By following the lead of Richard Dawkins, we realize that random variations coupled with natural selection can function as a designer-mimic – the blind watchmaker. But as I have noted earlier, designers are constrained by their design material. This insight leads to questions that are neither asked nor pondered by the non-teleological mindset:

For example, without proteins, and their manufacturing process, what becomes of the blind watchmaker? Without proteins, and the latent functions contained within, might not the blind watchmaker exist as the impotent, crippled, blind watchmaker with no one to notice its existence? If so, how much credit does the blind watchmaker really deserve?

When we survey the living world today, it would be unjustified to assume that the blind watchmaker could craft a world of similarly complex and integrated creatures without proteins for the simple reason that the living world today is a protein-dependent reality. Without the use of proteins as design material, it is unclear what the designer-mimic could actually design.

Read the rest of this entry »

My essay on intellectual honesty generated over 200 comments on the reddit site. I’d like to pick out one exchange that is actually quite illuminating.

Someone with the handle “monesy” commented as follows:

What I find ironic, is that Mr Gene, a champion of the moronic religious pseudoscience of ID/Creationism, knows anything about intellectual honesty.

This clearly shows the power of stereotype.

Read the rest of this entry »

On Sunday, my essay The 10 Signs of Intellectual Honesty was submitted to reddit.com. The response has been overwhelming, where the reddit community gave it 730 up votes and this resulted in almost 65,000 hits for the essay. At a time when we are being saturated with media and political propaganda, it is deeply encouraging to know there are so many people who value intellectual honesty.

Below the fold are some of the responses from different forums and blogs.

Read the rest of this entry »

The debate about teleology and non-teleology eventually comes down to demands for evidence. Yet before rushing ahead to satisfy such demands, we should pause, step back, and contemplate the terrain.

Evidence is simply data that are interpreted in the light of previous experience and belief. More importantly, evidence comes in different flavors. For example, the type of evidence that might be used to guide a police investigation may not suffice as “evidence” in the context of a court room trial. In fact, an investigator is likely to look at the data differently from a defense lawyer. The investigator may initially rely on lower standards of evidence to follow up hunches and be sensitive to cliues. The lawyer will insist on the highest possible standards to defend his client.

Read the rest of this entry »

Scientists recently took a closer look at Stanley Miller’s samples obtained from his famous spark-discharge experiments.

Because our instruments are much more sensitive than the tests Miller used, it was determined these experiments produced a wider variety of compounds than appreciated.

Here are some of the data:

Read the rest of this entry »

When it comes to just about any topic, it seems as if the public discourse on the internet is dominated by rhetoric and propaganda. People are either selling products or ideology. In fact, just because someone may come across as calm and knowledgeable does not mean you should let your guard down and trust what they say. What you need to look for is a track record of intellectual honesty. Let me therefore propose 10 signs of intellectual honesty.

Read the rest of this entry »

Researchers at the University of Delaware have discovered that when the leaf of a plant is under attack by a pathogen, it can send out an S.O.S. to the roots for help, and the roots will respond by secreting an acid that brings beneficial bacteria to the rescue.

The finding quashes the misperception that plants are “sitting ducks”–at the mercy of passing pathogens–and sheds new light on a sophisticated signaling system inside plants that rivals the nervous system in humans and animals.

HERE

1. gather complete information - more than one source
2. understand and define terms (make others define terms, too)
3. question the methods by which results were derived
4. question the conclusion: do the facts support it? is there evidence of bias? remember correlation does not equal causation.
5. uncover assumptions and biases
6. question the source of information
7. don’t expect all the answers
8. examine the big picture
9. look for multiple cause and effect
10. watch for thought stopping sensationalism
11. understand your own biases and values

From Human Biology: Health, Homeostasis, and The Environment, 3rd Edition, by Daniel D. Chiras.