I was reading a paper authored by Dembski and Marks when I came across a quote taken from Richard Dawkins' book The Blind Watchmaker. The quote:

To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like "God was always there," and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say "DNA has always been there," or "Life was always there, and be done with it.

Dawkins' is expressing a sentiment echoed in the thread PD instead of ID by at least one commenter. But Dawkins is drawing a conclusion supported by an artificial demarcation made in a time/causal pathway depicting the origin of the universe. Specifically, he is drawing our attention to a point in time at which prebiotic earth exists and then posing questions about life's origin. In doing so Dawkins begs some very pertinent questions showing that he, like his theistic counterparts, is unable to present a comprehensive and coherent account running from A to Z. Perhaps this is because human minds are limited both in terms of their capabilities and their knowledge of what preceded them.

Read the rest of this entry »

It is ironic that some who cite the reality of natural selection in the realm of biology ignore its effects on the economy. There are points relevant to natural selection worth noting. The word natural clues as in that there is a process in place that does not require human intervention. Those most able to compete will win out. This is the case with bacteria subjected to the effects of an antibiotic. It also applies to companies. Those most capable of sustaining production efficiency to satisfy consumer demands will outcompete their less efficient rivals. Like an organism incurring a fatal genetic defect, companies can become so encumbered by lack of competitiveness that they, like the organism, perish.

An organism that fails as a result of a genetic defect does not indicate that nature fails. Indeed it has been argued with good reason that a physical culling process is essential to a thriving natural world. The same is true with economies. Propping up inefficient companies with money derived from the rest of us puts an entire ecosystem at risk. The relevant economic system is forced to divert funds from those who perform well in the competitve economic world to those who do not. It would be as if a pride of lions became so focused on the malady of one lion that it sacrificed resources like hunting time to stick by a diseased member thereby diminishing the strength of the pride.

Read the rest of this entry »

Edward Feser wrote ‘Too Christian’ for Academia? The first paragraph:

Wiley-Blackwell, a major academic press, was set to release its four-volume Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization this month. According to the encyclopedia’s editor, George Thomas Kurian, the set had been copy-edited, fact-checked, proofread, publisher-approved, printed, bound, and formally launched (to high praise) at the recent American Academy of Religion/Society of Biblical Literature conference. But protests from a small group of scholars associated with the project have led the press to postpone publication, recall all copies already distributed, and destroy the existing print run. The scholars’ complaint? The Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, they have reportedly argued, is “too Christian.” “They also object to historical references to the persecution and massacres of Christians by Muslims,” Kurian says, “but at the same time want references favorable to Islam.”

Censorship by the government, special interest groups or simply as a result of cultural pressures (political correctness) is particularly odious. It runs counter to an Anglo-American value worth preserving- a free and open society. It also evidences ill intent on the part of the censors.

Stimulus for Science is an article appearing at the New York Academy of Sciences website. The article begins by noting a quote from President Obama in which he pledged to "restore science to its rightful place." That's a curious phrase in my view but we get indicators of what is meant by it. Follow the money trail. It is noted that the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, better known as the stimulus bill, authorized $24 billion in funding for science and technology research and development. It is not that the bill creates a great many new jobs when compared to the number of people employed by the world's largest economy. However, for the long term, beefing up research bodes well for this nation just as the general explosion in spending does not bode well in the same the long term.

There was this revealing part of the article:

There's an urgency for more scientists to involve themselves in policymaking, he (Holdren) says. "In the US, scientists have been aloof from the political process. We need them in policymaking positions where they're part of the decision-making process."

I do not believe that scientists were aloof from the political process and find it odd that scientists should be considered policymakers. It would seem wiser that scientists have a technical advisory role as do high ranking generals in military matters. But if they wish to craft public policy then they have the option of running for office. Elected officials are charged with that responsibility. In any case what policies would one advocate based exclusively on consideration of one's scientific credentials?

I've been thinking about this since the last time Aiguy was here, and since he's shown up again, I thought I would post this, so we can hear his input. Read the rest of this entry »

Recently TT member aiguy posted a well thought out comment which raised broader issues applicable to ID. His last paragraph states:

I think what is most interesting in this forum is to work on what aspects of the mind/body problem are relevant to telic theories of origins, and what the entailments actually are. In my view, telic theories require that cognition transcends physical causation – after all, you and various ID proponents (Dembski, Egnor, etc) often defend mind/body dualism. Do you agree that unless dualism is true, ID makes no sense?

The study of dualism is a major endeavor so I'll provide a shorthand version applicable to the mind/brain issue. Although the mind and brain are clearly interdependent in my view there is a distinction between the two. You don't have to be a dualist to realize the distinction has practicle utlity. The mind is something we exercise and experience on a daily basis. Like gravity its effects are continually evident. That was also the case prior to the advent of advanced technology. Humans have always had evidence of minds and the means to assess minds and intelligence.

By contrast neurobiology is very recent. We are able to learn how specific biochemicals influence thinking and emotions. We also are able to observe how thoughts and emotions can alter neural biochemistry. Distinguishing between the mind and the body tissue associated with its function makes as much sense today as in prior eras.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was just over at UD, where I chanced upon derwood (kirby?) wishing for positive evidence of ID. I left a comment asking what he (she?) would count as positive evidence for ID. I can't take credit for asking an original question. Mike Gene has asked it rather often over the years. Read the rest of this entry »

Guardian features an article titled Science Weekly: Why do we still disagree about climate change? Debates about climate change are marred by acrimony. Sound familiar? What caught my attention was the first comment in response to the article. As another commenter emphasized one of the individuals quoted is a student. But I think the first commenter alludes to a noteworthy issue namely, the vital role played by the mass media in determing whether or not a concern is acted upon and determines public policy making. Quoting the first commenter:

Professor Stephen Schneider, Environmental Biology and Global Change, Stanford University, we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have.

Harvard University PhD candidate Monika Kopacz, "It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians — and readers — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in todays world, this is the only way to assure any political action"

I do not believe the work of scientists is corrupted by the need for a story but think exaggeration during an interview could be tempting. Scientists are subject to the same influences that affect other groups. Entertainers, politicians, businessmen and others have discovered that the sensational crowds out the mundane where news coverage is concerned. If one is focused strictly on conveying factual information that would be of no concern- but it would probably also lack the spice that interests viewers. Anyone with an agenda is acutely aware of the need for publicity and the consequent importance of keeping an interview lively.

Unlike the other groups mentioned scientists are largely perceived as objective conveyors of factual information about the physical world. The reputation of a scientist is more likely to be impacted by exaggeration than that of say an entertainer or politician from whom the public expects it. Preconceptions and expectations shape the lens through which one's credibility is assessed. Those interviewed beware.

Joseph John Thomson (1856-1940), better known as JJ Thomson, a distinguished physicist who is credited with the discovery of the electron among other accomplishments, once stated the following:

It is the charm of physics that there are no hard and fast boundaries, that each discovery is not a terminus but an avenue leading to country as yet unexplored, and that however long the science may exist, there will still be an abundance of unsolved problems…

If there will always be an abundance of unsolved problems then there will always be an abundance of yet unknown knowledge waiting to be imparted. And if this is so then science can not ever reveal with finality definitive conclusions about the origin of the universe, the origin of life or the origin of advanced cognitive capacity. Or can it?

13 things that do not make sense or do they? Take the first one:

1 The placebo effect
Don't try this at home. Several times a day, for several days, you induce pain in someone. You control the pain with morphine until the final day of the experiment, when you replace the morphine with saline solution. Guess what? The saline takes the pain away.

This is the placebo effect: somehow, sometimes, a whole lot of nothing can be very powerful. Except it's not quite nothing. When Fabrizio Benedetti of the University of Turin in Italy carried out the above experiment, he added a final twist by adding naloxone, a drug that blocks the effects of morphine, to the saline. The shocking result? The pain-relieving power of saline solution disappeared.

So what is going on? Doctors have known about the placebo effect for decades, and the naloxone result seems to show that the placebo effect is somehow biochemical. But apart from that, we simply don't know.

But the placebo effect makes perfect sense. It's just that it runs counter to mainstream thinking. The mind interacts with but is independent of brain cells. That's why beliefs can alter brain cell function. A straightforward and rational interpretation consistent with facts. But the problem with it is it leaves Lewontin's door a bit open. But he'll survive along with the rest of you.

Bradley Monton authored Sociological pressure on biologists to avoid intelligent design at Bradley Monton's Blog. The blog entry is actually focused on a piece by Mike Gene. So you get two good bloggers for the price of one. Quoting Monton:

Is it problematic that biologists will reject ideas in biology because they “might open too broad an avenue to the supporters of intelligent design”? I think it is. The worry is that “sociological pressures can impose a form of self-censorship in Academia”, as Mike Gene argues in this fascinating post.

I've been skimming through a pamphlet written by the process theologian David Ray Griffin, called, Evolution without Tears: A Third Way beyond Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design. I confess that I know very little about process theology, though I'm gathering that according to this view God is not transcendent to the Universe, but is somehow part of it, yet conscious of it and able to influence events in it. I think process theology is supposed to be equivalent to something called Panentheism. Read the rest of this entry »

I don't recall this being discussed either at Telic Thoughts or Uncommon Descent, so submitted for everyone's attention is the May 2009 cover story for Discover Magazine: The Biocentric Universe Theory.

Or as I like to call it, the "All major sides in the ID debate are wrong" theory.

Read the rest of this entry »