In their article, Behe, Biochemistry, and the Invisible Hand, Niall Shanks and Karl Joplin begin their abstract as follows:

In this essay we take creationist biochemist Michael Behe to task for failing to make an evidentially grounded case for the supernatural intelligent design of biochemical systems.

In the future, we shall take a closer look at this article, but for now, pay attention to the two adjectives "“ "˜creationist' and "˜supernatural.'

Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to label Behe, a theistic evolutionist, as a creationist?

Why did Shanks and Joplin freely choose to add the label "˜supernatural?'
Read the rest of this entry »

Sean B. Carroll
PLoS Biol 2005, 3(7): e245
Open Access Link

Conclusion:
The hypothesis of regulatory evolution put forward by King and Wilson 30 years ago was founded entirely on negative data, that is, the apparent insufficiency of coding sequence divergence to account for gross organismal differences. It has required several decades to obtain evidence that regulatory sequences are so often the basis for the evolution of form that, when considering the evolution of anatomy (including neural circuitry), regulatory sequence evolution should be the primary hypothesis considered. The analysis of regulatory sequence evolution poses particular challenges in that it is impossible to distinguish meaningless from functional changes by mere inspection. But, in nonhuman models where extensive experimental tools are available, there is cause for optimism that the contribution of regulatory sequences to evolution will be increasingly well understood in the near term. In order to approach the origins of human traits, much greater emphasis has to be placed on comparative studies of gene expression, regulation, and development in apes and other primates. This is precisely the requirement forecast by King and Wilson 30 years ago, only now we have the means to meet it.

This looks like a worthwhile conference:

The Developmental Basis of Evolutionary Change

To Whom It May Concern:

We ask that you might forward this message to individuals or listservs in your department or institution that may find this announcement of interest.

First Announcement and Call for Abstracts:

We announce the fourth biennial conference on the Developmental Basis of Evolutionary Change at the University of Chicago during 20-23 October 2005. This four-day, graduate student-organized conference has a tradition of assembling, at the intersection of evolution and development, a fellowship of faculty and student conferees of diverse intellectual interests. As such, it has been a fertile occasion for initiating unexpected collaborations and probing new ideas.
Read the rest of this entry »

In my previous entry, I used a particular hypothesis from Richard Dawkins to drive home a larger point. I argued there is no objective criterion that is used to convert a hypothesis into history. On the contrary, the transformation is ultimately a decision. We can try to make the decision as objective as possible by appealing to evidence and the consensus of a community, but it nevertheless remains less than objective. Unfortunately, it can be worse than this.

Read the rest of this entry »

Check out this article by Roald Hoffmann on the relationship between science and story. The points made in the article do a good job of justifying the intelligent design theorists task of "retelling the biotic story". Notice that there is no anti-realism here…just the view that science works by telling stories about what we observe in nature. (the realism is in the verification by observation)

All theories tell a story. They have a beginning, in which people and ideas, models, molecules and governing equations take the stage. Their roles are defined; there is a puzzle to solve. Einstein sets his characters into motion so ingeniously, using entropy to tease out the parallels between moving molecules and the energy of light. The story develops; there are consequences of Einstein's approach. And at the end, his view of light as quantized and particular confronts the reality of the heretofore unexplained photoelectric effect. The postscripted future, of all else that can be understood and all new things that can be made, is implicit.

The nineteenth and twentieth centuries were times of particularly great challenge for Christianity. The advent of the historical critical method of biblical criticism that was initiated by Richard Simon in 1678, found full bloom more recently through the works of Hermann Gunkel, Martin Dibelius, Rudolf Bultmann, etc. While there had already been many critiques of biblical authority coming from outside of Christianity, this was an internal critique. Since it placed the inception of biblical texts squarely within the context of human perspectives and frailties, it was taken by many as a threat to the established notions of biblical authority. In short, it was a profound threat to biblical literalism. Not surprisingly there was a strong reaction to this "weakening" of biblical authority by the fundamentalist elements of Christianity which, by the way, continues today. What happened to the absolutism of biblical authority was like a vise. Pressure began from the outside but eventually a similar pressure emerged from within Christianity itself. When the pressure got great enough, things changed.

Anything sound familiar in this relative to the intelligent design controversy?

Read the rest of this entry »

I'm sitting here on a hot, humid summer day, trying to print out some pages and my printer keeps jamming paper. After several rounds of printing out a few papers and unjamming the jam thing so I can print out a handful of others, it finally dies on me with one loud thump. Now, this is the third jam printer I've had. At this point I'm reminded of David Barash's misguided anti-ID article .

Read the rest of this entry »

This is truer now, I suppose, than when it was first written.

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today"”and even professional scientists"”seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is"”in my opinion"”the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.

[emphasis added]

In an interview with Richard Dawkins, Jim Holt writes:

"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize. (It occurred to me that becoming hairless also meant we didn't have to spend all our leisure grooming one another to remove lice, like other primates, thereby freeing up time to create capitalism. But I kept this thought to myself.)

Let me offer some thoughts that I won't keep to myself. While there are many lessons to be derived from this hypothesis, for today, I will hit on one.

Read the rest of this entry »

Here's an interesting stat. A quick count of posts on ARN comes to about 135,000 posts over 5 years. At an average of 10 minutes (probably very low) to create a post and an average hourly rate of $50 per hour (probably very low for mostly professionals including overhead/benefits etc.) that adds up to about $1,125,000 spent arguing intelligent design just on ARN. Note, this does not include the time spent reading posts which would probably at least double the cost. At approximately $2,250,000 spent just on ARN there must be something very important to people going on. Just think, if the Darwinists had just ignored the IDists and instead got paid for that time, they'd all be rich. Sounds like ID is a growth industry. Where does one buy stock in all this?