Is Evolutionary Psychology

a faux science?

Can evolution explain religion?:

Here's my MercatorNet column (10 December 2009),

Evolutionary psychologists offer two contradictory explanations for the existence of religion. They can't both be right, but they can both be wrong.

Read the whole thing.

(Via Post-Darwinist.)

The Wisdom of GKC

continues to impress me. He correctly identifies the erroneous thinking that was only beginning to disturb the world a hundred years ago:

The Not-So-New Scientist:

In the latest issue of New Scientist, Michael Brooks tries to explain religious belief away with evolutionary theory:

While many institutions collapsed during the Great Depression that began in 1929, one kind did rather well. During this leanest of times, the strictest, most authoritarian churches saw a surge in attendance.

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Things.)

African Eve?

I have found the "African Eve" hypothesis quite attractive. It seems to support, albeit indirectly, appeals to human equality; if we share a common ancestor then we are all one family. But it appears the science isn't necessarily that clear:

Just up at the Design of Life blog: African Eve: "Was one woman who lived 150,000 to 200,000 years ago the ancestress of all of us? Science may not be sure, but pop culture is.

Part One: Our Mitochondria: A piece in the puzzle of our origins?

Part Two: What does our mitochondrial DNA say about human ancestry?

Part Three: African Eve - when pop culture falls in love with science"

(Via Post-Darwinist.)

But Who Takes Out the Garbage?

Finals are over for the term and I'm recovered from an annoying low-grade illness of two weeks or so. Now I discover that I'll soon be superannuated as a male:

BBC NEWS | UK | Scotland | Edinburgh, East and Fife | No sex for all-girl fish species

Amazon Molly fish are all female (Picture credit: Dunja K Lamatsch)
A fish species, which is all female, has survived for 70,000 years without reproducing sexually, experts believe.
Scientists f"

(Via BBC News.)

Heavy

Too heavy for me to process right now. But it does look interesting:

I. Introduction: "This article is meant to stimulate thought and discussion. As that discussion unfolds, I expect that this article will be revised over time in the same way that a paper submitted to a journal is often revised during the process of review. The purpose of this article is to attempt to bring some clarity to the discussion of intelligent design and the origin and diversity of biological life. Essentially, we have two options. Either biological life required intelligent design or it did not. As with most problems in science, it is difficult to prove one option or another with absolute certainty. Instead, options can be evaluated against each other in an attempt to estimate which option is more likely. Even then, the fact that one option may be more likely than another does not 'prove' that it is actually the case. Instead, I will propose a way in which both options can be evaluated against each other. The results indicate that it seems highly likely that intelligent design was required for biological life.

Next: II. Defining some terms and concepts"

(Via Post-Darwinist.)

True Love

does not come from knowing the Quadratic Formula. I was a bit of a math whiz in high school, up to intermediate algebra, anyway. And the ladies did not come running. Yeah, me and Einstein...

Today at the Design of Life blog: "Did math really evolve? Or is it just us connecting to the universe?"

(Via Post-Darwinist.)