Popcorn! Dilbert and Dogbert discuss evolution

Dilbert, the date-challenged engineer and his life companion Dogbert discuss evolution here:



There is a history here. Dilbert's creator, animator Scott Adams attracted a variety of trolls in their natural environment when he started to question "ass hat" Darwinian evolution. Here are some posts detailing his funnyman response:

Dilbert cartoonist: Fossils are bullshit!

Fun for once: Dilbert cartoonist fights back against "ass hat"

Internet Darwinist attacks Dilbert's creator

Dilbert cartoonist: More opinions on the ID controversy, but that's all - for now. I thought Adams would make Catbert the Darwinist, but he flagged poor old Dilbert for the position, at least for now. (Catbert could have made a grand human resources scheme out of it ... )

Despite his current inability to "get" the fact that there might be a problem with his creed on the origin and development of life, Dilbert is still my favourite engineer.

Dilbert, give a kiss for me to the talking frog in your pocket!

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

ID and popular culture: Internet Darwinist attacks Dilbert's creator

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, the legendary engineer with a fashion sense*, made the mistake of offering some thoughtful comments on the intelligent design controversy. Of course, P.Z. Myers, a classic Internet Darwinist attacked Adams in the usual graceless way that does so much to encourage people to consider ID, starting with

Scott Adams, the cartoonist behind Dilbert, has written a truly clueless whine about "Darwinism". It's a mess.

Then Scott hits back, pointing out that Darwinist Myers bumbled into precisely the trap he had set - he misrepresented Scott's views:

This blogger, who calls himself PZ, is evidently a highly educated scientist, extremely informed on the topic of evolution, and quite passionate. But for reasons that fascinate the trained hypnotist in me, that brilliance doesn't extend to comprehending The Dilbert Blog. (The curious reader might want to Google cognitive dissonance to understand how something like that can happen.) That makes him the poster child for my point that the average person (me) has no credible source of information on the topic of evolution.

[ ... ]

The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible. And since I don't have any relevant scientific knowledge myself, nor direct access to the data, everything I know has to come from non-credible types. To me, it's like hiring a serial cannibal as a babysitter based on the fact that he PROMISES not to eat your kids despite having eaten all the other kids on the block. It might be a fact that he's telling the truth. The problem is that he's not credible. (The other problem is that he eats your kids.)

* The fashion sense, that is, of an engineer.

==============================
(Note: If you came here looking for the story about the Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here. Other frequently sought stories (academic freedom, museums fanatically promoting Darwinism, lawsuit over use of public funds to promote liberal religious views on evolution) appear at the bottom of today's posts. )

==============================

(Note: >P.Z. Myers crossed my own screen a while back. Speaking of how to defend Darwinism, he announces:

Please don't try to tell me that you object to the tone of our complaints. Our only problem is that we aren't martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough. The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many schoolboard members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

Charming fellow, don't you think ...

Rumour control: The ID-supporting Discovery Institute is NOT paying Myers to act this way. Apparently, the service is free.)

I do hope Adams plans to cartoon on this subject. Let's see, who should be the Darwinist? Not Dilbert or Wally ... the pointy-haired boss could receive a directive to promote Darwinism, I suppose, and goodness knows, he would ... oh, I know - what about that rat? Or Dogbert? Or Catbert? Well, we must wait and see ...

(Additional Note: Dilbert has been, for many years, my favourite strip. Curiously, the workplace mentality at Dilbert's software company - far from originating in the Nineties computer industry, as many suppose - very much prevailed at a publishing company where I was a freelance book editor in the Eighties, well before most of us Canadian editors had ever seen a computer. For example, I recall that one Dilbert episode has employees trying to expand the size of their cubicles by piling stuff outside them. We actually did that ... until management sent round a memo telling us to stop. I tell you, if a spark had lit that place, ... hey presto! Dante's Inferno! ... )

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

Dilbert cartoonist: More opinions on ID controversy, but that's all, unfortunately

Scott Adams, the Dilbert cartoonist, has offered more thoughts on the ID controversy, along with many others. (You have to scroll down.)

I am truly disappointed, because I had hoped Adams would cartoon on the subject, not merely offer opinions. Actually, his opinions are pretty conventional for a lib tech Yank. Who needs another hundred million of that?

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.

What I really wanted to know was, if Adams assigned roles to the Dilbert cast, who would play which role? Mind you, Adams isn't in bad company. I remember reading a book long ago in which Einstein offered his opinions on world peace - and I came away disappointed. Lots of politicos with no claim to brilliance grasped much more clearly than he did how to power down bullies and crazies without destroying the planet. Brilliance counts, but so does knowing the scene. I hope Adams will keep track of the ID scene, and fulfil my hope one day. I want to know where Catbert, Dogbert, Wally, and the Pointy-haired Boss stand, in particular.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?

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

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.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

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. Rudesby 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.

Dilbert cartoonist: Fossils are bullshit (!)

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams seems to think for himself about evolution, despite flak from a Darwinist "ass hat" (his term). Although not an intelligent design supporter, Scott makes some of the very points that the ID guys and other non-Darwinians make about the Darwinist interpretation of the fossil record:

I’ve been trying for years to reconcile my usually-excellent bullshit filter with the idea that evolution is considered a scientific fact. Why does a well-established scientific fact set off my usually-excellent bullshit filter like a five-alarm fire? It’s the fossil record that has been bugging me the most. It looks like bullshit. Smells like bullshit. Tastes like bullshit. Why isn’t it bullshit? All those scientists can’t be wrong.

If you are new to the Dilbert Blog, I remind you that I don’t believe in Intelligent Design or Creationism or invisible friends of any sort. I just think that evolution looks like a blend of science and bullshit, and have predicted for years that it would be revised in scientific terms in my lifetime. It’s a hunch – nothing more.

Essentially, Adams is questioning the dogmatic certainty with which Darwinism is held to account for the history of life even though the evidence base is always shifting. Have fun. Read the whole thing!

Fun for once: Dilbert cartoonist fights back against "ass hat"

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, the fashion-challenged engineer, has the endearing habit of asking questions, including questions about intelligent design. Endearing to me, maybe, but not to Darwinist PZ Myers, who has attacked him a few too many times.

I still cannot figure out why anyone would attack a professional humourist, but Adams has correctly identified the psychological taxonomy of Myers as ass hat.

You must read the rest for yourself, but whatever you do, do not miss this wonderful cartoon of Dilbert as a baby engineer. When I was much younger, one of my offspring was just such a baby engineer, thus the subsequent career in engineering was no surprise to me. By the way, I did NOT cry, I rejoiced. (See the cartoon and you will understand.)

Science education: Yawn Central ... oh, no, wait! This just in ....

In an American election year, the science lobby worries that many people don't know enough about science to make informed decisions, according to G. Jeffrey MacDonald ("Are we science-savvy enough to make informed decisions?", USA Today, August 8, 2008):

... only 26% believe that they themselves have a good understanding of science. And 44% couldn't identify a single scientist, living or dead, whom they'd consider a role model for the nation's young people.

These results are disturbing, science education experts say, because scientists aren't the only ones who must distinguish solid scientific methods from bogus ones. Some important scientific questions are being debated this year, including food safety, imported-product safety and the effect of biofuels.

But most of their recommended solutions won't be much use because people either can't or won't follow them. I think a Media Studies course would be more useful - if it improves skill in distinguishing how information becomes "news" and how to distinguish hype from hope.

Meanwhile, another round of kvetching about "why American kids don't like science", this time featuring Mr. Microsoft himself. Bill Gates, according to Peter Wood at Chronicle.com, offers a solution:

... while Gates didn't make the point in so many words, his call for more H-1B visas was really testimony to the incapacity of American education to inspire children to take an interest in science and motivate young adults to follow though. He noted that 60 percent of the students at the top American computer-science departments are foreign-born.

Woods comments,

Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market's demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off - often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren't very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, "Why bother?"

- How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science (August 8, 2008)

Well, East Coast American lawyer Edward Sisson, a sympathizer of the intelligent design theorists - who told me to go ahead and say so - couldn't resist giving Wood's article a "thrashing" and invited me to print his comments here. Done!

As the father of two teenagers, I make a point of watching the TV shows they like, while I am with them. What they watch are shows in which sports stars show off their fancy houses ("cribs") and fancy cars and swimming pools etc. Or else they watch shows set in high schools, in which the students are never shown studying, they are shown in their social lives (always dynamic) and sports, and in lives filled with family conflicts and friends-conflicts. Or they watch shows like America's Next Top Model (fashion modeling) or Project Runway (fashion clothes design) or other competition talent shows (American Idol (pop singing) being the premiere example). Or shows like The Apprentice (business entrepreneurs) or Top Chef (high-fashion cooking). In summary, shows involving young people engaged in emotionally passionate activities. If the science community can come up with a way of making a show that shows young would-be scientists or engineers involved in exciting competitions, it ought to do so.

Woods noted,

Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. A century ago, Max Weber wrote of "Science as a Vocation," and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

Sisson replies,

The TV shows I described above sometime show the fruits of success for people who are successful in those fields: sports stars' fancy houses, cars, etc.; the lives of fashion models or fashion clothes designers or pop singers or business entrepreneurs. If the science community can come up with a way of making a show that shows that successful scientists or engineers are rewarded with exciting lives, it ought to do so.

Woods notes,

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn - and worse, fail to develop as "whole persons" - if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren't among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who "feel good" about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

Sisson replies,

This is false. The TV shows teens like are full of emotional moments where someone is told he or she does not measure up on the merits and has to leave. I have never met a teenager -- and I meet lots, having both a teen boy and a teen girl -- who has an over-assessment of his or her abilities due to undue praise from parents or teachers, or who feels that he or she does not need to work hard at "intellectual ascents" because he or she has already achieved an "intellectual ascent."

Woods notes,

The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences. Modesty? Yes, for while talented scientists are often proud of their talent and accomplishments, they universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most-unyielding standards of inquiry. That willingness to play by nature's rules runs in contrast to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along insouciance that characterizes so many variants of postmodernism and that flatters itself as being a higher form of pragmatism.

Sisson replies,

The comment immediately above applies here too. The self-praise of scientists who "universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most unyielding standards" far better describes every high-school jock who wants to excel in sports.

Woods notes,

The aversion to long-term and deeply committed study of science among American students also stems from other cultural imperatives. We rank the manufacture of "self-esteem" above hard-won achievement, but we also have immersed a generation in wall-to-wall promotion of diversity and multiculturalism as being the worthiest form of educational endeavor; we have foregrounded the redistributional dreams of "social justice" over heroic aspirations to discover, invent, and thereby create new wealth; and we have endlessly extolled the virtue of "sustainability" against the ravages of "progress." Do all that, and you create an educational system that is essentially hostile to advanced achievement in the sciences and technology. Moreover, those threads have a certainty and unity that make them not just a collection of educational conceits but also part of a compelling worldview.

Sisson replies,

Again, false. Only a minority of students make social politics their priority, and the students who have a personality prone to want to get into social activism are unlikely ever to choose the very different kind of life offered by science. Much of this article devolves into denunciation of liberal social trends in education. Regardless of whether you like those trends or not, I see no relationship between those trends and the decisions of students not to pursue lives in science.

Woods notes,

In his testimony, Bill Gates did more than glance at the failures of American schooling. Our record on high-school math and science education is particularly troubling. International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As a result, too many of them enter college without even the basic skills needed to pursue a degree in science or engineering.

Sisson replies,

Again, false. This is not a failure of schooling, the decline over the years between 4th grade and 12th grade reflects the fact that higher and higher percentages of each class of students learns, over the years, how comparatively dry and un-passionate and un-remunerative a life in science is as compared to other paths of life in America, fewer and fewer see any reason to prepare for a kind of life they just don't want to lead. Is not the Dilbert strip a fairly accurate portrayal of the quality of life most such students would lead, if they took that path? Why would we expect any student to want to grow up to be Dilbert?

Woods notes,

On the other hand, nothing in his testimony suggested recognition that American education's cultural imperatives play a role in diminishing the importance of science and technology in the eyes of the great majority of students. I don't take it as a tragedy if our top graduate programs fill up with ambitious and talented students from abroad; if we need to issue more H-1B visas to sustain our high-tech industries, let's do it with dispatch. Welcoming some of the world's most educated, talented, and ambitious scientists to our shores only strengthens the nation. But the apathy of so many homegrown American students to the intellectual challenges of science is something else - something that building schools, multiplying computers, and ginning up STEM programs won't touch.

Sisson replies,

For foreign students, Dilbert's life may well be better than any other option they can see for themselves. Not so for American students.

Woods notes,

Bill Gates may not be the right person to tell us how to restore that mixture of awe, admiration, sheer ambition, delight in meeting difficulties, and stubborn curiosity - the patient exuberance - that draws students into the adventure of science. A few of our students catch it despite the preoccupations of their teachers and their textbooks. But what to do about the larger problem? I'm starting my own Hilbert's list [of unsolved math problems].

Sisson replies,

American students do not believe science is an adventure. They think it is Dilbert's life. If it really is an adventure, why aren't there TV shows that show what an adventure it is? If America can make a show that makes fashion clothing design an adventure, America can make a show that makes science an adventure. If, in fact, it is.

The biggest problem here is that the promise of science-as-an-adventure, as promoted in the 1950s and 1960s, plainly failed. The big impetus for American science education was Sputnik and the space race. I have a colleague who remembers that era vividly -- he was in grade school and suddenly science was all the rage. This was the great driver of science education in America: the exploration of space. Well, we went to the moon-- and, in the public's opinion, there wasn't anything exciting there. We sent fly-by probes to all the planets, and again there wasn't anything exciting, as far as the public is concerned. We landed two rovers on Mars - and the most exciting thing about this achievement is our own rovers, and how long they have lasted. What the rovers actually saw, and explored, wasn't exciting. Now we have a Mars digger, and it's finding water ice. Exciting?

No. From the late 1700s through to the early 1900s people thought there were vast water canals, there could be civilizations -- so a little ice is not exciting, it is a big let-down. And now it appears perhaps the soil there is antagonistic to life.

And, of course, to turn to our key issue, the science world repeats endlessly that life bubbled-up out of mud or other matter, and its course of development into us was a giant accident, and there is no reason to pay any attention to any idea of God -- and then they put the label "isn't this exciting" on a picture of the world and of us that is as desolate and boring as the surface of the Moon, or the surface of Mars. And believe me, the public does find them boring.

My area's cable TV provider includes the NASA channel. It has zero production values. Endless long sequences out the shuttle window of earth below. Nerdy astronauts in dorky clothes describing how they turn knobs and so forth. The public just doesn't see any adventure in this. That isn't the fault of the schools, it is the fault of the fact that what science has actually discovered doesn't excite, and the process of discovering it conveys no adventure.

When you're in the broccoli business you can spend hours telling people that broccoli tastes as fun as ice cream. But folks, it doesn't. If you're selling broccoli to a community that otherwise has only rice or potatoes to eat, you may get a lot of satisfied customers. But in America, science is a broccoli stand surrounded by ice cream parlors. That's the reality.

I think Sisson is on to something there, on at least two points:

Foreign students: Yes, absolutely. As a Canadian, I get nervous when I hear Americans bellyaching about the number of "foreign" students at their universities (I know they mean my #1 son-in-law, among others, even if they are too polite to spell it out). But getting into a posh US U is a vital career asset to many foreign students, one for which they will sacrifice much. And a career in science is of much more use if you need to provide for your family than a career in art history would be. So it's not exactly a choice anyway.

Science as dullness raised to an art form: Does anyone remember the scene in Mrs. Doubtfire where the Robin Williams character points out that the kids' science show currently airing is just awful? As Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin transforms the show, and it takes off.

But yes, all too many science shows do sound like Dr. Snore the Science Bore rather than the wonderful March of the Penguins. But whoops!, March was accused of being an ID-friendly documentary, and the producers went to the trouble of denying it, pointing out that, after all, penguins are not faithful to their spouses. ...

So here we are, folks, at the crack of Yawn ...

Stuart Pivar suing PZ myers?

It's August, after all. Keep that in mind. Even so, I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it, but apparently, according to SciAm blogger Christopher Mims, Lifecode author Stuart Pivar is suing PZ Myers for libel.

Yes, Stuart is the one who was friends with the late Stephen Jay Gould. Hat tip to Jack, who draws my attention to Mims' last graff, quoting Myers:

Huh. I'd heard some noise from Pivar threatening to sue, but this is the first I've heard of any formal action being taken. Since I'm a defendant (one who hasn't been notified of his status!) I suppose I should just shut up at this point and let justice run its course. Since I'm a blogger, though, I can't completely shut up. I will just say that this is Pivar's attempt to squash a negative review of his book, which I posted here. Nothing in the review was motivated by personal malice, and I actually am inclined to favor structuralist arguments in evolution ... but I'm afraid my honest assessment of Pivar's work is that it does not support his conclusions. I still stand by my review, and now I'm a bit disturbed that someone would think criticism of a scientific hypothesis must be defended by silencing its critics.

Oh, my stars. When has anyone ever have tried to do that before? Just unbelievable.

And yes, PZ Myers is the U of Minnesota biologist who got into a row with Dilbert's alter ego. Yes, that Dilbert, the baby engineer. Honest.

If PZ were to libel anyone, like, how would we KNOW?

Update: To learn more about Pivar's actual theory, as opposed to detractions thereof, go here and here. It is a theory of self-organization, it is not an intelligent design theory.

Darwinism and pop culture: Darwinist attacks Canadian columnist Mark Steyn

In a column that is, generally, about attempts to strip Christmas, and society in general, of religious content, Canadian columnist Mark Steyn mentions that he is one of the latesttargets of P.Z. Myers, a Darwin Street heavy who recently went after Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams. According to Steyn,

... a couple of months back, I was asked about creationism and 'intelligent design'. Not my bag, so I kept it short. But I did say that the Psalmist had captured the essence of our reality rather better than your average geneticist. I'd just been told that not only does man share 98.5 per cent of his genetic code with the chimp but he shares 75 per cent of it with the pumpkin. If that's so, it doesn't seem a terribly useful scale for measuring the differences in our respective achievements. As I put it, 'The fact is that this is a planet overwhelmingly dominated and shaped by one species, and our kith and kin — whether gibbons or pumpkins — basically fit in the spaces between.'

This modest thought provoked Paul Z. Myers, professor of biology at the University of Minnesota, into paroxysms of scorn: Steyn, he scoffed, 'must not possess a gut populated by intestinal bacteria. We are at their mercy; without them, we suffer horribly for a while and die.... He must not have any wooden furniture in his home, or plastic ...made from the carbon left by ancient forests.... It's a good thing he doesn't eat, or he'd have to excrete — without any bacteria or fungi or nematodes or flatworms, the shit would just pile up (this would explain his written output, though).'

Oh dear. All I was doing was making a simple point about the scale of man's domination, and all Professor Myers's demolition does is confirm it. My intestinal bacteria may indeed be doing a swell job, but living in my gut isn't exactly a beach house at Malibu. Yes, I've got wooden furniture. I live in the Great North Woods and the house and practically everything in it is made from those woods. But I sit on the chair, the chair doesn't sit on me. And as for my excreta and the hard-working nematode, who gets the better end of that deal?

In a way, Professor Myers is only taking transnationalism to its logical conclusion. After all, if one is obliged to pretend that the Americans, Belgians, Greeks and Canadians are all equal members of a military alliance, it's not such a stretch to insist that the Americans, the flatworms, the intestinal bacteria and your Welsh dresser are all equal partners in some grand planetary alliance. Nonetheless, if we are virtually the same as a chimp, the 1.5 per cent of difference counts for more than the 98.5 per cent of similarity. The Psalmist seems to find that easier to understand than the biologist does.

My instinct is that we are reaching another cultural crossroads when Darwinists find themselves in dogfights with cartoonists and columnists. Hmmm. Come to think of it, when was the last time I saw Ed the Sock (puppet) ? Ed, who's always in trouble here in Canada (unlike Steyn, he doesn't live abroad) may well be next on the Darwinists' ever-expanding hit list of enemies. Ed? Ed? Wake up and say something rude about Darwinism, will you? ED?

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?

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated before they appear.

Dilbert cartoonist who questioned Darwinism asks, is he really stupid, or what?

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams, who asked questions about Darwinism in a very modest way - and received a huge load of Darwinist fury in reply - asks for response: Is he stupid?

He writes:

I've been overwhelmed with e-mail and comments pointing out that I misunderstand a great many things about science. While this is certainly true, the vagueness of the accusations is robbing you of the joy of publicly humiliating me with razor-sharp specificity. Here's a chance to fix that.

Add a comment to this post that's brief and specific about what you think I got wrong in any of my blog writings. I'll publish all comments that are brief, specific and not too profane. For example, you might say, "Scott claims the moon is made of cheese." I'll publish that. But if you say, "Scott displays a lack of understanding about biochemistry," I won't publish that because it's not specific enough. Instead you might say, "Scott says biochemistry is a form of cooking," and that would be specific enough.

Brevity is key. Anything more than a paragraph will be deleted from this particular comment section. And I'll delete duplicates just to make it easier to slog through them.

Okay, go nuts.

Go here to offer a comment.

Note: This blog will print no abuse of Scott Adams. You must go to his site to abuse him.

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

Neuroscience as if your mind matters - meet some of the non-materialist neuroscientists

The afternoon panel of the Beyond the Mind-Body Problem symposium (September 11, 2008), sponsored by the Nour Foundation, UN-DESA, and the Université de Montréal, featured some interesting exchanges featuring a number of non-materialist neuroscientists.

Non-materialist neuroscientists think that your mind is real and that it helps shape your brain. It is not a mere illusion created by the workings of the brain.

(Both the morning and afternoon panels were televised and can be viewed here. My excerpts from the morning panel are here. )

As before, French philosopher Elie During led off the panel, featuring (in order of first speaking), neuroscientist Andrew Newberg, M.D., near death researcher Bruce Greyson, M.D., spirituality and health researcher Christina Puchalski, M.D., and neuroscientist Mario Beauregard.

Philosopher During noted, referencing Andrew Newberg's work:

What you show, based on neurological evidence, is that there's some sort of consistency or robustness to these [spiritual] experiences: they are, I quote, “the result of coherent sensory perceptions shaped by the proper neurological functioning of sound, healthy minds.” In other words, they may be unusual experiences, but they are not at all outside the range of normal brain activity. This is a very important conclusion, but I cannot get rid of a feeling of discomfort, because it seems what you’re implying is that ultimately, it is the brain that is able to answer the question of the reality or unreality of our lived experience. It is the brain—or the neuroscientist—that is the ultimate criterion when it comes to assessing the reality of those experiences. When it's real for the brain, it’s real for us. Reality, at the end of the day, is “what happens in the brain”…. This I find quite hard to accept, since the brain, after all, is itself only a piece—albeit an important piece—of the reality we’re experiencing and reflecting about: it doesn’t stand outside the picture as a transcendent norm. Do you see my point?

Newberg replied,

We often don’t know whether someone who has a normal psychology can also have a normal religious or spiritual experience versus someone who has an abnormal psychology. In fact, one of the questions that I pose to all of my students is: “What is normal?” We really struggle with that. It becomes something that is very difficult to know how to define, especially in the context of religious or spiritual experiences.

A good example of this type of problem is Joan of Arc. Fifteenth-century France was descending into chaos after the Hundred Years War, and the king of England was planning to absorb the country. A peasant girl, Joan, informed local notables that she had received visions telling her to take the crown prince (the dauphin) to the traditional place where French kings were crowned (Reims) - thus establishing a counterclaim.

At that time, of course, women, especially peasant women, were expected to mind their own business at home and keep silent. Politics was a game for men of noble birth.

Was Joan delusional? Many thought so. But she raised an army, took the dauphin to Rheims, and got him crowned, thus putting a deep - and permanent - dent in the English king's plans.

The conventional view of delusions is that they disorient us and prevent us from seeing reality clearly. But Joan's spiritual experiences had the opposite effect - they enabled her to see reality quite clearly and to do what no one else in France had managed. And she did it from one of the lowest positions in her society.

So was Joan "normal"? To ask the question is to impose on spiritual reality a standard created for Dilbert's cube world. She wasn't normal at all, and if she had been, she could never have done what she did. So part of the challenge of studying spiritual experiences is to move beyond the standards generated for measuring other types of experience, standards that may be irrelevant for the purpose.

(Note: Newberg also offered some interesting observations on attempts to measure consciousness, as I have reported here.

Panelists watched a National Geographic special, Moment of Death, on the complexities of determining when and how death occurs. One problem is that death, like life, is a process. Freezing cells, Hayflick-style, results in a stasis that is neither death nor life.

The panelists:

Mind-body panel 2: Andrew Newberg - "A growing openness to these kinds of issues"

Mind-body panel 2: Bruce Greyson - Brain and mind don't seem to be the same thing.

Mind-body panel 2: Christina Puchalski - "We know maybe forty percent"

Mind-body panel 2: Mario Beauregard - "Brain imaging data alone doesn't tell us whether an experience is real or not"


Next: Mind-body panel 2: Andrew Newberg - "A growing openness to these kinds of issues"

Back to blogging: Dodos and the Catholic Church

The recent NRO Flock of Dodos review is a [treasury of materialist platitudes and one blooper. The blooper is the assertion that the Catholic church thinks that religion is not necessarily threatened by Darwin. The Catholic Church is actually distributing prayer cards all over the world denying that man is a product of casual and meaningless evolution, which is precisely what Darwinism teaches.

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 recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

O'leary's intor to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove ?

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.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

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.

Back to blogging shortly: Manuscript finished

I finished the manuscript for Harper SF and will shortly return to blogging. First, I need to rent an indoor backhoe to clean out my office.

Free advice: Don't ever co-write a book that involves neuroscience unless you really, really want to. It's been great fun, believe me, but I am very tired.

Meanwhile, if any gentle reader will be at BookExpo, the annual Canadian publishers' fest in Toronto, I’ll be there on Sunday, June 11 at 2:00 p.m. at The Word Guild booth, signing free copies of By Design or by Chance?, my overview of the intelligent design controversy. I will also be taping a seg of Book TV on Monday. June 12. The show features a number of interesting guests.

Are you looking for one of the following stories?
A summary of recent polls of US public opinion on the ID controversy

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove ?

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.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

Columns and op-eds on ID: A handy source

Here is a large crop of columns and op-eds on the ID controversy, from Chris Mooney right through to Bill Buckley. And hopefully without any .html goofs but with free, brief comments from me. Anyway, go from here to there and have fun.

Sample: "Note: I couldn't believe I was reading this, but my eyes did not deceive me. This New Yawkster really thinks that his disagreements with his neighbours are in any way comparable to the sufferings of the women of Afghanistan. And that the idea that the universe or life forms show evidence of intelligent design has anything to do with any of it? Well, if there were a discursive dictionary of self-centredness, I'd have a great quote to suggest."

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?

O'Leary's intro to non-Darwinian agnostic philosopher David Stove ?

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

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.

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

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.

Baylor’s Problem With Beckwith : What’s Really Behind Denial of Tenure?

Here are some excerpts from my take on Baylor's denial of Francis Beckwith's tenure, while guest blogging at The Pearcey Report. Beckwith has been associated with Dembski in holding ID conferences, but the gen I hear is that this has much more to do with his pro-life stance:

First, many believe that Beckwith was denied tenure because he is conservative. Somehow I doubt that. If a school like Baylor gets a reputation for discriminating against conservatives, bequests from the little old widows of wealthy conservatives will dry up. The university may deny the widows’ lifelong convictions; it can hardly deny their money.

No, Beckwith's problem is not that he is conservative but that he is brilliant! Read his abnormally lucid comments on how to respond to abortion activists, and you will see what I mean.

You must be wanting to ask me how brilliance can be a problem. Surely every university wants brilliant profs! Well, no, actually not. At least, not necessarily. Not when their success creates an embarrassment.

Baylor, you see, aspires to be a Protestant Notre Dame. Unfortunately, it wants that at precisely the point in American history when dozens of social-climbing Christian universities have been selling out their tradition for decades, and intellectual freedom is becoming a joke.

Now, here is the difficulty: Baylor cannot both launch itself up there with the really big guys and institutionally maintain, with Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God" (Matthew 16:16). For one thing, that declaration pretty much makes the case that intelligent design is right and abortion is wrong. Baylor abruptly backed away from the first in 2000 and will probably back away from the second soon too. Its distinguished faculty members do not need the embarrassment of being thought to be pro-life, as Beckwith is.

Read the rest and see the links at
THe Pearcey Report.

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?

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

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

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.

The Turing test:What really happened to the thinking, feeling computer?

Here's a longish essay on the state of artificial intelligence, that should be must-reading for people who have been taken in by predictions of thinking, feeling computers.

Not only hasn't it happened, but it is unlikely to happen. Mark Halpern, who has spent fifty years working with computer software helps explain why in the Winter 2006 edition of The New Atlantis.

In October 1950, computer genius Alan Turing published a paper titled "Computer machinery and Intelligence" in the British quarterly Mind, according to which properly programmed computers would generally be accepted as thinking by about 2000. That is, they would successfully respond to human questions in a human-like way. Turing proposed his famous "Turing Test" in that paper. Can you tell the difference between interacting with a computer and interacting with a human?

Anyone who has suffered through the Muzak on a hold line offering a number of useless canned options and responded by hammering the zero button to get hold of a person at a call center in Bangalore, India, or New Brunswick, Canada, can certainly tell the difference. And this is now 2006 and counting.

In 1950 very few people had any idea of the supercomputer-like complexity of a single cell. Your body sheds millions of them every day, shrugs (so to speak), and recruits more. Never mind what the human brain is like either - that's the most complex object in the universe, and it is nothing like a computer. People don't think the way computers process jobs. Never have and never will.
Read more.

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?

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

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

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. Rudesby 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. Why do you?

Polls on intelligent design, evolution, and creation: A handy summary of some recent ones

For some time now, I have been wanting to put a number of the recent polls on intelligent design vs. Darwinian evolution and/or creationism on line, as they may help people who write on the intelligent design controversy. I have organized them, as well as I am able, in chronological order.

I have not attempted any meta-analysis because it likely isn't possible and in any event I don't have the skills. But I do intersperse a comment or two below where it seems warranted. Polls ask different questions of different respondent groups about different issues. But you can often get a pretty good idea of public opinion all the same.

For example,

2005 07 06 Nearly Two-thirds of U.S. Adults Believe Human Beings Were Created by God, according to a Harris Poll.

Other key findings include [....]

Not too surprising, when you consider the opening lines of the Declaration of Independence, where Americans are informed that they are endowed by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under the circumstances, it is safer to believe that the creator is God than to believe that the creator is George Washington, Sir Francis Crick or the Easter Bunny.

What I think: Darwinian evolution is a theory of history, in this case the history of biological life. It is no different in principle from theories about why the World War I was not (as people hoped) the war to end all wars, but rather a hugely destructive nihilistic conflict that led in short order to World War II, which was even worse. One theory may make more sense than another, of course, when we are trying to interpret a given stretch of history. But all such theories depend on underlying philosophies.

The main problem with Darwinism is that, to make sense of the theory, you must accept an underlying philosophy, which most Yanks and Brits simply do not accept. Perhaps most humans generally do not accept it. In that case, it is a very good question whether citizens should pay taxes in order to support its imposition on school systems.

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?

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

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

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. Rudesby 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. Get real.

Why is origin of life such a difficult problem?: A few considerations

The National Academy of Sciences identifies origin of life as an active research area that will soon yield key answers:

Of course, even if a living cell were to be made in the laboratory, it would not prove that nature followed the same pathway billions of years ago. But it is the job of science to provide plausible natural explanations for natural phenomena. The study of the origin of life is a very active research area in which important progress is being made, although the consensus among scientists is that none of the current hypotheses has thus far been confirmed. The history of science shows that seemingly intractable problems like this one may become amenable to solution later, as a result of advances in theory, instrumentation, or the discovery of new facts.

But the telling phrase is "seemingly intractable problems like this one." "Seemingly" intractable or actually intractable? And in either case, why?

Now, it's fine with me if NAS members solve the problem tomorrow. BUT ... we need to be clear about one thing: It is perfectly possible that they will never solve it, not because it is some kind of forbidden knowledge, but simply because the relevant information is lost. In other words, it could be a cold case file with no new clues.

After all, most NAS members believe in a naturalistic materialist universe, so there is no reason to assume that the information about the origin of life was saved. In their own view, no intelligence created it or took the trouble to save it.

[ ... ]

Actually, scientists would be better to put their faith in intelligent design if they want to solve origin of life mysteries, because then they might reasonably believe that someone left them clues - in much the same way that Arthur Conan Doyle always left clues for his great detective Sherlock Holmes to find.

Read more here. (You may have to scroll down.)

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?

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

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

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 Wide Web: If you can't be bothered telling my 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.

Catholicism vs. Darwinism:Cardinal Schoenborn follows up

Christoph, Cardinal Schoenborn (the bearer of bad news from the Catholic Church to Catholics who think they can also be Darwinists)
has weighed in again at First Things:

What frequently passes for modern science—with its heavy accretion of materialism and positivism—is simply wrong about nature in fundamental ways. Modern science is often, in the words of my essay, "ideology, not science." The problems caused by positivism are especially acute in the broad anti-teleological implications drawn from Darwin's theory of evolution, which has become (in the phrase of Pope Benedict XVI, writing some years ago) the new "first philosophy" of the modern world, a total and foundational description of reality that goes far beyond a proper grounding in the descriptive and reductive science on which it is based. My essay was designed to awaken Catholics from their dogmatic slumber about positivism in general and evolutionism in particular. It appears to have worked.

Schoenborn's essay was a response to physicist Stephen Barr, who will follow in turn with a response.

Hey, if you are interested in the intelligent design controversy, buy yourself the print edition of First Things for Christmas (Hanukkah, Kwanza, the Great Midwinter Freakout, your "Friends" whatever). Look, FT offers top quality ideas on these subjects.

I promise, if you have the brains you were born with, you'll never go back to your favorite village atheist, holy moonbat, or media barfly again.

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?

The Pope using the term "intelligent design" to describe the Catholic view of origins, go here.

Dilbert cartoonist Scott Adams attacked by Darwinist, hits back. Will he now cartoon on the subject?

"Academic Freedom Watch : Here's the real, ugly story behind the claim that 'intelligent design isn't science'?".

Roseville, California, lawyer Larry Caldwell is suing over the use of tax money by Darwin lobby groups to promote religious views that accept Darwinian evolution (as opposed to ones that don’t). I’m pegging this one as the next big story. See also the ruling on tax funds. Note the line that the “free speech” people take.
How to freak out your bio prof? What happened when a student bypassed the usual route of getting frogs drunk and dropping them down the chancellor’s robes, and tried questioning Darwinism instead.

Christoph, Cardinal Schonbon is not backing down from his contention that Darwinism is incompatible with Catholic faith, and Pope Benedict XVI probably thinks that’s just fine. Major US media have been trying to reach rewrite for months, with no success.

Museum tour guides to be trained to "respond" to those who question Darwinism. Read this item for an example of what at least one museum hopes to have them say.

World class chemist dissed at Catholic university because he sympathizes with intelligent design.

Blog policy note:Comments are permitted on this blog, but they are moderated before they appear.

First Thigns