Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Peter Ward Versus Stephen Meyer: No Contest

I am anxiously awaiting a transcript of the recent Ward versus Meyer debate. In the meantime you can check out the transcript of their last debate here:

http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3097

Peter Ward is way out of his league in the presence of Stephen Meyer. Frankly, I was embarrassed for Ward.

Here are a few excerpts. Check out the transcript and judge for yourself.
Read More ›

Invasion of the IBM Engineers

http://domino.research.ibm.com/comm/pr.nsf/pages/news.20060425_dna.html

IBM today announced its researchers have discovered numerous DNA patterns shared by areas of the human genome that were thought to have little or no influence on its function and those areas that do.

As reported today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), regions of the human genome that were assumed to largely contain evolutionary leftovers (called “junk DNA”) may actually hold significant clues that can add to scientists’ understanding of cellular processes. IBM researchers have discovered that these regions contain numerous, short DNA “motifs,” or repeating sequence fragments, which also are present in the parts of the genome that give rise to proteins. Read More ›

Charles Darwin University

Where instruction and indoctrination are the same thing . . . http://www.cdu.edu.au I understand this university evolved from a lower form of educational institution.

Who Wants to Sue the University of Minnesota?

In light of Kitzmiller finding that ID is religion I decided to see exactly what PZ Myers, who votes on tenure at the University of Minnesota, said about denying tenure to people who believe in ID. In short order I found I was preceded in this investigation by author “Joy” at Telic Thoughts. So without further ado, especially considering what a thorough and excellent job she did, go read it there then comment here about what you’d like to see done about a University of Minnesota representative boasting about the unversity practicing religious discrimination. More on PZ Myers’ Public Boasting by Joy My thoughts are that the University of Minnesota needs to censure Associate Professor Paul Myers and assure the Read More ›

War in the making on pro-ID students?

I reported earlier that Professors admit they’ll deny tenure to IDers. There are now hints the anti-ID crowd are increasingly willing to deny diplomas to PhD students, master’s students, and undergraduates. Based on news reports I’ve read and studies such as those by Steve Verhey, presently, I estimate 1/4 to 1/3 of biology freshman accept ID. The anti-ID crowd knows rising numbers of pro-ID biology students receiving diplomas are a threat to the status-quo.

The Cornell IDEA club has commentary on this report by Nobel Intent (Bill Dembski provided other links at New York Academy of Sciences keeps the world safe for Darwinism) on a recent war planning conference:

Declaration of War?

Branch’s final topic was how to handle a situation where a biology department winds up with a creationist as a graduate student. This was both of general interest, as creationists tend to use their degrees as rhetorical weapons, and of personal interest, as I was part of the Berkeley class that produced the noted Discovery Institute fellow Jon Wells. Unfortunately, his conclusion was that there are no easy answers. He did, however, note that graduate departments exist to serve the scientific community by providing qualified individuals to perform research and teaching services. There is no ethical requirement for graduate faculty to be complicit in the training of someone who is ultimately going to actively harm the field.

No easy answer? The easy answer is to not make someone’s acceptance of ID a factor whatsoever! Simple!

Read More ›

A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum

Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000630.html by Casey Luskin Abstract: In Kitzmiller v. Dover, Judge John E. Jones ruled harshly against the scientific validity of intelligent design. Judge Jones ruled that the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum, as argued by intelligent design proponents during the trial, was refuted by the testimony of the plaintiffs’ expert biology witness, Dr. Kenneth Miller. Dr. Miller misconstrued design theorist Michael Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity by presenting and subsequently refuting only a straw-characterization of the argument. Accordingly, Miller claimed that irreducible complexity is refuted if a separate function can be found for any sub-system of Read More ›

“Evolutionary Prediction” Is An Oxymoron

In a previous post one commenter exclaimed: “…it is perfectly reasonable to say that, since no evolutionary prediction has ever been contradicted by data, that it reasonably won’t be any time soon.” Darwinian theory predicts everything, but only after the fact. It predicts that people will be selfish, and that they will be selfless. Predictions must precede what they predict. Predictions that predict everything predict nothing. This is yet another example of after-the-fact, just-so storytelling, in the grand tradition of Darwinian logic and reasoning.

Why teach ID? Because it’s fun!

The evolution of intelligent design Intelligent design gets a place in the philosophy classrooms of secular Knox College By Liz Kemmerer (April 27, 2006) Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., recently completed its first run of a one-of-a-kind course taught by a one-of-a-kind professor. In December, Martin Roth, a professor of philosophy of science at the secular private college taught a short philosophy course titled “Intelligent Design” to explore the topic historically and critically. A concentrated course, it made its debut during the college winter break from Nov. 29 to Dec. 16 with students meeting for three-hour sessions three times a week for three weeks. . . . “I want to see what topics the students were interested in, what they Read More ›

Stephen Meyer vs. Peter Ward Debate

Here’s a report from a colleague about a debate last night in Seattle:

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

A packed house at Seattle’s Town Hall saw Dr. Stephen Meyer of the Discovery Institute debate Dr. Peter Ward of the University of Washington on the topic of “Intelligent Design v. Evolution.” Meyer was excellent in his overall presentation. In my view, Meyer convincingly prevailed.

The two had previously debated on a local Seattle radio program. That radio debate was a rather lopsided exchange, with Meyer clearly outshining Ward. Meyer made clear and reasonable arguments about the theory of intelligent design (ID) from scientific data, whereas Ward had offered little-to-no scientific response. Instead, Ward simply attacked Meyer’s personal motives and made wild claims that students learning about the theory of intelligent design would somehow result in scientific decline and an undermining of our national security.

Back to Town Hall. This time Ward did not rely so thorougly rely upon wild claims about the theory of ID being the death of science itself. But attacks of that sort still seemed to be the mainstay of his arguments. He claimed that if students were to learn about the theory of intelligent design that the United States would fall behind in science and technology to China, Japan and other nations. Allowing the teaching of the theory of ID would lead to “intellectual mediocrity” in America, he stated. (To a large number of boos from the audience, I might add.)

Ward, in fact, asserted that ID is not a theory at all. He claimed it wasn’t science because science excludes the supernatural. Ward also repeatedly asked Meyer why he used the terms “neo-Darwinian” or “Darwinist.” At a later point in the debate, Ward claimed that ID proponents used those terms as a caricature to knock down. He also insisted that ID was neither testable nor falsifiable.

Specifically, Ward challenged Meyer to explain how the theory of ID could be tested or falsified. Meyer stated that the competing explanations of Drs. Michael Behe and Kenneth Miller concerning the bacteria flagellum and Type III Secretory Systems is something that could be tested to determine which one came first. Meyer countered that neo-Darwinian evolution had been heuristically unfruitful in leading science to think that non-encoding DNA was simply “junk.” Meyer insisted that design assumptions more readily led one to conclude there was purpose in such “junk DNA.” And he also cited Dr. Jonathan Wells’ hypothesis concerning centrioles and its implications for cancer as research inspired by a design theoretic. Furthermore, Meyer cited recent article in Science purporting to “refute” Behe’s ideas concerning irreducible complexity. Meyer insisted that they disputed the weak claims to have refuted irreducible complexity, but that the important fact was that the scientists were taking the idea seriously enough to try to combat it through scientific research and argument. Read More ›

Leave it to those progressive Europeans . . .

Socialists: Give apes human rights Tuesday, April 25, 2006 Spain Herald: http://www.spainherald.com/3438.html The Spanish Socialist Party will introduce a bill in the Congress of Deputies calling for “the immediate inclusion of (simians) in the category of persons, and that they be given the moral and legal protection that currently are only enjoyed by human beings.” The PSOE’s justification is that humans share 98.4% of our genes with chimpanzees, 97.7% with gorillas, and 96.4% with orangutans. The party will announce its Great Ape Project at a press conference tomorrow. An organization with the same name is seeking a UN declaration on simian rights which would defend ape interests “the same as those of minors and the mentally handicapped of our species.” Read More ›

A Deistic Rebuttal of “Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance”

In this essay, deist Peter Murphy charges those he calls “active” or “dogmatic” atheists with being “scientifically illiterate, illogical, and cynical”. Poor Mr. Murphy. I guess he just doesn’t realize that by challenging materialistic dogma established fact, he’s just exposed himself as a Bible thumpin’ Christian fundy. I wonder what role in that dastardly Wedge Strategy he fulfills. 😛

A case where the Explanatory Filter applies?

Can someone find out just how extensive some of the passages were that paralleled Megan McCafferty’s work? If we feed these parallels into the Explanatory Filter, are we entitled to draw a design inference and thus conclude that Viswanathan was plagiarizing? –WmAD Teenage Author Apologizes to Novelist Apr 26 9:29 AM US/Eastern BOSTON Teenage author Kaavya Viswanathan said Wednesday she was shocked to see so many similarities between her acclaimed first book and two novels by Megan McCafferty and maintained they were unintentional. “When I was writing, I genuinely believed each word was my own,” Viswanathan said in an interview on NBC’s “Today” show. She said she hopes McCafferty can forgive her. “The last thing that I ever wanted to Read More ›

Ann Coulter weighs in on Darwinism

I’m happy to report that I was in constant correspondence with Ann regarding her chapters on Darwinism — indeed, I take all responsibility for any errors in those chapters. 🙂 . . . Though liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, it bears all the attributes of a religion itself. In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Ann Coulter throws open the doors of the Church of Liberalism, showing us: **Its sacraments (abortion) **Its holy writ (Roe v. Wade) **Its martyrs (from Soviet spy Alger Hiss to cop-killer Mumia Abu Jamal) **Its clergy (public school teachers) **Its churches (government schools, where prayer is prohibited but condoms are free) **Its doctrine of infallibility (as manifest in the “absolute Read More ›

New York Academy of Sciences keeps the world safe for Darwinism

Go here and here for an account of a conference held last weekend by the New York Academy of Sciences entitled “Teaching Evolution and the Nature of Science” (See here for the conference webpage, and here for the event flyer). With a Darwinian all-star lineup (Bruce Alberts, Ken Miller, Rob Pennock, etc.), speakers instructed the audience how to best indoctrinate students and maintain Darwinian control of the academy.

ID Course at U of Toronto

This past term (Jan – Apr 2006), the Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology at the University of Toronto offered a graduate course called “HPS 1046H – Teleology, Adaptation and Design”, taught by Denis Walsh. Here is the summary: HPS1046: Special Topics: Teleology, Adaptation and Design (D. Walsh) Evolutionary biology, unlike other natural sciences, appears to deploy teleological explanations. Teleological explanations appear to be appropriate because organisms appear to be designed for specific purposes. The course discusses various attempts to naturalize, or eliminate, biological teleology. We discuss the relation of natural selection and adaptation, the adaptationist programme in evolutionary biology, normativity and function and arguments for intelligent design in biology. The relevant links: http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/html/g_cour_g.html http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/ihpst/html/g_cour_c.html http://philosophy.utoronto.ca/people/profile.html?id=390 Read More ›