jlynch | January 13, 2006I didn't really have time to blog anything today, primarily because I was preparing a talk on the Cambrian explosion that I am giving tonight. The weekend will likely be quiet as well, as I need to finish preparations for the new semester which starts on Tuesday. So, for those of you who are perhaps new to stranger fruit, here's a list of some of my favorite old posts to keep you amused until I write something new.
Revisiting Rivista
A Sermon on Sermonti
Testable ID? Close but no cigar?
"Methodological naturalism does not yield answers"
Peer Review and ID
A man for this season ⦠research for…
jlynch | January 12, 2006There is a nice piece in The New Republic (Jan 16th, unfortunately not online) titled "A Reason For Everything" in which Alan Wolfe reviews Rodney Stark's book The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (Random, 2005; Amazon). Stark is a sociologist (rather than an historian) at Baylor University, and has previously written such works as For The Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery (Princeton, 2003; Amazon), One True God: Historical Consequences of Monotheism (Princeton, 2001; Amazon) and…
jlynch | January 11, 2006So I've finally decided to move the whole blog over to here ... at least until I get sick of MoveableType :) You no longer will have to check my old blog, except when I link back to old articles. Here's hoping this works out.
jlynch | January 11, 2006Casey Luskin, lawyer and program officer for public policy and legal affairs at the DI has this to say about the El Tajon creationism class:
Intelligent design is different from creationism because intelligent design is based upon empirical data, rather than religious scripture, and also because intelligent design is not a theory about the age of the earth. Moreover, unlike creationism, intelligent design does not try to inject itself into religious discussions about the identity of the intelligence responsible for life. Creationism, in contrast, always postulates a supernatural or divine…
jlynch | January 11, 2006While finishing up graduate school, I worked for the Irish government on on a project to study fish stocks in the Irish Sea - this involved modelling biological and economic aspects with a view to the long term survival of the stocks. This, therefore, caught my eye:
Why does it take so long for fish stocks to recover from over-fishing? This problem has been worrying both scientists and fishery managers who expect stocks to quickly rebound when fishing stops. Now a research team from Stony Brook University [SUNY Stony Brook?] believes they have an answer: continually harvesting the largest and…
jlynch | January 10, 2006With my move over to ScienceBlogs I have been thinking about the direction I want to take my blogging. Readers of my old blog will remember that I spent a lot of the time their ranting about intelligent design, politics, ASU sports, etc. I have decided to continue doing so over there, so if you are new to me, you may want to check it out. This site will just be me on science, history of science, and the teaching of both of those. Occasional cross-postings may occur from the other site as needed. I expect to probably blog in the region of four or five times a week here, and who knows how…
jlynch | January 10, 2006One of the things which I think I'm going to do here which I didn't do at my old blog is write a little about academic life. As a scientist, I am in the relatively unusual position of not actually teaching "real" science classes - by that I mean the courses, while dealing with science, are more humanistic, historical and philosophical than scientific. Given that, however, I try and teach my students - particularly those who are science-phobic - some basic scientific ideas and ways of thinking.
This semester I'm teaching two courses. The first is an Origins, Evolution and Creation course that…
jlynch | January 10, 2006I have been teaching an upper-division course on Origins, Evolution and Creation since 1998; the course has been very popular and has been cross-listed as both Biology (BIO) and History and Philosophy of Science (HPS). Every year I get 40 or so students from varying religious and educational backgrounds and we examine the evidence for creationist claims (after spending some time thinking about the nature of science and religion). Over the years it has morphed from a course largely examining "scientific creationism" to one examining intelligent design. I'm not afraid to let the students read…
jlynch | January 10, 2006So what do you see? A groove and some lines? Truth be told, this is possibly the oldest recorded chordate fossil (or, should I say, one of a number of seventeen specimens of same). It dates from the pre-Cambrian - i.e. before 543 million years ago - during a period known as the Ediacarian. Found by Ross Faraghar seven years ago in the Flinders Range of Australia, the specimens represent our earliest view of chordate evolution, that is, the evolution of the group that we belong to (along with a few squishy things, and the more familiar fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals). Unfortunately,…
jlynch | January 6, 2006It appears once again that Dembski, contra the official DI position, supports the teaching of ID - rather than the "controversy" - in science class. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas has announced that ID is a "valid scientific theory" and should be taught (source). Indeed, a spokeswoman noted that Perry “supports the teaching of the theory of intelligent design. Texas schools teach the theory of evolution; intelligent design is a valid scientific theory, and he believes it should be taught as well” (emphasis mine). Dembski's sole comment is: "Leave it to a Red State to come through in time of need…
jlynch | January 6, 2006In a piece published yesterday in the World Peace Herald, Lloyd Eby (an Assistant Professorial Lecturer at the Department of Philosophy at George Washington University*) writes:
Even if you favor some form of ID, as I do, you should recognize that the ID proponents vastly overplayed their weak hand in this Dover case and deserved to lose. Nowhere did or do ID proponents perform any of the philosophical heavy lifting needed to show where and how the demarcation should be made between science and non-science, nor did or do they produce any credible attempt - credible to the larger non-ID…
jlynch | January 5, 2006I've noted before that a significant number of lawyers not only to deny evolution but also appear to think that their training as a lawyer enables them to adjudicate scientific "controversies" (real or percieved). As Nick notes over at the Thumb, the Discovery Institute seems to agree with me by approvingly ("Arizona Republic Columnist Hit the Nail on the Head in His Dover Trial Analysis") quoting the following from an op-ed in the Arizona Republic:
Moreover, based upon the extensive expertise he [Judge Jones] professes to have acquired in the course of a six-week trial, he defined science…
jlynch | January 4, 2006You only have to visit the ID-friendly sites to see that there is much displeasure with the decision by Judge Jones in the Kitzmiller v Dover case. Over at the Panda's Thumb, various people have responded to often uncivil and frequently legally misinformed commentary by the likes of John West (also see here, here, here), Phyllis Schaffly, Joseph Kippenberg, Albert Alschuler, and others. Throughout all of this, the following comment by "improvious" is particularly trenchant:
Just out of curiosity - is there anyone at all out there who is basing their argument against the judge's decision on…
jlynch | December 22, 2005Some quotes from Ricky Santorum:
"Therefore, intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." - 2002 Washington Times op-ed article
"I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom." - Interview in August 2005 on National Public Radio
"I do not believe it should be required teaching." "I thought the Thomas More Law Center made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did." - Interview yesterday with The Philadelphia Inquirer
Inquirer interview is here. Santorum has…
jlynch | December 22, 2005Over at Positive Liberty, Tim Sandefur has a good piece on "judicial activism" that takes on the claim that Jones' decision was an example of same. As Tim - who also blogs with the Panda's Thumb - notes:
With this in mind, check out this post at Southern Appeal, which accuses Judge Jones of activism in the Kitzmiller decision. "Judge Jones does not understand who is suppose to [sic] be an activist in our constitutional system," writes Verity. "A School Board is suppose to [sic] 'act' and make policy and curriculum decisions. And if those decisions are ill-informed, then, as happened here,…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Over at The Nation, Katrina Vanden Heuval says something that I've been saying for years. Regarding the Dover decision, she says
This is obviously a victory for science. What is less obvious is that it is also a victory for faith.
The most pernicious aspect of the ID movement is its commingling of science and faith, its attempt to use science and mathematics to prove the existence of an intelligent designer. Not only does this undermine science, it undermines faith, which by its very definition is "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." If ID scientists were…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Next semester I will be teaching Einstein's own account of relativity (amaz) in my HON 172 class. It will be interesting to see how that goes as it's not the easiest text in the world. Given that, the following caught my eye:
In a fitting cap to the World Year of Physics 2005, MIT physicists and colleagues from the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) report the most precise direct test yet of Einstein's most famous equation, E=mc2.
And, yes, Einstein still rules.
The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Things must really be unraveling for the ID supporters. First, as Dave Thomas notes, Jonathan Witt admits that the identity of the designer is a matter of religion (look mom! no space aliens!):
[I]n fact ID appeals to positive evidence for design and merely detects design, leaving the question of the designer's identity to religion.
Yikes!
Then, Richard Thompson - lead defense lawyer in KvD and founder of the Thomas More Law Center - had this to say on PBS Newshour:
Secondly, this idea that creationism is an old concept that the courts have already decided on flies in the face of the…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Over at Dembski's blog, the poor saps are trying desperately to get some joy out of the Dover decision. Witness "DaveScott":
The next trial needs be carefully crafted by OUR side so that ...
2) The expert witnesses on our side should be industrial design engineers not biologists. What are biologists doing testifying about design? I never understood that. Biology is a cross between pipetteing and stamp collecting. Biologists wouldn't recognize digitally programmed factory automation if it bit them on the ankle. But the trial isn't about science. ID doesn't need to be science. It needs to…
jlynch | December 21, 2005Dembski chimes in with:
[T]he actual ruling is not a Waterloo for the intelligent design side. Certainly it will put a damper on school boards interested in promoting intelligent design. But this is not a Supreme Court decision. Nor is it likely this decision will be appealed since the Dover school board that caused all the trouble was voted out and replaced this November. Thus we can expect agitation for ID and against evolution to continue. School boards and state legislators may tread more cautiously, but tread on evolution they will -- the culture war demands it! ...
Judge Jones's…