The Peer Review Prison, by Suzan Mazur, contains some strongly worded remarks. One side effect of ClimateGate is a refocus on the matter of peer review. From the article:

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini report colleagues attempted to silence them from publishing in their new book that Darwin's claim was wrong about natural selection. Some of these dark forces afflicting Fodor were brought to light in a chapter in my own book The Altenberg 16: An Expose of the Evolution Industry.

If the reference to Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini sounds familiar to Telic Thoughts readers it is likely due to this. More:

Why not just thrash these ideas out in the open as in other professional fields and properly pay scientists to write reviews instead of sending the journal money off to Wiley? Maybe then science referees (reviewers) would take time from their academic responsibilities to actually read papers submitted – particularly those from the unaffiliated.

Good question.

Read the rest of this entry »

Recently I discovered that Victor Stenger, emeritus professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii and adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado [why leave Hawaii?], is an outspoken critic of the fine-tuned universe argument. A little of what he has to say in his book, God, the Failed Hypothesis:

Read the rest of this entry »

Not all physicists live in ivory towers. Some prefer fun in the sun and surfing the waves. From the link:

The Maui-based science prodigy (Garrett Lisi) turned the rarefied world of theoretical physics on its ear with a jaw-gaping paper, the audaciously titled An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything.

Lisi is a bit out of the ordinary:

He has a Ph.D. and, to that extent, is no outsider. But he has no academic affiliation, let alone tenure.

I think I might like this guy. Lisi, who published his paper in arXiv, is quoted:

Read the rest of this entry »

The Navhind Times carries a story about a decision by the government of India to have a climate change panel of its own and not depend on the beleaguered UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I love this quote from Union Environment Minister, Mr Jairam Ramesh:

There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism. I am all for climate science but not for climate evangelism.

Climate evangelism. How apropos.

Evangelism has a religious ring to it. That would come as no surprise to James Bowman, author of Creation. Judeo-Christian scriptures contain an story of global catastrophe. Of course we are much too sophisticated for ancient views of good and evil and Noah's flood. Now we speak of the size of your environmental footprint and environmental catastrophes resulting from global warming. Government regulations will rescue us if we can just rid ourselves of denialist influences. Quoting from The American Spectator article:

It will come as no news to readers of The American Spectator that science is now no longer just science but has become a religion-substitute for a large number of Americans. This faith, perhaps, claims even a majority of those in some other liberal democracies of the West. And if science, and its political arm, environmentalism, is the new religion, Charles Darwin is its Christ figure, despised and rejected of (theist) men and persecuted for the Truth he sought to bring to set men free of their inherited chains. These are not the bonds of sin and death but of the superstition and ignorance which supposes the world to have had any Creator at all or any Redeemer other than Darwin himself. That is what we mean by myth: a story that explains the world, whether or not the story happens to be true, and the Darwinist myth now comes closer to an explanation that people are prepared to accept than any other since the Redemptive history in the Christian interpretation of the Bible.

Kindly genuflect before reading the linked article and gird yourself against the blasphemous comments of the infidel Bowman.

Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini authored Survival of the fittest theory: Darwinism's limits. The article touches on some points raised in the thread A New Book. From the piece:

Much of the vast neo-Darwinian literature is distressingly uncritical. The possibility that anything is seriously amiss with Darwin's account of evolution is hardly considered. Such dissent as there is often relies on theistic premises which Darwinists rightly say have no place in the evaluation of scientific theories. So onlookers are left with the impression that there is little or nothing about Darwin's theory to which a scientific naturalist could reasonably object. The methodological scepticism that characterises most areas of scientific discourse seems strikingly absent when Darwinism is the topic.

Indeed.

Read the rest of this entry »

From this Science Daily article:

A new study published in Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences rejects the theory that the origin of life stems from a system of self-catalytic molecules capable of experiencing Darwinian evolution without the need of RNA or DNA and their replication.

Read the rest of this entry »

Disproving the Notion of Random Chance in Evolution is an Oxford University Press blog entry. The first paragraph:

Advocates of Intelligent Design contend that complex biological features cannot arise by chance, the implication being that chance equates to sentient forces. From a scientific vantage, however, the driving force of adaptive evolution–natural selection– is itself the antithesis of chance. Hereditary factors that promote organismal survival and reproduction in a particular environment tend to be precisely those that proliferate across the generations and thereby come to characterize natural populations. Whenever genetic variation and differential reproduction exist in nature (as they do in all known species), natural selection is inevitable, both logically and empirically. Biological traits that emerge from this inexorable operation may have the superficial aura of intelligent artistry, but that appearance is illusory (under a scientific interpretation). Natural selection can be a highly creative process (given a suitable supply of genetic variation to work from), but it is merely a mechanistic phenomenon– as inescapable and insentient as gravity.

I do not believe, as Dr. Meyer asserts, that he is unqualified—quite the opposite. He is likely more qualified as a philosopher than I am as a scientist. Furthermore, I guarantee you that if I was venturing into his discipline, I would have little of value to say. Dr. Meyer has ventured into my discipline, biology. He is not highly qualified as a biologist, but he’s ventured in anyway. Fair enough. Since he is a great communicator, we should be able to analyze the quality of his arguments.

here

It should be pointed out at this juncture that the biological points made by Darrel Falk in his exchanges with Meyer are easily understood by most freshman students in biology. I have a daughter who is a freshman and an intending major in biology who has no difficulty following Falk's points. Of course Falk might maintain that his deeper understanding would confound both Meyer and my daughter and account for any divergence of views but in what follows I'll show that to be a mistaken assumption.

In Meyer’s response to my review, he made a very strong statement. I am amazed that someone who is really smart and equally sincere could make it, but here it is

First, intelligent agents have demonstrated the capacity to produce large amounts of functionally specified information (especially in a digital form). Second, no undirected chemical process has demonstrated this power. Hence, intelligent design provides the best—most causally adequate—explanation for the origin of the information necessary to produce the first life from simpler non-living chemicals. In other words, intelligent design is the only explanation that cites a cause known to have the capacity to produce the key effect in question. (Emphasis added)

Read the rest of this entry »

Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell wrote Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell. A prior post focused on the first few paragraphs. Continuing with the article:

Falk first cites a scientific study published last spring after my book was in press. The paper, authored by University of Manchester chemist John Sutherland and two colleagues, does partially address one of the many outstanding difficulties associated the RNA world, the most popular current theory about the origin of the first life.

Starting with a 3-carbon sugar (D-gylceraldehyde), and another molecule called 2-aminooxazole, Sutherland successfully synthesized a 5-carbon sugar in association with a base and a phosphate group. In other words, he produced a ribonucleotide. The scientific press justifiably heralded this as a breakthrough in pre-biotic chemistry because previously chemists had thought (as I noted in my book) that the conditions under which ribose and bases could be synthesized were starkly incompatible with each other.

Nevertheless, Sutherland’s work does not refute the central argument of my book, nor does it support the claim that it is premature to conclude that only intelligent agents have demonstrated the power to produce functionally-specified information. If anything, it illustrates the reverse.

Very true. Sutherland's work is causally inadequate as an explanatory model for the issues raised in Meyer's book.

Read the rest of this entry »

"Reasons to Believe" e-mailed this one to me, and I had to pass it on.

In two prior posts we witness two individuals sympathetic to intelligent design attacked based on their views. John A. Designer said it well in this comment. JAD:

Even if Berlinski is a crank and Meyer is unqualified, as olegt and Falk respectively claim, it doesn’t change the fact that there are devastating criticisms of the so-called “RNA world” or “RNA first” hypothesis. Indeed, if neither Berlinski or Meyer had said anything on the subject you would still have the criticisms to seriously challenge the viability of the hypothesis.

JAD makes a good point but as I thought about the criticism I was reminded that whether or not someone is the object of degrading comments can relate to what it is their arguments or cited data are intended to support. For example, would Professors Olegt and Falk and notorious critic Matzke like to continue their critiques against scientists who merit some bashing. Let's see. Dr Rajendra Pachauri admitted that a 2007 report, indicating that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, lacked a scientific basis and that its inclusion in a report resulted from improper procedures.

HT: Clare

Read the rest of this entry »

Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in the Cell wrote Response to Darrel Falk’s Review of Signature in the Cell. From the article:

Nevertheless, in his recent review on the Biologos website, Prof. Darrel Falk characterizes me as merely a well-meaning, but ultimately unqualified, philosopher and religious believer who lacks the scientific expertise to evaluate origin-of-life research and who, in any case, has overlooked the promise of recent pre-biotic simulation experiments.

I've seen no evidence that Meyer does not understand the biochemistry or cellular processes of which he alludes to in Signature in the Cell. I have not seen anyone point out specific errors that would indicate a lack of understanding. Citing the promise of recent experiments refers to a subjective assessment of what might be rather than confirmation of what is. It's the difference between speculation and solid scientific theory.

Read the rest of this entry »

Introducing David Berlinski:

Having with indignation rejected the assumption that the creation of life required an intelligent design, Mr Fletcher has persuaded himself that it has proceeded instead by means of various chemical scenarios.

These scenarios all require intelligent intervention. In his animadversions, Mr Fletcher suggests nothing so much as a man disposed to denounce alcohol while sipping sherry.

Heh, heh. Vintage Berlinski.

Read the rest of this entry »

A New Scientist article lists seven questions about gravity here. Each question links to another distinct article.