"The Word 'Design' Almost Unavoidably Comes to Mind"

Christian de Duve is one of the many voices who acknowledge the evidence of design in nature.  Vital Dust: Life as a Cosmic Imperative, pp 9-10:

Cells are so obviously programmed to develop according to certain lines, organs adapted to perform certain functions, organisms suited to certain environments, that the word design almost unavoidably comes to mind. 

But then he joins the many who say that, despite this evidence, other explanations "must" be found:

Life is increasingly explained strictly in terms of the laws of physics and chemistry. Its origin must be accounted for in similar terms. 

So past explanation "trends" have to limit future explanations?  This is absurd.  It looks like his worldview is driving this, not the evidence.

Similar comments on the evidence for design are here.

Weekend Humor #14

From this New Yorker cartoon we learn to keep design inferences tentative, and don't jump to conclusions about the identity of the designer.

Transcript of the Interview of Richard Dawkins By Ben Stein in the Film Expelled

This is a partial text of the interview of Richard Dawkins by Ben Stein in the film Expelled. This is the key section in which Richard Dawkins acknowledges that it is possible to find evidence of design in biology, and that it could have been seeded here by a "higher intelligence" from elsewhere in the universe.

**********

BEN STEIN: How did it get created?

DAWKINS: By a very slow process.

BEN STEIN: Well, how did it start?

DAWKINS: Nobody knows how it got started. We know the kind of event that it must have been. We know the sort of event that must have happened for the origin of life.

BEN STEIN: And what was that?

DAWKINS: It was the origin of the first self-replicating molecule.

BEN STEIN: Right, and how did that happen?

DAWKINS: I told you, we don’t know.

. . .

BEN STEIN: What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in Darwinian evolution.

DAWKINS: Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it’s possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer.

. . .

And that Designer could well be a higher intelligence from elsewhere in the universe. But that higher intelligence would itself have had to have come about by some explicable, or ultimately explicable process. It couldn't have just jumped into existence spontaneously. That's the point.


****************************

The interview can be found on YouTube here.

"Ida" Is Not Even Close To Being a Human Ancestor

From a Washington Post AP story, Ida is not so amazing after all:

Remember Ida, the fossil discovery announced last May with its own book and TV documentary? A publicity blitz called it "the link" that would reveal the earliest evolutionary roots of monkeys, apes and humans.

. . .

In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be, says Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.

. . .

The new analysis says Darwinius does not belong in the same primate category as monkeys, apes and humans. Instead, the analysis concluded, it falls into the other major grouping, which includes lemurs.

Experts agreed.

"This is a rigorous analysis based on many features," said Eric Sargis, an anthropology professor at Yale.

I'm ready for the media blitz that will correct the misinformation generated by the original media blitz. I won't hold my breath.

From a Guardian article:

The Ida fossil, which was found in the Messel Pit on the outskirts of Frankfurt, was revealed to the public in what amounted to the greatest publicity coup in modern science. The mayor of New York, Michael Bloomberg, appeared alongside the fossil, wearing a T-shirt carrying the TV tie-in logo, "The link." A book about Ida was already coming off the presses.

Ida was an immediate media sensation. The fossil received blanket coverage around the world and newspapers hailed her as the "missing link" between humans and animals. The Guardian even gave away free wallcharts of "humanity's long lost ancestor."

My previous posts and commentary on the Ida hoopla (with analogy to Britney Spears) are here and here.

So it goes . . .

George Marsden Identifies Darwinian Fundamentalism

In the context of the recent Bloggingheads controversy concerning Intelligent Design, George Marsden supported the premise of this blog:

Some religion history experts noted the ironic adaptation of Fundamentalist techniques on the opposite side of the evolution debate. "Recently 'the new atheists' have been characterized, even in some of the mainstream media, as like fundamentalists in their dogmatism," said George Marsden, a noted professor of American religious history at the University of Notre Dame. "Breaking relations with those who associate with your enemies sounds a lot like classic American fundamentalist 'second-degree separation.' "

I recommend Marsden's book, The Soul of the American University: From Protestant Establishment to Established Nonbelief, which gets into related topics.

Nick Matzke's Bad Logic

Tom Gilson has some interesting posts on the difference between Creationism and Intelligent Design. Here, here, and here. In one, he wonders: Maybe they really can't tell the difference, and suggests "worldview blindness" as a cause.

Nick Matzke, as shown in his comments, still refuses to see distinctions, but only the overlap. He is a passionate "lumper," as I discussed here. A refusal to see meaningful distinctions leads to bad logic, and Tom has pointed out Nick's pretty well. Whether you call it the "genetic fallacy" or something else, I find the logic pathetic.

I see so much bad logic in the scientific community, and I find it quite sad, actually. I suggested remedial education for Richard Dawkins. In many cases, it stems from a failure to define one's terms and engage in discussion with agreed upon terms and definitions. I honestly think scientists need more training in logic during their education.

This discussion raises the question again: At what point does stereotyping become bigotry?

Intelligent Design

What is the single best site for learning about Intelligent Design? No question: IntelligentDesign.org. I am happy to say that this is now the second site listed in search results for Intelligent Design. I think it should be first.

The Wikipedia article on ID used to be a complete hatchet job. It is better than it used to be, but it still appears to be a vehicle for people to attack Intelligent Design. It contains much misleading infomation of dubious relevance. If a person wants to understand what intelligent design is all about, there is no better place to look than intelligentdesign.org.

I encourage other bloggers and web sites to link to the intelligentdesign.org site, and not the Wikipedia page, whenever you mention Intelligent Design. I also encourage you to help make the Wikipedia page better.