The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Forget rabbits and hats: Design theorist Mike Behe disappears and then reappears on Bloggingheads.

I've just been through the weirdest book-related experience I've had since a Canadian university professor with a loaded rat trap chased me around after a talk I gave a dozen years ago, threatening to spring it on me.

Apparently, vitriol over this interview caused Behe's discussion partner John McWhorter to ask that it be removed.

He wrote primly,

"John McWhorter feels, with regret, that this interview represents neither himself, Professor Behe, nor Bloggingheads usefully, takes full responsibility for same, and has asked that it be taken down from the site. He apologizes to all who found its airing objectionable."

This is astounding. McWhorter was there, he said what he did, so how can he claim that it doesn't represent him?

A day later, the show was back up. So the Darwin thugs lost that round.

Behe writes,

Well, mobs, including internet mobs, are scary things, and it's understandable to panic when they unexpectedly show up at your door. But if you’re going to set up a website to air discussions about contentious issues of the day, you should have a whole lot more guts than displayed by Bloggingheads TV.

Better see it while you can though.

Also just up at the Post-Darwinist:

More coffee please!! Darwinism and popular culture: If this is love, please hate me instead

From the mailbox: Competition in nature is overrated

All this just happens when you add water and stir (spectacular scanning electron microscope images)

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

Darwinism and pop culture: Pop fiction discovers the Discovery Institute

Darwinism and pop culture: So now it's Darwin poems

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

Special invitation for Richard Dawkins - but any civil person is entitled to enter.

There's been some discussion here and elsewhere whether the the recent IEEE article by Dembski and Marks correctly) characterizes Richard Dawkins' famous METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL program.

Does the program ratchet correct letters or does it let them vary? One is a partitioned or stair-step search, the other a more realistic evolutionary search. From The Blind Watchmaker, where Dawkins describes the program, its performance suggests that it could be either of these options (though he doesn't say).

On the other hand, from a video-run of the program, (go to 6:15), it seems to be the latter.

It's easy enough to settle this question: Make the code for the program public.

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

For a free copy of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009), help me understand the following:

Accidental origin of life is the basic thesis of origin of life researchers. Life all just somehow sort of happened one day, billions of years ago, under the right conditions - which we may be able to recreate. But there is a constant, ongoing dispute about just what those conditions were.

Here is the problem I have always had with accidental origin of life: It amounts to spontaneous generation. However, banishing the doctrine of spontaneous generation played a key role in modern medicine's success. If we assume that life forms (for medical purposes, we focus on pathogens) cannot start spontaneously, then they must have been introduced. Hence, we can develop procedures for a sterile operating room or lab.

If life can be spontaneously generated, why isn't it happening now? Conditions for life today are probably as good as they have ever been, and maybe better. For over 500 million years they have obviously been good for complex life forms, and for billions of years they have been good for simple ones.

Go here to enter.

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).

Synopsis Of The Fourth Chapter Of Nature's IQ By Balazs Hornyanszky and Istvan Tasi

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

As an avid participant of the compass-based sport of orienteering in the 1980s, one of the roles I was frequently assigned to was that of 'course designer'. Meeting the needs of the many orienteering enthusiasts who turned up on competition day was a formidable task that required the cooperative efforts of a large number of individuals. Errors in communicating course layout or map design could have been navigationally disastrous for all concerned. Of course few of us need reminding of nature's own 'grand schemes' of cooperative synchrony epitomized in the colonies of over eleven thousand ant species that today grace our planet. Workers, soldiers, fertilizing males and queens 'play their instruments' in an orchestra that is in part directed by the activity of a family of molecules called pherormones.

In all, entomologists have identified a staggering thirty pherormones used by ant cohorts for transmitting precise messages between specialized groups, on everything from the whereabouts of food to the imminence of danger. The resulting functional inter-dependency amongst ants is all too evident in even the broadest brushstroke accounts of their activities:

"Ants have to have mandibles suitable for cutting leaves; they have to know that their business is to carry pieces of inedible leaves into the anthill; they have to know that once in the anthill, they [must] chew and spread the substrate...they have to have an appropriate system of communication to be able to carry out their mass operations (they can completely rob a tree of its foliage in a single day)...Before her mating flight, the future queen puts a bit of the home mushroom crop in her buccal pocket and leaves the anthill with it. In her new hole, she begins to nurse this culture, which will then serve the sustenance of the new anthill..Further complicating this picture is the fact that even within a single ant species, there are often several types of groups with completely different bodily structures and tasks...mutually dependent on one another" (p.64)

How might such a system of functionally interdependent units have evolved piecemeal? In keeping with the Gouldean realization of the predominance of stasis in the fossil record, the latest evidence unequivocally shows ant colony organization having remained largely unchanged over the last 60 million years- a bludgeoning blow to Darwin's step-by-step evolutionary axiom if ever there was one. Those choosing to clutch on to Darwinist dogma remain clueless about how today's specialized ants evolved from some ill-defined primordial insect from a bygone era. After all, the all-or-nothing aspects of ant colony communicative living make each member's efficient fulfillment of assigned roles in everything from mushroom growing to ground defense critical for the survival of the colony as a whole.

Anthills aside, examples of functional inter-dependencies in nature abound, the electric eel perhaps being the next hot favorite. Equipped as it is with sophisticated electricity emitting and receiving organs that serve to transmit signals with its close neighbors, this formidable creature sports a thick fatty layer that affords vital protection against the dangers of self-electrocution. While the summer sounds of crickets similarly function to locate mating partners, bees use a sun-oriented '8' dance to inform their hives of the precise whereabouts of food. For the eel, the cricket and the bee both the accompanying perception 'apparatus' and the brain regions that help decode the incoming signal are indispensable parts of their respective communication systems. Without them all would be lost.

Fish stand out as perhaps the most surprising of all animals in their use of acoustics. Several species are known for their grunting, croaking, growling and humming-style vibrations often identifiably directed at their own kind. Individuals of the same species have to carry an innate capacity to deconvolute the relevant species-specific sounds from the cacophony of noises that shroud their environs. In this regard, one has to stretch the imagination to claim that per chance the frequency range of sound emission would simply match up with that of sound detection in any given species. Australian biologist Michael Denton hammered home a similar message in his book Nature's Destiny over a decade ago.

For the collective sum of case studies outlined in Nature's IQ Hornyanszky and Tasi are unswervingly steadfast in asserting that the origin of "species-specific communication systems" remains outside the bounds of gradual evolutionary change. With a sense of irony they justifiably question today's received wisdom: "when did members of different...species carry on conciliatory discussions in order to be able to understand messages of fellow members of the same species?". In reality, for the Darwinian mechanism to hold true numerous mutations would have had to appear in multiple, geographically proximal individuals if all were to speak and understand the same 'language'. This unlikely state of affairs, coupled with the finding that an invariable repertoire of communicable sounds and visible signals exists amongst members of the same species, provides the fodder needed to bolster the case against blind evolution and in favor of intelligent design.

When the ancients wrote of ants as "[wise] creatures of little strength" (Pvbs 30 vs 25), they clearly understood the sophistication in their capacity to work together for the common good of a larger whole. Today science has extended such observations and brought into sharp focus a world replete with communication systems that defy the Darwinian paradigm. Biologists would do well to take note.

For more information and to order Nature's IQ go to http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=129

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's my MercatorNet column about the decline of traditional media (known to bloggers as "legacy mainstream media"). Anyone interested in the intelligent design controversy should think carefully about how the media are changing.

I don't accept the thesis that the old media declined because they were partisan. Rather they became more ridiculously partisan as they were declining.

Single-minded partisanship is - in a free society - usually an outcome of consumer choice. People can get their news from lots of sources. So if they choose your source, you can develop the story as you like.

But - by contrast - how many air traffic controllers are permitted to bug pilots with their opinions about politics and religion? How many weather forecasters would last long if they likewise bugged farmers seeking data on the tornado watch?

So the tsunami of consumer choices in media fuels partisanship - but also opportunity.

The decline of big legacy media means the decline of the Big Controlling Story. You know - four legs good, two legs bad - as George Orwell put it, immortally, in Animal Farm. The story that writes itself for the 12:00 pm deadline, and no one gives a moment's thought to possibilities like:

1. It's not as simple as that.
2. Things may have changed.
3. The old guys might be wrong.
4. We may need to add to our panel of reliable experts (and maybe drop some).

The decline of the tired old Darwin lobby sources in favour of broader ones can certainly help the intelligent design theorists get a fairer hearing.

For more, go here.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

The overthrow of Darwinism - in real life, forget the pop science media

How can you lose playing tic tac toe with a pigeon? Don't watch the board. (You can be sure he will.)

Okay, I did it again ... Blew my stack ...

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

Apparently, the New York Times, on which there is a death watch - along with its acquisition , the Boston Globe dumped Ben Stein, the key sponsor of the Expelled movie, as a columnist. They must have been just waiting to do that. Supposedly, there was a conflict of interest. Personally, I think he is better off without them, as well as versa vice.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

Coffee!! Oh, so now Darwinism explains why you think SHE'S beautiful? Where's my rolling pin?

Ken Miller and Darwin's god

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

The prize?: A free copy of Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009).

Go here to enter.

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).

Synopsis Of The Fourth Chapter Of Signature In The Cell by Stephen Meyer
ISBN: 9780061894206; ISBN10: 0061894206; Imprint: HarperOne

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

When talking about 'information' and its relevance to biological design, Intelligent Design theorists have a particular definition in mind. Indeed they see information as "the attribute inherent in and communicated by alternative sequences or arrangements of something that produce specific effects" (p.86). When the twentieth century American mathematician Claude Shannon laid down his own theory for quantifying information he drew attention to a mathematical relationship that on its surface appeared intuitive. Information as Shannon noted was inversely proportional to uncertainty. That is, the more information we had about our world the less uncertainty there was over the outcome of future events. Shannon also proposed that the more improbable an event the more information such an event would impart once it actually took place (say, throwing a six on a role of dice).

Nevertheless Shannon's theory was deficient in at least one crucial aspect- it made no distinction between meaningful and meaningless information-rich strings. While equally long sequences of alphabetical characters did not always elicit tangible (meaningful) outcomes, they nevertheless always displayed the same level of Shannon-style uncertainty. And yet language in itself was more than a random assortment of letters even though Shannon's theory ascribed the same degree of information content to such an assortment as it did to an equally long but meaningful series of sentences.

What was missing in Shannon's synthesis was a term that accounted for the so-called 'specificity', that is the "precise arrangement or sequence" of letters in, say, human language (p. 100). Therein lay a biological connection. After all, the swinging 50s brought with it a host of scientific breakthroughs, notably those of X-ray crystallographers Fred Sanger and John Kendrew who were instrumental in unveiling the 'twisted, turning, tangled chain' nature of proteins. In so doing they sewed the seeds for a process of discovery that would eventually culminate in an unexpected realization- proteins contained a high degree of structural and sequence specificity. That is, if proteins were to fulfill their hugely diverse repertoire of functions in the cell both their structural organization and amino acid sequence had to fit within a very narrow subset of all possible arrangements. Just like human language that only takes on meaning when letters and words are set out in universally recognizable and interpretable sequences, proteins could be considered as being rich in specified information.

In 1958 Francis Crick's Sequence Hypothesis formalized the idea that protein amino acid sequences were inextricably linked to the base sequences of DNA. Years earlier, geneticists George Beadle and Edward Tatum had supplied evidence that strongly suggested a link between genes and proteins. The elucidation of the DNA genetic code in the 1960s, defining the base triplets that coded for each amino acid, revolutionized the molecular biology arena. Most significant of all was the revelation that both DNA and proteins bore the same 'specificity' fingerprint as human systems of code. In short, the cellular world appeared to be intelligently designed.

In the fourth chapter of Signature In The Cell, Stephen Meyer displays an enviable clarity in his exposition of biology's post-'Shannon information' era. In so doing he masterfully dispels any concern that the intelligent design inference does not carry with it a sound logical foundation.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here is my latest MercatorNet article, dissecting the caveman theory of psychology, explaining why evolutionary psychology is so rapidly losing credibility:

“Is human behaviour really based on the survival strategies of our Pleistocene ancestors?”

Well, the stone hatchet is certainly poised over our iconic cavemen. A recent Scientific American podcast admits as much, and without the narrator throwing a panic attack either.

Why this? Why now? And why such equinamity?

Secular materialist thinkers have as deep a desire as anyone to understand the wellsprings of human nature. But they are much more restricted in where they can look. From the very beginning of the organized "human evolution" movement, starting with Darwin's publication of The Descent of Man, they have mined random findings from evolution for deep truths about human nature.

So what went so wrong, so badly, and so soon?

Go here for more and for the links, and great Flintstones graphics.

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

Friend Regis Nicoll notes a 1986 study that supposedly shows that atheists are smarter. As the "new atheist" movement gets ink and hits the airwaves, we could have predicted more of this.

A friend writes,

More poor science here. All that they can point to is a negative correlation between belief in God and level of education. Additionally, they appear to point to a stronger correlation between self-identification as a 'scientist.' They cannot say from this that "higher IQ causes atheism." Other potential explanations are that there are subtle, and not-so-subtle, influences that take place during the higher educational process that is aimed at eliminating faith.

Indeed, I have known a number of people who point to college professors talking about evolution as a negative turning point in their faith. During grad school I heard professors state directly that more educated and intelligent people know there is no God. The underlying message is, if you believe in God you are ignorant, uneducated, and dense.

Unfortunately, many students are unprepared to question the authority of these professors who are socializing them to be an "intellectual elite" according to their own standards.

What's missing from most such "studies" is the recognition that when the elite culture is materialist atheist - or materialist atheist for all practical purposes, despite insincere claims - people who really espouse those views, whether or not they are more intelligent, will be far more likely to get ahead.

Intelligence has nothing directly to do with outcomes like that. In any society, there is a pool of intelligent people - people who know how to do things - who can be, and are, recruited for all kinds of new and interesting enterprises - good or bad. And there are people who can't, especially if they don't agree with the cause in question. And a number of the latter will die. As we have discovered over the last 250 years.

Also just up at the Mindful Hack, my blog on neuroscience and spirituality:

Neuroscience and spirituality: Subversive Thinking blog's interview with me (text)

Genetics and popular culture: Another claim that genes "explain" religion

Evolutionary psychology: Forget that. If you want to be attractive, be NICE!

Evolutionary psychology: Good news, at last, for credit card companies!

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).

Synopsis Of The Third Chapter Of Nature's IQ By Balazs Hornyanszky and Istvan Tasi
ISBN 978-0-9817273-0-1
By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

Commensalism, mutualism and symbiosis are terms that budding biologists are all too familiar with by the time they begin their university careers. We all learn about the cooperativity that exists amongst many of our world's creatures and the benefits they can reap from each other's presence. Goliath groupers that open their mouths to cleaning 'minions' such as the blue-streak cleaner wrasse defy deeply held expectations of nature's ways as do sharks that extend their vicious jaws to pilot fish that then pick out food remnants from between their teeth.

Extraordinary from a predatory perspective is the finding that wrasses and pilot fish are rarely (if ever) eaten by their much larger hosts. Discussions on the evolution of such partnerships leave the non-expert believing that chance mutations could simply turn predator 'fearers' into predator 'lovers' that naturally bond with their otherwise mortal enemies. Evolutionists weigh in by further supposing that reciprocal mutations led these same enemies to offer VIP treatments to their tasty servants.

Hornyanszky and Tasi nevertheless spare little in their decrial of the evolutionists' hand-waving ideals. In their own un-minced words "it is nonsensical to suggest that, because of chance mutations, a small fish would suddenly approach a predator without inhibitions with the idea of getting food from its mouth...and that the former predator and prey would then propagate generations of fish that continued this symbiotic relationship" (p.47).

Symbiotic partnerships are of course hot favorites for television naturalists eager to spread their own vision of a world where faunal allegiances are mere products of an overarching process of evolutionary adaptation. No more so than for the Egyptian plover and the voracious Nile crocodile both of which have featured prominently in many a natural history documentary. The plover's shrieking call, which signals the whereabouts of a potential meal, is an invaluable asset for the Nile crocodile as are the rich, bite-sized pickings on its own skin that supply the plover with its daily food rations.

Other partnerships can be vitally indispensable for the parties concerned. With its own cohort of formic acid-spraying weaver ants, the centaur oakblue caterpillar for example is dutifully protected from its enemies. Without them it would be hopelessly vulnerable. In turn the caterpillar supplies ants with a rich sweet milk, attracting them to its bounty through vibrations and special scents that they can quickly recognize.

Devotees of Pixar's animated blockbuster Finding Nemo will no doubt tell of the symbiotic lifestyles that unite both the clownfish and the sea anemone. While the anemone's stinging tentacles are of little consequence to the adult clownfish because of its protective gelatinous coat, the young unprotected fry relies on its instinctive 'cautious first' approach to avoid the deadly stings of its newly-found roommate.

And yet the seemingly intractable problem that Hornyanszky and Tasi repeatedly draw attention to in their own consideration of the facts is that of how the integrated cooperativity so visible in such partnerships gradually evolved. How might an ancestral anemone-dwelling clownfish have co-evolved the vitally important cautionary approach of its youth and the equally critical gelatinous covering of its older self? Any 'half ready' evolutionary intermediate would have suffered a prompt demise. And how might ancestral weaver ants have evolved a response to the caterpillar's vibrations and scents as well as the ability to search for its milky secretions? As the authors' duly note:

"The weaver ants would have no concept of [the caterpillar's] existence; therefore, they would take no notice of the scent and sound signals emitted by it. And if they had accidentally bumped into each other in the forest, the ants would have ruthlessly torn the novel caterpillar apart. Thus, we can hardly consider their relationship the result of an evolutionary process" (p.53)

A scrumptious wrasse picking inside the mouth of the Goliath grouper is the image that best epitomizes the attack on the Darwinian edifice that Hornyanszky and Tasi lay out in the third chapter of their book. And what a well-orchestrated attack it has turned out to be.

For more information and to order Nature's IQ go to http://www.arn.org/arnproducts/php/book_show_item.php?id=129