Latest Tee from Access Research Network: The Blind Watchmaker shirt

Hey, I love this tee quote from French embryologist Rosine Chandebois,

Some call blind the watchmaker who conceived of life, but it is his watch that strikes all of us blind: some are blinded by so much intelligence, others are blind in the worst way because they do not wish to see it at all.
- Rosine Chandebois To Be Done With Darwinism, 1993

Like I said before, there is a whole history of non-Darwinian biology that has simply been suppressed. Gimme a grant and I will research it. Meantime, get the shirt and run.

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Human evolution: Driven by fear of snakes?

According to Lynne Isbell, who has recently published an article, fear of snakes drove the development of human vision and brain capacity.

The idea, proposed by Lynne Isbell, an anthropologist at the University of California, Davis, suggests that snakes and primates share a long and intimate history, one that forced both groups to evolve new strategies as each attempted to gain the upper hand.

Of course, it could just as easily have been fear of yellowjacket hornets, cooties, or scavenging skunks. Did all human fear snakes? Was no one really like Johnny Hart’s “fat broad” and just whammed the stupid thing with a club?

This all reminds me of the aquatic ape theory, which I don’t necessarily discount. I mean, all these ideas are interesting. But I have one plea for all concerned: For your own financial welfare, do what Jean Auel rightly did, and call your idea fiction.

Thinkquote of the day: Intelligent design and common ancestry

On ID biochemist Michael Behe (he of Darwin's Black Box fame) accepting common ancestry, Tom Woodward writes,

The fact that he provisionally accepts common ancestry and yet remains a star in good standing shows Design's flexibility in tolerating members' evolutionary beliefs on certain topics." (Woodward T.E., Doubts about Darwin: A History of Intelligent Design , Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 2003, p.199)

Indeed. The key intelligent design question is whether information in the universe is top down or bottom up . Put simply, is there a mind behind the universe or did it just somehow happen? As George Gilder rightly says, that is the fundamental question.

Common ancestry is an issue for young earth creationists who insist that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. But most of us do not need to believe that. We do, however, need to ask whether the universe and life forms show evidence of intelligent design. Of course, if God designed the universe, he can certainly arrange that different models "roll out" on a sort of schedule, building on earlier models. Whether that is the best explanation of the data may be questioned., of course - unless you are a materialist.

In that case, you must assume that common ancestry is true, whether the data support it or not. Common ancestry is the only circumstance that provides even weak evidence for a bottom-up view of intelligence, which sees mind as arising by slow degrees from mud.

For the record, I do not have a problem with common ancestry, any more than Mike Behe does, but I want to sharply distinguish that from a need to believe in common ancestry, to support materialism. It would make no difference to me if someone came along and showed it wasn't true. Then, biology, like physics, would lack a grand unifying theory. But so?

By the way, sorry for not blogging for a few days. Migraine. Please do not e-mail me with migraine remedies. Contact your local patent office instead. Put your suggestion in the public domain, and share the good news with the whole planet

If you like this blog, check out my book on the intelligent design controversy, By Design or by Chance?. You can read excerpts as well.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

A summary of tech guru George Gilder's arguments for ID and against Darwinism

A critical look at why March of the Penguins was thought to be an ID film.

A summary of recent opinion columns on the ID controversy

A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

A summary of the Catholic Church's entry into the controversy, essentially on the side of ID.

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove's critique of Darwinism.

An ID Timeline: The ID folk seem always to win when they lose.

O’Leary’s comments on Francis Beckwith, a Dembski associate, being denied tenure at Baylor.

Why origin of life is such a difficult problem.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated. Fully anonymous posts and URLs posted without comment are rarely accepted. To Mr. Anonymous: I'm not psychic, so if you won't tell me who you are, I can't guess and don't care. To Mr. Nude World (URL): If you can't be bothered telling site visitors why they should go on to your fave site next, why should I post your comment? They're all busy people, like you. To Mr. Rudeby International and Mr. Pottymouth: I also have a tendency to delete comments that are merely offensive. Go be offensive to someone who can smack you a good one upside the head. That may provide you with a needed incentive to stop and think about what you are trying to accomplish. To Mr. Righteous but Wrong: I don't publish comments that contain known or probable factual errors. There's already enough widely repeated misinformation out there, and if you don't have the time to do your homework, I don't either. To those who write to announce that at death I will either 1) disintegrate into nothingness or 2) go to Hell by a fast post, please pester someone else. I am a Catholic in communion with the Church and haven't the time for either village atheism or aimless Jesus-hollering.