Mix a little design, green fluorescent protein and presto!

See here for a great page.

Remember Richard Sternberg, the editor who got in hot water for allowing a paper arguing for intelligent design to be published in a scientific journal, where intelligent design was "out of place" Fortunately, other editors enjoy looser reigns. In the article "Intelligent design and biological complexity" in the journal Gene, molecular biologist at Stanford University Emile Zuckerkandl writes not only about intelligent design (he thinks it's an "intellectual virus") but even about the attributes of God:

Time implies change. Without change, there probably is no time. Time and change as unavoidable conditions of existence would have had to impose themselves upon that "higher intelligence" that is being peddled to the public. If the higher intelligence had to conform to time, then why not to the other dimensions of nature? It looks as though beyond the ascendancy of nature any other power may be superfluous - and inherently limited. Since life in particular could under no conditions be created instantaneously - biology makes this abundantly clear, because certain required simultaneities can only result from a history - no God can be almighty.

A few questions: How does speculations about intelligent design and theology fit in with the description of Gene as dealing with "structural, functional, and evolutionary aspects of genes, chromatin, chromosomes and genomes" Will Gene be opening a forthcoming issue to a reply from theologians, defending the almightiness of God? Will Mike finally find a publisher for his ground-breaking research?

(Hat tip to reader Analyysi for alerting me to this article.)

Over at the #1 Science Blog, PZ Myers is willing to debate Ken Miller

We won't be on the same segment, sorry"¦there could be some vigorous argument if we were, and poor Karl might not be able to get in a word edgewise. It is an interesting combination, though: the extremely helpful and well-regarded speaker and biologist who is also an apologist for religion, and the pirate evilutionist with a knife between his teeth who brooks no compromise in his war against religion. We'll have to see what Karl does with the possibilities.

And the host is willing to do this:

It would be possible to set up a Miller-Myers brawl bash, but not for tonight's show. I'm going to try to set up a dual-interview for next week which will involve such a thing, but I'll know tonight how possible it will be.

I think lots of us would like to see Miller and Myers debate about science and religion. After all, in his book, Finding Darwin's God, Miller argues that many of his scientific colleagues are to blame for "the strength and depth of anti-evolution feelings in the U.S" (p. 104). I'm sure Myers would like the chance to defend himself while exploring Miller's "anti-science" approach. Remember, that according to type C critic Sam Harris, "There is no question but that nominally religious scientists like Francis Collins and Kenneth R. Miller are doing lasting harm to our discourse by the accommodations they have made to religious irrationality."

So Miller has a problem with Myers and Myers has a problem with Miller. Let's see the debate. PZ is willing. They have someone willing to host it. Ken Miller likes to debate. Whether there will be a debate is all up to Ken Miller.

Would you like to listen to such a debate?

Here's Michael Shermer writing in Science Magazine:

The data have spoken. The God Delusion is a runaway bestseller, a market testimony to the hunger many people"”far more, I now think, than polls reveal"”have for someone in a position of prestige and power to speak for them in such an eloquent voice. Dawkins's latest book deserves multiple readings, not just as an important work of science, but as a great work of literature. (emphasis added)

The God Delusion is "an important work of science?" Isn't it odd how a popular anti-religious book, which reports no new experiments or data, and was not peer-reviewed, has become an Important Work of Science?

Have you begun to notice as we continue our transition into the post-wedge world, that the arguments used against the ID Movement are slowly being taken off the table to conveniently make room for the Anti-Religion Movement?

Read the rest of this entry »

In the now very long thread Mystery of Consciousness Mesk introduces some alternative descriptions of irreducibly complex properties we associate with mind and consciousness. This allows me to go ahead and post a new blog for the continuation of discussion on that topic, along with a more in-depth examination of concepts that seem intelligently designed to cause terminal confusion in those silly enough to think about thinking and beliefs about such things.

Read the rest of this entry »

A major short-coming of Intelligent Design Theory has been its reluctance to identify the designer. This study addresses this problem and firmly establishes the reality of Intelligent Design.

Most design theorists are uncomfortable talking about the designer. Wedgocentric analysis has demonstrated this reluctance to be part of a sinister plot to foist a theocracy on an unsuspecting, scientifically-illiterate, Bush-electing public. If intelligent design is to be recognized for the science that it is, it must eschew this deception and show the scientific community the designer.

Read the rest of this entry »

The activist group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) has gotten in hot water over a press release accusing the Bush administration of forcing park rangers to suppress the true age of the Grand Canyon. The story turned out to be a fabrication, and PEER has now issued a non-apology, claiming that "the press release was being misinterpreted". Yeah, I guess a few people took your claim that "Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees" and jumped to the conclusion… you know, that this was actually happening.

It's funny following PEER's evolving explanations:

Although the information was not included in the release, that sentence [quoted above] was based on the fact that since 2004 (until this recent controversy erupted) we heard from reporters that the superintendent's office at GCNP had answered media questions about the age of the canyon with either a "no comment" or by referring the reporter to Headquarters.

Compare this to the run-around Scientific American's Michael Shermer got, when trying to verify the story:

I promptly phoned [the Executive Director of PEER] Jeff Ruch myself and inquired what evidence he has to support this claim. He initially pointed to the creationism book and the fact that the NPS has failed to address numerous challenges to the sale of same in their bookstore. When I pointed out that this is irrelevant to the claim in the press release, he then reminded me of the biblical passages that have been posted at places along the rim of the canyon. Again, I admonished, this is not evidence for his central claim.

Read the rest of this entry »

It would have been better with another furry mammal, but the cats b'jammin.

Richard Dawkins' official web site hosts another testimony to threatiness from the Huffington Post's RJ Eskow. Since the article is filled with the typical bit of propagandistic fear-mongering, it's a good fit for Dawkins' site.

A country that doesn't believe in evolution doesn't respect rational thought or the scientific process. It can't produce the scientists and leaders it needs to face the problems of the 21st Century. This is even a national security problem, since a nation that won't face and study reality can't defend itself. It situation should be of concern to every American.

Frightened yet? No? Then how about this one?

The impact on the scientific climate in the U.S. has been so extreme that one scientific journal, Nature, unfavorably compared the U.S. attitude toward science with that of Islamic fundamentalists in Ahmadinejad's Iran.

Yeah, yeah, as Dawkins says, the "American Taliban." After all, according to Eskow, it's an "all-out war on science." Did the word "war" jump out at you? It was supposed to.

To support his fear, Eskow then shows off his own "pro-science" mind by mining for scary anecdotes. This expedition led to a hilarious retraction:

I removed reference to a story about the National Park Service after a sharp-eyed commenter noted that one of the outlets that publicized the story, Michael Shermer of Skeptic, did some first-hand investigation, found some apparently contradictory evidence, and issued a retraction. As I've long said, those who claim to speak for science and rationality should be willing to retract unproven or disproven claims.

So he peddled a bogus story while Shermer is still wiping the egg off his face and Eskow thinks he earns pro-science and pro-rationality brownie points. LOL.

But what of that dreaded statistic, where "The US scores well behind nine European countries in its acceptance of scientific fact?" We've addressed this here, here, here, and here. But now there is something new to add.

Read the rest of this entry »

A quote from Dr. Myers:

Of course everyone compartmentalizes…but that doesn't mean we should simply ignore or excuse those compartments that blatantly contradict observable reality. I'd say that a scientist who believes in elves or perpetual motion machines or the magic properties of energized water is just as anti-science as the one who tries to reconcile the absurdities of Christianity or Wicca or Asatru or Islam with science "” but the Christianity problem is more of an epidemic than free energy scams. (emphasis added).

So now we understand why Dr. Myers attacks Ken Miller and Francis Collins: theists who attempt to reconcile their religious faith with science are "anti-science." Perhaps the "pro-science" crowd will soon be coming out with a bumper sticker that reads, Real scientists don't believe in God.

BTW, this is the same Dr. Myers who told us:

I get to vote on tenure decisions at my university, and I can assure you that if someone comes up who claims that ID 'theory' is science, I will vote against them. If someone thinks the sun orbits around the earth, I will vote against them. If someone thinks fairies live in their garden and pull up the flowers out of the ground every spring, I will vote against them. Tenure decisions are not pro forma games, but a process of evaluation, and I'd rather not have crackpots promoted.