The Panda's Thumb relates an exchange with William Dembski in which he is asked to operationalize ID in terms of probability calculations. His answer is nothing short of astounding:
As for your example, I’m not going to take the bait. You’re asking me to play a game: “Provide as much detail in terms of possible causal mechanisms for your ID position as I do for my Darwinian position.” ID is not a mechanistic theory, and it’s not ID’s task to match your pathetic level of detail in telling mechanistic stories. If ID is correct and an intelligence is responsible and indispensable for certain structures, then it makes no sense to try to ape your method of connecting the dots. True, there may be dots to be connected. But there may also be fundamental discontinuities, and with IC systems that is what ID is discovering.
If it is not a mechanistic theory, what kind of theory is it? How does it rise above the charge of "just so story" that he claims for Darwinian evolution? Once again, how is ID operationalized? How would these discontinuities manifest themselves? ID seems repeatedly unable to address, and hopes no one will notice, this elephant in the living room.
This is a blog detailing the creation/evolution/ID controversy and assorted palaeontological news. I will post news here with running commentary.
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Origins of Life
Although it is not a subject that evolutionary theory can address, origin of life questions are fascinating. In a short article appearing in Physicsweb, it is suggested that organic solids may have rained down on the early earth for millions of years, eventually leading to life as we know it. Interesting.
Tuesday, November 21, 2006
A View From the Jerusalem Post
Natan Slifkin wonders where all the Jews are that oppose ID? In a November 16 article for the Jerusalem Post (subscription required), he laments:
The prophets said that "the Heavens declare the glory of God." Some of the ancients interpreted this to mean that since (in their time) there was no explanation as to why the planets move in the way that they do they attest to a Designer. But now that physics and astronomy have explained planetary motion does this mean that the Heavens no longer declare the glory of God? Of course they do; and the unavoidable position for the religious person is that God's grandeur is seen in the laws of nature.
Good point. And, in a stab at "irreducible complexity," he writes:
So where does that leave the rest of the universe? What about all those structures that do not even by the admission of the ID camp present irreducible complexity? The unstated implication of their position is that these things do not attest to a Creator. Don't have a grasp of cellular biology? Sorry you won't be able to perceive that the universe was created by God.
Either God is everywhere or He is nowhere. But He is certainly not limiting His appearance in the universe to the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system.
The prophets said that "the Heavens declare the glory of God." Some of the ancients interpreted this to mean that since (in their time) there was no explanation as to why the planets move in the way that they do they attest to a Designer. But now that physics and astronomy have explained planetary motion does this mean that the Heavens no longer declare the glory of God? Of course they do; and the unavoidable position for the religious person is that God's grandeur is seen in the laws of nature.
Good point. And, in a stab at "irreducible complexity," he writes:
So where does that leave the rest of the universe? What about all those structures that do not even by the admission of the ID camp present irreducible complexity? The unstated implication of their position is that these things do not attest to a Creator. Don't have a grasp of cellular biology? Sorry you won't be able to perceive that the universe was created by God.
Either God is everywhere or He is nowhere. But He is certainly not limiting His appearance in the universe to the bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system.
Monday, November 20, 2006
Friday, November 17, 2006
Neandertal DNA part II
The issue of Science has arrived with the stories involving the study of the Neandertal DNA. The new test, called "metagenomics," has so far identified 65 250 base pairs of what is believed to be Neandertal DNA. The article is behind a subscription wall, so I cannot quote liberally. Here are the high points:
- Neandertals and modern humans share a common ancestor back c. 706 000 years ago
- The Neandertal/modern human split was c. 370 000 years ago, although it varies for different populations tested.
- This predates the appearance of modern humans in Africa which occurred c. 195 000 years ago.
- There is a lack of evidence supporting admixture of Neandertals and modern humans.
Not everyone thinks the results are fool-proof, however. Genomicist Stephan Schuster of Pennsylvania State University State College is quoted in a companion article by Elizabeth Pennisi as saying:
“The divergence [between living people and Neandertals] is so small compared to the DNA damage and the sequencing error” that it’s hard to be confident of any results. If we’ve learned anything, it is that we generally haven’t perceived the full extent of the problems and complexities of ancient DNA research. We’re still very much in the learning curve."
We haven't heard the last of this one. Stay tuned.
- Neandertals and modern humans share a common ancestor back c. 706 000 years ago
- The Neandertal/modern human split was c. 370 000 years ago, although it varies for different populations tested.
- This predates the appearance of modern humans in Africa which occurred c. 195 000 years ago.
- There is a lack of evidence supporting admixture of Neandertals and modern humans.
Not everyone thinks the results are fool-proof, however. Genomicist Stephan Schuster of Pennsylvania State University State College is quoted in a companion article by Elizabeth Pennisi as saying:
“The divergence [between living people and Neandertals] is so small compared to the DNA damage and the sequencing error” that it’s hard to be confident of any results. If we’ve learned anything, it is that we generally haven’t perceived the full extent of the problems and complexities of ancient DNA research. We’re still very much in the learning curve."
We haven't heard the last of this one. Stay tuned.
Thursday, November 16, 2006
Neandertal DNA
According to a report in the WaPo, a new genetic test may unravel the mystery behind the Neandertal DNA code. The story begins:
Unleashing a new kind of DNA analyzer on a 38,000-year-old fragment of fossilized Neanderthal bone, scientists have reconstructed a portion of that creature's genetic code -- a technological tour de force that has researchers convinced they will soon know the entire DNA sequence of the closest cousin humans ever had.
Heady stuff, indeed. These are things the fossil record simply cannot tell us. The study will appear in this week's Science and is sure to touch off a firestorm between the continuity folks and the replacement folks.
"Clearly, we are at the dawn of Neanderthal genomics," said Edward M. Rubin of the Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Read the whole thing.
Unleashing a new kind of DNA analyzer on a 38,000-year-old fragment of fossilized Neanderthal bone, scientists have reconstructed a portion of that creature's genetic code -- a technological tour de force that has researchers convinced they will soon know the entire DNA sequence of the closest cousin humans ever had.
Heady stuff, indeed. These are things the fossil record simply cannot tell us. The study will appear in this week's Science and is sure to touch off a firestorm between the continuity folks and the replacement folks.
"Clearly, we are at the dawn of Neanderthal genomics," said Edward M. Rubin of the Department of Energy's Joint Genome Institute in Walnut Creek, Calif., and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
Read the whole thing.
Monday, November 13, 2006
Set Your VCR's (Or TiVo's or whatever)
Nova is doing a story on bipedalism, focusing on a family in Turkey that walks quadrupedally. The show will air tomorrow night, Nov. 14 at 8:00.
Sunday, November 12, 2006
Cultural History Washing Away
Foxnews reports that many archaeological sites are falling prey to "global warming." The reports suggests that climate changes caused by global warming. I am not sure how much is due to human action and how much is "programmed" into the life of the planet, but it is a problem when your cultural history starts washing away.
Friday, November 10, 2006
Dolphins and Legs
And in case you missed this, Japanese fishermen caught a dolphin with a vestigial pair of limbs. As the article points out:
Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share common ancestors with hippopotamuses and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle.
Much like the Tiktaalik fossil that was found in the arctic a few months back, this shows evidence of an evolutionary lineage. Cool!!
Fossil remains show dolphins and whales were four-footed land animals about 50 million years ago and share common ancestors with hippopotamuses and deer. Scientists believe they later transitioned to an aquatic lifestyle.
Much like the Tiktaalik fossil that was found in the arctic a few months back, this shows evidence of an evolutionary lineage. Cool!!
Australopithecine Diet
Foxnews reports that robust australopithecines may have had a more varied diet than was originally thought. According to the article, if the diet was more varied than thought, then the hypothesis that the robusts went extinct because of an ecological shift might need to be rethought. Interesting.
Sorry for the light posts
I have started a new job at ORNL and am settling in. I will get back into the swing of things shortly.
Thursday, October 19, 2006
Compatabilism and Libertarianism
David Siemens thinks J.P. Moreland is wrong. Moreland argues the human mind is part of nature and is endowed with libertarian capacities, such that it is capable of true choice. Siemans believes that this is a capacity that only God has. He notes:
Moreland has produced a straw man, but one with a curious consequence. If, as he claims, physics is not self-contained, that is, if there are nonphysical causes of physical phenomena, where does he draw the line? Psychokinesis? Energy vortexes, like those claimed to exist near Sedona, AZ? Crystals? Pyramidology? Alien intelligences exerting forces we cannot detect or measure? Astral influences?
He argues that Moreland has conflated terms for different disciplines:
"Mass" is obviously an important scientific term, from Newton's [f = ma] to Einstein's [E = mc2]. This does not mean that I can insist that it be applied by psychologists to determine the mass of anger when someone loses his temper. Conversely, I cannot ask how angry a uranium nucleus is when it spalls.
Read the whole thing.
Moreland has produced a straw man, but one with a curious consequence. If, as he claims, physics is not self-contained, that is, if there are nonphysical causes of physical phenomena, where does he draw the line? Psychokinesis? Energy vortexes, like those claimed to exist near Sedona, AZ? Crystals? Pyramidology? Alien intelligences exerting forces we cannot detect or measure? Astral influences?
He argues that Moreland has conflated terms for different disciplines:
"Mass" is obviously an important scientific term, from Newton's [f = ma] to Einstein's [E = mc2]. This does not mean that I can insist that it be applied by psychologists to determine the mass of anger when someone loses his temper. Conversely, I cannot ask how angry a uranium nucleus is when it spalls.
Read the whole thing.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
The notion of complementarity
I have always sort of axiomatically taken it that science exists to describe the natural world and cannot resort to supernatural explanations. J.P. Moreland seems surprised that anyone would take that position.
Monday, October 16, 2006
Science quotes
I am preparing for my second forum on ID and theistic evolution. The first one went well and one of the attendants said she will try to fill the room next time. Along the way, I have been reading up on teleology. Here are a few quotes I came across:
Teleology is a lady without whom no biologist can live. Yet he is ashamed to show himself with
her in public.
-- Ernst Wilhem von Brücke (German physiologist, 1819-1892)
"The species of whale known as the black right whale has four kilos
of brains and 1,000 kilos of testicles. If it thinks at all, we know what it is thinking about."
--Jon Lien, "Whale Professor" at St. John's University, Newfoundland,
speaking to the Norwegian Telegram
Agency (spring 1995).
Then, there is the famous one by J.B.S. Haldane:
"If one could conclude as to the nature of the Creator from a study of
creation, it would appear that God has an inordinate fondness for stars
and beetles." (1951)
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Foxnews Page
Fox News has divided its science section into various categories, one of which is "Evolution and Paleontology" and is devoted to recent news of the field. This sounds promising.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
SEFORA
The recent problems that the Republican party has had with science has not gone unnoticed. Scientists and Engineers for America is a new organization devoted to supporting "science friendly" candidates in the political arena. Part of the preamble to the SEFORA Bill of Rights reads:
Science demands an open, transparent process of review and access to the best scholars from around the nation and the world. Mistakes dangerous to the nations welfare and security have been made when governments prevent scientists from presenting the best evidence and analysis.
This is probably a good idea. Politicians make bad scientists and I, for one, have been embarrassed to claim the Republican party on this issue. Time will tell whether or not it makes the same mistake that other organizations with laudable goals have made by venturing into areas of the political arena (such as abortion or human rights) that are, at best, peripheral to the scientific endeavor.
Hat Tip to Marilyn Savitt-Kring.
Science demands an open, transparent process of review and access to the best scholars from around the nation and the world. Mistakes dangerous to the nations welfare and security have been made when governments prevent scientists from presenting the best evidence and analysis.
This is probably a good idea. Politicians make bad scientists and I, for one, have been embarrassed to claim the Republican party on this issue. Time will tell whether or not it makes the same mistake that other organizations with laudable goals have made by venturing into areas of the political arena (such as abortion or human rights) that are, at best, peripheral to the scientific endeavor.
Hat Tip to Marilyn Savitt-Kring.
Monday, October 02, 2006
Winds of Change
Blogging might be a bit funny over the next few weeks. I have accepted a professional position in the library at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and will begin the new job on November 6. With a fourth child on the way, there wasn't much debate about this.
I will continue to write (one article in revision, one planned by the end of the year), teach online for UT and blog, but this seems like to great an opportunity to pass up. Just ta let ya know.
- Same benefits
- Better vacation
- Much better pay (equivalent to an assistant professor salary)
- No ugly, hideous relocation: my wife and I don't have to move a foot.
I will continue to write (one article in revision, one planned by the end of the year), teach online for UT and blog, but this seems like to great an opportunity to pass up. Just ta let ya know.
Time Magazine
Time Magazine is doing an issue on "What Makes Us Human?" CNN has a short blurb about it. I intend to pick the issue up and have a look. I haven't read Time in years because it tends to take a leftist approach to things but this will be worth a look.
A public forum on evolution and ID
I have been asked to participate in a public forum at the Baptist Student Union here at UT on October 10, 17, and 24 with a retired physicist and ID supporter by the name of Neal Caldwell. We will discuss the nature of science, evolutionary theory and how theology should or should not play a role in scientific discourse. The proceedings will be moderated by Julian Reese.
Along the way, we will try to define Intelligent Design and distinguish it from "creationism" and what the evidence for macroevolution really is. It should be fun. If you are local, please swing by. It will be at noon on each Tuesday.
Along the way, we will try to define Intelligent Design and distinguish it from "creationism" and what the evidence for macroevolution really is. It should be fun. If you are local, please swing by. It will be at noon on each Tuesday.
Flores again
An article has appeared in the September 5 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2006, vol. 103(36): 13421-13426) by Jacob et al. called "Pygmoid Australomelanesian Homo sapiens skeletal remains from Liang Bua, Flores: Population affinities and pathological abnormalities," arguing that the hominid remains from the island of Flores are not the remains of a new hominid/hominin species (whew!) . I can't provide a link because this article is behind a subscription wall. The authors write:
Our reexamination of the original skeletal material shows that there is insufficient morphological or metric evidence for a new hominin species on Flores, where evolution over millenia in total isolation is unproved, unlikely, and at variance with Stegodon migrations and glacial geology.
The authors further remark that the morphology of the remains:
...exhibits a combination of characters that are not primitive but instead regional, not unique but found in other modern human populations, particularly some still living on Flores, and not derived but strikingly disordered developmentally.
This will make Jonathan Hawks happy. I am guessing there will be rebuttals to this paper, especially given the bad blood between Jacob and the original discovery team.
Hat tip to Art Durband.
Our reexamination of the original skeletal material shows that there is insufficient morphological or metric evidence for a new hominin species on Flores, where evolution over millenia in total isolation is unproved, unlikely, and at variance with Stegodon migrations and glacial geology.
The authors further remark that the morphology of the remains:
...exhibits a combination of characters that are not primitive but instead regional, not unique but found in other modern human populations, particularly some still living on Flores, and not derived but strikingly disordered developmentally.
This will make Jonathan Hawks happy. I am guessing there will be rebuttals to this paper, especially given the bad blood between Jacob and the original discovery team.
Hat tip to Art Durband.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)