How much does the Modern Synthesis explain?

This  is a thought-provoking review article by Jonathan Bard of Oxford on both James Shapiro’s Evolution – a View from the 21st Century  and Transformations of Lamarckism: from Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology edited by S.B. Gissis & E. Jablonka, which is a historical assessment of Lamarck and his intellectual successors. Those of my acquaintances who struggled to understand Shapiro will be comforted that Bard agrees you need a biology degree to make much sense of it.

After succinctly describing the Evolutionary Synthesis in classical population genetics terms, Bard says this:

The enormous amount of molecular information that has emerged during the last couple of decades is making us review this story, partly because we now know that the relationship between the phenotype and genotype is not as simple as previously assumed, partly because the genome is a richer, more complicated world than the scientists who put together the modern synthesis could ever have supposed and partly because there is data that does not fit comfortably within the synthesis. Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science | 1 Comment

Nothing in biology makes sense…

Announcements on the making of a new film about the Scopes Trial of 1925, Alleged, got me thinking about the history and mythology of evolution. The popular version is that since Darwin nothing has made sense in biology without evolution, despite the more entrenched parts of the Church, who were feverishly working away to develop Creationism and persecuting people like Scopes.

Anyone who knows some of the history has heard that by the end of the nineteenth century  Darwinism was actually in some disarray under the influence nof Mendel’s genetics, aretreat it only really overcame with the advent of the Modern Synthesis in the 30s. Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science | Leave a comment

More Multiverse musings…

My last-but-one post reminded me of Eugene Koonin’s invocation of the multiverse to explain unlikely events such as the development of DNA replication. In my first post on this I hinted at some absurdities inherent in this idea, in that one ought to expect far more instances of unlikely events than we see if all things are possible in an infinite many-worlds multiverse. Blow the irreducibly complex biology – where are the unicorns and spontaneous transmutation of lead to gold?

Nevertheless, one might conclude that a more mainstream view of the multiverse (if “mainstream” has any meaning in gauging pure speculation) could still help explain highly contingent events. After all, if the weak anthropic principle can be invoked to explain fine tuning, why not the low probabilities emerging as problems in evolutionary events?

Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | Leave a comment

More gleanings from “The Nature of Nature”

There’s a chapter in the Gordon/Dembski magnum opus by Howard J Van Till, called Cosmic Evolution, Naturalism, and Divine Creativity. Of Van Till, the book says: “His books in the 1980s… played a powerful role in moving evangelical higher education to accept theistic evolution over against creationism.” So it’s clear that he is the source to which we need look for much of the theology of the BioLogos school of thought.

Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | 3 Comments

If you need a miracle, why not do it twice?

I’ve been wading through the recent tome edited by Bruce Gordon and Bill Dembski, The Nature of Nature. It’s a tour de force indeed, though every reader is bound to find whole areas of discussion where their eyes glaze over from incomprehension. That’s no bad thing if it reminds us how little we know even when we think we’re well educated.

So far, the piece that’s intrigued me most is Fazale Rana’s essay on molecular convergence, simply because I was unaware of the extent of this (and, of course, because I actually understood it, which helps). What most unsettled me was his drawing our attention to the confusing origins of DNA replication. Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | Leave a comment

Y-Abdullah and Mitochondrial Yvonne

There’s a Dennis Venema article, and thread, over on BioLogos about Y-chromosome Adam and Mitochondrial Eve. It’s mainly factual and not particularly controversial, but has attracted a lot of discussion. That’s pretty much exclusively because it corrects claims on the Reasons to Believe website that this genetic work confirms the existence of a single couple as progenitors of the human race. For the reasons why this isn’t so, it’s a good article to read.

Continue reading

Posted in Adam, Creation, Genealogical Adam, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology | 1 Comment

Conformity allowed, not intelligence

ID blogger and fellow BioLogos commentator Bilbo has linked to a blog by a chap calling himself Scootie Royale, defending the Ben Stein film Expelled. The Bilbo/Scootie link appears to have little to do with ID and everything to do with the fact that they are both 9/11 Truthers. This subject (which hardly registers with me at all) is the main subject of Scootie’s blog, and his interest in ID only seems to have developed as a side issue. Maybe he read Bilbo’s blog.

Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Politics and sociology, Science, Theology | 2 Comments

New song of the month…

Carrying on the habit of a new song every month, I’ve put a new recording on my website. This one was done to try out the new setup after my old system blew up. The song is a few years old, but hasn’t been put on disk before. It’s about the “foundness” of music – though that would apply to much science, too. And as the song says, to theology. Hope you like it.

You may notice that  links to the old songs no longer work as I’m just replacing them on the front page. I’ll put the whole album up when I’ve finished it, probably early in 2012.

Posted in Music, Theology | Leave a comment

More on E. coli and Windows

Regarding the paper I linked to in my last post, I just want briefly to emphasize an implicit conclusion from it that may not have been obvious. If you remember, the difference in architecture of E. coli compared to the Linux operating system was taken by the authors as evidence of the difference in “the design principles of the two systems” (sic). Human developers aim at cost-effectiveness and top-down design, whereas bacteria take a bottom-up approach suited to random mutation and natural selection: Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | 1 Comment

Extinction on the desktop

One reason I’ve not posted for a few days is that my computer blew up. Quite spectacular – smoke and bangs and everything. A failing power supply took out much of the rest, requiring a new system. The old one lasted nearly ten years, so I can’t complain. But even in that time updates to Windows and so on created headaches in keeping the thing functioning. I’ve had to update drivers for hardware rendered obsolete, buy new compatible programs and so on. I frankly dreaded trying to start again from scratch.

Continue reading

Posted in Creation, Science, Theology | Leave a comment