Even the most vociferous and vehement ID opponents (e.g., Richard Dawkins) admit that design in nature appears to be self-evident. Why then, the heroic efforts to explain design away, with such silliness as random variation and natural selection providing the engine that produced highly sophisticated biological software and information-processing systems? I remain completely bewildered by the fact that intelligent, educated people cannot recognize this obvious act of denial and desperation. On the other hand, perhaps they don’t want to recognize it, because evidence and logic might conflict with what they want to believe — that there is no design or ultimate purpose to anything. An obvious question remains: What might motivate this denial of the obvious? I believe that the Read More ›

I was reading The origin of the brain lies in a worm on the evolution of the central nervous system (CNS) and found a presumption in it based on nothing more than an Argument from Incredulity about the origin of complexity. My emphasis. “Our findings were overwhelming,” says Alexandru Denes, who carried out the research in Arendt’s lab. “The molecular anatomy of the developing CNS turned out to be virtually the same in vertebrates and Platynereis. Corresponding regions give rise to neuron types with similar molecular fingerprints and these neurons also go on to form the same neural structures in annelid worm and vertebrate.” “Such a complex arrangement could not have been invented twice throughout evolution, it must be the Read More ›

Recently, a comment by a Lance Duval appeared in the combox for the Post-Darwinist’s “Marsupial frogs: Another reason to check out of Darwinism”. Duval trashed ID embryologist Jonathan Wells, arguing that Darwin never really believed in recapitulation of embryos and that it has not been taught in textbooks since the 1920s.

Now, a little background: Jonathan Wells is possibly the most hated of the ID guys because his books, Icons of Evolution and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, catalogue many unsubstantiable claims made in recent textbooks in support of Darwinian evolution. So I asked Wells for a response, and here it is:

Lance Duval really should do his homework … here are some quotes you might find useful (all of them in Icons of Evolution, 2000): Read More ›

A paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences makes the startling claim that all flagellar genes “originated through the successive duplication and modification of a few, or perhaps even a single, precursor gene” (see abstract below). While consistent with Darwinian evolution, such excessive hyperevolution was too much even for the hyperevolutionists at the Panda’s Thumb (go here), who are now distancing themselves from its conclusion. What’s going on here? How could people publish such a ridiculous result, and in PNAS of all places? Let me suggest the following hypothesis: Liu and Ochman, the authors of the piece, are really ID advocates who are pulling a Sokal-style hoax, pushing the envelope to see how extreme they can Read More ›

Albert de Roos is a long time participant at International Society of Complexity Information and Design and Access Research Network. de Roos is not formally an advocate of intelligent design theory but has been a friendly and valuable supporter of the dialogue. His papers argue that in order for evolution to proceed, evolution must proceed by applying software design principles such as “design-by-contract”.

His accepted papers are:

Conserved intron positions in ancient protein modules Biology Direct 2:7

Recently, it was reasoned based on the engineering paradigm design-by-contract, that exon concatenation of modular exonic sequences was the basis of eukaryotic genome formation

Read More ›

A kind UD reader sends word of a news story and paper on E coli bacteria’s strategy for becoming resistant to antibiotics. The reader comments, “It would seem that this paper outlines processes that are decidedly non-Darwinian. Indeed, in very significant ways E. Coli. seems designed to resist antibiotics. Take a look, pass it along, I would think it would be an interesting topic for discussion on your site.” Any thoughts, combox? Pardon me if this has been raised before. By the way, I also posted a bunch of new stuff at The Post-Darwinist.

Recently, while I was getting ready for a meeting on the Darwinism-ID issue, a person who was wrestling with the issues took the trouble to engage me in an e-mail dialogue. I thought the questions he raised were interesting. I have reworded them to avoid violating privacy, and have reproduced my responses.

1. Darwinism does not explain the complexity of nature. But how is that a repudiation of macroevolution or evidence for Divine intervention? We have merely pointed out a flaw in an existing theory; we have not shown that God did it. What if another theory comes along to explain it all in the future? What if Lavoisier, after disproving the phlogiston theory of burning, then concluded that – insofar as phlogiston doesn’t explain chemical interactions – burning must be a miraculous process?

From Denyse: Darwinism does not explain the complexity of nature? To the extent that it doesn’t, the fact is, we don’t know how evolution occurred. That’s not – at least not to me – a repudiation of macroevolution. But I refuse to accept Darwinism on faith alone. I already have a faith that doesn’t need Darwinism. Darwinism was originally packaged as science, and if it doesn’t make it as science, it just doesn’t make it. Read More ›

I asked Walter ReMine to write up his recent experiences debating Haldane’s Dilemma:

Evolutionist withholds evidence on Haldane’s Dilemma
By Walter ReMine

For many years I have publicly claimed Haldane’s Dilemma is a major unsolved problem for evolution. A problem so severe it threatens macroevolution as a “fact” and evolutionary genetics as an empirical science. The problem, briefly, is that evolutionary geneticist, J.B.S. Haldane (1957), discovered an important argument that limits the speed of evolution. Under his calculations, an ape-human-like population, given a generous ten million years, could substitute no more than 1,667 beneficial mutations — which, according to evolutionary geneticists, are each typically a single nucleotide. All the human adaptations within that time would have to be explained with this small number of substitutions. For more information, see here: http://tinyurl.com/3dtzjq.

The issue at the moment is: Evolutionists are withholding key evidence.

Toward a solution, evolutionary geneticist, Leonard Nunney, published a paper reporting his computer simulations. He claimed his computer simulations show rates of beneficial evolution much faster than the Haldane limit. Evolutionists now cite Nunney’s computer simulation as a refutation of my position.

Starting December 19, 2006, I sent emails to Prof. Nunney, expressing my interest in his paper, and requesting access to his simulation software. (I also emailed one of his colleagues, in his same evolutionary genetics department.) I received no answer. After several emails, across several months, I eventually reached Professor Nunney by phone on April 5th. He acknowledged he had received my emails, and said he had not responded because I “do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words)

I again requested his software for my examination of his published results and methods. He declined, saying he will not share his software with “people who do not publish in peer-reviewed journals.” (his words) Read More ›

Nick Matzke at PT describes a poster waved in protest at the recent Darwin vs. Design conference at Southern Methodist University. The poster read “Why do the ribosomes (protein synthesizing machinery) in our mitochondria match those of bacteria?” The intent behind this question was to suggest that we evolved from bacterial ancestors, whose remnants in us are the mitochondria and, presumably, their ribosomes, which the poster asserts “match” those of bacteria. Since I’m happy for the sake of argument to allow common descent, the more interesting question for me is what causal powers were required to produce ribosomes in the first place. But the poster, even taken on its own terms, is problematic. Eukaryotic, prokaryotic, and mitochondrial ribosomes are all Read More ›

Before an ID arts site got started, I had been reviewing movies and books that are relevant to the intelligent design controversy at the regular Access Research Network site.

These folk provide many resources on the intelligent design controversy, and if you are looking for books or other materials, you should know that buying through them helps fund ID research.

Anyway, here are brief intros and links to reviews I wrote:

March of the Penguins: Why was there such a fuss about the “intelligent design” implications of this film?

Should you permit your children to see March of the Penguins? Not if you want to raise them as unquestioning Darwinists ….

What the Bleep Do We Know?: Well, somehow, I don’t think we know this, anyway …

This film addresses the reasons, based in quantum mechanics, for doubting the radical materialist view of the universe. I’m all for doubting radical materialism, but I don’t quite think this approach is the answer, and here’s why. Read More ›

Place the watch parts in a special shaker, firmly attach the shaker lid, and shake until assembled. Results may vary. TheBRITES.org

At CNN, A. Chris Gajilan asks, Are humans hardwired for faith? Maybe we religious robots can’t help it,

Newberg calls religion the great equalizer and points out that similar areas of the brain are affected during prayer and meditation. Newberg suggests that these brain scans may provide proof that our brains are built to believe in God. He says there may be universal features of the human mind that actually make it easier for us to believe in a higher power.

but on the other hand, maybe we are religious freaks,

Scott Atran doesn’t consider himself an atheist, but he says the brain scans offer little in terms of understanding why humans believe in God. He is an anthropologist and author of “In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion.”

Instead of viewing religion and spirituality as an innate quality hardwired by God in the human brain, he sees religion as a mere byproduct of evolution and Darwinian adaptation.

Now, before you decide which of these points of view sounds more plausible to you, please note one thing: Read More ›

I’m pleased to point out one of the advertising sponsors of the Uncommon Descent website, Roddy Bullock, is also author of the pro-ID novel The Cave Painting

If you ever wished for a fun way to learn about intelligent design, here it is . . . Written for readers of all ages, the updated second edition of The Cave Painting is particularly suitable for high school and college students desiring to understand the truth about evolution and intelligent design.
Read More ›

The theme of descent and dissent, which has been a theme on this blog and in my book UNCOMMON DISSENT: INTELLECTUALS WHO FIND DARWINISM UNCONVINCING, has been picked up by Steve Fuller in his new book DISSENT OVER DESCENT: EVOLUTION’S 500-YEAR WAR ON INTELLIGENT DESIGN. AMAZON.UK description: “If you think Intelligent Design Theory (IDT) is merely the respectable face of Christian fundamentalism, and Evolution the only sensible scientific world-view, think again…IDT has driven science for 500 years. It was responsible for the 17th century’s Scientific Revolution and helped build modern histories of physics, mathematics, genetics and social science. IDT’s proponents take literally the Biblical idea that humans have been created in God’s image. This confident, even arrogant, view of humanity Read More ›

Assuming my plane can make it into the Philadelphia airport today — balmy weather the East Coast is having, eh? — Professor Stacey Ake of Drexel University and I will be presenting opposing viewpoints on ID & evolution tonight at Temple University. This is the same series in which Marcus Ross and Peter Dodson recently spoke. Tonight’s program starts at 6 pm and goes until 8:30. This event is free and open to the public. The lectures will be located in Gladfelter Hall, 1115 W. Berks Street, Room 13.