They have no place on an academic campus with their polemics hidden behind a deceptive mask. "“ SMU professor

According to Michael Behe's blog, Ken Miller has written a second review of Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution. That Miller went to the trouble of writing a second review suggests Behe struck a nerve. Behe notes, "much of the second review turns on the theological implications of the book." Apparently, Miller raises the argument from evil, thinking that evolution somehow absolves God of any responsibility for malaria.

Behe writes:

So there you have it. Miller (and Ayala) won't tolerate life on earth being designed because that would impugn God's reputation. Too many bad things inhabit the earth. They embrace Darwinism, at least in large part, for theological reasons.

Wow, and they say ID proponents get their conclusions from religious motives!

So, how to respond to such a position? The first thing to say is that it's very hard to see how the Miller/Ayala position gets God off the hook. The "byproducts of a fruitful and creative [Darwinian] natural world" that Miller alludes to are not simply byproducts "” they are deadly, dangerous, vicious byproducts. No matter if malaria were designed directly by God or indirectly by a sloppy process He put in motion, many children of mothers in malarious regions of Africa are going to be just as dead. There is going to be as much suffering in the world one way as the other.

Why couldn't a grieving mother justifiably demand of an infinitely powerful God that He explain why He chose such a sloppy process to make life, instead of a more efficient process that would not produce natural evils such as parasites and tsunamis? One that wouldn't cause such enormous pain? It seems to me that designing a poor Darwinian process that inevitably spins off natural evils leaves One as vulnerable to being sued for incompetence as directly designing them as finished products.

Since Miller raised the theological objections, I'd say that Behe has put the ball right back in Miller's court. The question that remains is this - will Miller ignore this argument and question? Or will he deal with it in his third review?

These events prompted me to take ID seriously, and this movement scares me. Now I feel like a jogger in the park at night who realizes that she is far too isolated and that the shadows are far too deep. At first I ignored that faint rustling behind me, convincing myself it was just wind in the leaves. Louder noises made me jump and turn around, but I saw nothing. Now I know that I and my colleagues in science are being stalked with careful and deadly deliberation. I fear my days are numbered unless I act soon and effectively. If you are reading this, the chances are that you are in the same position. - Pat Shipman

Taylor Kessinger has written a column complaining that Intelligent Design is a "unintelligent idea." Since it is always fun to see how the anti-ID memosphere would stack up against my ideas and position, I thought I'd kick back and have a look.

Read the rest of this entry »

Joy posted the blog entry Stop the Presses! It's all Over! citing questionable news coverage of a paper published by researchers at the University of Manchester. The university's press release titled St Bernard study casts doubt on creationism contains two paragraphs which I'll quote and comment on. The first:

Read the rest of this entry »

You have heard that Intelligent Design is a Threat to Science, a Threat to Civilization, and a Threat to Human Rights. Oh my. But did you know ID is even more Evil than this?

Most critics of Intelligent Design are annoyed when a proponent of ID refuses to identify the designer as part of the design inference. In fact, such critics often portray this as an act of deception (lies, lies, lies!). Some ID critics take this accusation a step further, and interpret this logic as something that is satanic:

"Intelligent Design" Is Another of Satan's Distractions

In rejecting one false claim such as evolution, one must be very careful not to fall prey to another of Satan's snares. One of Satan's main objectives is to prevent the recognition of Allah by any means possible, and to cause people to ignore His remembrance.

There are those whom Satan has not been able to deceive with the concept of evolution. But if he can divert them in another direction, such as that of "intelligent design" he will again have achieved his end, in turning people away from remembering Allah.

In essence, the fundamentalist Muslim creationists and the secular ID critics are dipping from the same well.

A news release this week from biologists at the University of Manchester in England reports some world-shattering findings…

St. Bernard Study Shows Human-directed Evolution at Work

They report that by looking at 47 St. Bernard skulls spanning a period of 120 years - since the time that the breed standard for these dogs was first defined - they could see that the skulls steadily conformed to these standards over time. Because the breeders of St. Bernard dogs had bred for those traits.

Whoa. You're telling me that dog breeders can breed toward desired traits? What'll they think of next… breeding black and white spotted milk cows or fast race horses?

Read the rest of this entry »

Wnt and TGF-β Expression in the Sponge Amphimedon queenslandica and the Origin of Metazoan Embryonic Patterning was published in PLOS One and authored by Maja Adamska, Sandie M. Degnan, Kathryn M. Green, Marcin Adamski, Alina Craigie, Claire Larroux, Bernard M. Degnan.

In tracing an origins trail one finds a pattern emerging and re-emerging. Seeds of functions, fully developed in highly complex eukaryotic organisms, are found conserved in organisms whose genomes have been recently sequenced. The PLOS One paper seeks to trace the origin of developmental signalling systems in sponges through the study of genes that encode Wnt and TGF-β signalling ligands during embryonic development. From the paper:

Read the rest of this entry »