan Show, Johnny could speak even as Wences drank a glass of water or smoked a cigarette. In their books and blogs, the Dawkins-Myers crew acidly dismiss the scientific case against Darwin, all echoing the same putdowns about “creationists” and “IDiots” with no record of peer-reviewed research, desperately Read More ›