The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Expelled as "creationist porn"? right-wing columnist as past his stale date?

New book on harassment of scientists who doubt Darwin - free chapter available

Democratize the brains trust:Vote for your favourite public intellectual from a list of 100!

Semantics watch: Architecture is okay in geology, as long as there is no architect

Department of Natural Sciences Obfuscation Committee needs YOUR help!

Five states are now considering academic freedom bills

You know the ID folk are winning when ... exhibit is "consciously avoiding" intelligent design

Couch potatoes, do not arise! Veg out with a good deal on ID DVDs

TV science demo you won't see this year: The limits to Darwinian evolution

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).

Dr. Jerry Bergman, author of the forthcoming book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" is featured on the front page of the Toledo Blade today. The story covers the movie Expelled as well as Dr. Bergmans charge that many educators are treated unfairly for their dissent over aspects of evolution.

Readers can also go to the book's website at www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Darwin dating: Only a Darwinist would think of something this vulgar

Expelled ten days later - Yoko Ono is suing over the use of John Lennon's Imagine - which you can hear on YouTube.

Churches should holler for Jesus and schools should indoctrinate Darwin?

The miracle of the disappearing prof: St. Charles Darwin's fanatics make Prof. Nancy Bryson disappear

Blogging: Crocodile, crocodile, cry me some tears (The circulation-bleeding New York Times feels sorry for people like me. Yeah really.)

Blog seeks the firing of Baylor U's anti-ID president

Darwinism and atheism: No connection whatever?

Expelled: Did Darwin really lead to Hitler? Better question: Did the suggestion lead to free publicity?

A kind correspondent wants to know why I am not in Expelled ("Well, for one thing, I wasn't kicked out of anything for making the intelligent design controversy my major beat. Oh sure, people laughed at me in 2001 when I said it would be one of the biggest stories of the decade by mid-decade.")

Reasons to Believe: Reasons to Believe: Old Earth Creation ministry thumbs down on Expelled film - claims there is no persecution of ID theorists

New for blogroll: Atheism is dead

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

Things we know but cannot prove: Another nail in the coffin of materialism.

Excerpt: "We are at an undisputed edge of naturalism in computing and math. There is no TOE. Does science have a TOE? If so, will we ever know we are at the edge?"

The fours be with you! (You will be "fours"ed to cooperate with this words/numbers game. (Hey, it's Friday night!)

Altruism: Why it can't really exist but why it does anyway

Evolutionary psychology: Eliot Spitzer is a kludgebrain!, psychologist opines (but so are we all)

Mind and medicine: The placebo effect - Did your doctor just prescribe you a quarter teaspoon of coloured sugar? Maybe ...

Materialism: When the store is on fire, hold a fire sale:

Excerpt: So this is the latest pseudo-explanation of the soul? I could do better myself! How about this: Minds that are accustomed to think in terms of a future have difficulty grasping the idea that there is no future after death.

Way simpler, to be sure, but materialists wouldn't buy it because I forgot to drag in the Paleolithic cave guys telling stories around the fireside - the staple of evolutionary psychology.

Fitna: A thoughtful Muslim's response The predicted riots largely didn't happen, but where to go from here?

Excerpt: And while we are here: Dial-a-mob/rent-a-riot behaviour is NOT copyright to Middle Eastern Muslims. I ran into the same thing among the American Ivy League elite in May 2005, when the New York Times bungled a story I broke on my other blog, The Post-Darwinist, claiming that a film about to be shown at the Smithsonian was "anti-evolution." It wasn't; it did not even address the subject. But zillions of Darwinbots, as I called them, behaved exactly as if it had. It's a good thing that no one gives them sharp objects to play with.

Rupert Sheldrake's guide to New Atheism (which makes it sound like New Coke, really)

Can a transplanted heart lead to transplanted thoughts? Well, maybe, but the mechanism might be fairly conventional.

Why science without God destroys itself: Because the alternative idea of a multiverse is a step into magic, that's why

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).

Roddy Bullock has had to delay his next essay due to an extremely heavy schedule of writing and speaking in March and April. Stay tuned, however, as the next essay promises to be one of the best.

In the meantime, try the latest thought question at IDnet Ohio's Blog on Truth. Go here: http://ohiointelligentdesign.com/blog/category/thought-questions/ and answer the question, "If you are not a creationist (in the broadest sense of the word, not necessarily a Biblical creationist), then what are you?

Think about it and respond.

For further comments, visit IDnet Ohio's website (URL below) and go to the "Contact Us" page.

Roddy M. Bullock
Author: The Cave Painting: A Parable of Science
http://www.idnetohio.com

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Would you go to see a film about a pregnant New York waitress from a deprived background - estranged from her family, dumped by her lover, fired for being late, and about to arrange an abortion? Really?

If you said no, you would certainly be affirmed in your decision by critics at the top Entertainment sections.

But then Bella stunned film mavens by winning the Toronto Film Festival People's Choice Award. Audiences have since made Bella a popular, award-winning - and well-rewarded - movie.

There is currently an enormous cultural divide between elite culture and popular culture in North America, and film's future rests with popular culture. To understand what will happen next for Expelled, ignore the derision of the elite; note whether people "with jobs" go see the film.

Denyse O'Leary looks at what happened with Bella here at the ID Arts site.

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

Somebody else's turn: Darwin trolls try to eviscerate former pal Chris Mooney for saying something sensible about Expelled. Caution: One way ticket to Troll Central

Harvard publishing conspiracy theory? A couple of years ago, I wrote an underappreciated series on the growing scandal of peer review. Darn, I should have put money on it!

Biologic Institute Web site now on line (for the convenience of reasonable persons and inconvenience of mindless detractors.)

Just up at Uncommon Descent:

So Richard Dawkins thinks design can be studied?

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

"Living fossil" tuatara surprises scientists: Evolves quickly without ever changing

Excerpt: "In short, the tuatara's sluggish exterior conceals a swiftly changing genome that never got around to doing anything for two hundred million years. That in turn raises the question of just what influence the genome does have on animal form (morphology) or evolution."

It also raises questions about the usefulness of the "molecular clock." Is it right only twice a day?

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 Expelled film: The box office and other important stuff

Expelled: Not your father's documentary?

Earth to planet D'Souza: Check your space-time co-ordinates before wading deeper into the Darwinism-ID controversy:

Excerpt: I find D-'Souza's glib assertion, "Most Christians don't care whether the eye evolved by natural selection or whether evolution can account for macroevolution or only microevolution." troubling to say the least. Many of us oppose Darwinism because it is a false official account of the history of life, and thus a major obstacle to developing a correct account. We want to provide accurate information. If "most Christians don't care" it is either because they do not know the facts or because they do know them, but do not mind promoting falsehoods. Either situation is a cause for concern.

Also, at Uncommon Descent: Expelled: When telling the truth means telling "lies"

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

Art produced by animals: Is it really art?

Are there really innate ideas about God?

Why can't philosophy alone kill off materialism? Why do we need evidence from science?

Civil rights protests force extinction of Olympic flame

Mayo Clinic co-sponsors Dalai Lama's 16th Mind and Life conference, on benefits of contemplation or meditation

Artificial intelligence: A look at things that neither we nor computers can discover

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

Contrary to legacy media scaremongers, intelligent design is not a "Christian" idea. Serious theists the world over have assumed - quite obviously - that the universe and life forms show evidence of design. Many agnostics agree.

The least theists expect of God is the ability to design and execute a universe. We divide into religions and sects on more immediately pressing subjects, such as whether God permits war, revenge, alcohol, polygamy, divorce, or married clergy.

Nineteenth century materialism created an intellectual market for theories that attempt to explain how the universe and life hoisted themselves into existence without design. "Many universes" and Darwinian evolution are the two most popular today. These theories are given vastly more weight than the evidence allows. And yet their enthusiastic, often fanatical backers wonder why the public remains skeptical.

Recently, I had a chance to read The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (New York, Free Press, 1997) by physicist Gerald Schroeder - a Jewish take on design in the universe.

Formerly at MIT, Schroeder - who now lives in Israel - was one of the people who helped convince highly respected atheist Antony Flew that, There IS a God, on account of design.

He starts off with the arresting question he was asked hundreds of times around the world: "If the Bible is true, why doesn't it mention dinosaurs?"

He doesn't answer that question directly or immediately. It is a difficult question to answer.

The questioner clearly supposes that if the Bible is reliable, it must provide an answer to every question about which we are curious, whether or not the answer is needed for a righteous life. If that is the questioner's standard, the Bible must seem very deficient indeed.

Schroeder uses the dinosaur query as a jumping off point, from which he argues that the design of nature is best understood in the light of the Book of Genesis - interpreted, of course, in the Jewish rather than the Christian tradition.

One thing that struck me about The Science of God: is that Schroeder admits freely and with no sense of angst - back in 1997! - that there is very little evidence for Darwinian evolution as a cause of origin of species. Yet here we are in this 2008-2009 season of ridiculous Darwin hagiography, and on the very eve of the Expelled documentary on the suppression of scientists who favour design as an explanation. Update: I have just learned that Schroeder is actually in the film, along with mathematician David Berlinksi.

So why doesn't the monster just die? Let's see.

Introduction The Science of God - a Jewish physicist considers the design of the universe and life
Part One: Is the Darwin cult on the way out?
Part Two: Schroeder as recovering multiverse faddist?
Part Three: Let there be light ... and then time stands still
Part Four: Self-organization - not random, but according to a preordained program
Part Five: Non-humans with a human form? And what of the divine wisdom?

Next: Part One: Is the Darwin cult on the way out?

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

As I noted in the Introduction, The Science of God:, Schroeder assumes that everyone takes for granted that Darwin's theory was never really well established and is now on the way out:

Darwin realized that the staccato nature of the fossil record in no way confirmed evolution via natural selection. Rather, Darwin noted the morphological changes produced by breeders of pigeons and other domesticated animals, and assumed (quite likely in error) that if in tens of generations lean ancestral stock evolve into robust progeny, then gradually over tens of millions of generations vastly greater changes would have occurred, changes so great that phylum by phylum life rose ever higher on the imagined evolutionary tree. (page 9)

He concludes:

Macro-evolution, the evolution of one body plan into another - a worm or insect or mollusk evolving into a fish, for example - finds no support in the fossil record, in the lab, or in the Bible. (page 16)

In fact, Schroeder argues, the real history of life is a guided evolution that occurs as a series of jumps:

"The statement Darwin repeats several times in Origin of Species,"natura non facit saltum" - that nature does not make jumps - is simply false. Transitional forms are totally absent from the fossil record at the basic level of phylum and rare if present at all in class. Only after basic body plans are well established are fossil transitions observed. Darwin would have been much closer to the truth had he written "natura solum facit saltum" - that nature only makes jumps. (page 10)

Indeed, he charges that Darwin knew this perfectly well,

An accurate description of macro-evolution as presented by the fossil record is that it usually takes place somewhere else and all we are left with is the punctuations. Darwin realized this far better than his overly enthusiastic followers. On no less than seven occasions in the Origin of Species", he implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps. (page 31 )

and that his modern-day followers dedicate museums of natural history to keeping the fantastic Darwin cult alive:

The magnificent Natural History Museum in London devotes an entire wing to demonstrating the fact of evolution. They show how pink daisies can evolve into blue daisies, how gray moths change into black moths, how over a mere few thousand years, a wide variety of cichlid fish species evolved in Lake Victoria. It is all impressive.

Impressive, until you walk out and reflect upon that which they were able to document. Daisies remained daisies, moths remained moths, and cichlid fish remained cichlid fish. These changes re referred to as micro-evolution. In this exhibit, the museum's staff did not demonstrate a single unequivocal case in which life underwent a major gradual morphological change. (page 31 )

One story Schroeder tells that, for obvious reasons, is not part of the official saints' legends of materialism is the suppression, for decades, of the Cambrian fossils at the Smithsonian. C. D. Walcott, the Smithsonian secretary who found the fossils in the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, Canada, actually shelved them for decades because they did not support gradual Darwinian evolution.

Schroeder clearly did not have a crystal ball while writing The Science of God:. He did not foresee that, just as Walcott shelved the non-Darwinian fossils, the Darwin establishment would respond to challenges over the next decade by simply Expelling scientists who pointed out the deficiencies of their theory. In so doing, they have bought themselves at least another decade, and perhaps more.

He also probably did not realize the extent to which much of the popular media and commentariat is invested in Darwinism, as justifying an entire range of attitudes to life. For many, being pro-Darwin means being pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and pro-stem cell research, because we are all really just hair-challenged apes.

It almost feels like a historical oddity that Schroeder quotes the much maligned Michael Behe, whose Darwin's Black Box had come out a year earlier, also from Free Press, with respect:

Molecular biologist and observant Catholic, Professor Michael Behe stated the case for the believing biologist: "You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. ... Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it." (pages 26-27)

Of course it was right for Schroeder to quote Behe with respect, but in the subsequent decade, Behe has felt the full fury of the Darwin establishment for daring to put forward evidence that counters its free-floating theories. Behe's 2007 book, Edge of Evolution (also from Free Press), tracks the thousands of generations of simple life forms observed in the laboratory - with scant evidence of Darwinian evolution.

As Schroeder says, Darwinian evolution is always taking place ... somewhere else.

But now how does Schroeder himself see the origin and development of life? And what does he think of the many universes bubbling up from the quantum flux that are a staple of fashionable materialist cosmology, if not of reality?

Next: Part Two: Schroeder as recovering multiverse faddist?

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

As I noted in the Introduction, The Science of God:, Schroeder assumes that everyone takes for granted that Darwin's theory was never really well established and is now on the way out:

Darwin realized that the staccato nature of the fossil record in no way confirmed evolution via natural selection. Rather, Darwin noted the morphological changes produced by breeders of pigeons and other domesticated animals, and assumed (quite likely in error) that if in tens of generations lean ancestral stock evolve into robust progeny, then gradually over tens of millions of generations vastly greater changes would have occurred, changes so great that phylum by phylum life rose ever higher on the imagined evolutionary tree. (page 9)

He concludes:

Macro-evolution, the evolution of one body plan into another - a worm or insect or mollusk evolving into a fish, for example - finds no support in the fossil record, in the lab, or in the Bible. (page 16)

In fact, Schroeder argues, the real history of life is a guided evolution that occurs as a series of jumps:

"The statement Darwin repeats several times in Origin of Species,"natura non facit saltum" - that nature does not make jumps - is simply false. Transitional forms are totally absent from the fossil record at the basic level of phylum and rare if present at all in class. Only after basic body plans are well established are fossil transitions observed. Darwin would have been much closer to the truth had he written "natura solum facit saltum" - that nature only makes jumps. (page 10)

Indeed, he charges that Darwin knew this perfectly well,

An accurate description of macro-evolution as presented by the fossil record is that it usually takes place somewhere else and all we are left with is the punctuations. Darwin realized this far better than his overly enthusiastic followers. On no less than seven occasions in the Origin of Species", he implored his readers to ignore the evidence of the fossil record as a refutation of his concept of evolution or to "use imagination to fill in its gaps. (page 31 )

and that his modern-day followers dedicate museums of natural history to keeping the fantastic Darwin cult alive:

The magnificent Natural History Museum in London devotes an entire wing to demonstrating the fact of evolution. They show how pink daisies can evolve into blue daisies, how gray moths change into black moths, how over a mere few thousand years, a wide variety of cichlid fish species evolved in Lake Victoria. It is all impressive.

Impressive, until you walk out and reflect upon that which they were able to document. Daisies remained daisies, moths remained moths, and cichlid fish remained cichlid fish. These changes re referred to as micro-evolution. In this exhibit, the museum's staff did not demonstrate a single unequivocal case in which life underwent a major gradual morphological change. (page 31 )

One story Schroeder tells that, for obvious reasons, is not part of the official saints' legends of materialism is the suppression, for decades, of the Cambrian fossils at the Smithsonian. C. D. Walcott, the Smithsonian secretary who found the fossils in the Burgess Shale in British Columbia, Canada, actually shelved them for decades because they did not support gradual Darwinian evolution.

Schroeder clearly did not have a crystal ball while writing The Science of God:. He did not foresee that, just as Walcott shelved the non-Darwinian fossils, the Darwin establishment would respond to challenges over the next decade by simply Expelling scientists who pointed out the deficiencies of their theory. In so doing, they have bought themselves at least another decade, and perhaps more.

He also probably did not realize the extent to which much of the popular media and commentariat is invested in Darwinism, as justifying an entire range of attitudes to life. For many, being pro-Darwin means being pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, and pro-stem cell research, because we are all really just hair-challenged apes.

It almost feels like a historical oddity that Schroeder quotes the much maligned Michael Behe, whose Darwin's Black Box had come out a year earlier, also from Free Press, with respect:

Molecular biologist and observant Catholic, Professor Michael Behe stated the case for the believing biologist: "You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. ... Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it." (pages 26-27)

Of course it was right for Schroeder to quote Behe with respect, but in the subsequent decade, Behe has felt the full fury of the Darwin establishment for daring to put forward evidence that counters its free-floating theories. Behe's 2007 book, Edge of Evolution (also from Free Press), tracks the thousands of generations of simple life forms observed in the laboratory - with scant evidence of Darwinian evolution.

As Schroeder says, Darwinian evolution is always taking place ... somewhere else.

But now how does Schroeder himself see the origin and development of life? And what does he think of the many universes bubbling up from the quantum flux that are a staple of fashionable materialist cosmology, if not of reality?

Next: Part Two: Schroeder as recovering multiverse faddist?

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

Schroeder, following a traditional Jewish view, notes that the Hebrew word for creation is tsimtsum (= contraction):

... the Creator removes part of the infinite unity, enabling a more complex creature capable of greater imperfection. The first was the creation of the universe, the second, the creation of animals souls (nefesh) controlled by instinct and inclination (Gen 1:21), and the third neshama (the human soul which has free will) (Gen 1:27) (page 16)

So Schroeder understands the origin of the universe and life as God withdrawing a bit, to give matter and creatures room to exist as finite or limited beings.

As a physicist, he is well aware of the recent fad in cosmology for claiming that a universe can well up from a quantum fluctuation in a vacuum or that there are infinite numbers of universes, and ours just happens to work and make sense. So he takes some time to state his objections, addressing first the notion that quantum fluctuations can produce a universe like ours:

First of all, quantum fluctuations are phenomena that relate to the laws of nature within our universe. The beginning of our universe marks the beginning of time, space, and matter. There is every indication that the big bang also marks the beginning of the laws of nature. If this is true, then prior to the existence of the universe there was no nature and therefore there were no laws of quantum mechanics by which to engender the needed quantum fluctuation. (p. 24 )

He is similarly unsparing about claims for an infinite number of universes, among which ours just happens to be fine-tuned enough to allow us to exist:

The only "secular" way of surmounting the problem of the beginning is to theorize that there exists an infinitely large, eternal macro-universe within which are embedded an infinite number of finite universes. An analogy would be an infinitely turbulent sea having an infinite number of bubbles ever forming and expanding. Each bubble would be a universe, having its own duration, its own laws of nature. Some bubbles bud and give rise to other bubbles. One of the bubbles would be our universe.

To say that there is no observable proof for such a macro-universe is an understatement. The laws of nature exclude the possibility of seeing outside our universe even if there is an outside. It is a theory that can never be tested by observation." (p. 25 )

While it might be tempting to say that Schroeder "would obviously think this way because he is a devout Jew," he reveals that, as an MIT alumnus, he was originally on the "adversary's" team. That is, he had wanted the multiverse to be real, but he found that he couldn't make it make sense. (p. 25). Instead,

... with each step forward in the unfolding mystery of the cosmos, a subtle yet pervading ingenuity, a contingency kept shining through, a contingency that joins all aspects of existence into a coherent unity. While this coherence does not prove the existence of a Designer, it does call out for interpretation.

Schroeder then proceeds to tackle Genesis 1 and 2, from a Jewish perspective.

Next: Part Three: Let there be light ... and then time stands still

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

Can scientists can be just plain wrong? Well, for example, they were wrong when they believed, for millennia, that our universe is eternal. In The Science of God, Schroeder recounts,

From the time of Aristotle, 2,300 years ago, scientific theory held the universe to be eternal. The unchanging stellar pattern of the heavens was shining evidence of this eternity. ... Through the early 1960s in the face of mounting evidence to the contrary, two thirds of leading U.S. scientists surveyed believed it. For 3,300 years, since the revelation on Sinai, the Bible denied it, steadfastly claiming there was a beginning to our universe. (page 22)

Many people, and certainly not all of them scientists, wanted the universe to be eternal because a beginning of time and space implies a Beginner (and therefore, probably, a God). However, the general view espoused by the Book of Genesis turned out to be correct and Schroeder, of course, does not think that accidental.

Schroeder addresses the six days of creation in a way that I had never heard before: Instead of concerning himself about whether the days were 24 hours or great ages, he points out that light (as in "Let there be light"), strictly speaking, is free from time. At the speed of light, no time is observed to pass. (page 53ff).

For example, suppose a supernova approaches the earth for 170 000 Earth years. It is finally visible after all that time. But for the light itself, no time has passed. "Light, you see," Schroeder explains, "is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities."

He assumes that the creation of the universe itself is seen from the perspective of light:

Though the comparative, ordinal form of the numbers was used for all the other days (second, third, etc.), Genesis used the absolute cardinal form for day one because it was viewing time from the beginning of time, a perspective from which there was no other time for comparison.

(page 65)
And as for the other days,

The opening chapter of Genesis acts like the zoom lens of a camera. Day by day it focuses with increasing detail on less and less time and space. The first day of Genesis encompasses the entire universe. By the third day, only Earth is discussed. After day six, only that line of humanity leading to the patriarch Abraham is discussed. The Bible realizes the entire universe still exists. But its interest now rests solely on one line of humanity. This narrowing of perspective, in which each successive day presents in greater detail a smaller scope of time and space, finds a parallel in scientific notation. (page 62)

Genesis, he believes, uses the same technique as science, looking at progressively smaller fragments, in a universal base known as natural log e, best known from the curve of the nautilus shell.

Indeed, most of the book is a defense of the practical usefulness of the Genesis account of our origins:

Of all the ancient accounts of creation, only that of Genesis has warranted a second reading by the scientific community. It alone records a sequence of events that approaches the scientific account of our cosmic origins. (page 80)

Christians will find Schroeder's approach somewhat different from more culturally familiar defenses of Genesis, but his insights into the original meanings of Hebrew words are instructive.

And what of the dinosaurs that the Bible does not mention? What about them? Schroeder admits, at last,

Though the Bible is eerily true and filled with wisdom that would not have been known widely, if at all, when it was written, nowhere does it claim to have all the answers. The Bible may be the primary source for claiming that a purpose underlies our existence. But understanding the cause of that purpose can only be found, as Maimonides stated so many centuries ago, in a knowledge of the physical world. (page 70)

So the dinosaurs are left to the paleontologist's trowel after all.

Next: Part Four: Self-organization - not random, but shaped to fit a preordained program

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

Addressing the mystery of life's origin, Schroeder opts for self-organization - but he does not mean by this that after eons of slow cooking, augmented by an occasional accidental stir, life just sort of organized itself. He entirely dismisses the idea that life could have started by chance (pp. 84-85). He argues that self-organization occurred in response to a recipe for life encoded into the nature of the universe. He explains,

There is no biblical mention of a special creation for the origin of life. The laws of nature, created along with the creation of the universe, and the very special conditions of the Earth were quite adequate to orchestrate the flow of the universe toward life.

In defense of his view that life forms are encoded in such a way as to unfold according to a preordained pattern, he writes,

The obvious questions with regard to algal and protozoan genome size are: why does an algal cell or an amoeba retain so much genetic capacity? And why, within this huge genetic library space, would a primordial protozoan have stored information related, for example, to jointed limbs and vertebrae? There would be no immediate benefit to the amoeba and so no genetic reason for them to maintain this neutral information in their DNA If it were not neutral, then its expression was clearly not in the forms as expressed in the Cambrian animals.

Inherent in nature are channels providing direction to the development of life. (page 92)

The concept of a latent library of programmed changes that take effect at key points in the history of life is very different from the classical Darwinian theory of evolution in which merely random changes in genes that happen to confer a survival advantage drive huge changes in animal and plant body form. While special creationists will no doubt take issue with Schroeder's view, there is no question that it is compatible with the basic principles of intelligent design.

Next: Part Five: Non-humans with a human form? And what of the divine wisdom?

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

One of Schroeder's key concerns is free will:

A natural world allows us to maintain our free will. The biblical Creator may be omnipotent, but in this universe each member of mankind chooses his or her own path. (page 73)

Not surprisingly, a key plank is modern materialist atheism has been the denial of free will. According to a study by Gregory W. Graffin and William Provine, 78% of evolutionary biologists do not believe that humans have free will. Here again, Schroeder is pretty close to the design guys and to The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soulnon-materialist neuroscientists.

More controversial is Schroeder's view that, despite their art works and their habit of burying their dead with grave goods, humans prior to about 6000 years ago were not human and did not have a soul. He argues that they are "Nonhuman creatures with a human morphology [body shape]" (page 140-41). I learned much from his close exegesis of the Hebrew Bible, but at this point, he suddenly lost me:

According to Nahmanides, who is the major kabalistic commentator on the Bible, the biblical text has told us that before the neshama [soul] there was something like a man that was not quite a human. (page 140)

Here we have ancient accepted sources that describe animals with human shape, form, intelligence, and judgment. Suddenly cave paintings that predate Adam by twenty thousand years and ten-thousand-year-old inception of agriculture became understandable. These less-than-human creatures had human-like skills. What they lacked was human spirituality. (page 141)

Looking at the cave paintings, I simply don't agree. In particular, I don't think spirituality is entirely separate from the expression of a human awareness of life and death.

Schroeder argues that

The Bible describes a qualitative leap, a creation, at Adam that occurred almost six thousand years ago. Archaeology has provided us with an impressive record of that change. Though the soul leaves no material remains, the effects of the spirituality brought by the neshama are written loud and clear in the remnants of ancient Mesopotamia. (page 143)

The neshama instilled in humans knowledge of a spirituality that transcends the individual. It provides the potential for goals other than the physical, allowing for social relationships, the intent of which exceeds the desire for survival and physical gratification. (page 144)

Almost six thousand years ago, the neshama, the spirit of human life, was instilled in humankind. The image of the Eternal Creator was now present on Earth. Writing was invented and for the first time history was recorded in the form of pictographs. (page 163 )

In my own view, Schroeder has here fallen victim to a sort of "fundamentalism" that we also see at times among Christians. The desire to defend the Biblical account using our own ingenuity plays tricks on us. At times, we must simply allow the Biblical account to defend itself. The Bible does not give us a good reason for believing that any identifiable humans do not have a spiritual nature.

It is, as Schroeder notes, true that there were massive cultural leaps about five to six millennia ago, but we might prudently consider pragmatic explanations first. Settled agriculture, for example, may have allowed more people to devote themselves to culture or research than the nomadic hunter-gatherer lifestyle would. For example, agriculture both created a need for record-keeping and provided some individuals with the time to develop methods.

But Schroeder's central concept is still pretty close to intelligent design - especially his most important concept: The universe is constructed not of matter alone but of wisdom:

According to the Bible, the entire physical structure of our vast universe is a manifestation, a concretization, of wisdom. On this concept, science is (as of now) silent. Considering the information explosion that we are experiencing, a few more decades may be all that is required for science to confirm the next step in the biblical theory of our origins, that wisdom is the unifying base of energy.

Substitute "information" for "wisdom" and voila! - you have an ID theorist.

Note: Schroeder wrote another book in 2001, The Hidden Face of God (Free Press), and I will review that one as well.

Return to: Introduction The Science of God - a Jewish physicist considers the design of the universe and 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).

Listen to the April 15, 2008 Dennis Prager Show as he interviews Ben Stein about his new movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I received this press release moments ago:

The skinny:

1. The Expelled producers have filed suit in the Northern District of Texas seeking declaratory judgment that there is no copyright or other infringement. Premise Media also seeks its attorneys’ fees in responding to the XVIVO claims.

2. They also suspect that some will try to influence Internet search ranks for Expelled, to direct persons seeking information to attack sites instead. (To solve this problem, just go to Expelled directly.)

For the fire and brimstone press release, go here.

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 can practically feel, let alone read, the rage over Ben Stein's evocation of the Holocaust in connection with the Darwin fans' dystopia portrayed in his Expelled documentary, shortly to open.

Richard Weikart, history prof at California State University, Stanislaus and author of From Darwin to Hitler, has contributed a good deal of useful information to the Post-Darwinist blog on Darwin's influence on the Nazis.

But one thing I had not known until he mentioned it recently is that, after Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote a second book ("Zweites Buch") , in which he went into considerable detail about his affection for Darwinian evolution concepts:

Most of the ideas in the Second Book are similar to Mein Kampf. The Second Book opens with a chapter on "War and Peace in the Struggle for Survival [literally Struggle for Life]"

The opening paragraph states: "Politics is history in the making. History itself represents the progression of a people’s struggle for survival [life]. I use the phrase 'struggle for survival' [life] intentionally here, because in reality every struggle for daily bread, whether in war or peace, is a never-ending battle against thousands and thousands of obstacles, just as life itself is a never-ending battle against death. Human beings know no more than any other creature in the world why they live, but life is filled with the longing to preserve it. The most primitive creature knows only the instinct of self-preservation; for higher beings this carries over to wife and child, and for those higher still to the entire species. But when man—not infrequently, it seems—renounces his own self-preservation instinct for the benefit of the species, he is still doing it the highest service. Because not infrequently it is this renunciation of the individual that grants life to the collective whole, and thus yet again to the individual." The great size of the drive for self-preservation corresponds to the two mightiest drives in life: hunger and love. "In truth, these two impulses are the rulers of life." "Whatever is made of flesh and blood can never escape the laws that condition its development."

On the second page, both of the German and English versions, Hitler stated: "In the limitation of this living space lies the compulsion for the struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival, in turn, contains the precondition for evolution." A page later Hitler stated: "This development (Entwicklung) is characterized by the never-ending battle (Kampf) of humans against animals and also against humans themselves." A better translation of this would be: "“This evolution is characterized by an eternal struggle of humans against animals and against humans themselves."

The opening discussion of this book, then, is all about evolution. Contra the claim that “In general, Hitler did not say very much about Darwin and evolution,” he often referred to evolution in Mein Kampf, the Second Book, and in speeches laying out his worldview, especially in secret speeches he delivered during World War II to army officers. His ideas about racial struggle, population expansion, eugenics, euthanasia, and Lebensraum were based in large part on Darwinian ideology of his day.

The second chapter of the Second Book is entitled, "Fighting, Not Industry, Secures Life." However, the German word translated "Fighting" is Kampf and would be more literally translated "Struggle." The second chapter continues the discussion of the human struggle for existence that Hitler claims is a product of expanding populations (Malthus's idea that Darwin appropriated). At the close of the chapter he stated (my translation): "Politics is the art of the execution of the struggle for life of a people [Volk] for its earthly existence. Foreign policy is the art to secure a people [Volk] its necessary living space in extent and quality."

Actually, it sounds like some popular expositions of Darwin's theory that I have heard, barring the turgid prose.

Weikart is currently completing a book on Hitler's Ethic that, he says, will demonstrate that evolutionary ethics was a central feature of Hitler’s ideology.

So why didn't Hitler mention Darwin?

While we are here, Weikart also addressed the question of why Hitler did not quote Darwin directly or mention him by name:

It's true that Hitler hardly ever mentioned Darwin by name (the only direct mention of Darwin I have been able to find is an account by a colleague Wagener).

First, Hitler hardly ever named thinkers from whom he derived ideas. I think this was because he wanted to appear like an original thinker (which he wasn't). Secondly, we have no evidence that Hitler ever read Darwin, so he probably imbibed evolutionary ideas via school, contemporary books, and especially journals and newspapers. I discuss this in my book, From Darwin to Hitler, and will discuss it further in my forthcoming book.

Concerning whether Hitler's ideas were Darwinian: Hitler believed that population pressure causes a struggle for existence between organisms that leads to evolutionary progress. He also believed that this struggle occurred between human races. This is completely Darwinian (yes, Darwin did use the rhetoric of progress), and Hitler often described evolution in Darwinian terms. Also, like Darwin, Galton, and many Darwinists of his day, Hitler believed that intellectual and moral traits are heritable.

Hitler's anti-Semitism did not derive from Darwinism, but many of his ideas did have Darwinian roots: racial struggle, eugenics, euthanasia, population expansion, need for living space. If one reads writings by German Darwinists during the early 1920s (Fritz Lenz, Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer and many others), one finds many of the same ideas that Hitler was promoting.

Just this morning I was reading an SS booklet entitled _Rassenpolitik_ (Racial Policy), which is overtly Darwinian. It overtly discusses the struggle for existence, natural selection, and it even discusses mutations as the source of variation. It also uses the term Hoeherentwicklung (higher evolution) constantly.

Does that mean that typical modern-day Darwinists have anything in common with Hitler? No, of course not. But it does mean that we cannot understand Hitler without understanding the role that Darwin, especially as Darwin was understood in Germany, played in his thinking.

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

From Mutation Works: Evolve your own musical cave man. (And if he turns out to be a great, yawping troll, please reclassify him as an anthropoid ape and send no photos).

Does Deep Ecology require intelligent design?

Does a high level of information increase the moral worth of an entity?

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

Mind vs. meat vs. computers: The differences

Language feature unique to humans

Chuck Colson's Breakpoint reviews The Spiritual Brain

Enlightenment ideals justify mass slaughter?

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

Hurting oneself to hurt others not a useful social strategy ... duh!

Decline of secularism leads to panic among new atheists?

Great review of The Spiritual Brain in Canada's Medical Post, by a reviewer (a retired surgeon) who also offers a detailed page on the true causes of pain.

Large questions require the language of myth, not shopping bills

Spotted: Mario's colleague non-materialist neuroscientist Jeff Schwartz in Expelled movie's supertrailer

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

As Expelled film set to open, Darwin lobby sets up attack site

Will Expelled succeed at the box office?

Expelled: Intellectual property vs. intellectual territorialism

Wanted: Social scientist to study Expelled release

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).