Piltdown Superman

The claim that all, or most all, Darwin-doubters are fundamentalist Christians is commonly found in both in the popular and professional scholarly literature. Ohio State University Professor Tim Berra averred, “Creationists, for the most part, are fundamentalist Christians whose central premise is a literal interpretation of the Bible and a belief in its inerrancy” (Berra 1990, p. viii). Professor Douglas Futuyma, in his classic work attacking all Darwin-doubters, mentioned Christian fundamentalists or the term fundamentalists in connection with those who have problems with Darwinism over 14 times on pages 5 to 7 alone. He concluded that the Christian “fundamentalists assault” on science involves the challenge to evolution that was “mounted by religious fundamentalists [adversely] touches us all” (Futuyma 1983, p. 5).  Futuyma then adds, “according to the fundamentalists, physicists are wrong” and all “geology is under siege” by Christian “fundamentalists” and “in the

A free and independent press? Not quite. Our national media do not always operate at arms-length from state-backed science, as the California Science Center (CSC) affair has demonstrated.  As you probably know by now, in 2009 the state-run CSC cancelled a contract with the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) to screen a pro-ID documentary, Darwin's Dilemma , triggering a lawsuit over unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination. That lawsuit was recently settled. By the terms of the settlement agreement, the Science Center paid $110,000 and again opened its doors to the film, an invitation that was acknowledged by AFA as an apology and then respectfully declined for pragmatic reasons.  True, the Science Center did not explicitly admit in the agreement that it engaged in viewpoint discrimination, but the large payout and invitation may be taken as an implicit admission that its defense regarding the viewpoint discrimination claim was weak, and that a public trial should

You've heard a lot in this space the past few days about the viewpoint-discrimination lawsuit settled by the California Science Center for $110,000. That's money the CSC found it advisable to pay out to the American Freedom Alliance in order to avoid having to go to court and argue the case in public, with all that would have entailed by way of exposing a trail of incriminating emails by CSC staffers and scientists around the Los Angeles area. Lead by Casey Luskin, ENV writers have already very clearly spelled out the evidence of duplicity and intolerance on the part of the California Science Center, the panicky attempt to squelch the airing of a viewpoint favorable to intelligent design and the subsequent cover-up. Now that there's a little bit of a breather following the widespread reporting of the settlement, I'd like to suggest why the whole thing matters so much. Read the rest of "Stampede! What the California Science Center Scandal Reveals about

The state-run California Science Center (CSC) has paid $110,000 to settle a lawsuit by American Freedom Alliance (AFA) against CSC for violating AFA's First Amendment free speech rights to advocate intelligent design (ID). As part of the settlement, the CSC also has invited AFA to present the ID event it previously cancelled.  CSC rented its IMAX theater to AFA to show Darwin's Dilemma , a science documentary advocating ID. However, when CSC learned the film would portray ID favorably, CSC cancelled AFA's event. AFA filed suit in California Superior Court alleging viewpoint discrimination and breach of contract. Read the rest of "California Science Center Pays $110,000 to Settle Intelligent Design Discrimination Lawsuit" here .

The vertebrate eye is very well-constructed. Its many critical parts work together so that individual light photons are captured and converted into data that the brain then translates into a coherent visual image. Considering the obvious genius and purpose in eye design, claims that mindless natural processes formed the eye can only be made by ignoring the laws of logic. Recently, Australian neuroscientist Trevor Lamb wrote a  Scientific American  article titled "Evolution of the Eye." He included a narrated history, as if he had witnessed an actual eyeball evolve. But instead of providing scientific evidence, his presentation relied on logical fallacies.   First, Lamb granted god-like intelligence to an inanimate force he termed "selective pressures." He wrote, "As body size increased, so, too, did the selective pressures favoring the evolution of another type of eye: the camera [vertebrate] variety." But only an intelligent agent—not passive, unth

Life depends on an incredible enzyme called ATP synthase, the world’s tiniest rotary motor.   This tiny protein complex makes an energy-rich compound, ATP ( a denosine t ri p hosphate). Each of the human body’s 14 trillion cells performs this reaction about a million times per minute. Over half a body weight of ATP is made and consumed every day!  All living things need to make ATP, often called the “energy currency of life”. ATP is a small molecule with a big job: to provide immediately usable energy for cellular machines. ATP-driven protein machines power almost everything that goes on inside living cells, including manufacturing DNA, RNA, and proteins, clean-up of debris, and transporting chemicals into, out of, and within cells. Other fuel sources will not power these cellular protein machines for the same reasons that oil, wind, or sunlight will not power a gasoline engine. Read the rest of "ATP synthase: majestic

Here is the second of two articles that originally appeared elsewhere ( Part 1 is here ). I have edited this one a bit as well. The sceptic-tank-ical approach. That is, the constant denial of evidence. Absolutes If you insist on irrefutable, absolute proof before you will accept or believe something, you will have pitifully little to believe  at all.  What would happen in the court systems if they took that approach? Witnesses are  expected  to differ on details because of their knowledge, observations, personalities and whatever else; everyone has their own perspective. They use  reasonable  evidence, and not just iron-clad positive proof. Otherwise, there would be few convictions indeed. Edit: Demanding physical proof of a transcendent God is a category mistake , a logical fallacy. It's funny in a way that "everyone knew" that Casey Anthony was guilty, and were outraged that she was found not guilty. But "everyone" was not in the courtroo