March 8, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

In the Monday, March 8 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education, Michael Ruse wrote an article entitled, “Philosophers Rip Darwin,” in which he rips Jerry Fodor for his book, What Darwin Got Wrong.
It is easy to see from this article that Michael Ruse does indeed read the works of many who object to Darwinian evolution as a complete picture of biological origin, and I commend his many clear statements of their positions. Overall, however, I question his approach here to answering them.
First he state that new objections are coming from philosophy and then mentions his own connection with philosophy. Fine. But then he lists biological advancements that assume a Darwinian viewpoint. I see no connection. If there are holes in the logic (philosophy), then it doesn’t matter what the observations are (science).
He then address objectors by first positioning them as religious. What has that got to do with the validity of their arguments, unless they argue from religious texts? They don’t. He points out that Platinga believes in ID and is committed to debunking evolution. If these disqualify him from participating in the debate, then Ruse is disqualified for his commitment to Darwinian evolution and his religious position.
Then Ruse begins his response. “What does one say about these critics? ..To say that a speckled moth is less likely to be eaten by a robin than a dark moth, because the robin can less easily see the speckled moth against the lichen-covered tree, is to say nothing about God or any other conscious being.” I agree. Why is he bringing it up? Platinga and Fodor don’t. They stick to philosophy and science.
His borage of current scientific investigations and findings are impressive, and cause me to be proud of human accomplishments, but I must disagree that “the bacterial flagellum, the blood-clotting cascade—[have] been shown to be the exquisite end result of evolution. “
And as for his “suspicion ..that Fodor doesn’t really give a damn about fruit flies or finches or anything else out there. But when it comes to Homo sapiens, he wants no part of a naturalistic explanation that reduces design to the workings of blind law”: So what? The point is that sufficient “blind laws” have not been found. And the philosophical arguments of Fodor, which I thought this article was to address, remain unanswered.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

March 7, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

Fascination with the language of DNA is getting a lot of press these days, especially with Stephen Meyer’s book pointing out the obvious implications of the Signature in the Cell. But there is at least one other bio-language, no less important to all animals, and it too, is being researched.
I was taught in high school biology that our bodies are commanded to move and that sight and other senses are possible because electrical impulses are fired from neurons (nerve cells) to various parts of our brain and throughout our bodies. As our knowledge of this realm grows exponentially, we now discover it is not just an impulse, but a neuronal code. One neuron can send different signals by means of impulse rates. The rates carry different meanings and thus result in different responses at the other end. Researcher terms such as “information,” “encoding” and “decoding” reveal that, like DNA, neurons are truly the medium of a language. In fact, we must develop a “dictionary” for the language! By learning this language scientists hope to someday provide paraplegics and quadriplegics with artificial limbs that they can command by thought, thought encoded into wires and decoded into metal and plastics. And like all languages that we must learn, it must have been designed.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

March 5, 2010 by Dr. Mc.

It’s always refreshing to see a paper like the New York Times publish a piece that makes a point I made in my blog months earlier. Yes, there is strong parallel between the way objections to the global warming belief system is being handled and the handling of objections to Darwinian evolution. People are noticing the parallel and viewpoint discrimination is being addressed in some state legislatures.
Interestingly enough, the author engages in another parallel herself. She positions opposition to the global warming belief system as religious, just as defenders of status-quo evolution position its objectors. This holds for Darwin skeptics, even though their ranks include prominent agnostics, atheists, and people of other diverse religious positions. There is no reason to assume the same does not also hold for global warming scare objectors.
Notice that no science is ever alluded to in the Times article, only opinions and categorizing of the opponents (read that “name-calling”). Perhaps white evangelical Protestants are more likely to not believe the global warming dogma, because they already see the misconduct of orthodox scientists in squelching the evolution debate. Does this somehow mean the objectors are wrong? What does it matter what reason motivates a person to propose a scientific investigation. What should matter is if the hypotheses and subsequently accumulated evidence passes the rigor of the scientific method.
Why even talk about what some pole says about people’s opinions? Why is the evidence not the issue instead of opinions? The article frames white evangelical Protestants as bad guys because they are more skeptical of the global warming consensus than the general population. (We are given no information about what black evangelical Protestants think, so they may be more or less skeptical than white.) The way the argument is framed obscures the larger truth: Only 36% of the general population buys the idea that there is a human-induced global warming issue. In my math classes that would be considered quite short of a majority. Does the author of this article somehow miss that her politically correct view still represents the minority of Americans?

Posted in Culture & society, Politics, Science and faith, Uncategorized | No Comments »

November 24, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

“Climate Emails Stoke Debate” is the headline for this subject in Monday’s Wall Street Journal, but it illustrates the even deeper problem that continually threatens science. I refer particularly to the quote by George Rebovich: “Any group with such a single-minded view (whether they are believers in global warming, global warming rejectionists, liberals, conservatives, whatever) bears close watching and a certain amount of skepticism.”
I like his use of the phrase “believers in,” because that is at the heart of the issue. Once a group convinces themselves to believe in some one view, they have a hard time self-policing their integrity. It doesn’t even have to be intentional. Read the whole article. Is it really true that each science journal “evaluates papers solely on scientific merit,” or is it possible that a belief system can stifle opposing data from being published publication? What if you through into the mix that careers and fortunes (grants) are at risk? The climate issue is pretty new. How much more so should we expect this phenomenon with biological and chemical origins?

Posted in Culture & society, Science and faith | No Comments »

November 24, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

I need some help if I’m going to learn to draw with Photoshop, so I went to the web. I never cease to be amazed at the free resources available there. For this article I want to compare and contrast two very useful tutorials, not to teach anything about drawing, but to illustrate an important point about design itself.
The first is “How to Draw High-Detailed Glass Ball.” This site gives clear step-by-step instructions with pictures for the many details that, though unnoticed by most of us, are necessary to convince the mind that a real glass sphere has been photographed, nor drawn. I’m going to have to do this exercise several times; there is much for me to learn here.
The other site, “How to Draw a Horse,” is equally useful, with a major difference. This second site again gives detailed, step-by-step instructions, and there is much to learn from the techniques presented. The difference between the two sites, however, is obvious from the very first step: The learner must have some talent!
Yes, the first art instructor is obviously talented too, but the object of study was probably purposely selected for any motivated learner to master. In the second, once the learner gets past the layout lines that divide the drawing surface into 3×3 boxes, the learner must simply be given a reference photograph and the foundational sketch of a horse.
Both tutorials are well done but aimed at different learners. Both could be reverse engineered back to the foundational images, but there the differences are blatant. The foundation of the first is a colored circle. The foundation of the second is a sketch. The first image is built entirely on the graphic capacities of the software. The second requires at least a modestly talented artist at its base. Even if the high-priced software is at my disposal, the requirements of the sketch are irreducible to software capabilities.
In the same way, the laws of physics are not enough to explain what we find when we reverse engineer any living organism. Even if we assume the laws of physics (like the drawing software) somehow occurred without a designer, we eventually get to a level where the input of a designer is blatant, unavoidable, and irreducible.

Posted in Science and faith, Personal story | No Comments »

October 11, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Recently I cited the “tree of life” diagrams of Talking Squid in discussing assumptions of evolution. There they have done a good job of explaining past and current tree metaphors from an evolutionist point of view. I’d like to add a few comments to round out the value of the concept.
To begin, Talking Squid does not say, but one could take from the wording, that Darwin invented the tree concept for representing a common origin of all life. In fact we have a tree drawn by Porphyry (234-305 AD) in his introduction to Aristotle’s Categories. It was his graphic representation of what he had developed from Aristotle’s words, and it has been reworked by many over the centuries, including evolutionists seeking a pattern for life’s diversity. More likely Darwin’s drawing was his attempt to flesh out the concept he had been given with organisms he knew. What was new, as Talking Squid points out, is that Darwin included dead ends, a fundamental part of his natural selection concept.
But the tree concept is quite natural (no pun intended) when one begins categorizing anything. Take for example the rocks in my back yard. I can categorize them by type of material of which they are made, resulting in purer constancies being arranged around the edge (farther apart) and less distinct ones being toward the middle (and closer together). If I categorize them by shape, the same will happen, with round in the middle and all manner of shapes branching off at the edges. Whenever there are a variety of features to be considered (whether they be among organisms, sports equipment, or casseroles), distinct features become branches and commonalities become trunks. If you add the assumption that whatever-they-are evolved from each other, then a tree of origins can be easily had, at least at a tersery glance. Here is another difference between Darwin and many other uses of the Tree of Porphyry. Darwin was not seeking a metaphor. He was seeking real origins. Here I part with Talking Squid: the Tree of Life is not a metaphor to an evolutionist, if they in fact are seeking and believing in real, common origins.
If the categories of whatever didn’t actually evolve from each other, then the devil will be in the details. A closer look at the featureless (impure) rocks in my backyard will reveal that the ones with least distinct features actually have more variety in internal elements.
Interestingly enough, the same thing happens when one attempts to categorize life, except that the devil is not only complexity, but also differentiation. This is easily seen in at least three ways:
First, we have learned that small does not always mean less complex, as Aristotle had supposed when he first posited spontaneous generation. Single-celled organisms are still cells, complete with DNA, cell walls, etc., except they are often capable of more functions than cells of “higher” life forms, such as across-species transfer of DNA components.
Second, features can be found in common when common ancestry is impossible. One well-known example is the octopus, which is a mollusk with an eye quite similar to that of a human’s, except it works better than ours in filtered light. This is why Doolittle’s “tree of life” looks more like a banyan tree, which by the way, has multiple trunks only because it drops them DOWN from branches, not the other way around.
Third, on the most fundamental levels organisms are not more similar. They are more different. Archeans (archi-bacteria) are not just simple bacteria, they have an entirely different DNA language for reproduction than do bacteria. Biologically speaking, archeans are more different from bacteria than are you, the reader, from yeast.
The implications are pretty clear that where life is concerned common origin is an imposed concept on a natural phenomenon. The difficulty in accepting this would seem to stem from the requirement that there be no designer. It is too suggestive that it could be not just a designer but the Designer, even though ID never goes there.

Posted in History, Science and faith | No Comments »

October 3, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Have you met Ardi (Ardipithecus ramidus), your “newest oldest ancestor?” Friday’s Wall Street Journal has a full article and slide show online about this fossil find from Ethiopia.
I never cease to be amazed at how every few years a new fossil ancestor is found for humans. Each time it is older, and every time it is closer to our split-off from other primates. Hence, Ardi is our “newest oldest.” I would encourage any reader to carefully decide if they are being led to conclusions by “experts,” when their personal logic might conclude otherwise.
First, do the scientists have any reason to want these fossils to be our ancestors? Yes, they are more likely to get grants, publicity, promotion, and status among peers if they find our newest oldest ancestor. This of course does not in itself say the information is less than accurate, but I suggest it does make me want to review the claims less credulously. Now let’s review:
The slideshow provides excellent images of the fossils and their reconstructions. Slide 1 shows the bone structure of the foot. No, not the hand, the foot. It is obviously prehensile. Remember, the claim is that these bones represent the closest relative to both humans and monkeys. Move on to Slide 3 for a look at the hand. The caption says, “Ardi, unlike apes and chimps, had supple writs, strong thumbs, flexible fingers and power-grip palms shaped to grasp objects like sticks and stones firmly.” Note that the bones of Ardi’s fingers are curved and combine to form a major curve, as is true for all climbing monkeys. Don’t take my word for it. Compare the fingers of a human hand with those of various climbing monkeys in these pictures. Ardi’s fingers are indeed designed for grasping objects like sticks.. in particular, tree branches.
Moving along to Slide 4: “Ardi and her relatives, the researchers say, made their home in the woods, not on Africa’s open savannah grasslands long considered the main area of human development. Their distinctive pelvis suggests they walked easily enough.” Notice how easily enough Ardi is pictured walking on a tree branch, which accommodates the foot thumb more readily than flat ground. Note also that the pelvis of tree monkeys in general is designed to allow movement of the legs straight forward for climbing, yes, unlike gorillas and chimps, which are primarily ground dwellers.
Now consider Slide 7 where you will find a rendering of how these scientists picture Ardi. Notice that the most human features are the upper arms, shoulders, and torso. Slide 9 tells us how fragmented the bones of the skill and pelvis were without comment on how likely the scientists are to have gotten the assembly right; and in Slide 10 we are finally shown just how many bones were used to construct our “ancestor.” Notice which bones are present and more to the point, which are missing. Let us not forget that the most human part of Lucy was her feet, which were never found. It seems that the less data we have, the more human the parts must be.
Thinking for myself, I have not come to the same conclusions as the experts about Ardi’s place in human ancestry. What do you think? What you think really is more important than what you are told.
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual.” ~ Galileo Galilei

Posted in Notable Quotes, Science and faith | No Comments »

September 13, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

On August 26 Blogging Heads aired John McWhorter’s interview with Michael Behe about Behe’s latest book, The Edge of Evolution. The firestorm resulting from McWhorter’s open admiration for Behe’s work reminds me of the Muslim reactions to published cartoons of Mohammed, and the reasons are similar. Both reactions are reactions to degradation of men held as sacred in their respective belief systems.
In his book, Behe acknowledges value in Darwinian evolution theory, but then suggests the unthinkable: that there are limits to what Darwinian Theory can explain. This would be “the edge,” and Behe demonstrates the edge with multiple examples. The examples are not simply theoretical, but empirical. This is a threat to the view that Darwinian evolution is a “universal acid” that dissolves away all other explanations. Before Darwinism, claims of universal application were reserved for concepts such as omnipresence or omnipotence, which of course were reserved for references to deity, and then only in certain religions.
I think we need another book entitled The Edge of ID. This might help Darwinists with the problem of conflating Intelligent Design and Creationism. ID asks the question, “Is there evidence of intelligent design in the world we experience and can empirically measure?” The edge is empiricism, and involves no historical or religious texts. Religion on the other hand attempts to answer “Who is the Designer?” and draws extensively (sometimes exclusively) upon ancient texts. ID never crosses the line of the repeatable experiment.
Perhaps this inability to see the edge is why staunch Darwinists do not see the edge they cross from Darwinian science into the religious realms of explaining all and taboos of questioning the text. Everything has an edge.. unless of course it is the One God.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

September 6, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

Irony permeates the evolution-ID debate. Even so, I’m amazed that I did not catch this one sooner.
The whole argument for preventing ID from entering the education system is that it is religion. It is religion because to test any ID question assumes that there may be an intelligence beyond all matter and energy that imposes purpose upon the cause-and-effect world that we experience. A designer is thus a possible cause of matter, or energy, or its manipulation; and intelligence suggests the manipulation has purposive direction.
The whole reason for the inception of Darwinian evolution was to find a way to explain the diversity and complexity of life, including all cause and effect for it, without dependence upon a cause outside the material system—no outside cause; no designer, no purposive direction. Assigning “designer” due to final cause is not a consideration.
In order for Darwinian evolution to be the source of the diversity of life, there must be no final cause. Final cause implies some force, pre-existing condition, and/or purpose that inevitably draws a process in some fixed direction, which would then be the final cause. In order for final cause to be avoided, all biological change, including mutation, must be either random or based purely upon circumstances resulting from previous randomness. No conception of future outcomes can ever be a factor for what happens in the present or what happened in the past.
Here is the irony: Darwinists object to ID because it investigates the possibility of final cause, but the objection itself is based on final cause.
Let’s review that slowly:
1. ID looks for final cause.
2. Darwinists say that considering final cause is not science; it is religion.
3. Darwinists object to ID because of where it might lead.
4. Where something might lead is a final cause consideration.
5. The Darwinian objection to ID is a final cause consideration.
6. The Darwinian objection to ID is not science; it is religion, based on their own definition.

Posted in Science and faith | No Comments »

August 23, 2009 by Dr. Mc.

So much is argued back and forth about the flagellum as either designed or evolved. In one particular YouTube video an argument for evolution is answered with an animation of the construction of a flagellum. No narrative accompanies it, but those who posted it apparently consider the animation a “nightmare” for evolutionists.
Before adding my two cents worth, it is important to make clear that there is at least one relevant point about which evolutionists and design theorists agree: No complete or partial organs (or organelles, for that matter) can continually exist for which there is no current advantage, even if a future advantage could be envisaged with additional parts. Both would agree that storage and application of information is costly to any organism, and therefore survival and reproductive advantage goes to the organism that is first to drop the useless information and its subsequent processes. This opinion is most easily justified with blind cave fish and salamanders, and other creatures that have apparently lost sight due to lives in darkness.
In addition design theorists would agree for metaphysical commitments. If there is a designer, the designer would incorporate the part when needed. Why before? Likewise most evolutionists would agree with the statement for metaphysical commitments. For information to be maintained only for future usefulness would imply first cause or purpose-driven evolution. This would erode the whole reason for the current popularity of Darwinian theory—the elimination of the need for purpose, i.e., God.
It is fascinating to watch the assembly video, but I want to call attention to one particular aspect that illustrates the design inference all by itself. Appropriately shaped proteins begin to appear and assemble at the inner surface of the cell wall, but 24 seconds into the video a different sequence begins. Illustrated in white, five proteins rise up through the middle of the forming structure and assemble into a component that punches through the cell’s inner and outer walls as it assembles a column of molecules underneath. Then at 31 seconds it ejects (like an emptied fuel tank in the shuttle launch sequence) and a second assembler comes together to begin the next phase of assembly. That in turn ejects at 45 seconds, after the curved portion of the shaft has been completed, and a third assembler begins to come together at 53 seconds. This third machine is featured with more detail, and you can see how it guides rising parts into place for the assembly of the flagellum whip propeller itself.
What I want to point out is the implication of these three machines as “tools,” necessary for assembly of the flagellum, and not part of the final product. Any one is enough to confound Darwinian theory, based on Darwin’s now-famous formula for how to do it—”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
If the flagellum parts could assemble without an assembler, then the assembler coming into existence by chance mutation later would not give reproductive advantage to the organism. If the flagellum parts could not assemble without an assembler, then the flagellum parts would not be retained (having no reproductive advantage) until chance mutation of an assembler later gave them purpose. Both proteins must come into existence at the same time for either to be retained. This is irreducible complexity, and this is what Darwin would agree breaks down his theory.
The Evolution of the Flagellum video that the animation video answers begins with the argument that one must exhaust every corner of biology for possible alternatives before one could say with confidence that irreducible complexity occurs. This is the God-of-the-gaps argument of which Darwinists often accuse Creationists: “If there is anything that cannot be explained by evolution, then God must have done it.” In this case, it is Darwin-of-the-gaps: “If there is anything that Darwinism cannot explain, then some day we will find something that is consistent with Darwinism.” It fails, because we don’t have to wait. It fails by logic. Either one molecule came first, or the other, or they were simultaneous. There are no other options upon which to wait. Charles Darwin did not know about organelles, but his falsification formula indicates that he was an honest scientist. One does not have to wait for the impossible. One must only allow logic its logical end.

Posted in Science and faith, Uncategorized | No Comments »