The ID Report

There is nothing to fear except the persistent refusal to find out the truth, the persistent refusal to analyze the causes of happenings. -- Dorothy Thompson

Q: How many materialists does it take to change a light bulb?

A: None. Given time the light bulb will change itself.

No joke. Light from darkness, life from non-life, mind from matter; it's all a mere marvel of matter in motion. Never mind where matter came from, and no matter where mind came from, for matter-only materialists everything that is came unplanned from everything that was in a string of unguided eternal change. Magically transforming the mundane into the marvelous, it seems nothing is impossible with change--time makes light work of miracles. For the life sciences branch of materialist philosophy, Darwin's theory mandates the same explanation for all life: unguided change over time gave us eyes to close and mouths to open in the service of a dead philosophy emanating from a brain that thinks it has a mind. Who would have thought?

"Evolution" is described by those who know better as simply "change over time". And why not? After all, change over time is observable, and observable change over time is incontrovertible and uncontroversial. Observed change over time in biology works its magic by changing beak sizes among finch populations, changing antibacterial resistance among bacteria populations, changing virtually nothing of interest in fruit fly populations, all showcased as "evolution in action". But is "change over time" alone really sufficient to make life, and life more abundantly? It seems not; no unguided change agent has been observed to make anything but finches from finches, bacteria from bacteria, and legions upon legions of hapless fruit flies that cannot become something more than they are already. At best the observed change over time in the unguided forces of nature due to undirected energy acting on matter always acts in one direction: toward less order and more disorder. It seems that unguided change is more bumbler than tinkerer.

"Directional" change doesn't sound so bad. In fact it isn't bad if you aren't constrained by a philosophy that requires "directional" to mean unguided progression of matter to increasing (and increasingly) improbable complex specified order. But for materialists who depend on unguided, undirected change to produce massive amounts of the increasing improbable change theorized by Darwinism, the observed directional nature of change is a disaster. Because in nature the observed change of unguided, undirected matter always conforms to physical constraints. Under immutable physical laws the change is at best to simple order, as in crystal formation where matter is rigidly constrained by unguided atomic forces, or to random disorder, as in the diffusion of food coloring in water (which is nevertheless still simply obeying constraints of atomic forces). The disordering of matter in nature when left to undirected energy in time is so well understood that it's one of the few features of nature described by a law, and not just any law--one of the most robust laws known: First Theory of Evolution meet Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Unfortunately for truth (but fortunately for those who wish to suppress it) the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while conceptually simple, is expressed in various scientific disciplines in complex-sounding language. Setting aside strange concepts like "entropy", "Gibb's free energy" and "closed or open systems", the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be simply understood as the idea that left to the undirected forces of nature, undirected energy always expends to cause existing matter to go from a more ordered state to a less ordered state.

If you grasp the words of that last sentence, you will always and forever know why "evolution" is a dead-end theory when stated in its strong form, i.e., the massive ordering of increasingly complex information by unguided forces of nature to produce new and more complex features (like wings and eyes) in living organisms. Very simply, it is easier to make a mess than to clean up a mess; it is easier to destroy a house than build a house; and it is easier to corrupt computer software than to program computer software. And "easier" is not the real issue, the real issue is one of possibilities due to intelligent intervention--in every example above, the former condition can be effected by mindless activity but the latter must, in every case, involve a mind. Nature has no secret mind substitute.

Here's the catch missed by the evolution-is-merely-change-over-time crowd: there are two kinds of scientifically observable change: intelligently manipulated change (or guided change) and unintelligently occurring change (or unguided change). On the observable effects side, scientific evidence shows two corresponding categories: guided change results in improbable complex order (e.g., computer codes or DNA) while unguided change results in probable simple order (e.g., iron filings to a magnet or crystals) or what appears to be random disorder (e.g., bits of shattered glass or pattern of fallen leaves). Unguided changes are well-studied in nature, and in complete agreement with the Second Law of Thermodynamics they always in every observed case result in systems going from a more ordered state to a less ordered state. It is the Law.

On its face, therefore, the Second Law of Thermodynamics stands diametrically opposed to any theory, including biological evolution, that requires matter to go spontaneously unguided and undirected from a simple, random form to a more complex, specified form. The stock reply from virtually all Darwinists, invariably flashed like a fake ID to get past all but those who actually care, is that the Second Law applies only to closed systems. In our case, Darwinists say, the Second Law's tendency to prevent the incredibly improbable creations necessary for "evolution" is circumvented by including the sun's energy input in our local earth system. But as any free thinker knows (and even a few Darwinists), it is not the mere presence of raw, undirected energy in a system that matters. Even in an open system in the absence of energy direction (like the coded instructions used in photosynthesis), the raw energy of the sun must obey the Law, and the result of the sun's energy on matter will be to rot, fade, decompose, decay and otherwise destroy.

Usually Darwinists dismiss the Second Law flippantly, as if its inapplicability to evolution is hardly worth elaboration. For example, in preemiminent evolutionist Ernst Mayr's 318-page book What Evolution Is, fully one paragraph of seven lines is employed on page 8 to assure us:

"[T]here is no conflict, because the law of entropy is valid only for closed systems, whereas the evolution of a species of organisms takes place in an open system in which organisms can reduce entropy at the expense of the environment and the sun supplies a continuing input of energy."

Here Mayr flashes his fake ID, stating that the Second Law (i.e., what he calls "the law of entropy") applies only to systems closed to external sources of energy input, and our earth system has unlimited energy input from the sun. True enough, but so what? Even granting the entire universe as the "system", where's the link between massive amounts of raw supplied energy flowing in and massive amounts of law defied complexity growing out?

Other Darwinists try to make the link and inadvertently prove themselves wrong while pretending to give a scientific answer to the question. Consider Dr. Tim M. Berra, a Darwinist who in his book Evolution and the Myth of Creationism addressed "Some Creationist Claims" including the claim that "evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics". In the same book, Berra sought to refute another "creationist claim" and unwittingly showed the opposite. By showing four Corvette automobiles from different years to illustrate Darwin's descent with modification, Berra actually showed the necessity of creation by design. This show of Darwinist pretend-thought was rightly referred to by Phillip E. Johnson as "Berra's Blunder". Perhaps we now have Berra's Blunder II; clumsily brandishing his fake ID, Berra blubbers:

"These statements conveniently ignore the fact that you can get order out of disorder if you add energy. For example, an unassembled bicycle that arrives at your house in a shopping carton is in a state of disorder. You supply the energy of your muscles (which you get from food that came ultimately from sunlight) to assemble the bike. You have got order from disorder by supplying energy. The Sun is the source of energy input to the Earth's living systems and allows them to evolve."

Dr. Berra's blunder is easy to see; it doesn't take a PhD. to see that Berra's science is doctored with philosophy. Obviously, it is not raw, undirected energy from the sun that is supplied to the bicycle parts; a large dose of intelligent direction is also necessarily present. If Berra wants to use the bicycle analogy, he must explain how raw, undirected energy from the sun might combine with unguided natural processes to do anything but cause the bicycle parts to decay, rust, or otherwise deteriorate. As he has set up his illustration, Berra has succeeded in proving that an intelligent being is necessary to direct and manipulate energy to have the "change over time" of the type to result in an assembled bicycle (even if all the parts are in existence, and the energy ultimately comes from the sun). Like Berra's bicycle, living organisms also need a "maker" otherwise the component parts would simply bask in the sun until they break down into even greater and greater disorder.

Very few Darwinists think freely on this issue. But a few courageous collections of atoms like Paul Davies at least admit that simply throwing energy at the problem of the Second Law's applicability to evolution is not a solution. In his book The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life, Davies brandishes a custom-made fake ID as he bravely mounts a failed attempt to show how natural laws based on chance and necessity can convert raw energy into information-rich, complex, specified structures. His explanation, translated into plain language: even bumblers get lucky and as long as there are more unlucky bumblers than lucky, the Second Law is satisfied and "evolution" can happen. Good luck, ye Bumblers, this evidence-starved concept goes beyond clever pretend-think to wishful-think. Ignorance of the Law is no excuse.

Like all the rest Davies fought the law, and the law won. Simply invoking the sun into the earth's system as a cure-all for evolutionary complexity ignores the fact that raw, undirected energy is not known to be capable in itself, i.e., in the absence of a directing law or process (or person, such as Berra's bicycle maker), of providing order out of disorder, much less specified complex cellular information. The undirected energy of the sun has the opposite effect-in the absence of an imposed ordering principle (like photosynthesis), the sun's radiation tends to break down matter into less ordered states of rot and decay.

Fake ID's are only effective for those who don't know or don't care. For the rest of us, the evidence of change in nature compels a logical inference of true ID: intelligent design. Darwinist disciples of Bumbelology have yet to mount a serious explanation of how "evolution" in its strong form can happen in spite of the Second Law. That is, Darwinists have yet to propose any natural law, process, or mechanism that can explain the origin of new information-rich, specified complexity exhibited by living organisms. Appealing to the sun to explain Second-Law-defying phenomena is like assuring us that somewhere a bicycle is assembling on its own simply because the sun is shining brightly. A light bulb will sooner change itself.

Roddy Bullock, JD, BSME, is the Executive Director of the Intelligent Design Network of Ohio (www.idnetohio.com) and is the author of The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, published by Access Research Network. Send comments to: roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

Copyright (C) 2007 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References and further notes:

Portions of this essay adapted from Roddy M. Bullock, The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, (Access Research Network, 2006), End Note 63. Write for a free copy of the End Note to roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 8. Note the Second Law, or thermodynamics in general, is not even mentioned in the index to Mayr's book. The only other mention of "entropy" is in the glossary in which it is evident that Mayr apparently does not even understand the concept. Entropy is defined by Mayr as "The degradation of matter and energy in the universe to an ultimate state of inert uniformity. Entropy can be reached only in a closed system" (Mayr, p. 285). The first sentence is not a definition of entropy, but it is at least an acceptable description of the effects of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and can pass for a description of "entropy" for the lay reader. However, the second sentence is simply nonsense. Entropy is a measure of something, like other measures such as temperature, weight, or distance. The second sentence is analogous to saying "Temperature can be reached only in a closed system." Mistakes are excusable, but such cursory treatment of a topic otherwise given short shrift by someone of Mayr's stature is difficult to understand.

The National Association of Biology Teachers stated in their "Statement on Teaching Evolution," as one of their "tenets of science": "Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics: producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun" (National Academy of Sciences, Teaching About Evolution, p. 127).

"Berra's Blunder II" found at Tim M. Berra, Evolution and the Myth of Creationism (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990), p. 126.

For a serious Darwinist perspective on the Second Law of Thermodynamics, see Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999), p. 52. Davies notes, for example:

"Some eminent scientists have been deeply mystified by this contradiction [i.e., natural examples of an increase in order]. The German physicist Hermann von Helmholtz, himself one of the founders of the science of thermodynamics, was one of the first to suggest that life somehow circumvents the second law. ... Eddington likewise perceived a clash between Darwinian evolution and thermodynamics, and suggested either that the former be abandoned or that an "anti-evolution principle" be set alongside it. ... Even Schroedinger had his doubts. In his book What Is Life he examined the relationship between order and disorder in conventional thermodynamics and contrasted it with life's hereditary principle of more order from order."

Davies makes a sound attempt at reconciling the Second Law with Darwinism. For a response to Davies' argument, see Roddy M. Bullock, The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science, (Access Research Network, 2006), End Note 63. For a free copy, write to Roddy M. Bullock at roddybullock@idnetohio.com.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Reflections on key recent events: Eminent science journal advises meat puppets to get over the "image of God" rubbish

Is a giant cold spot evidence for parallel universes? Or of pop science journalism?

Wrap-up reflections on the University of Toronto intelligent design course - does there have to be a designer? That depends on where you live.

The Internet and the intelligent design controversy

The Economist on the surfboard Theory of Everything

British journalist Melanie Phillips weighs in for the ID guys

What I told the most recent batch of filmmakers shooting up Toronto about why there is an intelligent design controversy.

Why do people still take Steve Weinberg's opinions seriously?

Selfish gene? How about the selfish genius?

Antony Flew: author or puppet?

The Spiritual Brain as an audiobook: Hear a sample

How did religious affiliation become so important in politics, columnist asks

Is being bossy in your elder sister's genes? Or does she just enjoy her role?

British journalist blasts the anti-God nutters

AntiMatters reviews The Spiritual Brain

Intelligence: How much is heredity and how much is environment?

US anti-religious group loses standing to fight lawsuits

Religious freedom: Canadian broadcaster airs documentary on Falun Gong

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Apparently, Bill Dembski is taking some heat over the occasional use of some animated footage captured from the Internet that turned out to belong to Harvard:

Back in September of 2006 I announced at my blog UncommonDescent that a "breathtaking video" titled "The Inner Life of Cell" had just come out. The video was so good that I wanted to use it in some of my public presentations, but when I tried to purchase a DVD of it (I sent several emails to relevant parties), I was informed it wasn't ready. Moreover, at the time, the video did not have a voiceover explaining the biology of what was being shown.

So some people who are invested in materialism and want to put off the question of whether materialist theories can explain everything from the origin of the universe and life to the rise of consciousness - of course - want their Enron of Biology to be the issue instead.

Well, this certainly brings back memories! In the universe before the Internet, I was a permissions editor for a few years. The most important part of my job was helping to address the problem of what to do when we discovered that we did not actually have permission to use something that was already in print. That can happen much more easily than people who are not in the publishing business suppose. Some rights holders are untraceable or do not answer their mail or have unintentionally behaved in such a way as to create the impression that they do not care if their work is public domain, or otherwise behave in a confusing way. I used to spend hours putting together a single file.

Still, it wasn't a big deal. The publishers whose rights we had infringed had probably infringed ours (all unintentionally), and everyone just wanted to smooth it over correctly.

However, the Internet is a new world because anybody can publish. Stuff can easily appear without attribution and disappear without notice. I am glad I don't do that job today. Anyway, when the matter was brought to his attention today, Dembski said he would use another item.

As if keeping him from using a particular film clip is going to change the current massive direction of the evidence against random assembly and development of life.

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

These entries will shortly be added to the Encyclopedia of evolution in the light of intelligent design

Appendix (human appendix) - despite it's name, no longer considered superfluous or rudimentary (Tyler)

Cambrian explosion - jellyfish in Cambrian as representatives of modern jellyfish

Compsocidae - an example of stasis. See also Stasis

Consciousness - attempts to deconstruct consciousness Douglas Hofstadter

The paradox is that materialistic science wants to be realist and to have truth as a goal, but its approach to human consciousness can only support a post-modern philosophy which emphasises the socially constructed nature of reality and substitutes relativism for truth. And, for materialists, individuals have to seek for meaning and self-worth in existential experiences (an escape from reason) because the universal acid of rationalism has completely corroded realism and truth in human psychology.

(Tyler)

Eozoon - a claimed fossil strenuously defended by the 19th century science establishment

Eozoon was not a fossil and the dissenters were correct to challenge the consensus. Clearly there are parallels with today: the role of scientific elites, the status of peer publication, the protocols required to be accepted as members of the scientific community, the way debated issues can be presented as fact to the public, the disdain shown to dissenters, the lobbying of editors to restrict access by critics of the Establishment, and the exploration of alternative ways of communicating minority views to peers and the public. This is the very human face of science. We are seeing these characteristics today in numerous areas where scientists have reached different conclusions.

(Tyler)

Evolutionary psychology - grandmothers who care

This is 'black box' biology, with natural selection being asked to do an amazing number of things in a short period of time to achieve the (relatively small) fitness benefits. It should be noted that genetic changes are not directly passed on to offspring, as in the normal portrayal of the way Darwinism works. We are dealing here with complex changes in females that marginally affect the survival of grandchildren. Additionally, one wonders how many caring grandmothers there actually were in the hypothetical social groups of early man where life expectancies were low.

Exoplanets See also Hot Jupiters

Hot Jupiters lack water (Tyler)

Jellyfish - reinforcing challenge created by Cambrian explosion

New fossils from the Middle Cambrian of Utah "have very well preserved soft tissue, which the authors interpret as evidence that representatives of modern jellyfish existed by the middle Cambrian period."

(Tyler)

Neanderthals - language and FoxP2 (Tyler)

Platypus's complex electrolocation sense evolved early.

... there are extreme constraints on time for any evolutionary story of the origin of platypuses and their electrolocation device. We appear to have a situation where intelligent design is demanded by the evidence of short timescales and the complexity of the "implausible" electrosensory system.

(Tyler)

Pycnogonids - pycnogonids (sea spiders) (Tyler)

Retraction - Homer Jacobson's retraction of 1950s origin of life quotes to prevent use by creationists.

This response recalls the Miller-Urey experiments (which are currently regarded as peripheral by most OOL researchers). The element of conjecture is apparent here also, as Jacobson can only argue that the right conditions "could have existed under early Earth conditions". The empirical support for this is highly controversial. More generally, it is worth noting that evolutionists are very reluctant to calculate probabilities - because some regard it as very high (but we don't yet know the mechanism) whereas others regard it as very very low (but think it was a lucky chance anyway). Based on what we know, the probabilities are extraordinarily low, as Koonin has demonstrated. For more on this, go here.

Jacobson is perfectly entitled to make a retraction, but the issues are not going to go away. Jacobson may gain some personal satisfaction, but the challenge of IC systems remains and the improbability of chemical evolution appears insuperable. Far better for Jacobson and those who think like him to face up to these challenges and address the data as we know it (rather than indulge in fantasies about "might well have occurred" and what conditions "could have existed").

Stasis Compsocidae as an insect example of stasis from Cretaceous era

Stasis - pycnogonids (sea spiders)

Here is yet another life form, stretching from the lower Palaeozoic to the present, that displays stasis in its morphology with relatively minor differences over time. Why is it that the dominant feature (stasis) gets so little attention, when "evolutionary history" gets so much?

(Tyler)

Teleology - "promiscuous teleology" and design inferences

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

The origin of life: Unsolved problem now shopped to off-market solutions?

The Darwinian left discovers group selection

Darwinism and popular folklore: Neanderthal man died out on account of equal opportunity?

Fred Flintstone vs. the law

He said it: Origin of Life pioneer on the challenge of origin of life research

Antony Flew: Is he too old Also, New York Times spin: Elderly ex-atheist is just senile.

Intelligence: How much is heredity and how much environment? - the Flynn effect

Books at home predict student success better than parents' education

US anti-religion group loses standing to fight lawsuits

Faking out brain injury tests - yes, it can be done

Health:

AIDS numbers downsized: a learning experience

Pudging the Truth

Grandma was right: Just eat and be thankful

Our weighty obsession - this one should be required reading for teen girls. Eating disorders very often begin with a diet.

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Publisher braces for controversy as definitive book on intelligent design hits market DALLAS – November 19, 2007 – The Foundation for Thought and Ethics has just published The Design of Life. This definitive book on intelligent design (ID) comes as a shot across the bow to dogmatic defenders of Darwinian orthodoxy. Written by two key ID theorists, mathematician William Dembski and biologist Jonathan Wells, it presents the full case for intelligent design to a general audience. Critics, in dismissing The Design of Life, contend that intelligent design has collapsed in the wake of the 2005 Dover trial. Author William Dembski responded, “Those same people have been announcing intelligent design’s demise every year since 1990. Strangle it as they might, intelligent design just won’t die. The Design of Life shows why the better arguments and stronger evidence are now on the intelligent design side.”

According to FTE president Jon Buell, The Design of Life is not intended for high school students; it is aimed rather at college/university students and adults who want a clearer understanding of why a growing number of scientists doubt Darwin. “FTE enlisted William Dembski and Jonathan Wells because the public needs a book that compares the argument for design, point by point, with the argument for no-design,” noted Buell. The book covers the origin of life, origin of species, and origin of consciousness, as well as other controversial areas. “We now know so much more than Darwin did,” said author Jonathan Wells, who also wrote The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery 2006). “Instead of just papering over more cracks, it’s time to take a fresh look. The Design of Life shows why it is no longer possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Darwinist.” The Design of Life, which goes on sale today, retails for $35. It is available through online booksellers and at a discount directly from the Foundation for Thought and Ethics at www.thedesignoflife.net.

About the Foundation for Thought and Ethics FTE is a nonprofit educational organization based in Dallas. It publishes books on topics impacting the public understanding of worldview, morality, and conscience. From its inception over 25 years ago, the organization has maintained a special interest in intelligent design, publishing books in this area and fostering dialogue about it among leading scientists, scholars, and educators. FTE’s web site is www.fteonline.com.

Posted by Denyse O'Leary 4:12 PM EST

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A friend was kind enough to provide a transcript of a podcast of Phillip Johnson talking about the recent PBS Nova episode on the Dover Trial. The interviewer is Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute.

Here are points I thought particularly salient:

Johnson: ... What's going on here is a process of soothing. The scientific establishment has decided that the way to get a reluctant American public to put aside their doubts and believe what they're being told in the mass media, and in the textbooks, and in the museums about evolution is absolutely true is to reassure them that it doesn't threaten [their] religion. Then after they have been talked into accepting the theory, then the types like Richard Dawkins will come out and say, "Well actually now that you've accepted it, we have to tell you that it does destroy your religion."

...

Luskin: And all this raises a question that I would be very interested in your answer in Professor Johnson, because you have followed this debate for many years. You're aware that for decades the scientific community has been issuing statements to the effect of science and religion do not conflict. They may even say they're totally different spheres that can't even conflict in principle. And yet public skepticism of evolution remains very high. What does this say to you? Why are these attempts to, as you put it, soothe religious people regarding evolution, really seems like it is failing (at least) the public that is largely religious and is still very skeptical.

Johnson: Yes, they are still very skeptical, and they don't believe the reassurances. They know in fact what's going on. The fact is that the public is not as stupid as the experts wish them to be.

Um, no.

Here's the whole of my friend's partial transcript.

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

ARN correspondent

Recently, I received many posts from Darwinists (including Christian Darwinists) who protested my mentioning the fact that the recent school shooting in Finland was driven by social Darwinism. Some of them have resolved never to read my blog again as a result.

(Be still, my heart! How can I be sure they will keep their promise?) Anyway, I wrote this:

This tragedy has provoked an enormous outburst of protest from Darwinists on account of my noting that the shooter's motive was social Darwinism. On the rare occasions when a shooter's motive has been anti-abortion advocacy ( Rudolph) or fundamentalist madness ( Yates), I have NEVER been excoriated by an anti-abortionist or fundamentalist for openly discussing that fact. Indeed, these types of cases were openly discussed among Christian journalists at a number of gatherings in which I participated over the last decade, with conspicuously little defensiveness. We had long accepted that some forms of anti-abortion advocacy and fundamentalism are toxic.

So this storm of comments has been a real eye-opener for me (and I probably rejected more than I accepted, so readers never saw all the somniferous posturing I did). The storm suggests that - despite claims - Darwinists have never dealt with the legacy of social Darwinism in an emotionally healthy enough way to just put it all behind them. Now that may be because the actual worldview of Darwinism necessitates social Darwinism. Or it may be because no one has said, "let's just do it." Or someone has said that, but the troops didn't get it. It's not really my problem though.

More here.

Also, at the Hack,

Do recent studies of out of body experiences show that there is no soul?

Should evangelicals be worried about the "Spiritual Brain" book?

College no longer best place to lose your faith?

Religious freedom: Not a mere luxury, says political theorist

Theories of brain evolution: Evolving brain or revolving door

Theocracy, theocracy, a theme for thee but not for me!

Sure, I love praise from people I respect. Who doesn't?

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard and I will be on American radio host and columnist Dennis Prager's show today, at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, to discuss the findings from our recently published book The Spiritual Brain (Harper One 2007). Here's the podcast.

I will also be on Radio Maria, November 8, on Culture Watch with Tony Gosgnach, from 6:05 to 7:05 p.m. Go here and click the Listen Live icon. The show will be repeated as follows:

Repeat: November 13, 11 a.m. - 12 noon
Repeat: November 15, 6:05 - 7:05 p.m.

If podcasts are available, I will link them.

P.S.: For all those whose acid comments I have rejected recently at the Post-Darwinist: Start your own blog. And yes I HAVE heard it all before. And no, it didn't get more interesting with time. That (and Access Research Network for that matter) is a news blog, not an olds blog. When I start an olds blog, I will hear you at length.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I just got done rejecting a large number of comments from people who claim to enjoy this blog but nonetheless consider the report last evening of the Darwinist sympathies of the Finnish school shooter to be in poor taste.

(I suppose the Finns didn't know they were supposed to suppress that part of the story, so that it would only be discovered thirty years from now by a gutsy researcher ... )

First, it's rubbish that anyone who enjoys this blog was upset. This blog has published many more pungent stories and I urge anyone who doubts that to investigate the archives. While you're there, have a look at the way in which scholar Richard Weikart found himself the target of similar attacks for his careful study of social Darwinism in From Darwin to Hitler.

Second, if people honestly think that the boy's social Darwinism played no role in his shooting spree, I assume that they also think that toxic religious beliefs play no role in Middle Eastern-directed suicide bombings.

I disagree in both cases. Beliefs have consequences. Read the rest here. (There are significant updates as well. One from the lawyer of Columbine families and another about the fact that the shooter's video is dissapearing from the 'Net. Vital sources still linked. - d.)

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

You've probably heard about all the apes who have been taught to communicate using sign language in recent years. As Mario Beauregard and I discuss in The Spiritual Brain, the discovery that American Sign Language could, in principle, be taught to apes spurred a number of interesting research projects - and some pretty unrealistic claims. In Dragons of Eden (1986), for example, Carl Sagan dreamed of a day when

Although a few years ago it would have seemed the most implausible science fiction, it does not appear to me out of the question that, after a few years in such a verbal chimpanzee community, there might emerge the memoirs of the natural history and mental life of a chimpanzee, published in English or Japanese (with perhaps an "as told to" after the byline).

What you probably DIDN'T hear much about is the mood of skepticism with which much of the science community has greeted this work in recent years - even as the apes impress hosts on national television programs.

In "Aping Language", a thoughtful article in E-Skeptic, Clive Wynne explains how that happened. Wynne certainly does not have a hitch in his craw about the concept of ape language. On the contrary, would have been pleased to discover that apes can be taught grammar. The trouble is, after the initial flurry of success stories, later, more critical research came to the conclusion that they generally can't.

Why did initial reports sound so favourable? One problem was overinterpretation. The ability to learn a large number of signs is not the same thing as the ability to learn a language whose meaning depends largely on grammar. The former achievement is sometimes found among birds as well as mammals, but the latter seems unique to humans.

The ability to string a sequence of words together does not necessarily mean awareness of grammar. The sentence "Tom shot John" does not mean the same thing as "John shot Tom," and the difference is pretty important. Overly generous assumptions were made about the extent to which apes such as Washoe and Kanzi were using grammar. When they were examined by scientists other than their trainers, they did not perform well.

Also, attuned as they were to individual signs of success, researchers were often not looking at the big picture. Reporting on how one researcher revised his thinking after closer study, Wynne notes,

Terrace now argued that Nim's use of ASL signs was quite unlike how children learn language. Nim failed to initiate conversations, he seldom introduced new vocabulary and just imitated what the humans around him said. Nim's sentences failed to grow in length. In human children there is a close relationship between the number of words known and the number of words used in a sentence. Not so in Nim. Throughout his time in the language project he stuck to using one or two words at a time. And his longer utterances were without any regard for grammatical structure. Nim's longest recorded "sentence" was give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you. Not hard to understand — but not very grammatical either.

The key difference between an ape and a child is that the child is growing in intellectual capability. The ape is not. Thus, the ape isn't under any internal pressure to expand his language competence. Once he knows how to satisfy his fairly simple needs, any pressure he experiences will come from drill by humans - at the expense, one suspects, of things he would rather be doing.

Wynne describes his own disillusion,

For a start Kanzi — like Nim before him — did not show the increase in sentence length that is typical of children learning language. In fact, at 1.15 symbols per sentence, Kanzi's average utterance is even shorter than Nim's. And it turns out that to complete many of the requests that were put to him Kanzi did not need to understand grammar. For example when Kanzi was asked to "Take the hat to the colony room" - which Kanzi did successfully - all he needed was some sense of "hat" and of "colony room."

Wynne's point is that, unlike "John shot Tom"/"Tom shot John" the command given to Kanzi is not reversible - a room cannot be taken to a hat. He concludes that, while Kanji's and his trainers' achievements are significant, as far as grammar is concerned, "on any assessment not tinted with rose-colored glasses, Kanzi just doesn't get it."

Commenting on John Berman's recent Nightline show with 26-year-old Kanzi, he quotes Berman's assessment, "Moments like this are proof that these conversations help scientists learn about apes, from the apes themselves," but says,

I don't disagree, though I fear the conclusion I draw is not the one Berman intended. Moments like this tell us that Descartes was right, there really are no beasts, no matter how fortunately circumstanced, that can make known their thoughts through language.

As I see it, the take home point is that Kanji doesn't really want anything more out of life than his limited language skills give him. That is what makes all the difference between him and a three-year-old child.

Anyway, it's good to see a magazine that bills itself as "skeptical" living up to its billing by exercising its skepticism in an area that has long been in need of it.

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Semiotic 007 commented at Mike Behe and Bad Design that Christian researchers embrace atheistic notions of science simply as "the rules of the game", for getting things done. He goes on to note,

Everyone wants science to explain phenomena in natural, not supernatural, terms whenever possible. Historically, there were big problems with investigators invoking the supernatural whenever it suited them. I believe it was simply easier for Christians to join Enlightenment philosophers in cutting God out of the picture than to obtain some disciplined approach to admitting the supernatural at times and excluding it at other times.

Okay, but how come they don't see the hook sticking right out of the bait?

First, while it is true that everyone wants science to explain phenomena in natural, not supernatural terms, ... how do we know what is natural and what is supernatural? This becomes a serious question where mental phenomena are concerned.

Mario Beauregard and I discuss this in The Spiritual Brain, in connection with laboratory experiments in telekinesis:

To say that an event is “supernatural” is to say that it comes from above or outside nature.

Perhaps we should ... ask, what is the nature of nature? Can it include events that are not supernatural in the sense given above, but are also not easily accommodated by materialism?

Regarding psi, we can assume one of two things: (1) every single instance of psi is a direct interference in nature, presumably by a divine power from outside the universe; or (2) the universe permits more entanglement than the materialist paradigm does. The second assumption creates many fewer problems than the first. We do not need to assume that every time a middle-aged bus driver beats the odds in a psi experiment, the universe has been invaded from the outside, let alone that, as unidirectional skeptics have often insisted, “science” is in danger or that “religion is invading science,” or that “a new dark age” is upon us.

Research can determine the circumstances under which entanglement can occur above the quantum level, resulting in apparent action at a distance. (P. 177)

But if, of course, we "know" that materialism is true, then telekinesis is supernatural and the supernatural does not occur, therefore telekinesis does not occur - and anyone whose research shows otherwise threatens science.

The "rules of the game" are constructed primarily to defend materialism from disconfirmation!

I would be interested to hear more about the big problems with investigators who invoked the supernatural whenever it suited them. I'm more familiar with big problems when investigators leave out the reality of the mind whenever that suits them. Just one more excerpt from The Spiritual Brain:

Indeed, by the 1960s, materialism was so pervasive in medicine that Benson had a hard time persuading his colleagues that mental stress could contribute to high blood pressure. Mentors warned that he was risking his career when he began to study the physiology of meditation in an effort to understand how the mind influences the body. (233-34)

Get that? Risking his career. Where have we heard that kind of thing before?

Fortunately, the early researchers persisted, and today we have a much better understanding of the influence of mental states on health (see The Spiritual Brain Chapter 8). Nonetheless many today are busy trying to disconfirm the reality of the mind.

Semiotic 007 adds,

I am not at all saying this is the way science should be. I’m simply trying to state why many Christian researchers in fact restrict themselves to natural causation in their explanations of empirical observations.

What they have in fact chosen to do is help the materialist avoid disconfirmation by identifying as "God" or "supernatural" whatever the materialist disapproves of or fears. That includes evidence of design in nature.

I have often had frustrating conversations with Christian scientists who say things like, "Well, when you say design, you really mean God, don't you, and you can't prove God, so it's not science by definition ... " (This is usually spoken rapid fire, like a flight attendant reciting the safety exits, so I would guess it isn't a new thought that has just occurred to him.)

Whoa!

The Christian Darwinist (hereafter St. Darwin) may be absolutely convinced in the privacy of his emotional life that if it looks like design it must be God (but it can't be God and therefore it must be an illusion). But I just don't know. If we have only just begun to consider that design is definitely a part of nature, we are in no position to say things like that.

George Hunter tells me I am an empiricist, and therefore willing to live with uncertainty. (I join the other commenters from that thread in recommending Hunter's Science's Blind Spot, which I reviewed here, as indispensable for understanding St. Darwin.

Because, no sooner has St. Darwin finished reciting the litany above than he starts in with, "Look at all the evil and suffering in the world! What kind of God would be responsible for that? Evolution did that, not God!"

(At this point, I get nostalgic. I still clearly remember my five year old daughter explaining to me, thirty years ago, "I didn't do that, Mommy. My hands did it.")

Well, I would be happy to leave God out of it, but St. Darwin won't let me. He doesn't want to let me because his purpose is to prevent evidence from ever being relevant to his claims for Darwinism or for other forms of materialism. If that's playing by the rules, we need to change the rules.

Here's one rule that I want, but St. Darwin does not want: I won't mention God and neither does he.

Here is one project he doesn't want: We just look at the accumulated evidence for the history of life on this planet and ask a simple question: If Darwin's theory did not exist and was not now the subject of a huge academic industry, would anyone suppose that it explained the Cambrian explosion? The subsequent punctuated history of life? The rise of consciousness?

Darwin's theory is supported in order to prop up materialism, and otherwise has very little use.

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: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Blogs for books at Amazon are great! I just wanted to draw your attention to Mike Behe's Edge of Evolution blog, where he tackles the problem of "evil design", in connection with the writings of Christian Darwinist Ken Miller (and all kinds of other stuff):

Behe, a fellow Catholic, has the same problem I do. One of the shell games that I had to learn to detect when I first started covering this beat, while writing By Design or by Chance?, was the "Christian evolution" demand that we "Leave God out of it!"

As in "Surely no Creator would ..." Hey, wait a minute! Weren't we supposed to leave God ... out ... of ... ?

Well, it turned out that you could drag God into it, as long as you were saying that he isn't responsible for the way things are. It all just sort of happened, see. Nonetheless, he is the Lord of Creation?

Shell game city.

Anyway, Behe says,

So, how to respond to such a position? The first thing to say is that it’s very hard to see how the Miller/Ayala position gets God off the hook. The “byproducts of a fruitful and creative [Darwinian] natural world” that Miller alludes to are not simply byproducts — they are deadly, dangerous, vicious byproducts. No matter if malaria were designed directly by God or indirectly by a sloppy process He put in motion, many children of mothers in malarious regions of Africa are going to be just as dead. There is going to be as much suffering in the world one way as the other.

Which reminds me: Until I had read Science's Blind Spot, I didn't really "get" the point of view of the "Christian Darwinists." Why would Christians, of all people, claim that there is absolutely no evidence for design in nature? So people should believe in God without any evidence at all? Hunter makes a persuasive case that such people are mainly interested in getting God of the hook for whatever is wrong with the world. As if.

I figure God can take care of himself.

By the way, also check out our great author blog at The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper One 2007) where we put up links to multimedia resources around the book.

Also: The lazy paddlefish could have hands, feet - but never got round to it?

Philosopher thinks that polytheism would be an improvement! Really! (You heard it here last, okay?)

Book explains mind as evolved meat. But not really.

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 just published The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

Here follows a list of podcasts on various topics by persons of interest to the intelligent design controversy. These will be added to the Encyclopedia of Evolution in the Light of Intelligent Design

Aldini, Giovanni, and virulent materialism, with John West (podcast)

Allegory of the Cave SciPhiShow with Jason Rennie (podcast)

analogies interview with Jay Richards on analogies in science (podcast)

antibiotic resistance - problems for evolution theory (animation)

astronomy and intelligent design interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, (podcast)

Campagna, Joey C., Intelligent design - research Wiki Web site for research (podcast)

Canada - intelligent design controversy in Canada - Cultural differences between Canada and the United States, interview with Denyse O'Leary (podcast)

Chambers, Scott, "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model" interview (podcast)

Ciencia Alternativa - intelligent design interview with Mario Lopez (podcast)

cosmological fine tuning "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model", interview by Casey Luskin with Scott Chambers (podcast)

Cypher's choice Jason Rennie explains the Matrix crux (podcast)

Darwinbots Denyse O'Leary vs. the Darwinbots (podcast)

Darwin Day in America - West, John, on Darwin Day in America (podcast) John West reads from his book Darwin Day in America (podcast)

Darwinism moral relativism and Darwinism John West (podcast)

Darwinism, Judaism, and Christianity with Jonathan Rosenblum (podcast)

Dawkins, Richard, information challenge Casey Luskin's response (podcast)

Dembski, William, on intelligent design and the church, in conversation with Russell Moore (podcast)

Descartes's demon SciPhiShow with Jason Rennie (podcast)

design - unintelligent design - A discussion between Sheirdan Voysey (host), Robyn Williams, and Denyse O'Leary (science journalists) (podcast)

Doan, Andy, interviewed by Jason Rennie, "Miracles and the Q" (podcast)

Dover case (US) Montana Law review articles (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab Robert Marks's explanation (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab and Banned Items (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Web site suppressed at Baylor Report by Anika Smith (podcast)

Evolutionary Informatics Lab See also Marks, Robert

Expelled movie, with Ben Stein - interview with Bruce Chapman (video podcast)

Explore Evolution information, textbook (podcast)

falsifiability - intelligent design and falsifiability interview with Jay Richards (podcast)

fine tuning of the universe Discovery Institute's Casey Luskin discusses Newsweek's Sharon Begley's take on fine-tuning (podcast)

Foundation for Thought and Ethics Dover Trial (podcast) Casey Luskin and Seth Cooper ask, was justice done?

fine tuning of the universe "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model", interview by Casey Luskin with Scott Chambers (podcast)

fine tuning of the universe - Casey Luskin on Newsweek article by Sharon Begley (podcast)

Gilder, George, on information theory, at Bar-Ilan University (podcast)

Gnosticism Ben Witherington III interviewed by Jason Rennie of the SciPhiShow, on Gnosticism and Christianity (podcast)

Gnosticism Edwin Yamauchi interviewed by Jason Rennie of the SciPhiShow, on who Gnostics were and what they believed (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo, interview on the Privileged Planet hypothesis (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo, astronomy and intelligent design interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo - denied tenure - documents, interview with John West (podcast)

Gonzalez, Guillermo - denied tenure - tenure appeal (podcast)

Haeckel's embryos - use in textbooks, interview with Casey Luskin (podcast)

homology - intelligent design and homology (video podcast)

Hunter, George Cornelius - interview on his recent book, Science's Blind Spot (podcast)

information theory - George Gilder at Bar-Ilan University (podcast)

intelligent design - definitions, Crowther, Robert: "Defining what intelligent design is" (podcast)

intelligent design - definitions, Luskin, Casey: "Confronting misrepresentative definitions of intelligent design" (podcast)

ntelligent design - falsifiability interview with Jay Richards (podcast)

intelligent design - origin of term by Rob Crowther (podcast)

intelligent design - research Wiki Web site for research (podcast)

Jensen, Lyle, neo-Darwiism skeptic (podcast)

Keller, Rebecca, on "Real Science for Kids" (podcast)

magic - SciPhiSHow with Jason Rennie, on science, rreligion, magic, and technology (podcast)

Marks, Robert - Evolutionary Informatics Lab Web site suppressed at Baylor Report by Anika Smith (podcast)

Matrix SciPhiShow with Jason Rennie (podcast)

mind - mind as illusion - Is the mind just an illusion. Anika Smith interviews Denyse O'Leary (podcast)

miracles, Doan, Andy, "Miracles and the Q" (podcast)

moral relativism moral relativism and Darwinism John West (podcast)

multiverse "Cosmological Fine-Tuning and the Multiverse Model", interview by Casey Luskin with Scott Chambers (podcast)

privileged planet hypothesis interview with Guillermo Gonzalez, on the Privileged Planet hypothesis (podcast)

Real Science for Kids - Keller, Rebecca, on "Real Science for Kids" (podcast)

Rosenblum, Jonathan, interview on Deniuable Darwin (podcast)

science journals - double standard re intelligent design interview with Paul Nelson re Michael Behe's work (podcast)

Von Baer's law - interview with Paul Nelson (podcast)

Wels, Jonathan, an interview with Doug Giles at AudioClash on his book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (podcast)

West, John, Darwinism moral relativism and Darwinism John West (podcast)

West, John, on Darwin Day in America (podcast)