BLOG

Creation on the Web posted an article by Shaun Doyle yesterday that cuts to the chase on "walking sharks," featured as one of the 50 marine species newly discovered in Indonesia.  In case you were confused that this shark was on the same evolutionary path as Tiktaalik roseae--you'll want to check out Doyle's article.

Have I had my head stuck in the mud, or does Tas Walker need a little publicity?  When did this gem of a geology site crop up?

Although, as far as I can tell, other blogs and media sources are largely ignoring this, the 2006 report from the Congressional-Executive Commission on China was published a few days ago and is now available online as a hefty 269-page pdf document.  It has the latest findings on the status of China's governmental policy, including human rights issues such as the oppression of Protestant house church leaders (see page 92) and the restriction of women's "reproductive lives"--a reference to China's continued One-Child Policy and occasional forced sterilizations and abortions.

For an overview of the report, see this LifeSite News story. 

At Creation on the Web Carl Wieland offers a creationist perspective on the "Lucy's Child" fossil in the news this week.  The unnamed editor at Creation-Evolution headlines also has a post on the specimen.

National Geographic has created a mini-site dedicated to the find, and Science has an interactive feature that shows what portions of the skeleton were found.  The NYT also has coverage.

AIG's weekly "News to Note" is up and touches briefly on the fossil.

In a slightly different vein, creationist Ian Juby shares his perspective of the Royal Tyrell dinosaur museum in Alberta.

Happy digging! 

Homeschoolers will love this one:  A new study shows that music training in young children affects their brain development and improves memory.  Is this one reason why home-educated kids, who are often taught music at young ages, score so much higher on tests than average students?

 Meanwhile, NatGeo has a photo gallery of a few of the 50 new marine species discovered in Indonesia.  Also, scientists and state officials in Louisiana are considering diverting the Mississippi near its gulf outlet.  Part of the motivation for this is the two- to three-foot rise in ocean water levels expected over the next century by global warming theorists.

As many of you have probably already heard by now, a scientific study has suggested that some people in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) can mentally respond to commands, though they may not be able to physically respond.  Creation-Evolution Headlines highlights the Science story on the findings.

The connection of the study with the death of Terri Schiavo is not lost on those who were against the removal of her feeding tube.  This, along with the discovery that the sleeping-pill drug zolpidem can temporarily restore consciousness to PVS patients, had caused us to question how persistent the persistent vegetative state is.

Over at the Loom, science journalist Carl Zimmer is having fun poking at creationists, and is veritably inviting debate.  After stirring up dust with this post, he received a spirited comment from Kevin Anderson, the creationist he originally criticized.  Zimmer posted a response, received a later comment by another creationist, and responded again.  Rather than let other people have all the fun, I jumped into the fray with my own comment.

 PZ Myers likes writing comments; maybe he'll head over to the Loom too!

While researching for an article I had the opportunity to ask Dr. John A. Bloom of Biola University about the role of methodological naturalism in science, especially in relation to the Kitzmiller ruling. Below are my questions (in italics) and his response. Bloom is Professor of Physics at Biola and has PhD's in biophysics and ancient near eastern studies.

Judge John Jones ruled in Kitzmiller et al vs. Dover Area School District that "ID is not science . . . ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation." Do you agree with Judge Jones' statement?

In a very limited sense: ID is of interest precisely because it raises this question: Are natural causes sufficient to explain all observable phenomena? Is this "ground rule of science" actually a limiting restriction in our study of nature that is being imposed by some people's metaphysical preferences? Jones' statement shows that the problem with ID is primarily a philosophical one. But why keep this limiting restriction if it blinds us to some aspects of what is really going on in nature?

In your opinion, what are the advantages or disadvantages (if any) of following methodological naturalism in scientific study?

I certainly see no problem in preferring physical explanations and causes for physical effects, and looking first in the physical realm for reasonable explanations. But to presume that physical causes are all there is, was, or ever will be seems to draw upon assumptions about nature that are suspect. I think it is interesting to look for physical situations where something more than natural causes may have played a role. And I think that scientists should be more willing to limit our speculation by saying, "I don't know" more often. People worry about "god of the gaps" arguments, but substituting "naturalism of the gaps" arguments [is] hardly any better.

In "Behe's Response to Kitzmiller" (published at Discovery.org) Michael Behe claims the Court takes "a restricted sociological view of science." Behe proposes a view he believes most of the public shares: "'Science' is an unrestricted search for the truth about nature based on reasoning from physical evidence."

In your own words, how would you define science in one sentence?

In one sentence, I agree with Behe. The pursuit of knowledge and a true understanding of how nature works should not be restricted by metaphysical biases. If scientists really clung to centuries-old ground rules, as Judge Jones presumes that we do, we'd still be teaching Aristotle in science classes. Science is the most exciting when we reason from physical evidence and discover that nature doesn't fit into our preconceived boxes, be they Aristotelian, Newtonian, or perhaps a wholly materialistic one.

Bloom has also written an article dealing with human origins and has co-authored a statement on evolution here.  A particularly interesting snippet from the latter work (published in 2001) addresses how the term "science" is often misused:

Without getting into boundary disputes between the disciplines of science and history, or arguments among philosophers over various definitions of the scientific method, there appears to be one rather important ambiguity in the definition of "science" or "scientific." Sometimes science is understood to mean (1) an attempt to explain how things actually are. At other times, the term is used to mean (2) explanation without recourse to the supernatural. These definitions are only equivalent if in fact there has never been any supernatural intervention in the history of our universe. The claim that such alternative definitions are interchangeable is itself a distinct philosophical worldview naturalism, secular humanism, or something of the sort. To switch back and forth between these definitions without comment has certainly tended to confuse the creation/evolution controversy, and seems to have been a significant factor in recent court decisions on the subject.