The ID Report

Review Of Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain The Key Issues
ISBN 978-0-8254-2781-7

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

The debate over whether or not our universe was designed with a purpose is one that centers not around philosophical questions but over "competing scientific explanations of the data". That is the central argument expounded by Phillip Johnson in Intelligent Design 101, a book that aims to bring into sharp focus the central tenets of the intelligent design (ID) movement. Contrary to a popular misconception, the modern day controversy over design in biology is not one that arose from some push to force Judeo-Christian beliefs into the science classroom. It is instead one that extends back thousands of years to the time of Plato and Xenophon in ancient Greece.

Today the educational literature defines all aspects of biology in purely naturalistic terms. What is more, evolution has become the "monolithic fact" that we must all embrace. Even though there is incontrovertible evidence that defies such a factual status, evolutionists have bent over backwards to make naturalism fill in the glaring inconsistencies in the data. As a vociferous opponent of the macro-evolutionary aspects of Darwinism, Johnson has attempted a "divide and conquer" approach to break such a stronghold. By separating philosophical naturalists such as Richard Dawkins from scientists with a sound objective outlook, Johnson's much-publicized Wedge Strategy has sought to prize neo-Darwinism away from its "pedestal of philosophical naturalism". Attacks on Johnson's initiative have focused on the religious backgrounds of its supporters rather than on the sound scientific arguments that they put forward. Still, as Johnson remarks those who today maintain that ID is all about religion ignore the counter claim that the theory of evolution is not exactly all about science.

Addressing this point in a later chapter of the book, philosopher J.P Moreland re-emphasizes a long-standing denial- ID makes no theological commitments to Christianity, Hinduism, Islam or any other religion and does not set us on a "slippery slope" of religious interference of science. Instead ID has scientific legitimacy evidenced by the observation that those who argue against it do so by attempting to falsify its scientific claims.

What are the scientific foundations upon which ID stands? Geologist and lawyer Casey Luskin, biochemist Michael Behe and philosopher Jay Richards remind us of the widely-disseminated ID arguments in their respective chapters of Intelligent Design 101. Complex information-rich objects such as those that lead to the inference of intelligent activity in archaeology and forensic science also exist in the molecular world. Behe builds on Luskin's platform by treating us to an exposition of how irreducible complexity in nano-molecular machines continues to present "a conundrum for Darwinism". Richards then gives us a comprehensive rebuttal of the materialistic interpretation of the Copernican principle challenging science popularizer and television celebrity Carl Sagan's assumption that "the universe is all there is" and listing the features that are necessary for a habitable planet such as our earth to exist. Rather than being winners of a "grand cosmic lottery", our earth's habitability coupled with its prime 'real estate' position for making scientific discoveries argue in favor of design and purpose.

Evolutionary stalwart Julian Huxley famously opened the centennial of the publication of The Origin Of Species with the proclamation that naturalistic evolution explained the totality of life's existence. Nevertheless the more recent struggles between creationists on whether the universe is thousands or billions of years old have done little to quell the rising tide of scientists who feel uncomfortable with the Darwinian endpoint. In Johnson's assessment ID has become the umbrella movement that unites "people of many viewpoints who were once divided on side issues". Today there exists a tremendous dissatisfaction with the Darwinian synthesis amongst reputable scientists who are unconvinced by the supposedly unarguable evidence that Darwinists hold on to. Within such a setting, Johnson equates his volume Darwin On Trial to "a match that lit the tinder beneath a stockpile of logs".

In his chapter entitled Philosophical Implications Of Neo-Darwinism and Intelligent Design, philosopher Eddie Colanter brings to the reader's attention the religious undertones of the so-called strong form of Neo-Darwinism which holds that (i) all of life is the product of purely materialistic forces, (ii) any reference to God is superfluous and (iii) any moral values that humans place on their comportment are purely arbitrary and subjective (this latter point has important ramifications for how we view contemporary social issues such as abortion, euthanasia and the definition of personhood).

Intelligent Design 101 then concludes with a broad overview of the historical landscape upon which ID has made its impact. What is made explicit is that ID is not simply a modern extension of the Christian creationism that featured in prominent legal cases such as those surrounding the Tennessee anti-evolution laws of the 1970s. In the words of distinguished theologian H Wayne House, it is a movement that carries with it an "empirical method of argument [and a] lack of allusion to the fundamentalist wing of Christianity and Christian theology".

As we approach Darwin day with its accompanying festivities and plans to parade his namesake through museum halls across the nation, we cannot ignore the vast body of evidence that today is feeding the ID counter-attack. Intelligent Design 101 is an invaluable resource for those seeking to understand the twisted fables of the anti-ID lobby. If those who oppose ID have nothing to fear, they should be prepared to entertain competing points of view and to let truth and reason become "the final arbiters".

2010 sees the beginning of a new series in Spanish exploring key findings from contemporary science that support the intelligent design inference. The series Passeos Por La Naturaleza (A Walk Through Nature) aims to further strengthen the global influence that the Intelligent Design movement already enjoys and raise awareness of important academic resources that are today challenging orthodox Darwinism and revitalizing the call for a fresh perspective on scientific discourse.

First installment can be found at:

Paseos Por La Naturaleza

Evolucion de la comunicacion en las ballenas? Los darwinistas deberian estar preocupados, by Robert Deyes and Carolina Deyes (transl: Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned)

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here is my post at Examiner on why. I thought it would never happen, actually. But I should have remembered - all psychology fads are inherently ridiculous because they are attempts to evade the depth of the human condition with some silly new idea.

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

David Warren is a Canadian journalist who writes for the Ottawa Citizen. He often expresses skepticism about Darwinism. Here he reflects on the "just-so" story usually used to explain Darwinian evolution:

The account of the Beginning of the Armadilloes, in the High and Far-Off Times -- and on the banks of the turbid Amazon -- is especially instructive. It supplies a theory of the convergent evolution of the clever armadillo, from the Stickly-Prickly Hedgehog and/or his friend the Slow-Solid Tortoise, under the ministrations of the Painted Jaguar.

Consulting it today, I realize that my skepticism toward the dogmas of neo-Darwinism might well originate from that story. It is not that I prefer Kipling's account of the origin of species, which was a quite intentional (and very amusing) farce. Rather, that it spared me from developing a taste for quite unintentional farces.

In logic, a "just-so story" is known as the "ad hoc fallacy." The Latin means "for this," and it applies to any "pourquoi" explanation of things, given for the express purpose of supporting an otherwise unprovable hypothesis.

The perfect example would be the whole pseudo-science of "evolutionary psychology," which seeks to explain why man is the way he is, by means of evolutionary plausibilities. We start from the hypothesis that everything in nature, as Darwin says, adapts exclusively to the end of survival. And then we return to the same place, by a logical circle.

Here are more of Warren's columns on this subject. (The first one begins with a reader's letter on one of his columns.)

Here are more stories on evolutionary psychology.

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).

Academic Freedom Update: California Science Center Engaged in Illegal Cover-Up

This episode of ID the Future features an academic freedom update on the California Science Center's cancellation last October of a screening of a pro-ID film, Darwin's Dilemma, by a private group. How does a government agency try to evade its obligations to the First Amendment? By suppressing information. Listen in to learn about the evidence that the Discovery Institute has uncovered in its lawsuit against the Science Center.

Go here to listen.

Well, of course they cancelled it. I cannot imagine why anyone would doubt that outcome.

Look, when I first started blogging - the only real news media today - I had to deal with the controversy over the Smithsonian withdrawing support for the screening of Privileged Planet. Go here for more.

But the Smithsonian was the famed institution where Walcott basically did nothing for decades about the critical evidence from the Cambrian evolution that showed that Darwinism is wrong.

If that's the science we want, fine. Our taxes pay for it.

Another podcast:

Rodney LeVake: Expelled Science Teacher, Part 1

On this episode of ID The Future, CSC's Casey Luskin interviews Rodney LeVake, the plaintiff in the Academic Freedom court case LeVake vs. Independent School District #656. LeVake, a former high school biology teacher, informally expressed doubts about evolution to a colleague who then reported him to the principal. LeVake ended up losing his biology position, not because he taught creationism or intelligent design, but merely because he expressed reservations about evolution to a colleague. Listen as he tells his story of clear academic persecution.

Go here to listen.

But what else is new? If LeVake had expressed doubts about the decline of bears* in Canada, he would have run into the same problem. Once a supposed "science" theory has become a big time theory-a-rama, you don't need evidence. You just need to keep inciting the base of people who are either paid or pay to support you. And administration is easily cowed.

So why don't they all seek work in the dairy industry?

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

This contest seemed to have attracted a lot of discussion, with 148 entries, so I spent all yesterday getting through the entries. Its basis was a fawning review by David B. Hart, of Richard Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth. We are informed - on the mag’s cover - that Dawkins "gets a gold star" for his book of that name (January 2010 Number 199).

Well, Darwinism is certainly one of the greater shows on Earth, and Dawkins is worthy a life membership in an illusionists' association.

The winner this time is Paul Giem at 111 (minor correction offered at 112), for

To come back to the point of this post, we were asked to critique the comment,

The best argument against ID theory, when all is said and done, is that it rests on a premise - irreducible complexity" - that may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated. At the end of the day, it is – as Francis Collins rightly remarks – an argument from personal incredulity. While it is true that very suggestive metaphysical arguments can be drawn from the reality of form, the intelligibility of the universe, consciousness, the laws of physics, or (most importantly) ontological contingency, the mere biological complexity of this or that organism can never amount to an irrefutable proof of anything other than the incalculable complexity of that organism's phylogenic antecedents.

My reply:

There are several problems with this paragraph. For example, there is the idea that ID rests on the premise of irreducible complexity. In fact, the origin of life is a far stronger foundation for ID (see Signature in the Cell), and the Privileged Planet hypothesis does not need irreducible complexity.

Another problem is the difficulty with the last sentence. If the "biological complexity" of an organism is "an irrefutable proof" of the "incalculable complexity" of its progeniters, and their progenitors had it, and so forth, did the incalculable complexity come from an originally "Incalculably complex" organism which arose spontaneously, or was the "irrefutable proof" somehow violated somewhere, or multiple times? Or does the concession constitute a proof of ID, in spite of the author's protestations?

But the part of the argument that stands out as the worst is the assertion that irreducible complexity "may seem compelling at the purely intuitive level but that can never logically be demonstrated." At this point I feel like I'm watching a movie, where the villain has been tracked down by the detectives who have put the clues together, and suddenly switches from pretending innocence to saying, "You can’t prove a thing!" He has now lost the audience (including any remaining doubt in the detectives). All that remains is the power play and the legal maneuvering. We now know the truth of his villainy to a moral certainty.

Science has never been about proof, and those who expect to attack ID because it can't be proved have committed a category error. The fact that they have to resort to this kind of argument suggests a fundamental weakness in their position.

Nor is the appeal to the supposed fallacy of "personal incredulity" helpful. What is the opposite? "Personal credulity?" If the contest is between faith and skepticism, it would seem that the proper scientific attitude would be skepticism.

There are other mistakes, but this belief that ID must be wrong until it can "logically be demonstrated" is obtained is the worst. If that's the "best argument against ID theory", then ID has it made.

I appreciated his point that science is about evidence, not "irrefutable proof". The latter is the domain of pure mathematics. (Why we cannot square a circle or meaningfully divide by zero.) But statistics and information theory are about the balance of evidence, and if the evidence does not support the idea that Darwinism creates much information, then it is not a good theory.

A free copy of Expelled goes to him, on condition of providing me with a working postal address, at oleary@sympatico.ca ]

I also appreciated Jerry's thoughtfulness in 137 through 139.

Further comments:

Just about everything Hart said about intelligent design theory, as quoted by Giem above, is wrong, and that is not an easy feat. It is hard to know where to begin, with stuff like this. For one thing, what is wrong with "purely intuitive level" and "personal incredulity"? If a landlady thinks that her drunken boarder will not pay his rent come Friday, though he swears up and down he will, that is a purely intuitive level of personal incredulity. She cannot predict the future because she is not God Almighty. But she is probably right anyway in her assessment, and should act on it.

And the rest is just bafflegab. For more on "bafflegab" (a term I did NOT invent), see below.

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

I just came across this fact in the journal Nature: Little is known about human evolution other than basic outline.

So, contrary to widely heard huffing, there are huge gaps in our understanding of early humans. In Nature's 2020 Visions (7 January 2010) Scroll down to Leslie C. Aiello, and we learn

Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. If H. floresiensis is indeed a surviving remnant of early Homo that left Africa around 2 million years ago, we have to reject the long-standing idea that Homo erectus was the first African emigrant. We also must reject many hypotheses concerning the prerequisites for this emigration, such as a relatively large brain size, large body size and human-like limb proportions. Importantly, we must confront our relative ignorance about human evolution outside Europe and Africa.- "Hominin paleontology"

Now, I don't believe for a moment that 2020 is going to yield a whole lot more information, as Mr. Aiello* hopes - more likely a whole lot more grant applications, as more people graduate and need a focus for their work.

That doesn't mean the work isn't worth doing. It does, however, raise a key question: Why are people expected to learn in school whatever evolution story is currently taken seriously - by whomever and for whatever reason?

When I was in school fifty years ago, we struggled through polynomials, the life cycle of the common toad, and how to behave on stage when putting on a fragment of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar - facts that were not under dispute and unlikely to change in the lifetime of anyone present.

Anyway, courtesy of the Discovery Institute, I have a copy of David Berlinski's The Deniable Darwin, for the best answer to the question: Why is human evolution, in its actual present state, compulsorily taught in schools? Why are people going to court in order to force the teaching?

Here are the contest rules. Winners get a certificate as well as the prize. You do not need to give me your actual address, just an address I can send the prize to, and we never save addresses for a mailing list.

*Aiello is President, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research

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).

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

In their book The Privileged Planet, astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher of science Jay Richards point out that rather than adopting the original definition of 'science' as a search for knowledge (literal translation from Latin), some opinion makers in science have taken it to mean "applied naturalism" defined as, "the conviction that the material world is all there is, and that chance and impersonal natural law alone explain, indeed must explain, its existence" (1).

Outspoken neo-atheists such as chemist Peter Atkins actively push their materialistic views via the 'scientism' movement, unwaveringly maintaining that science is "the only reliable way we have of discovering anything about the workings of nature and fabric of the world" (2). Philosopher Eddie Colanter described scientism as "the worldview [that] asserts that the only type of truth or knowledge that exists or that is important is that which can be known or verified through the scientific method" (3). Theologian J.P Moreland likewise defined scientism as "the view that science is the very paradigm of truth and rationality" (4).

Notable in Atkins's collective 'house of horrors' is the ontological reductionist notion that metabolic processes alone organize the "random electrical and chemical currents in our brains" that then shape our personalities and creative drive (2). Brain biologist John Eccles revolted against the demeaning undercurrent of such reductionism "with its claim [that] promissory materialism accounts for all the spiritual world in terms of patterns of neuronal activity" (5). In his Challenges From Science theologian John Lennox maintains that if Atkins's assertion were true, it would at once render philosophy, ethics, literature, poetry, art, and music irrelevant for our understanding of reality (6).

Besides throwing these and other disciplines into the intellectual trash heap, Atkins's position better reflects his atheist tendencies than any truly unbiased approach to discussion. His own 'cosmic bootstrap', the idea that cosmic spacetime brought about its own existence and today "generates its own dust in the process of its own self assembly" (6), is laughable precisely because, as theologian Keith Ward notes , "it is logically impossible for a cause to bring about some effect without already being in existence" (6).

Moreland brilliantly counters the axioms that Atkins holds dear by demonstrating their self-refuting nature. "A proposition", writes Moreland "is self-refuting if it refers to and falsifies itself. For example, "There are no English sentences" and "There are no truths" are self-refuting" (4). He later adds that "scientism is not itself a proposition of science, but a second-order proposition about science to the effect that only scientific propositions are true or rational to believe" (4).

Atkins's condemnation of cosmic purpose and design is all too evident in his own rhetoric. "Our universe" he assures us, "hangs there in all its glory, wholly and completely useless. To project onto it our human-inspired notion of purpose would, to my mind, sully and diminish it" (2). Side-stepping the extraordinary nature of the cosmic Big Bang (6), Atkins then contents himself with speculation over the existence of infinite universes (2), and clearly unveils to his audience that his acceptance of the facts is dependent on his own pet peeves and preferences. In short his conclusions are not those of an unsullied objectivist.

Years ago astrophysicist Kenell Touryan warned us of the 'trap of scientism' that, in the realm of biology at least, has become the philosophical foundation of many an evolutionist. "No reputable physicist or chemist" Touryan noted "would be presumptuous enough to characterize scientific discoveries, at least in the hard sciences, as "truth that will make us free"" (7). Laying out the reality of his own experiences he wrote:

"I and many of my physicist colleagues see intelligent design everywhere in nature and, compelled by the weight of such evidence, choose to believe that we are made "a little lower than the angels"... We should all take seriously the principle that "the confidence expressed in any scientific conclusion should be directly proportional to the quantity and quality of evidence for the conclusion"" (7).

Last year's scathing allegation from Atkins and his ilk- that you cannot be a true scientist in the 'deepest sense of the word' and still have religious beliefs (8) - was not one grounded upon scientific insights but on a pervasive atheistic brand of religion. It is high time that we recognized this and tossed the 'addled eggs' of scientism out of the frying pan.

Literature Cited
1. Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards (2004) The Privileged Planet, How Our Place In The Cosmos Is Designed For Discovery, Regnery Publishing Inc, Washington D.C, New York, p.224

2. The Joy Of Science, The Existence Of God And Galileo's Finger, Roger Bingham Interviews Chemist Peter Atkins, 2007, See http://thesciencenetwork.org/media/videos/3/Transcript.pdf

3. Michael Behe, Eddie N. Colanter, Logan Gage, and Phillip Johnson (2008) Intelligent Design 101: Leading Experts Explain The Key Issues, Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, Michigan, p.161

4. Ibid, p. 204

5. John C. Eccles (1991) Evolution of the Brain, Creation of Self, Published by Routledge, New York, p.241

6. John Lennox (2007) Challenges From Science, Beyond Opinion, Living The Faith We Defend (Ed. Ravi Zacharias), pp. 112-118

7. Kenell J. Touryan (1999) Science and "Truth", Science, 30 July 1999, Volume 285. p. 663

8. Gene Russo (2009) Balancing Belief And Bioscience, Nature Volume 460, p. 654

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

(I am an "intelligent design" examiner now. As I have said elsewhere, I don't know how long this will last. Visit if you are interested, and maybe provide some ballast against the flocks of trolls. Apologies for any duplications.)

Intelligent design: What it is

Top ten news events in the intelligent design controversy

Faked embryos are back - at PBS

Some claim that Satan is a great motivator, just like 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

Here's the contest.

The question arose from my longstanding puzzlement over claims that reptile behaviour could be sharply demarcated from bird or mammal behaviour, according to a tri-partite brain organization. The evidence did not seem to support that. For example, if we use a crude, obvious measure like looking after young, well, many crocodilians (including the Mississippi alligator) are pretty good at it.

Perhaps most reptiles are not. I do not myself plan to conduct a household census among snapping turtles and vipers. But if any species of reptile can do it, the simple three-part claim about the brain seems suspect.

"Aidan" at 3 is the winner, and needs to be in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca, to receive his prize.

My only comment is this: If I were a member of a jury that had to decide whether to convict someone of a criminal offence, I would be on my guard immediately when I heard anything about the "reptile brain." So far as I know, if a reptile did it, the reptile's keeper could get a fine for keeping a dangerous animal. That is way less serious than what happens if you are considered morally responsible, instead of unfit to plead, stupid, or something similar.

Meanwhile, I appreciated Collin's comments at 1 and : 2. Re 1: I fear the boy probably did lose his hand/arm or else the use of it, and my purpose in linking to the video was to disadvise foolish stunts with crocodilians. This is unrelated to claims about the "reptile brain" - I would say the same about bears, tigers, or chimpanzees, all of which have inflicted unexpected injuries for no apparent reason. Why risk serious disability to find out that an animal can be unpredictable?

Re 2, it sounds like Collin's in-law is a wise man.

Now here is Aidan's post, a couple of comments interspersed:

The “triune brain” theory (MacLean, 1970) presents the brain in terms of three successive layers:

1) the proto-reptilian system of spinal cord, brain stem, diencephalon and basal ganglia, which controls all genetically-programmed survival behaviours and a range of basic physiological functions such as heartbeat, breathing, digestion, et cetera;
2) the paleo-mammalian ‘limbic’ system, comprised of amygdala, hypothalamus and hippocampus, which generates self-awareness and attendant emotional responses; and
3) the neo-mammalian cerebral cortex, responsible for foresight, insight, reason, speech, et cetera.

MacLean’s model was an attempt to show that the evolutionary inheritance of modern human beings could be directly discerned in the structure of our brains. On the face of it, this seems a reasonable enough approach since, if we are indeed the transitory outcome of an on-going evolutionary process, the evidence ought to be visible within our physiology. As with every evolutionary artefact, however, the theory does not appear to have held up over time and is now outmoded, at least from a neurobiological standpoint. Against the predictions of Maclean’s theory, ‘mammalian’ social and parental behaviours show up in a wide range of non-mammalian vertebrates. Indeed, birds are demonstrably in possession of their own ‘limbic’ structures and reptiles appear to be, too.

[Which is why I would not recommend anyone to interfere with egg-laying vertebrates protecting their eggs, on the theory that those creatures can't - on principle - care - d.*]

The notion of evolution to which the triune theory adheres is ‘pre-synthesis’ – it postulates the addition of novel structure upon novel structure in a linear fashion. The ground of ‘orthogenesis’, however, which presented evolution as steadily progressive, has long since been lost. In the post-synthetic world, those sticking determinedly to evolutionary explanations for the origin and development of life see the process as proceeding mainly through adaptation of pre-existing structures. Three big slabs of systemic independence loosely knitted together would be a crude violation of this, and of the organic interrelatedness of all parts of the brain.

[My own view is that life forms use the brain capacity they have to do their jobs. - d.]

Clinical and ‘pop’ psychologists together and, of course, the lay media, are among those who like the three-brained idea. The concept of mental triplicity does appear to be useful to many people in practice, not as an accurate description of the material organisation of the brain but of the dynamic architecture of the mind as encountered from within. The notion that humans exist upon three ‘planes’ – material, psychic and spiritual – can be found in many traditions and also corresponds to Plato’s tripartite view of the soul. An idea so enduring may well be reflective of something essentially and immutably true.

[Maybe. I don't know. In my experience, "pop" psychologists are looking for "Get out of jail free" cards. "Reptile brain" is as good as the next excuse. We are only beginning the search for real answers.]

(*Note: As a child, I sometimes wandered through swampy areas. One would sometimes be assailed by a male red-winged blackbird- for no apparent reason. Later, it became clear that he was protecting a nest.)

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, we asked, as per the title, why do evolutionary psychologists need to debunk compassion?

That's always been a puzzle for me because ... why indeed? Only if one is a slave to basically stupid ideas like "the selfish gene," would debunking compassion, which is widely noted in my local society - and most working societies - seem a worthwhile project. Yet that project generates many useless research papers and other goofy projects.

You'd think more people would be interested in sponsoring compassion than debunking it. But hey.

Anyway, the winner here is Aidan at 6 for this entry (and Aidan needs to get in touch with me at oleary@sympatico.ca with an address to which I can mail the prize):

Proponents of neo-Darwinian orthodoxy are instinctively aware of certain awkward anomalies they need to undermine and contradictions they must cover up if their Big Picture View is to appear to trump all others. In the case of compassion, they are required to show that, whatever else it may be, it isn’t *really* compassion. Compassion as it is – in its raw, undebunked state – is particularly threatening to the materialist worldview because it is a universally accessible and entirely tangible demonstration of the reality of higher orders of being.

True selflessness lies not in the exclusion of oneself but in seeing another person *as* oneself. This is essentially ennobling not only because it rises above self-interest but because, in spirit (and in action), it lifts the other to the precisely same degree as ourselves, to the point where their interests and ours are seen as united within a much greater context. The existentially elevated ground upon which both are then able to stand – ground upon which neither could have stood alone – transcends both the material arrangements of the situation and the confines of each one's personal mentality. Compassion has the power to free us from ourselves and thereby set us upon a very different road.

It is not sympathy, where you suffer along with the person in the hope that this will make them feel better; neither is it pity, where you look down on the person and feel sorry for them from the position of your own safety. As a form of understanding – of oneself, other people and life generally – true compassion is astonishingly rich in content. It is intellectual and spiritual rather than emotional in nature, possessing a power to transform the character beyond recognition. On such a foundation, there is a sense of resonance and alignment with far higher orders, the contours of which we can hardly begin to discern, along with intimations of universal laws profoundly unlike those proposed by materialist observers yet plainly in harmonious accord with laws long since codified by spiritual tradition.

For ideological reasons, materialists and Darwinians cannot allow anything to be in this world that is not of it. If they can show that every instance of compassion fits the grim calculations of one survival strategy or another, they can dismiss every spiritual teaching without further examination. Then they win!

What I liked best about Aidan's entry is that Aidan helpfully distinguishes compassion from mere sentiment - you know what I mean: Blubbing all over someone's sofa about the awful time they are having.

Chances are, the afflicted person secretly wishes that "Blubber" would just go away. Almost any problem is easier to deal with than useless blubbing. Compassion transforms people; blubbing means that the upholsterer must be called in, for advice re the sofa.

Readers in general, never forget the extent to which "evolutionary" psychologists are generally poseurs. I respect the paleontologist who toils in the Badlands or Death Valley. But "evolutionary" psychologists are tax-funded intellectual parasites on a once Big Idea.

Other comments:

Barb, as always, had an excellent comment at 1: This comment particularly struck me:

If materials are solely responsible for morality, as E. O. Wilson asserts, then Hitler simply had bad molecules. He holds no moral accountability for what he did. People not versed in the art of logic and debate as well as those who are Ph.D. candidates in philosophy know this is sheer nonsense.

This comment particularly struck me, because that was one of the motivations for Richard Weikart's involvement in investigating the role of Darwinism in Nazism. The irrational attacks on Weikart for simply documenting the facts were one of my reasons for continuing to follow the story.

qwertyuiop at 4 , I hope you are not running for office anywhere near where I live. Your comments in general, about how materialist mechanist explanations are useful, tell me much. You write,

Would you claim that someone who studies how the brain processes music or the physics of music does not still appreciate music? If not, then why is their seeking of a physical explanation different from “Darwinists and materialists”?

I doubt very much that such a person appreciates music, because they are looking for a debunking explanation. People who get past that can appreciate music - as opposed to being thought well of by fellow members of their herd because they supposedly appreciate music, when all they really offer is a clever putdown.

Here are the contest rules. I gather that I think Contest 19 is still open.

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 title question here riffed off a study that claimed to prove such a point. I must also have been thinking of the "Brights" movement of materialist atheists.

Go here for the original post and all comments.

The winner here is Barb at 2, who needs to provide me with a postal address at which she may receive a copy of The Spiritual Brain. Here is her entry appended, with a couple of comments interspersed:

"Are materialist atheists smarter than other people? How would we know?"

The short answer is no, not really. Paul Johnson wrote a fascinating book entitled Intellectuals, in which essays describe the life courses and contributions of men and women who are considered by most to be of at least above average intelligence. Johnson noted that while these people often did their own thing (so to speak), there is a kind of 'herd mentality' amongst intellectuals. It's as if collective peer pressure stops them from truly speaking their minds. The materialist 'new' atheism espoused today is nothing more than the 'old' atheism with extra doses of rage and hatred towards anything remotely godlike or religious in nature.

[Re the book Intellectuals, I strongly recommend it, as I read it on the advice of a friend. Trust me, you would not want most current cultural icons as advisors.]

Standardized IQ tests could be given, but this would not necessarily prove that materialist atheists are smarter than others, since Daniel Coleman asserts that there are other types of intelligence including emotional and social intelligence that could be used as measuring sticks.

[I think the book meant here is Emotional Intelligence by Daniel Goleman. All concepts of this sort run the risk of descending into fad, though that does not mean that their original insight cannot tell us anything. (I just hope that the [fictional] woman who throws a tantrum at my New Year's party and blubbers all over my living room doesn't go away proclaiming that she is way smarter than the rest of us because she supposedly has "emotional intelligence.")]

What about everyday life? Have the materialist atheists discovered true meaning in their lives? Viktor Frankl wrote that man’s search for meaning is the primary motivational force in one's life. Or are they cogs in a machine, slaving away because their ARM adjusted again and now they're underwater with respects to the mortgage on their house?

[Hard to say, no? My own problem isn't with people who have discovered no meaning in their lives but with people who have discovered a meaning that sounds suspect. Usually, people who have found no meaning are just plain depressed. The others can be all too active in trying to force their "meaning" into reality.]

If they truly are smarter than other people, then they're not in credit card hell making minimum payments, they're not victims of the financial collapse of Wall Street, and they're not gorging on junk food, taking drugs, or engaging in any self-destructive behaviors.

[Well, if that is true of anyone, I am sure glad if they are not demanding that I give them a loan or tax funding. Unfortunately, that actually happens. I'd rather give charity. In some quarters, that is a dirty word, but at least it is a personal relationship.]

Other comments:

Tribune7 at 1 writes, "People who brag about being smart invariably end up losing the hand." If so, I may have done someone somewhere a mercy. Recently, a correspondent wrote me to say that I had helped talk him out of a career in alligator wrestling.

I suppose he would eventually get bored with being called "Lefty."

At 4 toscents asks:

So, who's smarter? The dissembling philosopher, or the mildly demented believer? Does it matter?

Which would you trust with a intimate confession?

Well, it's nice to be asked a question I can actually answer with certainty. I don't need to trust either of them, for the same reason as I do not need to believe either of two implausible stories.

Here are the contest rules. I think Contest 19 is still open.

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).