 |
||
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
 |
Read Denyse O’Leary’s recent Web logs on a variety of science subjects! These logs are posted at the christianity.ca site every two weeks, and are described and linked below: National Geographic Cheerleads for Darwin, but Drops the Baton National Geographic has provided beautiful photos and slick public relations copy that makes little effort to address the issues. Compiled by Denyse O'Leary | posted January 5, 2005 National Geographic devoted its November 2004 cover story to a defense of Darwinian evolution, "Was Darwin Wrong?" In principle, this should have been good news. Currently, intense, career-endangering controversies swirl around Darwin's claim that a long, slow series of steps brings us from goo to zoo to you. The claim may be true or false, but if it is to be science rather than a creation story for atheists, it must be defended by evidence. Contrary arguments must be addressed. … such an obvious misrepresentation of Darwin's own views right up front—in your face! Are there contrary arguments? Yes indeed. In By Design or By Chance, I wrote a chapter called "How Modern Evolutionists have Evolved Away from Darwin," describing a number of questions and problems, and provided a chart listing and briefly describing 19 of them. And that was before I got around to discussing the rival intelligent design hypothesis in any detail! Well, National Geographic has opted to do no such thing. It has provided thirty-three pages of beautiful photos and slick public relations copy that makes little effort to address the issues. Tom Woodward, writing in Christianity Today, dismisses it as more in the genre of high school cheerleading than sober analysis Copies of National Geographic tend to hang around for years and provide a staple resource for school systems. So I am going to provide some information at the end of each of my upcoming Weblogs that apply corrective information to National Geographic's photos and dramatic proclamations. When finished, I will web the material for convenient reference at www.designorchance.com. Okay, let's start with the opening statement "From the Editor" (Bill Allen): "Humans are not descended from apes. But then Charles Darwin never claimed we are." That is false. Australian biologist Stephen E. Jones responds, "What does Allen think the title of Darwin's Descent of Man means? Darwin clearly said that 'we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous [ape] sub-group gave birth to man'": Jones goes on to quote: "If the anthropomorphous apes be admitted to form a natural sub-group, then as man agrees with them, not only in all those characters which he possesses in common with the whole Catarhine group, but in other peculiar characters, such as the absence of a tail and of callosities, and in general appearance, we may infer that some ancient member of the anthropomorphous sub-group gave birth to man." (Darwin C.R., The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, [1871], John Murray: London, Second Edition, 1922, reprint, p.238) Read the rest and examine the links at http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2005/1.07.html —(blogged January 11, 2005) Philosopher Antony Flew Has Flown — from Atheism! (On account of intelligent design) Flew's conversion to deism is of immense importance. Atheist websites are in a tizzy. Is this the beginning of mass flight? Compiled by Denyse O'Leary | Posted 12/15/04 Last week, I introduced the curious case of Wired, the Chicago Tribune's vote for "best magazine in America" which argues that the entire intelligent design controversy is all just a plot by devious figures to kill evolution. Well then, where does this item fit in the supposed plot? According to ABC News (December 9, 2004) a British philosophy professor who has championed atheism for more than fifty years now believes that there is a God … on account of intelligent design theory. Antony Flew says that biologists' investigation of DNA "has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved." Notice, we are talking here about evidence that life forms are designed. We are not talking about stuff you can know only by faith. What convinced Flew was evidence, not faith. When ID scientists like Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells make the same point—and it's actually a fairly obvious point—they're attacked because, it is said, they are religious. Conversion of atheist forces confrontation with evidence Flew's conversion to deism (belief that some sort of God kicked off the universe) is of immense importance. For a decade now, the fact that both our universe and life forms show evidence of design has been ignored or marginalized because, according to the official line, only a few religious scientists really care. For example, Chris Mooney writes in Washington Monthly, "Although the arguments for intelligent design have enjoyed some influence among religiously-inclined mathematicians and philosophers, they have failed to convince its core scientific audience: working biologists. As Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, himself a practicing Catholic, has put it, "The scientific community has not embraced the explanation of design because it is quite clear, on the basis of the evidence, that it is wrong Well, if the explanation of design is obviously wrong, how come it convinced Flew, who was a practising atheist for over fifty years and, by all accounts, a smart man? You can read a longish interview with Flew at Evangelical philosophy journal Philosophia Christi, "Atheist becomes Theist",, which pretty much gives the idea. The fact that he still doesn't believe in an afterlife shows that he is pretty brave, considering he is over 80—and is also proof that he is perfectly serious about the evidence for design. Atheist site in a tizzy of spin doctoring As philosopher Jonathan Witt notes in his blog, Witting Shire, the atheist sites on the Internet do not seem to be facing the reality of the loss of one of their key spokesmen. One key site claimed as of December 13, 2004, that the recent news isn't even Flew's latest official position. They claim this even though the news broke December 9. Witt notes, "Even a modestly careful reading of Flew's most recent statements to the AP and to the journal Philosophia Christi shows this to be otherwise." More from Witt: "'I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it,' Flew says. He accepts only the God of Aristotle or Jefferson, the unspecified designer of philosophy, but that in no way compromises his growing appreciation for the science of intelligent design. As Flew also says, 'It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.'" A philosophically minimalist position Flew's conversion (of sorts) points up an important fact about intelligent design: It is a minimum position. As I pointed out in By Design or by Chance, "IDers do not start with the Bible, and their science is not driven by a need to provide support for a literal reading of Genesis" (p 208). Intelligent design does not, by itself, prove that the Christian idea of God is correct. So if we look only at intelligent design theory, we might attribute design to God, Allah, or a self-organizing principle of the universe. Design does not tell us who the designer is. Read the rest and examine the links at http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/12.14.html —(blogged December 26, 2004) Intelligent Design: A Reason to Get Wired? Editors who support Darwinism apparently are worried about the increasing popularity of the Intelligent Design perspective. Compiled by Denyse O'Leary | posted 11/30/04 In the last two months, an astounding number of articles have appeared in major media whose express purpose is to discredit the idea of intelligent design of the universe and life forms. … the growing disbelief in Darwinism … is really a plot... Clearly, the slicks are worried about something. What, I wonder? If you had any reason to doubt what I have been telling you in these Weblogs, listen to what they are telling you. Let's start with Wired, described by the Chicago Tribune as "the best magazine in America." Wired was first out of the starting gate against ID (October 2004). According to Wired writer Evan Ratliff, it's all a big plot. Yes! In "The Crusade Against Evolution" we are informed that the growing disbelief in Darwinism (life arose by chance and natural law, without any intelligent design whatsoever) is really a plot on the part of the small Seattle-based Discovery Institute, which helps ID scientists. Discovery just wants to impose a moral values revolution on North America. In case you missed the point, the print edition cover shows the usual ascent of man from ape to shower-room jock with a rifle sight aimed at the head of the jock. So, … the controversy has nothing whatever to do with the way in which the universe and Earth appear fine-tuned for life or even with the awesome complexity of life forms? No, because, Ratcliff assures us, Darwin and his followers can explain all that. He writes: "In a democracy, every idea gets heard. But in science, not all theories are equal. Those that survive decades—centuries—of scientific scrutiny end up in classrooms, and those that don't are discarded." Fair enough. But two problems arise: 1. Ratliff is inviting us to ignore modern evidence against Darwinism simply because Darwinism has been around for a long time. Not a good idea. 2. Darwinism did not survive because of scientific scrutiny but because of lack of scientific scrutiny. Darwinism was the only available theory that promised to eliminate intelligent design. Consider what happened when geologist Steve Meyer published a journal paper this year questioning Darwinism Read about that before you conclude that scrutiny is even possible, given the current establishment. The Wired article is fascinating for what it reveals about the mindset typical of writers for slick magazines and their editors. It has apparently never occurred to any of them that ID might be a correct explanation even if Darwinists don't agree with it. Why? Because, as I pointed out in By Design or by Chance? the question is not whether Darwinists can hustle together an explanation that papers the widening cracks, but what does the evidence reasonably suggest? Forced to defend an existing position, Darwinists may well come up with an explanation. But would anyone who came fresh to the evidence consider the Darwinist explanation the most plausible one? The underlying point of view of the slicks is that Darwinists must be right because there really is no intelligent design in the universe. So ID theory must be a plot against society—well no, against society as understood by the slicks. But that, after all, is the society that matters, right? On the other hand, it is a pleasure to report something positive about the Wired article. It featured, as a sidebar, a response from George Gilder, an economist and "guru of bandwidth utopia" who is associated with the Discovery Institute. So the reader gets a chance to hear both sides. Read the rest and view the links at http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/11.30.html —(blogged December 26, 2004) Textbook Stickers Papering Over a Growing Controversy It might be early to substitute the teaching of Intelligent Design for evolution in schools, but evolution must not be solely promoted with religious zeal. Compiled by Denyse O'Leary | Posted 11/16/04 I had promised to address the underlying philosophy behind the growing decline in world birth rates, but I will do that next time. The conflict between the Darwinian theory of evolution and the intelligent design theory is becoming louder all the time … Right now, I should say something about the current proposal in Dover, Pennsylvania, to teach intelligent design instead of Darwinian evolution in science classes, despite the fact that the major foundation supporting ID, the Discovery Institute, doesn't want that. And then there is the Cobb County "sticker" controversy. Cobb County places a disclaimer in books that discuss evolution. This is a silly idea, in my view. If school officials in Cobb County feel they know better, they should write their own textbooks instead of defacing other people's. It's no accident that these two stories and several other current stories are all happening at once. The conflict between the Darwinian theory of evolution and the intelligent design theory is becoming louder all the time, and with good reason. We must distinguish between evolution—the history of life, however you understand that—and Darwin's theory about how evolution happens. Darwin's theory is that life developed through chance events subjected to the laws of nature. The point of his theory is that there is no design and no purpose. As a great Darwinian biologist, Ernst Mayr, put it, "The real core of Darwinism … is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for the Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaptation, the "design" of the natural theologian, by natural means, instead of by divine intervention. And Francisco Ayala, a former president of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science explained, It was Darwin's greatest accomplishment to show that the directive organization of living beings can be explained as the result of a natural process, natural selection, without any need to resort to a Creator or other external agent. … Darwin's theory encountered opposition in religious circles, not so much because he proposed the evolutionary origin of living things (which had been proposed many times before, even by Christian theologians) but because his mechanism, natural selection, excluded God as the explanation accounting for the obvious design. So it's important to get that clear: Darwinism is about eliminating intelligent design. The people I have quoted are not isolated examples; in elite science circles, their view is the norm. Now, the problem is not whether their views conflict with the views of the public or the Dover school board, but whether their views conflict with the evidence. Increasing numbers of people think that they do. Here's why: Read the rest and view the links at http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/11.16.html —(blogged December 26, 2004) Darwinism - An Intellectual Scandal in Science? There’s an old saying among church folk, “Some doctrines are never doubted until somebody stops at nothing to defend them.” The recent assault on a sleepy science journal that published an ID-friendly article may well backfire. Many of us never bothered to wonder about Darwinism until we saw how anxious the Darwinists are to suppress any dissent. How would I have guessed Darwinism was in trouble otherwise? Anway, here's what’s happened so far: http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/9.21.html Are Planets Like Earth Rare or Common? http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/9.07.html It would be great fun if there were lots of planets like Earth. But are there? Sometimes, psychological needs drive scientists to want to prove that many planets like Earth exist. Let’s look at some. http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/9.07.html Defrocking the Devil's Chaplain: Debate over Darwinism Grows Physicist Stephen Barr takes on Darwinist Richard Dawkins. The controversy over Darwinism is heating up primarily because the sheer complexity of life forms makes Darwinism increasingly difficult for some scientists to believe. http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/8.24.html Do Computers Play Better Chess than People? Do chess-playing computers prove that the human brain will soon be obsolete? On the contrary, chess grandmasters are sometimes too much for them to handle. Indeed, it seems that both grandmasters and computers are getting better. See http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/8.03.html Intelligent design-friendly journal paper sparks uproar On August 4th, 2004 an extensive review essay by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, Director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture appeared in the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington (volume 117, no. 2, pp. 213-239). The Proceedings is a peer-reviewed biology journal published at the National Museum of Natural History at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington D.C. In the article, entitled “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories”, Dr. Meyer argues that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. He proposes intelligent design as an alternative explanation for the origin of biological information and the higher taxa. Anyone familiar with the area will be able to guess what kind of an uproar Dr. Meyer has triggered. For a remarkably fair assessment of the brouhaha, see http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040903/04/ Read the paper, “The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories” at http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177 —(blogged September 6, 2004) New planet attracts attention Recently, there was a flurry of excitement among people who study the many planets that orbit stars other than our sun (exoplanets). In August, a planet was reported about fifty light years away that was said to be “Earthlike.” Or “super-Earth-like”, as one astrnomer put it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3599496.stm “Super” Earth-like? Does that mean that the planet is identical to Earth? No, not at all! The newly discovered planet is about 14 times the size of Earth and orbits right up close to its star, with a temperature that would melt metals. http://www.eso.org/outreach/press-rel/pr-2004/pr-22-04.html Solar systems like ours may be uncommon. In other solar systems, enormous gassy giants like our Jupiter orbit the star at the same distance as Earth. They would typically destroy a planet like Earth. Our Jupiter orbits way out there and keeps the asteroid belt away from us. For an explanation, see http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/rare_earth_040803.html —(blogged September 6, 2004) Darwinism seen as religion In a recent Weblog, Denyse O’Leary examined the way in which Darwinism sometimes functions as a religion. For example, one Darwinist worthy insists that any criticism of Darwinism makes it easier to “distort scientific findings” in areas such as “stem cells, abortion, global warming and missile defense.” An agenda as sweeping as that—involving so many sensitive subject areas—certainly suggests a religion. http://www.christianity.ca/faith/weblog/2004/8.24.html In a strong advance for teleportation, both American and Austrian scientists succeeded in teleporting characteristics between pairs of beryllium and calcium atoms. Decades ago, Albert Einstein had refused to believe that this “spooky action at a distance” is even possible. Yet it will soon have a practical use in building powerful quantum computers. Read more at http://www.local6.com/technology/3425929/detail.html (Note: Does this mean that human teleportation (beam me up, Scotty) is a heartbeat away? Well, no. See http://travel.howstuffworks.com/teleportation3.htm http://travel.howstuffworks.com/teleportation3.htm for some qualifications. Also, “Not quite beam me up Scotty!” at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/201815.stm) —(blogged June 23, 2004 Oldest (so far) True Animal? A tiny animal that lived about 580 to 600 million years ago in what is now southwest China is the earliest creature to have a definite front and rear, and right and left sides - an arrangement known as bilateral symmetry. Explaining its lifestyle, one scientist described it as a “little button-shaped organism that probably scooted along the sea floor.” Apparently, it used a vacuum cleaner-style mouth to suck up microbes for food. Interestingly, “Bottjer and Jun-Yuan Chen of the Nanjing Institute of Geology and Paleontology, the report's lead author, note that the oldest common ancestors of their fossil creatures, perhaps millions of years earlier, must have already possessed a complex genetic ‘tool kit’ to yield the complex structures of the animals they found.” See “Contender for oldest true animal: Tiny fossils may have been alive 600 million years ago in China” at http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/03/MNG0N6VQ021.DTL See also “Fossil may be ancestor of most animals” at http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5112628/ (Note: This “fossil may be ancestor of most animals,” as the MSNBC story suggests, but its age of 600 million years doesn’t really tell us that. The species may also have died out without leaving descendants. Perhaps most species did. It’s a valuable find either way.) Chimps much less like us than supposed “Chimps are likely to have thousands of genes that differ in subtle but important ways to human genes, making it harder than hoped to identify the key bits of DNA responsible for unique human characteristics such as speech and complex thought, new research shows.” I wonder, will we be hearing as much from the folks who want to put humans and chimps in the same genus (genus homo)? Seems like there is a lot more research needed. Read more at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/26/1085461837622.html See also www.nature.com/nsu/040524/040524-8.html, where we learn that"83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed 'significant structural changes'." Note also an interesting new book by anthropologist Jonathan Marks, What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes, which takes a well-earned swat at the cult of the gene. Go to http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9172.html> —(blogged June 22, 2004) HOW many monkeys are needed to type out Shakespeare’s works? You recall the math notion that an infinite number of monkeys, given infinite time, can type out the works of Shakespeare? A group of researchers gave six monkeys a keyboard and, ... well, it’s not Shakespeare ... Note the awesome number given for how many monkeys would be needed to get even one sonnet right in five years. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,952227,00.html —(blogged May 10, 2003) Meanwhile, an enterprising Internet research group has developed the Monkey Shakespeare simulator, which offers you a chance to help the randomly typing monkeys by spending time at their site. Type early and type often; their best score so far is 17 letters from Troilus and Cressida after billions and billions of monkey-years. It's reasonable to think that the next Shakespeare will NOT be a simian. Anyway, see http://user.tninet.se/~ecf599g/aardasnails/java/Monkey/webpages/#results (to top of page)
|
|
