http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus%5Fonline/spiral/#evolution

1. Evolutionary biology is a well established science. Overwhelming evidence indicates that the Earth has a very long natural history in which more complex species evolved from less complex species (and sometimes also the reverse).

2. There are legitimate debates within contemporary evolutionary biology about whether random genetic variations and natural selection alone are able to account for the florescence of life found on the planet. These debates in no way challenge our understanding of a long Earth history and the evolution of species.

[bipod: since when have you heard a general statement about evolution that was so fact based, clear and undeceiving?.]

Jason Rosenhouse of Evolutionblog posted this bit from Keith Olbermann, host of the MSNBC show Countdown:

But the winners [of the prize as the worst persons in the world], those fine folks behind the intelligent design nonsense. Because of them, the new exhibition of the work of Charles Darwin at the American Museum of Natural History in New York cannot find any corporate sponsors. The corporations are afraid they might tick off the intelligent design guys.

The folks who dreamt up intelligent design, the same people who brought you the world is flat, the earth is at the center of the universe, and let‘s burn a scientist at the stake today. Today‘s worst persons in the world!

If you ask me, Olbermann is just being cute. After Science referred to creationists and ID supporters as "the forces of darkness", it takes a lot to faze me. At least no one has called me "the symbolic embodiment of all the evil in the universe" yet.

In the proud tradition of politicians and business leaders, Professor Paul Mirecki has issued an apology for his public e-mail, in which he referred to his upcoming intelligent design course as "a nice slap in [the] big, fat face" of "fundies". I don't have time to offer much in the way of commentary, but if you look below the fold, you'll find the text of his apology, as well as the full text of the original e-mail that got him in trouble. Among related news, the University of Kansas will be releasing the course description, reading list and syllabus, and is considering putting the course lectures out on the internet.

Read the rest of this entry »

Many people think of evolution purely as a march towards progress and complexity, but evolution is an engine with several gears. For example, a population can refrain from evolving, remaining practically unchanged for millions of years. Or it can become less complex, cutting away cumbersome genes and structures. Publishing in the journal Science, a group of international researchers have discovered that when it comes to gene structure, humans have barely evolved at all, as our genes have retained the high intron number of one of our ancient ancestors. Surprisingly, some of this complexity has been lost in simpler organisms with faster reproduction. As the press release says, this "overturns a commonly-held view of the nature of genes in the first animals."

Read the rest of this entry »

The following essay was written by TelicThoughts member, G. arago (who is himself a critic of ID, albeit a unconventional one). G. arago takes a look at Multiple Designers Theory (MDT), a proposed method for distinguishing designers.

Read the rest of this entry »

Let me provide a review of my response to this whole Mirecki show. I first brought attention to this news here. I simply poked fun of Mirecki in a way that turned out to be slap-in-the-face prophetic. LOL. In the comments section, I noted, “Professors of religion are free to critique ID all they want. As is anyone else.” After Sal alerted me to the Provost’s comments, I wrote, “The provost’s comments are very interesting. He admits it is possible to misconstrue the title of the course, which argues strongly for the need to have this course clarify the use of the term ‘mythology.’ In other words, Mirecki should begin the course by defining mythology, making it clear he is not passing truth judgments about ID, but only trying to understand it from within the confine of religious belief. This is what the course should be – “A myth refers to the common use of stories or rituals to symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion.” Mirecki has himself in a box.” I then turned my attention of the issue of identifying the designer. Then Krauze found the article that discusses Mirecki’s internet taunting. I provided a balanced and objective commentary here.

Read the rest of this entry »

When I blogged about Mirecki's revealing e-mail, I noted: "In spite of all of this, I support Professor Mirecki's academic freedom to teach this course, and I’m looking forward to it starting." However, it seems that not everyone feels the same way. Mike has already pointed to Senator Karin Brownlee's disturbing statement that "[w]e have to set a standard that it's not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America". And over at Thoughts from Kansas, Josh Rosenau is highlighting this passage, from the ID blog In the News:

It's this kind of activity that should cause some Kansas legislators to question the extent to which Kansas taxpayers should be funding state sponsored faith bashing.

While I have criticized Rosenau for his attempt to paint all ID supporters with his broad brush, I agree with him that this is a situation where ID supporters, of all people, should support academic freedom. It is simply hypocritical to use the principle of academic freedom to protect a controversial subject you agree with, and then turn around and demand government regulation when someone wants to teach a controversial subject which you disagree with.

If you think Professor Mirecki is bashing something you hold dear, the answer is not to have his course cancelled. Instead, find out what he is teaching in his class, and use your freedom of speech to explain the problems with it.

After Professor Mirecki at Kansas University announced that he was planning a course teaching intelligent design as mythology, his provost had to issue an official statement, explaining that the term "myth" should not be taken as an "affront", but as "the common use of stories or rituals to symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion". However, Professor Mirecki is also faculty advisor for the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, which sells this t-shirt on their website:

I'm looking forward to Professor Mirecki's course on how Frankenstein's monster is used to "symbolize in a meaningful manner the core beliefs of a religion".

(HT: Steve Jones)

While Krauze has already offered some keen observations about this, I simply cannot resist further commenting on the article about Mirecki’s class. I don’t know about anyone else, but as I see it, both sides of this debate come across as children having tantrums. So break out the popcorn and have a seat.
Read the rest of this entry »

More news on Professor Paul Mirecki, who's planning a course on intelligent design as mythology at Kansas University. In an official statement by the provost, David Shulenburger regretted that "the course title's reference to mythologies' has been misconstrued", and that it shouldn't be taken as an "affront". But it seems that Professor Mirecki himself is of a different opinion. In an e-mail sent to the list-serve of the Society of Open-Minded Atheists and Agnostics, he wrote:

"The fundies want it all taught in a science class, but this will be a nice slap in their big fat face by teaching it as a religious studies class under the category 'mythology,'" Mirecki wrote.

He signed the note "Doing my part (to upset) the religious right, Evil Dr. P."

Read the rest of this entry »