The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

My chief difficulty with materialist theories of consciousness is the apparent fact that human consciousness got started rather suddenly, and was not really the result of a long slow series of primate steps.

We do not go from the fruit-throwing ape to the cave paintings in a long, slow series of steps.

Therefore, this is NOT the sequence:

ape
brute
oaf
not just an oaf
not quite an oaf
somewhat less oafish

[ ... ]

a bit less oafish than when last noticed
many oafish characteristics have been lost
not nearly the oaf he used to be

[ ... ... ... ] (and finally!)

if we have him over for dinner, we can seat him at the table instead of tying him in the yard with a bowl of water and a biscuit

The quest, basically: Given that this appears not to have happened, what did?

Other Mindful Hack stories on consciousness:

The difference between thinking and consciousness

Consciousness: So familiar and yet so puzzling?

The Spiritual Brain: Vindicating Alfred Russel Wallace?

Belated sublimely ridiculous award for 2006

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Human evolution: But who decided that the Neanderthals were dumb in the first place?

Free will: Can you believe in it as a merely irrational preference?

Consciousness: Half an oaf is better than none?

Spiritual Brain sells out in Dutch translation

Spirituality: If there is no life after death, does it matter whether you are Hitler or Mother Teresa?

Religion: Why "evolutionary" explanations don't really work

The difference between thinking and consciousness

Atheist bigots: Avoiding serious questions and targeting ignorant religious folk

L’Intelligence spirituelle : Introduction (en francais)

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

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

Today much of evolutionary biology has focused on trying to establish how genes may have provided the raw material for natural selection to run its course (Ref 1, pp.1-2). In this genocentric view, inheritance through random mutation and selection is the basis upon which all of life and its ensuing diversity have arisen. Nevertheless several scientists including Open University biologist Brian Goodwin have challenged this view by postulating that organisms are built not only through genetic instruction but also through processes of dynamic organization that act independently of genes (Ref 1, pp.1-8). In his book 'How The Leopard Changed Its Spots', Goodwin outlines several key examples in nature that support his position. From the elegant concentric and spiral patterns of slime-mould amoebas to the dynamic mode of the mammalian heart and the brain, and finally to the ordering of haphazard ants into efficient, hard working colonies, (Ref 1, pp.43-76) Goodwin comes to the conclusion that in these systems, biological complexity has arisen through the ordering of dynamic systems independently of the action of genes. Experiments on the bacterial flagellum are yet another of his notable examples.

Bacterial flagellar filaments are made up of proteins called flagellins that fit together into repetitive, highly ordered arrays. The salmonella bacterium displays two types of flagella which are classified as 'wavy' or 'curly' depending on the degree of undulation present in the filament (Ref 1, pp.11-13). Experiments have shown that molecules taken from each of these different types of flagella seed their own formation- that is, wavy and curly flagellin will always assemble into their respective flagella forms (Ref 1, pp.11-13). This in itself is not remarkable. What is remarkable is that when wavy flagellin is mixed with curly fragments, these wavy flagellin molecules will assemble into curly flagella. In short, curly fragments can seed the formation of entire curly flagella when supplemented with wavy flagellin (Ref 1, pp.11-13). These results strongly suggest that changes between two different types of flagellar filament can arise independently of the genes that produce these filaments.

Perhaps Goodwin's favorite illustration of this so-called organocentric origin of biological complexity is the acetabularia- a sea-dwelling, single-celled organism with a parasol-like structure that closely resembles a fluted coffee filter. In the acetabularia, structural complexity arises not from the blueprint of genetic instruction but rather from the organization of the cytoplasm into a shape that is dependent both upon the intrinsic nature of the cell itself and the immediate surroundings of the cell (Ref 1, pp. 77-114). In their own experiments, Goodwin and his colleagues have shown that the formation of these structures is highly dependent upon the interaction between calcium ions and the proteins that form the cytoskeleton. The cytoskeleton is a network of support structures that help to give the cell its rigidity and shape playing a role that is not too dissimilar from that of metal scaffolding holding up a tent.

Goodwin's arguments on organocentricity contrast with those of evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins who has written extensively on the overarching importance of the gene as the foundational source of life. According to Dawkins, all life forms are merely, "survival machines" that serve as, "lumbering robots" through which genes can achieve their own ends of replicating and surviving (see Ref 2, p.19). Genes are the 'replicators'- the Darwinian 'individuals' that have chosen different ways of making a living (Ref 2, pp.21-24). Those genes that were most successful at surviving, we are told by Dawkins, will go on through successive generations to inhabit new bodies, in the process developing new strategies for survival (Ref 2, p.25). In Dawkins' view our bodies are nothing more than the product of genes that are actively cooperating with each other and whose survival depends on how well they have predicted the sorts of environments that the body that they have taken residence in is going to experience (Ref 2, pp.51-56).

Through his own evidence Goodwin has done a formidable job in dismissing Dawkins' purely reductionist stance. Nevertheless it is clear that the dynamic self-organization that Goodwin has observed relies on the presence of an already-existing complexity within the cell. A closer look at the process through which acetabularia establishes its shape, for example, reveals that the amount of calcium present in the cell is regulated by an elaborate set of pumps that sequester the calcium into storage chambers where special proteins can hold it in an inactive state (Ref 1, pp. 92-111). Recent studies have demonstrated that calcium plays a number of roles within the cell and that there are strict limits on the amount of calcium that the cell can tolerate if proper function is to be maintained (Ref 1, pp.92-111). Moreover the cytoskeleton is itself an elaborate network of protein polymers. Some of these polymers provide rails not unlike train tracks that allow organelles to move within the cellular confines while others provide much of the cell's own structural support. The cytoskeleton constantly shrinks and contracts as the cell adjusts to its external environment while also transporting proteins to cellular compartments where such proteins are needed. Rather impressively, in multi-cellular animals the entire cytoskeleton is responsive to proteins that span the cellular membrane some of which are able to detect the cell's extra-cellular environment and make adjustments to the cytoskeleton accordingly (Ref 3, p.613).

Perhaps not to dissimilar to a national railway system but much more dynamic in its nature, the cytoskeleton is an impressive array of three different types of molecules- microtubules, which provide the cellular transportation network, and actin and intermediate filament proteins which supply the internal cellular structural support (Ref 3, p.613). It turns out that actin filaments are used by the microtubules as a kind of 'guide-rope' for ensuring that proteins are transported to their correct destination (Ref 4). How these microtubules attach to the actin filaments in mammalian cells was elucidated by a study headed by Rockefeller University biologist Elaine Fuchs. This study described the involvement of a little-known family of proteins called the actin cross-linking family (ACFs) that ensure the correct 'coupling' of the microtubules to actin (Ref 4). It is now well known that molecular motors called kinesins ferry cargo to different regions of the cell by moving along cytoskeletal filaments, not unlike cable cars moving along cables ferrying passengers to diverse destinations (Ref 5). We should expect similar structural and mechanistic roles to exist in the cytoskeleton of acetabularia.

So what of organocentricity? Clearly the dynamic organization that Goodwin has so vividly drawn our attention to is simply a manifestation of a complexity that is already present in living systems. Even the production of flagellin in bacteria requires machines- ribosomes- that synthesize the flagellin proteins from the genetic blueprint. The multi-component structure of the flagellar motor is likewise well-documented (Ref 6, pp.69-73). Within the cellular world there exist enormously complex molecular networks and biological machines. It is this complexity that has been the power behind the argument for intelligent involvement in biological design.

References
1. Brian Goodwin (1994), How The Leopard Changed It's Spots: The Evolution Of Complexity, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, United States

2. Richard Dawkins (1976), The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

3. Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Julian Lewis Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, James D Watson (1989), Molecular Biology of the Cell, Published by Garland Publishing Inc, New York, 2nd Ed

4. The review on the work done by Elaine Fuchs on ACF7 can be found in a News Release from the Rockefeller University entitled 'Giant protein organizes the transportation railway system within cells' which can be found on http://runews.rockefeller.edu/index.php?page=engine&id=68

5. Mikyung Yun, C.Eric Bronner, Cheon-Gil Park, Sun-Shin Cha, Hee-Won Park and Sharyn A. Endow (2003) Rotation of the stalk/neck and one head in a new crystal structure of the kinesin motor protein, Ncd EMBO J Vol. 22, pp. 5382-5389

6. Michael J Behe (1996), Darwin's Black Box-The Biochemical Challenges to Evolution 1st Edition Published by Simon and Schuster, New York

Copyright(c), 2008, Robert Deyes

It is important that students bring a certain ragamuffin, barefoot, irreverence to their studies; they are not here to worship what is known, but to question it."
-- J. Bronowski, The Ascent of Man

Few topics in modern culture elicit the kind of polarized rhetoric endlessly cycled on the topic of intelligent design. More lively than abortion and more heated than global warming, discussion of intelligent design shows all the signs of an everlasting debate, a perpetual controversy eternally looping through the same arguments: Nature exhibits design and it could be intelligent design. No, intelligent design is not science, it is a religious concept, simply warmed-over creationism. But intelligent design is a scientific inference from observed design in nature, and does not seek to identify the designer. No, intelligent design is not science because it is not testable. Yes, design can be (and is) detected and tested by scientists in many disciplines, and the presence of design in nature gives rise to the logical inference of intelligent design. No, there is no evidence for intelligent design because evolution is a proven fact accepted by virtually all biologists. But evolution cannot account for information-rich complex structures. It doesn't matter, intelligent design is not science, it is a religious concept. And on and on (and on).

How can bitter debate turn to better discussion on such a topic? With both sides claiming the mantle of true science and each downplaying religious motivation, can there be any peaceful resolution? Perhaps not; lasting controversies usually last as controversies precisely because two opposing views cannot be completely reconciled. Short of resolution, however, can peaceful coexistence be achieved in a manner that will quiet passions, advance understanding and serve constitutionally safe pedagogical objectives? Yes, but ironically, making such peace virtually certain requires a small, common sense act sure to be resisted by the side set to profit most: permit voluntary teaching of intelligent design in public school science classrooms.

Before immediately dismissing the thought, take a deep breath and consider for a moment what really would happen if teachers who wished to were permitted, even encouraged, to supplement teaching of evolution with scientific evidence suggesting intelligent design and challenging Darwinism (those who say there is no such evidence are part of the problem). Ignore for a moment the hopelessly unhelpful jurisprudence of Constitutional church-speak. Ignore for a moment the carefully crafted definitions of philosophical science-speak. Ignore for a moment the bias of the heavily invested Darwin industry insisting on evolution consensus-speak. And imagine for a moment what might happen if on one supremely interesting controversial topic educating students became the primary goal of public education. What would happen?

Probably not much. At least not as long as the religiously offended few could forebear mind-broadening education for the tolerant many (as do the religiously offended many for the intolerant few today). How can we be sure? Because in addition to data from which to draw conclusions, we have common sense, which, sadly, gets lost in the ideologically motivated hyper-technical legal and linguistic minefield of the "creation vs. evolution" controversy. Consider this fact: there was a time not long ago when actual creationism was taught in science classes and in some regions the teaching of evolution was banned. Nevertheless, this period preceded the greatest scientific advances of the 20th-century and all the great scientists of the 20th-century. Those days are gone, replaced by a controversy manufactured and kept alive by extremists opposed to any non-Darwinian theory. At some point common sense must prevail to compel educators to understand from history that on controversial subjects rational discourse promotes education while censorship promotes divisive indoctrination.

Common sense in America can prevail only by first collectively rising above the silliness of believing that a Constitutional violation occurs every time an idea consonant with theistic religious belief is mentioned in science class. First Amendment Establishment Clause jurisprudence on this topic has reached virtual absurdity by any standard, with a federal judge in Pennsylvania recently finding the United States government breached the so-called "wall of separation" simply because a local school board required teachers to inform students of a library book on intelligent design. In a more sane time and under the same Constitution a state law banning evolution while permitting creationism was held not to violate the Constitution's Establishment Clause because Congress (of course) had not established a State religion. What a difference a few years make; today to require Thomas Jefferson's self-evident truth be taught would violate the Constitution. How can this be?

Missing from the legal front is a recognition that religious undertones are unavoidable on the subject of our origins and should not be the controlling factor in its public airing. No matter how the question "where do we come from?" is answered, the answer will always "aid, foster, or promote one religion or religious theory against another", to use the language of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1968 case of Epperson v. Arkansas. In Epperson the Court held that an Arkansas law prohibiting the teaching of evolution while allowing teaching of creationism was an "advancement or inhibition of a religion" and therefore violated the Constitution's Establishment Clause. How is today's situation different in principle? While intelligent design is not the same as creationism, it's true that it "advances" theistic religious views to the detriment of atheistic religious views, such as those held by Secular Humanists. But a fact rarely acknowledged lurks behind the "neutral science" proponents of naturalistic evolution: Darwinism "advances" (and is in fact an official tenet of) atheistic religious views and, despite all rhetoric to the contrary, inhibits theistic religious views.

Secondly on our way to restoring common sense, we must recognize that the argument that intelligent design is "not science" because it is "not materialistic" (or "not naturalistic") depends upon a presupposition rapidly becoming untenable in light of modern evidence. Materialism (or, for our purposes, naturalism) is a philosophy that assumes all nature at all times operates solely according to unintelligent causal effects (i.e., creation is a result solely of mindless causes), regardless of contrary evidence. At best the "intelligent design is not science" argument can be maintained only by adhering to a narrow, closed definition of science based on the "mindless" philosophy of naturalism. But at that point the integrity of science is compromised, no longer abiding by the maxim "going wherever the evidence leads." Unapologetic materialist apologists proudly admit they will not go where the evidence leads, but must we all follow them? If so, then we must also admit we are not practicing the scientific method, but the method of a philosophical presupposition, a practice no different in kind than religion.

Third, we must deal with the fact that evolution represents the consensus viewpoint accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Ironically, this fact works in favor of teaching intelligent design for several reasons. First, if the consensus is, in fact, correct, then there should be no harm in simply providing an overview of a minority viewpoint that nevertheless raises fascinating, imagination-capturing questions about the role, and limits, of science. Moreover, because of the consensus there is not much to teach on the subject of intelligent design, which is a very young idea with no established curriculum, few robust constructs, and little in the way of laboratory research. Teaching on intelligent design could amount to little more than an hour or so reviewing the arguments and the evidentiary basis for its constructs, and, however wrong-headed it may appear to the consensus, on what basis its theorists maintain intelligent design as science.

Finally, the consensus view seems to be falling short on the very criteria deemed important by educators. The American public is constantly warned against the danger of teaching "intelligent design creationism" in the public schools because of test data showing Americans are falling behind the rest of the world in science literacy. But our current situation comes after a generation of consensus-only science education, and most of the rest of the world is also consensus-only. Might a change be in order? Could it be that open, honest discussion of a controversial topic that interests students spark a new interest in science? How could it not?

Above all, notwithstanding all the rhetoric, all the accusations and all the posturing, informing students of the state of the art in origins science and letting them make up their minds is the right thing to do. Leading atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins relates how after embracing Christianity for a time, in his mid-teens he made up his own mind and decided that "Darwinism was a far superior explanation that pulled the rug out from under the argument of design." If Richard Dawkins can be afforded the luxury of an informed choice, why not all students? Because regardless of the religious implications, and in spite of an imposed definitional bias, and no matter what consensus theories are implicated, the business of education is to educate.

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

If you like this essay, go here for many more.

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

Publisher and agent inquiries welcome.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

From 70 million years ago:

The fossil fields were discovered in the 1980s by Canadian geologists surveying the northern tip of Devon Island, but have only recently been excavated by paleontologists. Scientists are trying to reconstruct the prehistoric ecosystem that prevailed at a time when Arctic climes were much warmer, large trees grew north of Baffin Island and the polar sea was ruled by razor-toothed water fowl and marine reptiles called plesiosaurs.

here (National Post, August 21, 2008)

Here's more about plesiosaurs from an earlier find: "The remains of a prehistoric reptile that was "as long as a bus, with teeth larger than cucumbers ... in a head that could swallow an adult human whole," Yikes. Think of that next time you get on a bus ... or maybe not ...

I wonder if this will be another AvalonanotherPost-Darwinist:

Darwin's odd musings on circumcision: Believe whatever you like ... he certainly did

Preach it, brother! A regular shower of blessings from Saint Charles Darwin

Intelligent design and popular culture: Design acknowledged - embarrassingly - in stone

Expelled movie's intelligent design theorists only the tip of the iceberg?

Intellectual freedom in Canada: Political science profs nervous about coming here ...

Aussie prof on Darwin's fibs

Steve Fuller replies to Sahotra Sarkar: Say "Cheese" and tell the baboon to quit scratching himself ...

My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald - Albertans are right to reject 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 Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist's case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

A Review Of Daniel Levitin's This Is Your Brain On Music

By Robert Deyes

ISBN: 978-0-452-28852-2

Physicist Emerson Pugh once quipped, "if the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't" [1]. In his book This Is Your Brain On Music neuroscientist Daniel Levitin notes how the number of ways that brain neurons can connect is so vast that we will never fully comprehend all the thought processes that we are capable of.

In recent years, mapping techniques have revealed a lot about the functional regions of the brain. Wernicke's area is responsible for language processing, the motor cortex for physical movement and frontal lobes for generating personalities. Both encephalography and MRI have given us key spatial-temporal data about brain function in these regions. But we also find that activities such as listening to music contravene such a simplistic compartmentalization.

In fact the perception of pitch, tempo, the emotions invoked by a piece of music and the lyrics of a song all use different parts of the brain albeit simultaneously. Levitin repeatedly emphasizes the multi-faceted aspects of the music 'experience' noting how a, "precision choreography of neurochemical release and uptake" leads to our appreciation of music [p.188]. The brain is thus a massively parallel device, capable of carrying out several different tasks at once.

While it is through a lifetime of exposure that our brains become used to the note scales and music styles of our culture, it is during childhood that we are most receptive to learning music rules and note sequences. The finding that children's tastes in music are heavily influenced by the music heard during prenatal development, has forced a shift in the way we think about childhood memory.

We now know for example that the cerebellum has the capacity to recall with precision accuracy the rhythm of a music piece long after it has been heard while the brain stem and dorsal cochlear nucleus are able to distinguish between consonant (harmonious) and dissonant sounds. In fact our brains are able to group sounds without any conscious effort from ourselves.

We rarely have difficulty deconvoluting the sounds of instruments- a trumpet will always sound like a trumpet and a clarinet always a clarinet. Every instrument has its own characteristic 'fingerprint' of tone frequencies many of which can now be copied by electrical synthesizers. Indeed frequency modulation synthesis has allowed musicians to simulate instruments and incorporate their own unique sounds into their music.

Levitin's work at Stanford University has brought to light our capacity to faithfully remember music pieces in their original pitch and tempo. In essence the brain can re-deploy ('re-member') the same neurons that were used in the original perception of a music piece. The sound separation capabilities of the brain, which allow it to differentiate between concurrent sounds (say two different instruments), are nothing short of remarkable.

We are only just beginning to understand how it is that the brain registers the sound signals that cause our ear drums to wiggle at certain frequencies. Feature extraction is the process through which neural networks then 'decompose' the sound signal into information about pitch, timbre and loudness amongst other things. Through repeated exposure, our brains generate 'schemas' of what sounds should go together, what letters will appear in a word and what different types of music will sound like.

Levitin does a fantastic job in explaining the universal patterns and regularities of musical construction revealing the common music elements that unite apparently disparate pieces of music such as those of Mozart and The Eagles, Prokoviev and Steve Wonder. The non-arbitrary frequency distances between notes are what identify any given piece of music.

Levitin makes his book that much more exciting by recounting many of his own personal stories both as a musician and a neuroscientist. His work as a record producer with some of the biggest names in the business and some of the best-known artists of contemporary rock provides a unique flavor to his scientific discussion.

Nevertheless his conversations on evolutionary biology and its relevance to brain evolution with the greats of molecular genetics, notably Francis Crick and James Watson, are somewhat of a disappointment. Indeed in the last chapter Levitin develops the idea that music has served as a 'vehicle' for social bonding and cohesion citing the tendency of people to identify with others with similar music tastes as supportive evidence. He is quick to dismiss psychologist Steve Pinker's assertion that music was nothing more than 'evolutionary cheesecake' that in humans rode on the back of the more critical adaptation of language.

Rather, Levitin sees music and musical appreciation as an adaptation in itself that may have allowed sexual partners to charm each other through their courtship displays (an extension of Darwin's theory of sexual selection). He cites the highly social and musical tendencies of Williams Syndrome patients and the musical and social difficulties of autistic children as clear evidence of an evolutionary connection between music and social integration. But what of the complexity that Pugh so eloquently drew our attention to so many years ago?

Naturalist Jane Goodall expressed her views on evolution when she wrote of, "a series of vanished brains, each more complex than the one that came before it" [2]. And yet without the crucial evidence of the 'how'- the mechanistic meat of evolutionary theory- the role of natural selection, particularly as relates to music appreciation, remains but a skeleton of speculation.

Literature Cited
1. Inside The Mind Of God- Images And Words Of Inner Space, Introduction By Sharon Begley, Edited By Michael Reagan, Templeton Foundation Press, New York, p.61
2. Jane Goodall (1999) Reason for Hope: A Spiritual Journey Warner Books Inc, New York, NY, p.126

A response to Ed Brayton's post, found here

By Kevin H. Wirth

Brayton and a host of others in the blogosphere have made much ado about the alleged persecution of ID and creationist educators and scientists ever since the dismissal of Guillermo Gonzalez last year from Iowa State University (ISU) and the release earlier this year of the movie 'Expelled'. It seems some critics of the Gonzalez incident and the movie have taken the position that the claims of rampant discrimination and persecution against educators, students, and scientists by Darwinian supporters is just a manufactured form of psychological hype concocted by ID advocates to get some unwarranted sympathy for their cause.

After investigating many case studies and publishing some,[1] I can say with some degree of confidence that contrary to what these critics suggest, this isn't about hype at all, and in fact, the full extent of this situation remains largely under-reported. The practice of discrimination and elimination of Darwin skeptics from our science labs and academic institutions is widespread and, contrary to Mr. Brayton's implacable assertions, shows no signs of dropping off. In fact - the situation is becoming worse thanks to folks like Brayton who view it as a non-issue.

For example, Brayton claims that the ID movement "has a long history of false or unsupported claims of persecution (which shouldn't surprise us, I suppose; after all, their religion has its origin in an act of alleged martyrdom)."

Thanks to the newly released book, "Slaughter of the Dissidents", those claims are no longer unsupported. Of course, I'm pretty sure Brayton and other critics of his ilk will do their best to show us all how the case studies in that book are not really good examples of persecution at all. Go ahead Ed. Have at it.

In his blog, Brayton brings up the case of Guillermo Gonzalez, who was let go from ISU last year after his release of the film "Privileged Planet," and a no-confidence vote from his faculty peers. Gonzalez and his supporters claim that he was targeted for tenure denial because of his ID views, which have been characterized as "religious" by both his critics and former faculty.

Brayton goes on to say

"Here's what those screaming persecution won't say: they have not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate. None. They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God. It is convenient for them to cry persecution, but there simply is no evidence for it. And here's something else they won't say: people get denied for tenure every single day, all over the country, for a million different reasons, some fair and some unfair."

These statements bear taking a closer look.

Was there really "not one iota of evidence that tenure was denied because Gonzalez is an ID advocate"? I'll let readers judge this one, and refer to the spate of emails that were obtained through the Discovery Institute's Freedom of Information Act request. You can read those letters online [2] and also in Dr. Bergman's just published book on the subject. Those emails reveal not only a degree of hostility towards Guillermo's views, but also includes some insight into their voting intentions based on how his views were perceived. Consider the following email excerpts between some of Gonzalez's colleagues:

Harmon to Franzen 09/23/05: "...you have a nice writing touch and produced the best letter to the editor on intelligent design... It is a topic that is simmering in my blood, but as a colleague of Gonzalez, I am uncertain of how best to react. He will be up for tenure next year, and if he keeps up, it might be a hard sell to the department... By the way, I don't have trouble voting for tenure based on his astronomy...but here he is claiming ID is a proper branch of science, and so I think he opens it up in his tenure consideration."

and

Wilson to Struck 02/17/04: "In less happy news, Guillermo has a book coming out in April on Astronomy, Earth's privileged place in the universe and intelligent design. Steve K. is very upset about possible impacts. I guess I'm rather sad that he wants to be so very public about something that I see as intellectually vacuous, though it may be spiritually satisfying.

...I am not exactly thrilled. I talked with him last year about perhaps waiting with the public bit until he gets past tenure review, but I gather he feels strongly enought to be willing to take the risk... He's definitely a mixed bag, and who knows how this will go. At least it will get full daylight at the 3yr review, not hit folks as a surprise at the final tenure decision."

These comments (and many others that I urge you to read) don't exactly indicate that Guillermo's views were not going to pose "one iota" of a problem for his then upcoming tenure review. If you believe that then I have a bridge I'd like to sell you... These and other comments were made by many who were going to vote on whether to approve tenure for Gonzalez.

So did Gonzalez's views on ID play a role in his tenure denial? I think the email evidence alone makes it pretty clear that yes, they not just kinda did, but they absolutely did. We don't need to know what the actual faculty vote was... it's pretty evident from reading those emails and noting the declaration against ID that was circulated and supported by many of his ISU faculty colleagues.

But then there's the other interesting comment from Mr. Brayton...

"They are presuming that to be the case because it fits the story they've been falsely claiming for years, that the evil Darwinian priesthood is out to destroy anyone who believes in God."

Brayton cavalierly dismisses complaints about persecution against Darwin skeptics as patently false on it's face, claiming that "the evil Darwinian priesthood" is just a conjured up boogeyman in the IDers overly imaginative Monsters Inc. closet.

Oh really?

I guess Brayton isn't aware of the numerous comments made by many prominent Darwinians that actually take aim at people who do believe in God (which, by the way, is illegal discrimination if such comments form the basis for denying someone a job, a place to live, etc. etc.). A lot has been said on this topic by many Darwinians, but I'll pull out two choice examples - just so everyone clearly understands that this concern is not just another figment of ID imagination gone wild or another manufactured plot to gain sympathy.

Example #1

Both James Watson and Francis Crick used the occasion of the 50th anniversary of their discovery of the structure of DNA in 2003 as an opportunity to "mount an attack on religion" as one observer put it. [4]

Watson: "There is a conflict between truth by revelation and truth by observation and experiment. I think the big fight eventually in our country is not going to be between Republicans and Democrats, but between those who think secularly and those who think in a fundamentalist way.'[5]

And...

Speaking to The Telegraph, Crick, 86, said: "The god hypothesis is rather discredited." Indeed, he says his distaste for religion was one of his prime motives in the work that led to the sensational 1953 discovery.

His co-discoverer, Watson, 74, told the Telegraph that religious explanations were "myths from the past".

"Every time you understand something, religion becomes less likely," said Watson. "Only with the discovery of the double helix and the ensuing genetic revolution have we had grounds for thinking that the powers held traditionally to be the exclusive property of the gods might one day be ours." [6]

For such venerated men of science to come out and publicly underscore not only their distate for religion, but their hope that their work clearly shows that religion has no merit, places ID concerns outside of the boogyman category and into the real world.

Crick and Watson's commentary is just a mild reflection of other sentiments I've run into from other Darwinians, but they will suffice to make the point that Brayton is off key in singing his tune.

Way off.

Example #2

Of the many Darwinians who have gone on record with anything to say on this subject, few comments are more clearly anti-religion than the one made a few years back by Richard Lewontin, who famously said:

"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science 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 of unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior 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." [7]

This comment makes it pretty clear that Lewontin (and many other scientists) value their approach to viewing the universe far beyond any other consideration, and especially any evidence indicating the universe might reveal the handiwork of an intelligent designer. I think he makes it pretty clear that EVEN IF the evidence indicates something contrary to what the scientific assumptions of naturalistic materialism dictate, then we need to hold on to those assumptions anyway, and furthermore, at any cost.

So much for the integrity of science.

You can't find a much better example of straight talk about what we should do with any ideas coming from those crazy fundies. I hold this up as exhibit "A" that scientific integrity gets thrown out the window simply as a matter of philosophical convenience by many Darwinians. In other words, what Lewontin and others who are completely committed to naturalistic materialism are saying is, even if an Intelligent Designer were to show up and demonstrate in a one-time instance how he could create a living machine, they would have to disallow it just because it doesn't fit within their framework of naturalism. If it can't be explained by a naturalistic process, then it simply need not be contemplated, period. And furthermore, anyone who argues about it or says wait a minute -- goodby and good riddance, 'cause we don't need to hear any more of your blathering.

Of course these quotes simply serve to light the fuse for the more heinous acts of discrimination endured by many Darwin Doubters who have been victimized over the years.

IDers and creationists have been maligned over the years for their beliefs, and I think it's well past time for everyone to recognize that this is not acceptable, and yes that includes you as well Mr. Brayton. I'm not talking about teaching religion in a science class, I'm talking about everyone's right to hold whatever 'religious' views they want, and the right to express those views appropriately. And I'm talking about going where the evidence might lead us, regardless of what assumptions most other scientists may have. Science does not always move forward on the basis of a democratic vote of the majority, nor is it advanced by the malfeasance of elitists who think they know better than everyone else. Science advances through the introduction of novel ideas, not the outright rejection of them.

SIDEBAR -- I find it fascinating that most ID critics take the position that ID isn't science, and therefore we shouldn't contemplate any of the ideas advanced by ID supporters. If inquiry were really at the core of the approach used by such critics, you would think they'd at least be willing to consider finding a way to investigate ID concepts in a manner that suited them better. But I don't see any of that going on, in fact, I most often see a very strong animus towards anything remotely suggestive of ID notions. Not exactly what you'd expect from people who claim to be interested in what really makes the universe tick.

Finally, Brayton does us the service of bringing to our attention the unfortunate account of Dr. Sean Carroll, another professor who was denied tenure at the University of Chicago simply because some of the UC faculty didn't like the way he brushed his teeth, evidently, because for all appearances, Brayton thinks he seemed worthy of being granted tenure. Brayton goes on to say that Carroll didn't 'whine' about being 'persecuted', but got on with his life, and advises others who find themselves in a similar pickle to simply "Get over it and get a new job."

That's well and good for a professor who doesn't mind starting another 5-7 year cycle attempting to gain tenure somewhere, if he can. Carroll probably won't have a problem with doing that, but you can be sure that's not going to be true of many Darwin skeptics -- they often find it much more difficult to find another really good position at another University, even if they are able to teach their subject material competently. But for those who worked hard, and like Carroll, were not expecting any problems gaining tenure, there is a HUGE issue here, and Brayton blithely passes over it like it was nothing at all. If you were told you had to do xyz to gain tenure at any academic institution, and then met all of those criteria, I think it would be perfectly reasonable to expect to gain tenure. In nearly any other circumstance where the terms of achieving advancement are defined, failure to deliver it when the criteria are met would be considered a breach of contract, except, of course, in academia. That Carroll did not complain is his choice, but that doesn't mean everyone else in a similar circumstance should respond in exactly the same manner he did - especially if discrimination was involved. No one who works hard and meets the expected criteria for tenure, and has good reviews along the way, should have to wake up one day only to learn he's going to get the axe just because the people he worked with didn't like something as inconsequential as the way he parts his hair or the color of his socks. Much less what his personal religious beliefs happen to be. Keep in mind here that Gonzalez did not teach his religious views to his students -- his only "crime" was writing a book and kicking out a movie that claims our planet enjoys some rather unusual and improbable characteristics. That his conclusions would contribute to the decision to terminate him from his position at ISU is unthinkable.

When a prof is on tenure track, I think he/she has the reasonable expectation of knowing what is required to achieve it. If all the requirements are met, then tenure should be granted, pure and simple. No faculty vote by jealous or sanctimonious peers should in any way challenge that achievement. Unfortunately, as we see in Brayton's own example of Carroll, such is not the case. Rather than suggesting someone who has been unjustly denied an earned tenure should "just get over it", I would prefer to see a different course of action undertaken -- one that calls for a correction in an obviously flawed tenure process. And while yes, it is healthy to move on, it's not at all healthy to let someone beat on you and go their merry way without any consequences -- especially if discrimination was indicated.

This is where the example of Carroll diverges from that of Gonzalez. Technically, Brayton is correct - people are denied tenure all the time who seem to deserve it. But when there is evidence of illegal discrimination, that's a horse of a different color. And as I have already demonstrated, it appears certain that Gonzalez was a victim of discrimination, and the emails clearly show that he was in a very hostile work environment. His colleagues made it very clear that they didn't appreciate his 'religious' views. If they ousted him because of his alleged 'religious' views (real or not), then it's religious discrimination, period.

Brayton characterizes Gonzalez and others who have been denied tenure as "whiners," which places an unsavory label on educators who protest when they've been unjustly discriminated against. Victims of discriminiation have every right to cry 'foul!' as loud as they want to when they suspect their rights have been violated. To characterize this as 'whining', as Brayton does, is a slap in the face to everyone who values the supposedly protected freedoms we all assume each of us is entitled to.

Brayton's comment is like saying "I just saw someone mug and beat Joe Blatz -- but he should just get over it and move on."

I wonder, would Brayton say the same thing to an Indian population who complained because their treaty rights had just been violated? Or would he say the same thing to a black person who was denied a place to live simply because of the color of his skin (and had biting emails from neighboring property owners talking about how uncomfortable they would feel living around a black person)? Evidently he would.

Shouldn't we at least be speaking out against those who we know very likely perpetrated a crime, and maybe even see what we can do to make sure it doesn't happen again? In my view, it's at least immoral to deprive someone of something they've earned, even when discrimination is not part of the picture. It's even more immoral, in my view, to suggest that we should ignore or dismiss the plight of those who have a reasonable expectation of rights (i.e., protection against illegal discrimination) granted to us all.

There's a difference, Mr. Brayton, between whining and standing up for your rights.

And if we keep handing out "get out of jail free" cards to perpetrators of discrimination today (as both Gonzalez and Carroll eventually did), it will only embolden them to continue doing more of the same tomorrow. So Mr. Brayton, you'll pardon those of us who don't agree that this is all about a bunch of "whiners" complaining about a "persecution complex." This is about a very real wrong in need of radical correction before it gets worse. And don't think you're immune just because of the side of the fence you're sitting on either. The very same freedoms Gonzalez is entitled to apply to you as well. If you fail to honor the protection of those freedoms for people you disagree with ideologically, you also fail to protect them for yourself and the rest of us as well.

[1] see the newly released book "Slaughter of the Dissidents" by Dr. Jerry Bergman, which presents several case studies of educators and students who have faced discrimination and persection. You can order a copy here.

[2] you can download the Gonzalez emails online at: www.slaughterofthedissidents.com/cases/gonzalez/emails.zip

[3] removed

[4] Do Our Genes Reveal the Hand of God? In the London Daily Telegraph, by Roger Highfield, 3/20/2003

[5] Nobel Laureates Opine on DNA, Politics, and the Christian Right. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev0803.htm

[6] Ibid, at 4.

[7] Lewontin, Richard. Billions and Billions of Demons in New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997.

Seattle area writer and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is a founding member of ARN (formerly Students for Origins Research). He is also the Senior editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman (2008). This is the most comprehensive book published to date documenting the extent and types of discrimination against Darwin skeptics.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2008 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are permitted with attribution.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Rachel Courtland at New Scientist reports that "Bloating galaxies confound astronomers" (19 August 2008).

Astronomers continue to puzzle over the recent discovery of a strange population of dense, compact galaxies that existed in the early universe but are nowhere to be seen today. They suspect the galaxies somehow puffed up into the bloated behemoths we see around us, but new research shortens the timescale during which this mysterious swelling could have happened.

The problem seems to be that no one knows how they could have puffed up as quickly as they apparently have.

Various explanations have been proposed for why nearby galaxies are "bloated" compared to these faroff compact ones, but none accounts for all of the observations.

That sounds promising, actually. Let's hope for new discoveries about our universe as a result.

Astronomers assume that the universe increased in space as well as time since the Big Bang and that nothing travels faster than light. Therefore, the light that is reaching us now from these distant galaxies started there 10 billion years ago, about 3.7 million years after the Big Bang. That means we are looking at them as they were then, not as they are now. So if we see that one of the galaxies was very compact, that means it was very compact back then. It may not even exist any mor for all we know.

This might feel weird to us, in these days of instant messaging, but ironically our ancestors might understand better than we do. Centuries ago, it took up to a year to receive a letter from India or China. So you could be hearing from a person who had actually died in the meantime (but you might not find that out until months or years later). Astronomy of the far reaches of our universe is still like that. And unless someone invents faster-than-light (FTL) travel or messaging, it always will be.

Thus, the question is, assuming that the universe is pretty much the same in all directions (yes, that's another assumption astronomers make), the question is, what happened to the compact galaxies around us, and how did it happen?

Here's the abstract.

Also at Colliding Universes, my blog on theories about our universe:

Major media, imagining themselves sober, think there are many universes, not just double vision

Flatland: Helping us think about the dimensions of our universe

Science fiction mag discovers intelligent design theory

Big Bang exploded? Seriously, is there room for reasonable skepticism about the Big Bang?

The number 137 has its own Web page? Why?

Origin of life: Random origin of life was exploded by 1970s discovery - who didn't get the memo?

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab

Our unique solar system is less probable than our universe? - a reader writes

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Not nearly as much as you might think.

n "High-Aptitude Minds: The Neurological Roots of Genius" (Scientific American Mind - September 3, 2008) Christian Hoppe and Jelena Stojanovic tell us that "Researchers are finding clues to the basis of brilliance in the brain." That is not quite what they do, actually, because the whole area sounds confusing and contradictory in the article (which is not the researchers' fault). For example,

No one is sure why some experiments indicate that a bright brain is a hardworking one, whereas others suggest it is one that can afford to relax. Some, such as Haier—who has found higher brain metabolic rates in more astute individuals in some of his studies but not in others—speculate one reason could relate to the difficulty of the tasks. When a problem is very complex, even a gifted person’s brain has to work to solve it. The brain’s relatively high metabolic rate in this instance might reflect greater engagement with the task. If that task was out of reach for someone of average intellect, that person’s brain might be relatively inactive because of an inability to tackle the problem. And yet a bright individual’s brain might nonetheless solve a less difficult problem efficiently and with little effort as compared with someone who has a lower IQ.

The most useful take-home information is this:

University of Pennsylvania psychologists Angela Duckworth and Martin Seligman examined final grades of 164 eighth-grade students, along with their admission to (or rejection from) a prestigious high school. By such measures, the researchers determined that scholarly success was more than twice as dependent on assessments of self-discipline as on IQ. What is more, they reported in 2005, students with more self-discipline—a willingness to sacrifice short-term pleasure for long-term gain—were more likely than those lacking this skill to improve their grades during the school year. A high IQ, on the other hand, did not predict a climb in grades.

In other words, one reason that a difference is between highly intelligent people and the rest of us may be difficult to identify is that it is not necessarily reflected in real life performance.

Note: My lead author Mario Beauregard of the Universite de Montreal wrote yesterday to tell me that he thinks that this is critical for students to understand. Directed effort is what matters.

Do you want to succeed? How much? Enough to give up time-wasters? To study hard? That's what matters. Not your genes, not your family background. Do you care enough to make it happen for you ?

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Yes, we do think while we are asleep. And we solve problems too.

Neurotheology: Bad neurology and bad theology?

Consciousness: So familiar and yet so puzzling ...

Podcasts: Mind vs brain, plus exclusive interview with parts of your brain

Coffee break: Neurotoxins and sea lions

Evolutionary psychology: British physicist targets theory-of-the-month on "how religion got started"

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I don't have time to blog much today, as I am writing a report on an unrelated matter, but apparently, Rob Breakenridge has replied here to my comments here on his abuse of all Albertans who do not worship Darwin.

I noted in reply to a commenter at Uncommon Descent:

... , Breakenridge's research assistant probably did not read the material I was referencing - and linked here (as well as at the Post-D): Experiments showed that birds did not care whether the spots, however created, looked like eyes or not.

Thus there is not likely any "evolution" of the spots toward looking like eyes.

The whole Darwinian construct in this area, in my view, springs from the notion that birds are feathered people. Therefore, what we think is an evolutionary selection advantage must be one.

Fast forward to the deluxe leatherbound edition Darwinian Fairy Tales, of which Breakenridge appears to have collected the entire gold-bricked set.

As I said in the first of my dialogues with [sociologist] Steve Fuller, an ID-friendly science course would take pains to make clear that birds are NOT feathered people. They do not have brains organized like people's brains. We cannot begin any study of bird adaptations by assuming that we understand how birds think - let alone by offering to do their avian thinking for them.

That is precisely what the Darwinians have so disastrously done with the peacock tale, the peppered moth tale, the Monarch-Viceroy tale, the eye spots tale, and so forth.

For info on all these tales and why they belong on the fantasy shelf, go here. Meanwhile, I will try to find Steve Fuller again and continue the discussion on intelligent design-friendly science courses.

Also, just up at Colliding Universes (my blog on current ideas about our universe and other universes):

The number 137 has its own Web page? Why?

Origin of life: Random origin of life was exploded by 1970s discovery - who didn't get the memo?

Astronomer argues that we can test whether Earth is fine-tuned as a science lab

Our unique solar system is less probable than our universe? - a reader writes

Millions of universes out there? Multiverse is incompatible with naturalism (materialism) it tries to save! - Philosopher William Lane Craig's view

Extraterrestrial life: Are media "hypocritical" or just not able to change their story at this point?

Perchlorate on Mars? Neither good nor bad (but actually bad) for life?

Rare? Solar systems like ours are rare?

The black hole: Does it or doesn't it destroy information?

What Big Bang theory and Thomas Aquinas's proof of God have in common

Origin of life: There must be life out there! vs. There can't be life out there!

Big Mars announcement in the works - and still bigger rumours

Origin of life: Intelligent design theory and creating life in the lab

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

My op-ed piece published in The Calgary Herald, Saturday, August 16, 2008, responding to radio host and commentator Rob Breakenridge, with links to sources:

In rebuttal - Theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders

Denyse O'Leary

Re "What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don't get?" (August 12, 2008), Rob Breakenridge has cobbled together key talking points of the American Darwin lobby. The resulting column is an excellent illustration of why one should not write about big topics without basic research.

The 2005 Judge Jones decision in Pennsylvania, to which Breakenridge devotes much of his column, has not crimped the worldwide growth of interest in intelligent design. That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist, and Jones cannot plug gaping holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution is—contrary to its (largely) publicly funded zealots— in deep trouble, for a number of reasons.

The history of life has not been the long, slow "survival of the fittest" transition that classical evolution theory requires. Life got started on Earth soon after the planet cooled. All the basic divisions of animal life took shape rather suddenly in the Cambrian seas, about 550 million years ago. Later, there was, for example, the "Big Bang" of flowers and the Big Bang of birds, where many life forms appear quite suddenly.

Modern human consciousness is one of these leaps, judging from the superb cave paintings from recent millenniums. The creationists whom Breakenridge derides may be wrong on their dates, but not on much else.

Breakenridge hopes that we can enlighten backward Albertans by teaching more "evolution" in Alberta schools. But that won’t help. Textbook examples of evolution often evaporate when researchers actually study them (instead of just assuming they are true).

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Science education: Yawn Central ... oh, no, wait! This just in ....

In an American election year, the science lobby worries that many people don't know enough about science to make informed decisions, according to G. Jeffrey MacDonald ("Are we science-savvy enough to make informed decisions?", USA Today, August 8, 2008):

... only 26% believe that they themselves have a good understanding of science. And 44% couldn't identify a single scientist, living or dead, whom they'd consider a role model for the nation's young people.

These results are disturbing, science education experts say, because scientists aren't the only ones who must distinguish solid scientific methods from bogus ones. Some important scientific questions are being debated this year, including food safety, imported-product safety and the effect of biofuels.

But most of their recommended solutions won't be much use because people either can't or won't follow them. I think a Media Studies course would be more useful - if it improves skill in distinguishing how information becomes "news" and how to distinguish hype from hope.

Meanwhile, another round of kvetching about "why kids don't like science", this time featuring Mr. Microsoft himself. Says Bill Gates, according to Peter Wood at Chronicle.com,

... while Gates didn't make the point in so many words, his call for more H-1B visas was really testimony to the incapacity of American education to inspire children to take an interest in science and motivate young adults to follow though. He noted that 60 percent of the students at the top American computer-science departments are foreign-born.

Woods comments,

Let me offer a different explanation. Students respond more profoundly to cultural imperatives than to market forces. In the United States, students are insulated from the commercial market's demand for their knowledge and skills. That market lies a long way off - often too far to see. But they are not insulated one bit from the worldview promoted by their teachers, textbooks, and entertainment. From those sources, students pick up attitudes, motivations, and a lively sense of what life is about. School has always been as much about learning the ropes as it is about learning the rotes. We do, however, have some new ropes, and they aren't very science-friendly. Rather, they lead students who look upon the difficulties of pursuing science to ask, "Why bother?"

- How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science (August 8, 2008)

Well, Est Coast American lawyer Edward Sisson, a sympathizer of the intelligent design theorists - who told me to go ahead and say so - couldn't resist giving wood's article a "thrashing" and invited me to print his comments here. Done!

As the father of two teenagers, I make a point of watching the TV shows they like, while I am with them. What they watch are shows in which sports stars show off their fancy houses ("cribs") and fancy cars and swimming pools etc. Or else they watch shows set in high schools, in which the students are never shown studying, they are shown in their social lives (always dynamic) and sports, and in lives filled with family conflicts and friends-conflicts. Or they watch shows like America's Next Top Model (fashion modeling) or Project Runway (fashion clothes design) or other competition talent shows (American Idol (pop singing) being the premiere example). Or shows like The Apprentice (business entrepreneurs) or Top Chef (high-fashion cooking). In summary, shows involving young people engaged in emotionally passionate activities. If the science community can come up with a way of making a show that shows young would-be scientists or engineers involved in exciting competitions, it ought to do so.

Woods noted,

Success in the sciences unquestionably takes a lot of hard work, sustained over many years. Students usually have to catch the science bug in grade school and stick with it to develop the competencies in math and the mastery of complex theories they need to progress up the ladder. Those who succeed at the level where they can eventually pursue graduate degrees must have not only abundant intellectual talent but also a powerful interest in sticking to a long course of cumulative study. A century ago, Max Weber wrote of "Science as a Vocation," and, indeed, students need to feel something like a calling for science to surmount the numerous obstacles on the way to an advanced degree.

Sisson replies,

The TV shows I described above sometime show the fruits of success for people who are successful in those fields: sports stars' fancy houses, cars, etc.; the lives of fashion models or fashion clothes designers or pop singers or business entrepreneurs. If the science community can come up with a way of making a show that shows that successful scientists or engineers are rewarded with exciting lives, it ought to do so.

Woods notes,

At least on the emotional level, contemporary American education sides with the obstacles. It begins by treating children as psychologically fragile beings who will fail to learn - and worse, fail to develop as "whole persons" - if not constantly praised. The self-esteem movement may have its merits, but preparing students for arduous intellectual ascents aren't among them. What the movement most commonly yields is a surfeit of college freshmen who "feel good" about themselves for no discernible reason and who grossly overrate their meager attainments.

Sisson replies,

This is false. The TV shows teens like are full of emotional moments where someone is told he or she does not measure up on the merits and has to leave. I have never met a teenager -- and I meet lots, having both a teen boy and a teen girl -- who has an over-assessment of his or her abilities due to undue praise from parents or teachers, or who feels that he or she does not need to work hard at "intellectual ascents" because he or she has already achieved an "intellectual ascent."

Woods notes,

Sisson replies,

Woods notes,

The intellectual lassitude we breed in students, their unearned and inflated self-confidence, undercuts both the self-discipline and the intellectual modesty that is needed for the apprentice years in the sciences. Modesty? Yes, for while talented scientists are often proud of their talent and accomplishments, they universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most-unyielding standards of inquiry. That willingness to play by nature's rules runs in contrast to the make-it-up-as-you-go-along insouciance that characterizes so many variants of postmodernism and that flatters itself as being a higher form of pragmatism.

Sisson replies,

The comment immediately above applies here too. The self-praise of scientists who "universally subscribe to the humbling need to prove themselves against the most unyielding standards" far better describes every high-school jock who wants to excel in sports.

Woods notes,

The aversion to long-term and deeply committed study of science among American students also stems from other cultural imperatives. We rank the manufacture of "self-esteem" above hard-won achievement, but we also have immersed a generation in wall-to-wall promotion of diversity and multiculturalism as being the worthiest form of educational endeavor; we have foregrounded the redistributional dreams of "social justice" over heroic aspirations to discover, invent, and thereby create new wealth; and we have endlessly extolled the virtue of "sustainability" against the ravages of "progress." Do all that, and you create an educational system that is essentially hostile to advanced achievement in the sciences and technology. Moreover, those threads have a certainty and unity that make them not just a collection of educational conceits but also part of a compelling worldview.

Sisson replies,

Again, false. Only a minority of students make social politics their priority, and the students who have a personality prone to want to get into social activism are unlikely ever to choose the very different kind of life offered by science. Much of this article devolves into denunciation of liberal social trends in education. Regardless of whether you like those trends or not, I see no relationship between those trends and the decisions of students not to pursue lives in science.

Woods notes,

In his testimony, Bill Gates did more than glance at the failures of American schooling. Our record on high-school math and science education is particularly troubling. International tests indicate that American fourth graders rank among the top students in the world in science and above average in math. By eighth grade, they have moved closer to the middle of the pack. By 12th grade, our students score near the bottom of all industrialized nations. As a result, too many of them enter college without even the basic skills needed to pursue a degree in science or engineering.

Sisson replies,

Again, false. This is not a failure of schooling, the decline over the years between 4th grade and 12th grade reflects the fact that higher and higher percentages of each class of students learns, over the years, how comparatively dry and un-passionate and un-remunerative a life in science is as compared to other paths of life in America, fewer and fewer see any reason to prepare for a kind of life they just don't want to lead. Is not the "Dilbert" strip a fairly accurate portrayal of the quality of life most such students would lead, if they took that path? Why would we expect any student to want to grow up to be Dilbert?

Woods notes,

On the other hand, nothing in his testimony suggested recognition that American education's cultural imperatives play a role in diminishing the importance of science and technology in the eyes of the great majority of students. I don't take it as a tragedy if our top graduate programs fill up with ambitious and talented students from abroad; if we need to issue more H-1B visas to sustain our high-tech industries, let's do it with dispatch. Welcoming some of the world's most educated, talented, and ambitious scientists to our shores only strengthens the nation. But the apathy of so many homegrown American students to the intellectual challenges of science is something else - something that building schools, multiplying computers, and ginning up STEM programs won't touch.

Sisson replies,

For foreign students, Dilbert's life may well be better than any other option they can see for themselves. Not so for American students.

Woods notes,

Bill Gates may not be the right person to tell us how to restore that mixture of awe, admiration, sheer ambition, delight in meeting difficulties, and stubborn curiosity - the patient exuberance - that draws students into the adventure of science. A few of our students catch it despite the preoccupations of their teachers and their textbooks. But what to do about the larger problem? I'm starting my own Hilbert's list [of unsolved math problems].

Woods notes,

Sisson replies,

American students do not believe science is an adventure. They think it is Dilbert's life. If it really is an adventure, why aren't there TV shows that show what an adventure it is? If America can make a show that makes fashion clothing design an adventure, America can make s show that makes science an adventure. If, in fact, it is.

The biggest problem here is that the promise of science-a-an-adventure, as promoted in the 1950s and 1960s, plainly failed. The big impetus for American science education was Sputnik and the space race. I have a colleague who remembers that era vividly -- he was in grade school and suddenly science was all the rage. This was the great driver of science education in America: the exploration of space. Well, we went to the moon-- and, in the public's opinion, there wasn't anything exciting there. We ent fly-by probes to all the planets, and again there wasn't anything
exciting, as far as the public is concerned. We landed two rovers on Mars - and the most exciting thing about this achieve is our own rovers, and how long they have lasted. What the rovers actually saw, and explored, wasn't exciting. Now we have a Mars digger, and it's finding water ice. Exciting?

No. From the late 1700s through to the early 1900s people thought there were vast water canals, there could be civilizations -- so a little ice is not exciting, it is a big let-down. And now it appears perhaps the soil there is antagonistic to life.

And, of course, to turn to our key issue, the science world repeats endlessly that life bubbled-up out of mud or other matter, and its course of development into us was a giant accident, and there is no reason to pay any attention to any idea of God -- and then they put the label "isn't this exciting" on a picture of the world and of us that is as desolate and boring as the surface of the Moon, or the surface of Mars. And believe me, the public does find them boring.

My area's cable TV provider includes the NASA channel. It has zero production values. Endless long sequences out the shuttle window of earth below. Nerdy astronauts in dorky clothes describing how they turn knobs and so forth. The public just doesn't see any adventure in
this. That isn't the fault of the schools, it is the fault of the fact that what science has actually discovered doesn't excite, and the process of discovering it conveys no adventure.

When you're in the broccoli business you can spend hours telling people that broccoli tastes as fun as ice cream. But folks, it doesn't. If you're selling broccoli to a community that otherwise has only rice or potatoes to eat, you may get a lot of satisfied customers. But in America, science is a broccoli stand surrounded by ice cream parlors. That's the reality.

I think Sisson is on to something there, on at least two points:

Foreign students: Yes, absolutely. As a Canadian, I get nervous when I hear Americans bellyaching about the number of "foreign" students at their universities (I know they mean my #1 son-in-law, among others, even if they are too polite to spell it out). But getting into a posh US U is a vital career asset to many foreign students, one for which they will sacrifice much. And a career in science is of much more use if you need to provide for your family than a career in art history would be. So it's not exactly a choice.

Science as dullness raised to an art form: Does anyone remember the scene in Mrs. Doubtfire where the Robin Williams character points out that the kids' science show currently airing is just awful? As Mrs. Doubtfire, Robin transforms the show, and it takes off. But yes, all too many science shows do sound like Dr. Snore the Science Bore rather than the wonderful March of the Penguins. But whoops, March was accused of being an ID-friendly documentary, and the producers went to the trouble of denying it, pointing out that, after all, penguins are not faithful to their spouses. ... So here we are, at the crack of yawn ....

Also at The Post-Darwinist

Deprogram from Darwin legends - free and fun!

When science becomes oppressive religion: Do they use propane instead of faggots for the stakes?

Darwinism: Sociologist's book on ID controversy denounced by three-star Darwin bore

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

By Robert Deyes

When science writer Gordy Slack published an article in The Scientist magazine with the title, "What Neo-Creationists Get Right" (Ref 1), he must have known he would raise hackles. After all what could evolutionists possibly learn from their non-evolutionist brethren? Amongst other things Slack cited the origin of life, the complexity of the cell and the blind faith of Darwinism as cogent sources of contention that evolutionists would do well to pay attention to (Ref 1). As it turned out, the term 'neo-creationist' in Slack's piece was synonymous with intelligent design theorists (IDers) - an erroneous connection given that the latter make a deliberate point of not specifically associating their designer with the God of creationism. The furor over Slack's apparent dissent came two months later with accusations that he had given IDers too much credit (Ref 2). I for one felt that Slack had not gone far enough. Indeed my own disenchantment with evolutionist dogma had begun six years earlier during an event that has been touted as one of the biggest annual gatherings of genome scientists in the world.

I arrived in Boston, Massachusetts on a warm day in the autumn of 2002 for the Genome Sequencing and Analysis Conference of the Institute of Genome Research eager to hear the latest scientific findings in the field of functional genomics and genome sequencing (Ref 3). A lot of progress had been made in preceding years in both of these fields- genomes had been sequenced, the functions of individual genes unraveled and sophisticated computational algorithms developed for establishing networks of interacting proteins (Ref 3). While these were clearly exciting times for the genomics community particularly in the areas of drug discovery and disease therapies, my real interest in the meeting lay elsewhere for I had in fact come to find out how genome sequencing had influenced the study of evolutionary biology and to hear what conclusions were being drawn about possible evolutionary relationships between organisms. Among the lectures and seminars that I attended there was one given by Professor Nancy Moran from the University of Arizona in Tucson that caught my attention (Ref 4).

Professor Moran's expertise lies in the genome evolution of symbiotic bacteria and in particular how bacterial strains have seemingly undergone huge reductions in genome size over time (Ref 4). According to Moran, the kind of genome size comparisons that she has been involved with have yielded some very interesting results regarding the role of natural selection. It is precisely these results that Moran presented to her audience on the final day of the conference (Ref 4). While Moran's talk was impressive, there were a number of concluding statements she made that caused me a great deal of concern particularly given the kind of logic that had been employed to arrive at such conclusions (Ref 4). The abstract for Moran's talk for example made the rather uninformative observation that, "the basis for massive gene loss in obligate symbionts is the reduction of conservative selection for gene retention" (Ref 4) while her final remark was that, "selection has favored genome reduction because there has been less selection for maintaining larger genomes" (Ref 4). Concerning codon usage Moran told her audience that, "lack of codon preference in high expression genes is due to a lack of selection that would specify specific amino acid use at those positions" (Ref 4).

What did Moran's statements really tell us? The implication was that genome size reduction and lack of codon preference in these bacterial genomes was precisely what we would expect to see when natural selection occurs. We could of course begin to speculate on why this may be so- maybe, as Moran herself pointed out later in her seminar, smaller genomes are easier to replicate. Nevertheless if things had been any different we would undoubtedly have been able to come up with equally convincing arguments on how natural selection had produced entirely different outcomes. Any change in the genome size of Moran's symbiotic bacteria will appear, in retrospect. to confirm natural selection because there is no way of determining a priori what natural selection will and will not do.

Karl Popper argued that anywhere where species were observed to exist, the Darwinian explanation of adaptation through natural selection was fulfilled because if such species were not so adapted, they would not exist (Ref 5). Therefore since nothing was ruled out everything was ruled in and as above every outcome supported the Darwinian explanation. Philosopher of Science John Wilkins was severely critical of Popper's claims asserting for example that Darwinian theory actually rules out quite a lot (Ref 5). According to Wilkins, adaptation through natural selection, "rules out the existence of inefficient organisms when more efficient organisms exist" (Ref 5). However even here we do not have an a priori definition of what an efficient or an inefficient organism actually is before observing one in nature. Moran's statements on bacterial genome size likewise employed a logic that lacked testability. If we are to cite certain cases in nature as demonstrative of natural selection in action, we ought to be able to say what natural selection will and will not do in such cases. Without such a distinction our arguments become unscientific.

That Darwin's thesis lacked the element of testability is all too evident when we review some of his ideas. Darwin claimed for example that the relative physical weakness of the human race was perhaps the crucial factor in our evolutionary success. As science writer Roger Lewin wrote,

"Darwin even saw an advantage in our ancestors' physical weakness and apparent defenselessness. An animal...which like the gorilla, could defend itself from all enemies, would perhaps not become social" (Ref 6, p.313).

We see a similar state of affairs in Darwin's discourse on embryonic development in which he stated that "community of embryonic structure reveals community of descent" while also arguing that, "dissimilarity in embryonic development does not prove discommunity of descent" (Ref 7, p.599). So either similarity or dissimilarity in embryonic development could mean community of descent- a truly frustrating set of affairs for anyone trying to prove the validity of the Darwinian thesis. There is a clear difficulty involved in trying to determine the true advantage of a given adaptation without an a priori knowledge of the final outcome of existence. In more general terms we cannot state what advantage a given adaptation will confer on the survival of an organism until we can turn back and see how well that organism survives.

The absence of testability has its origins in the apparent total explanatory power of a theory in which through hindsight everything happens in accordance with what we would expect to see. However, if the outcome were to be any different such an alternative would equally fit the theory. Darwin cited the loss of wings in certain species of beetles in the Madeira islands as an example of how natural selection had eliminated features that were in some way detrimental to the survival of the common stock (Ref 7, p.177). We do not have to think too hard to note that having wings can be both advantageous and disadvantageous to the survival of many an insect or bird. Likewise for the length of the sexual organs in plants, Darwin made the following observations

"the fullest freedom for the entrance of pollen from another individual will explain the....exposure of the [sexual] organs. Many flowers, on the other hand, have their organs of fructification closely enclosed, as in the great papilionaceous or pea family". (Ref 7, p.129)

Overly exposed or closely enclosed, flowering plants can reap the benefits of whichever of these two options they happen to choose. Darwinists find seemingly confirmatory evidence simply because it is difficult, regardless of the outcome, to find evidence that contradicts (Ref 8, p.X). If Darwin's Madeira beetles had kept their wings we would surely have been able to identify the elements of nature that had made wing retention beneficial to survival. Uncertainty about what really constitutes a truly advantageous adaptation is hidden in almost every discussion on natural selection as we note in the following excerpt from a children's program on how the cheetah got its spots

"Why does the cheetah have spots? Some say it's for camouflage in the dappled shaded forest. This may have some truth as the leopard and jaguar are forest dwellers. But the cheetah lives out on open plains and avoids dense cover. Still it is heavily spotted...The cheetah is the fastest cat on the planet. All cats stalk in a similar slow manner but none reach the cheetah's top speed of 68 mph. At those top speeds, the spots on a cheetah become a blur possibly confusing prey" (Ref 9)

In other words what is good for the jaguar and the leopard in dense forest is good for the cheetah in the open plains. Advantages are advantageous in seemingly opposite environments. Curiously, even when adaptations seem to be detrimental and present no direct selective advantage, we can simply conclude that we have not found one yet. Murray Gell-Mann wrote how, "the apparent persistence of maladaptive schemata in complex adaptive systems [organisms] may often arise simply from too narrow a choice of criteria for what is considered adaptive, given all the selection pressures that are operating" (Ref 10, p.297). The persistence of sickle cell anaemia in Africa is one much-cited example of this. Of course Darwinists could simply argue that in the case of natural selection there is no specific algorithm, no known formula that would allow us to simply predict the future direction that living forms and adaptations will take. All the more reason to be extremely cautious when citing examples as evidence for the theory that they hope to uphold.

Gordy Slack is no friend of intelligent design. Indeed he ended his article by calling intelligent design nothing more than, "an improbable outlying hypothesis" (Ref 1). And yet he played his part in challenging some deep-rooted misconceptions about evolution albeit missing its lack of testability. Intelligent design theorists would do well to continue raising the alarms over evolution's dubious empiricism.

References
1. Gordy Slack (2008), What Neo-Creationists Get Right, The Scientist, 20th June, 2008

2. James Williams, Tom Thunnel, Kerry Kleiber, Michael Holloway, Melissa McCoy (2008), Learning From Creationists?, The Scientist, August, 2008, p.15

3. The 14th, Genome Sequencing And Analysis Conference (GSAC), Boston, Massachusetts, 2-5th October, 2002, Sponsored by TIGR

4. Nancy A. Moran (2002), Genome Evolution in Symbiotic Bacteria, Concurrent Symposium presented at the 14th Genome Sequencing and Analysis Conference (GSAC)

5. John Wilkins (1997), Evolution and Philosophy- A Good Tautology is Hard to Find, The Talk.Origins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/tautology.html

6. Roger Lewin (1987), Bones of Contention: Controversies in the Search for Human Origins, Published by Simon and Schuster, New York

7. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle For Survival, Modern Library Paperbacks Edition (1998), New York

8. Stuart Kauffman (2000), Investigations, Published by Oxford University Press, New York

9. 'Kitty Kats', A Marshmallow Entertainment Company Presentation; Produced By Billy Phillips, 1997

10. Murray Gell-Mann (1994), The Quark and the Jaguar, Adventures In The Simple And The Complex, W.H. Freeman and Company, New York

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

In "The Shakespeared Brain", Philip Davis offers some interesting, non-reductive neuroscience research on why we react to some of Shakespeare's more unusual phrases the way we do.

By "non-reductive", I mean that he is not trying to persuade us that "we" don't really react to the phrases or understand their significance ("it's just your neurons firing, you know"). Indeed, Davis starts with the assumption that we do react to them because we try to understand them.

He focuses on a peculiarity of Shakespeare's writing - "functional shift." Shakespeare turns nouns into verbs or pronouns into nouns in arresting ways - for example, in Coriolanus, a man writes of his benefactor: "This old man loved me above the measure of a father, nay, godded me indeed." and in Twelfth Night, Olivia is called "the cruellest she alive."

The literary device of functional shift turns on a feature of English as a language. Its grammatical structure depends heavily on simple conventions of word order. That in turn means that words can change their function abruptly simply by being put in a different position in a sentence.

For example, consider

"Jane knew the ins and outs of the grocery business."

"In" and "out" are prepositions. They do not normally appear as nouns.

I made "in" and "out" into nouns by the simple act of parking them in a noun's position in the sentence. I reinforced their new position by making them plural. (That way, you know for sure that they are not prepositions any more.) If the sentence makes sense, that's all a reader (or hearer) requires.

I am told that not every language is suited to this device of functional shift - possibly because factors other than word order are used in those languages to organize thoughts.

Anyway, Shakespeare was obviously well aware of how such a functional shift can attract a hearer's attention. Davis, who is editor of The Reader magazine, decided to have a look at the neuroscience underlying that.

Functional shift was small and tight enough for experimentation. Up until now the main cognitive research done on the confusion of verbs and nouns has been to do with mistakes made by those who are brain-damaged. But hardly anybody appears to have investigated the neural processing of a 'positive error', such as functional shift in normal healthy people. We decided to try to see what happens when the brain comes upon these sudden new formulations in Shakespeare. We would use three pieces of kit. First, EEG (electroencephalogram) tests, with electrodes placed on different parts of the scalp to measure brain-events taking place in time; later, MEG (magnetoencephalography), an imaging technique using a helmet-like brain-scanner which measures effects in terms of location in the brain as well as their timing; and finally fMRI (functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging), which uses those tunnel-like brain-scanners that focus even more specifically on brain-activation by location. Together with my English Language colleague, Victorina Gonzalez-Diaz, I set up forty of the following four-sentence stimuli based upon Shakespeare, where 'A' is the control sentence or basic norm, making both grammatical and semantic sense; 'B' the Shakespearian functional shift (in this case adapted from Coriolanus 5.3); 'C' a functional shift in syntax but one that doesn't make sense in context; and 'D' a formulation that has no grammatical shift but still doesn't make sense semantically. People undergoing the experiment simply had to press a button if the sentence roughly made sense to them.

A) This old man loved me above the measure of a father, nay, deified me indeed.

This old man loved me above the measure of a father, nay, godded me indeed.

C) This old man loved me above the measure of a father, nay, charcoaled me indeed.

D) This old man loved me above the measure of a father, nay, poured me indeed.

What happened?

Davis distinguishes between two types of sentence violations whose effects, once perceived, are registered in the brain: semantic violation (= the sentence doesn't make sense, called N400) and syntactic violation (= the sentence makes sense but doesn't read right, called P600). You can read the details here, but you won't be surprised to learn that the EEG picked up

A) no reaction to A

a high P600 reaction to B "(because it feels like a grammatical anomaly) but no N400 (the brain will tolerate it, almost straightaway, as making sense despite the grammatical difficulty)."

C) Both N400 and P600 were high because the sentence is both ungrammatical and meaningless.

D) No P600 reaction because the sentence is grammatical but high N400 because it makes no sense.

Davis concludes that

... functional shift is what the scientists call a robust phenomenon: that is to say, it has a distinct and unique effect on the brain. Instinctively Shakespeare was right to use it as one of his dramatic mental tools.

(Mind you, if Davis had concluded from his research that Shakespeare was wrong to use functional shift, I would conclude that Davis should stay in neuroscience and not attempt to make a living as a playwright.)

What's fascinating is that Shakespeare may have been tapping into a feature of brain organization to achieve his effect. Davis suggests:

... some neuroscientists believe that there is one area of the brain that processes nouns and a different area of the brain that processes verbs. Too often people suppose that brain experimentation is reductive, mechanically localising 'love', for example, to a specific part of the brain. But look at this case: supposing that nouns and verb are indeed separately localised, what happens when the brain is momentarily stunned by a functional shift that it cannot immediately identify as noun or verb? Then the brain is pressured into working at a higher adaptive level of conscious evolution, paradoxically undetermined by the localised laws and structures it nonetheless still works from.

Conscious evolution ... I like that. Alfred Russel Wallace would have liked it too.

Non-reductive research may shed light on how some stylistic devices draw a crowd - and others empty the theatre faster than a fire alarm, as people are suddenly seized with a conviction that watching shirts dry on the clothesline is way more interesting.

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Philosopher: Why you cannot be both an evolutionist and a materialist

Coffee break! Why two heads are NOT better than one!

The Spiritual Brain: Vindicating Alfred Russel Wallace, the "other" discoverer of natural selection?

Neuroscience: why the carrot and the stick motivates donkeys but not people

Religion: It got started to avoid the spread of disease?

Prayer: Asking for more than healing

Prayer: Are studies of intercessory prayer an insult to God?

What we see is as much reality as we can deal with

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

By Robert Deyes

In April of 2008 I was fortunate enough to attend a seminar entitled 'Evolving Intelligent Behavior In Digital Organisms' presented by Michigan State University philosopher Robert Pennock (1). This seminar was part of the larger Bioethics Forum that this year carried the noteworthy title 'Evolution In The 21st Century' and included the likes of NCSE executive director Eugenie Scott and theologian John Haught in its star-studded cast. Pennock kicked off his seminar by talking about Paley's famous 'watchmaker' quote, subsequently claiming that Darwin had shown how complex biological phenomena could occur naturally through the process of evolution (1). He provided examples of several computer-based models that apparently demonstrated evolution in action including John Holland's 'genetic algorithm', Tony Ray's 'Tierra' and Chris Adami's and Titus Brown's AVIDA (1). Indeed AVIDA was the model that Pennock focused on for most of the rest of his talk describing it as a 2-D world containing organisms with virtual genomes and a so-called 'logic-based metabolism' (1). Organisms were selected for according to their ability to perform basic logic functions such as inverting and copying binary sequences.

In their 2003 Nature paper entitled 'The evolutionary origin of complex features' Richard Lenski and colleagues likewise presented AVIDA as a computer program that simulated biological evolution using 'digital organisms' that over time developed and were selected for their ability to perform increasingly complex logic commands (ie: NOT, AND, OR, EQU) (2). These logic commands were performed on 32-bit strings of information which supposedly paralleled the survival experiences that creatures might encounter in our own world. Just as with real creatures, digital organisms competed for food in the form of energy 'tablets' called SIPs (Single Instruction Processing Units). The more SIPs a digital organism was able to consume the more energy it had to both copy its genome and develop logic-based phenotypes that would allow it to compete. And yet what was most striking about this paper was the repertoire of already-existing capabilities that these organisms were provided with before beginning life in AVIDA. To be precise, organisms started off already endowed with virtual genomes, the ability to replicate and one of the necessary Logic commands that would enable them to function and be selected for. As Lenski and colleagues wrote:

"Experiments began with an ancestor that could replicate.... All organisms were identical and obtained equal energy to execute their genomic programs, including the copy commands by which a genome replicates itself one instruction at a time."(2)

Equally striking were the computational merits that were awarded to digital organisms whenever they performed particular logic functions. NOT and AND functions for example were given a computational merit of 2 while 'EQUALS' was given a merit of 32. It seems that even evolutionary biologists would have a problem here since their claim is that in real life, what constitutes evolutionary fitness is never pre-specified. No single trait gives an organism an absolute merit value for every type of situation it encounters. So rather than demonstrating Darwinian natural selection, AVIDA appeared to show what happens in a teleological world where goals and purpose are front-loaded into the fabric of life.

Of course, front loading a system so that it tends towards a desired end through a selective process has its practical uses. Indeed, in recent years there has been a push to develop systems- particularly electronic circuits- that are able to resist extreme changes in conditions (3). No more is this true than for the circuits of spacecraft such as Cassini where extreme environmental conditions are part of reality in space. As science writer Anil Ananthaswamy has pointed out, spacecraft like Cassini and the Galileo orbiter can suffer tremendously from radiation that sends their electrical circuitry haywire (3). Engineers are now looking at ways in which such systems can heal themselves by including the use of evolutionary software based on genetic algorithms that repairs damaged circuits (3). Together with his colleagues Didier Keymeulen and Ricardo Salem Zebulum, Adrian Stoica from the Jet Propulsion laboratory has shown how computers can be made to search for alternative circuits whenever a circuit is broken or disrupted (3). In short, computers have been designed to find new, fitter circuits in the event of catastrophe. But to what extent does this example represent a paradigm for Darwinian evolution? For sure, the evolutionary software loaded onto the computers searches through genetic algorithms to find new, 'fitter' circuits that can replace ones that have been damaged. The work of Stoica and his colleagues is thus truly a marvel of science for it does show how a system can repair itself without recourse to human intervention. Yet to say that it parallels the process of natural selection is to overstate the mark given the specified information that is front loaded into the software that allows it to direct the evolving circuit to a specified configuration. If anything what we see here is an example of goal directed evolution- precisely what Darwinian evolution purports not to be.

At the end of Pennock's talk I asked him what his thoughts were on William Dembski's demonstration that across an entire fitness landscape, evolutionary solutions are actually quite rare and therefore unlikely to be found through a simple random search (4). His answer was that while organisms in AVIDA could never be expected to search an entire fitness landscape, they do eventually find evolutionary solutions. I remained unconvinced after having watched a world imbued with purpose unfold before my very eyes. Pennock had after all done a quick demonstration of AVIDA during his seminar. AVIDA seemed to rely on an established 'fitness function' (5) in the form of merit scores, being preset into its programming. With its teleological foundations and its Logic-based methodology one could say that AVIDA represented nothing more than a Teleo-LOGIC model of life.

References And Notes
1. 7th Annual International Bioethics Forum: Evolution in the 21st Century, BioPharmaceutical Technology Center, Madison, WI, April 17-18, 2008

2. Richard E. Lenski, Charles Ofria, Robert T. Pennock, Christoph Adami, The Evolutionary Origin Of Complex Features, Nature, Volume 423, pp. 139-144

3. Anil Ananthaswamy, (2001), Space Babies, New Scientist 3rd February, 2001 pp. 26-30

4. William Dembski (2002), No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, Lanham, Maryland, pp. 212-213

5. In 'No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence', William Dembski describes a fitness function as "the univalent measure defined with reference to the phase space and needing to be optimized" with the phase space being a reference class of possible solutions across an evolutionary landscape. As Dembski subsequently notes, "the task of an evolutionary algorithm is to locate a possible solution where the fitness function attains at least a certain level of fitness", (See Ref 4, p. 187).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Warwick U sociologist Steve Fuller, author of Dissent over Descent, and I have been corresponding about how scientists who are sympathetic to intelligent design can make a bigger impact, and what the next generation of ID textbooks should look like.

Me: So what should the ID guys do? Create a complex life form from scratch in under 100 days? That would show that intelligent design is required. Nature never done that. But if they can't do it, does that prove intelligent design is not necessary? I don't think so.

He: First, ID needs to stop living up to its critics’ image of the movement as purely negative, i.e. ‘not-evolution’. Because ID has been largely cultivated in a US context, ID supporters have been reluctant to admit theology’s role in informing ID’s scientific imagination.

As a result, and especially when under pressure, ID has tended to focus exclusively on the very real problems in Neo-Darwinism. But not surprisingly, to a disinterested observer, this looks opportunistic and even disingenuous, as it suggests that ID is justified simply if Neo-Darwinism has enough holes it can’t plug.

Me: Yes, I see what you mean. Bear in mind, however, that the icons of evolution I grew up with are mostly exploded now. For example,

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A research scientist friend writes to tell me about yet another example of Darwinism as a science stopper:

These scientists found that the antifreeze proteins of diverse species of fish are nearly identical. But they don't share a recent common ancestor. So even though they say that the chance of such similar proteins emerging in unrelated species is "vanishingly small" they would not think of seeing this as evidence for design; no, they propose another option. They think the genes for antifreeze proteins jumped from one species to another.

[ ... ]

And why is the Economist promoting Evolution?

Well actually, friend, The Economist is promoting magic.

Increasingly, as far as I can see, evolution is treated as magic. It is the all-purpose explanation whenever we come across anything in the world whose origin we don't understand. "Evolution" (an immense, undefined power) dunit.

While plants and bacteria do swap genes, the idea that fish would swap them is certainly novel. From the article:

Fish species swap genes in a way that looks a bit like genetic engineering

SOME fish have special proteins in their blood to stop them from freezing to death—a remarkable evolutionary trait made no less so by the fact that biologists have known about it for some time. How this trait spread, though, turns out to be even more remarkable. If Peter Davies of Queen’s University in Ontario and his colleagues are right, it demonstrates in fish an evolutionary mechanism hitherto seen mainly in bacteria, viruses and genetic-engineering laboratories.

But okay, let's go there for a moment.

The male fish typically fertilizes the eggs after the female lays them. So gene swapping via escaped sperm is theoretically possible. (Whether it ever really happens is another story. )

If genes can truly jump between fish, as they can between plants, that would make ancestry irrelevant - hardly good news for the Darwinism the researchers are trying to save!

Think how much effort goes into tracing the ancestry of various fish species from earlier species. But gene swapping/protein swapping - assuming it actually happens in fish - would make such efforts irrelevant or time wasting. The occurrence of common traits between species of fish would not be proof of their common ancestry.

One reason that Darwinism is approaching a crisis is that Darwinists can only fend off design by adopting ideas that are almost as damaging to their basic thesis.

I wonder when they will try to tell me that park pigeons and dumpster raccoons swap genes without mating ... which is why [insert just-so story here .... ]

Also at The Post-Darwinist

Roundup, plus, Focus, guys, focus: To restore civil rights, get our laws changed, don't attack individuals

Look out math nerd world: Legacy media poised to force girls on you!

Bring out your inner lab rat: Take this test to find out if you are truly an intelligent design type - or not

Excellent readers, for once your opinion on intelligent design is wanted

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

by Kevin Wirth
ARN Director of Product Development
August 7, 2008

In a recent Washington Post article titled "Evolving Toward a Compromise" by Amy Binder and John H. Evans (Saturday, July 26, 2008, p. A15) the authors make several assertions and claims about issues related to Intelligent Design and science education that are in dire need of reassessment. You can read the article here

First, they note that a proposal before the Texas Board of Education calls for the inclusion of "strengths and weaknesses" of evolution, but then state that the proposal is "understood" by nearly everyone to be a "strategic effort to get around First Amendment restrictions on teaching religion in science class."

One wonders what Binder and Evans could possibly mean when they state that the effect of implementing the proposals before the Texas Board of Education could help promoters "get around" the First Amendment, and how it could possibly include "teaching religion in science class." The proposal before the Board clearly and unequivocally addresses improving science education, but does call for clarification and honesty about the issues related to evolution. Are Binder and Evans suggesting there is no need to address such concerns? If so, the majority of Americans would disagree with that assessment.[1] And, exactly how does the Texas proposal advocate teaching religion in our school science classes? Evans and Binder don't take the time to elaborate.

For one thing, the presentation of the evidence for speculative stories about historical evolution is in dire need of a much more forthright presentation. Students have been taught for decades now that all the evidence for the fact of historical evolution is clear and well established. However, anyone who bothers to read the books written by leading experts in paleontology, for example, will see plenty of cause for concern with promoting such a view. The degree and depth of controversy, and lack of consensus about how nearly every vertebrate evolved would provide any student (much less the rest of us) with a hefty dose of reasonable skepticism about any claim that historical evolution is well established. Reading those accounts provides insight into the futility most paleontologists and other scientists encounter as they imaginatively place round evidence into square holes while attempting to reconstruct how the various vertebrate groups evolved.

These accounts are nothing less than stunning in their admissions of ignorance. Is anyone reading this stuff? What about Binder and Evans?

From reading such books (PS - none of them were written by folks with a "religious" agenda), it's pretty clear that historical evolution is most firmly established in the imaginations of those who promote the idea (see the sample reading list at the end of this article). There are almost endless suggestions about the evolutionary history of the vertebrates, but far less consensus exists than the average American is led to believe by most staunch defenders of Darwinian views.

Reading these books reveals that we don't know who the first true bird was, we have no clue how the "land egg" developed, or where the jawed fishes came from, and we have no idea who the precursors of Trilobites (arguably the most numerous fossilized critter on the planet) were. And this is just for starters! A more thorough reading reveals the massive depth and extent of our collective ignorance concerning how, when, and where most vertebrates evolved. Like I said, taken all together, it's stunningly and incredibly clear how little we really know about the historical evolution of the vertebrates.

Surely such things are worth pointing out to students, and they just as surely have nothing at all to do with "religion." Is this what Binder and Evans suggest amounts to a "watering down" of evolution? I'd say there isn't much water to begin with (but plenty of hot air...), and it's worth noting that the advocates of Intelligent Design didn't write this stuff.

Next, Binder and Evans go on to say that a constant drubbing of Intelligent Design advocates may be counter productive, as "crushing one's opponents...can create feelings of persecution and solidarity among them and deepen their commitment to their cause." They go on to suggest that such an approach may not be the best tactic to "protect the science curriculum or the separation of church and state."

I find it interesting that many Darwinians expect us to accept historical evolution as fact when it is based on speculations built upon conjectures mixed with extrapolations - and admonish those of us who would dare be skeptical of such claims. They expect us all to agree with invisible evidence concocted from guesswork, but when there is a real issue to be dealt with (ie, discrimination against Darwin Doubters), they say it's just a figment of our imagination. Such as the suggestion that "feelings" of persecution are being generated by Darwin skeptics who are in fact losing their careers and are being summarily expunged from academia all across America.

These are not "feelings" of persecution - the very real persecution against Darwin skeptics is a widespread FACT that Binder and Evans for some reason seem unable to admit. I'll soon be publishing a book on this subject by Dr. Jerry Bergman called "Slaughter of the Dissidents"(due out in August, 2008)[2]. This book clearly documents what these alleged "feelings of persecution" actually look like in the real world case studies where degrees are denied and belief in evolution is required if you plan to keep your career in many fields of science. We're talking rampant and widespread discrimination, not just some allegations of hurt "feelings" from people with a need to bond with others who share the same persecution complex.

This is a real issue in dire need of being corrected in our culture if the "free exercise clause" of the First Amendment means anything at all. The practice of rejecting Darwin skeptics has been well documented for decades, but has only recently begun to percolate into the sphere of public consciousness.

"There are certainly a good number of scientists who now reject the concepts of evolution -- not on religious grounds, but on strictly scientific grounds. Most of them are keeping their own council. Outwardly they support evolution (so as to be in step with their peers) but inwardly they have second thoughts on the subject. It is not too easy to take a stand against the beliefs of the majority, and expose oneself to ridicule, especially when one's job and academic and professional prospects are on the line. It is only the very brave and those highly placed scientists whose standings are universally acknowledged (and thus, secure) that can afford to contradict the general trend."

Cohen, I.L. 1984. Darwin Was Wrong - A Study in Probabilities. New Research Publications, Inc. New York, p.213-214.

Finally, Binder and Evans make the rather lame claim that we should allow educators to explain to students that Evolution does not teach values, suggesting that "We are not asking teachers to discuss what morality should look like but, rather, to explain that morality does not logically flow from evolutionary theory."

Um... wrong again, and incredibly so. Naturalistic evolution when advocated as a fact beyond question (which is how it is typically presented to students today) cannot help BUT teach a moral view. That would include the notion that if life is the product of chance naturalistic and purposeless processes, then logically none of us have any reason to hold to ANY morals whatsoever, except those which we in a democracy deem necessary for civil co-existence. Whatever your views of morality might be, the notion of not having any moral accountability is significantly different from the implications one might reach if we consider the possibility of a moral accountability to, say, a Creator.

Besides, why should our schools teach as fact an unproven and unfalsifiable notion (like historical evolution) and thereby provide students with an excuse to reach the conclusions of ardent evolutionist Aldous Huxley, who based his life on the premise (fueled by evolutionary assumptions) that he had no moral accountability whatsoever:

"I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

Huxley, Aldous. 1937. Ends and Means: An Inquiry Into the Nature of Ideals and Into the Methods Employed for their Realization. Harper and Brothers, New York, p.270.

Binder and Evans provide us with a remarkably ignorant assessment of not only the facts, context, and meaning associated with the important issues surrounding this debate, but also offer us vacuous remedies which I hope my readers will recognize as sorely ill advised.

[1] One-third of Americans think evolution is 'definitely false'; over half lean one way or another or aren't sure. Only 14% expressed unequivocal support for evolution. PLoS Biol 4(5): e167 - http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040167

[2] Bergman, Jerry. 2008. Slaughter of the Dissidents, Leafcutter Press, Port Orchard, WA. www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

Some of the books that show the depth of how little scientists really know about the evolution of vertebrates include:

Anderson, Jason S., and Hans-Dieter Sues. 2007. Major Transitions in Vertebrate Evolution. Indiana University Press

Feduccia, Alan. 1999. The Origin and Evolution of Birds. Yale University Press.

Stahl, Barbara. 1985. Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution. NY: Dover Publications.

Seattle area writer, publisher, and Darwin skeptic Kevin Wirth is the editor and publisher of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents: The Shocking Truth About Killing the Careers of Darwin Doubters" by Dr. Jerry Bergman. He has investigated and researched issues related to the persecution of Darwin skeptics since 1982.

by John Calvert [1]
July 28, 2008

Elliott Sober's July 2008 article titled Evolution without Naturalism, addresses concerns of Theistic Evolutionists[2]. Many have tried to reconcile God and evolution by thinking of evolution as a guided process - one in which God intervenes from time to time to guide it for a purpose. However, evolutionary theory is a materialistic theory of origins. It posits an unguided process, driven by random variations and natural "selection." The random interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces supposedly account for life, not the guiding mind of a creator. Sober suggests they can reconcile the conflict by believing in a "stealth God," whose non-detectable "interventions fly below the radar of evolutionary biology."

A guided process is one directed by a mind to achieve a goal conceived by the mind. The construction of a bird's nest is guided by the mind of a bird for a purpose - to incubate eggs. An unguided process is one not related to a mind. It merely reflects random interactions of the properties of matter, energy and the forces. Imagine a drop of rain falling onto the surface of a placid pond. The resulting perfect circle that appears on the surface of the pond is the product of an unguided process driven simply by the interactions of matter (the drop of rain) being pulled by the force of gravity into a substance having the properties of a liquid to impose a force on the liquid that results in a perfect circular ripple. The ripple is not due to a guiding mind. It just occurs due to a series of material causes for no purpose.

The Theistic Evolutionist has two concerns with life arising from an unguided process. An unguided process driven only by mindless material causes cannot result in a purposeful effect as purpose derives only from a mind. This is true even of a purposeless process set in motion by a mind. I can close my eyes and let my fingers randomly fly over the keys to make a pattern like this: 'i gf h h''[ qgu vn It is one devoid of meaning, because the fingers were not guided by a mind to create one. They just flew randomly. If life is just an occurrence that results from an unguided purposeless process, then it has no inherent purpose, even if set in motion by a mind.

Furthermore, if all the relevant evidence reflects an unguided process, then faith in a stealth god who leaves behind no evidence of his work lacks a rational basis. In that case, we all have a clear "excuse" for non-belief. Any belief in a God is then based only on faith and not in part on a rational analysis of the available evidence. Such a faith is called fideism. This is a concern for the theist in her religious competition with non-theists over the mind of her son. Atheists and "Secular" Humanists will tell her son that Atheism/Humanism is evidence based and rational, while the theistic belief of his mother is not – it is based on faith and mythology.

Sober’s response ignores the chief concern - that an unguided process produces purposeless effects. Instead, he first argues that in some respects evolution may be directed rather than random. But that is not helpful, because even a river is directed in the sense that the law of gravity directs it to flow into the sea. The issue is whether it is directed by a mind. If not, then the process is not guided.

He then finesses the point by arguing that the "theory does not entail" an unguided process. Hence, it does not "deny" God. It leaves room for a God who just "flies under the radar of evolutionary biology:"

"Theistic evolutionists can of course be deists, holding that God starts the universe in motion and then forever after declines to intervene. But there is no contradiction in their embracing a more active God whose post Creation interventions fly under the radar of evolutionary biology. Divine intervention isn't part of science, but the theory of evolution does not entail that none occur."

The argument that evolution does not deny God is the same odd claim made by Judge Jones in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. Can a theory ever "entail" or "require" any effect? Theories, unlike doctrines, don't entail anything. Even rigorously tested theories invite challenge. The argument that the theory does not deny God, is a strawman. No one is arguing that the theory denies God. The question is whether, if true, it makes God irrelevant. If evolution does the work of God why believe in Him? Why not worship the world from which life arises, rather than an irrelevant non-detectable spirit?

Curiously, however, evolutionary theory as applied, does entail the impermissible effect - the denial of God. This is because the radar it uses is calibrated to never detect an intelligent cause. Hence, when confronted with the question: Where do we come from? its internal dogma will invariably yield only one answer: Life arises from unguided material causes. The radar does entail that a non-God answer be given to the mother's impressionable young son.

Interestingly, the use of this kind of radar is not scientifically necessary. Today, science employs "radars" that do differentiate between patterns that have been guided by choices made by a mind -- "artifacts" -- against those that just arise from the random interactions of matter, energy and the forces. Jacques Monod, in Chance and Necessity[3], describes a mechanism that does that. His radar easily distinguishes artifacts produced by a guided process from physical objects like quartz crystals that just occur due to an unguided chemical process.

I mention Monod, because Sober"s article is inspired by Monod’s essay. Monod noted that the distinctive aspect of an artifact is its "purpose" or "structural teleonomy." Since purpose derives only from a mind and cannot be produced just by mindless chemistry, physics and chance, Monod’s radar implicates mind when it detects "structural teleonomy," function or purpose. The parts of an eye are related to the same function as the parts of a mind-produced camera. Science actually uses Monod's radar in a number of its investigations. SETI scientists use it to distinguish between guided and unguided radio and light waves. Archeologists, anthropologists, coroners and arson investigators use similar "radars" to look for evidence that implicates the prior activity of a mind. Did the effect arise from mind or matter - from intelligent or natural causes? Monod's radar gives off a loud signal when it scans the lengthy coded messages of living organisms that are translated into precisely integrated functional complexity.

However, the radar used by evolutionary biology has been modified to add an "on-off" switch. The switch turns off the radar's ability to detect "structural teleonomy" or evidence showing that an effect might have been the product of a guided process. When the switch is "off" the radar will only collect evidence of unguided material causes. After noting that this creates a "profound epistemological contradiction," Monod lumped the remaining explanatory causes into two categories - chance and necessity.

If the detector says one of the two causes is absent, then the other must be present. This is because chance and necessity provide the only two possible causal explanations for life. When Monod applied this modified radar to DNA with the switch off, it showed him that the nucleotide sequences that comprise the messages in DNA are not caused by chemistry - by necessity. This is because the four ACTG nucleotide symbols used to carry the coded messages are like four different colored clothes pins hanging on a sugar-phosphate clothesline - they can be hung in any order and therefor have no necessary physical or chemical relationship to one another. Their relationship is physically independent but functionally dependent. A given function depends on the correct sequence, not chemistry. Since the switched off radar rules out necessity, then it necessarily reports the sequences that account for life are just "random occurrences:"

"We call these [mutation] events accidental; we say that they are random occurrences. And since they constitute the only possible source of modifications in the genetic text, itself the sole repository of the organism's hereditary structures, it necessarily follows that chance alone is at the source of every innovation, of all creation in the biosphere. Pure chance, absolutely free and blind, at the very root of the stupendous edifice of evolution: this central concept of modern biology is no longer one among other possible or even conceivable hypotheses. It is today the sole conceivable hypothesis, the only one that squares with observed and tested fact."

But this is surely an odd test! A radar whose "structural teleonomy" switch has been flipped off does not test for the "source of innovation." It tests for nothing, since it omits consideration of a hypothesis suggested by the evidence. It is a radar calibrated to advise that life arises from material causes. It then looks for the best of the available material cause explanations. Chance becomes the answer by default, when the machine fails to detect chemical necessity for the messages of life. One doesn't even need to do a statistical analysis to test the plausibility of the chance conclusion. It can't be wrong, because it is the only remaining causal explanation. Like Hollywood, natural selection, with lots of faith and imagination, no observation, experiment or statistical analysis and no permitted competitor, can weave any story needed to make the implausible appear plausible.

Sober uses the same sort of radar. He flips the switch off so that it won’t look for design or a guided process because:

"The problem is that we can't assess what probability the ID hypothesis confers ... unless we have independently justified information about the goals and abilities the putative designer would have if there were such a being. And we have no such information (Sober 2008b, Chapter 2)."

His argument doesn't follow. Even though we can't know a particular mind, we do know generally how minds work and the kinds of patterns they manifest to produce desired functions. Minds integrate future events for intended functions. The existence of the prior intention is often manifested in the physical world through patterns of tightly integrated elements or symbols that have recognizable functions. Often the precise intention is obscure because the function is obscure. However, without knowing the precise intention, the probability that mind rather than chance and necessity were at work, can often be reasonably calculated. Coroners, arson investigators, archeologists, and SETI scientists reliably test patterns for mind. The activity of a mind at work is most clearly manifested by writings, whose very function is to reveal an intention of a mind. Before discovery of the Rosetta Stone, no one would deny the hieroglyphics on the temples at Luxor were the products of mind, even if the "goals and abilities of the putative" minds couldn't be independently determined. The messages in DNA are like writings, except they are translated with a ribosome rather than a Rosetta Stone. Observed data allow us to attribute intelligence not only to humans, but to birds and animals. Even cellular systems like the immune system reveal a kind of intelligence at work.

So, why flip the switch to the off position when the question is Where do we come from? What is the scientific benefit of flipping the switch off and then telling the child there is no tested evidence of a mind that may have made his life possible?

Why not tell the child and the Theistic Evolutionist that there is an off switch on the radar? When it is flipped on, the way we use it in our day-to-day affairs, it reveals strong evidence that life comes from mind. When we flip it off to exclude evidence of mind, it shows no evidence that will support God, because it is designed to do exactly that.

What should be said to the child when he asks, "why not leave the switch on?" Why shouldn't we know about evidence that implies that life comes from mind?

The standard answer is that we can't have "religion" in science. That seems absurd to the child's mom, because religion dogmatically relates human life to the world in which it is lived. When the switch is off, the radar dogmatically relates human life to matter, not mind. That conclusion is the foundation for many religions, including Atheism, and "Secular" Humanism. Hence, when the structural teleonomy switch is off, the radar produces a religious effect. It entails a non-God, material cause effect.

Interestingly, a truly scientific effect is achieved only with the switch on. When the switch is on, the radar is not required to relate life to any particular cause. It collects the data and analyzes it with an open mind, generating only probabilistic answers that may change over time as new data is analyzed. This open-minded calibration produces a scientific effect, not a dogmatic religious effect. The on switch removes religion from science, while the off switch inserts it.

The scientist who turns the radar off to remove "religion" from "science" incorrectly defines religion as only belief that life comes from God. Religion also includes beliefs that God is non-existent or irrelevant because life just arises "from unguided evolutionary change." This is the key tenet of the Humanist Manifesto. He also fails to recognize that the key distinction between science and religion is in their methods. Religion is dogmatic while science is supposed to be unbiased and open-minded. The radar used by Sober and Monod which entails a no-God conclusion, is not an instrument of science. It is a dogmatic instrument of materialistic religions.

The concerns of the Theistic Evolutionist are valid. We should study life science with the switch on so that we can test all the hypotheses suggested by the data. Science should not seek to limit theistic belief to an irrelevant stealth God that flies under a rigged radar. It should throw out the radar and use one calibrated to conduct a rigorously objective and open minded investigation of a question key to all religions. That kind of radar would achieve the goals of both religion and science.

[1] John Calvert is an attorney specializing in constitutionally appropriate methods for teaching origins science in public education. He has a degree in Geology and is the Managing Director of Intelligent Design network, inc., an organization that seeks institutional objectivity in origins science.

[2] Elliott Sober, Evolution Without Naturalism ("Evolution without Naturalism ." In J. Kvanvig (ed.), Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion, volume 3, forthcoming. http://philosophy.wisc.edu:80/sober/recent.html

[3] Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity, an Essay on the Natural Philosophy of Modern Biology, (Vintage Books, 1972).

By Robert Deyes

John Heilbron's and William Bynum's article '1902 and all that' provided a selection of some of the most prominent discoveries in science over the last few hundred years (Ref 1). To name but a few, Heilbron and Bynum presented Tyco Brahe's accurate positioning of 777 stars in 1602 and Thomas Bartholin's 1652 description of the human lymphatic system (Ref 1). They likewise expounded on Edward Sabine's 1852 discovery of a link between the occurrence of sunspots and variations in the earth's magnetic field as well as Louis Pasteur's announcement of an Anthrax vaccine in 1881. Conspicuous within Heilbron's and Bynum's listing was Stanley Miller's and Harold Urey's 1952 spark discharge experiment which they claimed represented a pioneering achievement in our understanding of the origins of life (Ref 1). What they failed to mention was that this and subsequent prebiotic simulation experiments brought forward too many fundamental (and sometimes unreasonable) expectations about the conditions that would have been prevalent in the early earth (Ref 2). A number of destructive forces and diluting interactions would have decimated the overall concentration of life's building blocks on our earth 3.9 billion years ago (Ref 2).

Of course we have no way of knowing with absolute certainty what the relative frequencies of chemicals, necessary for the biosynthesis of amino-acids, would have been in a hypothetical prebiotic soup since no one was there to see it. To adopt The Economist science editor Geoffrey Carr's catch phrase, what we are dealing with here is "a mountain of theory built on a molehill of evidence" (Ref 3). Nevertheless based on our current knowledge of chemistry we should assume the worst- a disordered, dilute gemish rather than an ordered reaction chamber of purified components and isolated ingredients (Ref 2).

At the end of 2002, two prominent researchers from the Scripps Research Institute, John Reader and Gerald Joyce, took prebiotic chemistry one stage further by generating an RNA 'enzyme'- a Ribozyme- that used only two bases rather than the four we see in DNA today (Ref 4). This was heralded as a major breakthrough in prebiotic chemistry experimentation since, for the first time, there was some indication that early life could have begun using a much simpler genetic code- one made up of only two subunits. Reader and Joyce published their work in Nature at the end of 2002 describing in detail how their so-called 'binary ribozyme' had been generated through successive rounds of in vitro evolution. Such a selective process eventually resulted in efficient catalysts with activities akin to those of cellular enzymes called polymerases (Ref 4).

Parallels were immediately drawn between Reader's and Joyce's experiments and Darwinian natural selection. Since the single cell itself is home to a host of metabolic processes life, according to Reader and Joyce, must have begun in a much simpler form from which it subsequently evolved (Ref 4). The binary code ribozyme thus appeared to present one possible model for explaining how early life may have at one time existed. Needless to say their results did not confirm that a binary genetic code had ever existed. Reader and Joyce themselves stressed that their study did not prove life had started this way (Ref 4). Investigator involvement was clearly influential in assuring the success of the experiment. As with prebiotic simulations the specific components were isolated from other ingredients that would have been present in the 'gemish' of a theoretical prebiotic soup. Here too, destructive processes would have played a fundamental role in diluting out the components of a potentially emerging binary code. The fallacy of the claim that a Darwinian parallel was operational in these experiments was all too obvious when one recalls that natural selection, by its very nature, defines a process based on random mutations that lacks any purpose and direction. Reader and Joyce on the other hand perfected their design as they sought to achieve their 'efficient ribozyme', carefully directing and orchestrating their reactions in the process (Ref 4).

One review of evolutionary biology debates noted how theories on life's origins assume so much while at the same time demonstrating so little about how naturalistic processes could have lead to the first cell (Ref 5). The text book 'Molecular Biology Of The Cell', that is today used by many scientists in the fields of biochemistry, molecular biology and cell biology, added a mountain of speculation to the origin of life debate by proposing that complex biochemical pathways in living cells arose through the successive addition of steps in a reverse order with the final steps of a given pathway appearing first in the evolutionary scheme (Ref 6). For those that accept such a view, the challenge is clear- there is no reason to think that the chemical intermediates would necessarily be available in a hypothetical prebiotic soup simply floating around for gradual incorporation into the early cell's biochemical pathways (Ref 7, p.152). Vital cellular processes such as protein synthesis likewise challenge the concept of a gradual piece-meal assembly of the cell, revealing instead integrated components that must work together to achieve their end function (Ref 8, pp.856-864; pp.896-930). Indeed genes use a genetic code made up of triplet codons- sequences of three bases long in the DNA- that specify which amino acids will get incorporated into a protein during translation (Ref 8, p.900).

The bases in the coding DNA and the amino acids that make up the protein never 'see each other' but are indirectly linked by the message, the messenger RNA, which presents a copy of the code to the translation machinery (Ref 8, pp.924-926). A critical problem arises in the Darwinian model when one considers that gradually altering the genetic code to provide the full complement of amino acid coding triplets would most likely be lethal to any organism simply because such alterations would impact the very proteins that make up the translation machinery. In the words of physicist Paul Davies,

"a change in the code risks feeding back into the very translation machinery that implements it, leading to a catastrophic feedback of errors that would wreck the whole process. To have accurate translation, the cell must first translate accurately". (Ref 9)

Carl Woese has proposed that the amino acid assignments of the genetic code and that the translation mechanisms somehow evolved together (Ref 9). According to Woese, early cells could make do with a sloppy, translation system that lacked fidelity (Ref 9). Yet it seems that a mechanism that faithlessly introduced new amino acids into its own manufacturing process would be much more likely to spiral into a negative feedback loop of destruction than generate any functional improvements. In their discussions on robustness and complexity, J.M Carlson and John Doyle wrote as much

"The simplest bacteria have hundreds of genes. Much simpler CPUs, computers, networks, jets, and cars can be and have been built. What is lost in these simpler systems is not their basic functionality but their robustness. By robustness, we mean the maintenance of some desired system characteristics despite fluctuations in the behavior of its component parts or its environment" (Ref 10).

In other words, hypothetical, precursor translation mechanisms such as those suggested by Woese would be more likely to suffer from fluctuations in the behavior of their component parts than complex, refined machines. Such a lack of robustness clearly argues against Woese's theory of an initial sloppy evolution. Today we know that the translation machinery of the eukaryotic cell is as elegant as it is complex. Indeed one review noted the following machine-like qualities of the ribosome and its ability to correct for errors in translation:

"During the translation of genes to proteins, molecules known as transfer RNAs or tRNAs dock along another RNA molecule, an mRNA, within the ribosome and deliver an amino acid building block to a growing protein. The mRNA codes for each amino acid using a unique codon: a sequence of three adjacent nucleotides in the genetic code....millions of interactions allow an amino acid to navigate into place during the protein-building process....the tRNA has an extra hinge where it holds the amino acid. There also appears to be a special loop in the ribosome through which the end of the tRNA must writhe. If the tRNA codon is misaligned with the mRNA-say, if only two of three RNA bits are correctly matched-the tRNA might hit this loop as it passes" (Ref 11).

A hypothetical cellular translation mechanism that translated inaccurately would lead to a catastrophic loss of functionality. Looking back at Heilbron's and Bynum's list of the historical achievements of science we would do well to reconsider what we truly do know about the origin and evolution of life. As with transcription and translation, contemporary science is revealing precision design in the cellular 'goings on' that defies a naturalistic explanation (Ref 7). More than anybody, those that have contributed to the scientific evidence undergirding the intelligent design movement should be heralded as the great scientists of our day.

References

1. J.L. Heilbron and W.F. Bynum (2002), 1902 and all that, Nature, Vol. 415, pp. 15 -18

2. Charles B Thaxton, Walter L Bradley Roger L Olsen (1984), The Mystery of Life's Origin, Reassessing Current Theories, 2nd Edition, Published by Lewis and Stanley, Dallas, Texas, pp.42-67

3. Geoffrey Carr (2002), The Myth-Makers, The Economist, January 5th, 2002, pp 51-62

4. John S. Reader and Gerald F. Joyce (2002), A ribozyme composed of only two different nucleotides, Nature Vol 420, 841-844

5. Richard Robinson (2005), Jump-Starting a Cellular World: Investigating the Origin of Life, from Soup to Networks, PLoS Biol 3(11): e396

6. Bruce Alberts, Dennis Bray, Julian Lewis Martin Raff, Keith Roberts, James D Watson (1989), Chapter 1 of Molecular Biology of the Cell, Published by Garland Publishing Inc, New York, 2nd Ed, pp. 11-12

7. Michael J Behe (1996), Darwin's Black Box-The Biochemical Challenges to Evolution, 1st Edition Published by Simon and Schuster, New York

8. Donald and Judith Voet (1990), Biochemistry, Published by Wiley, New York

9. Paul Davies (1999), The Fifth Miracle The Search for the Origin and The Meaning of Life, Published by Simon and Schuster, New York, p.111

10. J. M. Carlson and John Doyle (2002), Complexity and Robustness, Proc. Natl. Acad.Sci. USA, Vol. 99, Suppl. 1, pp. 2538-2545

11. Eli Kintisch (2005), Tracing tRNA's Tricky Tango, Science 27 October 2005, see paper at http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2005/1027/2

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

The so-called Copernican revolution was a big theme of Carl Sagan's (= Copernicus showed us that we were not important after all, and Earth is just a "pale blue dot").

A friend points me to mid-twentieth century Brit R. G. Collingwood's accurate assessment of what nonsense that is!:

It is commonly said that its effect was to diminish the importance of the earth in the scheme of things and to teach man that he is only a microscopic parasite on a small speck of cool matter revolving around one of the minor stars. This is an idea both philosophically foolish and historically false. Philosophically foolish, because no philosophical problem, whether connected with the universe, or with man, or the relation between them, is at all affected by considering the relative amount of space they occupy: historically false because the littleness of man in the world has been a familiar theme of reflection. Boethius’s De Consolatione Philosophiae, which has been called the most widely read book of the Middle Ages, contains the following words:

“Thou hast learnt from the astronomical proofs that the whole earth compared with the universe is no greater than a point, that is, compared with the sphere of the heavens, it may only be thought of as having no size at all. Then, of this tiny corner, it is only one-quarter that, according to Ptolemy, is habitable to living things. Take away from this quarter the seas, marshes, and other desert places, and the space left for man hardly even deserves the name of infinitesimal” (Book ii, Prosa vii).

Every educated European for a thousand years before Copernicus knew that passage, and Copernicus had no need to risk condemnation for heresy in order to repeat its substance.

- R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of Nature, Clarendon Press, 1945

My friend writes, "For the record, “a thousand years before Copernicus” is 1500 years before Carl Sagan." Well, yes, but Boethius did not live in the age of spin, and Carl Sagan did. So Sagan's Hollywood continues the spin.

And it spins constantly. We must make a determined effort to get off.

See also: Carl Sagan and celebrity cosmology: Was he the best cosmology could do?

Also just up at Colliding Universes:

Do intelligent design theorists have any predictions about finding life on other planets?

Chance - you mean, it isn't really a "thing"?

Life does not defeat chaos, but outwits it by wisdom (or information)

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

By Robert Deyes

On August 1st, 2008, NASA revealed how its Deep Impact Spacecraft had filmed the moon passing in front of earth from a distance of 31 million miles (Ref 1). The objective of this particular experiment was clear- to see what earth looked like from a distance and to use this result as a means of identifying planets in far off solar systems that might harbor life (Ref 1). Amongst other life-bearing features, the film revealed oceans glinting in the sun light and the infra-red light emissions of plants across the earth's continents. And yet for origin-of-life enthusiasts there remained a crucial question- if basic life forms were indeed found in the distant recesses of our galaxy, what would this really tell us about the inevitability of life's origins on earth?

'Life, Life Everywhere' was the title of a 1996 article in Scientific American that focused on the crucial question of whether the origins of life were truly an inevitable consequence of some fundamental natural tendency in the universe towards great complexity (Ref 2). From our modern stand point, it was really Fred Hoyle that challenged this 'inevitablist' school by proclaiming vehemently that, "the emergence of a living cell from an inanimate chemical soup is about as likely as the assembly of a 747 by a whirlwind passing through a junkyard" (Ref 2). So the modern 'improbabilist' was born, taking on the contrasting inevitabilist view in a head to head intellectual battle. While the inevitabilists used the sudden appearance of the cell almost 3.85 billion years ago (Ref 3) as evidence of life's inevitability, improbabilists such as the late Francis Crick proposed that life was unlikely to have arisen on earth and must have been seeded from outer space (Ref 2). After all if life were truly a rare phenomenon, space transportation networks would have been required to spread it around hospitable planets.

In April of 2001, scientists from the University of Pennsylvania published a series of findings that appeared to strengthen the improbabilist assertions of cosmic origins. Having drilled into crystals that had been obtained from salt deposits deep down below the earth's surface in New Mexico, Russell Vreeland and his colleague William Rosenzweig were able to grow bacterial cultures from these crystals in their own laboratory (Ref 4). These crystals were extraordinary for one simple reason- they appeared to be 250 million years old (Ref 4). Vreeland claimed that if these bacteria had really lasted for this long, there was no reason to believe that they could not just as easily exist on seemingly inhospitable environments such as the Martian permafrost (Ref 4). And yet many researchers were skeptical about the significance of these seemingly ancient survivors of a bygone era. Thomas Lindahl, for example, argued that DNA could not have survived for more than a few thousand years and that as a result these bacteria could not be anything more than a few, more recent contaminants (Ref 4). Svante Paabo from the Max Planck institute for Evolutionary Anthropology had similar reservations. According to Paabo, DNA in a watery environment such as the cell could not have survived more than 100,000 years (Ref 4). The DNA sequences themselves became the focal point for University of Washington Professor David Nickle who argued that the DNA was far too similar to that of modern bacteria. Vreeland dismissed this contention on the premise that modern bacteria are themselves ancient organisms that had escaped their conditions of deep underground isolation (Ref 4). Moreover, Vreeland argued, bacterial spores might have provided an effective barrier against damaging cosmic radiation.

Whatever the outcome of this particular debate, Vreeland's result re-injected energy into the improbabilist camp with its claim that life could have been seeded from outer-space. For proponents of panspermia such as David McKay from the NASA Johnson Space Center, the possibility of finding evidence of similar life forms on the surface of meteorites became an important focus (Ref 5). Cardiff University professor of astronomy Chandra Wickramasinghe likewise believes that life could have been brought to earth on some sort of ubiquitous cosmic dust (Ref 6). The late microbiologist David Wynn-Williams dedicated much of his career to demonstrating how microbes might be able to adapt to "environmental extremes" (Ref 7). For scientists such as myself the case for panspermia remained deeply unsatisfying. After all, rather than explaining the origin of the simplest forms of life panspermists simply pushed it out into the cosmos. The Improbabilist's question on how life arose stood as unanswered as ever.

There have been a number of reports of possible life forms found on meteorites ever since the German geologist Otto Hahn wrote his famous text 'Die Meteorite' in 1880. David McKay and his colleagues for example, published their work on meteorite ALH84001 which collided some 13,000 years ago in the deepest recesses of the Antarctic (Ref 5). The objective of the McKay study was to look for signs of life within the pores of ALH84001 and thereby demonstrate conclusively that life indeed could exist outside of our own planet (Ref 5). It was clear that evidence for the presence of extraterrestrial life forms on ALH84001 would be difficult to demonstrate. For one, the study assumed that such life forms would be similar to those found on earth (Ref 5). Nevertheless the researchers pressed on with their investigations in great anticipation and reported the presence of globular structures around 1 to 250 micrometers in diameter.

McKay and his team also detected long complex organic compounds called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) which are of enormous interest to space scientists because of their abundance both in our solar system and the universe (Ref 8). McKay and his team found that PAH concentrations in interior fractures of the meteorite were much higher than any PAH concentrations that had been found on ice sheets on earth (Ref 5). Moreover the limited number of PAHs on the meteorite suggested to McKay and his team that they had arisen through diagenesis- the common breakdown of microorganisms and wildlife. McKay and others therefore concluded that these PAHs could only have come from microorganisms that were already present on the meteorite when it impacted 13,000 years ago (Ref 5).

No sooner had the report on ALH84001 been published, a series of letters appeared in the Science journal concerning the implications of McKay's conclusions. Frank Von Hippel from the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University, commented that ALH84001 might provide the much-sought-after evidence that life could survive the most extreme of conditions as it hurtled through the cosmic rays and ultraviolet radiation of space (Ref 9). Some scientists today believe that microbes can literally, "hitch a ride" on meteorites drifting in the interstellar void to perhaps colonize planets outside of our solar system (Ref 10). Others such as physicist Harold Morowitz and pathologist Louis de Tolla have expressed their doubt over the significance of the ALH84001 results (Refs 11, 12). Both commented that structures found on ALH84001 which were initially thought of as remnants of bacteria, would have been too small to fulfill the minimal biochemical requirements of a simple cell (Ref 11, 12). Monica Grady, Ian Wright and Colin Pillinger from the Planetary Sciences Research Institute and the Natural History Museum in the UK have questioned the presumed biological origins of carbonates found on ALH84001 (Ref 13).

Even if the nanostructures of ALH84001 do turn out to be primitive forms of life this fact alone would tell us nothing about the inevitability of life in our cosmos (Ref 14, p. 243). The debate is still raging between the improbabilists and inevitabilists with Gustaf Arrhenius, the grandson of panspermist Svante Arrhenius, preferring to remain undecided over the whole issue (Ref 2). And yet for improbabilists and inevitabilists alike, the underlying question of how life arose continues to plague their theoretical meanderings. Physicist Paul Davies had this to say about the shortfalls of panspermia and life's supposedly cosmic origins:

"Some scientists have seized on the panspermia theory in an attempt to evade the problems of biogenesis. If life can propagate between star systems, then only one planet is needed to spawn life, somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos, to account for the existence of life on Earth. I do not share this enthusiasm for evasion. It seems to me that shunting the problem off into outer space does nothing to address the central problem of biogenesis- the problem that has plagued researchers in this discipline for decades- which is that life seems just too good to be true." (Ref 14, pp.242-243)

As Harvard paleontologist Andy Knoll noted, the leap from non-living ingredients to fully-fledged life remains, "an astonishing mystery that we truly do not understand" (Ref 15).

References

1. Film Shows Earth as Alien World, Scientific Computing, 1st August, 2008,
http://www.scientificcomputing.com/Film-Shows-Earth-as-Alien-World.aspx

2. John Horgan (1996), 'Life, Life Everywhere', Scientific American, In Focus, November 25, 1996

3. Martin van Kranendonk spoke on Neil de Grasse Tyson's discussion on the sudden origins of life in a NOVA documentary that aired on PBS on the 28th of September 2004, entitled "Origins: How Life Began"

4. Jonathan Knight (2001), The Immortals, New Scientist, 28th April, 2001, pp.36-39

5. David S McKay et al (1996), Search for Past Life on Mars: Possible Relic of Biogenic Activity in Martian Meteorite ALH84001 Science, Vol 273, pp.924-930

6. See Chandra Wickramasinghe's testimony at the 1981 Arkansas trial on creation which can be found at http://www.panspermia.org/chandra.htm

7. See review on the life of David Wynn-Williams which can be found in The Times (Of London), Wednesday, 27th March, 2002, p.39

8. Max P. Bernstein, Scott A. Sandford and Louis J. Allamandola (1999), Life's Far-Flung Raw Materials, Scientific American, Feature Article, July 1999

9. Frank Von Hippel (1996) Letter In 'Past Life on Mars?' Science, Vol 273, pp.1639-1641

10. Jeff Hecht (2001), Life will find a way, New Scientist, 17th March, 2001, p.4

11. Harold Morowitz (1996), Letter in 'Past Life on Mars?', Science, Vol 273, pp.1639-1641

12. Louis deTolla(1996), Letter in 'Past Life on Mars?', Science Vol 273 pp.1639-1641

13. Monica Grady et al (1996), Opening A Martian Can Of Worms?, Nature, Vol 382 pp.575-576

14. Paul Davies (1999), The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin and The Meaning of Life, Published by Simon and Schuster, New York

15. Andy Knoll spoke on Neil de Grasse Tyson's discussion on the origins of life in a NOVA documentary that aired on PBS on the 28th of September 2004, entitled "Origins: How Life Began"

Copyright (c), 2008, Robert Deyes