Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 181

Video Presentation: Why the Debate Over Intelligent Design Really Matters

I have recently posted a new video presentation on my YouTube channel. In the video I talk about some of the reasons why I think the debate over Intelligent Design and biological origins is of great significance. Aside from just being a fascinating area, it has many implications in several areas of life.

This video, while far from perfect, is a big step up from my last few videos. I’ve done a fair amount of editing on this one, and took time to make it a little more professional, with music, slides, and photos. I hope you enjoy it, and it gets you thinking a little about why this topic is of importance to you also.

Why the Question of Biological Origins Really Matters Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: Michael Egnor takes a more jaundiced view of Richard Lewontin

Michael Egnor asks, re Richard Lewontin, Is it scientific misconduct to make science about materialist atheism?

My friend and colleague Casey Luskin has penned a poignant essay in memory of Richard Lewontin, a Harvard evolutionary biologist who passed away at 92 recently. Casey is a gentleman and a scholar, and very much disposed to finding the best in people. Indeed it seems there was much that was very good in Lewontin’s persona, and Casey highlighted it beautifully in his encomium.

I am not of the opinion, however, that we should speak only good of the dead. The passing of a public figure is a good time to consider his impact, and Lewontin’s impact on American culture and science is something very much worth considering.

By all accounts, Lewontin was a gentleman and a good friend and affable mentor to this colleagues and students. From what I know of him, I think I would have enjoyed his company and valued his friendship. He was a man of remarkable social and intellectual gifts. But in my view, his exercise of these gifts inflicted incalculable damage on the scientific profession and on our culture …

Richard Lewontin was congenial academic but his agenda was to advance a materialist view of science despite his admission of its “patent absurdities.”

Michael Egnor, “Remembering a biologist’s remarkable confession of faith” at Mind Matters News

See also: Tributes to Richard Lewontin (1919 – 2021) Paul Nelson: Lewontin opposed the facile storytelling of much of sociobiology, with its invocation of hypothetical genes for equally hypothetical behavioral traits. The fact that his opposition stemmed in part from his politics is no indictment; his evidential critique holds its value, or stands on its own two legs, independently of the Marxism. Show me the actual data, he would say, or stop the storytelling.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Four models of science and religion

From J. R. Miller at More Than Cake:

Is religion the enemy of science? Is science the only reliable source of knowledge about the origins of the universe and human life? In this video Dr. Miller looks at Ian Barbour’s four models which explore the relationship between science and faith. Dr. Miller shows how each model offers a different answer to these important questions.

00:58 – Conflict Model

05:00 – Independence Model

08:50 – Dialogue Model

11:44 – Integration Model

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Darwinian biologist Jerry Coyne speaks out on a SciAm op-ed’s claims that denial of evolution stems from white supremacy

The Scientific American piece was written by a filmmaker named Allison Hopper. Read all of Coyne’s takedown, to be sure, but note these points:

In my life I’ve met hundreds of creationists, and every one of them was religious. (David Berlinski, whom I haven’t met, may be the one exception, but that’s just one person and he may be dissimulating about religion anyway.) They make no bones about their views, either. Yet in none of these people have I heard anything about white supremacy. Sure, there may be racists among creationists—there has to be given the connection between Evangelical Christianity and the South—but you’d have to essentially make things up to argue that creationism comes from white supremacy and that its connection with religion is “a lie.” (At any rate, were Hopper’s story of Cain and Abel true, it still shows a connection between creationism and religion.) …

I wasn’t aware that the teaching of evolution was systemically racist; do teachers really deny that our ancestors were African? And does Hopper really believe that accepting that will get rid of racism? Really? Even Darwin was a monogenist, saying that all groups of humans arose from a single ancestor who probably lived in Africa. Did that get rid of racism? I don’t think so, though some people think Darwin’s monogenism was part of a strategy to combat racism…

c.) Most telling: several surveys, listed and summarized in this paper, show that blacks and Hispanics deny evolution more than do whites. This is the opposite of what Hopper predicts, but makes sense under the “religion-first” hypothesis, since blacks and Hispanics tend to be more religious than whites in general.

Jerry Coyne, “More mishigas at Scientific American: A claim that opposition to evolution comes from white supremacy, not religion” at Why Evolution Is True (July 11, 2021)

It seems obvious, on reflection, that Hopper’s piece is a disastrously clumsy effort on the part of Scientific American to get Woke. Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne thinks the mag is not just circling the drain but “approaching the drainhole.”

To the extent that the editors couldn’t find someone who at least gets basic facts right, he has a point. But what does that imply? After the war on science and the war on math, are we now having to deal with a war on basic fact-finding?

See also: At Scientific American: “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” Wow. Has the Darwin lobby hired itself a PR firm that recommended getting someone on board to accuse everyone who doubts Darwin of being a “white supremacist”? Quite simply, Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man is surely by far the most racist iconic document ever to be lauded by all the Right People! And getting someone to holler about “white supremacy” among Darwin doubters is, ahem, just a cheap shot, not a response to the stark raving racism in print of the actual document. Guys, try another one.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

A classic from a lost world: Carl Sagan on God

Does anyone remember Carl Sagan (1934–1996) and the Pale Blue Dot?

Why doesn’t this sort of thing seem so cool any more?

Could Privileged Planet have had something to do with it?

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: What if the UAP (UFOs) are much simpler life forms than we think?

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon asks us to consider the possibility that the UABs (UFOs) are something like a life form, drawn to Earth, but not very smart.

Instead of wholly rejecting this view, consider two things:

First, 150 years ago, no one had heard of viruses. Perhaps the very idea might have been, for various reasons, dismissed. But less than two years ago, a virus of only 900 bytes of information shut down most of the world. We would have thought that something very advanced would be needed to do that. But apparently not.

Second, ET has never tried to contact us. Many hypotheses worth considering have been advanced as to why that is so. The theorists tend to assume that ET is more advanced than we are.

But what if, as Sheldon suggests, the exact opposite is true? What if they are so simple that they could survive in space, perhaps generating energy via available elements?

Don’t laugh. One earthly extremophile eats radioactive waste. 

If they are attracted to Earth by our high energy use, they could be generating unexplained phenomena. And they are not contacting us for the same reasons that viruses do not. They have no minds.

News, “What if the UAP (UFOs) are much simpler than we think?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Why assume, if the Pentagon’s now admittedly unexplained phenomena are ET, that they are more advanced than we are? What if the opposite is true? Might that not be a possibility to explore?

You may also wish to read: The Pentagon’s UAP (UFO) report signals a sharp attitude change. The brass have committed themselves to going “wherever the data takes us.” No, they didn’t report UFOs. But they reported enough mysteries to stop merely debunking and discrediting… and follow the evidence.

and

COVID-19: When 900 bytes shut down the world. A great physicist warned us, information precedes matter and energy: Bit before it.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Science historian Michael Flannery offers resources on Darwin and racism

Readers might remember the recent, rather desperate attempt at Scientific American to claim that non-Darwinists are white supremacists — which would be entertaining if the reality were not serious.

At any rate, Michael Flannery weighs in on an attempt to defend Darwin from charges of racism: For example, in a review of Adrian Desmond and James Moore’s Darwin’s Sacred Cause: How a Hatred of Slavery Shaped Darwin’s Views on Human Evolution (Houghton Mifflin Harcourt 2009, 448 pages)

… the essential problem with Desmond and Moore’s effort is their naive assumption that anti-slavery somehow means egalitarian and humanitarian. This is a conceptual problem that haunts the book throughout. There really is no reason to assume an immediate and direct relationship between the one and the other, and the example they themselves give of Charles Loring Brace on p. 328 is misguided and shows the selective treatment they give to this whole subject. Brace was indeed a vocal opponent of slavery and also an ardent Darwinist. What Desmond and Moore do not tell the reader is that Brace viewed blacks as inherently inferior and was himself a vocal opponent of miscegenation. In the words of historian George M. Fredrickson, Brace made “the Darwinian case for differentiation of the races by natural selection . . . [and] ended up with a view of racial differences which was far from egalitarian in its implications” (see his Black Image in the White Mind: the Debate on Afro-American Character and Destiny, 1817-1914, p. 234). Fredrickson quite accurately points out that “Brace’s pioneering effort to develop a Darwinist ethnology in opposition to the American School, although animated to some degree by antislavery humanitarianism, had demonstrated that most of the hierarchical assumptions of the polygenists could be justified just as well, if not better, in Darwinian terms” (p. 235).

The example of Josiah Clark Nott underscores this point. Desmond and Moore spend considerable time showing how the Alabamian’s rabid polygenism formed the basis for an extreme racism and justification for slavery; they fail to point out that in the end Nott was able to reconcile with Darwinism.

Michael Flannery, “Darwin’s Sacred Cause Offers Little New and Nothing of Importance” at Discovery Institute (April 8, 2010)

As noted earlier, in any Darwinian scheme, someone must be the subhuman. Otherwise, there is no beginning to history.

It may be helpful to keep in mind that opposition to slavery was not a radical position for a British gentleman like Darwin. Britain’s economy did not depend on slavery and most of the injustices of the Industrial Revolution were done to people who were not technically slaves. The issues around exploitation in his own environment were fought out on different grounds.

Making heavy weather out of Darwin’s — doubtless sincere and commendable — opposition to slavery seems intended to distract attention to views of his that would certainly be considered racist today.

Louis Agassiz

Dr. Flannery also draws our attention to a lesser known figure, Louis Agassiz (1807-1873) who has baggage in this area that “cannot be lightly discarded or ignored.”

Note: A reader kindly writes to say that Charles Darwin’s Voyage of the Beagle is actually worse in this regard than The Descent of Man. Any who have read it are welcome to weigh in. Is the reader correct?

[image error]

See also: At Scientific American: “Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy” Wow. Has the Darwin lobby hired itself a PR firm that recommended getting someone on board to accuse everyone who doubts Darwin of being a “white supremacist”? Quite simply, Charles Darwin’s Descent of Man is surely by far the most racist iconic document ever to be lauded by all the Right People! And getting someone to holler about “white supremacy” among Darwin doubters is, ahem, just a cheap shot, not a response to the stark raving racism in print of the actual document. Guys, try another one.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Science journalist Suzan Mazur remembers Richard Lewontin

At her blog, Oscillations, science writer Suzan Mazur remembers the late Richard Lewontin (died July 4 of this year):

I asked Richard Lewontin—who some consider the most important evolutionary biologist of the 20th century—during a 2008 book interview for his perspective on Darwinian natural selection.

Lewontin hesitated in dismissing natural selection at the time, telling me: “The problem for the biologist is that natural selection is not the only biological force operating on the composition of populations.” 

But by 2010, following publication of assorted evolution books (including my own) and particularly, the Jerry Fodor/Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini book, What Darwin Got Wrong and ensuing controversy “throughout the evolutionary biology community”—Richard Lewontin would finish what Steve Gould, his friend and collaborator, set out to do. Lewontin would demolish natural selection.

Suzan Mazur, “Richard Lewontin Remembered for Decommissioning Darwinian Natural Selection” at Oscillations (July 6, 2021)

Note: Mazur is the author of a number of books on evolution controversies, including Royal Society: Public Evolution Summit.

Other remembrances of Lewontin:

Richard Lewontin (1929 – 2021) has died

The Scientist’s obit on Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin (1929–2021) notes his takedown of the notion of “race” At The Scientist: “He also wrote a seminal 1972 paper in which he argued there is more genetic variation within members of a population of humans than there is between members of different groups, undermining the idea that there is a genetic basis for the idea of race. “

and

Tributes to Richard Lewontin (1919 – 2021) Paul Nelson: Lewontin opposed the facile storytelling of much of sociobiology, with its invocation of hypothetical genes for equally hypothetical behavioral traits. The fact that his opposition stemmed in part from his politics is no indictment; his evidential critique holds its value, or stands on its own two legs, independently of the Marxism. Show me the actual data, he would say, or stop the storytelling.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Junk DNA: Less junk than ever, it seems

According to a recent paper:

Viruses and immunity are hot topics these days, and a new article in the Journal of Virology, “Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections,” has the potential to be a paradigm-shifter on the standard view that endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are junk DNA. Consider this first line from the abstract. Though the authors are certainly not supportive of intelligent design, (ID), it’s another example of a line from a paper that sounds like it could have been written by a proponent of ID:

“Long disregarded as junk DNA or genomic dark matter, endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) have turned out to represent important components of the antiviral immune response. – Smitha Srinivasachar Badarinarayan and Daniel Sauter, “Switching Sides: How Endogenous Retroviruses Protect Us from Viral Infections,” Journal of Virology, 95(12): E02299-20 (June, 2021)

ERVs have long been a go-to argument against ID from those who believe that our genomes are full of undesigned junk. An outgrowth of this view is that ERVs have no functional importance, and that shared similar ERV sequences in similar genomic locations across different species (e.g., humans and apes) indicate their common ancestry. After, goes this way of thinking, ERVs were clearly not put there for any purpose.

If this paper is correct, however, then ERVs frequently have important immune functions and they should not be presumed to be “junk DNA.” This defeats both the “junk ERV” argument against the design of the genome (human and otherwise). It also challenges those who want to use the supposed junk-status of ERVs as an argument for common ancestry. After all, if ERVs have functions, then shared ERV sequences in similar locations across genomes of different species may reflect functional requirements rather than mere common ancestry.

Casey Luskin, “ Junk No Longer: ERVs Are “Integral” and “Important Components” of Immune Responses” at Evolution News and Science Today

The paper is open access.

Memories, memories: Wasn’t there a Darwinian blogger whose handle, sort of, was ERV? Wonder where she is now …

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Mind Matters News: Quantum physics: Is everything determined? Egnor vs. Papineau, Round 6

Physicalist philosopher David Papineau is clearly unhappy with the implications of quantum mechanics, as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor sets them out:

Michael Egnor: Do you endorse the many worlds phenomenon, the many worlds theory?

David Papineau: I prefer the many worlds view, but I was just saying was consistent with …

Michael Egnor: This is fascinating. David, you have just gotten done ridiculing, ridiculing Aristotelian, Thomistic [00:48:00] metaphysics because it involves the concepts of intelligibility and form, but you have accepted the idea that with every quantum event, an entirely new universe is created. If you’re talking magic, if you’re talking crazy stuff, boy, that is the pinnacle. That is the pinnacle. You think a new universe is created with any quantum event?

David Papineau: I don’t think you should argue in this way if you don’t understand the theory. I don’t think an entirely new [00:48:30] universe is created every time there’s a quantum event. I think there’s a local branching. It doesn’t involve the entire universe at all. It doesn’t proceed any faster than the speed of light. It’s a local thing, nothing magical about it at all.

News, “Quantum physics: Is everything determined? Egnor vs. Papineau” at Mind Matters News

As it happens, many versions of multiverse theory do involve exactly that view. But quite the dustup!

Takehome: As a physicalist, Papineau is quite sure that the universe is deterministic and he endorses the many-worlds (multiverse) theory.

You may also wish to read the earlier portions of the debate:

Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor takes on philosopher David Papineau Round 1. In the debate, Egnor begins by offering three fundamental reasons why the mind is not the brain. Neuroscience caused Egnor to honestly doubt Papineau’s materialist perspective that the mind is simply what the brain does.

Round 2: Philosopher Papineau replies to neurosurgeon Egnor. Dr. Papineau is considered to be one of the best defenders of naturalism (nature is all there is), often called “materialism.” Papineau: Mental processes, including conscious processes, are one in the same as physical processes. I’m curious about how Michael Egnor would answer it.

Round 3: Egnor vs Papineau: The Big Bang has no natural beginning. In the debate between theistic neurosurgeon Michael Egnor and naturalist philosopher David Papineau, the question gets round to the origin of the universe itself. Egnor maintains that the Big Bang, which is held to have created the universe, is an effect with no physical cause. Papineau agrees.
Round 4: Egnor vs. Papineau Egnor defends the mind vs. the brain

Round 4: Philosopher David Papineau does not feel that neurosurgeon Michael Egnor is being “entirely helpful” at this point… It became quite the dustup actually. Egnor deals with the brain as an organ, not a theory, and doesn’t see it as equivalent to the mind. Papineau differs.

Round 5: Can traditional philosophy help us understand mind vs. brain? Michael Egnor asks us to look back to the traditional idea that the soul is the “form” of the body. In the Western world, the traditional view of the soul originated with Greek philosophers, chiefly Aristotle and Plato.

Also: Philosopher: Consciousness Is Not a Problem. Dualism Is! He says that consciousness is just “brain processes that feel like something” Physicalist David Papineau argues that consciousness “seems mysterious not because of any hidden essence, but only because we think about it in a special way.” In short, it’s all in our heads. But wait, say others, the hard problem of consciousness is not so easily dismissed.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana