Want to learn more about Intelligent Design Creationism? The Center for Science & Culture in Seattle, Washington (USA) is offering a course next summer: The CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences.
It sounds really interesting. Here's the description.
he CSC Seminar on Intelligent Design in the Natural Sciences will prepare students to make research contributions advancing the growing science of intelligent design (ID). The seminar will explore cutting-edge ID work in fields such as molecular biology, biochemistry, embryology, developmental biology, paleontology, computational biology, ID-theoretic mathematics, cosmology, physics, and the history and philosophy of science. The seminar will include presentations on the application of intelligent design to laboratory research as well as frank treatment of the academic realities that ID researchers confront in graduate school and beyond, and strategies for dealing with them. Although the primary focus of the seminar is science, there also will be discussion of the worldview implications of the debate over intelligent design. Participants will benefit from classroom instruction and interaction with prominent ID researchers and scholars. Past seminars have included such speakers as Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Paul Nelson, Jay Richards, Douglas Axe, Ann Gauger, Richard Sternberg, Robert Marks, Scott Minnich, and Bruce Gordon. The seminar is open to students who intend to pursue graduate studies in the natural sciences or the philosophy of science. Applicants must be college juniors or seniors or already in graduate school.
Do you have a commitment to truth and to following the evidence where it leads? Do you have the desire, the vision and the determination necessary to breathe new purpose into the scientific enterprise and influence its self-understanding in ways that will benefit both science and humanity? Apply to become one of a select group of students participating in this exciting workshop.
This is your chance to get up-to-date information on biochemistry and population genetics from Michael Behe and Ann Gauger! You can learn about evolution from Young Earth Creationist Paul Nelson and anti-evolutionist Jonathan Wells.
What an opportunity! I'm sure there are many Sandwalk readers who would welcome the chance to learn about Intelligent Design directly from its main proponents. This is bound to be a marvelous course, even if you're a skeptic.
The application process seems pretty straightforward. It looks like they're open to all points of view so they can have a healthy debate in a critical thinking environment.
Admission Requirements: You must be currently enrolled in a college or university as a junior, senior, or graduate student. Required application materials include (1) a resume/cv, (2) a copy of your academic transcript, (3) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your career plans and field of study, and (4) either a letter of recommendation from a professor who knows your work and is friendly toward ID, or a phone interview with the seminar director.
Just ignore the fact that you need a letter from a professor who's ID-friendly. I'm sure they don't mean that as way of eliminating skeptics and evolutionists. I'm sure that the phone interview is just a way of confirming that you are really interested in learning about Intelligent Design Creationism no matter what your religion.
I'm sure that any organization promoting critical thinking and "teach the controversy" would never choose their students based on whether they are already proponents of Intelligent Design Creationism.
Same goes for any organization that would support a movie like Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ("Big science has expelled smart new ideas from the classroom.") Especially since Richard Sternberg might be one of the lecturers.
The man who is advocating gun culture is Louie Gohmert, a Republican member of the United States Congress representing the 1st Congressional District of Texas. Gun control will never be successful as long as a substantial number of Americans think like this. Gohmert won the last election (Nov. 2012) with 72% of the vote.
Change the culture. Violence is never the answer and more violence will never fix the problem. Change the culture and gun control automatically follows, as in most other countries. It's unlikely that tweaking a few gun laws will make much of a difference as long as everyone thinks it's okay to act like a gun-toting vigilante.
Last week's molecule was tetrahydrofolate, an essential cofactor in several reactions; notably the synthesis of thymidine. The winner was Jacob Troth [Monday's Molecule #195]. He should contact me by email.
This week's molecule is a very important molecule. I'm showing you two different conformations of the same molecule. You need to identify this molecule using its full and complete common name. I'm going to be strict about this, if you give me an ambiguous name you will not win.
Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)
In lieu of Saturday morning cartoons, I offer this video. David Klinghoffer likes it [The Awkward Secret that Plagues Population Genetics and Darwinian Evolutionary Theory]. Enjoy.
As most of you know, there's a reason why we call them IDiots. There's a reason why faculty members in a biology department might not get tenure if they believe most of the things you read on Evolution News & Views (sic). There's a reason why a student might get a low grade for questioning the existence of natural selection or for thinking that skin cells don't accumulate mutations.
The elected members of the Texas legislature are well aware of this discrimination against stupidity so they've taken steps to stop it. Bill HB285 "Relating to prohibiting discrimination by public institutions of higher education against faculty members and students based on their conduct of research relating to intelligent design" should do the trick, if it becomes law.
Here's the key provision,
An institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member’s or student’s conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms.
I suppose it was inevitable that politicians in Texas would finally recognize that their children might flunk out of university.
Most of us are aware of the ENCODE publicity fiasco. The leaders of the project made some outlandish claims about the function of most of our genome in order to attract attention and make their work seem much more significant than it really is [see Sean Eddy on Junk DNA and ENCODE].
Many scientists tried to set the record straight and they pretty much succeeded, at least in the scientific community. Most scientist now know that the case for junk DNA is a lot stronger than they thought.
Unfortunately, the criticisms didn't get much publicity and the average person is left with the impression that most of our genome has an important function, even if we don't know exactly what that function is. This means that good science writers have to work harder to educate the public about the true state of our genome.
Timothy Caulfield is a Professor in the Faculty of Law and the School of Public Health at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. He's also Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, a very prestigious award. He writes the following in today's issue of The Globe & Mail, Canada's most important newspaper [We’re overselling the health-care 'revolution' of personal genomics].
The relationship between our genome and disease is far more complicated than originally anticipated. Indeed, the more we learn about the human genome, the less we seem to know. For example, results from a major international initiative to explore all the elements of our genome (the ENCODE project) found that, despite decades-old conventional wisdom that much of our genome was nothing but “junk DNA,” as much as 80 per cent of our genome likely has some biological function. This work hints that things are much more convoluted than expected. So much so that one of ENCODE’s lead researchers, Yale’s Mark Gerstein, was quoted as saying that it’s “like opening a wire closet and seeing a hairball of wires.”
Statements like this from someone who is supposed to be knowledgeable about such issues show us that the ENCODE fiasco has far-reaching consequences. The misleading statements by Ewan Birney and others will take years to undo. It's all the more reason to criticize Nature and Science for aiding and abetting the spread of this false information.
How can we expect people like Timothy Caulfield to understand the science if the leading journals get it wrong?
[Hat Tip: Ryan Gregory, "The Bullshit Continues to Spread" on Facebook.]
Paul Nelson has been challenging the pervasiveness of adaptationism by pointing out that many evolutionary biologists promte nonadaptive evolution. See the discussion and comments on Jerry Coyne's blog website: A Marshall McLuhan moment with creationist Paul Nelson. Nelson has been accused, falsely, of claiming that some evolutionary biologists deny that natural selection is an important mechanism in evolution.
Paul Nelson doesn't deny that natural selection is a real phenomenon. He may be an IDiot (and a YEC) but he's not THAT stupid. On the other hand, one didn't have to wait too long before getting confirmation that some other IDiots really are THAT stupid.
And guess what? They are allowed to post on the main Discovery Institute blog, Evolution News & Views (sic)!!! You have to read How "Real" Is Natural Selection? by Tom Bethell ... otherwise you'd never believe me.
Here's what Tom Bethell says about natural selection.
Over at Uncommon Descent there's a recent post praising the "noted philosopher" William Lane Craig [Noted philosopher William Lane Craig responds to the American Humanist Association “Kids without God” web site]. They link to an article by Craig posted on The Washington Post website a few days ago: Humanism for children.
Here's what William Lane Craig has to say about the existence of god(s).
Udo Schüklenk is a Professor of Philsophy at Queen's University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada. His specialty is bioethics.
Udo gave a presentation at Eschaton 2012 on Myths About Atheist Values. He covered three topics ...
1. Are atheists moral? Yes
2. Does life have meaning or purpose? No, not the same kind of meaning and purpose that theists imagine.
3. Do atheists value human life? Yes.
Udo has a blog and one of the services he provides on his blog is to teach us about bioethics. Part of this service is to expose quacks masquerading as bioethicists. It's a thankless job but someone has to do it.
Fortunately, Udo concentrates on Canadian quacks so you won't be overwhelmed. There are only a few hundred, mostly doctors.
Perhaps Canada's most famous quack bioethicist is Margaret Somerville, a Professor of Law at McGill University, (Montreal, Quebec, Canada). She's best known for her opposition to same-sex marriage and she's been advertised on television and in newspapers as a bioethicist who has rational views on the dangers of legalizing same-sex marriage. (She wasn't very persuasive since same-sex marriage is legal in Canada.}1
Udo Schüklenk chaired an experts panel on end-of-life decisions for the Royal Society of Canada [End-of-Life Decision-Making in Canada: The Report by the Royal Society of Canada Expert Panel on End-of-Life Decision-Making].
Margaret Sommerville didn't like their recommendations. She claims that further legalization of euthanasia will lead to people being killed against their will.
Here's how Udo deals with that issue ... Evidence has never been Ms. Somerville's strongest point. So, without any evidence to back up her claims she declares on the Catholic website, "One of the things that's wrong with respect to Justice (Lynn) Smith's judgment (in Carter v. Attorney General of B.C.) is that she purports to review the use of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide in the jurisdictions that have legalized it. She said there is no problem, there is no slippery slope. Well, that's simply not right factually." It turns out, in our Report on end of life decision-making in Canada we reviewed the empirical evidence on the slippery slope matter and concluded that there is no evidence that assisted dying leads us down slippery slopes to unwanted killings. Of course, we reviewed evidence, Ms Somerville is in full preaching mode.
I like this guy! He thinks that real, scientific, "evidence" is an important part of any debate.
1. We're anxiously waiting to see if her predictions about kids of gay parents being traumatized will come true.
Can you go from some simple character to a more complex feature without invoking natural selection? Yes, you can. Complex features can evolve by nonadaptive means. Just think of our complex genome and read The Origins of Genome Architecture by Michael Lynch.
Want a more simple example? Read the latest post by PZ Myers: [αEP: Complexity is not usually the product of selection]1.
This is an important point. You can't just assume, without question, that a complex trait must be an adaptation and must have arisen by natural selection. That applies to molecular complexes and also to complex behavior.
1. See The Evolution of Enzymes from Promiscuous Precursors for supplementary information.
In my opinion, science is a way of knowing characterized by a requirement for evidence, healthy skepticism, and rationality. "Knowing" refers to something called "universal truth" because knowledge has to be more than just something that an individual believes is true.
I'm not aware of any other way of knowing that has produced something we can reliably classify as "knowledge" by any reasonable criteria. From time to time I've asked for examples but nobody has been able to provide any example of "universal truth" (i.e. knowledge) that has been reached by any other process.
Today Barry Arrington of Uncommon Descent decided to enlighten us [Science is Good, But Not That Good].
Consider history for example. We know with a high degree of reliability that Abraham Lincoln was the president of the United States in 1863. I did not arrive at this knowledge through scientific means. I know it because someone told me, and they in turn learned it from someone else, who in turn learned it from someone else back to the actual people who witnessed first-hand a man who called himself “Abraham Lincoln” sitting in the White House in 1863 and acting for all the world like he was the president of the United States.
Consider geography. I have never been to Russia, but I am quite certain that Moscow is the capital of that country. I did not arrive at this knowledge through scientific means either.
If timothya will stop and think a moment, he will realize that practically everything he knows he knows because someone told him, not because the truth of the proposition has been confirmed by science.
I guess that settles it. If lots of people tell you that god exists then it must be true. Epistemology is finished and the demarcation problem is solved.
Lots of people tell me that Intelligent Design Creationists aren't very bright. 
None of the Sandwalk readers rose to to challenge of identifying a really good evolutionary psychology paper [The Best of Evolutionary Psychology].
However, Jerry Coyne tries to (partially) defend evolutionary psychology and he offers the following paper as evidence that the field is not entirely worthless.
Confer, J.C., Easton, J.A., Fleischman, D.S., Goetz, C.D., Lewis, D.M.G., Perilloux, C., and Buss, D.M. (2010) Evolutionary Psychology: Controversies, Questions, Prospects, and Limitations. American Psychologist 65:110–126. [doi: 10.1037/a0018413]
The main problem with the adaptationist approach is identifying adaptations. Is something really an adaptation or are there other explanations? Part of the answer involves providing evidence that the behavior has a specific genetic component.
I don't think those problems are satisfactorily addressed in this review in spite of Jerry's recommendation. If this is the best the field has to offer then it's in real trouble.
Here's an example from that paper of the "best" kind of science.
The science of confirming and falsifying hypotheses, of course, is typically more complex than these examples indicate. Often a hypothesis is embedded within a larger theoretical network. For example, one evolutionary prediction is that women will prefer men as potential mates who express a willingness to invest in them and their offspring (Buss, 1995). This is derived from the hypothesis that in paternally investing species, females will use cues to a man’s willingness to invest as a criterion for mate selection. In turn, this hypothesis is derived from parental investment theory, which posits that the sex that invests more in its offspring will be the choosier sex when selecting mates (Trivers, 1972). Finally, the logic behind parental investment theory is derived from inclusive fitness theory (Hamilton, 1964a, 1964b), the modern formulation of evolution by natural selection. As in all realms of psychological science, the evaluation of each evolutionary psychological hypothesis, as well as the broader theories within which they are embedded, rests with the cumulative weight of the empirical evidence.
I've always been puzzled about the evolutionary significance of mate selection in humans. Whenever I look at genealogical records I'm impressed by the fact that almost all men and women who reach maturity seem to find a mate. This jibes well with my personal experience since all of my friends who wanted to live with a partner succeeded in finding one. I wonder how powerful these mate selection criteria can be if there aren't significant numbers of people don't succeed in mating. Where are the ugly mean and women who couldn't find a mate?
I understand that there are studies showing that men and women in different cultures will prefer certain physical characteristics in their mates. What I don't know is whether this actually translates into mate selection when the time comes to form a stable partnership (e.g. get married). It doesn't seem like it to me otherwise almost all wives would look like Marilyn Monroe.
If women are the choosers then why aren't there lots of single men who will never have children even though they want to? Where are the losers in our societies? How common were they in the past?
What about hypothesizing that we all dream about the appearance of the ideal mate but that when it comes time to make a choice we put our emphasis on other characteristics (e.g. availability)? Maybe our preferences aren't really adaptations at all? Was that one of the hypotheses that was considered or do evolutionary psychologists jump immediately to adaptive story-telling?
Last week's molecule was allantoin, the breakdown product of uric acid that's found in the urine of mammals. Other animals can degrade allantoin to more simple compounds but mammals have lost the genes for this pathway. The winners were Paul Clapham and Jacob Troth [Monday's Molecule #194]. They should contact me by email.
This week's molecule is a ubiquitous and essential molecule in all species. Give the common name but be sure you don't confuse it with other, very similar, molecules.
Post your answer as a comment. I'll hold off releasing any comments for 24 hours. The first one with the correct answer wins. I will only post mostly correct answers to avoid embarrassment. The winner will be treated to a free lunch.
There could be two winners. If the first correct answer isn't from an undergraduate student then I'll select a second winner from those undergraduates who post the correct answer. You will need to identify yourself as an undergraduate in order to win. (Put "undergraduate" at the bottom of your comment.)
My friends and I were talking about the purpose of education over dinner on Saturday night. This video criticizes one side of the issue; namely, the idea that the purpose of education is to prepare you for a job. It should not be the goal of education.1
1. But it may be a collateral benefit.
[Hat Tip: Veronica at Canadian Atheist.]
A brief summary of what went on in Ottawa Nov. 30 - Dec. 2, 2012 from Atheism TV.
[Hat Tip: Veronica Abbas at Canadian Atheist.]
