Muddling Toward Maturity Blog

Stephen Meyer and Michael Shermer discuss Meyer's latest book—Return of God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe

Stephen Meyer, author of  Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design and Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, has now published yet another major book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries That Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe.   Meyer is one of the foremost advocates of Intelligent Design and his latest book constitutes perhaps the most comprehensive book available on the subject.  In this video, well-known skeptic Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer carry on an irenic, valuable conversation.  If you are like me, you will be highly impressed with Meyer's mastery of his subject matter.

PERFECT ECLIPSES: COINCIDENCE OR CONSPIRACY?

A strong argument can be made that the universe points beyond itself.  

Jay Richards, co-author of The Privileged Planet: How our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery, writes about the 2017 eclipse viewed by many of us today in the United States and elsewhere.  He writes:

On August 21, we Americans get to see a total solar eclipse. As I mentioned in a previous piece, we can see solar eclipses only because our planet, our Moon, and our Sun sometimes come together in a straight line in space. When the Moon passes between the Sun and Earth, those in the Moon’s shadow see an eclipse.

But the story doesn’t end there. A rare alignment of events allows Earthlings to witness not just solar eclipses, but what we might call perfect solar eclipses. Our Moon just barely covers the Sun’s bright photosphere. Such an eclipse depends on just the right sizes, shapes, and relative distances of the Sun, Moon, and Earth.

There’s no law of physics that dictates this layout. There are 65 major moons in our Solar System, and many smaller ones. But only we enjoy perfect solar eclipses. If there were Martians or Uranians, they wouldn’t see such eclipses.

The Moon is about 400 times smaller than the Sun. But the Moon is also about 400 times closer to the Earth than is the Sun. As a result, the size of the Moon on our sky matches the size of the Sun. And since they appear as round disks, they match in both size and shape.

What’s more, the tight match between Moon and Sun only happens during a narrow window of Earth’s history. The Moon is slowly moving away from Earth — at roughly the same speed that fingernails grow.

In brief, the best time and place to view total solar eclipses in our Solar System is just when and where there are observers to see them.

Let that sink in.

CAN WE TRUST SCIENTIFIC "STUDIES"? NO!

Corruption has now invaded and invalidated much of the sacred precincts of "science."  As Pascal Emmanuel Gobry writes in his article, Big Science is Broken:

Science is broken.

That's the thesis of a must-read article in First Things magazine, in which William A. Wilson accumulates evidence that a lot of published research is false. But that's not even the worst part.

Advocates of the existing scientific research paradigm usually smugly declare that while some published conclusions are surely false, the scientific method has "self-correcting mechanisms" that ensure that, eventually, the truth will prevail. Unfortunately for all of us, Wilson makes a convincing argument that those self-correcting mechanisms are broken.  [more. . .]   

Me: This is a "Must Read" article...

QUICK TAKES

 

   ** New York Times:  "An Earthling's Guide to Black Holes"

   ** Rod Dreher links to major article - "How the Fight Over Transgender Kids Got a Leading Sex Researcher Fired."     Gender dysphoria clinic head gets canned because he is not politically correct enough and because of intellectual and moral cowardice of his superiors.  

   ** Caroline Glick - Israel's defenses in dire straits over Russian deployment of the S-400 and the projected purchase of the fatally flawed F-35.   Israeli air superiority now ended.

   ** Charles Murray - Explaining Trumpism: the white working class has legitimate reasons to be angry at the ruling class.  

   ** David French - Stop Using Israel's Example to Justify the Barbaric Practice of Drafting Women into Combat

IS THE "PEER REVIEW" PROCESS ADVANCING SCIENCE?

The question deserves serious consideration.   To what extent is "science" shackled by dogma, a refusal to publish research that "goes against the grain"?  And if fresh research never gets published, how can science advance?  Dr. Hugh Henry considers the question.  Some excerpts:

In today's society, we often look to science as an unbiased source of truth, regulated by the peer review process. Unfortunately, the phenomenon of publication bias—well-documented in the scientific literature—permeates a variety of scientific studies. To put it one way, certain points of view are more likely to be published than others for reasons other than the quality of research.

For example, the authors of a 2015 meta-analysis of US National Institutes of Health trials pinpointed publication bias as the reason why we overestimate the effectiveness of antidepressant medications. Another 2015 meta-analysis of the social cost of carbon (a concept related to global warming) found that contrary data was often suppressed which "might create an upward bias in the literature."¹ The authors of the study also found that "the evidence for selective reporting is stronger for studies published in peer-reviewed journals than for unpublished papers." 

. . .  Science recently published the results of a massive study with more than 250 coauthors "estimating the reproducibility of psychological science."⁴ After conducting replications of 100 studies that were published in three psychology journals, the researchers found only 39 percent of the effects replicated the original result. Reproducibility is one of the three pillars of science.⁵ An experiment repeated under the same conditions should produce similar results; if it doesn't, then it's back to the drawing board. Yet it appears 61 percent of psychology studies fail this test.  These data support an earlier analysis that found a strong publication bias in favor of human-caused global warming in articles published in Science and Nature.²

The peer review process is supposed to pick up errors like these, but instead it seems complicit. And the problem appears much broader than just these examples.  [more . . .]

HUGH ROSS - SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE FOR GOD'S EXISTENCE

Hugh Ross, Ph.D. (astronomy/astrophysics), founder of Reasons to Believe, offers a stunning talk on science, creation, and how he came to faith and trust the Bible.  He became a believer "on his own" as a 17 year old budding scientist. He said he didn't encounter a Christian until he was 27 and at CalTech.    My one question would be to ask how he calculates probabilities.  Enjoy.

 

 

MEDIA FAILS TO REPORT PAUL EHRLICH'S LAUGHABLE TRACK RECORD AS FORECASTER OF DOOM AND GLOOM

One has solid grounds to  wonder at the selectivity and inadequacy of current news reporting.  Those who remember the previous "science" predictions of Paul Ehrlich may be pardoned for being skeptical of his latest dire warnings.   Wesley J. Smith writes:

You may have read in the media that humans are causing a sixth mass extinction on the planet.

You may also have noted that one of the sources of the claim is Paul Ehrlich -- author of the hysterically wrong "The Population Bomb."

But for the most part the articles that have reported on the paper by Ehrlich and Anthony Barnosky (in Science Advances) do not mention that infamous book or Ehrlich's history of hyperbolic ecological fear mongering. Instead they simply identify Ehrlich as a Stanford University professor and president of the Center for Conservation Biology. That's misleading by omission.

Here's one news reports, for example, that merely refers to him as a professor.From the story in the Telegraph:

Scientists at Stanford University in the US claim it is the biggest loss of species since the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction which wiped out the dinosaurs 66 million years ago. "Without any significant doubt that we are now entering the sixth great mass extinction event," said Professor Paul Ehrlich, at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment.

Putting it that way creates an illusion that Ehrlich would write an objective study. But Ehrlich is less a scientist than he is an ideologue who for decades has made a good living by preaching doom and gloom. His prognostications are almost always wrong.

The Telegraph's Tim Chivers penned a valuable column a few years ago outlining some of the assertions Ehrlich made in his book that turned out to be panicked rather than prophetic. From the column:

So, let's take a look at some of his predictions, made in 1968:

1) "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate," he said. He predicted four billion deaths, including 65 million Americans...

What actually happened: Since Ehrlich wrote, the population has more than doubled to seven billion -- but the amount of food per head has gone up by more than 25 per cent. Of course there are famines, but the death rate has gone down. I don't think a significant number of Americans have starved....

HOW TO BUILD A WORM

I found this video fascinating.

 

DOES SCIENCE ARGUE FOR OR AGAINST GOD?

Hats off to Eric Metaxas and Prager University for producing this excellent, skilful distillation of points made elsewhere, such as in The Privileged Planet, the book or DVD.

 

 

CHRISTIAN ASTRONOMER HUGH ROSS QUESTIONS JOHN HAGEE'S "FOUR BLOOD MOONS" THESIS

In a two-part article, astronomer Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe Ministry expresses disagreement with Rev. John Hagee's perspective on the significance of "Four Blood Moons." 

Ross writes:

Popular Bible preacher John Hagee has authored a book and produced a movie by the same name, Four Blood Moons (in theaters March 23, April 9th). On the film’s website the San Antonio megachurch pastor states, “The heavens are ‘God’s billboard.’ He’s been sending signals to earth, and we haven’t been picking them up.” In part 1 of this series, as an astronomer I analyzed those “signals,” a series of four (tetrad) total lunar eclipses that supposedly ushers in prophetic activity ahead of the return of Christ. Now, as a student of Scripture and as one who believes in premillennial eschatology, I convey my primary, biblical criticism.

Blood Moons: An End-Time Sign? (Part 1 of 1)

Blood Moons: An End-Time Sign?  (Part 2 of 2)

FOLLIES OF "EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY"

--  I did a quick glance at a Denyse O'Leary's article "The Evolutionary Psychologist Knows Why You Vote -- and Shop, and Tip at Restaurants."  Except he/she doesn't.  O'Leary concludes:

 "... evo psych really says far more about the culture that created it than about the history of the human race."

Me:  So true.  (The article provides a host of useful links)

-- I might mention another "evolution article," this one titled "Dartmouth Physicist: When Science Shades Over Into Faith."  It treats of Marcelo Gleiser, a theoretical physicist at Dartmouth College, "who provocatively acknowledges that science can shade over into the faith, when scientists cling to ideas beyond the point where the evidence has turned against them."  Stubbornness is part of human behavior.  As Gleiser says (his emphasis):  "When you invest decades of your professional life in the pursuit of an idea, it's real hard to let go. Some never do."  David Klinghoffer comments:   "The old folks won't let go of Darwinism. Progress depends on the young, biologists whose names you’ve not yet heard whispered. It's another way of saying, with Max Planck, that "Science advances one funeral at a time."

JOHN COLEMAN, WEATHER CHANNEL CO-FOUNDER: MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE ‘A MYTH’

 

Nat Brown reports:

Appearing on the "Kelly File" last night, Weather Channel co-founder and meteorologist John Coleman discussed an open letter he had recently authored in which he declared that “man-made global climate change is a myth.” The letter was written to UCLA’s Hammer Museum forum and criticized one of its recent panels, entitled “Tackling Climate Change,” for not including any skeptics in the event.

Coleman noted that it has been tough for climate skeptics to voice their opinions in the media “ever since Al Gore made [climate change] a plank of the Democratic party.” When host Megyn Kelly raised the point that even certain Republican political candidates will label such views as “nuts,” Coleman replied, “It’s very difficult to be against it when the media has told the nation that the oceans are rising, the polar bears are dying, the ice is melting, that storms are going to sweep the earth, and that we’re all going to die of a heat wave,” adding, “this is bad, bad science.”

IS THE PROGRESS OF SCIENCE INHIBITED BY BELIEVING IN GOD AS CREATOR?

I think Fazale Rana of Reasons to Believe  answers the question wisely.   He writes:

A few years ago, I took part in an email exchange with a prominent origin-of-life researcher after he read my book Origins of Life (coauthored with Hugh Ross). He expressed the concern that "the creationist perspective stops the questioning process."

I would be interested in how you think the "creation model approach...will lead to scientific advance." Your book clearly showed that science does not have all the answers to how life may have begun, and of course I agree with that conclusion. What this means to me is that we have some beautiful open questions to work on to try to find the answers. But in your book, at the end of each chapter, you typically ended with the creationist answer to open questions: God did it. This is what I meant by stopping the questioning process. If the answer is that God did it, where do we go from there?

I have found that this sentiment is widely held among scientists—and, frankly, it is a legitimate objection on some level. If the questioning process grinds to a halt, then science becomes impossible. Responding to this concern was one motivation for me and Hugh to develop and present a creation model for the origin of life. As scientists ourselves, we have no desire to stultify the question and research process. Rather, we believe that integrating biblical teachings on the origin of life with scientific data to form a legitimate model (replete with predictions) actually encourages the questioning process. Perhaps the creation model approach may even lead the scientific community to new and productive paths in the pursuit of life's origin.

THE KEN HAM - BILL NYE DEBATE ON "IS CREATION A VIABLE MODEL OF ORIGINS IN TODAY'S MODERN SCIENTIFIC ERA?"

Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and founder of the Creation Museum and Bill Nye "The Science Guy" debated each other Tuesday night, Feb. 4th.   The debate remains available for viewing here and here.

I confess I am one of those who cringe at the 6,000 year old-earth position Ken Ham defends.   The debate came off better than I had feared, but I still lament that many uninformed viewers will conclude that anyone who believes in the authority of the Bible must reject the scientific evidence that contends for an old earth.  Interestingly, Pat Robertson stated on the 700 club that he holds to an old-earth position as well.

Ham's post-debate reflections are available here.  Nye reflects here.

Dr. Albert Mohler, a young-earth adherent and President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary offers his reflections here.

Those associated with the BioLogos Forum which adheres to a theistic evolution perspective (renamed "evolutionary creation)," published their perspective here.

Casey Luskin of the Intelligent Design movement wasn't happy.  He titled his response, "The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity.   Michael J. Behe, a biology professor at Lehigh University and an advocate of Intelligent Design said, "I was upset that both the parties kept talking on about the age of the Earth than on the elegance and complexities of life."  David Klingfellow, another ID adherent and an orthodox Jew, offers a substitute debate more to his liking, that of Stephen Meyer vs. Charles Marshall.   That debate is on Intelligent Design and the explosion of life.  

Wintery Knight likewise preferred steering people to debates with which he is more comfortable, namely a debate between young earth scientist Jason Lisle and old earth astronomer Hugh Ross.  He also recommends the Stephen C. Meyer vs. Keith Fox debate on intelligent design and evolution as well as the Michael Behe-Keith Fox debate.  Speaking of Hugh Ross, his organization, Reasons to Believe, published RTB's  general perspective on debates without commenting specifically on the Nye-Ham debate.

I was struck by evolutionist Michael Shermer's tweet - "People of all faiths and no faiths accept Big Bang cosmology because of evidence, but no non-Christians accept young earth creationism."  I suspect that is true.   Shermer coached Nye before the debate.

Respondents to the U.K. Christian Magazine gave the debate to Nye.

In terms of who "won" the debate, the audience of Britain's Christian Today website says it was Nye, hands down. With 42,567 responses, the site's online poll finds Nye with 92 percent support, compared with 8 percent for Ham. An option for "neither" is not provided in the poll, which is still taking votes

On the general matter of "evidence" vs. "the Bible" the key issue revolves around interpretation of both science and the Bible. In my judgment, Dr. John C. Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at Oxford University, has provided excellent help in his book, Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.  Dr. Lennox gave the following talk on January 31, 2013 at New York's gathering of Socrates in the City.   A  talk Lennox gave of a similar nature is summarized here and critiqued from a young-earth perspective here.  It should be noted that although Lennox believes in an "old earth,"  he rejects theistic evolution and believes man a special creation of God.  

  

I have blogged previously of John Lennox's visit to Yale.  Lennox has debated Princeton ethicist Dr. Peter Singer and Oxford's evolution propagandist Dr. Richard Dawkins among others.  Lennox is the author of the following books:

QUICK TAKES

  --  Kathleen Parker - To Defeat poverty, look to marriage   Negative rhetoric on marriage needs overcoming

  --  National Organization for Marriage - Stop this contempt for the constitution

  --  U.K. Guardian - Daughter of atheist parents wants to be baptized

  --  Andrew Spencer -What is the Prosperity Gospel?

  --  Denys O'Leary -  In Search of a Road to Reality  "The new cosmologies are not shedding much light, except on the sheer power of the human imagination."

Bacteria Found in NASA Clean Rooms Likely Traveled to Mars

Dr. Faz Razale of Reasons to Believe reports this startling discovery:

Recently, two separate research teams discovered Tersicoccus phoenicis in NASA and ESA clean rooms, where engineers assemble spacecraft. This microbe’s ability to survive in the harsh clean room environments, with virtually no access to nutrients, makes raises the possibility that these microbes traveled with the Phoenix Mars lander and potentially contaminated the planet with Earth life. Of course, this surprising discovery confounds the search to discover life on the Red Planet. Many people believe if life is discovered on Mars, then the evolutionary explanation for life’s origin gains validation. This latest work suggests otherwise.

ERIC METAXAS INTERVIEWS STEPHEN MEYER ON "DARWIN'S DOUBT"

Eric Metaxas of Socrates in the City interviews Stephen Meyer on Darwin, Intelligent Design, the scientific method, and the book Darwin’s Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design. Filmed at the Union League Club in New York City on September 12, 2013.  (HT: Justin Taylor) 

I viewed it last night in its entirety and heartily recommend it.  Metaxas employs entertaining wit and humor and Meyer is an interviewer's delight- he offers cogent, articulate responses to every question!  And as for the Q&A, Wintery Knight says "Those were some of the most intelligent questions I have ever seen from a lay audience." 

Winitery Knight summarizes:

It’s a very good discussion that starts with the 5 basic questions you need to understand before you can understand intelligent design.

Here are the first 5 questions:

• What is intelligent design?
• What are the three meanings of the word evolution?
• Is Darwinian evolution compatible with intelligent design?
• Is intelligent design science?
• What is biological information and where is it found?

Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate "Darwin's Doubt"

I am a great fan of Stephen C. Meyer whose intellectual work consistently dazzles.   He earned his Ph.D. from Cambridge in the Philosophy of Science and has published the acclaimed The Signature of the Cell:DNA and the Case for Intelligent Design, Does God Exist: Bulding the Scientific Case (TrueU), (a 10-part series especially designed for high school and college students), and his latest book, highlighted below, Darwin's Doubt, which I own and have found to be an extraordinary tour de force.

From Evolution News & Views:

On Public Radio's "Interfaith Voices," Stephen Meyer and Michael Ruse Debate Darwin's Doubt

David Klinghoffer August 27, 2013 5:50 AM | Permalink

Here's a very thoughtful and entertaining discussion of Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design with Stephen Meyer and atheist philosopher Michael Ruse, on public radio's "Interfaith Voices." I appreciate the way host Maureen Fiedler makes clear the three-way distinction and contrast of intelligent design versus creationism versus Darwinian evolution. It's an amazing thing to reflect on that few in the media are able to do so.

She solicits arguments from Meyer and Ruse respectively and then turns around and asks the other for a response -- yes, a proper debate, and a civil, informative and even amusing one! Kudos to Dr. Ruse for agreeing to have such a direct confrontation.

GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD IS A BAD THING, RIGHT?

That's what I thought, but this article has caused me to be much less sure.   

A REVIEW OF THE DVD "EVOLUTION VS. GOD"

Dr. Jeff. Zweerink of Reasons to Believe, a science-oriented apologetics organization, isn't thrilled with the new DVD pushed by the American Family Association featuring Ray Comfort attacking evolution.  Even though Reasons to Believe doesn't subscribe to macroevolution, Zweerink issues cautions about this new DVD.  He says,

A number of Christians are promoting evangelist Ray Comfort’s new DVD, "Evolution vs. God." Although the video contains some valid content, its questionable treatment of science and scientists—with an attack mindset and a goal to make scientists look stupid—causes me to advise extreme caution. Bluntly, I see this video as counter to our evangelistic mission. I cannot think of one biblical example where Jesus ridiculed nonbelievers who held erroneous views—although he harshly rebuked the religious leaders who were supposed to guide people toward Him.

Hugh Ross: Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe explains recent advances:

"Recent advances in astronomy and physics provide yet more support for the idea that the laws of physics have remained unchanged throughout the universe’s history.

"For thousands of years, the Bible has been on record stating that the physical laws governing the universe do not vary. For example, Jeremiah 33:25, God declares that he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (NIV, 1984). In Romans 8:20–22, Paul states that “the whole creation has been groaning” as a result of its “bondage to decay” (NIV, 1984).

The constancy of the laws of physics, if proven, would establish the Bible’s reliability in describing nature and predicting future scientific discoveries. It would also refute young-earth creationism and global flood geology as well as significantly constrain speculations about string theories and the possibility that variable scalar fields alter the character of dark energy. Also, physicists and astronomers hope that high-precision measurements of the constants of physics might reveal that “variations” can be explained by as-yet-undiscovered additional constants of physics.

As I described in previous articles¹ and in my book More Than a Theory,² physicists and astronomers have devoted several decades of research to building an arsenal of tests for constant physics. During the past few years they have developed far more powerful tests. Also, thanks to the first data release from the Planck satellite this past March, for the first time researchers can test for spatial variations on the scale of the entire universe.  [more . . ]

ATHEISM AND ITS SCIENTIFIC PRETENSIONS: A CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BERLINSKI

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician who is agnostic about God and does not speculate on the origins of life, is the author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2011).  (HT: Justin Taylor)

 

About Justin Taylor

 

Follower of Christ. Husband of one, father of three. Elder at New Covenant Bible Church. VP of Editorial at Crossway. More…

 

 

• Subscribe via Feed
• Subscribe via Email

• Subscribe via Kindle
• Follow on Twitter

 

 

 

Sponsors

Advertise Here

Blogroll

 

• 9Marks Blog
• Albert Mohler
• Andy Naselli
• Cranach Blog
• Denny Burk
• Desiring God Blog
• Evangel
• First Thoughts
• Girl Talk
• In Light of the Gospel
• Jim Hamilton
• Joe Thorn
• Josh Harris
• Kevin DeYoung
• Kingdom People
• Ligonier
• Radical Womanhood
• Resurgence
• Russell Moore
• Scriptorium Daily
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Blog
• Thabiti Anyabwile
• The Sola Panel
• Tim Challies
• Tullian Tchividjian
• Vitamin Z
• What's Best Next?
• Worship Matters

 

Magazine & Journals

 

• Books & Culture
• Boundless
• Christianity Today
• First Things
• Journal of Biblical Counseling
• Modern Reformation
• Reformation21
• Tabletalk
• The Briefing
• Themelios
• Touchstone
• World Magazine

 

Ministries

 

• 9Marks
• Acts 29
• Biblical Spirituality
• CBMW
• CCEF
• Centre for Public Christianity
• Crossway
• Desiring God
• Founders Ministries
• Grace to You
• Ligonier
• Matthias Media
• Sovereign Grace Ministries
• Stand to Reason
• TGC Reviews
• The Gospel Coalition
• Truth for Life
• White Horse Inn

 

Archives

 

May

20

2013

Justin Taylor|7:00 am CT

Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions: A Conversation with David Berlinski

David Berlinski, a philosopher and mathematician who is agnostic about God and does not speculate on the origins of life, is the author of The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions (2011).

MICHAEL MEDVED INTERVIEWS INTELLIGENT DESIGN EXPERT STEPHEN C. MEYER

Michael Medved has introduced a new science feature to his talk radio show. Thursday he interviewed Stephen C. Meyer, author of Signature of the Cell and the soon to be released Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design (HarperOne, June 18).    (See the trailer below).     Dr. Meyer is the Cambridge University-trained philosopher of science who directs Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.   The 17 minute interview focuses on atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel's [heretical!] doubts about philosophical materialism.  Nagel is the author of  Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.

   Here is the interview segment.  

Darwin's Doubt promo trailer

 

Available for pre-order now at www.DarwinsDoubt.com,where you will receive a 43% discount, free shipping and four free digital books!  [I pre-ordered a copy several weeks ago]

THE FUTURE? - STORING DIGITAL DATA IN DNA

Amazing.  Gautam Naik's Wall Street Journal article is subtitled: Technique One Day May Replace Hard Drives as Web Leads to Information Deluge.  (HT: Drudge headlines the article: "iBods: Scientists store music, books in human DNA. . .")

I'm especially impressed with the incredible marvel of DNA which comes, I believe, from the hand of God.  And now we are finding ways to harness it's miraculousness in ways other than its original biological service.

STEM CELL BREAKTHROUGH: A SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL LEAP FORWARD

The awarding of the Nobel Prize for Physiology and Medicine this year went to an especially noteworthy recipient, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a Japanese pharmacologist and researcher.  Breakpoint's Eric Metaxas offers a good introduction to the man and his work:

Listen Now | Download

Thirteen years ago, Dr. Shinya Yamanaka, a Japanese pharmacologist and researcher, made a social call to a friend’s fertility clinic. His friend invited him to look at some human embryos through a microscope.

What Yamanaka saw set him on a path that culminated in a Nobel Prize for Medicine and Physiology. And in the process has won him praise from the pro-life community.

As Yamanaka later told the “New York Times,” “when I saw the embryo, I suddenly realized there was such a small difference between it and my daughters . . . I thought, we can’t keep destroying embryos for our research. There must be another way.”

The search for “another way” took eight years, but eventually Yamanaka and his colleagues at Kyoto University discovered a way to turn “adult skin cells into the equivalent of human embryonic stem cells without using an actual embryo.”

Using methods first developed with laboratory mice, Yamanaka and company “reprogrammed” the adult skin cells by adding “genes called master regulators to the skin cells’ chromosomes. These genes can change the cell’s behavior by turning other genes on and off.”

IT'S OKAY TO CRITICIZE EVOLUTION IN CHINA BUT NOT IN THE WEST

John Lennox in his book, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? tells the story of Chinese palaeontologist Jun-Yuan Chen who visited the USA in 1999 during which time he gave several lectures.  Lennox writes (p. 95) :

His work on the remarkable discoveries in Chengjiang of strange fossil creatures led him to question the orthodox evolutionary line.  In true scholarly fashion he mentioned his criticisms in his lectures but they elicited very little response.  This lack of reaction surprised him and so he eventually asked one of his hosts what was wrong.  He was told that scientists in the USA did not like to hear such criticism of evolution.  To this he gave the delightful reply that it seemed to him that the difference between the USA and China was:

In China we can criticize Darwin, but not the government; in America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin."  

No doubt it is treacherous to criticize Darwinism in the United Kingdom as well.  After all, it is the Oxford evolutionary extremist Richard Dawkins who famously said,

"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).

To which John Lennox counters with a quote from the distinguished biologist Lynn Margulis:

"Like a sugary snack that temporarily satisfies our appetite but deprives us of more nutritious foods, neo-Darwinism sates intellectual curiosity with abstractions bereft of actual details -- whether metabolic, biochemical, ecological;, or of natural history." 

Lennox offers a valuable overview of the evolution debate in the course of which he makes the observation that, to put it in my words, evolution is first and foremost a philosophy in search of evidentiary justification. rather than a theory developed on the basis of actual evidence.   In other words, if one starts out with a philosophy of naturalism and materialism, then as Lennox says,

[...] merely as a matter of sheer logical necessity [emphasis his], it follows that some kind of evolutionary account must be given for life, apart altogether from any evidence which may be offered to support it.  For, what other possibility can there be?   If, for example, we start off with the materialistic hypothesis that all we have is matter/energy and the forces of physics, then there is only one option--matter/energy together with the forces of nature over time have produced life, that is, evolution of some sort.

Lennox goes on:

DR. JOHN LENNOX SPEAKS AT HARVARD ON "MIRACLES: IS BELIEF IN THE SUPERNATURAL IRRATIONAL?"

Yesterday I listened to this YouTube video of Oxford mathematician Dr. John Lennox speaking at the Veritas Forum at Harvard this past February.    Off hand I can't think of a talk I have enjoyed more, or found more engaging and delightful.  I listened to the audio, and am glad I did, as I find the camera angle of the video leaves a lot to be desired.

Lennox's talk is full of meat and crystalline in its clarity.  I love his spirit and his humor.  I recommend listening straight through to the Q&A.  His story of his encounter with a Russian man in a Belgian train is phenomenal.  

I am thankful to God for this man!  I already have two of Lennox's books, God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? and Seven Days that Divide the World: The Beginning According to Genesis and Science.   In his talk he mentioned two additional books recently published, which I think I shall have to add to my library as well: God and Stephen Hawking: Whose Design is it Anyway? and Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target.

"REASONS TO BELIEVE" ON "JUNK DNA"

I reported yesterday on the amazing findings regarding "Junk DNA."  Here's an email received today from Reasons to Believe:

Here’s a Switch:
80 Percent of Junk DNA Has Function

RTB's Fuz Rana calls it the biggest discovery of his lifetime as a biochemist.

A massive new DNA research project called ENCODE has dramatically increased understanding of the human genome and may revolutionize human biology. Scientists have discovered that 80 percent of DNA that had been dismissed as "junk" plays a crucial role in how the body works. Their voluminous research, amassed in 40 papers by 32 labs and hundreds of scientists, is considered a medical and scientific breakthrough because of its implications for human health.

Millions of gene controlling switches that reside in DNA classified as junk are responsible for determining what becomes of a cell. These switches act as a genetic operating system that will help researchers understand how diseases such as cancer, Alzheimer's, diabetes, heart disease, arthritis, asthma, and hundreds of others develop.

According to Fuz, this breakthrough:

• Represents rapid progress—just over a decade—in genetic understanding made possible by considerable scientific research and computing power
• Challenges one of evolution's strongest arguments; namely, that vast portions of the human genome consist of junk (nonfunctional) DNA that results from common ancestry
• Promises insight into the onset, treatment, and reversal of debilitating human diseases
• Recognizes work to be done—this is phase two of three—and that outstanding questions remain, such as whether genetic evidence favors common descent or common design
• Ruz Rana explains the significance of these developments in a 40 minute podcast here.  Listen and you’ll be rewarded.

JUNK DNA DEBUNKED

That's the title of an article in the Wall Street Journal, one of many papers (UK Guardian, N.Y. Times) covering the news that what was before considered "junk DNA" has now been discovered to play a critical role in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave.  What's especially noteworthy is that "junk DNA" has been hailed as a support for evolution, whereas this latest discovery vindicates Intelligent Design proponents who predicted there would be discovered value in "junk DNA."  In fact, last year, one of the Intelligent Design scientists, Jonathan Wells, published the Myth of Junk DNA, anticipating the latest findings.   Part of the Amazon book description reads:

Recent books by Richard Dawkins, Francis Collins and others have used this “junk DNA” as evidence for Darwinian evolution and evidence against intelligent design (since an intelligent designer would presumably not have filled our genome with so much garbage). But recent genome evidence shows that much of our non-protein-coding DNA performs essential biological functions.

Wintery Knight covers the breaking story especially well.

MYSTERY: WAS AN EARTHQUAKE (ON 2/23/12) IN NC-SC-FL CENSORED FROM THE RECORDS?

I don't know what to make of the following report that was e-mailed to me this morning.  Decide for yourself.  Here's the website and YouTube report.  Dutchsinse writes:

Reports of a censored earthquake came to me today — from a few different viewers who saw the USGS knock a Virginia / West Virginia earthquake off the map.

With a little sleuth work , and some LUCK that the other feed wasn’t yet censored — I was able to track down the approximate epicenter of this quake based upon the helicorder signatures at each ANSS backbone station.

Heaviest shaking occurred in Florida, South/North Carolina!

Here is the link to use.. pull the charts before THEY TOO are gone for good ! http://earthquake.usgs.gov/monitoring/anss/

 

SCIENTISTS MAKE THE LETHAL H5N1 "BIRD FLU" VIRUS HIGHLY TRANSMISSIBLE

Update:  After publishing this post earlier today, I see Drudge has just put on his website another article, "Scientists to Pause Research on Deadly Strain of Bird Flu."  Final paragraph: Ron Fouchier, a virologist who conducted the research in Rotterdam, said he was surprised by how easy it was to change the virus into the very form that the world has been dreading. Now, the world must decide what to do with it. (Original Post):  Brilliant.  Isn't that's exactly what we need?  Take a lethal virus not easily transmissible and genetically modify it to make it highly transmissible! In his commentary "The Fruits of Hubris," Charles Colson writes that the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity is asking the scientific journals Science and Nature to self-censor their articles about research into the H5N1, the “bird flu” virus.  Colson writes: Scientists in the Netherlands and the USA have succeeded in genetically-modifying the virus (which is normally not easily transmitted person-to-person) into a “highly transmissible form.” The Advisory Board asked the journals to publish the findings, but not “experimental details and mutation data that would enable replication of the experiments.” The fear, obviously, is that terrorists could use the published results in creating bio-weapons. He goes on: [my bolding] The publications Nature and Science are expected to comply with the request, which should reassure exactly nobody. Instead of being grateful that the exceptionally lethal H5N1 is difficult to pass from person to person, the researchers couldn’t resist playing god. They took a virus whose global impact was limited and turned it into the stuff of science fiction nightmares. Literally. The recent movie “Contagion” is about a virus that, like H5N1, starts in south China and eventually kills people around the world. Even more on point, the science fiction classic “Twelve Monkeys” is about a genetically-modified virus that gets loose and kills most of the human race. Now, I’m not saying that this, or anything like it, will happen with H5N1. I’m simply saying that it takes blind hubris to think that we can tinker with nature in this way — that is play God — without consequences. No amount of security can protect us from the consequences of our folly. I’m all for studying the virus. But what happened here goes way beyond that. The fact that people don’t get that testifies to the way invoking “science” trumps moral concerns these days. . . For more details, see the New York Times article U.S. Asks Journals to Cut Flu Study Facts.

STANTON L. JONES - "SAME-SEX SCIENCE"

Stanton L. Jones, provost and professor of psychology at Wheaton College, has for years been a student of the latest research on homosexuality.  His most recent article, "Same-Sex Science: The social sciences cannot settle the moral status of homosexuality," was published in the February 2012 issue of First Things magazine (http://www.firstthings.com/article/2012/01/same-sex-science) and is a condensed version of his longer paper with citations, "Sexual Orientation and Reason: On the implications of False Beliefs about Homosexuality" (http://www.wheaton.edu/CACE/Hot-Topic)

Stanton offers authoritative analysis of current research.  He sets the record straight and corrects popular misimpressions.  I am posting the links in anticipation of giving these two articles a careful reading at my earliest opportunity.  Stanton previously published (with Mark A. Yarhouse) in 2000, "Homosexuality: the Use of Scientific Research in the Church's Moral Debate."

ASTROPHYSICIST HUGH ROSS' NEW BOOK - "HIDDEN TREASURES IN THE BOOK OF JOB"

I have some major problems with Hugh Ross treating the book of Job, with its magnificent poetry, as significant for current discussions on science and origins, but I haven't read the book so I can't say more at this point.  That said, the following interview is fascinating.  Hugh Ross speaks with unusual clarity.  You will be glad you took the time to view it.   Pat Robertson interviewed Ross on the 700 Club today, October 19, 2011.

HAS NEUROSCIENCE RELEGATED "EVIL" TO AN OUTDATED CONCEPT?

Ron Rosenbaum write a noteworthy article in "Slate" -  The End of Evil?  Neuroscientists suggest there is no such thing.  Are they right?

Rosenbaum surveys current thinking, pro and con, and then offers an observation of his own:

Evil does not necessarily inhere in some wiring diagram within the brain. Evil may inhere in bad ideas, particularly when they're dressed up as scientific (as Hitler did with his "scientific racism").

I think that's partly on the right track.  For my money, the struggle between good and evil (sin) best explains human life and reality.  As I read Rosenbaum's article (which quotes scientists who deny free will), my mind went to Alan Jacobs' Original Sin: A Cultural History.  No explanation of human behavior can stand that ignores our "bent" condition.  Only those with a marked ignorance of their own interior self can deny the reality of sin and evil.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION WITH DAVID BERLINSKI (VIDEO)

Peter Robinson's interview with David Berlinski is a lot of fun to watch.  The interview focuses on Berlinski's book, The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions.  The full 42 minute video can be seen here.   If you prefer, you can watch it in five part segments at the NRO website:

Part 1  David Berlinski introduces The Devil’s Delusion.

Part 2  David Berlinski discusses why he thinks Darwin’s theory is flawed.  

Part 3   Is the Big Bang theory consistent with Christian beliefs? David Berlinski responds.

Part 4  David Berlinski discusses right and wrong.    

Part 5  Can scientists disprove the existence of God? David Berlinski responds.

What initially attracted me to the video was the extraordinary quote I came across on the NRO website linked to Part 5, quoting Berlinski:

 “The Old Testament is the greatest repository of human knowledge and wisdom in the history of civilization, any time, any place…. [E]very attitude current today in the discussion from Richard Dawkins to me to Christopher Hitchins, the lonely pastors in the Bible Belt on Sunday morning ranting from a particular text, is discussed in the Bible. There is a character in the Bible who expresses that point of view and there is sympathy expressed for that point of view and there are reservations expressed for that sympathy. It is enormously complex, rich, and dramatic piece of work.”

This is all the more fascinating coming from a self-described secular Jew and agnostic.  David Berlinski received his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University and was later a postdoctoral fellow in mathematics and molecular biology at Columbia University. He has published widely across multiple academic disciplines.  Wikipedia has more...   Note also his book, The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays. 

On the subject of Darwinism and evolution, it's a good idea to regularly consult Evolution News and Views, something I need to do myself.

Blogger "Wintery Knight" has a great many posts on evolution worth perusing.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION: APPALLING IGNORANCE ABOUT STEM CELL RESEARCH

The name "National Science Foundation" sounds impressive, almost intimidating, and yet we learned today that the NSF issues inaccurate and misleading papers,  and consequently can't be trusted.  The Family Research Council issued the following statement today:

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Family Research Council (FRC) today criticized the National Science Foundation (NSF) for displaying appalling ignorance about stem cells. In touting NSF funding of a publication about stem cell comparisons, NSF put out a press release titled "Social scientists study impact of human adult stem cell research." But the paper NSF references, and which the science agency funded, does not discuss adult stem cells at all.

The paper promoted by NSF, published in the journal Cell on Friday, compares embryonic stem (ES) cells and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. iPS cells are embryonic-like stem cells made directly from adult tissues by adding a few genes to normal cells, without using embryos.   The iPS cells are not adult stem cells.

Dr. David Prentice, Family Research Council's Senior Fellow for Life Sciences reacted with the following statement:

"I am appalled that the National Science Foundation would publish an ideological paper that promotes embryo-destructive research by attempting to link such research to advances in iPS cell research. While even this possible linkage is questionable based on the limits of the data presented, NSF in its headlong rush to promote ES cell research goes over the edge in confusing and prejudicing the public.

"Adult stem cells come from tissues such as bone marrow, blood, brain, heart and umbilical cord blood, and can be isolated without harm to the stem cell donor from birth onward. More than 50,000 people annually receive adult stem cell transplants around the globe, and published science shows adult stem cells are successful at treating dozens of diseases and injuries, including heart damage, spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, juvenile diabetes and sickle cell anemia.

"Isolating embryonic stem cells requires the destruction of a young human embryo, and has yet to show published evidence of any success in humans. While iPS cells provide an ethical method to form pluripotent stem cells almost identical to ES cells, from any person, but without embryo destruction, iPS cells are not adult stem cells.

"The NSF should retract their press release and issue a full correction. Open debate on public policy and law regarding stem cell research cannot abide such scientific ignorance and willful misrepresentation," concluded Prentice.

Me:   The moral of the story is to verify everything.  And never forget the name of the scientific organization in C.S. Lewis's book That Hideous Strength, "The National Institute of Coordinated Experiments."  (N.I.C.E.)   That, too, sounded impressive.

 

"NICE":

DOES SCIENCE HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT THE "EXODUS" AND THE PARTING OF THE RED SEA?

First, the Biblical text, Exodus 14:21,22:

"Then Moses stretched out his hand over the sea, and the LORD drove the sea back by a strong east wind all night and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided.  (22)  And the people of Israel went into the midst of the sea on dry ground, the waters being a wall to them on their right hand and on their left." (English Standard Version)

Has science any thing to say?  Enter Carl Drews and a story about his research at the National Center for Atmospheric Research by Anna Maria-Basquez, "Boulder scientist's research affirms parting of the Red Sea"  (Via VirtueOnline).   (Click to the end of this post for two YouTube demonstrations and further elaboration.)

"From his office in Boulder, scientist Carl Drews, having never been there, can—with Google Earth Pro imaging on his computer—pinpoint the location his research points to as the new theorized location of the Biblical miracle of the Crossing of the Red Sea.

The technology can zoom in on the place in Egypt where Moses and the Israelites escaped death when waters parted, according to the Book of Exodus. His virtual “pushpin” comes back with images of what is now predominately agricultural land, with orchards, irrigation canals and grape fields indicating vineyards. 

It is in the Eastern Nile Delta, between Pelusium and Qantara, and 75 miles north of the most popular theorized place in Egypt, which has been the Suez Canal.  And it’s travelable by foot.

“One of the places right in the middle of the crossing shows what looks like a hotel and some type of building,” said Drews, a member of Epiphany Anglican Fellowship in Boulder, a congregation under the umbrella of the Anglican Mission of the Americas out of Rwanda. “It would be fun to knock on their door and to say in Arabic, ‘Do you know that Moses walked right by here.’ It would probably elicit a form of disbelief. But perhaps people would say, ‘Well, maybe...’”

His own research elicited all but disbelief. In fact, it made the miracle ever more real, said the researcher who claimed to have always been enchanted by the miracle in the Book of Exodus.

“For anyone who always believed this happened, somehow it’s still a thrill to see it supported by scientific finding,” Drews said.

Will SUN ACTIVITY CREATE MAJOR DISRUPTIONS ON EARTH IN 2011 AND BEYOND?

Story here.  (HT: Drudge)

The coming year will be an important one for space weather as the Sun pulls out of a trough of low activity and heads into a long-awaited and possibly destructive period of turbulence. . . .

At its angriest, the Sun can vomit forth tides of electromagnetic radiation and charged matter known as coronal mass ejections, or CMEs.  . . .

But CMEs are not just pretty events.

They can unleash static discharges and geomagnetic storms that can disrupt or even knock out the electronics on which our urbanised, Internet-obsessed, data-saturated society depends.

THE LATEST "SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE REVIEW: THE INSIDER'S GUIDE TO PRO-FAMILY NEWS" - NOVEMBER 19, 2010

  These compilations of articles from a variety of sources by the Family Research Council continue to offer interested people a gold mine.  A new edition appears every two weeks.  Readers will find in each a wealth of information not readily found elsewhere. For previous reviews I've posted, click here.

 Here is a brief sampling from the current edition:

• "The Best Sex of Your Life," Peter Sprigg, Family Research Council

• "Nordic Neighbors Differ on Key Human Rights Issue," Home School Legal Defense Association

In northern Europe, two nordic countries strongly differ in their response to homeschooling. Finland provides a warm reception to parents who chose to educate their children at home, while neighboring Sweden continues down an increasingly dangerous path of ostracizing and persecuting families who seek to exercise their right to homeschool.

• "Saturday People, Sunday People," Lela Gilbert, The Weekly Standard

The “Saturday People” are, of course, Jews, today nearly gone from Muslim lands. Now the Sunday people”—Christians— are in the crosshairs, and they, too, are fleeing at an alarming rate. Both religions are unwelcome in many Muslim-majority lands for reasons of Islamist ideology—the declaration of jihad, or holy war, against infidels.

• "U.S. Scientists Commit Most Research Fraud: Study," Jenifer Goodwin, HealthDay

A new study finds that nearly 800 research papers were retracted by medical journals for serious errors or faked data over the past decade, many of them authored by U.S. researchers.

Click the "Continue reading..." line below for the complete list of articles.

IMAGES FROM REFURBISHED HUBBLE SPACE TELESCOPE

Wow.  Take a look at these Hubble space photographs.   Earlier today I read Isaiah 40:26 -

Lift up your eyes on high and see:
     who created these?
He who brings out their host by number,
     calling them all by name,
by the greatness of his might,
     and because he is strong in power
     not one is missing.

FAITH & EVOLUTION

I came across a new website (new to me at least) named Faith & Evolution which looks quite terrific.  Rather than clobber with polemics, it offers reasoned articles, videos, and resources (plus calm and detailed responses to antagonists) making it something of a "first stop" for anyone investigating and entering the current discussion on evolution and Intelligent Design. The site was developed by the Center for Science and Culture at the Discovery Institute.  

A lead article begins:

Francis Collins [author of The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (2006)] feels that intelligent design poses a serious problem to Christian belief because it rejects Darwinian evolution, which he feels is supported by overwhelming evidence. But the only evidence Collins cites for Darwin’s mechanism of variation and selection is microevolution—minor changes within existing species. And the principal evidence he cites for Darwin’s claim of common ancestry is DNA sequences that he says have no function—though genome researchers are discovering that many of them do have functions.

Collins’s defense of Darwinian theory turns out to be largely an argument from ignorance that  must retreat as we learn more about the genome—in effect, a Darwin of the gaps .    [more...]

** Blogger Wintery Knight put up a post today titled, "Does the new Ida fossil prove evolution? and wrote,

Whenever you have questions about evolution and culture, there is only one blog that you really need to read, and that’s Denyse O’Leary’s Post-Darwinist. She has written no less than THREE stories on the Ida fossil, so let’s take a look at see what she’s found.   [Read on . . .]

DINESH D'SOUZA - "WHY WE NEED EARTHQUAKES"

- UPDATE:  Welcome readers from Wintery Knight Blog!  Thanks for the link!  To learn more about myself and this blog's viewpoint, click here.

-Drawing on the book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe  by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee, D'Souza's explains:    

While natural disasters occasionally wreak havoc, our planet needs plate tectonics to produce the biodiversity that enables complex life to flourish on earth. Without plate tectonics, earth's land would be submerged to a depth of several thousand feet. Fish might survive in such an environment, but not humans.

Plate tectonics also help regulate the earth's climate, preventing the onset of scorching or freezing temperatures that would make mammalian life impossible. In sum, plate tectonics are a necessary prerequisite to human survival on the only planet known to sustain life.    [Read on for more . . .]

Note also:  David H. Rogstad, of "Reasons to Believe," offers yet another benefit for life from  earthquakes.  More articles here.

REVIEW OF PETER HARRISON, "THE FALL OF MAN AND THE FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE"

Douglas Groothuis notes that Jedd McFatter has written a fine review of Peter Harrison, The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 313 pages with index. £50.00, hardback. Groothuis says, "This sheds much light on the history and historiography of modern science and challenges some secular assumptions."

Me:  I read the review and found it fascinating.  It makes me want to go and see if there is any correlation with Rodney Stark's treatment in For the Glory of God.  I suspect that Harrison's book plows new ground.

SCIENCE, ETHICS, AND PUBLIC POLICY - WHO DECIDES?

Update 3/21/09 -  Dr. David Prentice and Clarke Forsythe, Wasting Tax Dollars on the Wrong Research Dr. Prentice is one of the foremost experts on stem cell research. 

- Update - Charles Krauthammer compares the stem cell addresses of President Bush ("Bush's nationally televised stem cell speech was the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president") with that of President Obama ("Obama's address was morally unserious in the extreme. It was populated, as his didactic discourses always are, with a forest of straw men.")

- (Original Post)I am grateful to Yuval Levin for the following post at the National Review Corner:

The surrender of political authority to scientists evident in Barack Obama’s stem cell executive order and remarks last Monday seems to have hit a bit of a nerve. I wrote about the subject in the Washington Post last week, but over this weekend several voices on Obama’s side of the stem cell question have made the same point: that whatever your view, you’ve got to articulate and defend it as a moral, social, and political matter, not defer to scientists on a non-scientific question.

The Washington Post has an editorial making that case today, and yesterday the Post ran an op-ed from former Harvard stem cell scientist David Shaywitz reminding us of the limits and weaknesses (as well as the great strengths) of the academic scientific enterprise.

Meanwhile, Scott Gottlieb’s Wall Street Journal op-ed highlights a different irony of the stem cell policy: the way in which many of the most forthright champions of embryo research simultaneously favor putting up serious obstacles to private sector medical innovation.

And if you want more on science and politics, there’s this book I could mention too.  [Me: Levin is referring, of course, to his Oct. 2008 book, Imagining the Future: Science and Americanm Democracy].

Darwin Believers Hide Fears of Intelligent Design Behind a Wall of Denial and Ridicule

Casey Luskins wrote a guest article for U.S. News & World Report:

Most Darwinists involved in the public debate today have one, and only one goal: To stifle free debate on this subject and thereby discourage you, the public, from scrutinizing the scientific evidence for yourself.

Over the years, Darwinists have evolved a variety of strategies to accomplish these goals. We see each of these strategies in play in the op-eds and comments by Darwinists in this present forum on U.S. News and World Report. I'll discuss how my opponents on this forum use the strategies of (1) Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination; (2) Equating Darwin-Skeptics with Religion; (3) Persecute Darwin-Skeptics; and (4) Pretend There Is No Scientific Controversy Over Evolution in order to try to dissuade you, the reader, from thinking for yourself on this subject.

Strategy 1: Ridicule, Demonization, and Character Assassination
Darwinists have adopted a discourse of demonization where they try to attack their opponents as dishonest, deceitful, or even worse—uncool and medieval! We should be suspicious of this tactic because . . .  [more]    (HT- Ed Morrissey at HotAir)

-  Gallup poll: "On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution"

SCORES OF NEW SPECIES FOUND IN GREATER MEKONG

This report is pretty fascinating.  (HT: Drudge)

A spider as big as a dinner plate has been found living in one of the world's last scientifically  unexplored regions.

The Greater Mekong, which is made up of 600,000 square kilometres of wetlands and rainforest along the Mekong River in Cambodia, Laos, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam and China, is also home to striped rabbits, bright pink millipedes laced with cyanide and a rat that was believed to have become extinct 11 million years ago.

A host of new species has been found in the area, which is so full of life that previously unknown animals and plants have been turning up at a rate of two a week for a decade.  (Read more . . .)

IS THERE A BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE? (ANDREW NEWBERG)

Michael Gerson brings us up to speed on research experiments. 

. . . It is typical work for Andrew Newberg of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine -- perhaps the nation's leading expert on the biological basis for religious experience. More exotic subjects of his brain scans have been nuns at prayer, Buddhist monks during meditation, Pentecostals speaking in tongues and entranced Brazilian mystics who write out messages from the other side.

These subjects have little in common theologically. But the activity of the brain during intense religious experiences is often (though not always) similar. The frontal lobes are activated, indicating attention and focus. The thalamus shuts down normal sensory input. And the parietal lobes -- which ground us in time and space -- are less active. In this state, people describe a sense of timelessness, a suspension of self, a feeling of bliss and oneness with the universe.

Keep reading... 

CITY LIGHTS ARE OBSCURING OUR STARRY NIGHT

This is a fascinating (and disturbing) article from the Wall Street Journal.

Around the world, the night sky is vanishing in a fog of artificial light, which a coalition of naturalists, astronomers and medical researchers consider one of the fastest growing forms of pollution, with consequences for wildlife, people's health -- and the human spirit.  (more . . .)
 

DEPRESSION - NEW PERSPECTIVES CHALLENGING OLD PARADIGMS

You might want to take a look at this really interesting article, "How Prozac sent the science of depression in the wrong direction".

Like many other antidepressants, Prozac increases the brain's supply of serotonin, a neurotransmitter. The drug's effectiveness inspired an elegant theory, known as the chemical hypothesis: Sadness is simply a lack of chemical happiness. The little blue pills cheer us up because they give the brain what it has been missing.There's only one problem with this theory of depression: it's almost certainly wrong, or at the very least woefully incomplete. Experiments have since shown that lowering people's serotonin levels does not make them depressed, nor does it does not make them depressed, nor does it worsen their symptoms if they are already depressed.

(HT: evangelical outpost)