The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Live birth is 200 million years older than previously supposed, according to a recent report of a 380 million year old fish (a placoderm) with an embryo, still attached by an
umbilical cord:

Until now, scientists thought creatures from these times were only able to develop their young inside eggs.

- "Fossil reveals oldest live birth" by Rebecca Morelle, BBC News (May 28, 2008)

The recently found placoderm dates from the Devonian era, called by some the Age of Fish.

Another fossil unearthed in 1986 was reexamined as a result of this find. It turned out to have three embryos inside that were considered evidence of live birth. In the past, scientists tended to assume that small fish found inside big ones had been eaten, as Carina Dennis explains in "The oldest pregnant mum" (Nature News, 28 May, 2008):

The researchers identified a single embryo in a new Gogo fish genus, and three embryos in a previously described specimen. “When you find a little fish inside a big fish, you tend to think it was dinner,” Long says. But the researchers concluded that the bones were those of embryos, not ingested remains, because they were not crushed or etched by digestive acids. What nailed it, according to Long, was the identification of an umbilical structure and a putative yolk sac.

Finds like this one challenge the widespread belief that live birth is a relatively recent innovation and that egg-laying is older, and perhaps more primitive.

Also at Design of Life blog:

Platypus genome a patchwork of mammal, reptile, and bird, like the platypus itself

Mantis shrimp can see colours unknown to humans, researchers find

Cambrian food webs similar to webs observed today

Can science be unbiased?

(Many biologists and science historians have been attacked as "anti-science" for challenging scientists' basic assumptions about themselves and their work, whatever the reason for the challenge. The ID controversy, however heated, is not the only controversy or even the first where one side was labelled "anti-science." )

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).

I believe we can reinvent what we hold sacred as a view of God that is not a supernatural Creator, but the ceaseless and unforeseeable creativity of the universe that surrounds us.

--Stuart Kauffman, who argues in his forthcoming book that nature's infinite creativity should become the basis for a new worldview and a global spiritual awakening.

Imagine for a moment that the Bible did not exist. No old testament, no new (and no religion too). Picture a world without the Bible's account of creation, and, of course, without its creator God as well. What might origins science look like in a Bible-less world? With no metaphysical apparitions to drive men to safe imaginations of multiverse pumpkin patches and panspermian storks, might science actually adhere to its much-touted method and permit the logical inference that what looks designed is designed? If not, why not?

Before dismissing the thought, consider: it's a testable and tested proposition. Historically many with no knowledge of the Bible or its God logically and reasonably concluded the necessity of a causa sui, the non-intuitive but logically necessary "cause of itself" creator of the universe. Whether Plato's "demiurge" of divine wisdom and intelligent design as the creator of the cosmos, or Aristotle's "prime mover" as an eternal being of thought, Bible-less super-thinkers of old followed logic to its etymological and ontological beginning, a scientifically necessary Logos.

Today Plato and Aristotle would be thrilled to learn that modern science confirms their early science with elegant evidence of intelligent design. But, alas, in the United States today both would also risk being banned from biology class, being lectured to in the lab, enduring teaching without tenure, and receiving the insult of all insults: being caricatured as creationists. And creationists they were, if by "creationist" is simply meant anyone who believes that an intelligent creator is somehow and in some way the cause of creation. By this definition almost everyone today is a creationist, from theistic evolutionists to intelligent design theorists to young earth, six-day creationists. But the term "creationist" became corrupted somewhere between Plato's Academy of science and the National Academy of Sciences. Rather than broadly encompassing many to the exclusion of a few, today the caricature alone survives to narrowly describe only a few to the exclusion of many.

How did we reach a place in science where no one is free to consider creation in any form? The answer is two-fold. First, the near complete surrender of institutional science organizations to scientific materialism all but smothers true free inquiry from the likes of Aristotle, to the detriment of both free-thought scientists and thought-constrained origins science. Consider the modern scientific conundrum: how to marshal a purely materialistic (that is, mindless and un-intelligent) causal explanation for the origin of life that exhibits the hallmarks of being created (thoughtfully and intelligently) for a purpose. Like trying to explain light using only terms of darkness, the intellectually encumbered materialists of modern origins science grope about impressing only their peers while their metaphysically challenged contortions cast embarrassingly strange shadows on the walls of their Platonic cave.

Take "multiverse" theory, for example. Because by every account, whether by materialist or creationist, chance assembly of the first replicating life form by physics and chemistry alone is impossible, creative types enslaved to scientific materialism have landed on a solution: multiverses--the evidence-starved, largely untestable, and non-predictive idea that life from non-life is inevitable (yes, inevitable) if we imagine we inhabit not a finite uni-verse, but an infinitely expanding multi-verse consisting of an infinite number of universes. Materialists welcome musings of an infinity of eternal, unseen (and undetectable) universes as "science" because thoughts of eternal omnipotent matter, like a great metaphysical salve, temporarily soothe the mind, leaving for another day the stubborn necessity of an eternal logos, a sentient creator of matter itself.

Multiverses are only slightly less scientific based on the evidence than the UFO-beholden theory of "panspermia", another "scientific" theory held by serious scientists despite the lack of any compelling evidence. Leading scientists such as Francis Crick of DNA discovery fame entertain serious thoughts that life reached earth as an "infection" from another planet. Recognizing that the theory of extraterrestrial living organisms reaching earth from another star or meteorite by chance is "unlikely", Francis Crick set about fixing that problem by proposing the more creative "Directed Panspermia". Not to be confused with the earlier unlikely version, Crick proposed Directed Panspermia as "the theory that organism were deliberately transmitted to the earth [on spaceships] by intelligent beings on another planet."

Let's get serious. Both multiverse conjecture and panspermia speculation represent in-the-box thinking for those inside the dark box of materialism. But all such theories only push out or back (while highlighting the need for) that solid rock of immutable truth--the out-of-the-box causa sui of ours or any universe. Why can we not, as did the pagan Greek Heraclitus, who first applied the term logos five hundred years before Christ, simply posit a rational intelligence behind creation? Why must we be resigned only to the just-so stories of modern materialistic origins science? Are they not patently absurd?

Yes. "Patent absurdity" of some of materialistic science's "constructs" is leading evolutionary geneticist Richard Lewontin's refreshingly honest way of describing the "unsubstantiated just-so stories" of those like him and all dogmatic Darwinists, who do this only because they have "a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." Such admissions are helpful, but do not reach the real reason why today's forces in origins science impose and enforce patent absurdity upon us all. After all, most Darwinists are not full-fledged materialists. Most of the public is nowhere near being any kind of materialist. So why must we all suffer the truth-suppressing curse of absolute materialism under the guise of modern science? Lewontin tells us in terms that are surprising only for their frankness, providing the second and most important of the two reasons people are not free to identify as creationists by a broad definition. Voicing a sentiment parroted incessantly on this subject Lewontin admits: "Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

Eureka! Materialism is enforced against non-materialistic contenders not because it is true--but to keep God out. It's not the Bible's creation story that's the problem; it's the Bible's creator. After all, Genesis-account creationism is no more strange, less supported, less probable or less believable than Koonin's unseen, eternal multiverse or Crick's intelligent, deliberative spaceship creators. The problem with Genesis-account creationism is not that it is absurd to non-believers, but that the theory comes with a Divine Foot, and not just any Divine Foot, but that foot presumably connected to that Divine Body. Eliminate that Divine Foot, and there is absolutely no reason not to consider the design hypothesis that what looks created is created.

Not convinced? Try this at home: Ask anyone you know who opposes intelligent design or any form of creationism, why it is that they reject the design hypothesis. The answer you receive will invariably parrot one or more of the words, "God" or "Bible" or "Genesis" or "10,000 years" or "six days" or "religion" or "faith". Then ask your friend to imagine there is no Bible, no book of Genesis, no God of the Bible, no religion, and ask the question again. And wait.

The silence you will hear, like a great resounding trumpet of truth, might set a captive free. Because the dirty big secret of the materialists who rule and make rules in origins science today is not their collective commitment to scientific materialism, but the reason for demanding absolute commitment from everyone: a great fear of the Divine Foot in the door. And whose foot might that be? How does Lewontin or any God-fearing materialist hiding behind the label of "atheist" have any knowledge of any divine feet at all?

In a better world discussion of Divine Feet would follow, not prevent, a discussion of divine footprints. But the Bible has spoiled all that. Because the only being now known to be causa sui, the great I AM, capable of creating footprints ex-nihilo, is also revealed in the Bible as a living God with a claim on conscience. And the specter of that Divine Foot affords no safe haven for boxed-in theophobes haunted by the one door having light shining in underneath.

Which leaves all but the open minded stranded in materialism's dark world of the absurd. In the materialism box it's scientific to believe in eternal, unseen and undetectable infinite multiverses. It's respectable to believe in intelligent beings from another planet using spaceships to direct life to earth. Its even tolerable to believe in non-creative and otherwise uninteresting toy gods of religions that used to matter. Regardless how silly, evidence-lacking, unbelievable, and otherwise absurd a scientific theory of origins appears, it gets great admiration if it in any way avoids that Divine Foot.

Blame the Bible for that Divine Foot. Ironically, with it some are creationists; without it we might all be creationists. Why? Because, well . . . why not?

Roddy Bullock 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) 2008 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

References:
Kauffman quote: Stuart Kauffman, "Perspectives: Why humanity needs a God of creativity" New Scientist magazine, 07 May 2008, page 52-53
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19826556.000-perspectives-why-humanity-needs-a-god-of-creativity.html

Eugene V. Koonin paper on the theory of multiverses: http://www.biology-direct.com/content/pdf/1745-6150-2-15.pdf

Francis Crick paper on Directed Panspermia: http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/SC/B/C/C/P/_/scbccp.pdf

Lewontin quotes: Richard Lewontin, "Billions and billions of demons," The New York Review (January 9, 1997), 31. Full quote: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here is Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence's (SETI's) explanation for why any civilization we do encounter should be more advanced than ours, by Douglas Vacoch, director of SETI's Interstellar Message Composition:

Before we answer that question, we must acknowledge that any extraterrestrials we make contact with may well be thousands or millions of years more advanced than we are. Why do SETI scientists assume this? Because for our search to succeed, it needs to be true.

If the galaxy is populated only by young civilizations that have the capacity for interstellar communication for only a few decades before they destroy themselves or simply lose interest in making contact with other worlds, then we will effectively be isolated, alone in the universe. If other civilizations transmit evidence of their existence for only a few decades – the length of time that humans have been capable of interstellar communication – and then they lose the interest or ability to make contact, it's extremely unlikely that the precise time they are transmitting and the time that we are listening will coincide. On a galactic scale, where time is measured in billions of years, it is extremely unlikely that these two "blips" would happen at the same time. This would be as unlikely as two fireflies each lighting up once, at exactly the same time, during the course of a long, dark night. The chance that both would flash on simultaneously is virtually zero; it's more likely their flashes would be separated by minutes or hours. So too is it unlikely that two short-lived civilizations that had evolved independently of one another would come into being at almost precisely the same time in the fourteen billion year history of our galaxy.

If we hear from a distant civilization, on purely statistical grounds it's very likely they will be our elders.

But is this a leftover memory of the European invasion of North America? The Europeans had guns and exotic diseases and the Native Americans didn't. Hence history.

But what if SETI's extraterrestrials eventually crash land on Earth because of a mixup between two rival groups of scientists, one of which was using Imperialoid measurements and the other was using Metricosis measurements? Hey, don't tell me it never happens.

Also at Colliding Universes:

Exoplanets: Will intelligence be common or rare?

Quantum mechanics: Could cosmic microwave background show that it is wrong?

Chuckle of the day: What lies beyond the observable universe?

Letter: Multiverses are nonsense, but so is much contemporary physics

Other universes: Why the materialist needs an infinite number of them

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Philosopher Jerry Fodor shares my skepticism of "evolutionary psychology", and explains why in "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings":

The years after Darwin witnessed a remarkable proliferation of other theories, each seeking to co-opt natural selection for purposes of its own. Evolutionary psychology is currently the salient instance, but examples have been legion. They’re to be found in more or less all of the behavioural sciences, to say nothing of epistemology, semantics, theology, the philosophy of history, ethics, sociology, political theory, eugenics and even aesthetics. What they have in common is that they attempt to explain why we are so-and-so by reference to what being so-and-so buys for us, or what it would have bought for our ancestors. ‘We like telling stories because telling stories exercises the imagination and an imagination would have been a good thing for a hunter-gatherer to have.’ ‘We don’t approve of eating grandmother because having her around to baby-sit was useful in the hunter-gatherer ecology.’ ‘We like music because singing together strengthened the bond between the hunters and the gatherers (and/or between the hunter-gatherer grownups and their hunter-gatherer offspring)’. ‘We talk by making noises and not by waving our hands; that’s because hunter-gatherers lived in the savannah and would have had trouble seeing one another in the tall grass.’ ‘We like to gossip because knowing who has been up to what is important when fitness depends on co-operation in small communities.’ ‘We don’t all talk the same language because that would make us more likely to interbreed with foreigners (which would be bad because it would weaken the ties of hunter-gatherer communities).’ ‘We don’t copulate with our siblings because that would decrease the likelihood of interbreeding with foreigners (which would be bad because, all else being equal, heterogeneity is good for the gene pool).’ I’m not making this up, by the way. Versions of each of these theories can actually be found in the adaptationist literature. But, in point of logic, this sort of explanation has to stop somewhere. Not all of our traits can be explained instrumentally; there must be some that we have simply because that’s the sort of creature we are. And perhaps it’s unnecessary to remark that such explanations are inherently post hoc (Gould called them ‘just so stories’); or that, except for the prestige they borrow from the theory of natural selection, there isn’t much reason to believe that any of them is true.

The high tide of adaptationism floated a motley navy, but it may now be on the ebb. If it does turn out that natural selection isn’t what drives evolution, a lot of loose speculations will be stranded high, dry and looking a little foolish. Induction over the history of science suggests that the best theories we have today will prove more or less untrue at the latest by tomorrow afternoon. In science, as elsewhere, ‘hedge your bets’ is generally good advice.

I have no problem (and am sure Fodor does not) with assuming that many features of our psychology are a result of our evolution. For example, the disproportionate tendency of humans to be right-handed rather than left-handed probably explains why so many languages associate the right side with things that are right or dexterous and the left side with things that are sinister or gauche or - if you like - left behind.

The problem is with the "just-so" stories of evolutionary psychology is that - as Fodor implies in his entertaining passage - the evolutionary psychologist seizes on a given trait noticed in contemporary society and makes up a story about how that trait may have been useful in the Stone Age. That's "adaptationism." But the reality is that, in most cases, we have no idea whether the trait even prevailed in the Stone Age, let alone whether conditions then actually favoured it. There is nothing unusual about people preferring to do things that do not particularly benefit them or their children, for a variety of reasons.

The underlying assumption of evolutionary psychology is that people do not simply make decisions about what feels right, but are programmed to behave in certain ways by their genes. Believe that at your peril.

Apparently, there will be a big meeting at Altenberg, Austria, this July, to discuss what is wrong with adaptationism in general. Maybe we will be seeing fewer stories about, for example, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution, but don't count on it.

Oh, and why pigs don't have wings? Because, you see, winged she-pigs outran the he-pigs that were pursuing them, so the he-pigs only caught up with the ones that didn't have wings, so the "wingless" trait was passed on to all the little piglets. And our Stone Age ancestors witnessed the last of the transition, when there were still a few flying pigs around but not many, hence the expressing "when pigs fly." And if you think that's ridiculous, see the Big Bazooms theory, and don't miss Fred Reed's hilarious take on it ("Darwin and Banana Boobs").

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack

Psychology: Babies know what is good for them: But is it nature or nurture?

Psychology: Yale's National Risk and Culture Study tells us more of what we already sensed about how manipulation works

Commentator Dinesh D'Souza on The Spiritual Brain: Including stuff he didn't know

Evolutionary psychology: Computer modeller dismisses latest computer model of religion

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

New Scientist's Hazel Muir tells us (May 22, 2008), reporting on recent research: "Sun's properties not 'fine-tuned' for life", adding

The finding adds weight to the idea that alien life should be common throughout the universe.

I am not sure how one can add "weight" to an idea, but never mind. Re the sun:

With his ANU colleague José Robles and others, Lineweaver has now analysed 11 features of the Sun that might affect its ability to have habitable planets. They included its mass, age, rotation speed and orbital distance from the centre of the Milky Way.

Then they compared these with well-measured statistics for other stars to answer the question – overall, does the Sun stand out from the crowd any more than some other randomly chosen star would?

The Sun did stand out in two ways: it is more massive than 95% of nearby stars and its orbit around the centre of our galaxy is more circular than those of 93% of nearby stars.

This research (in press at Astrophysical Journal) contradicts Guillermo Gonzalez's "privileged planet" hypothesis concerning the sun, so I asked him about it:

Lineweaver concludes that even though the Sun is obviously exceptional in two properties he considers (mass and Galactic orbit -- both of which I have pointed out in previous papers), it is not exceptional when you consider it in the context of 11 properties. Of course, this is not the correct conclusion. Not only is the Sun exceptional in these two properties (and probably one or two others), there are good reasons to believe that the Sun's mass and Galactic orbit need to be close to their actual values for life.

It's not clear whether Muir thinks that the alien life that should be common throughout the universe would be intelligent, complex (but perhaps not intelligent), or simple.

Lineweaver's approach is reminiscent of Carl Sagan's Copernican Principle (there must be lots of Them out there by definition, because otherwise, we would be unique). And - to judge from the Top 10 admittedly "controversial" pieces of evidence for extraterrestrial life accumulated so far (September 4, 2006) - the New Scientist staff can survive on regular infusions of hope.

One underlying assumption is that life will evolve under favourable conditions. The doctrine of the common ancestry of life on Earth would seem to suggest, however, that even where conditions are favourable, it is hardly a common event.

Also: Science and ethics: When the devil offered a no strings research post.

Science journalist warns against the "institutionalised idolatry of science"

On Jane Goodall, apes, human uniqueness, and God

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Rice University's James Tour, a chemist and nano-technologist struggles to make sense of the intelligent design controversy in "Evolution/Creation: Layman’s Reflections on Evolution and Creation. An Insider’s View of the Academy":

Some are disconcerted or even angered that I signed a statement back in 2001 along with over 700 other scientists: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.” Do not the texts written by the two authors above underscore what I signed, namely, “Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged”? And these “oldest problems in evolutionary biology” lead me and many others to our being “skeptical.” It is not a matter of politics. I simply do not understand, chemically, how macroevolution could have happened. Hence, am I not free to join the ranks of the skeptical and to sign such a statement without reprisals from those that disagree with me? Furthermore, when I, a non-conformist, ask proponents for clarification, they get flustered in public and confessional in private wherein they sheepishly confess that they really don’t understand either. Well, that is all I am saying: I do not understand. But I am saying it publicly as opposed to privately. Does anyone understand the chemical details behind macroevolution? If so, I would like to sit with that person and be taught, so I invite them to meet with me. Lunch will be my treat. Until then, I will maintain that no chemist understands, hence we are collectively bewildered.

Huh? Tour is supposed to be convinced, not bewildered. If only he would embrace Darwinism, he would get by on very few ideas, fanatically propounded, and assumed to derive from the effects created by his selfish genes.

Also:

Expelled film pre-trashed by United Kludgies of Canada (Trashing a film you haven't seen is way less work.)

Is everything determined by forces over which we have no control?

Does time's one-way street prove that other universes exist?

The day time went backwards

Flogos: Coming soon to a clear blue sky near you ...

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

Neural Buddhists, Christians, and the Mud that failed

Spiritual Brain authors catch bouquets and dodge brickbats ("I don't suppose it is any comfort to Cynic that Mario and I are up against strong competitors this year. People who hate The Spiritual Brain will be no happier if the others win.")

Near death experiences gaining recognition in medical journals

Do you taste what you see? What you remember? What you think you ought to? Surprising results from the world of liquid refreshment.

The selfish gene visits the four-year-old who saved her sister

Intelligent design and the reality of the mind

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

All things are possible through the scientist who postulates very large numbers? Especially unimaginable things, I am sure.

Settled science chronicles: Reader disses "best science" boilerplate

Life could be just plain rare but not unique in the universe

Catholic Cardinal: Multiverse theory an "abdication of human intelligence"?

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

More textbook chronicles: To Goodwill, to Goodwill, to buy us a materialist text cheaply

Textbooks: Unfortunately, Richard Feynman was NOT joking about textbooks!

Textbooks: Yet another journalist skeptical of Darwin lobby. I am rapidly developing a guest list for a Hacks' Pub Nite!

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

New blog: Welcome to Colliding Universes

Why the new blog?: Because I hope to write a book with a Canadian physicist about "God vs. the multiverse": Is our universe fine-tuned or are there zillions of flopped universes out there, so that it only looks that way. For now, I will just make notes about things that may (or may not) find their way into the book.

A friend fondly recalls physicist John Wheeler

Life on Mars?: Yes, when the Mars Hilton Convention Centre finally opens

Sure as the law of gravity, you say? Okay then, better check the refund policy ...

Stuff I have already written on the bleeping multiverse, for which the multiverse (Inc.) is suing me for defamation ... But not to worry, the writ went to zillions of wrong universes.

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

Physicist: Darwin's theory of evolution supported in part from "calculated fear" A remarkable admission in light of all the bilge currently fronted by tax-supported science organizations, assuring us that the Expelled film is wrong, wrong, wrong and that no such thing is going on.

Expelled scientist Crocker featured in video just up online

Iowa State University
cops "Outrage Award" for denying tenure to astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez

Brit pop science rag all wet about Biologic Institute

Vatican astronomer: Yes, space aliens might exist

Error-prone science textbooks: Who's to blame? Not me, says, the little red editor ....

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

Are the stickleback fish in Lake Washington really reversing evolution? Or just tailoring their existing design?

More on mitochondrial Eve: Researchers claim long separation between human groups

Colour vision appears early in vertebrates. It's tempting to call it the big bang of colour vision

Tree of life: Would a mergers and acquisitions chart better explain the more complex organisms (eukaryotes) than a tree of life?

Tree of life: Will gene-swapping fell the prokaryotes' tree 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

Twins who literally share a body have different selves, personalities

Does neuroscience leave room for God?

Human mental abilities: the result of cultural cross-fertilisation As if.

Language: No current theory of its origin is worth much

Language: Not a sophisticated version of primal screams

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 Judge Darrell D. White (Retired)

Debate over the Louisiana Science Education Act (SB 733) calls to mind UC, Berkeley law professor Phillip Johnson's Wall Street Journal op-ed observation,

"A Chinese paleontologist lectures around the world saying that recent fossil finds in his country are inconsistent with the Darwinian theory of evolution. His reason: The major animal groups appear abruptly in the rocks over a relatively short time, rather than evolving gradually from a common ancestor as Darwin's theory predicts. When this conclusion upsets American scientists, he wryly comments: 'In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government but not Darwin.'"

Evaluating evidence is critical in the search for truth--in science as in all areas of life. And while science textbooks speak often of "evidence", no helpful definition is provided. As a lawyer and retired trial judge, I find that scientific criticisms of Darwin’s views would clearly be admissible in a court of law.

"Relevant evidence" under Louisiana Code of Evidence Article 401 "... means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action [lawsuit] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Moreover, if an attorney fails to disclose to a court evidence that is directly contrary to legal authority cited, unethical conduct results! (Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct 3.3--"Candor toward the Tribunal")

Darwin himself acknowledged the need for critical thinking in Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. He wrote,

"a fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question..."

And then Darwin devoted three of the book's fifteen chapters to criticizing his own theory! How can the science textbooks justify withholding all the facts from students?

Congress announced a standard for "quality" science education in the No Child Left Behind Act declaring,

"where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."

In 2006, Ouachita Parish School Board unanimously adopted a science curriculum policy that addresses these goals and is a worthy example.

Having reviewed all BESE-approved science textbooks, I can verify that the goal of teaching students to distinguish between observational and historical science is poorly done with the current slate of textbooks. And, as a concerned parent and grandparent, I commend Senator Nevers for his Louisiana Science Education Act legislation. Our children and their teachers deserve enactment of SB 733.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

The linked stories update and support the material in The Design of Life supplemental text. You are welcome to use them both for interest or private study and for teaching.

Excerpts

big bangs in biology

Avalon explosion: The dawn of life reveals another intricate puzzle (January 14, 2008)

The Big Bang of flowers: An "abominable mystery"? Or an opportunity to really understand? (December 17, 2007)

Biology's Big Bangs (January 14, 2008)

butterflies

How did caterpillars start to become butterflies? (December 29, 2007)

C

common ancestors

Tiktaalik - channelling your "inner fish"? (December 24, 2007)

Copernican myth

The Copernican myth and other science myths: The undead still walk (December 17, 2007)

For the rest of the current index, 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

Albert Einstein's letter coming up at auction: Does it show that he was an atheist? (I think that's just a publicity ploy.)

Materialists start to come to grips with failure, but materialism dies hard (Sorry, BoBos, it's not up to you to decide where it will end. It will end where the evidence leads, and the evidence simply does not favour materialism - yours or anyone else's.)

Evolutionary psychology: So you don't stick to your goals? Blame your kludgebrain ... or maybe not

(Excerpt: But why evolution? What happened to our stars, our parents, our societies, our religion, and our genes as the explanations for why we do not meet our goals? Oh, come to think of it, evolution is in the news right now, what with Darwin's anniversary celebrations and the Expelled film.)

Health can sometimes be fun, free, and painless: The placebo effect gets its own Web 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

Take this survey: If SETI found ET, would that destroy your faith?

Prof thinks profs' intellectual sneers at public are not great TV, and he sure is right

Check your calendar ... is it still Orwell's 1984 where you live?

Science teacher symposium: Answer student questions without getting sued or fired

In some ways, bonobos (pygmy chimps) are more similar to humans than to other chimps

How fares the Expelled film? Still No. 5 - and who's ahead of it anyway?

David Attenborough, 81, to make one last film - on 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).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Dinesh D'Souza's comments on animal rights ethicist Peter Singer make Ben Stein look bland. And he is getting LOTS of comments, too. (Next time I will remember to bring a feather to knock myself over with.)

The Spiritual Brain shortlisted for three Write! Canada awards

Phyllis Schlafly on the Expelled movie and why she thinks commentators hate the term "Darwinism"

Well-known Turkish creationist sentenced to jail - not ID-related, source says

David Warren on how animals differ from machines, and other topics, including bizarre fur seal sex

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

Was one woman who lived 150,000 to 200,000 years ago the ancestress of all of us? Science may not be sure, but pop culture is.

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

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

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

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

Expelling astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez called one of Iowa State University's missteps

No one makes a big-budget movie about faith-and-science bores

Fun with David Berlinski: The Devil sketches what we do not know

Darwin strikes back: Making intellectual freedom sound scary

Darwin and the Nazis (yes, again, but this is interesting): Nazism as a "biological" political 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

The math prof makes a design inference

British physicist asks, is there no freedom to criticize evolutionary theory? (Well, no, not if you know a good reason why materialist views are wrong.)

Expelled, its critics, and the theatre managers - knock me over with a feather, the legacy media critics didn't like the film but audiences apparently did

What percentage of scientists support current evolution theory? A better question: In the age of zealous Darwin lobbies, what percentage can afford reasonable dissent?

Who was Ernst Haeckel? Phenomenon? Flawed? Faker? All three, maybe.

Just what IS a design inference? 9-11 provides a clue.

Higher Ed is higher on WHAT, exactly?: Prof sues disbelieving students. Apparently, they disputed her theories about science ...

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

Placebo effect: Your mind's role in your health. (No, don't throw away that prescription. But read this before you conclude that only that pill makes you well.)

Philosophy of mind: In case you wondered whether you are conscious and reading this. (Actually, there is hardly a materialist explanation of consciousness that is worth considering.)

Animal minds: Learning may not pay, but some animals do it anyway. "If your science prof told you long ago that learning evolves because animals that learn faster are more likely to survive, forget it. Learning imposes costs of its own, as one experiment showed."

Heard way, way too often: The soul boils down to a few genes?

Materialist Mythbusting: Genes 'R' Not Us

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

Goodbye GATTACA: Environment and lifestyle affect which genes are actually expressed

The genes that matter are the ones that are expressed. A recent North Caroline State University study of North African Berbers showed that which breathing-related genes were expressed depended in large part on whether the individual is living an urban, rural, or nomadic lifestyle. Vince Freeman, the genetically troubled hero of GATTACA (1997), need not rely only on determination. He has other heavy hitters on his team too, as it turns out. Genes "R" Not Us.

Go here for more.

Junk DNA - oops, non-coding DNA - less junky than ever but still expected to fit the "frame"

Junk DNA has sure come up in the world: From Dawkins's "sea of nonsense" to increasingly biologically important - but somehow it is still supposed to support the conventional explanations.

One consequence of growing efforts to "frame" science is that readers of reports on new research must be skilled at seeing past elaborate frames, in order to discern findings. For more, go here.

Cutting edge science: Cambrian explosion ecosystems organized themselves pretty much the way ecosystems do today, and not everyone is pleased to hear that ... (because it implies that there may be underlying patterns and laws within nature that are not merely incidental and mechanistic).

Natural selection: Mutation protects against malaria - at a steep cost. (A recent study supports Mike Behe's observation in Edge of Evolution that the protections against malaria that evolve through natural selection acting on random mutations (Darwin's mechanism) - apart from being few and far between - tend to come with serious problems. DON'T trust evolution to solve your problems!

Human evolution: Shape of early human teeth fails to predict actual diet, study finds.

"A recent study by anthropologist Peter Ungar of the University of Arkansas and colleagues has challenged the conventional way that anthropologists determine what early humans and human ancestors ate. Apparently, they didn't necessarily eat what they 'should have.'" So there is a lot we cannot predict about early human diets. For more, 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

Reasons not to be a materialist if you have a mind

The ... Spiritual ... Brain ... Is ... NOT ... a ... brainiac ...menace ... !

Human brains are unique, neuroscientist observes - but still wants to leave pile of stuff on cutting room floor

Chimpanzees more "rational" than humans? It depends on what you mean by rational.

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

While Imagining no heaven, no hell, no Yoko Ono, and no delay till the Expelled DVD comes out, I note where John Lilley, Baylor’s president, has seen fit to defend his institution in the light of the unflattering portrait provided in Expelled.

Read more 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

So far it is imaginary.

Ono is seeking at least $75,000 in damages and injunctive relief.

Her case turns on the use of some lines from Ono’s late husband John Lennon’s ”Imagine”*.

Read more about the current injunction and the upcoming court case 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

Disorder: Increasingly, anything you do that annoys me

Google: When “secular” means “materialist”

Politics, religion, and civil rights - a teetering balance worldwide

Fred on Everything, including evolution: Hot air about big brains

Atheism: Its attractions for science bigwigs

More on animal minds: But does the animal think it is art?

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).