The Decree from the 120 Strong defines methodological naturalism (MN) as “the view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events.” According to the Decree, MN “is the foundation of the natural sciences.” But let’s do a thought experiment.

MN is used to determine the age of the Earth. What if MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old?

MN is used to explore the relationships between living things. What if MN determined that living things can be neatly fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, such that it would be impossible for them to be related by common descent?

MN is used to study the surface of the Earth. What if MN determined that there once was a global flood?

If MN determined that the Earth was 6000 years old, that evolution could not occur and all living things were fitted into discrete, discontinuous groups, and a global flood once covered the Earth, does MN then mean we must explain this all "without reference to supernatural beings or events?"

Political Scientist Alex Tuckness contends that rational engagement at Iowa State University is more appropriate than the imposition of power:

The university should encourage the contesting of such words in a nuanced, rather than histrionic, way. Rather than making blanket statements about Intelligent Design and science, it would be far better to encourage engagement with the specific claims Guillermo Gonzalez has made. By contesting the definition of science and bringing this issue to the surface, Gonzalez has done the university community a great service.

[emphasis added]

David Schweingruber has written an insightful letter to the Iowa State Daily, pointing out among other things that Gonzalez was not explicitly attacked in the actual petition. That's true, especially for those who had no idea that Gonzalez was being singled out. What Schweingruber goes on to say doesn't bode well for the Avalos/Patterson agenda. These are beautiful thoughts:

"Perhaps we've been the victim of a bait-and-switch. Teaching Intelligent Design in public school science classes is a national issue, and I suspect many faculty had this in mind when they signed the petition. Then Hector Avalos, our outspoken village atheist, has used their names in his battle against Gonzalez."

"What is Avalos' objection to Gonzalez's work? He told The Des Moines Register that knows Intelligent Design is religion and not science because, "I'm a biblical scholar." So Iowa State has one thing in common with unaccredited Bible colleges and medieval heresy tribunals - our Bible scholars think they can tell our astronomers how to do their jobs."

David Schweingruber
Assistant professor
Sociology

[emphasis added]

Avalos' strategy is clearly backfiring at this point.

CNN reports that:

Waterston and colleagues, for example, looked for genes that apparently have changed more quickly in humans than in chimps or rodents, indicating they might have been particularly important in human evolution. They found evidence of rapid change in some genes that regulate the activity of other genes, telling them when and in what tissues to become active, for example.

It would make sense that changes in these regulatory genes could have a broad impact on how organisms develop, playing a key role in human evolution, Waterston said.

In 1983 the Iowa State Daily supposedly ran comments and a full satire piece on John "I'm gonna get ya" Patterson for a proposal made to an official Iowa State University education committee (from which you can read some quotes below). If anyone from the Iowa State Daily reads this blog, could you scan in a copy of those issues that dealt with Patterson (comments and satire), upload them and post the link in the comments section?

Juicy comments from Mr John "McCarthy" Patterson, persecutor emeritus at Iowa State University. In 1983 Patterson brought the following before an ISU committee on instruction in the sciences and humanities.:

Read the rest of this entry »

Click on the comic to see it in full size.

Alan Bustard at the Pasteur Institute thinks that the prion anomaly may challenge the central dogma of molecular biology. Pasteur also notes that " it was not so much experimental evidence or anomalies that helped to establish Darwin's theory but an intellectual movement among biologists…" Damn, I must be quote mining:-( That's OK. The article is still worth the read.

Read the rest of this entry »

Back in 2004: “a lecture, sponsored by the Atheist and Agnostic Society, attracted about 150 people who heard Avalos, who teaches in the humanities, and Patterson, a scientist, offer their critiques of "The Privileged Planet," a book published this spring and co-written by Guillermo Gonzalez, assistant professor of physics and astronomy.”

But this is not the only the time these two have teamed up.

Read the rest of this entry »

Do you have doubts about ID? I do.

While I think that intelligent design is a worthwhile intellectual and scientific pursuit (worthwhile does not mean that I think it will succeed), there are some reservations that I have concerning its truth and the discernability of the relevant facts concerning the truth. Maybe you can help my doubts.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mike's nice post on endosymbiosis reminded me of a common situation found in engineering/manufacturing firms. It's a common strategy for these companies to position themselves for quick response when unexpected opportunities arise. Those opportunities might come from new technology that could be incorporated quickly into existing products or even open up new product lines. Getting to market first is key. It could also come from customers wanting some novel design in a hurry.

Read the rest of this entry »