The ID Report

The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. -- Ernst Mayr

"This changes everything." Those words summed up the sentiment when, hardly able to contain their ecstasy, scientists this month unveiled what could very likely be their single most important find ever: a virtually complete fossil of a 47 million-year old lemur nicknamed Ida. The panting media hype surrounding Ida's introduction to the world was justified, if for no other reason because Ida was found "on the ground." Deemed "the eighth wonder of the world" by one enraptured scientist, Ida should silence once and for all those who doubt the fact of gravity. "This fossil rewrites our understanding of gravity," gushed one glassy-eyed paleontologist who described how Ida is thought to have "fallen" into the water of a volcanic pit. The "falling" aspect of Ida's instantly legendary saga was reinforced by another scientist who, with raised hands compared Ida's impact on gravitational science to "an asteroid hitting the earth." Still another, seen with head bowed reverently, compared Ida to the Mona Lisa, noting both have existed undisturbed for years under the influence of gravity. Wait, maybe it was Ida's impact on evolution that inspired such breathless declarations; statements on these two settled facts of science are easy to confuse.

For those mercifully spared from the recent carpet bombing of media-driven science propaganda, Ida, officially named Darwinius masillae, is merely the latest in the protracted drip of "now (and-this-time-we-really-mean-it!) we have a missing link" fossil finds. Ida is different because, unlike Tiktaalik, the last celebrity fossil thought to finally put to rest all doubts about evolution, Ida is being reported as THE missing link. Yes, Ida is reported to hold the key to indisputably proving human evolution. Reported, of course, is an understatement, as the news about Ida was blared, trumpeted, and generally shouted from media rooftops in what appeared to be one of modern secularism's rare hallelujah moments. Holy Grail. Rosetta Stone. Scientists tried, but no superlative seemed adequate to the task. Even Google, the only thing starting with G-o that most people consult daily, succumbed with the ultimate tribute by yielding its iconic logo to the image of Ida.

But before science pronounces us all made in the image of Ida, consider two questions. First, why does Ida change anything? We the less presumptuous of the world have been berated for years by overbearing and generally arrogant Darwinists for not accepting that Darwinism is an unassailable fact. Darwinism stands, they shout, so well confirmed by evidence that it is a fact on par with other facts, such as gravity. Yes, we have been abused for years with the ignorant spoutings of belittling know-it-alls that anyone who questions Darwinism may as well be questioning the fact of gravity. And to prove the point, we are lectured like children on how "scientists" use words like "theory" and "fact". The National Academy of Sciences (NAS), for example, assures us that when speaking of evolution scientists use the word "fact" to mean "something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples." Oh really? And evolution is a fact? Why, then, the continued mad frenzy to look for transitional fossils, and the public ejaculations of joy when a so-called missing link like Ida is found? Are any NAS scientists still looking for examples of gravity? Why not?

Secondly, and more importantly, isn't the hyperventilating media reporting the trumpery of smugly irreverent scientists evidence of a disturbing intellectual undercurrent? Is there not in every glowingly smirky sound bite a tincture of "Ha! This will shut up the stupid creationists!" Why the unfettered joy at reporting what is surely destined to become simply another ordinary fossil? It's as if a humanistic (read "God-free") Paradise of Science is being held back from the masses, groaning under the oppressive weight of pesky "intelligent design creationists" and their simple-minded, unsophisticated reliance on plain evidence of design. And many in the media, convinced that the sooner the Enlightened Kingdom of Humanistic Science comes the better, stand ready to rush any news of scientists finally finding the smoking gun evidence to silence the Christians once and for all.

Here's the obvious truth that the Darwinian junta and their media mouthpieces don't get: if Darwinism is truly a fact, all of nature, fossils and all, should be nothing but evolutionary smoking guns. To paraphrase Darwin himself, "we should be up to our ears in transitional fossils." There should be innumerable quantities of indisputable transitional fossils, so that finding one should be as newsworthy as finding that another dropped ball went down instead of up. But rather than being engulfed in a world of smoking guns, we are subjected to a whirl of smoke and mirrors, and told we are fools for suspecting we are being made fools. Is this really science? How long are the real fools to be suffered?

If Ida "changes everything", then clearly evolution was not the settled fact we were previously led to believe. Knowing that evolution is not what Darwinists demand we must unquestioningly accept should be freeing to the free thinkers of the world. Just what does Ida mean in the big picture of things? For one, Ida appears to have more perfectly an attribute that all fossils exhibit: design. Is it intelligent design? Can we know? Are we allowed to even make the hypothesis?

Ironically, therefore, saying Ida is scientific evidence supporting the inference of intelligent design cannot be disputed, but saying Darwinius masillae is clear evidence to prove Darwinian adesign goes too far.

Ida. She simply goes one letter too far.

Roddy Bullock, a skeptic of Darwinism, is a freelance writer, engineer, lawyer, 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) 2009 Roddy M. Bullock, all rights reserved. Quotes and links permitted with attribution.

References:

Mayr quote: Mayr, Ernst, Toward a New Philosophy of Biology: Observations of an Evolutionist (1988, Cambridge: Harvard University Press).

NAS quote: Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition (1999), National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy Press, Washington DC, 2006.

Evolution/Gravity fact-equal exposition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact#cite_note-Mayr-6

For more on the concept of "adesign" go here: http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/02/28/darwinists_on_design_jumping_to_confusio

For a compilation of Ida's media hyperbole, see Ida: The Holy Grail of Missing Links?

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's a classic in advocacy posing as research: "Humans may be primed to believe in creation" (Ewen Callaway, New Scientist, 02 March 2009):

Religion might not be the only reason people buy into creationism and intelligent design, psychological experiments suggest.
No matter what their religious beliefs, college-educated adults frequently agree with purpose-seeking yet false explanations of natural phenomena - finches diversified in order to survive, for instance.

"The very fact of belief in purpose itself might lead you to favour intelligent design," says Deborah Kelemen, a psychologist at Boston University, who led the study

And her point is what, exactly? That belief in purpose is irrational? Why so?

It is a shame that such studies are funded, but I would imagine that funding will increase, not decrease, as materialism takes a nose dive, and profs attempt to protect their tenure.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

Ida? I dunno. I wish I had bet a whack on the pop science press dumping all over that fossil

Theistic evolution: New site challenges tenured Christian profs' homage to atheism

Human evolution: Neanderthals as snacks?

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

(Note: If you follow me at Twitter, you will get regular notice of new Post-Darwinist posts, usually when I have posted five or so stories.)

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

In "Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?" physicist Timothy Clifton and astrophysicist Pedro G. Ferreira argue just that: If we give up the Copernican principle, we do not need dark energy to explain the composition of the universe. (Scientific American, March 23, 2009)

Copernican principle? Dark energy?

Copernican principle: That's the idea that Earth does not occupy any unusual position in the universe. Indeed, the point was driven home in a recent talk I attended at a science writers' convention. The Copernican principle is widely believed, to be sure, but that tells me nothing one way or the other about whether it is well supported by evidence. And I already know good reasons for doubting it. (Note: It has nothing whatever to do with Copernicus, who wouldn't likely have agreed with it.)

Dark energy? "Dark" means we are in the dark about it. According to the current model, we don't know what 70 percent, approximately, of the cosmos comprises. Whatever that 70% is, it does not respond to light. It also does not answer e-mail, phone mail, or letter mail. Bummer.

Many physicists believe that maybe 25% of this unknown substance is dark matter. The rest is dark energy.

Actually, we don't even know what dark matter is, according to the cautious SNO Plus physicists who are building a huge underground facility in the Creighton Mine in Sudbury, Canada, to trap a particle a year of the stuff. So they hardly wish to give tell-all interviews on dark energy.

Anyway, here are some excerpts from Clifton and Ferreira on whether we need assume that dark energy even exists:

... the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place. One of these is the product of that earlier revolution: the Copernican principle, that Earth is not in a central or otherwise special position in the universe. If we discard this basic principle, a surprisingly different picture of what could account for the observations emerges.

Most of us are very familiar with the idea that our planet is nothing more than a tiny speck orbiting a typical star, somewhere near the edge of an otherwise unnoteworthy galaxy. In the midst of a universe populated by billions of galaxies that stretch out to our cosmic horizon, we are led to believe that there is nothing special or unique about our location. But what is the evidence for this cosmic humility? And how would we be able to tell if we were in a special place? Astronomers typically gloss over these questions, assuming our own typicality sufficiently obvious to warrant no further discussion. To entertain the notion that we may, in fact, have a special location in the universe is, for many, unthinkable. Nevertheless, that is exactly what some small groups of physicists around the world have recently been considering.

[ ... ]

In the conventional picture, we talk about the expansion of the universe on the whole. It is very much like when we talk about a balloon blowing up: we discuss how big the entire balloon gets, not how much each individual patch of the balloon inflates. But we all have had experience with those annoying party balloons that inflate unevenly. One ring stretches quickly, and the end takes a while to catch up. In an alternative view of the universe, one that jettisons the cosmological principle [a generalization of t he Copernican principle], space, too, expands unevenly. A more complex picture of the cosmos emerges.

[ ... ]

The possibility that we live in the middle of a giant cosmic void is an extreme rejection of the cosmological principle, but there are gentler possibilities. The universe could obey the cosmological principle on large scales, but the smaller voids and filaments that galaxy surveys have discovered might collectively mimic the effects of dark energy. Tirthabir Biswas and Alessio Notari, both at McGill University, as well as Valerio Marra and his collaborators, then at the University of Padua in Italy and the University of Chicago, have studied this idea. In their models, the universe looks like Swiss cheese uniform on the whole but riddled with holes. Consequently, the expansion rate varies slightly from place to place. Rays of light emitted by distant supernovae travel through a multitude of these small voids before reaching us, and the variations in the expansion rate tweak their brightness and redshift. So far, however, the idea does not look very promising. One of us (Clifton), together with Joseph Zuntz of Oxford, recently showed that reproducing the effects of dark energy would take lots of voids of very low density, distributed in a special way.

Does Guillermo Gonzalez have clones? Is this legal?

Well, never mind that for now. For a free copy of the Privileged Planet DVD, here's the question: To what extent is the Copernican or cosmological principle held for emotional reasons, and not because the evidence supports it? In 400 words, would we be better off or worse off without it?

(Note: I recommend that you read the whole SciAm article before commenting.)

Here are the contest rules.

You must go to Uncommon Descent to comment. Your name will not be put on a mailing list, or sold or given away for any purpose. There is no mailing list. However, if you win and do not send me a mailing address of your choice at oleary@sympatico.ca, I cannot send you your prize.

I will shortly be judging Contest 3.

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

In Probability's nature and nature's probability: A call to scientific integrity, information scientist Donald E. Johnson tackles, among other things, the origin of life.

Johnson takes on the aimless speculation that characterizes so much consensus science today on such issues:

... one should not be able to get away with stating "it is possible that life arose from non-life by ..." without first demonstrating that it is indeed possible (defined in the nature of probability) using known science. One could, of course, state "it may be speculated that ...," but such a statement wouldn't have the believability that its author intends to convey by the pseudo-scientific pronouncement."(p. 5)

I am so fed up with pseudoscientific pronouncements on the origin of life that I decided to cover all such stories at Colliding Universes blog, along with speculations about the end of the universe - rather than at Post-Darwinist, where many claims - whether well-supported or not - have at least some basis in fact..

This is a great book for scientists with a background in probability who want to understand why there is a controversy over design in the universe.

Also, today at Colliding Universes:

Particle physics: Do electrons have free will?

Origin of life: "Primordial soup" belief undermines traditional spirituality?

Cosmology: I seem to have yanked particle physicist Lawrence Krauss's chain

Coffee! Greatest sci-fi special effects

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

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

In "Psychologists Shed Light On Origins Of Morality" (ScienceDaily Mar. 2, 2009), we read,

In everyday language, people sometimes say that immoral behaviours "leave a bad taste in your mouth". But this may be more than a metaphor according to new scientific evidence from the University of Toronto that shows a link between moral disgust and more primitive forms of disgust related to poison and disease.

"Morality is often pointed to as the pinnacle of human evolution and development," says lead author Hanah Chapman, a graduate student in the Department of Psychology. "However, disgust is an ancient and rather primitive emotion which played a key evolutionary role in survival. Our research shows the involvement of disgust in morality, suggesting that moral judgment may depend as much on simple emotional processes as on complex thought."

[ ... ]

The U of T team found that people make similar facial movements in response to both primitive forms of disgust and moral disgust.

Ah, so that proves it then!

The problem with evolutionary psychology is not just its untethered speculation but its reflexive tendency to define explicitly human activities via non-human, subhuman, or prehuman models.

Moral disgust is an explicitly intellectual activity. Consider the following situations:

- a nursing home attendant flushes an old lady's dinner down the toilet so she doesn't have to help feed her, and steals from her purse when she is asleep. The old lady is too frightened to say anything.

- a social worker pressures clients to sleep with him, in which case he will put through the paperwork for benefits (to which they are legally entitled).

What provokes disgust is the difference between the way things are and the way they ought to be

So the question is, how do we know what ought to be?

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Mirror neurons - cracks appearing?

Animal minds: Rooks in captivity show more feats using tools

Meditation: More on how meditation changes the brain

Neuroscience: When reduction fails

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

Throughout history man has looked to the natural world as the source of inspiration for some of the most exquisite inventions ever seen. Perhaps most famous of all is the Eiffel tower which, originally conceived by Gustav Eiffel as a temporary edifice, had at its foundations the design of already-existing natural structures notably the curvature of bones (Ref 1). Velcro was likewise inspired by already-existing biological contrivances as was perhaps Charles Paxton's water lilly-based design of the Crystal Palace in London (Ref 2).

Today biomimetics (or bioinspiration as it is otherwise known) has emerged as a discipline of science that in many respects continues on from these earlier exploits (Ref 1). As evidenced in one recent study by a group at the University of Namur in Belgium, the potential applications of emulation have become much more than pioneers such as Eiffel could have ever envisioned. Namur physicist Marie Rassart and her team brought to life the physical components that underlie the famous humidity-dependent color changes of the male Hercules beetle: "a porous structure made of chitin and air, organized with refractive index variations" (Ref 3). Rassart's team showed in exquisite detail how the beetle's colorful surface reflections depended upon flooding of the underlying porous structure with liquid water (Ref 3).

As many a school boy will testify, the Hercules beetle lives up to the hero of Greek mythology in more ways than one. Not only is it one of the largest known Coleoptera but it is also one of the strongest, able to carry about 850 times its own body weight (Ref 3). At over 10 centimeters in length, the Hercules beetle is bound to draw interest from even the most seasoned entymologist. But it is the color-changing feat and its potential commercial benefits that have attracted the attention of biomimeticists. While evolution pundits remain unsure about the evolutionary significance of such a feat (camouflage and thermo-regulation have been convincingly rebutted, Ref 3), biomimeticists are already looking into how similar hypochromic materials might be used in the development of humidity sensors (Ref 3).

Insects in general have become gold mines for biomimeticists on the look-out for lucrative technological ideas upon which to stake their claim. Covering the outer cuticle of an insect, for example, are numerous sensilliae that are responsible for detecting mechanical strains in the cuticle during activities such as flying and walking (Ref 4). Similar sensors are finding their way into research labs involved in the development of intelligent materials that can detect strains and stress points in, say, metal sheets (Ref 4). The folding of insect wings has likewise been the innovation-favorite of inventors of temporary roof structures that can be quickly extended and re-folded (Refs 2,5).

Nature is chock-full of inventions that may one day inspire parallels in human technology. The insect-eating habits of the Venus flytrap depend on hydraulic pressure to store the 'strain energy' of its devouring components- a finding that might one day be exploited for power amplification in remote locations such as orbiting satellites (Ref 2). Ubiquitous throughout nature are deployable structures- (i) the extensible tubes and bodies of sea anemones, star fish and locusts, (ii) the folded or rolled-up leaves of budding trees (iii) the hinged jaws of snakes and anglerfish and (iv) the elastic springs that catapult fleas and flea beetles into the air- all of which are fair game for the biomimeticist's toolbox (Ref 5).

And yet the bare-bones assumption held by many is that evolution has had millions of years to invent the very designs that appeal to our sense of precision engineering (Ref 2,6). University Of Bath biologist Julian Vincent for example has weighed in with his view that the very structures we admire in nature resulted from "the rigorous demands of evolution" (Ref 2) while popular science writers have waxed lyrical over evolution-based stories of design. "Nature, through billions of years of trial and error," they tell us "has produced effective solutions to innumerable complex real-world problems. The rigorous competition of natural selection means waste and inefficiency are not tolerated in natural systems" (Ref 7).

CEO and president of Promega Corporation, Bill Linton, once remarked that "our most well designed human endeavors can only approximate- and rarely surpass- the elegant precision of nature" (Ref 8). Indeed crediting evolution for the engineering of complex systems that lie beyond the capacity of human minds to fully conceive seems thoroughly misplaced. Moreover there is something deeply telling about the observation that the natural world has machines that we, as intelligent agents, are so ready to copy. Defenders of Intelligent Design theory have of course provided their own take on this singular fact, concluding that the work of an intelligent designer and not the blind walk of evolution lies at the heart of biological complexity.

Literature Cited

1. Philip Ball (2001), Life's Lesson In Design, Nature, Vol 409 pp.413-416

2. Julian F.V. Vincent, Stealing Ideas From Nature, See http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng//biomimetics/Biomimetics.pdf

3. M. Rassart, J-F Colomer, T. Tabarrant, J.P Vigneron (2008), Diffractive Hygrochromic Effect In The Cuticle Of The Hercules Beetle Dynastes hercules, New Journal Of Physics, Vol 10 pp.1-13, See http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1367-2630/10/3/033014

4. A. Skordosy, P. H. Chan, J. F. V. Vincent, G. Jeronimidis (2002), A novel strain sensor based on the campaniform sensillum of insects, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond, Vol 360 pp.239-253, See http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng//biomimetics/StrainSensor.pdf

5. Julian F.V. Vincent, Deployable Structures In Nature, See http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng//biomimetics/DeployableStructs.pdf

6. The peer-reviewed journal Bioinspiration & Biomimetics defines its title as "the study and distillation of principles and functions found in biological systems that have been developed through evolution", See http://www.iop.org/EJ/journal/bioinsp

7. Rhett Butler (2005), Biomimetics, technology that mimics nature, See http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0711-rhett_butler.html

8. Bill Linton (2002), Opening Statement Of The 2002 Life Sciences Catalog, Promega Corporation

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Particle physicist Lawrence M. Krauss* of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, addressed the gathering at the Canadian Science Writers' Association 2009 conference in Sudbury,

I made some notes of Dr. Krauss's remarks in "Star Trek Physics" in a darkened cavern, the Inco Cave at Science North, though I do not have a transcript.

His talk was billed Star Trek Physics, and the PowerPoint revealed physics bloopers spotted in Star Trek, the X-files, and other film resources.

It was certainly entertaining, but not riveting, at least for me. Anyone who gets their physics from sources clearly labelled science fiction or UFOlogy, well ...

But Dr. Krauss had advice for science communicators:

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

Here's what's really interesting about the current "Ida" freakout (= the supposed "missing link" between primates such as humans and earlier animals). Some science journalists, instead of falling in with the hype, have started to try to rescue the discipline of paleontology from the raves of pop science.

Could've happened sooner, but never mind.

In "Origin of the Specious", TimesonLine (May 24, 2009), Jonathan Leake and John Harlow write

Such finds are usually unveiled to the world through the sober pages of an academic journal but for Ida nothing less than a glittering press conference at the American Museum of Natural History in New York would do.

There, Michael Bloomberg, the mayor of New York, stood beside Ida’s glass box, his arm around a schoolgirl who was wearing a T-shirt advertising a television tie-in. It read: “The Link. This changes everything.” The mayor repeated the missing link claim.

Later the scientists who have studied Ida outlined the details of their research. Their pronouncements were just as extravagant.

But that's not what they said to other scientists:

... in the research paper detailing the discovery, the scientists had painted a rather different picture. Ida, they said, “could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates (including humans) evolved but we are not advocating this here”.

In fact,as Leake and Harlow detail, it is a huge PR hype. The also report,

Robert Foley, professor of human evolution at Cambridge University, believes many people misunderstand the huge timescales involved in assessing fossils.

“This animal lived around 47m years ago but human-like creatures only appeared in the last 2m years,” he said. “That’s a gap of around 45m years with many other species lying between us and that era. Any one of them could be called a missing link. Really, the term is meaningless.”

Not only that, we have no way of knowing whether "Ida" just died out, and didn't leave any descendants. Primates could just as likely - or more so - have descended from one of many similar species.

Ida "changes everything" only in a world where hype replaces science. Good for Leake and Harlow for refusing to be intimidated by blowhards, and talking about this. There are enough scandals in science already.

See also:

Human evolution: Hype, tripe, trumpets, and (lagging some way after, way out of breath) truth and realism

Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

Related issue: Human evolution: Quest for primitive human backfires

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

Some excerpts from a recent Science Alert:

"Current theory doesn't tally with fossil evidence"

"Dr Greene, a Senior Lecturer in Molecular Genetics, said current evolutionary theory, which assumed biological lineages evolved by the slow accumulation of adaptive mutations, did not tally with the fossil record.

"However, the “Genomic Drive” theory provided a significant explanation for the way new species arose abruptly and periodically.

"The theory also fitted with fossil records which showed intermittent and long periods of stasis – where many species stood still or remained the same."

Here's Princeton:

Now researchers from Princeton University and Indiana University who have been studying the genome of a pond organism have found that junk DNA may not be so junky after all. They have discovered that DNA sequences from regions of what had been viewed as the "dispensable genome" are actually performing functions that are central for the organism. They have concluded that the genes spur an almost acrobatic rearrangement of the entire genome that is necessary for the organism to grow.

Remember when junk DNA "proved" Darwin's theory by being junk? It's not safe to forget that, because you have to believe two contradictory things at once for now.

More stories here at the Post-Darwinist on junk DNA.

See especially:

Junk DNA: Sorting through the trash

Junk DNA: I told you, keep those documents in the packaging ... are you listening NOW?

Junk RNA just like junk DNA? Stuff you should NOT have thrown out with the packaging?

Intelligent design vs. Darwinism: Junk DNA as the genes' antique shop?

By the way, junk DNA is the new vestigial organs - the ones you supposedly didn't need, but actually do.

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).

An Analysis of Common Threads in Obama's Speeches

by Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Watching Obama's speech yesterday about Guantanamo Bay Detainees was a fascinating exercise. After watching the soundbites on the news, I then watched both former VP Dick Cheney and President Obama deliver their dueling speeches on C-SPAN about their views of how the Gitmo detainee issue should be managed, as well as their clearly differing notions of the legality, morality, and use of enhanced interrogation techniques. I came away from that experience thinking that Obama had taken the high ground and was working to uphold our values and improve our legal framework, as he stated so forcefully in his speech. His oratory was stirring.

These steps are all critical to keeping America secure. But I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we also cannot keep this country safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values. The documents that we hold in this very hall - the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights - these are not simply words written into aging parchment. They are the foundation of liberty and justice in this country, and a light that shines for all who seek freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity around the world.

...

The American people are not absolutist, and they don't elect us to impose a rigid ideology on our problems. They know that we need not sacrifice our security for our values, nor sacrifice our values for our security, so long as we approach difficult questions with honesty and care and a dose of common sense. That, after all, is the unique genius of America. That's the challenge laid down by our Constitution. That has been the source of our strength through the ages. That's what makes the United States of America different as a nation.

I can stand here today, as president of the United States, and say without exception or equivocation that we do not torture, and that we will vigorously protect our people while forging a strong and durable framework that allows us to fight terrorism while abiding by the rule of law. Make no mistake: If we fail to turn the page on the approach that was taken over the past several years, then I will not be able to say that as president. And if we cannot stand for our core values, then we are not keeping faith with the documents that are enshrined in this hall. [1]

"Who in their right mind," I thought "could possibly argue with what Obama is saying here?" But then I was slapped back to reality after reading Hern Denenberg's reflections of Obama in the wake of his speech at the Univeristy of Notre Dame's Commencement a few days ago.

[Obama] started implementing his radical pro-abortion, pro-infanticide agenda the minute he became president. Almost immediately he brought the U.S. taxpayer back into the racket of funding overseas abortion. He authorized the destruction of human embryos at home. He loaded his administration with the most pro-abortion appointees he could find. This was his radical pro-abortion reflex at work. There was no reaching out. There was no attempt to touch hearts and minds. There was no attempt to achieve some sort of bipartisanship consensus or dialogue. He rammed those pro-Obama measures through with no reaching out, no dialog, no common ground and none of the other rhetorical flowers. He didn't even try to fake bipartisanship. He talks it, but never makes the most minor moves in the direction of bipartisanship. The gap between talk and reality is so extreme it defies rational explanation. [2]

Regardless of where you fall on the issue of abortion, and even though I disagree with Denenberg that Obama "never" seeks bipartisanship, I have to agree with Denenberg's characterization of Obama's performance thus far: he often says one thing and does another.

Obama's swift action on the closure of Guantanamo Bay shortly after taking office (without first having worked with congress to gain support for a plan on what to do with the Gitmo detainees) reveals a disturbing eagerness to place taking action well in front of checking in with that ever elusive (and some say non-existant) governmental agency known as the Department of Common Sense.

There is a more far-reaching and legitimate question that pops into my mind as I consider Obama's approach: will he consistently defend the rights of Americans who are currently being subjected to different forms of abuse that I'm beginning to think might qualify as terrorism? I hear lots of talk these days about the rights we should afford to illegal aliens who break our laws, and the rights of terrorists who have the ultimate ambition of killing us all, but what I don't hear much about is how the rights of our legitimate citizens are being better protected. Especially at risk are the rights of dissidents within our citizen ranks. How are we protecting these ordinary citizens when their freedoms come under attack? More on that in a minute...

But, back to Obama's sobering speech yesterday on the closure of Guantanamo Bay. In that speech he made it crystal clear that he is seeking to establish a new respect for the rule of law where his role as President is concerned. He made the point that he sees himself as subject to the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution (ie, via the courts and congress) over his actions -- and promised to be more diligent in making sure that his approach will promote transparency and reestablish the credibility of his office so sorely lacking in his predecessor.

Ironically enough, even as Obama was delivering his speech, Congress voted to deny him the funds he requested to close Guantanamo Bay unless and until he first proposes an acceptable plan for what to do with the detainees currently being held there. And further, I have no doubt such a plan must also meet with bipartisan approval of congress before the President gets to have his way with shutting down the facility.

So I am assuming that Mr. Obama, if he really meant what he said in his speech yesterday, will respect the action of congress in this matter and will not dispute their nearly unanimous vote or say anything ill of it, since after all, they were exercising the very checks and balances he had taken great pains to point out are a necessary part of our Democratic rule. That said, I also think the congressional opposition in this matter reflects a strong example of failure on the part of Team Obama to first establish common ground with congress and spare themselves the embarrassment of acting in haste to (as Denenberg stated) "[ram] those pro-Obama measures through with no reaching out, no dialog, no common ground..."

So what, you might ask, does all this have to do with other types of domestic terrorism?

Well, there currently exists under Obama's watch perhaps one of the most onerous abuses of our freedoms and Civil Rights that one could imagine. I'm speaking about Americans, not Islamic terrorists. Many of the freedoms guaranteed to all Americans are currently and have been under attack, but these actions are usually referred to as discrimination. I'm beginning to wonder if these actions shouldn't be classified as a form of terrorism. Who is under attack? The dissidents in our culture. These are the folks who challenge the conventional views held within our scientific, philosophical, and academic communities. But they are often made to pay a huge price for speaking their mind. Many freedoms have been stripped from dissident educators, students, and scientists who disagree with conventional wisdom on issues considered settled by many experts. They are often dismissed as kooks, pseudoscientists, and charlatans who we should either ignore or consider as serious threats to the survival of our society -- depending on who you talk to. The problem is, these dissidents often turn out to have their finger on some aspect of reality that conventional wisdom overlooks.

Many dissidents not only lose their jobs, but their careers are often ruined. The impact of such actions often results in the failure of marriages and families, and financial losses that are at times unrecoverable, and plunge victims into many years or even a lifetime of debt.

Darwin skeptics are but one group of dissidents who have suffered incredible losses for their views. The clear practice of religious and viewpoint discrimination against them, which has played out in the background of our culture for decades, has only recently surfaced as a barely noticeable issue in 2008 with the release of the movie "Expelled" and the publication of the book "Slaughter of the Dissidents. Both the movie and the book expose a type of discrimination that deprives these US citizens of many of their most basic Civil Rights, and is a serious affront to the Rule of Law. I've notices that little, if anything, is currently being done to remedy the situation.

This is not a trivial matter, either, though many might suggest it is behind the backdrop of the crisis-laden issues we are facing today. This matter is significant for several reasons, but this one stands out: if one class of people can be denied their constitutionally protected freedoms, then so can any other group. It is in this sense that all Americans of differing views are bound together under a common bond: freedom of speech belongs to ALL Americans, not just some. This issue is also important because in the end, the result of this brand of discrimination breeds a form of intellectual terrorism that has stripped the academic and scientific communities of dissenters who might otherwise offer an important and much-needed perspective to their students and colleagues. Many dissenters who remain in those communities stay in the closet and are in fear of losing their careers if they even offer a hint of disagreement over evolution. Even worse, such discrimination causes irreparable harm to the fabric of our freedoms the longer it is allowed to continue. And when it is allowed to persist, those who practice discrimination feel emboldened to continue doing so, since no one is effectively challenging them and requiring them to cease from their actions.

The law is clear: it demands that all of us be allowed to speak freely, and to offer dissenting views without any threat of coercion or loss of career, either actual or prospective.

If the President and other government agencies can become so distraught over the ill-treatment of foreign terrorists who would seek to destroy us, how can they in good conscience ignore the actions of home-grown intellectual terrorists bent on denying freedoms to our own citizens?

The Supreme Court in at least one instance left no doubt about where government intrusion on free speech is egregious.

It is axiomatic that the government may not regulate speech based on its substantive content or the message it conveys....Other principles follow from this precept. In the realm of private speech or expression, government regulation may not favor one speaker over another...Discrimination against speech because of its message is presumed to be unconstitutional...These rules informed our determination that the government offends the First Amendment when it imposes financial burdens on certain speakers based on the content of their expression...When the government targets not subject matter, but particular views taken by speakers on a subject, the violation of the First Amendment is all the more blatant...Viewpoint discrimination is thus an egregious form of content discrimination. The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction...Vital First Amendment speech principles are at stake here. The first danger to liberty lies in granting the State the power to examine publications to determine whether or not they are based on some ultimate idea and, if so, for the State to classify them. The second, and corollary, danger is to speech from the chilling of individual thought and expression. That danger is especially real in the University setting, where the State acts against a background and tradition of thought and experiment that is at the center of our intellectual and philosophic tradition. [3]

Most Americans think discrimination or suppression of free speech is a minor issue in our society, and that our government doesn't tolerate it. After all, we do have laws designed to protect us from those who violate our rights. Sadly, the enforcement of the law on behalf of Darwin skeptics is typically sidestepped. The history of abuse by intellectual terrorists and Darwin fascists has just begun to be documented and is irrefutable. And, it presents Obama and Co. with a clear example of violations he says he will not tolerate. Terrorism of any kind that threatens the freedoms of any Americans should neither be excused or ignored. "Keeping faith," as Obama puts it, with our founding documents, starts at home with how we treat our own citizens.

If Obama really is all about "Change we can believe in," then I expect to see him respond to this and other similar issues by coming to the defense of victims of discrimination. I eagerly await his response when he is confronted with such atrocities. Will he take action to ensure that the rights of all Americans are upheld? His words say yes, but his actions leave me wondering.

DEFINITION OF TERRORISM: No one definition of terrorism has gained universal acceptance. Indeed, the singular defining quality of terrorism may be that it invites argument. The term terrorism is often thought of in the context of violence, however, this is not necessarily a requirement for a terrorist act. Sending anthrax via the mail, for example, is not a violent action, yet it is certainly considered an act of terrorism.

The FBI defines terrorism as: The unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Given this definition, I would say that forcing someone out of their career against their will, intimidating them to fall in line with a philosophical position (macroevolution, HIV causes AIDS, etc.) or suffer the loss of their career, contracts, and etc. qualifies as a terrorist act.

[1] Los Angeles Times - Text of Obama's speech on National Security from 05/21/09http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/wire/sns-ap-us-obama-text,1,121227.story?page=4

[2] Obama Says The Right Things, But Does The Wrong Things," by Herb Denenberg, The Bulletin [Philadelphia], May 22, 2009.
http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/22/herb_denenberg/doc4a15fb1ba6f9c986973954.txt

[3] Rosenberger v. Rectors & Visitors of the Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 828-835, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 2516-2520 (1995).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=515&page=819

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, contributor, 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 Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe, author of Edge of Evolution, a powerful challenge to essentially magical claims for what Darwinian evolution can do, protests - in his usual pacific way - the ridiculous claims that it can produce vast amounts of intricate machinery in a short period of time.

Of course, the scandalous American Scientific Affiliation list has a huge investment in misrepresenting him.

A key issue is whether he is a creationist - that is, does he think that specific divine acts of creation are necessary?

Recently, he wrote me to say,

I tried to make my views as clear as possible in my books, and I even have a section in Chapter 10 of Edge of Evolution entitled "No Interference" where I say ID is compatible with absolutely no "intervention" (although, of course, in reality there may have been intervention -- who knows?).

Here's the money quote:

"But the assumption that design unavoidably requires 'interference' rests mostly on a lack of imagination. There’s no reason that the extended fine-tuning view I am presenting here necessarily requires active meddling with nature anymore than the fine tuning of theistic evolution does. One can think the universe is finely tuned to any degree and still conceive that 'the universe [originated] by a single creative act' and underwent 'its natural development by laws implanted in it'. One simply has to envision that the agent who caused the universe was able to specify from the start not only laws, but much more." (p. 231)

[Some tenured nobody] apparently has not read my stuff too closely.

Oh, I wouldn't worry about that, Mike. Don't count on any of those people reading your stuff too closely. I remember the ridicule they heaped on you when the book first came out.

Here is my view, for what it is worth: The ASA list types thought they could front God to people who should really believe in materialism - like Darwin - in reality - did, from his early adulthood, and not as a result of his science research. [I will post on this topic soon].

The ASA types would give us the right to believe in God - on their terms.

But suppose we just kick them upside the moon, and believe the evidence instead?

Now that changes everything. Indeed, that is the change that is taking place. So hang in.

Human evolution: Quest for primitive human backfires

Human evolution: Hype, tripe, trumpets, and (lagging some way after, way out of breath) truth and realism

Human evolution: The spin machine in top gear

Intellectual freedom in Canada: "human rights" commissions, spreading the oppression, may trigger their own well-deserved destruction

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

Here is my review of Alva Noe's Out of Our Heads at MercatorNet:

He raises vital issues but, unfortunately, he fails to offer a convincing solution. Arguing that consciousness must be understood as involving the body and the environment as well as the brain, he offers platitudes such as, "Where do you stop and where does the rest of the world begin?"

An interesting question, but if consciousness is real - and not well described by materialist theory - we are no closer to an answer even if our brains, bodies, and environment are all one world. He offers only a different description of the problem.

Noë seems to want to move away from reductive explanations, but not away from the materialism that underlies them. So he ends up with non-reductive explanations that still don’t explain. By the time he ends up arguing that most human language is like dogs barking, he sounds like the people he critiques.

Also at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Drugs that supposedly boost brain performance

Neuroplasticity: Takin' it to the streets

Religion: Yes, faith is good for you

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

by Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

HYPE ALERT New York, NY [ARN]

In a stellar example of putting on the evolutionary Ritz, yesterday saw the unveiling in New York's Museum of Natural History of the latest and greatest "transitional" fossil (aren't they all?) said to be linked to humans. "IDA," an alleged 47 million year old primate fossil found in Germany, is being hailed as the most important link in human evolution ever discovered.

We'll have to check back in a few years to see if she draws more attention than LUCY did on her recent lackluster tour to Seattle (yawn). The King Tut exhibit, which opened last October in the Dallas Museum of Art did much better, profit-wise. [1]

Media and evolutionary experts the world over reportedly made monkeys of themselves (Guardian headline...) as they literally tripped all over one another with gushing expletives to convey the significance of this fossil find. Here are just a few:

ROSETTA STONE "It's really a kind of Rosetta Stone," commented study co-author Professor Philip Gingerich, of the Museum of Paleontology at the University of Michigan. [2]

WORLD HERITAGE FOSSIL "This is the first link to all humans ... truly a fossil that links world heritage," world-renowned Norwegian fossil scientist Dr Jorn Hurum, University of Oslo Natural History Museum.[2] Media reports relate that Horum continued to tick off the incomperables...

THE HOLY GRAIL and the LOST ARK Dr Jorn Hurum, the scientist at the heart of the project, made the most exotic parallels. He screened photographs of the Mona Lisa and the Rosetta Stone, without elucidation, though the implication was clear. He variously described the fossil as the Holy Grail of paleontology and the lost ark of archeology. [4]

THE FIRST LINK IN HUMAN EVOLUTION and OUR MONA LISA "This is the first link in human evolution. A find like this is something for all humankind. It tells a part of our evolution that's been hidden so far... This is our Mona Lisa and it will be ... for the next 100 years." - Paleontologist Jorn Hurum [5]

"THE" MISSING LINK (and how many times have we heard this one?) "This little creature is going to show us our connection with all the rest of the mammals. "The link they would have said until now is missing ... it is no longer missing." Renowned broadcaster and naturalist Sir David Attenborough.[2]

THIS FOSSIL CHANGES EVERYTHING Nancy Dubuc of the History Channel said Ida "promised to change everything that we thought we understood about the origins of human life". The most sublime image was of Michael Bloomberg standing beside Ida's glass box, his arm around the shoulders of a school girl who was wearing a T-shirt with the TV tie-in logo: "The Link. This changes everything". The main thing Bloomberg was presumably hoping this would change was his prospects of winning an unprecedented third term as New York mayor in upcoming elections. [4]

Tora Aasland, minister for higher education in the Norwegian government... appeared to think Ida was a wonder of Norwegian science as opposed to a wonder of pre-historic evolution. [4]

And of course, there is also the obligatory (and very speculative) story of how IDA died and came to be preserved so we could see and examine her 47 million years later:

"The scientists believe she was overcome by carbon dioxide gas whilst from drinking from the Messel lake: the still waters of the lake were often covered by a low lying blanket of the gas as a result of the volcanic forces that formed the lake and which were still active. Hampered by her broken wrist, Ida slipped into unconsciousness, was washed into the lake, and sunk to the bottom, where the unique conditions preserved her for 47 million years." [2]

In the end, does IDA really live up to all the hype? Historically, the answer is a resounding "No." For all the hoopla and gushing over IDA, one very key fact remains elusive and unknown -- which would make IDA a truly spectacular evolutioanry find.

No known precursors or ancestors. As is true of most fossil finds, there are no known direct evolutionary precursors or ancestors for IDA. What critters led up to her species? We have no clue, just speculation. What kind of species did she evolve into? Again, the experts are silent - because we have no fossil evidence. However, it seems that her mere existence is sufficient to qualify as a "missing link" without any clear understanding of what critters she links from or to. This is one of the most consistently beguiling aspects of fossil evidence used to promote evolution. Every fossil is considered to be a missing piece of the evolutionary puzzle, drawing us ever more closer to a better understanding of our alleged evolutionary heritage, but never quite getting us there. But SOMEDAY we will finally start filling the holes, or so the experts tell us.

Meanwhile, and until then, IDA is just another example of a critter without a heritage, despite the media hype about her significance.

To qualify as a "transitional" fossil, there needs to be much more than one cousin species set beside another cousin. There needs to be a clear evolutionary connection demonstrating what IDA evolved from. But the evolutionary (ie, homologous) distance between Ida and her alleged "kin" is so great that you could put a number of examples before and after her and claim they're related. That's not compelling scientific "evidence" - it's just speculation and conjecture. An article in SLATE acknowledges this:

Most media reports use missing link more generically. Sometimes the phrase implies that a fossil is the direct ancestor of two or more extant species. Such discoveries are rarely made, however. Most fossils represent species that are morphologically similar to a predicted ancestor but not connected in a straight line to any modern species. Even if a fossil were a direct ancestor, a paleontologist couldn't be sure; all she could say is that it would be consistent with direct ancestry. (When a fossil record surrounding a species is unusually dense, as it is for humans, scientists can sometimes find predecessors with certainty.)

A missing link may also describe an intermediate anatomical form that suggests how modern organisms might have developed certain capabilities. For example, an ancient fish with proto-wrists, elbows, and shoulders might be called a missing link between sea creatures and land animals. In this sense, though, every fossil is a missing link. There's no single intermediate point between, say, opposable and nonopposable thumbs. Rather, a wide variety of fossils seem to resemble both hand structures. No one can say which version is directly related to the two. It is entirely possible that all, or none, of the fossils are steps along the way. [6]

It's time that evolutionists start owning up to just how much they really DON'T know instead of peddling critters like IDA as another great example of evolution. She isn't anything of the sort.

Aside from looking great in our kids' science books, frankly, there isn't any evidence that compels us to believe in her evolutionary lineage. As one of my colleagues has commented "Ida isn't the first fossil to be oversold, and it certainly won't be the last." In my view, this is just another opportunistic show of media publicity to give yet another fossil an undeserved pillar in the evolutionary pantheon of so-called "evolutionary transitional links." I predict we won't find Ida's closest ancestors or her evolutionary survivors. After all the hype dies down, she will remain just one more dotted branch in the conjectural evolutionary bush for the primates.

But hey, Warren Beatty looks a little bit like me. Since we're building evolutionary relationships based on looks, think he could pass as my long-lost cousin? Maybe if we held a press conference to showcase our resemblance we might get some good publicity...

[1] NY Times, March 13, 2009 - "They Didn't Love Lucy" - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/arts/artsspecial/19bust.html?_r=2&pagewanted=all

[2] Science Daily, May 19, 2009 - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519104643.htm

[4] The Guardian [UK] "To get a glimpse of the Ida fossil, the media make monkeys of themselves" - http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/19/ida-fossil-primate-media-us

[5] The Hindu, May 20, 2009 - "Backgrounder to Ida Fossil" http://www.hindu.com/holnus/008200905201041.htm

[6] SLATE, May 21, 2009 - How Many Times Will Paleontologists Find the "Missing Link"?
http://www.slate.com/id/2218838/?from=rss

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, contributor, 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 Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

According to the always entertaining New Scientist, "Flat universe may be the new flat earth (Eugenie Samuel Reich, 18 May 2009). We are informed,

FOR centuries the ancients believed the Earth was flat. Evidence to the contrary was either ignored or effortlessly integrated into the dominant world view. Today we dismiss flat-Earthers as ignorant, yet we may be making an almost identical mistake - not about our planet, but about the entire universe.

Which centuries were those? The fact that Earth is a sphere was determined by Eratosthenes in the third century B.C.

"Flat" just means that light beams travel parallel to each other, instead of converging or diverging - these conditions would imply a negatively or positively curved universe. Most astronomers currently believe the universe to be flat, but ...

(Note: Of course, it was always possible that Earth was a donut. But the examples of the sun and the moon would deter most reasonable people from thinking so.)

Also just up at Colliding Universes (my blog on competing theories about our universe)

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun's bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking ... he appeared in Star Trek

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

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

1. Socratic Method: Short Stories and James Hoskins

Click here to listen.

Today on ID the Future, Casey Luskin interviews James Hoskins about his latest creative writing endeavors. Hoskins, a philosophy major at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, has written several pieces based on the debate between ID and Darwinian evolution, including one that pits Socrates and imaginary materialist Hector Dawkins against each other as they argue over the scientific merit of ID. Hoskins also reads excerpts from some of his stories, and describes the inspiration behind them.

Hoskins' work, including his Debate Between Socrates and Hector Dawkins, can be downloaded from ID Arts here. It is interesting that intelligent design is increasingly the subject of artwork. See also Steve Fuller's clever little play, which puts Abe Lincoln and Charles Darwin (born on the same day) on a contemporary talk show, hosted by a big hair hostette and a wisecracking dude on a short lead.)

2. The Dark Darwinian History of Eugenics

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future, John West takes a look at the eugenics movement of the early twentieth century and how it drew direct inspiration from Darwinian biology and the writings of Charles Darwin himself. The eugenics movement was no fringe effort, but was the view of mainstream science and espoused by those at Harvard, Princeton, and the National Academy of Science.

For more, visit the website of Dr. West's book, Darwin Day in America.

(Someone should write a book about the Darwin industry's efforts to separate their prophet from the eugenics he believed in and inspired. Unlike the Catholic Church, they cannot just face up to that episode in their history, and get past it. They react with outrage and denial when anyone brings it up, though the history is very well documented. See, for example, From Darwin to Hitler.)

3. Intelligent Design 101: Casey Luskin on Human Chromosomal Fusion

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID The Future, Casey Luskin continues the series begun in the previous podcast (Intelligent Design 101: State of the Debate), rebutting an argument for common ancestry between humans and chimpanzees in Dr. Francis Collins' book The Language of God.

Taken from a recently finished appendix to Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain the Key Issues, Luskin responds to the notion that similar chromosomal structure between the two species is proof of a common lineage by saying plainly that the discovery is equally compatible with a theory of common design.

(I find this a messy and complex issue. I don't really have a problem with common descent of humans and chimpanzees in principle. If you think about it, we are all more closely related to Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and other moral monsters than we are to Travis, the rampaging chimpanzee.

That said, the vast majority of common descent zealots see it as downgrading humans (= "We are not a little lower than the angels, as the Bible says; we are merely the third chimpanzee species, animals like any other.") It was supposed to be Darwin's great achievement to establish that that is so. The reality is that, common descent or not, we moved away from the chimpanzees' neighbourhood a long time ago, which is why I can call Joseph Stalin a moral monster, but not Travis.)

Also, just up at The Post-Darwinist:

Human evolution: New find reduces certainty

Darwinism vs. design: Houston playwright discovers how open-minded Darwinists can be

Article in Think criticizes Dawkins, defends design

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

One of the causes of "just-so" storytelling about human evolution is the fact that, until comparatively recently, people did not write things down or manufacture a lot of objects.

People like Pascal Boyer can write books like Religion Explained, secure in the knowledge that no documents or extensive artifacts are likely to turn up from 50 000 years ago that challenge his claims.

To see what difference this makes, consider the case of King Tut's tomb. Archaeologists have unearthed an extensive story of the short-lived effort of one Pharaoh to convert Egypt to monotheism. We actually know a fair bit about what happened there, due to deciphering writings and examining extensive artifacts.

Now and then a brief light is shone on a far earlier era, and here is one: An Australian cave painting depicts a marsupial lion, according to "Cave Painting Depicts Extinct Marsupial Lion " by Stéphan Reebs, Natural History Magazine (09 May 2009):

Several well-preserved skeletons of the leopard-size beast have been found. Now, a newly discovered cave painting offers a glimpse of the animal's external appearance.

In June 2008, Tim Willing, a naturalist and tour guide, photographed an ancient painting on a rockshelter wall near the shore of northwestern Australia. Kim Akerman, an independent anthropologist based in Tasmania, says the painting unmistakably depicts a marsupial lion.

It shows the requisite catlike muzzle, large forelimbs, and heavily clawed front paws. And it portrays the animal with a striped back, a tufted tail, and pointed ears.

Those last three features aren't preserved in skeletons, but Aborigines would have known them well. Australia's first people landed on the continent at least 40,000 years ago and were contemporaries of the big predator.

Similarly, an article in Science, 323 (30 January 2009) pushes back:

In 2002, a discovery at Blombos Cave in South Africa began to change how researchers view the evolution of modern human behavior. Archaeologists reported finding two pieces of red ochre engraved with crosshatched patterns, dated to 77,000 years ago. Many experts interpreted the etchings as evidence of symbolic expression and possibly even art, 40,000 years earlier than many researchers had thought (Science, 11 January 2002, p. 247). Now the Blombos team reports on an additional 13 engraved ochre pieces, many dated to 100,000 years ago. The researchers suggest that some of the engravings may represent an artistic or symbolic tradition. If so, the timeline for the earliest known symbolic behavior must once again be redrawn.

Go here for more (paywall).

When timelines are getting redrawn this often, my advice is - for now - forget them. At some point, our ancestors differentiated themselves from knuckle-dragging apes, and that was an event with great consequences, about which we have almost no information.

Here is the contest question at Uncommon Descent: Question 3: In 400 words, to be judged in two weeks, and printed as a post: What do we really know about human evolution that could not simply be overturned by a new find? The winner will receive a free copy of Expelled. The contest will be judged in two weeks, May 27.

You must go to Uncommon Descentto enter.

Also just up at The Mindful Hack is my blog on neuroscience and spirituality issues, which supports The Spiritual Brain:

Religion: Why writing things down matters

Coffee!: Zombies: A science-based explanation?

Free will: an interesting new experiment

Addiction: Ideas that do not help

How medicine lost, and then slowly regained its mind

Freedom of religion: One benefit is more piety

Neuroscience: Exploring how brains wire and rewire:

Religion: Why writing things down matters

Neuroscience: Who do voodoo? You do, apparently (you might if you are a neuroscience researcher) - another paper says so

Subversive Thinking responds to Mesner review of The Spiritual Brain

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

On March 2, 2009, the controversial* Turkish intellectual Adnan Oktar responded to my questions about doubting Darwin in Turkey.

Turkey is of increasing interest in Western circles because of its application for membership in the European Union. And materialist atheists have been freaking out in the pop science press about Darwin doubt in Turkey.

Modern Turkey emerged from the breakup of the Ottoman empire, under secularist Kemal Ataturk.**

I became interested years ago when a Turkish friend kindly sent me a number of the books produced by Adnan Oktar and his associates, under the pen name Harun Yahya. I finally got a chance to correspond with him. Here are his responses to my questions. (I will also shortly post a review of Evolution Deceit, probably the most succinct and comprehensive of the critiques of overblown claims for Darwinian evolution.)

O'LEARY: How did you become interested in the evolution controversies? The conventional wisdom offered by many media sources in North America is that doubts about Darwin are a product of American evangelical Christianity in the deep rural South, and can only be understood with reference to that culture. Unless there is something I am missing, your doubts could not have stemmed from that culture. From what, then, did they stem?

Go here for more.

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 friend comments on Michael Shermer's "A Skeptic's Take on the Public Misunderstanding of Darwin" (Scientific American, February, 2009),

Shermer has exhibited a knack for consistently misinterpreting and selectively quoting Wallace. Shermer is correct that Wallace suggested Spencer's term survival of the fittest, but he doesn't own up to what this came to mean for Wallace. Wallace's mature understanding of evolutionary processes were themselves evolving and would take a distinct turn away from Darwin in 1869. Shermer is understandably big on the pre-1869 Wallace; after that Shermer's treatment of Wallace becomes progressively more selective and idiosyncratic. In fact, Wallace came to understand "survival of the fittest" precisely within the teleological terms Shermer would deny. Consider this from his World of Life (1910): "If then, as I am endeavoring to show, all life development -- all organic life forces -- are due to mind-action, we must postulate not forces, but guidance; not only self-acting agencies as are involved in natural selection and adaptation through survival of the fittest , but that far higher mentality which foresees all possible results of our cosmos. That constitution, in all its complexity of structure and of duly coordinated forces acting continuously through eons of time, has culminated in the foreseen result. No other view yet suggested affords any adequate explanation . . . ." (p. 197) So in the end Wallace not only adopted but championed the so-called "misconception." Notice that Wallace could continue to use the term but within an expressly teleological framework. What Wallace called "mind-action" or "Overruling Intelligence" most of us would simply call God.

Which reminds me, I have just received Michael Flannery's new book, Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism (Erasmus, 2009). More later.

It's good to see someone taking this stuff on. As Darwinism becomes less believable by the year, we can expect more sophisticated "misunderstanding" of alternatives.

Also at the Post-Darwinist:

Scientific American in trouble ?

Christian Darwinists attempt to douse doubt in Turkey

Intellectual freedom: The freedom to raise one's hand

Genome mappers Crick and Watson: Was Crick the brains of the operation?

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).

Philosopher Thomas Nagel disowning Darwinism

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Considering Wallace, Darwin's co-theorist, about whom Michael Flannery has published a new book, Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace's World of Life Challenged Darwinism (Erasmus, 2009), philosopher Thomas Nagel reminds a friend of Wallace, in his skepticism of Darwinism in The View from Nowhere (1986). Echoing Darwin's contemporary, Alfred Russel Wallace, Nagel questions that the human intellect is explicable through Darwinian principles:

The question is whether not only the physical but the mental capacity needed to make a stone axe automatically brings with it the capacity to take each of the steps that have led from there to the construction of the hydrogen bomb, or whether an enormous excess mental capacity, not explainable by natural selection, was responsible for the generation and spread of the sequence of intellectual instruments that has emerged over the last thirty thousand years. This question is unforgettably posed by the stunning transformation of bone into spaceship in Stanley Kubrick's 2001.

I see no reason to believe that the truth lies in the first alternative. The only reason so many people believe it is that advanced intellectual capacities clearly exist, and this is the only available candidate for a Darwinian explanation of their existence. So it all rests on the assumption that every noteworthy characteristic of human beings, or of any other organism, must have a Darwinian explanation. But what is the reason to believe this? Even if natural selection explains all adaptive evolution, there may be developments in the history of species that are not specifically adaptive and can't be explained in terms of natural selection. Why not take the development of the human intellect as a probable counterexample to the law that natural selection explains everything, instead of forcing it under the law with improbable speculations unsupported by evidence? We have here one of those powerful reductionist dogmas which seem to be part of the intellectual atmosphere we breath.

What, I will be asked, is my alternative? Creationism? The answer is I don't have one, and I don't need one in order to reject all existing proposals as improbable. One should not assume that the truth about this matter has already been conceived of -- or hold onto a view just because no one can come up with a better alternative. Belief isn't like action. One doesn't have to believe anything, and to believe nothing is not to believe something" (pp. 80-81).

Also, at the Post-Darwinist:

Misunderstanding Alfred Russel Wallace

Sometimes, my ability to find Evolution believable hangs by a toenail

Fossil record: Book recommended

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

This is Contest Question 2 for the Uncommon Descent Earn free stuff contest:

"Iowa Professors Mobilize Against Measure on Teaching Alternatives to Evolution" by Peter Schmidt (February 26, 2009):

More than 200 faculty members at 20 Iowa colleges have signed a statement opposing a proposed state law that would give instructors at public colleges and schools a legal right to teach alternatives to evolution.

Well, these were the folks who drove out gifted astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez. You must pay for the article, and I do not recommend that. We've all pretty much heard it all already.

Instead, for a free copy of Gonzalez's Privileged Planet DVD, go to Uncommon Descent and answer this question: Why does Guillermo Gonzalez's view that Earth is uniquely situated for science discovery threaten so many people?

Here are the Contest rules (pretty easy, really).

You must go to Uncommon Descent, and register to comment. You will not receive any solicitations that come through UD.

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 H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

Earlier this past week, news commentator Chris Matthews and Indiana Republican Congressman Mike Pence went at it on "Hardball" (video). Pence, by the way, is in a leadership position as the Chairman of the House Republican Caucus.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to take some heat among many of my colleagues for what I'm about to say, but I feel strongly compelled to say it anyway: Mike Pence gave what I consider to be an absolutely embarrassing performance in this segment. In fact, if Pence represents the best that the GOP can muster for this kind of media opportunity, then they haven't earned the right to win the hearts and minds of anyone. Why? Because Pence was obviously not prepared. Folks, we're in the middle of a culture war, and Pence came to the table with the intellectual equivalent of a pea-shooter when he could have and should have come with a howitzer. Like I said, it was downright embarrassing.

Here's how the segment started out:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in evolution?

PENCE: Do I believe in evolution? I embrace the view that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that's in them, and --

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) Right, but you believe in evolution from the beginning.

PENCE: The means, Chris, that He used to do that, I can't say, but I do believe --

MATTHEWS: (interrupting) You can't what?

PENCE: -- in that fundamental truth.

MATTHEWS: Well -- well did you take biology? Did you take biology in school? Did you take science, which is all based on evolutionary belief and assumption?

PENCE: Well, I've always wanted to --

MATTHEWS: If your party is to be credible on science, you've gotta accept science. Do you?

PENCE: Yeah, I want to --

MATTHEWS: Accept science?

PENCE: I always wanted to play in Inherit the Wind, but on the global warming issue --

MATTHEWS: (laughing)

PENCE: -- I know that in the mainstream media...

MATTHEWS: See how you're hedging?

PENCE: In the mainstream media --

MATTHEWS: This is why people don't trust Republicans!

PENCE WAS EVASIVE

In reviewing this segment in it's entirety, it's very clear that Matthews was intent on getting Pence to answer one question in particular: "Do you believe in evolution?" This was not a trick question for someone who is prepared. Matthews asked Pence this question at the beginning and also well past midway in the interview (at 3:30), and Pence never did offer up a direct response.

Regardless of how Matthews then goes on in this interview, the point is this: Pence parsed his words, waffled and dithered and danced around this and other questions and offered up a pretty lame response by going off on a tangent. This did not look good at all.

Matthews seemed to be a bit exasperated at first over the way Pence responded initially. Quite frankly, I would have also been a little exasperated if I had received the same evasive and ridiculous response from someone I was interviewing. I think Matthews has a legitimate beef with Pence when he then says: "See how you're hedging?"

Matthews is right - Pence WAS hedging. Pence abruptly changed the subject from evolution and went off on a totally different talking point: global warming. He clearly DID sidestep the discussion Matthews was trying to nail him on.

DID MATTHEWS PROMOTE FALSEHOODS?

Did Matthew promote any Falsehoods? Well, first of all, my take on it is that Matthews actually believes the baloney he pumped out in this segment. He thinks he's representing the way things really are when he says Republicans hate science and evolution in particular. Like it or not, many folks on the Left think exactly the way Matthews does - and they don't see this view as false at all. I can find people in Matthews' corner who don't put much stock in science either, but that doesn't necessarily mean I can then legitimately extrapolate a broad brushstroke perspective of how their party views science in general. But the point is, Matthews and others in his corner often make the same worn-out claims all the time - making their arguments and questions predictable. He presented a predictable opportunity for Pence to run away with, but instead, he flubbed it royally. Fielding basic questions like the ones Matthews posed (ie, "Do you believe in evolution") should not be a surprise, and anyone from the Right who goes up on CNN or MSNBC ought to have a much better response. Some of my colleagues suggest that Matthews tried to "trap" Pence, but I don't buy that. You can't "trap" someone with a predictable question they should be prepared to give a good answer for.

WAS MATTHEWS OUT FOR BLOOD?

Perhaps. Was he conducting an inquisition? Well... I think that's a bit of a stretch. Taking the entire interview in context, I think it's safer to say that he was honestly seeking to pin Pence down for some answers to a few questions. He wanted Pence to give an account for what he believes about evolution and science - which is legitimate - regardless of how distorted Matthews' assumptions might be. They were honest questions (as Matthews said later in the interview "That's what I really think.").

Matthews also clearly positioned his comments as not an attack against Pence, but as an opportunity for Pence to respond to what Matthews maintains are commonly held beliefs of "many Republicans." I don't have a problem with him asking those questions. I think we should welcome the opportunity to receive such queries, and offer up good responses, regardless of how distorted the basis for those questions might be. In fact, situations like this present a great opportunity for the prepared person to CORRECT such distortions. Pence had an opportunity to address Matthews' distortions, but he didn't even come close to doing that.

THE ONE THING

Here's the One Thing (as Glenn Beck likes to say...): Regardless of whatever the interviewer (Matthews)thinks, Pence had an opportunity to win the audience. Matthews does come at Pence with some obviously baited remarks(ie, "Many Republicans don't like science" and "Many Republicans don't believe in evolution"). I'm not sure anyone could ever sway Chris Matthews away from his presumptions in seven minutes, but they COULD sure give him (and his audience) some substance to chew on. This interview was an opportunity to provide a rational and well reasoned response to a national audience, which Pence did not do throughout most of the segment. Showing up on camera to perform a waffle-fest doesn't cut it with viewers. And Matthews understandably took him to task for it. Matthews was playing to his audience, and Pence, unfortunately, clearly wasn't.

The backside of this "One Thing" is, in an interview with a national audience watching, you need to capture the respect of your viewers up front with your initial remarks. Instead of doing that, Pence actually LOST his audience with his initial remarks, and so found himself in the position of digging himself out of a hole from the get-go. And while I thought Pence did come back with some good points on stem cell research, it was too bad he didn't establish himself well from the start.

Then, later in the interview Matthews makes other claims about the views of some in the Republican party...

MATTHEWS: There are people who really are against science in your party who really do question not just the science behind climate change but the science behind evolutionary fact that you and I were taught in our biology books. They don't accept the scientific method, they believe in belief itself... people say "I don't think your party really believes in human progress..."

Matthews then goes on to say that he doesn't think the Republican party is passionately committed to science and that this is what he really thinks.

Another great opportunity to challenge Matthews' assumptions. And how does Pence mangle it?

PENCE: I'm in the pary of Teddy Roosevelt, the party that has a long and storied history in conservation... I've supported extensive increases to the National Institute of Health... This anti-science thing is a little bit weak."

More evasion. Actually, I thought it was Pence who was weak. Spoken like a true politician, in my view.

OTHER COMMENTARY ON THIS SEGMENT

Others who have blogged or commented on this segment include the following:

Rush Limbaugh - May 6, 2009

Red Sounding - May 7, 2009

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, contributor, 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 Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

This is Contest Question 1 for Earn Free Stuff at Uncommon Descent: Does the multiverse help science make sense - or simply destroy science?

To help you decide, here's a classic pop science article by Anil Ananthaswamy of New Scientist, fronting the
multiverse:

Today's measurements show the universe to be flat, but the uncertainty in those measurements still leaves room for space-time to be slightly curved - either like a saddle (negatively curved) or like a sphere (positively curved). "If we originated from a tunnelling event from an ancestor vacuum, the bet would be that the universe is negatively curved," says Susskind. "If it turns out to be positively curved, we'd be very confused. That would be a setback for these ideas, no question about it."

Until any such setback the smart money will remain with the multiverse and string theory. "It has the best chance of anything we know to be right," Weinberg says of string theory. "There's an old joke about a gambler playing a game of poker," he adds. "His friend says, 'Don't you know this game is crooked, and you are bound to lose?' The gambler says, 'Yes, but what can I do, it's the only game in town.' We don't know if we are bound to lose, but even if we suspect we may, it is the only game in town."

Question: For a free copy of Expelled, is this any way to do science?

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

By Kevin H. Wirth, ARN Director of Product Development and Media Relations

In a decision that sent shockwaves throughout American High Schools this week, the associtated press reported[1] US District Court Judge James Selna handed down a ruling[2] last Friday upholding student Chad Farnan's claim that his civil rights were violated when his teacher James Corbett commented during a history class that creationism was just "religious, superstitous nonsense." The ruling puts all teachers who engage in similar inappropriate anti-religious commentary on notice that such comments will likely not be tolerated.

The case, which has been been underway for 16 months, also noted several other reportedly anti-religious comments made by Corbett, but were dismissed by the Judge, including "when you put on your Jesus glasses, you can't see the truth," and a quote the judge said was likely attributable to Mark Twain when he said religion was "invented when the first con man met the first fool." Earlier in April, Selna dismissed other comments attributed to Corbett, such as, "Conservatives don't want women to avoid pregnancies -- that's interfering with God's work" and "When you pray for divine intervention, you're hoping that the spaghetti monster will help you get what you want." A more detailed account of Corbett's mouthy, pompous, and rambling trash talk -- often exhibiting a clear disdain for religion in general and Christianity in particular -- can be found in Farnan's original complaint. [3]

Corbett, a 20-year teaching veteran at Capistrano Valley High School, remains on the job.

I view this ruling as much more significant than many might realize, since the case offers insight into a widespread and growing trend of open hostility in many high schools directed by teachers towards students who question some aspects of evolution or who simply hold to conservative, traditional, or religous values. The ruling is also significant for the relief it offers for students who suffer similar hostile encounters with their teachers. Many students who question evolution on either scientific or religious grounds have frequently suffered strong opposition and open discrimination from their teachers, resulting in lower grades, loss of recommendations to schools, loss of other academic support, and in-class denigration.

Learning environments for students are even more challenging in many institutions of higher learning, where both students and educators face nothing less than a full-scale onslaught against them if they harbor particular beliefs and values. Those who disagree with various aspects of evolution are particularly singled out for a wide variety of discrimination tactics, as documented in the book Slaughter of the Dissidents, by Dr. Jerry Bergman.[4] Ironically, the one comment Judge Selna faulted Corbett for was made in reference to a remark Corbett uttered about a former creationist educator (John Peloza) who once taught in the same school district Corbett hails from. The Peloza case is also addressed in Bergman's book.

Reaction on many blogs runs high in opposition to Corbett, and many who agree with him in principle are expressing their outrage at his behavior and are very upset that he appears to have seriously set back efforts to secularize our public schools.

One particularly vehement blogger lamented "Why do you have to ruin it for the rest of us. We do not need this case to reverse all that we have done to finally remove Chritianity from the school systems..." Corbett responded by noting in part:

I'm the teacher, Dr. Corbett. I never "bashed" any religion. I've never belittled a student. I talked about the 18th Century Catholic Church in Austria and I quoted Voltaire. In addition, I characterized the notion put forth by a local biology teacher that the earth was "very young, less than 6,000 years old and created by God, complete with fossils," as (my quote) "superstitious religious nonsense." It is, as a matter of science. When I said that, I also said that as a matter of faith, students can believe anything they want, but trying to turn religion into science perverts both religion and science. I'm disappointed that so many people still seem to think I would ever hurt a student. [5]

After reading Farnan's complaint, which is chock full of Corbett's clearly anti-religious statements, one can only conclude that he is in a state of serious self-delusion. There is clearly a definite disconnect between what Corbett thinks he said and what the rest of us can plainly see from reading his remarks.

Comments from other observers on this matter suggests that Judge Selna strangely refused to take Corbett to task for many of his clearly inappropriate and anti-religious diatribe, finding fault with only one of Corbett's comments. Ed Brayton, with whom I often disagree, expressed sentiments that are perhaps most in line with my own:

There will inevitably be conflicts between things taught in school and the religious beliefs of some students. When those conflicts occur, a teacher has to handle those situations with some degree of sensitivity. It is one thing to tell a student that they are teaching something because it is the position best supported by the evidence; it is quite another to tell them that their religion makes them incapable of seeing the truth and that their religion is a fraud believed in by fools. I think this teacher clearly crossed over the line here, and not just in the one statement the court found to be a problem. [6]

One other very interesting result of this case is that Selna's ruling found that the school district was not liable for Corbett's remarks - which stands in stark contrast with the fears expressed by many school districts about teachers who make comments on creationism or ID in a classroom setting. Many districts are concerned that any such remarks are inappropriate and leave them open lawsuits that could result in significant legal costs.

For now, Selna's ruling should offer some welcome relief to many students who would otherwise be subjected to ridicule and humiliation similar to that dished out by Corbett. Unfortunately, it will not reign in other types of discrimination that will continue to be made by educators intent on derailing the educational goals of many students who are viewed as Darwin skeptics. I wish young Farnan well as he seeks to enter college, and we'll all be watching to see if any college educator dares to cross his path with more of the same. If, that is, he gets admitted first.

[1]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518864,00.html

[2]http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/2009/05/01/Student%20lawsuit%20-%20final%20ruling.pdf

[3] http://www.ocregister.com/newsimages/news/2007/12/capistranovalleysuitcomplaint.pdf

[4] http://www.slaughterofthedissidents.com

[5] http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/8eyy3/heres_the_christain_douchebag_chad_farnan_who_is/?sort=new

[6] http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2009/05/california_teacher_liable_for.php

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, contributor, 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 Dissidents. He is also the publisher of Caroline Crocker's upcoming book "Free to Think," (Leafcutter Press) which addresses her critics and relates her experience as an Expelled University professor. Her book is currently slated for release in June of 2009.

To read more essays by Kevin Wirth, click here.

Copyright (c) 2009 by Kevin H. Wirth, all rights reserved. Quotes and links are welcomed with attribution.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Why just be a commenter when you can also earn free stuff that is worth money?

Recently, I asked for and received 25 prizes, as follows:

10 DVDs of Expelled,courtesy the producers.

10 DVDs of Privileged Planet, courtesy the producers.

5 subscriptions, including back issues, to the excellent Christian/theistic science and culture mag, Salvo, complete with recent back issues, courtesy the editor-in-chief.

I will pose a question based on a recent news story, and ask for responses within two weeks. I will publish the winning response in a subsequent post.

You must go to Uncommon Descent and register to comment. (You will not receive any solicitations - at least none that originate from us.)

Rules:

1. No more than 400 words in response. I will select the response I find most interesting and print it as a post. Be succinct.

2. New ideas impress me, even if I disagree. Rants and myths don't. Re abuse: Uncommon Descent is not competing for Troll Hole of the Year, so ...

3. I will not correspond with anyone about the award. My In Tray is already a natural disaster. If you don't win, try again. And who knows, if this contest takes off, I may be offered more prizes.

The first question will come shortly.

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 friend, AngelWeb at Free Mark Steyn alerts me to this story by Melanie Phillips, "Creating an insult to intelligence" (29th April 2009):

Listening to the Today programme this morning, I was irritated once again by yet another misrepresentation of Intelligent Design as a form of Creationism. In an item on the growing popularity of Intelligent Design, John Humphrys interviewed Professor Ken Miller of Brown University in the US who spoke on the subject last evening at the Faraday Institute, Cambridge. Humphrys suggested that Intelligent Design might be considered a kind of middle ground between Darwinism and Creationism. Miller agreed but went further, saying that Intelligent Design was

nothing more than an attempt to repackage good old-fashioned Creationism and make it more palatable.

But this is totally untrue. Miller referred to a landmark US court case in 2005, Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District, which did indeed uphold the argument that Intelligent Design was a form of Creationism in its ruling that teaching Intelligent Design violated the constitutional ban against teaching religion in public schools. But the court was simply wrong, doubtless because it had heard muddled testimony from the likes of Prof Miller.

One thing I would contest with Phillips is that it was "muddled." It was a sophisticated attempt to keep a dying idea - Darwinism - alive, using the legal system.

If you can get a judge to say something is true, the fact that most reasonable persons do not believe it does not count for much.

Also at the Post-Darwinist:

Junk DNA: Sorting through the trash

US genome mapper Francis Collins fronts new BioLogos theory, preferred to "theistic evolution"

More on BioLogos ...

Young earth creationism: New book storms it?

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I received this press release from NOVA:

Please check your local listings as show times and dates may vary.

NOVA's Senior Science Editor speaks at symposium

In conjunction with the Cambridge Science Festival, NOVA's Senior Science Editor Evan Hadingham spoke at the MIT museum on Tuesday night as part of a symposium on the future of science journalism. Evan joined New York Times Managing Editor Jill Abramson, NYT Environmental Reporter Andrew Revkin, Scientific American Managing Editor Ivan Oransky, and Director of MIT's Knight Science Journalism Fellowships Phil Hilts. The panelists discussed the rapid growth of new media, the 24/7 news cycle, and how declining resources have provoked a crisis in the traditional print and electronic news media, raising questions about the future of high quality journalism. They also touched on the challenges and opportunities ahead in multimedia coverage and specialized reporting of science, health, the environment and technology.

All I can say is:

Hey, wakey, wakey. Freelancers have been soldiering through these problems for years.

There never was much "high quality journalism" on far too much of much of the science beat. Much of it was "[Darwinian] Evolution explains on Valentine's Day why you 'cheatie on your sweetie!'" - and a virtual Niagara Falls of similar nonsense.

Obviously, I grieve when people lose their jobs (what decent person wouldn't?), but if that stuff just disappeared, the world would not really be worse off

Also, at the Post-Darwinist:

Science: Another scientist harassed for "incorrect" views

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy

Coffee!! Official Canadian monster from 505 million years ago

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).