evolution

Dang it, another "Death of Darwinism" prediction has up and fizzled. In Death of "molecular Darwinism" imminent! I noted ID luminary William Dembski's prognostication:

In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. 

That grim portent came from the July/August 2004 issue of Touchstone magazine, and even allowing a generous deadline of the end of August, 2009, the five-year clock has run out while "molecular Darwinism" is still dancing a merry jig. (Come on, Doctor Dembski, when you give a patient a fixed time to live, at least have the decency to kill him off if he persists in surviving!)

Are there more prophecies to track? Dembski still has the meter running on a 10-year claim for the "Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism"; let's check on that in 2014. But what else do we have? Readeth thou more

Tiny T. rex fossil discovery startles scientists. Therefore, God!

Okay, I don't know why I'm posting this. Just because any new dinosaur discovery is always cool news. But also, I can't help but wonder about the implications of statements like the following. From one of the scientists who announced discovery of the human-sized, presumed ancestor of the famous T Rex:

"The most interesting and important thing about this new fossil is that It is completely unexpected... It's becoming harder and harder to find fossils like this that totally throw us for a curve."

A perfectly innocuous comment. But how long do we have before a Ray Comfort, or other human-sized Creationist slug, seizes upon this instance of "unexpected" as an inadvertent admission that evolutionary theory can't actually make predictions? Just wait and see.

Do animals have it easy?

Sure, the "atheists discredited" prediction didn't come to pass by its deadline of February this year. But fear not, for the faithful have another chance at prophetic jackpot waiting in the heavenly wings. 

I stumbled across another prediction over at The Panda's Thumb, via a 2004 post on Pharyngula. This one comes from famed Intelligent Design (née Creationism) proponent William A. Dembski, in a Touchstone Magazine interview: 

Touchstone: Where is the ID movement going in the next ten years?  What new issues will it be exploring, and what new challenges will it be offering Darwinism?

Dembski: In the next five years, molecular Darwinism — the idea that Darwinian processes can produce complex molecular structures at the subcellular level — will be dead. When that happens, evolutionary biology will experience a crisis of confidence because evolutionary biology hinges on the evolution of the right molecules. I therefore foresee a Taliban-style collapse of Darwinism in the next ten years. Intelligent design will of course profit greatly from this. For ID to win the day, however, will require talented new researchers able to move this research program forward, showing how intelligent design provides better insights into biological systems than the dying Darwinian paradigm.

– (Anonymous (Touchstone Magazine), (July/August 2004).  “The Measure of Design: A conversation about the past, present & future of Darwinism and Design.”  Touchstone, 17(6), pp. 60-65.)

A little background for those not up on their devotional readings: Readeth thou more

Science, Evolution, and Creationism
A great primer by the National Academy of Sciences. Free short version available for download.

Pharyngula
Updated at a mad pace by biologist PZ Myers, a heavyweight in the blogging world and lightning rod for the enemies of reason. (The guy's a hell of a good writer, too.) Great to have this fantastic site on "our side".

Richard Dawkins' site
Richard Dawkins is a renowned scientist and ardent champion of reason. This site is a major gathering place for friends of reason.

Pharyngula posts a fascinating video: a Charlie Rose interview on evolution with famed biologists E. O. Wilson and James Watson.

There's a great off-hand comment in there that places an important perspective on what we can take away from opinion polls. Wilson notes that 51% of American respondents in a CNN public opinion poll discount Darwinian evolution entirely; another 34% accept the idea, but believe the process was directed by God.

That's a total 85% of people rejecting non-supernatural evolution. A number which Watson sagely puts in its place: "85% haven't thought about it at all... It doesn't mean much." Readeth thou more

Familiar with the case of John Freshwater? He's the Ohio middle school teacher who, despite orders to cease, has for years been pushing creationism in the science classroom. He made news in a bigger way recently by burning a cross into a student's arm. (Yes, you read that right.)

For a recap of the story, read http://cafephilos.wordpress.com/2008/06/20/the-firing-of-john-freshwater... . 

On that page, I replied to one commenter, evangelistbro, who seems to think that it's perfectly all right to inject non-science into the science class, as long as the belief in question is his belief:  Readeth thou more

Ars Technica reports on February proceedings at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, on the topic "Communicating Science in a Religious America". http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/communicating-science-polarized-...

An interesting bit from Ken Miller, Brown University cellular biologist, on combating Intelligent Design. Specifically, he addresses how to counter the doubt over Darwinian evolution created by ID's tactic of portraying it as an improbable "chain of accidents". Readeth thou more