Stem cell breathrough
Stem cell breakthrough
by PZ Myers, Pharyngula
Reposted from: Dawkins site
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/stem_cell_breakthrough.php
Half-evolved turtles?
Where Are All The Half-Evolved Turtles?
Babu Ranganathan’s articles are useful til you reach the last paragraphs where the sermon/punchline kicks in. Read the first part of his essays and skip the sermon.
————-
Millions of people are taught in schools and textbooks all over the world that the fossil record furnishes scientific proof of evolution. But, where are there fossils of half-evolved turtles, dinosaurs or other creatures?
Read the rest of this entry »
Night school for creationism?
When Night Falls at School, Should Darwin Go Home?
Read the rest of this entry »
GNXP links
A number of scientists and scholars are questioning assertions made by
companies offering DNA testing to individuals exploring their ancestry.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/business/25dna.html
Modern brain science is confirming an 18th century philosopher’s moral
theories
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123608.html
Morality and empathy are writ deep in our genes, as are savagery and
bloodlust. Science is learning what makes us both noble and terrible—
and perhaps what can make us better
http://tinyurl.com/24bqdd
The middle one’s always difficult, the eldest is a bossy boots and the
youngest is a tearaway. But are the family clichés true? Finally,
scientists have the answer. Steve Connor (youngest of two) reports
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3172307.ece
Davies: Taking science on faith
From SciftP
November 24, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
Taking Science on Faith
By PAUL DAVIES
Tempe, Ariz.
SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term “doubting Thomas†well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue.
Read the rest of this entry »
11.24.07
Shock Doctrine and leftist theory muddle
Power, Passion, and Neoliberalism
by Walden Bello
The value of Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine lies in a basic clarity beyond leftist jargon and theorizing. Undoubtedly Klein’s analysis might require further critique and elaboration, but I was struck by the cogency of an analysis that was to the point without being simplistic. By the time the left is finished the thesis will vanish into Marxist arcana and pseudo-jargonizing, with a dash of postmodernism thrown in.
At this point, it seems to me that the left needs its own self-induced ‘shock doctrine’ with respect to theory ideology, if it has asphixiated itself in bad theory, failure to critique past theories, and the general muddle outstanding since the nineteenth century, consisting of bad Hegel leading to the phantom of dialectical materialism, oversimplified Feuerbach mixed with economic fundamentalism leading to the imposter ‘historical materialism’, all these laced with the positivistic strain that overtook science in the collapse of the Hegel generation, and so on. Marx’s basic insight into ideology and theory has been lost in the creation of a belief system that doesn’t really work. After the staggering failures of Stalinism not a thing has been learned and the game plan seems to be to hope for a change to try again!
This lore of theory has defaulted to a sort of Second Internationale fundamentalism which has been picked to pieces so many times it is a wonder anyone still bothers with it. But introductory students are indoctrinated in its tenets, unaware that rightists thus are handed a monopoly on its critique. A silly situation. After all this noone has anything practical to offer a figure such as Chavez, who is forced into an eclectic improvisation.
It is almost impossible to disentangle oneself from all of this, and it is refreshing to simply see the X-ray of the situation Klein’s book provides.
11.19.07
James responds to McGrath
James comments on McGrath comment for Behe admits mistake. Will Darwinists admit to theirs?, McGrath
James said,
November 19, 2007 at 4:46 pm ·
“And so far the evidence keeps coming down in favor of mainstream evolutionary theory, again and again, consistently, for about 150 years now.â€You’re completely missing the point. The issue was never evolution(at least among the critics who aren’t Christian fundamentalists), but the mechanism of evolution. How exactly does Tiktaalik provide evidence that the mechanism of evolution is natural selection? As Berlinski points out, dogmatic assertions that Darwinism is supported by fossil record are just absurd:
11.02.07
G-design, n-design
James and Smith comment of G-design, n-design.
I like James formulation of n-design. Let me say that all I meant by the term was to distinguish in principle between biochemical mechanisms, found in nature, that show a clear functional structure, i.e. they proceed from state A to state B to perform a task, machines with de facto purposive functions. These exist. And it is merely speculation to bring intelligent design to bear on such cases. I have to assume, what I can’t fully prove, that these are the result of evolution, evolution of some kind, probably not natural selection. Read the rest of this entry »