Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 433

September 10, 2019

How are science journals changing?

New approaches may affect how issues of interest to our readers are discussed:

Journals are evolving into information platforms. This development provides a key to understanding recent trends in science publishing, and raises important questions about its future. …
The validation and filtration of scientific knowledge, which principally occur through the process of peer review, have proven more difficult to replicate. But even here, the leaves are stirring. In physics, platforms such as quantum (https://quantum-journal.org/), researchers.one (https://www.researchers.one/) and, perhaps most impressively, SciPost (https://scipost.org/) are experimenting with innovative approaches such as transparent peer review, user comments and even doing away with the concept of accepting or rejecting papers entirely. Their editorial and business models also differ, but are predicated on the idea of being controlled by fellow scientists, open access and not for profit. Whether or not these services can, to use the parlance of tech, be made to scale under these conditions is an open question. But there is no doubt they are gaining traction
Editorial, “Rise of the platforms” at Nature (Nature Physics volume 15, page 871 (2019))

Would these newer approaches to science publishing make it easier to discuss difficult topics? For example, if Gunter Bechly could have been evaluated only on his work and not on the fact that he switched sides in the Darwin wars, wouldn’t that be better for everyone but Darwin trolls?

See also: Gunter Bechly: Farewell, says the apeman Why wave goodbye? Because if this skull is a guide, the transition from not-really-Lucy to a-bit-like-Lucy to almost-Lucy to Hi, Lucy!! never really happened.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 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

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 10, 2019 13:04

Sean Carroll: Physicists don’t even want to understand quantum mechanics

Readers may remember the recent Nature review of cosmologist Sean Carroll’s new book, Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. Now, at the New York Times, Carroll reveals that

For years, the leading journal in physics had an explicit policy that papers on the foundations of quantum mechanics were to be rejected out of hand. Of course there are an infinite number of questions that scientists could choose to worry about, and one must prioritize somehow. Over the course of the 20th century, physicists decided that it was more important to put quantum mechanics to work than to understand how it works. And to be fair, part of their rationale was that it was hard to actually see a way forward. What were the experiments one could do that might illuminate the measurement problem?
The situation might be changing, albeit gradually. The current generation of philosophers of physics takes quantum mechanics very seriously, and they have done crucially important work in bringing conceptual clarity to the field. Empirically minded physicists have realized that the phenomenon of measurement can be directly probed by sufficiently subtle experiments. And the advance of technology has brought questions about quantum computers and quantum information to the forefront of the field. Together, these trends might make it once again respectable to think about the foundations of quantum theory, as it briefly was in Einstein and Bohr’s day. Meanwhile, it turns out that how reality works might actually matter. Our best attempts to understand fundamental physics have reached something of an impasse, stymied by a paucity of surprising new experimental results. Scientists discovered the Higgs boson in 2012, but that had been predicted in 1964. Gravitational waves were triumphantly observed in 2015, but they had been predicted a hundred years before. It’s hard to make progress when the data just keep confirming the theories we have, rather than pointing toward new ones.
Sean Carroll, “Even Physicists Don’t Understand Quantum Mechanics” at New York Times

Carroll wants a multiverse out of any new findings, one suspects. One question many might have is, apart from the lack of a multiverse, how bad is the current situation in physics? What, besides that, is going wrong?

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

See also: At Nature: The “bizarre logic” of the multiverse is explored in a review of cosmologist Sean Carroll’s new book, Something Deeply Hidden: Quantum Worlds and the Emergence of Spacetime. Crease writes as if he would very much like to buy into Carroll’s ideas but still thinks that sanity has something to offer. Possibly, many establishment science figures teeter on that brink.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 10, 2019 12:01

Food for thought on digital media manipulation and potential impacts (think about, on how ID, theism, the gospel and gospel ethics, etc. are often perceived)

While we of UD have but little interest as a blog in 2020 US election campaign tactics etc and endorse no candidate, the research by Dr. Robert Epstein on How Big Tech’s Algorithms Can Impact Opinions and Votes speaks far more broadly. We have cause to be concerned (and no, it’s not just Wikipedia’s notorious biases):

Let’s clip from the YT blurb, to help focus discussion:

Just what are some of the methods that tech giants like Google and Facebook can [–> and per the discussion, sometimes DO] use to shift their users’ attitudes, beliefs [–> think, worldviews and policy/cultural agendas], and even votes? How do search engine rankings impact undecided voters? [–> strongly] How powerful of an impact can search engine algorithms have on our perceptions and actions, without us even knowing? [–> because, they are perceived to be objective] And why aren’t more people researching these things? This is American Thought Leaders, and I’m Jan Jekielek. Today we sit down with Dr. Robert Epstein, the former editor-in-chief of Psychology Today. He is currently a senior research psychologist at the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology and a leading expert on search engine bias. We explore his meticulous research into tech giant bias, and the startling discoveries he has made . . .

This raises, again, the matter of straight vs spin as has been commonly raised here at UD:

Independent journalist Sharyl Atkisson raises further concerns (and embed refuses).

Let us ponder. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 10, 2019 04:35

Does The Bible “condone” slavery, even as Darwin opposed it?

It seems, this issue is on the table here at UD again, and it needs to be publicly corrected for record.

As a first step, I link a discussion in response to the oppression thesis used to try to discredit and marginalise the historical contribution of the Christian faith (and to create the false impression that due to “obvious” ethical failure, the gospel can be dismissed). It is also worthwhile to link my recently updated discussion on moral government, objectivity of ethics and law. (While we are at it, here is a summary response on the rhetorical challenge of evil.)

Let me also again put up an infographic that has been featured several times here at UD in response to the rhetorical tactics of too many atheists and fellow travellers:

Now, let me headline a comment just made to Seversky in the boom in honesty thread, given his comment at 26: ” The Bible condones slavery, Darwin condemned it”:

KF, 34: >>
34

kairosfocus September 10, 2019 at 3:46 am

Seversky,

The Bible condones slavery, Darwin [–> a product of the post evangelical awakening, antislavery movement era] condemned it:

With all due respect, over the years you have shown no basis of
authority to draw such a conclusion responsibly, as opposed to
reiterating convenient new atheist rhetoric, in hopes of exploiting
emotive responses when in fact since Plato in the Laws Bk X 360 BC it
has been known that evolutionary materialism has no basis for ethical
comment. Indeed, it is demonstrably an open door to nihilism.

Perhaps, too, you are unaware of the significance of

[a] the difference between ameliorative regulation of what is present and established in culture due to the hardness of hearts (cf. Divorce regulations with the outright declarations that “I hate divorce” [Mal 2:16] and “what God joins, let no man put asunder” [Mt 19:1 – 6]. Also,

[b] the historical and current significance of this argument by undermining, written by the apostle Paul while literally chained to Roman soldier guards and while awaiting trial before Nero Caesar on a potentially capital charge where evidence of supporting Spartacus like uprising or harbouring escaped slaves would lend to the accusations already on the table. So, whatever he did to deal with an escaped slave [who seems to have stolen money] had to be subtly, carefully done. [–> it seems the latest form of WP is allergic to square brackets, another bug not a feature]

I draw this to your attention, as it literally is the textual source
for the motto of the Antislavery Society: Am I not a man and a brother?

Philemon Amplified Bible (AMP)
Salutation

1 Paul, a prisoner [for the sake] of Christ Jesus (the Messiah, the Anointed), and our brother [–> a highly loaded term here] Timothy,

To Philemon our dearly beloved friend and fellow worker, 2 and to [your wife] Apphia our sister [–> cf the telling secondary Antislavery Society motto: “Am I not a woman, and a sister?”], and to [a]Archippus our fellow soldier [in ministry], and to the [b]church that meets in your [c]house [–> thus, of the upper classes; also, this is a PUBLIC letter to the church, to be read out to them and responded to by you as an instruction from God]: 3 Grace to you and peace [inner calm and spiritual well-being] from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Philemon’s Love and Faith

4 I thank my God always, making mention of you in my prayers, 5 because I hear of your love and of your faith which you have toward the Lord Jesus and toward all the [d]saints (God’s people). 6 I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective and powerful because of your accurate knowledge of every good thing which is ours in Christ. 7 For I have had great joy and comfort and encouragement from your love, because the hearts of the saints (God’s people) have been refreshed through you, my brother. [–> notice power of repetition, building up what is to come; also framing his commitment to gospel theology and gospel ethics, with a major lesson to follow]

8 Therefore [on the basis of these facts], though I have enough confidence in Christ to order you to do what is appropriate, 9 yet for love’s sake I prefer to appeal to you—since I am such a person as Paul, an old man [–> thus, elder/senior brother], and now also a prisoner [for the sake] of Christ Jesus [–> note the implied comparison, prisoner, slave]—

A Plea for Onesimus to be Freed

10 I appeal to you for my [own spiritual] child Onesimus, whom I have fathered [in the faith] while a captive in these chains. 11 Once he was useless to you [–> a pun on the name: Useful], but now he is indeed useful to you as well as to me. 12 I have sent him back to you in person, that is, like sending my very heart [–> returning the escapee but in a new context]. 13 I would have chosen to keep him with me, so that he might minister to me on your behalf during my imprisonment for the gospel; 14 but I did not want to do anything without first getting your consent, so that your goodness would not be, in effect, by compulsion but of your own free will. [–> heart softening through gospel ethics]

15 Perhaps it was for this reason that he was separated from you for a while, so that you would have him back forever, 16 no longer as a slave, but [as someone] more than a slave, as a brother [in Christ], especially dear to me, but how much more to you, both in the flesh [as a servant] and in the Lord [as a fellow believer]. [–> boom!]

17 So if you consider me a partner, welcome and accept him as you would me. 18 But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; 19 I, Paul, write this with my [f]own hand, I will repay it in full (not to mention to you that you [g]owe to me even your own self as well). [–> I will cover the costs of manumission and losses due to theft] 20 Yes, brother, let me have some benefit and joy from you in the Lord; refresh my heart in Christ.

21 I write to you [perfectly] confident of your obedient compliance, [h]

since I know that you will do even more than I ask. [–> As in, this is an ethical implication of the gospel]

22 At the same time also prepare a guest room for me [in expectation of a visit], for I hope that through your prayers I will be [granted the gracious privilege of] coming to you [at Colossae]. [–> I too hope for freedom, this is a natural right of the human being, made in God’s image and morally governed as responsibly and rationally free.]

23 Greetings to you from Epaphras, my fellow prisoner here in [the cause of] Christ Jesus, 24 and from Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow workers.

25 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
Footnotes:

Philemon 1:2 Perhaps the son of Philemon and Apphia.
Philemon 1:2 Philemon was responsible to see that this letter was shared with his fellow Colossian believers.
Philemon 1:2 Prior to the third century a.d. churches customarily met in private homes.
Philemon 1:5 All born-again believers (saints) have been reborn from above—spiritually transformed, renewed, made holy and set apart for God’s purpose.
Philemon 1:11 Paul makes a play on words here because Onesimus means “useful” or “profitable.”
Philemon 1:19 By writing this with his own hand, Paul accepted legal liability.
Philemon 1:19 Philemon evidently was saved through Paul’s ministry and therefore owed Paul a debt that could not be repaid.
Philemon 1:21 This was probably a subtle suggestion by Paul to emancipate Onesimus.

In 107 AD, there is record of a certain Bishop Onesimus of Ephesus.
It has been suggested that this manumission letter was contributed to
the then gathering collection of the NT by him. Thus, contrary to your
ill-founded accusation above, the Bible contains in it a devastating
counter to enslavement and by the like unto this and a fortiori
principles, any other similarly oppressive institution. But, it does so
in the context of heart-softened reformation and moral enlightenment,
not ill advised radical calls for violence and imposition by force.

I suggest, you need to do some rethinking. Especially, as this has been on the table here at UD several times over the years.>>

In addition, we would be well advised to take note of Plato’s warning, which appears in my comment 35:

>>PS:
I clip Plato’s warning, as it is directly relevant to any assertion of
moral claims by advocates or fellow travellers of evolutionary
materialism:

Ath [in The Laws, Bk X 2,350+ ya]. . . .[The avant
garde philosophers and poets, c. 360 BC] say that fire and water, and
earth and air [i.e the classical “material” elements of the cosmos], all
exist by nature and chance, and none of them by art . . . [such
that] all that is in the heaven, as well as animals and all plants, and
all the seasons come from these elements, not by the action of mind, as
they say, or of any God, or from art, but as I was saying, by nature and
chance only [ –> that is, evolutionary materialism is ancient and
would trace all things to blind chance and mechanical necessity] . . . .

[Thus, they hold] that the principles of justice have no existence
at all in nature, but that mankind are always disputing about them and
altering them; and that the alterations which are made by art and by
law have no basis in nature, but are of authority for the moment and at
the time at which they are made.-

[ –> Relativism, too, is not new; complete with its
radical amorality rooted in a worldview that has no foundational IS that
can ground OUGHT, leading to an effectively arbitrary foundation only
for morality, ethics and law: accident of personal preference, the ebbs
and flows of power politics, accidents of history and and the shifting sands of manipulated community opinion driven by “winds and waves of doctrine and the cunning craftiness of men in their deceitful scheming . . . ” cf a video on Plato’s parable of the cave; from the perspective of pondering who set up the manipulative shadow-shows, why.]

These, my friends, are the sayings of wise men, poets and prose writers, which find a way into the minds of youth. They are told by them that the highest right is might,

[ –> Evolutionary materialism — having no IS that can properly ground OUGHT
— leads to the promotion of amorality on which the only basis for
“OUGHT” is seen to be might (and manipulation: might in “spin”) . . . ]

and in this way the young fall into impieties, under the idea that the Gods are not such as the law bids them imagine; and hence arise factions [ –> Evolutionary materialism-motivated amorality “naturally” leads to continual contentions and power struggles influenced by that amorality at the hands of ruthless power hungry nihilistic agendas], these philosophers inviting them to lead a true life according to nature, that is,to live in real dominion over others [ –> such amoral and/or nihilistic factions, if they gain power, “naturally” tend towards ruthless abuse and arbitrariness . . . they have not learned the habits nor accepted the principles of mutual respect, justice, fairness and keeping the civil peace of justice, so they will want to deceive, manipulate and crush — as the consistent history of radical revolutions over the past 250 years so plainly shows again and again], and not in legal subjection to them [–> nihilistic will to power not the spirit of justice and lawfulness].>>

I think this needs to be noted for record, as a corrective to a now drearily familiar atheistical talking point against the heritage of Christendom and against gospel ethics. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 10, 2019 03:24

September 9, 2019

Did you know that much of the diversity of the human brain results from epigenetics

Human chromosomes imaged by the Dixon lab during the metaphase stage of cell division.

human chromosome imaged during cell division/Dixon lab

Not from Darwinism? A technique to reveal cells’ epigenetic features is detailed:

The brain’s prefrontal cortex, which gives us our ability to solve problems and plan ahead, contains billions of cells. But understanding the large diversity of cell types in this critical region, each with unique genetic and molecular properties, has been challenging.

Scientists have known that much of this diversity results from epigenetics (such as the chemical tags on DNA) as well as how epigenetic features ultimately fold up within chromosomes to affect how genes are expressed.

Now, Salk researchers have developed a method to simultaneously analyze how chromosomes, along with their epigenetic features, are compacted inside of single human brain cells. A collaborative team of scientists from the Ecker and Dixon labs combined two different analysis techniques into one method, which enabled them to identify gene regulatory elements in distinct cell types. The work, which was published in Nature Methods on September 9, 2019, paves the way toward a new understanding of how some cells become dysregulated to cause disease. “Salk scientists develop technique to reveal epigenetic features of cells in the brain” at Salk Institute

Paper. (paywall)

See also: Epigenetic change: Lamarck, wake up, you’re wanted in the conference room!

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 09, 2019 15:30

More Salt in the Peppered Moth’s Wounds

The entire history of Kettlewell’s Peppered Moth experiment is littered with problems: doctored photographs, wrong assumptions and slim evidence, followed by genetic analysis revealing that the protein exons coding for color were not changed, but, rather, a transposon (non-random) was inserted in an intron (“junk DNA”).

And now there’s this paper. It seems that the “Caterpillars of the peppered moth perceive color through their skin.”

From the Abstract:

We previously reported that slow colourchange in twig-mimicking caterpillars of the peppered moth (Biston betularia) is a response to achromatic and chromatic visual cues. Here we show that the perception of these cues, and the resulting phenotypic responses, does not require ocular vision. Caterpillars with completely obscured ocelli remained capable of enhancing their crypsis by changing colour and choosing to rest on colour-matching twigs. A suite of visual genes, expressed across the larval integument, likely plays a key role in the mechanism. To our knowledge, this is the first evidence that extraocular colour sensing can mediate pigment-based colour change andbehaviour in an arthropod.

We now ask a simple question: if the caterpillar of the peppered moth can change its coloration independent of its eyes, can the adult form do this also?

One has to wonder: what is left of this “Icon of Evolution”?

Darwin’s finches hybridize, peppered moths can change coloration to match twig color, and the whole while there are Adriatic lizards that, in the lab—with its diet changed, grows cecal valves within two months.

Darwinism is on extremely thin ice.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 09, 2019 09:34

Did some prominent Darwinists retire recently?

A new study seems to substantiate Max Planck’s quip that new paradigms arise when the supporters of the old ones die:

The famed quantum physicist Max Planck had an idiosyncratic view about what spurred scientific progress: death. That is, Planck thought, new concepts generally take hold after older scientists with entrenched ideas vanish from the discipline.
“A great scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it,” Planck once wrote.
Now a new study co-authored by MIT economist Pierre Azoulay, an expert on the dynamics of scientific research, concludes that Planck was right. In many areas of the life sciences, at least, the deaths of prominent researchers are often followed by a surge in highly cited research by newcomers to those fields.
Indeed, when star scientists die, their subfields see a subsequent 8.6 percent increase, on average, of articles by researchers who have not previously collaborated with those star scientists. Moreover, those papers published by the newcomers to these fields are much more likely to be influential and highly cited than other pieces of research.
“The conclusion of this paper is not that stars are bad,” says Azoulay, who has co-authored a new paper detailing the study’s findings. “It’s just that, once safely ensconsed at the top of their fields, maybe they tend to overstay their welcome.”
Peter Dizikes, “New science blooms after star researchers die, study finds” at MIT News Office

Paper. (open access)

Maybe that helps explain why it has become safer to doubt Darwin recently.

Darwinism IS a beautiful theory but then so is astrology The idea that natural selection acting on random mutation could fill the world with exquisitely complex life forms makes sense to fashionable intellectuals today and it doesn’t happen to be true

The Manhattan Contrarian on David Gelernter abandoning Darwinism. What would an urban sophisticate make of doubts about Darwinism? Once the enforcement trolls have been banished below stairs, hasn’t Darwinism become something people patter at cocktail parties, so that others know that they are bicoastal and just deplore! their privilege? Instead of being genuine deplorables who might doubt?

A recap to date (Meanwhile, other engaged brains have been getting restless too):

Brit commentator Melanie Phillips weighs in on David Gelernter dumping Darwin For many intellectuals, it must seem like an agonizing, nasty divorce but Phillips would be well placed to take it in stride.

Lay Catholics questioning Darwinism? It was interesting to see that, just recently, a California Catholic paper has started to smell the coffee at last and picked up on George Weigel’s article from First Things

At First Things, They Are Also Getting Over Darwinism

Another Think Tank Now Openly Questions Darwinism So Power Line is interviewing J. Scott Turner, author of Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. He’s not an “ID guy” but that doesn’t matter. His book’s title tells you what you need to know. He understands that something is wrong. And his insights into insects’ hive mind are a piece in the puzzle.

Hoover Institution interview with David Berlinski

Mathematicians challenge Darwinian Evolution

The College Fix LISTENS TO David Gelernter on Darwin! It’s almost as though people are “getting it” that Darwinism now functions as an intolerant secular religion. Evolution rolls on oblivious but here and there heads are getting cracked, so to speak, over the differences between what really happens and what Darwinians insist must happen.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 09, 2019 05:06

How scientists slowly convert to the idea that the universe itself is alive

Handily explained:

Is the absence of a consensus for the definition of life a reflection of methodological and technical limitations, constrained intellectual frameworks—or both? Science is without a doubt increasingly better at characterizing what life does with each passing day but brings comparatively fewer advances to the identification of what life is and how it originates. In that respect, the current exploration of the question of life could be compared to plumbing, which masters piping, cares about the interactions between the water and the pipes but does not touch on the origin and nature of water.
Is it because the answer resides at scales and resolutions technology cannot yet achieve, or is it that life is the result of exotic physicochemical processes yet to be discovered—or none of those things? Maybe the issue does not reside so much here, but rather in the way we approach the question itself, which is the result of how we are conditioned to think. It may be that life actually is what life does, that the answer has been in front of us all along, so obvious that we just don’t recognize it because our intellectual frameworks do not allow the space for us to see it…
In that frame of reference, Gaia is not a cybernetic feedback system operated unconsciously by the biota anymore but a conscious symbiosis at a planetary scale. Coevolution is not what happens when life comes into being. It merely defines the threshold of our awareness of life’s ability to shape the universe.
Nathalie A. Cabrol, “The Quantum of Life?” at Scientific American

Remember as you read about Gaia and “life’s ability to shape the universe,” that this op-ed appeared in Scientific American, not Mystic Waters News.

Listen carefully and, somewhere in the background, you will hear Darwinian evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne crooning, “I fought Woo-WOO and woo-WOO won.” Some North American readers will recognize a musical snatch here.

In fairness, we warned them. ID isn’t the big enemy. ID proposes to reform evolution studies along real-world lines, not to dump the canon of science.

See also: Why some scientists believe the universe is conscious

and

Panpsychism: You are conscious but so is your coffee mug

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 09, 2019 04:09

September 8, 2019

World population trends modelled 10,000 BC – 2100 AD

Here is a model of the top 15 “countries” across the span from the Agricultural Revolution onwards:

Food for thought on trends and implications. Notice, the principle that trends (like pie-crusts) are made to be broken. To truly predict, we need dynamics and some reasonable idea of contingencies. Don’t forget to take reconstructions of the deep unrecorded past and future projections with a grain of salt. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 08, 2019 08:03

Darwinism IS a beautiful theory. but then so is astrology

David Gelernter, by Doc Searls (Flickr: 2010_08_05_techonomy_154) [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons

I mean, if you leave out the crackpots, the idea that the stars, which are much more significant in size than Earth, rule our destiny makes sense. It’s beautiful and it was just what court intellectual needed, centuries ago. It doesn’t happen to be true.

The idea that natural selection acting on random mutation could fill the world with exquisitely complex life forms makes sense to fashionable intellectuals today and it doesn’t happen to be true :

In a recent essay (Posted: May 1, 2019 ) in the new issue of The Claremont Review of Books, “Giving Up Darwin,” he credits reading Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt as the primary cause of his rejecting neo-Darwinian evolution, a “brilliant and beautiful scientific theory” but one that’s now been overtaken by science. The problem is that, as Huxley once pointed out, a beautiful scientific theory can be destroyed by just one “ugly fact.” (Thomas Henry Huxley, Presidential Address at the British Association (1870); “Biogenesis and Abiogenesis”, Collected Essays, Volume 8, p. 229.)

“Its beauty is important. Beauty is often a telltale sign of truth. Beauty is our guide to the intellectual universe—walking beside us through the uncharted wilderness, pointing us in the right direction, keeping us on track—most of the time.”
– Sean Pitman, ““A fond farewell to a brilliant and beautiful theory” – David Gelernter” at Detecting Design

The poet John Keats (“Beauty is truth, truth beauty, that is all”) would not have liked this message: Sometimes one must choose between beauty and truth.

See also: The Manhattan Contrarian on David Gelernter abandoning Darwinism. What would an urban sophisticate make of doubts about Darwinism? Once the enforcement trolls have been banished below stairs, hasn’t Darwinism become something people patter at cocktail parties, so that others know that they are bicoastal and just deplore! their privilege? Instead of being genuine deplorables who might doubt?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 08, 2019 06:47