Microsporidia are intracellular parasites that infect most other eukaryotic cells, although arthropods are the most commonly parasitized. They are the simplest and smallest eukaryotic cells and thus represent a textbook example of reductive evolution [1]. Whereas scientists once classified microsporidia as protozoa, it is now generally recognized that they are highly evolved fungi. A more extensive discussion of their biology can be found here.

This simple fungus has a few lessons to teach us.

Read the rest of this entry »

An update on the showing of The Privileged Planet at the Smithsonian. As I wrote in my previous post about this, I agree with Panda's Thumb writer Burt Humburg that this exchange of money and services isn't something to get excited about, and shouldn't be taken as evidence of the Smithsonian having joined forces with the Discovery Institute. James Randi, however, disagrees:

"Though we cannot imagine what political external or internal pressure was brought to bear on the Smithsonian to trigger this incredible blunder, we can count on the creationists now crowing about validation from one of the world's most trusted scientific authorities. If James Smithson [who left his money to found the Smithsonian] were alive today, judging from what he wrote in his diaries and letters, I believe he would want his money refunded upon hearing of this travesty…"

Randi thinks we should be "alarmed and militant about this situation", and is now making the Smithsonian an offer they can't refuse: Cancel the showing of The Privileged Planet, refund the 16,000 dollars, and he'll pay them 20,000 instead! He won't even demand they show something else!

PZ Myers (who tipped me off to this) seems enthusiastic, but I have my doubts. Is this ability to buy out others' arrangement limited to James Randi, or can others join the fun? If a group of young-earth creationists have a big enough bag of money, will they be able to cancel Smithsonian events that mention the ancient age of the Earth?

I usually consider myself a pretty circuitous guy, couching my statements in qualifying if's and maybe's . But sometimes, something just needs to be said, and needs to be said bluntly: In his recent ID-critical article, Allen Orr's mouth is writing checks the evidence can't cash.

Read the rest of this entry »

Through Hunter Baker of The Reform Club, I've discovered that the 2005 January/February issue of Academe ran an article recycling the "Wedging Creationism into Something We Hold Dear" theme, by Barbara Forrest and Glenn Branch. Barbara Forrest, you may recall, is co-author of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (the claims of which have been discussed at length, both here, here, and here), while Glenn Branch is Deputy Director of NCSE.

Forrest and Branch write about how the IDists are disingenuously holding conferences at respected universities so that they can co-opt their respectability for their own sinister projects, and they begin with how Baylor's president Robert Sloan hired William Dembski to run the Polanyi Institute, an intelligent design thinktank. "Baylor also hired two additional members of the Wedge," they write, "mechanical engineering professor Walter Bradley and philosopher Francis J. Beckwith."

Both Walter Bradley and Francis Beckwith found Forrest and Branch's treatment of them misleading, and fortunately, Academe offered to publish their responses. They're available here, but since you have to scroll down the page to find them, I've also placed them in their entirety beneath the fold. Francis Beckwith is also blogging about it here, and some good discussion can be found in the comments to his post.

Read the rest of this entry »

It looks like the Smithsonian will be co-hosting, together with the Discovery Institute, a reception, during which the movie The Privileged Planet will be shown.

At The Panda's Thumb, Burt Humburg assures his readers that this is merely the result of the DI having made a donation to the Smithsonian, and that the people at the Smithsonian aren't "warming to intelligent design". Apparently, the DI didn't act horrendously enough, as Humburg had to go to Post-Darwinist, a blog run by a single journalist named Denyse O'Leary, to find some errors to correct.

Humburg concludes that the event doesn't really have much significance, which I agree with him about. As we've been telling ID critics for years, whether ideas appear at the right receptions, or in the right journals, doesn't matter as much as whether the ideas themselves are correct. And the exchange of money and services between the DI and the Smithsonian isn't evidence of some sinister conspiracy between the two organizations. However, there is one thing that should worry the critics at Panda's Thumb:

Read the rest of this entry »

What is Intelligent Design? If you ask a critic, he will probably tell you that ID is a disguised version of Creationism and nothing more than a Trojan Horse to get God taught in the public schools. If you ask a typical proponent of ID, he will probably tell you that ID is the best explanation for various biotic phenomena. If you ask me, I’ll give you a different answer.

Read the rest of this entry »

If the real controversy over intelligent design is not about science but competing worldviews then it will only be resolved in the populace. But the adoption or subscription to a worldview depends on how compelling it is in its many facets. Question is, will it sell? Obviously there are different markets for a worldview. Academia is one, the scientific community is another, and then there is the general public. While most people probably already have a firmly held worldview, there are also those willing to change if presented with a compelling enough case. But what about in Peoria. Peoria has often been thrown up as mainstream America. If you can't sell something in Peoria, you're basically out of luck in America. Now from many surveys it is clear that mainstream America already holds a teleological worldview. Since most Americans either participate in a religious tradition or are "spiritual but not religious" that more than likely entails a teleological view. The real question in the debate is whether the ateleologists, the Darwinians, can sell their worldview to mainstream America.

Read the rest of this entry »

In my previous blog, I forgot to mention the overall theme that appears to lie behind Dawkins' essay.

Read the rest of this entry »

Richard Dawkins, the world’s most famous Bright, wrote an article where he complains about creationists misusing the writings of evolutionary scientists. He uses three examples (Darwin, Lewontin, and himself) of a writer expressing “temporary doubt, as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel,” only to have troublesome creationists quoting this rhetorical doubt out of context, making it look as if the writer is doubting evolution. Of course, many in cyberspace recognize this as quote mining.

Read the rest of this entry »

[At Telic Thoughts, we're proud to announce our first guest post, by Albert de Roos of Amsterdam. Although he considers his approach completely Darwinian, de Roos finds design and engineering principles useful in explaining evolution. To give his interesting ideas a wider audience, we asked him to describe his recent article in Bioinformatics (abstract available here) in layman's terms. Fortunately, Albert de Roos was happy to obliege.]

Read the rest of this entry »