Two recent experiments highlight the power of mind to direct natural processes against astronomical improbabilities. One study boasts of getting “New genes out of nothing.” (The echo of Lawrence Krauss’s book A Universe from Nothing is noteworthy.) The other study shows what human minds can do with protein precursors (the translated products of genes) by using “design selection” as opposed to natural selection. The Challenge In the “genes out of nothing” camp, researchers at Uppsala University describe the challenge they face — and that standard Darwinian processes had to face: How do new genes and functional proteins arise and develop? This is one of the most fundamental issues in evolutionary biology. Two different types of mechanism have been proposed: (1) new …
Do you ever wonder what Darwin proponents would say if they ventured to address arguments for intelligent design in detail? Do they ever? I asked Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin to comment based on his own experiences. He was in Seattle to speak about his new book, Foresight: How the Chemistry of Life Reveals Planning and Purpose. https://youtu.be/nfnTdfgo2vU Of course, sometimes evolutionists do debate about specifics. But remember what happened when they came after Michael Behe on polar bear genes and other matters in his book Darwin Devolves. Find the archives of that debate here, including Behe’s exchanges with Richard Lenski, Nathan Lents, and others. As Eberlin observes, for Darwinists, the “devil is in the details” and they fear the devil. Come to think of it, …
No evaluation of the evolution debate is complete without considering the sociology of science. Molecular biologist Douglas Axe delivers on that in a great reflective piece about the reception of Michael Behe’s recent book Darwin Devolves. It’s not a review per se. As Axe says, he is too close a colleague of Behe’s for that. He’s not too close, though, to observe the “commotion that ensues whenever this gentle Catholic puts his thoughts on paper.” Axe discusses the review of the book that appeared in Science before Darwin Devolves had even been published. (See the book’s website for responses.) The editors of this epitome of establishment journals were duty-bound to publish a hostile review, of course, and they did. The usual custom is for one person to review a …
Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves undercuts current evolutionary theory at its very basis — the idea that unguided biological processes can do anything genuinely creative. Since the book came out, Behe and others have been engaged with scientist critics in intensive debates about his thesis. We’ve featured those at Evolution News, and you can find them all gathered here. A highlight was the battle over polar bear genes, and the exchange with National Academy of Sciences member Richard Lenski. Behe gives me every impression of having decisively overcome the critics, leaving his potent argument unscathed. Now it’s time to celebrate! Please join us in Seattle for the national book party, Wednesday, July 10 at 7:30 pm, at McCaw Hall in Seattle Center. Professor Behe will …
It’s called the Miracle Tree, the Tree of Life, and Nature’s Medicine Cabinet. Where Darwin’s “tree of life” (phylogenetic diagram) is a record of competition, selfish genes and extinction, this tree of life brings healing, hygiene and nutrition — in abundance! Its scientific name is Moringa oleifera, but it goes by popular names like the drumstick tree, the horseradish tree, and various ethnic names. Every part of this plant, from roots to leaves to pods and seeds, is edible. Scientists are amazed that this simple plant is one of the most nutrient-rich foods known. Among its 92 nutrients and 46 antioxidants, it has: 10 times more vitamin A than carrots 7 times more vitamin C than oranges 25 times more iron than spinach 6 times more zinc than almonds …
I was explaining to one of our kids the other day a paradox about what our minds do. On the one hand, unwelcome thoughts or wishes come to us unbidden and we have to decide how to handle these. But the precious flipside of the bargain is creativity. Ideas for wonderful things — in art, science, philosophy, spirituality, entrepreneurial endeavors, you name it — come from nowhere that we can identify. We call this inspiration, and it’s the key to creativity. Frustratingly, it also doesn’t come when bid. People have it. Computers don’t and never will. The Spark of Creativity Writing at Mind Matters, Robert Marks of the Walter Bradley Center has a very insightful post. He explains how creativity unifies three seemingly disparate phenomena: artificial intelligence, …
If you ask your typical garden variety evolutionist, he will tell you that all is well in the land of Darwinia. But if you look behind the right curtains, you find that some highly placed, mainstream evolutionary biologists concede that neo-Darwinism is in deep crisis. They acknowledge its imminent fall even as they cling to the hope that some purely blind, materialistic version of evolution can be cobbled together to replace it. Such thinking was front and center at a recent University of Cambridge event, held April 1 to 4 on the campus of Churchill College. Entitled “Evolution Evolving,” the meeting sought to encourage novel thinking about evolution, starting from the premise that existing textbook theory fails to explain many of the most interesting and important …
In a recent post at Evolution News , Michael Egnor quoted “universal Darwinist” John Campbell: The second law is one of the most fundamental laws of physics, and states that the total entropy — that is, disorder — of an isolated system can only increase over time. Darwinian processes may be viewed as nature’s method of countering this universal tendency towards disorder and non-existence. My reaction was: finally, a Darwinist who says what they all really believe about the second law, which is: we have a scheme that can defeat (“counter”) it. “To Heck with It” Understandably, most do not want to say, “To heck with ‘one of the most fundamental laws of physics,’ we have a scheme that can beat it.” So they have developed creative ways to avoid having to …
Following the publication of Yale polymath David Gelernter’s wonderful essay at The Claremont Review of Books, “Giving Up Darwin,” we’re seeing, yet again, two ways for Darwinists to approach the subject of intelligent design and Darwin skepticism. Both are pretty lame. This week we had Razib Khan’s article at National Review, urging that ID proponents aka “evolution deniers” not be engaged, out of deference to evolution’s sparkling contribution to Western civilization. This from a self-described geneticist (actually he’s a PhD candidate) who himself engaged for years with the racists of the alt-right and whose name still appears on the homepage of a website featuring Holocaust deniers. Khan doesn’t mention Gelernter, but he does repeatedly refer to Michael Behe …
Some guy once wrote that there’s nothing new under the sun. He must have had political conservatives’ pro-Darwin arguments in mind. Yesterday National Review posted an essay by Razib Khan. (See here and here for more on that.) Khan is a Wikipedia-described atheist, writer, and doctoral student in genetics. He is also a self-described conservative. The essay seeks to assure conservatives that Darwin’s theory is “a crowning achievement of Western civilization and a rejoinder to the modern myths of the Left.” Conservatives should happily embrace whatever is claimed in Darwin’s name because “The science built upon the rock of Charles Darwin’s ideas is a reflection of Western modernity’s commitment to truth as a fundamental value.” What’s more, coos Khan, …
