Podcasts: Listening to the intelligent design controversy

Academic Freedom Day is - not coincidentally - being celebrated on the same day as the ridiculous hagiography of Darwin Day climaxes in 2009.

Also, here's Part II of an interview with Darwin dissenter Geoffrey Simmons, M.D. about evolution and vestigial organs.

What makes a doctor skeptical of Darwinian evolution? How can doctors express their scientific dissent from Darwinism? Listen in as Dr. Simmons shares from his knowledge in the medical field.

And here's Part I.

The whole concept of vestigial organs "proving" Darwinian evolution has always struck me as suspect, and for good reason. First, almost all organs formerly considered vestigial turned out to have a present use. Anyway, even if Darwinian evolution was the main explanation for the life we see around us, vestigial organs should have been eliminated by a Darwinian magic that is so efficient that it can produce the vast variety of life around us.

But ... hey, wait a minute! ...

Darwin blah blah blah in Toronto?

A friend alerts me to this lecture at the University of Toronto today: "Darwinian Sociocultural Evolution: Evolutionary Solutions to" by by Professor Marion Blute, Sociology Department, University of Toronto:

Abstract:
Darwinism in the social sciences comes in three forms - the gene-based biological, the social learning or meme-based sociocultural, and gene-culture coevolution. The subject of this talk is the second, Darwinian sociocultural evolution. It will sketch seven conceptual/theoretical problems or dilemmas in social and cultural theory and the direction in which evolutionary theory suggests they may be resolved. Then it will go into more depth on the current status of the so far least resolved one - the ideographic or historical versus the nomothetic or scientific approach to evolution.

He prefaces his alert with "Darwin blah blah blah" and I suspect he is right.

So this is what Darwinism has come to? Do all theories die this way, or just those that the school system gets behind?

Intelligent design and popular culture: Actors wanted = Hams and eggheads

Actors wanted for play in Sydney, Austalia: here:

Some of you may know that last year I staged a play at the annual British Association for the Advancement of Science meeting, which brought back Abraham Lincoln and Charles Darwin – who were both born on 12th February 1809 — to reflect on what has taken place since their time. Denyse O’Leary kindly mentioned the play here.

It takes the form of a talk show, with all the show biz that entails. At the end Lincoln and Darwin were asked whether they wished to stay in the present or return to the 19th century. One stays and the other goes – but which does which?

The play’s running time is 80 minutes and it covers a host of issues common to Lincoln and Darwin’s interests, including race, religion, science and politics. It’s got some funny bits, both intentional (especially from Jack) and unintentional (usually from Lincoln and Darwin trying to adjust to today).

Jason Rennie plans to stage this play for Australian radio and needs four actors for the following roles, each of which is quite distinct:

Lincoln and Darwin (as you’d expect them each to be)
Sheila (the bubbly talk show host)
Jack (the smart aleck sidekick)

(In principle, Sheila and Jack could reverse genders but the personality contrast needs to be present.)

If you’re interested, please contact Jason at thesciphishow@gmail.com

I think Steve Fuller's play is great fun, and when it gets produced in Australia, all I can say re hams and eggheads is, "I like mine turned upside Down."

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Just up at Colliding Universes

Science fiction: Remake of Day the Earth Stood Still supports Rare Earth hypothesis? (= and not Carl Sagan?)

Origin of life: What can the Saturnian moon Titan tell us?

Two thousand year old computer rebooted - and you thought YOU had to wait long for tech service?

Colliding Universes is my blog about competing theories of our universe. )