The ID Report

controversy
by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent
- The American Darwin lobby, National Center for Science Education tracks the explosion of "creationism" (which could include intelligent design theory or non-Darwinism or doubt about Darwinism) around the world. To understand why, read a few of the following items, for example, Pagel's review of Ruse. The committed Darwinist simply does not comprehend reasons for doubt.

- In a review in Nature you would have to pay US$30 to buy, evolutionary biologist Mark Pagel reviews Michael Ruse'sDarwinism and its Discontents, describing it as a "pro-Darwin toolkit." The review is interesting for its description of the reasons many doubt Darwin:

The book is not a sociological study of the discontents; Ruse does not tell us who they are or even whether they are large in number. Rather, it is a sort of 'battle book', containing facts about evolution and natural selection, and is designed to be instructive in changing people's minds about darwinism. But creationists' disaffection with darwinism may only be cloaked in quibbles about design, the age of Earth, fossils, missing links and the importance of the peppered moth, Biston betularia. These concerns may conceal a deeper affective — indeed a limbic — response to the theory.

So, in case you wondered, There Is No Rational Argument Or Evidence Against Darwinism. Doubt merely arises in the limbic system (emotional center) of the brain. There, that clears that up nicely. Glad you asked. By the way, Pagel also tries to explain away the attempt to use Darwinism to explain everything from human morality to the origin of the universe. But it's too late for that. Too many people know how Darwinism is used, and will not be put off this way.

- Mathematician John Allen Paulos argues against "creationist probability" - that is, he believes that the gradual evolution of complex machine-like structures is not wildly improbable. However, he does not identify by name anyone who is actually making the argument he trashes. A friend wonders whether he constructs his opposition from intuition.

- In Frederick Turner's What's Good about Atheism

Societies that have developed sophisticated theological systems have tended to develop sciences and advanced technologies as well, because of a fundamental theological belief that things make sense and that there is an underlying order to the world. Thus from a strictly Darwinian perspective—the ultimate practical expression of pragmatism (and one to which I subscribe), religion is a powerful, perhaps the most powerful, survival strategy. One can even set aside the statistics that show that religious people tend to be happier, more long-lived, richer, and get better sex. If, pragmatically, by their fruits ye shall know them, and truth is whatever gets you the goodies and continues your germ line, the atheist should try to hypnotize himself into being a believer.

But this is shooting fish in a barrel. There are, actually, many valuable correctives and important questions that are offered by the atheist perspective.

One is here reminded of Satan's fateful question regarding Job,

"Does Job fear God for nothing?" Satan replied. "Have you not put a hedge around him and his household and everything he has? You have blessed the work of his hands, so that his flocks and herds are spread throughout the land. But stretch out your hand and strike everything he has, and he will surely curse you to your face." (Job 1:9-11, NIV)

, which precipitate's Job's wild career of suffering, during which he never did curse God. Turner's attempt to find a natural religion stumbles over this, I think.

- On origin of life, oceanographer Edward Peltzer (UCSD '79) writes to say

1. The structure of DNA (the double helix) and Miller's first experiment were published in the same year, literally months apart, in 1953. In the ensuing 53 years, genetics and molecular biology has made great strides, Miller and cohorts are still trying to make all 20 amino acids plus the 5 nucleobases in a single pot (they can make them all but have to do it in several vessels with different conditions in each = evidence of fine tuning, but that is a different story). Why is one field making daily discoveries and the other is still crawling? Simple: genetics begins with the presumption of a code = intelligence; Miller began with the presumption of random reactions leading to a random walk for the field = wandering in the wilderness with no sense of direction.

2. OoL researchers assert that a few simple reactions is all that is needed to go from a dilute broth to a living organism BECAUSE then they can dismiss an intelligence behind it all. Their investigations are directed by their materialist prejudices. In reality, we already know what the few simple reactions are that come next -- Miller describes a red oily goo coating the insides of his flasks after a few days -- and these are the products of the Maillard reaction. The reaction is well known (look it up on the web) and adequately explains the fact that the amino acid concentrations plateau long before the precursor compounds are consumed. These colored products are known as melanoids (formed by the condensation of reducing sugars with amino acids). They are highly branched, cross-linked, heterogeneous and generally intractable to detailed analysis. Hardly the compounds necessary as precursors of the linear, homogeneous bio-polymers one needs to start building a cell. Only someone with great faith in a materialistic pathway can look at this mess and think that they are on the path to life.

3. An intelligent person can clearly see that each new discovery in biochemistry / genetics raises the bar that they are attempting to jump over.

Yes, but an intelligent person with a whack of grant money and the presumption that they must come up with an accidental origin, no matter how implausible?

- Re ID in the UK A friend notes the following news stories:
ABC - "Widespread creationism teaching would worry Blair" in a story from Reuters that is just breathtakingly wrong.

but

BBC - Blair downplays creationism fears . This story is locally grounded and makes some sense.

However, from New Scientist we learn that in response to a question,

One subject that is of great concern to scientists is creationism. There has been a suggestion that creationism is being taught in some British schools. What are your views on this?

Blair replied,

This can be hugely exaggerated. I’ve visited one of the schools in question and as far as I’m aware they are teaching the curriculum in a normal way. If I notice creationism become the mainstream of the education system in this country then that’s the time to start worrying. As I’ve said, it’s really quite important for science to fight the battles it needs to fight. ...

The whole interview is worth reading. At some point, some legacy media firm's story stencil needs replacing. This is that point, but they might go out of business first.

- Norbert Smith, also known as Doc Gator, on whose recent book on the passive fear response in alligators, marsupials, and placental mammals I have blogged writes me to say that he has been refused permission to use a photo by an Ontario based photographer because he is writing for the Creation Society Research Journal

I KNOW this will not make the Evening News, but thought you might like to know that prejudice in science is alive and well, even in Canada. I am writing a small article for CRSQ about how skunk cabbage can literally melt the snow by non-shivering thermogenesis much like endothermic animals keep warm. I sought permission to use the first in the series of beautiful photos found at Ontario Wildflowers - Skunk Cabbage (Symplocarpus foetidus), but was denied permission to do so.

Well here's the letter:

The goals and values of the organization to which you will be submitting your article do not at all match mine. So I decline to provide permission for use of my photo for this purpose.

Thank you for your inquiry. I respect your point of view and that of CRS, but those views are simply not mine. I wish you all the best with your journey.

The refuser was an Ontario naturalist photographer. I cannot reveal his name, as I have not sought his permission.

I will say this, though: Many Canadians garner a cheap righteousness from dissing whoever they can get away with. Sometimes we do this in order to inflate our own achievements, but more often to preserve our narrow, pristine world which is always under a supposed threat. Smith informs me that he can find another photo. I am sure he can.

- Martin Cothran over at the vere loqui blog points out that:

Richard Dawkin's website is running down Patrick Henry College, questioning its students' ability to think critically. But, apparently, whoever is running the website forgot an important fact: Patrick Henry's debate team has defeated Oxford (where Dawkins teaches) two years in a row. Who is it that can't think critically?

- Todd Norquist writes me to say:

In his debate with Stephen C. Meyer, U. of WA paleontologist Peter Ward announced that $100 million dollars endows Harvard's ''Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative."

Todd, that's a lot of cheese whiz, ... $100 million. Norquist cautions that, er, that cheque may not yet have been cut. He goes on to remark:

Seriously now-THIS IS GOOD NEWS-the more rigorously Harvard designs its OOL science, the more obviously evidences consonant with I D will surface-just as nearly every advance in astrobiology [however strained the project's metaphysics] buttresses the Privileged Planet hypothesis. Somewhere in this project, for example, someone may be honest enough to take a mathematical or experimental crack [or 2, or 90] at one of the information problems. Heck, biologists are commonly ignorant of the even the polypeptide impasse, not to mention chemical hurdles, such as cytosine's synthesis (David Berlinski delightfully surveys OoL research. I recently heard a Gonzaga bio prof publicly declare: "We now know, by the laws of chemistry, how life started." Harvard, yes-by any and all means-do try and get a life. Let the serious bench science-and publishing-begin!

Well, I hope it isn't just a bunch of boondoggles in the Galapagos. We'll see.

- From Muslim ID advocate: Turkish Minister Supports Intelligent Design

In a recent TV debate on the Turkish educational system, the country's Minister of Education, Mr. Hüseyin Çelik** argued in favor of intelligent design and for incorporating the theory into Turkish high school biology textbooks. The debate was aired on CNNTurk* on 17 October 2006, on the popular TV show Tarafsiz Bölge (Neutral Zone), which is hosted by the trendy Turkish journalist Ahmet Hakan Coskun.

During the 2.5 hour-long program, the minister was challenged by another leading journalist, Ismet Berkan, who has previously argued for Darwinism and against ID in his columns. Berkan contended that the vague reference to "creation" in Turkish biology textbooks as an alternative to Darwinian evolution should be omitted, since it presents faith, not science. Minister Çelik responded by pointing that the idea of creation is not necessarily based on religious texts and that it can be based solely on objective evidence and the latter is what Turkish textbooks refer to. Moreover he gave a brief description of ID, by quoting an op-ed piece of mine - that was, interestingly enough, published in the newspaper that Mr. Berkan edits (Radikal) - and argued that it should be in Turkish textbooks as an alternative theory to Darwinian evolution. The 15-min discussion between Minister Çelik and Mr. Berkan is available in audio, albeit only in Turkish.

So, watch out. ID might become a part of science standards soon in unexpected places.

* CNNTurk is a joint-venture of CNN International and the Dogan Media Group, Turkey's no. 1 media empire. It is one of the two most prestigious and popular newschannels in Turkey.
** Mr. Çelik is a member of the incumbent AKP, Turkey's moderate Muslim party.

O'Leary's question: Will we soon see a Turkish franchise of the American National Center for Science Education, just like the British franchise, British Center for Science Education? That should send the controversy right into hyperspace! Those people have a genius for helping ID everywhere they go.

- Thomas Nagel, a top Anglo-American philosopher, slams Richard Dawkins'The God Delusion in The New Republic.

Since Dawkins is operating mostly outside the range of his scientific expertise, it is not surprising that The God Delusion lacks the superb instructive lucidity of his books on evolutionary theory, such as The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, and Climbing Mount Improbable. In this new book I found that kind of pleasure only in the brief explanation of why the moth flies into the candle flame--an example introduced to illustrate how a useful trait can have disastrous side effects. (Dawkins believes the prevalence of religion among human beings is a side effect of the useful trust of childhood.)

I'm getting bored with Dawkins, plus ten, and think he has both peaked and tanked, but thought I should pass this on anyway. A moth that got religion would certainly fly out of the candle and then go on to testify on prophecy TV, right?

- Having listened to arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins take decades off from his career as a zoologist and professor of the public understanding of science at Oxford to rant against religion, journalist Dines D'Souza reasonably asks, how does atheism survive, when it is so poorly adapted to life?

Russia is one of the most atheist countries in the world, and there abortions outnumber live births 2 to 1. Russia's birth rate has fallen so low that the nation is now losing 700,000 people a year. Japan, perhaps the most secular country in Asia, is also on a kind of population diet: its 130 million people are expected to drop to around 100 million in the next few decades. And then there is Europe. The most secular continent on the globe is decadent in the literal sense that its population is rapidly shrinking. Lacking the strong Christian identity that produced its greatness, atheist Europe seems to be a civilization on its way out. We have met Nietzsche's "last man" and his name is Sven.
[ ... ]
My conclusion is that it is not religion but atheism that requires a Darwinian explanation. It seems perplexing why nature would breed a group of people who see no purpose to life or the universe, indeed whose only moral drive seems to be sneering at their fellow human beings who do have a sense of purpose. Here is where the biological expertise of Dawkins and his friends could prove illuminating. Maybe they can turn their Darwinian lens on themselves and help us understand how atheism, like the human tailbone and the panda's thumb, somehow survived as an evolutionary leftover of our primitive past.

Good question, actually. If the universe is intelligently designed, then the current situation is precisely what you should expect to see insofar as atheists are poorly adapted to it. Thus, you can be a Darwinist only if you are not an atheist. Actually, I have been appealing for years for a social scientist or anthropologist to study Darwinism as a cultural phenomenon. It cries out for that treatment.

For example, I have discovered from experience, that the average Darwinist sees absolutely nothing wrong with taxpayers and parents being compelled to forward money and children to help advance his point of view. Most people in the Western world, of whatever belief system, will tend to pause at that point ... but not the Darwinist. It would make a great trade book after the journal articles were all in print.

- While speaking in Minnesota, columnist Mike Adams, a defender of academic freedom, attracted the attention of PZ Myers, a Minnesotan Darwinist, who had earlier commented on his blog as follows:

Mike S. Adams, columnist for TownHall, Horowitzian shill, anti-feminist, creationist clown, homophobic bigot, warrior for free speech, professional racist, gun kook, academic-by-accident, beauty contest judge, and just generally contemptible far, far right-wing nutcase.

This is average for PZ, an adult toddler who blogs at the Darwinist Thumblog.
Apparently, Myer's subsequent account of the confrontation is at some odds with the videotape, but read more at Adams' column.

- Lamarckian evolution - the theory that life forms can bequeath to their offspring characteristics that developed during their lifetime - has always been anathema to Darwinists, because it suggests that processes other than natural selectin, random drift, or possibly random mutation could play a role in evolution. A study linked on this site argues that there is some basis for Lamarckism, which may well be true. This much I know: The mere fact that Darwinists attack it is no barrier to its truth.

Toronto-based Canadian journalist Denyse O'Leary (www.designorchance.com) is the author of the multiple award-winning By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy. She was named CBA Canada's Recommended Author of the Year in 2005 and is co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of the forthcoming The Spiritual Brain (Harper 2007).