Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 86

April 5, 2022

A surgeon protests scientific “gatekeeping”

Sometimes the facts suppressed are not crucial but then sometimes they are:

Most people prefer experts, of course, especially when it comes to health care. As a surgeon myself, I can hardly object to that tendency. But a problem arises when some of those experts exert outsized influence over the opinions of other experts and thereby establish an orthodoxy enforced by a priesthood. If anyone, expert or otherwise, questions the orthodoxy, they commit heresy. The result is groupthink, which undermines the scientific process.

The COVID-19 pandemic provided many examples. Most medical scientists, for instance, uncritically accepted the epidemiological pronouncements of government-affiliated physicians who were not epidemiologists. At the same time, they dismissed epidemiologists as “fringe” when those specialists dared to question the conventional wisdom.

Or consider the criticism that rained down on Emily Oster, a Brown University economist with extensive experience in data analysis and statistics. Many dismissed her findings—that children had a low risk of catching or spreading the virus, an even lower risk of getting seriously ill, and should be allowed to normally socialize during the pandemic—because she wasn’t an epidemiologist. Ironically, one of her most vocal critics was Sarah Bowen, a sociologist, not an epidemiologist.

The deference to government-endorsed positions is probably related to funding. While “the free university” is “historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery,” President Dwight Eisenhower observed in his farewell address, “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.” He also warned that “we should be alert to the…danger that public policy could itself become captive of a scientific technological elite.” Today we face both problems.

Jeffrey Singer, “Against Scientific Gatekeeping” at Reason (from the May 22 issue)

Much harm was done to children and teens by the COVID Crazy, for example. Let’s see how easy and honest any discussion of “Trust the Science!” will be now that the facts are beginning to trickle in.

See, for example, CDC report details mental health crisis among teens during pandemic Teens were ne3ver at serious risk and anyone could have predicted the crisis from locking them down.

Copyright © 2022 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 »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 05, 2022 20:00

As evolutionary biologists slowly kill off Darwinism… hacking down the Tree of Life, even…

Politicking about what is taught in schools and fronted in textbooks should start to morph into something more rational as key Darwinian assumptions are quietly abandoned. Get this:

Classic evolutionary theory holds that species separate over time. But it’s fuzzier than that – now we know they also merge…

In that southern California classroom, I told my students that once a species diverged from its ancestor – when it became unable to interbreed and form fertile offspring – those branches were separate, forever isolated. But, even as I spoke the words, I knew something wasn’t exactly right.

I was studying phytoplankton at the time. Single-celled creatures such as phytoplankton reproduce by cell division, which makes the question of what’s an offspring tricky. When you clone yourself, which one is the ancestor?

Graduate students down the hall in a microbiology lab regularly used viruses to transfer genes from one species to another. And gene shuffling wasn’t just happening by manipulation. I’d heard seminars about how different species of bacteria naturally perform a kind of sexual reproduction called conjugation, transferring genes from one to another. How did that kind of gene-hopping fit into the concept of a branching tree?

What I didn’t know then was that, even as I ambivalently placed the overhead film on the projector, the concept of the tree of life had begun to wilt. Four decades on, it’s morphed entirely.

‘That whole abstraction of evolution as being a tree, we always knew was a little inadequate,’ Rasmus Nielsen, a geneticist at the University of California at Berkeley and co-author of the book An Introduction to Population Genetics (2013), told me by video call. ‘But now we know it’s really inadequate.’

Juli Berwald, “The web of life” at Aeon (April 5, 2022)

And she can apparently keep her job. Wow.

You may also wish to read: A physicist looks at biology’s problem of “speciation” in humans

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 05, 2022 19:32

ID types are unfair to panspermia? Eric Anderson replies

Rob Sheldon has written to say that ID types unfairly accuse panspermia advocates (those who think life on Earth came from comets) of kicking the can down the road. Here is Eric Anderson’s view:

The analogies of unfair criticism are conflating issues. If we had asked the doctor what caused the cancer and he did nothing more than cheerfully reply that he had removed it, then we would most certainly have a legitimate complaint that he didn’t answer our question. The ID approach to OOL is nothing like this.

The primary question on the table with abiogenesis/OOL research for generations has always been “How did life arise?” The location is secondary, almost to the point of being a bit player in the discussion.

So if someone is trying to explain life on Earth by claiming that life arose elsewhere and came to Earth, then they are not even touching the primary question. Yes, logically, it is certainly possible that life existed outside of Earth and then came to Earth, and we need to be open to that possibility. But it doesn’t help explain how life arose.

So to the extent that one is interested in how life arose (the OOL question that has always been on the table, after all), then any version of panspermia is most definitely kicking the can down the road, both practically and logically, and it is fair to point that out.

It is also not philosophical to ask about conditions elsewhere. That is a perfectly legitimate scientific question. And so far as we know, from everything observed at a distance and from the small-scale off-Earth explorations done to date, there is no reason to think that any other conditions elsewhere in the known universe are going to suddenly radically change the analysis and explain OOL. (Then we add in the transport question, which is a perfectly legitimate additional challenge.)

None of the 4 possible panspermia approaches you listed provide any help at all in explaining what we know is required for living organisms: sophisticated, complex, integrated, nano-technology-based machinery, information-rich systems with storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, controls, regulatory networks and the like.

Whether life arose early in the universe, or there was high radioactivity, or there was a magnetic Big Bang — all of these are utterly impotent to explain what actually needs to be explained. And saying that life has always existed in an eternal universe just avoids the question and doesn’t hold a lot of water today.

So I don’t think it is at all fair to say that ID proponents are engaging in philosophy and refusing to engage with the science. Personally, I would be perfectly happy to see some kind of panspermia proposal that helps explain life on Earth. But so far, there has been precious little even on the transportation side, and absolutely nothing that helps explain the underlying primary question on the table: How did life arise?

Is panspermia a sound idea in origin of life studies? Readers are encouraged to weigh in.

Note: One thing panspermia should certainly do is gladden the hearts of the searchers for life on exoplanets. If life by comet happened even once…

Have a look at: Rob Sheldon: ID types are unfair to panspermia (the hypothesis that life came from space). Sheldon: The answer to critics of panspermia, is that it is not intended as an origin of life (OOL) theory; rather, it answers the question “Where did life on Earth come from?” So indeed, it is erroneous to accuse panspermia advocates of “kicking the can down the road.”

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 05, 2022 07:40

Rob Sheldon: ID types are unfair to panspermia (the hypothesis that life came from space)

Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon defends panspermia in a recent note:

Having been an advocate for a version of panspermia that I call panzooia, I take criticisms seriously.

The basic complaint from ID, is that panspermia “kicks the can down the road” without ever explaining OOL.

This is unfair criticism. It is like saying to the obstetrician, “Thank you for delivering a healthy baby but you never explained where he gets his consciousness from.” Or complaining to the surgeon, “Thank you for removing the cancerous tumor, but you never explained what caused it in the first place.”

The answer to critics of panspermia, is that it is not intended as an origin of life (OOL) theory; rather, it answers the question “Where did life on Earth come from?”

Now you might argue, “We don’t care about life on Earth, we want to know about OOL of life in the universe.” Well, that’s a different question, and we have considerably less data to go on. At this point, it stops being a science question, and more of a philosophy question.

For if life arrived by a comet from another solar system, how are we to determine the conditions in that other solar system? The best answer, and the answer given by every panspermia person I know, is “I don’t know.” Which is a perfectly fine answer, and quite scientific. Demand for more precision is simply philosophical at that point. That’s why it is unfair to raise philosophical objections to a perfectly scientific position. If ID wants to be a science, it must avoid delving into speculative philosophy, because everyone will then say “It’s not a science.”

But I would argue, “I don’t know” is a hole big enough to drive a truck through. When science admits ignorance, this is a chance to (a) devise experiments, (b) construct theories, (c) debate the usefulness of potential theories, ie. philosophy. It’s a opportunity, not a show-stopper. So rather than criticize panspermia, help us out. Offer suggestions.

And in actuality, panspermia advocates have developed grand theories of OOL, but they are reluctant to explain them, perhaps because of the ridicule.

(1) One rather ancient view is that the universe is eternal, and has always had life in it. Sir Fred Hoyle (1915–2001) was of the opinion that the Big Bang never happened. It is not a popular view today, and I can only count four or five Hoyle devotees today who hold this view, but it is not an unreasonable view, simply one that now has to explain away the evidence for the Big Bang.

I say this, because these people have received much unnecessary ridicule for doubting the scientific consensus. They should be treated respectfully, as co-belligerents in this war against scientific consensus, and not as kooks.

(2) Another view is that the life arose very early in the universe, when the Cosmic Background Radiation was between 0 C and 100 C and all the comets in the universe were balls of water. Then the matter of the universe was mostly liquid water, and the “resources” for life were at an all-time high. I have met one or two that hold this view.

(3) A third view is that radioactivity was higher in the early universe, with some elements made in the Big Bang that decayed shortly thereafter, or perhaps were formed in supernovae in the early universe and incorporated into comets. This radioactivity both melted the comets and provided a ready energy source for life to grow. So the era of comet-initiated life was extended for a few billion years. This is Chandra Wickramasinghe’’s view.

(4) My own view is perhaps a combination of all of them, that a magnetic Big Bang created abundant oxygen which led to comets which are the dark matter of the universe and some 70% of the matter in the universe. These comets carry both life and magnetite machinery for extracting energy from magnetic fields, so that life can grow even in the deep recesses of space. The same magnetite machinery enables information to be collected and concentrated. Then OOL is a transfer of concentrated information from magnetism to chemistry, and all the OOL theories starting with chemistry try to begin at the wrong step. A corollary is that the universe was created with magnetic information that provided the information needed for life.

So indeed, it is erroneous to accuse panspermia advocates of “kicking the can down the road.” Maybe ID people can listen harder and speak less brashly.

Sheldon is also the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent and The Long Ascent, Volume II .

Readers, are there ID-related objections to panspermia?

See also: ID types are unfair to panspermia? Eric Anderson replies Anderson: The primary question on the table with abiogenesis/OOL research for generations has always been “How did life arise?” The location is secondary, almost to the point of being a bit player in the discussion.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 05, 2022 07:01

April 4, 2022

Film premieres today: Cell membranes as a challenge in the origin of life

Cells can’t exist without membranes to protect them. So any explanation of the origin of life needs to explain the development of cell membranes. Some scientists claim cell membranes would have been easy to create through chemical evolution. But is this really true? In this episode of Long Story Short, dive into some of the obstacles chemical evolution would have to overcome in order to produce the first cell membranes. This is the third of several episodes about the origin of life presented as part of the Long Story Short series.

Here are earlier episodes of Long Story Short, an education you actually have time for.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 04, 2022 18:57

Will Elon Musk get the Babylon Bee out of Twitter Jail?

Yes, yes, we should be reporting on something else. All in good time.

But Elon Musk has just become Twitter’s biggest shareholder, after slamming the social medium for anti-free speech activities. And he did give the Bee an interview, claiming “I’m not perverted enough to be on CNN”

That should get both the Bee and its hive of critics buzzing.

The most significant thing to see about all this is that the Bee is doing what late night comics used to do but now dare not. Someone needs to fix that.

So, brought to you by the Uncommon Descent News Coffee Room (Bagels and Biscuits Night):

Reax:

Gizmodo: “The richest man on earth and tech’s most petulant CEO, Elon Musk, became the biggest shareholder of Twitter last month, a social network he said was “failing to adhere to free speech principles.” Actually, the freest people on Eareth are the richest so it makes sense.

PJ Media: Following Twitter’s suspension of the Babylon Bee, Elon Musk appeared to get a little irritated. In late March, Musk asked his more than 80 million followers what to do about Twitter’s failure to adhere to free speech principles.

The Bee on the new Big Guy: “Liberals Outraged To Learn 10% Of Twitter Now Owned By African-American”:

“Elon’s foreigner ways aren’t welcome here,” said Twitter Programming Director Xerxie Vamoosixx, (xe/xir.) “I watched a TikTok video about a Salon article about a tweet from a journalist that said Elon is ‘based,’ which is another word for transphobic. I have literally not stopped shaking and throwing up on my desk since I found out.”

Whatever will Bee will Bee. Meanwhile, some current favourites to relax with before we get on to the Other News (= what we are supposed to be doing):

● Rat Colony Beneath D.C. Disgusted To Find City Infested With Politicians

RAT LAND—A rat colony underneath Washington, D.C. recently became aware of a surface world with blue skies, warm sunlight, and abundant garbage. The colony, ruled by a council of noble volunteers, was planning a great move to the “land of plenty” until it was discovered to be infested with hundreds of politicians.

● Under Florida Law Bengay Forced To Rebrand As Benstraight

“Due to Ron DeSantis’s new legislation, the word ‘gay’ is now completely forbidden in the state of Florida. At least—that’s what it said in all my favorite left-wing media sources,” said J&J Vice President Damien Creemstank. “This rebranding effort will make our product legal again, and should increase our sales in the homophobic bigot community.”

● Elijah Criticized By Israel For ‘Unloving Satire’ Toward The Prophets Of Baal

“Yeah, I know our entire nation has forsaken the true God of Heaven to follow idols, but did he really have to use verbal attacks like that?” said one local magistrate. “He told the prophets of Baal ‘maybe your god is taking a dump on the toilet and can’t hear you.’ That’s just crude and uncalled for.”

Also: The Bee is selling “The Bee’s Last Tweet” as an NFT (a non-fungible token) at Deep Red Sky for $283. Only 3189 are available.

More Bee:

From the Babylon Bee (still in Twitter jail)
This stuff is not our usual line of coverage. But in these strange times — when Woke American billionaires tell us all when we may and may not laugh — you might be missing the Bee’s sendup of some of the most asinine upperclassmen in Western history. So here’s your fix.

You may also wish to laugh your way through: The Babylon Bee is in Twitter Jail… For your Saturday evening amusement, here are some of their latest stories, including Adam Confused By New Creature God Put In Garden As He Is Not A Biologist.

and

As the Babylon Bee staff wait it out in Twitter Jail… The Babylon Bee’s Twitter Account Was Suspended, But That Made Its Story Go Viral “If Twitter’s goal had been to remove the harmful content, it backfired spectacularly. That original tweet, which was posted on March 15, had largely flown under the radar – yet when news that the parody site’s account was suspended, the tweet suddenly went viral.” Look, it’s an updated version of “Banned in Boston,” right?

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

1 like · Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 04, 2022 18:31

April 3, 2022

Casey Luskin and Hank Hanegraff on Adam and Eve

Casey Luskin discusses what we might learn from the debate:

Hank Hanegraaff, the host of the broadcast and the podcast, is joined by Dr. Casey Luskin, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture, and author of “Lessons Learned (and Not Learned) from the Evangelical Debate Over Adam and Eve” in the upcoming issue of the Christian Research Journal. Hank and Dr. Luskin discuss why so many Christians are so quick to abandon the belief of a historical Adam and Eve, theistic evolution, evolutionary creationism, the argument that human genetic diversity can’t be explained by an original Adam and Eve and more.

Note: If Adam and Eve are mythical figures, the problem for Christians is the Scriptural statement,

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. – 1 Corinthians 15:22, NIV

Proclaiming Adam to be a myth naturally raises the question about the promises of Christ. This is one of the reasons Woke churches tend to be empty ones. – O’Leary for News

You may also wish to read: Casey Luskin: The Mytho-History Of Adam, Eve, and William Lane Craig. Craig got swapped into the production at the last minute… Seriously, Luskin is reviewing, over a series of posts, William Lane Craig’s In Quest of the Historical Adam. Long a defender of orthodoxy, Craig seems to want to prune the orthodoxies he is expected to defend.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 03, 2022 20:18

Steve Meyer on whether extraterrestrials created life, as opposed to an intelligence outside nature

This is the fifth and final excerpt from Steve Meyer’s chapter, “What is the evidence for intelligent design?” in The Comprehensive Guide to Science and Faith: Exploring the Ultimate Questions About Life and the Cosmos (2021):

Could intelligent extraterrestrials have created life on Earth?:

Of course, some scientists, such as Francis Crick, Fred Hoyle, and even Richard Dawkins, have postulated that an intelligence elsewhere within the cosmos might explain the origin of the first life on Earth. Crick proposed this idea after candidly acknowledging the prohibitively long odds against life arising spontaneously here on Earth.4 He consequently proposed that life first arose by some undirected process of chemical evolution somewhere else in the universe and then continued to evolve, eventually producing an intelligent form of alien life. This immanent intelligence — an extraterrestrial agent rather than a transcendent God — designed and then “seeded” a simpler form of life on Earth. Hence, the term panspermia (from the Greek pan, “all,” and sperma, “seed”).

Satisfied by Panspermia?

Though logically possible, I’ve never found this explanation for the origin of life or the origin of biological information satisfying. For one thing, any theory of the origin of life, whether purporting to explain the origin of the first life here on Earth or elsewhere in the cosmos, must account for the origin of the specified information necessary to configure matter into a self-replicating system — something that most biologists take as a sine qua non of a genuinely living organism. Yet those who propose panspermia have not explained, or even seriously grappled with, the problem of the origin of specified biological information.

Stephen C. Meyer, “Intelligent Design: Theistic Implications?” at Evolution News and Science Today (March 29, 2022)

“Yet those who propose panspermia have not explained, or even seriously grappled with, the problem of the origin of specified biological information.” – Meyer No, but they don’t need to, do they? Their seamless blend of science fiction and non-fiction would be rudely interrupted by needless complexities in the plot…

The whole series is here.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 03, 2022 19:59

Kirk Durston on Sabine Hossenfelder and God

Biophysicist Kirk Durston offers some feedback to theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder:

Lots of comments, including “You are dead on that she avoids talking about how space, time, matter, and energy came into existence. Right now I’m reading Eric Metaxas’ book “Is Atheism Dead” and enjoying it, I recommend it if you haven’t seen it.” – Douglas Ell

You may also wish to see Kirk Durston’s Evolution and Faith

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 03, 2022 19:04

At Mind Matters News: What do Hindus think about the Big Bang? The cyclic universe?

Hinduism posits a creator God but assumes the creation of cyclic universes. Michael Egnor interviews Arjuna Gallagher on the topic:

Arjuna Gallagher: With regard to quantum physics, my favorite explanation is that it’s like the pixels in a video game that don’t render until you actually move the screen there, or maybe it renders a little bit ahead of time so that it can predict where you’re going to move and not have any lag. Similarly with quantum physics, if you’re not looking at the particle, it hasn’t selected a state.

This is done in computer processing and video games to save on computational power, and perhaps something similar goes on with the universe. Of course, we [Hindus] would put the observer in every living entity, not just in humans, so that changes things somewhat. But I guess some living entities aren’t actually affected by the change in state of certain quantum functions, so the wave state might not change until a human looks at it in many cases.

I’m not sure where you’d find that in the metaphysics of the tradition. We have this idea of the material energy that God is the largest and the smallest, so he’s both containing the universe and inside of every atom in the universe, and everything’s going on. [We use] the Sanskrit word shakti for God’s powers and energies. With that, miracles and all sorts of things are possible…

But it does seem to make sense because the idea here is that the material universe is meant to deliver sensory experiences to living entities in order to have effects on their consciousness, which ultimately brings them back to God and helps them overcome their selfish desires and so on. If you see the universe as meant for that purpose, then matter could be explained as — rather than something out there that exists independently — like an algorithm that governs the deliverance of experiences to living entities.

News, “What do Hindus think about the Big Bang? The cyclic universe?” at Mind Matters News (March 28, 2022)

Takehome: In the Hindu view, the material universe is meant to enable living consciousnesses to have sensory experiences that ultimately bring them back to God. That’s hardly a materialist view.

Here are the two previous discussions:

What do the world’s 1.2 billion Hindus think about the mind? Neurosurgeon Michael Egnor interviews Hindu Arjuna Gallagher on the similarities and differences between that tradition and Western theism. Egnor and Gallagher discuss the concept of God (or gods) karma, and reincarnation, in light of what we can really know about the world we live in.

and

Understanding the Hindu view of free will and evil Arjuna Gallagher points out that concepts of reincarnation and karma make both problems look very different in the Hindu tradition. Michael Egnor observes that recognition of evil is a strong argument for the existence of God, yet a key source of doubt. Perhaps the topic is simply beyond us.

You may also wish to read: Michael Egnor appeared on the podcast hosted by Arjuna Gallagher, Theology Unleashed, with atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty Here is a link to all the segments with transcript and notes.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on April 03, 2022 19:00

← Previous 1 2 … 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 … 592 593 Next →

Michael J. Behe's Blog

Michael J. Behe's profile
219 followers

Michael J. Behe isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.