The ID Report

Done my taxes. Back to work!!

The longer I live, the more stupid stuff I hear in legacy mainstream media whose only possible value is to front Darwinism. Here’s a good one:

Chimpanzees eat their dead?

"Researchers may have witnessed it, but been unwilling to report it for fear of drawing undue attention to cannibalism among our close relatives, he says. "

If there is any remaining doubt that tax-funded Darwinists are nuts, let it be laid to rest.

When was the last time you were at a funeral where the reception lunch was in fact the deceased?

Oh, wait, this just in: "Chimpanzees and humans share about 99% of their DNA, and are so closely related that some academics have suggested they should be given rights similar to human rights.

PS: and, did you know, “Chimps feel death just like humans? (BBC)

Dr Anderson suggests the treatment of death marks another similarity. "

What utter rubbish, honestly. Chimpanzees do NOT know that they will all die.

For animals like them, that is a mercy. For humans, it is the beginning of philosophy.

That animals may mourn their dead is no surprise.

Read more!

Review Of Probability's Nature And Nature's Probability - Lite, by Donald Johnson
ISBN: 978-0-9823554-4-2

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

Zoologist Richard Dawkins has historically used the concept of 'junk DNA'- those apparently useless portions of genomes- to lead the charge against the creationists' position of purpose in nature. His view on the matter is quite simple: "creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA". In light of what we now know about DNA, Dawkins' should spend some earnest time reviewing whether his littered genomes are so littered after all. In fact the term 'junk DNA' is now seen by many an expert as somewhat of a misnomer since much of what was originally categorized as such has turned out to be pivotal for DNA stability and the regulation of gene expression. In his book Nature's Probability And Probability's Nature author Donald Johnson has done us all a service by bringing these points to the fore. He further notes that since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures. That is, if the Darwinian account of life is to be believed. "It would make sense" Johnson writes "that those useless nucleotides would be removed from the genome long before they had a chance to form something with a selective advantage....there would be no advantage in directing energy to useless structures".

Johnson's seemingly unstoppable siege on Darwinian orthodoxy is both well researched and freshly captivating. At the risk of unjustly losing credibility, several distinguished scientists have carried the baton of dissent against the received wisdom of modern day Darwinists. Those who have stayed abreast of the Intelligent Design (ID) claims need no reminding of the powerful arguments presented in their own counter-offensive, particularly regarding the fossil record. Johnson's recapitulation of the Cambrian explosion and the trilobite high acuity visual system at the base of the Cambrian leave the reader wondering why the inclusion of ID has in recent years been so fiercely opposed by those in the biological sciences who carry reputational clout.

It turns out that much of the 'science' buttressing the anti-ID rhetoric is supportive of the very position it claims to counter- that of intelligent design. Computer simulations and genetic algorithms that purport to simulate the process of evolution do nothing of the sort, slipping in acts of intelligent agency at every turn. Summarizing the status quo, Johnson notes for example how AVIDA uses "an unrealistically small genome, an unrealistically high mutation rate, unrealistic protection of replication instructions, unrealistic energy rewards and no capability for graceful function degradation. It allows for arbitrary experimenter-specified selective advantages". Not faring any better, the ME THINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL algorithm is programmed to direct a sequence of letters towards a pre-specified target.

One never tires of reading about the irreducible complexity of the multi-component bacterial flagellum. And Johnson does not disappoint in his engaging overview of this showpiece of ID theory. The icing on the irreducible complexity "cake" appears in his further consideration of sexual reproduction and the integrated aspect of DNA and protein synthesis. The plethora of symbiotic relationships we find throughout nature also form part of Johnson's inventory of examples as he moves the reader decisively to the conclusion that natural processes cannot generate novel genetic information.

What is the price we pay for refusing to bring ID into the science arena? Johnson's summarization of philosopher of science Del Ratzch's answer to this question is a call to rally: "any imposed policy of naturalism in science has the potential not only of eroding any self-correcting capability of science but of preventing science from reaching certain truths". Johnson condemns those who refuse to evaluate the merits of scientific evidence on the basis of philosophical or theological commitments. Indeed the compatibility of ID with differing theological views does not negate the scientific validity of its arguments. "Obviously, ID proponents have the freedom of religion allowed by the country of residence" notes Johnson "but those beliefs should not detract from the scientific evidence".

As Johnson details, the duplicity in standards of the anti-ID lobby was made plain in the charges brought against molecular biologist Richard Sternberg who was removed from office as editor of the Proceedings Of The Biological Society Of Washington after publishing an ID-friendly paper authored by philosopher Stephen Meyer even though Sternberg had faithfully followed the journal's regulations for publication. Cases such as this show that while ID theorists are heavily criticized for not having peer-reviewed publications to support their position they and their entourage are vehemently censured whenever they do attempt to meet their critics' demands. Johnson draws from an extensive list of quotes from reputable scientists and philosophers who have made known their dis-satisfaction with the blind beliefs of Darwinian ideology. The 'knowledge stopper' that is naturalistic evolution has today handcuffed these same scientists to the pillars of 'majority rule' even though invigorating alternatives such as those that invoke intelligent design meet the strictest demands for scientific rigor.

In the last chapter of his book Johnson reviews not only the probabilistic evidence in support of ID but also the uniformitarian nature of ID's conclusions. Occam's razor, neatly summarized by the mantra "The simplest solution is the best" provides us with a fruitful avenue for deciding which theories on the origins and existence of life should be open for discussion. Since many would argue that ID wins the Occam challenge, we can safely conclude that its rejection stems not from its lack of scientific merit but from underlying philosophical prejudices. As with all scientific theories, that of ID remains falsifiable. Johnson concedes that there is no privileged status that somehow locks ID away from disputation. Indeed if natural processes can be shown to produce the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life from non-life, the rich diversity of living forms that appeared in the Cambrian and the increasing information-based complexity of life throughout our earth's history, then the 'necessity of design' will have been given its marching orders. But until then ID theory can only serve to enrich the scientific landscape.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Roy Varghese has just notified me of the death of Professor emeritus Antony Flew, the rationalist philosopher who died on April 8 aged 87, and spent much of his life denying the existence of God until, in 2004, he dramatically changed his mind.

Here is Britain's Telegraph's obituary.

I feel lonely now. I remember sitting in the window seat at the U rez in about 1968, studying Flew. He really made people think.

Varghese is kind enough to thank me for contributions I have made to the discussion - essentially defending Flew.

For the record, here are some of them:

Flew calls Dawkins a bigot - and I would say he has a pretty good case. On that point, also here.

New atheists vs the ex-atheist

Response to hit review of Flew’s "There IS a God" in The New York Times.

Antony Flew: Is emotion really better than reason in religious matters?

Antony Flew: The authorship controversy

Antony Flew: Author or puppet?

Antony Flew: Is he too old to believe in God?

Why lifelong atheist Antony Flew decided there must be a 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).

PART I: Experimental Foundations

The plans had been made, details finalized and all expenses paid. I was to travel to the south coast of England to complete my training for the British Sub-Aqua Club Sports Diver certificate. I boarded a train from London's Waterloo station down to the quiet seaside resort of Bournemouth where I was received by relatives. For the next two weeks I commuted to the nearby harbor town of Poole and headed out on a rigid hull inflatable boat with five other students to complete a series of required dives. The testosterone-induced camaraderie soon brought us together into a close-knit group. We were assigned our respective diving 'buddies'- a practice that is almost a mandatory requirement of amateur sport diving. We quickly picked up on the diving lingo and were Hi-fiving our way to the end of each day.

All of our sorties out to sea went according to plan. That is, until the final afternoon. As we were heading back to the safety of the mooring station the weather took a turn for the worst. Surging waves reduced visibility to little more than a few feet and with the quickly darkening skies we knew we were in trouble. In desperation the pilot of the boat radioed for help. Minutes later we were spotted by the coastal 'cavalry guard'- a British Navy Sea King helicopter equipped with all the fittings that one might expect for a major rescue operation. Fortunately the terrifying experience of being stranded out at sea ended without further incident. We were escorted to the calmer waters of a local bay from which we headed home for a feast of fried fish served in greasy, vinegar-sodden newspaper (the quintessentially English supper). That same evening we all reconvened to mull over the events as they had unfolded. We bonded socially knowing that, in the midst of our differences, there was at least one thread of commonality by which we could all relate to each other. We were all now sports divers with a story to tell.

A craving for social connection is a deeply-rooted aspect of the human psyche (1). So much so that even at the cellular level there are key molecular markers associated with the subjective feeling of social isolation (loneliness). Just three years ago a seminal study using a microarray based approach identified some of the genes that are differentially expressed in the immune cells of individuals who struggle with subjective social isolation (2). The 'transcriptional fingerprint of loneliness' that came about as a result provided researchers with a window into how negative feelings over social experiences can adversely impact our health. Most importantly a total of 209 transcripts, representing 144 genes, were found to be differentially expressed in the leukocytes of subjectively lonely individuals (2).

Over-expressed genes included transcription factors and chromatin structure regulators involved in leukocyte proliferation and immune activation while under-expressed genes were predominantly those of cell-cycle inhibitors (2). A crucial piece of the loneliness puzzle was the discovery of reduced glucocorticoid receptor-mediated transcriptional activity. Other signaling pathways involving the Oct and CREB/ATF transcription factor families were also significantly affected (2). From a disease standpoint the results were in close agreement with clinical findings that correlate subjective loneliness with an increased risk of inflammation-mediated disease and decreased resistance to viral infection (2).

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) techniques have supplemented these molecular studies by showing how areas that are active in the brain during moments of physical pain are also active during prolonged periods of social exclusion (3,4). In one experiment participants were subjected to MRI scanning of brain blood flow while interacting with virtual team mates in a computer ball-throwing game aptly named Cyberball (3,4). Participants became emotionally distressed whenever they were excluded from activities in the virtual environment (3,4). Two areas of the brain that register and regulate physical pain- the prefrontal and the anterior cingulate cortex- were shown to play a decisive role in the ensuing emotional distress circuit (3,4). In close agreement with this study, a recent review by UCLA psychologists Matthew Lieberman and Naomi Eisenberger made plain how our response to emotional stresses and pleasures relies on the same neurological processes that register negative and positive physical sensations (5).

Pharmaceutical intervention is gaining traction as one of several possible therapeutic avenues for treating loneliness. Psychobiologist Jaak Panksepp has suggested that the use of opioids or naturally occurring regulators of separation distress such as oxytocin or prolactin might reverse feelings of social isolation (3). In their award-winning book Loneliness: Human Nature And The Need For Social Connection cognitive neuroscientist John Cacioppo and former editor of Harvard University Press William Patrick offer a more pro-active method which involves a change in one's own thought patterns and perceptions (6). Their highly acclaimed EASE way of social connection (E= Extend Yourself, A= Action Plan, S= Selection and E= Expectation) builds on years of research carried out at the Center of Cognitive Science at the University of Chicago (6). Central to their rationale is the counterintuitive principle that in order to get around the 'passive coping' that characterizes the inertia of loneliness, we must make ourselves available to meet the needs of others. Such an assessment runs against the tide of sentiments that pervade our culture. But Cacioppo and Patrick are ever-emphatic about what their experience has shown:

"The most difficult conceptual hurdle for people in the throes of loneliness is that, although they are going through something that feels like a hole in the center of their being- a hunger that needs to be fed- this 'hunger' can never be satisfied by a focus on 'eating'. What's required is to step outside the pain of our own situation long enough to "feed others"...We are told in childhood to share and to 'do unto others' It sounds simplistic, like a Sunday school lesson. It doesn't sound like behavior that fits into the adult, workaday world. Certainly it does not sound like advice based on hard science. And therefore this wisdom, which should be a principle to guide us, we dismiss as a cliche. As a result, we get caught up in our problems and the confusion of our tortured perceptions and we don't practice what we know to be wise and true...Real change begins with doing, and what may seem like silly reminders may be exactly what it takes to get us to do what needs to be done, in the moment, every day" (6).

The 'integrative intelligence' that allows us to read social cues is severely impaired whenever loneliness strikes. The end result is that we build inaccurate impressions of our human interactions- a phenomenon that neuroscientists have termed 'loss of executive control' (7). In such cases, it is the brain's frontal lobes that incorrectly regulate our judgment of the external world (7). When my wife and I boarded a flight out of Heathrow airport on the 26th of February, 2001 with only a one-way ticket to the United States we knew that we were taking a risk by ripping ourselves out of a firm bedrock of friends and family to begin life in unfamiliar territory. And for the first months we felt the negative impact of living outside the social scene. But by applying the 'tried and tested' wisdom of modern psychology we were able to pull ourselves back into a medium within which we could feel comfortable again. In short, we rediscovered our sense of being human.

In Part II I will examine the sweeping evolutionary suppositions that often accompany this otherwise-fruitful area of research into the human social condition.

Literature Cited

1. Dan Russell (1996) The UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure, Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 20-40.

2. Steve W Cole et al (2007) Social Regulation Of Gene Expression In Human Leukocytes, Genome Biology, 8, R189.

3. Jaak Panksepp (2003) Feeling the Pain Of Social Loss, Science, 302, pp. 237-239.

4. Naomi Eisenberger et al (2007) Does Rejection Hurt? An fMRI Study Of Social Exclusion, Science, 302, pp.290-292.

5. Matthew Lieberman and Naomi Eisenberger (2009) Pains And Pleasures Of Social Life, Science, 323, pp.890-891.

6. John Cacioppo and William Patrick (2008) Loneliness: Human Nature And The Need For Social Connection, Norton Publishers, New York, NY, pp. 233-243.

7. Ibid, p.35