Posted by Jack Krebs on August 20, 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (0)

In the thread “DDDV: Presenting Opposing Views” FL wrote in a comment, partially in response to a comment I made about the DDD conferences (Design, Darwin and Democracy, sponsored by the Intelligent Design network) being “publicity shows”:

I was at DDD1. … However, I was most impressed by the way Dr. Bradley, the origin-of-life guy, handled his question and answer period.

By the time it was over, I actually wound up feeling embarrassed for the pro-evolution guys (apparently from Kansas University?) who were trying to challenge him.  He was totally prepared for them, and simply mopped up the floor seven ways to Sunday.  That was something to watch.

I was also at DDD1, and in fact have a tape of, and just watched, Walter Bradley’s presentation.  On the one hand, I’d say that Bradley’s talk was probably the fairest and most scientifically detailed and accurate of any ID speech I’ve heard at the DDD conferences.  His main topic was the problems with the origin of life, and particularly the biochemical requirements for the origin of proteins, DNA, and RNA.  He focussed on the Miller-Urey experiments  and what he considered the misrepresentation in textbooks of that experiment.

On the other hand, I think FL’s memory of the question and answer period is faulty (this is not to blame him, of course - I wouldn’t have even remembered the Q&A if I hadn’t just watched the tape.)

Continue reading  “Walter Bradley at DDD1”

Posted by PvM on August 20, 2004 | Comments (15) | TrackBack (2)

New Group Hopes To Break Monopoly On Gravity Theory

A Georgia group calling itself Teachers for Equal Time has asked that stickers be placed in all new physics textbooks which note that mutual attraction and relativity are not the only theories available to explain gravity and should not be taken as fact.

Teachers for Equal Time hopes that the addition of the warning stickers will pave the way for the teaching of its alternative theory, Intelligent Grappling, the theory that certain intelligent and conscious agents “push” things together.

Dr Elf M. Sternberg, the originator of the theory of Intelligent Grappling, or “IG” as some call it, and president of Teachers for Equal Time, announced the group’s plans to seek legislation requiring the stickers at a Cobb County school board meeting.

“Mutual attraction has had a monopoly on the truth for too long,” said Dr. Sternberg, “it is time we let children see all of the theories.”

IG FAQ

Posted by Ed Brayton on August 20, 2004 | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Please welcome a new face at the bar of the Panda’s Thumb, Dr. Alan Gishlick. Gish, as we call him with equal parts irony and affection, is a vertebrate paleontologist and is currently the Post Doctoral Scholar of the National Center for Science Education in Oakland, CA. His research interests include functional transitions in evolution - particularly in the origin of avian flight, the reconstruction of soft anatomy in fossils, systematics, the teaching of the history of life, and the interface of science, art, and religion.

In the unlikely event that he imbibes a bit too much Burgess Ale (since two pints likely represents about 20% of his total body weight) and says unsavory things, please bear in mind that the views he expresses here are his own and are not necessarily shared by the NCSE, its employees, or its supporters. If you get Gish confused with Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research, just remember that our Gish is the one who does not look like a cro magnon.

Posted by PvM on August 19, 2004 | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

As far as I can tell Rebecca Keller’s position on the teachings of evolution and intelligent design seems quite reasonable. As someone who testified in front of the committee responsible for educational standards in New Mexico, she contributed by having unnecessarily ideologic language removed from the standards. As a Christian and a scientist I fully support the position that science should remain free of religious or anti-religious overtones. This posting was meant to share my surprise about the use of an intelligent design proponent as ‘opposing views’. Within the context of the issue, Keller’s position may indeed qualify as ‘an opposing view’.

Continue reading  “DDD V: Presenting Opposing Views ?”

Posted by PvM on August 18, 2004 | Comments (5) | TrackBack (1)

I have been a fan of Lamoureux ever since I read the book “Darwinism defeated?  The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins”. See also Lamoureux’s online paper The Phillip Johnson Phenomenon: Are Evangelicals Inheriting The Wind? to understand his objections to Johnson.

As others before me have observed, Johnson is no match for the onslaught of arguments presented by Denis Lamoureux. When Lamoureux raises some very relevant issues, Johnson can be observed ignoring most of them to focus on some very narrow issues of little consequence. Instead of “Darwinism defeated?” the title should have been “Phillip Johnson defeated: By his own rhetoric”.

Lamoureux made some insightful comments at DDD2.

3. Do not include ID Theory in public schools as a legitimate scientific theory on origins. It is much too early for that. No one would submit their children to medical research without it having gone through the proper clinical trials. So too, the science being taught to our children.

4. Include the origins debate and the views of the ID Movement in the public school science curriculum as an extra-scientific topic. Not doing so only submits to the agenda driven propaganda of secular humanism, which effectively is a religion in itself.

Continue reading  “Denis Lamoureux on intelligent design”

Posted by PvM on August 17, 2004 | Comments (23) | TrackBack (0)

Note from author: As with most of my reviews this is a work in progress, I will update the posting with additional chapter reviews as I finish reading them.

Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA
by William Dembski (Editor), Michael Ruse (Editor)

Introduction to the book by Ruse and Dembski

My review at Amazon review: “Not much of a debate”

While the title suggests that there would be a balance in arguments the anti-Darwinian arguments totally lose out against an overwhelming team of experts. Ruse, Ayala, Sober, Pennock and Miller methodically address the flaws in the scientific and philosophical arguments presented by the ID proponents. The ID proponents such as Dembski, Behe and Meyer mostly seem to be repeating old arguments while ignoring the main criticisms against their ideas.

Despite this, the book presents some interesting contributions. As a scientist and Christian I was particularly pleased with the contributions of Haught, Polkinghorne, Ward and others in part III “Theistic evolution” showing how evolution and divine Providence need not be at odds.

Continue reading  “Book review: Debating Design (Dembski/Ruse ed.)”

Posted by John M. Lynch on August 17, 2004 | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

In the past, I have argued that ID “peer-review” is worthless, and that adherence to ID has retarded any scientific output by such supporters as Wells and Behe. In chapter 41 of his The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), William Dembski sets out to answer the question: If intelligent design is a scientific research program, why don’t design theorists publish or have their work cited in the peer-reviewed literature?

Over at Stranger Fruit I examine Dembski’s response and it’s reliance on the ISCID bibliography.

Posted by Matt Young on August 17, 2004 | Comments (50) | TrackBack (4)

I am as reluctant to review a book I have never read as to judge a book by its cover.  Thus, this essay is not a review of a book but rather a review of its cover.

The book is From Darwin to Hitler, Evolutionary Ethics, Eugenics and Racism in Germany (Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), by Richard Weikart, a Fellow with the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.  The Institute issued a press release taking credit for the book, so we may assume that they had a hand in the work (“New Book by Discovery Institute Fellow Shows Influence of Darwinian Principles on Hitler’s Nazi Regime,” Discovery Institute News, August 13, 2004,  http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=vi…). 

According to the press release,

Weikart explains the revolutionary impact Darwinism had on ethics and morality. He demonstrates that many leading Darwinian biologists and social thinkers in Germany believed that Darwinism overturned traditional Judeo-Christian and Enlightenment ethics, especially those pertaining to the sacredness of human life. Many of these thinkers supported moral relativism, yet simultaneously exalted evolutionary “fitness” (especially in terms of intelligence and health) as the highest arbiter of morality. Weikart concludes that Darwinism played a key role not only in the rise of eugenics, but also in euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and racial extermination, all ultimately embraced by the Nazis.

In case you doubt that the Institute (if not Weikart) is blaming “Darwinism” for Hitler, Phillip Johnson, a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute, says on the book jacket,

Continue reading  “Social Darwinism Is Alive and Well and Living at the Discovery Institute”

Posted by PZ Myers on August 17, 2004 | Comments (16) | TrackBack (0)

The Discovery Institute is touting their new book that they purport "shows [the] influence of Darwinian principles on Hitler's Nazi regime" (I think you'll be hearing more about this book here soon). I'm wondering about something, though. If they so deplore Hitler's racism, why have they been using a publisher whose main claim to fame is the publication of right-wing anti-Clinton diatribes, and whose heir the Southern Poverty Law Center describes as a "prime mover and shaker in white nationalism publishing" and supporter of "white-supremacist luminaries"?

Posted by Mark Perakh on August 16, 2004 | Comments (8) | TrackBack (0)

The reason for writing this essay is the appearance of a paper by William Dembski wherein he introduces a measure of information he has dubbed “variational information” (the initial version of that paper has disappeared from the web but is available from those who received Dembski’s initial mailing, including me; modified version is at http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-10-t-000086.html).
Dembski emailed the initial version of that paper to a number of both his critics and supporters (I was one of the critics who received that email).

In a remark accompanying the text of the paper, Dembski, among other things, wrote that he would appreciate critical comments, in particular because he would not like to “reinvent the wheel.”

Continue reading  “Reinventing the wheel - a personal report”