The ID Update

Archeologist with simple piece of pottery: Look what I discovered; I wonder who created it.
Scientist: Wow! What a cool pot; who do you think made it?

Biologist with complex piece of DNA code: Look what I discovered; I wonder who created it.
Scientist: Wow! What a crackpot; why does he think someone made it?

It's a good thing the Bible doesn't say God made clay pots. If it did, design-minded archeologists would be out of a job. With little to say about each new find that cannot be turned into a "religious" question, design-inferring archeologists would be relegated to the fate of their like-minded brethren in biology--the realm of "science cannot infer design because design might mean God and science and religion cannot mix." Archeologists be glad; you get to freely infer intelligent design for objects of obvious design but unknown origin without facing the "might mean God" barrier to truth-seeking. In other words, you get to be scientists and logically infer intelligent design--a luxury not to be taken for granted.

Actually, archeologists are not the exception; they are the rule. Scientists of many stripes infer design to explain phenomena of unknown (and unknowable) origin all the time. Forensic scientists, faced with a dead body and no witnesses look for evidence to piece together a historical narrative to explain a past event: was the death accidental (unintelligent causes) or murder (intelligent causation)? Simple. And what about the good folks over at SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence)? Their name says it all. Although embarrassed at being rightly compared to their like-minded biologist counterparts, these scientists regularly collect evidence in the form of radio signals to determine if the signals are the result of background radiation in space (unintelligent causes), or extraterrestrial intelligence (intelligent causes). Easy. A child can do it.

And biologists? Well, there's the exception to one rule and the imposition of another. Biologists must suppress entertaining any lingering thoughts spurred by logical inferences of design because such thoughts automatically and necessarily lead to "religion" and, unless it's a God-denying religion, that's a bad thing. After all, a respectable scientist having "religious" thoughts hasn't happened since the days of Newton, Boyle, Kepler, Bacon, Pascal, Herschel, Faraday, Joule and, well, you get the idea. It's been a long time since the natural wonder of the beauty of intelligent design in nature could be scientifically expressed without professional and personal recriminations.

The savvy Darwinist will quickly jump in here with a smug smile and reply that the analogy to archeology does not hold. It happens, he says with the certainty of one-sided thinking, that in our human experience we know that humans can, and have, made pottery for generations. And because we can explain the kind of potter with some certainty, archeology never approaches the "might mean God" line. Living systems, on the other hand, are not known to be made by human intelligence, so we have no basis to infer human design, and any suitable intelligence must mean God, and science and religion cannot mix. You see? The inherent "who" problem in origins science is not to be found in archeology, so there is no inconsistency in letting archeology be respectable science and letting intelligent design be respectable religion (if there is such a thing).

But this response misses the point. This response jumps the inquiry directly to the "who" question, bypassing the "what" question without a thought. Yet in archeology, as in all disciplines, the "what" of design alone can be an end in itself, informing a fruitful line of scientific inquiry that otherwise would be missed were the fact of design not granted or the identity of the designer demanded. Even if the potter remains forever unknown, the fact of design-discovery alone gives the archeologist the subject matter of her science. How else is an archeologist to know if she has found a piece of clay or a pot? Without design detection alone (i.e., absent design-er detection) having scientific value, the field of archeology would be dead.

But more importantly, the "because we know there's a human potter" response powerfully confirms exactly the intelligent design theorist's point: design can be recognized because in our human experience we can recognize things for which we know only intelligent agency can accomplish. Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as design invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons who may now be hopelessly unknowable. In the case of a clay pot, yes, it was most certainly made by a kind of potter we are familiar with: men or women, who may forever remain unknown. But why must we all pretend ignorance when we consider clay people? Does not the fact of design carry great value independently of knowledge of the designer?

Clay people, like clay pots, carry the unmistakable hallmarks of intelligent design. Conflating the "what" of design with the "who" in biological systems is the illogical and scientifically inconsistent tactic of those philosophically opposed to a divine creative intelligence, i.e., Darwinians who fear a "divine foot in the door" of science. But denying a pot for fear of a potter is not science, and is ultimately no more effective than denying a symptom for fear of a disease. Truth is not changed by the evidence-denying belief in a lie.

Presumably, our Darwinian tutors must think, were it not for "religion" no one would think to infer design in biology. And solely because of a supposed "mighty mean God" mainstream science desperately demands that a biologist must obey a rule that prohibits design detection, while his archeologist colleague freely infers intelligent design. The disparate rules of desperate scientists create an illogical two-tiered system where a biologist is required to attempt a rigorous proof of design, while an archeologist is merely required to say, "Hey, look what I found!" Why is this?

No, really. Why?

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:

Information on God-believing scientists: http://creationsafaris.com/wgcs.htm

The sentence that starts: "Our experience of the world shows that what we recognize as design invariably reflects the prior activity of conscious and intelligent persons . . ." was adapted from Stephen C. Meyer's new book, Signature in the Cell, DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, (Harper Collins, 2009), p. 16. In Meyer's sentence, the term "information" is used instead of "design".

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

"It is a remarkable thing", said Sir Hart,
"that we find ourselves thinking of a cosmical start,
in which all that we know and we love came to be,
from a specified moment of time."
"In fact time itself is said to begin",
said Sir Hart as he pensively scratched at his chin.
"And as space expanded, we see from within,
that it started as small as a dime."

"The expansion of space was controlled to a T,
as fine-tuned an expansion, we never did see,
like an archer who shoots an arrow will be,
so precise in his aim and his shot.
It is from the heat radiating from space,
that Wilson and Penzias came face to face,
with a finding that changed how we looked at our race,
for our cosmos was small as a dot."

"It began at a point so incredibly small",
said Sir Hart as he stood almost two meters tall,
indicating the tinniest dust on the wall,
"This is how we are told it began:
There was a brief period of hyperinflation
from which space arose from a point in creation,
not too fast or slow to ensure the formation,
of galaxies visible to man."

For those who don't like what the finding implies,
that there must be a maker who stretched out the skies,
so controlled an expansion we see with our eyes,
there is one riposte they propound.
"Our cosmos is one out of many" we're told,
"so statistical chance will ensure that the mold,
of a cosmos conducive to life will unfold,
in one of the many around."

"But where" we may ask "are the many around?"
"All those cosmic abodes that we're told must abound,
having spawned from a sponge before time had been wound,
and from which ours arose as we see?"
There is no firm evidence that we observe,
that our universe here, so shaped like a curve,
is one of a 'Multiverse'. Oh what a nerve!
Conjecture is all it could be!

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Before I announce the winner, I should note that Harper One San Francisco has announced that 5 hardback copies of both Steve Meyer's Signature of the Cell, ( 2009) and Beauregard and O'Leary's The Spiritual Brain (2007 ) are available free to contest winners. Like, win and add them to your library for free.

Okay, now to Question 5:

Winner VJ Torley writes,

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).

Research into the skeletal remains of Stone Age Man has been undertaken in parallel with work to clarify the cultural and cognitive skills of these people. The dominant paradigm has been gradualism linked to the slow transformation of ape-like creatures into Modern Man. Darwinism has influenced the way people have approached the data and the interpretations they have placed on findings.

Papers are regularly published which point out the earliest example of a cultural trait: use of fire, hunting using spears, artefacts (like jewellery) indicating the presence of aesthetic values, Venus figurines, and so on. Two recent examples are noted in this blog.

Musical instruments like these allow inferences to be made about the cognitive skills of the users (Source here)

The first example concerns hafted spears, which are said to date back to 200,000 years ago. These are compound tools, where a sharp, hard point is hafted to a shaft. Archaeologists recognise that this invention has implications for our understanding of the minds of the spear-makers. The newly reported discovery is of spears where the hafting was found to be associated with a number of naturally occurring materials. Why were these materials located at the join? By an extensive programme of experimentation, the researchers came to the view that the artisans were using the materials as adhesives, and that the manufacturing process demonstrated a high level of abstract thinking.

"Wadley et al. identified naturally available materials (acacia gums and beeswax) that could be combined with ochre (found as residue on the tools), after which they experimented with various combinations to find the most effective mixture. They also tried different techniques for producing the actual haft, including the use of fire for rapid drying of the adhesives. With the most effective procedure in hand they could then ask themselves what an artisan needed to understand in order to conceive of and execute this task. "We propose that these artisans were exceedingly skilled; they understood the properties of their adhesive ingredients and they were able to manipulate them knowingly". In particular the artisans needed to understand the properties of their ingredients (e.g., cohesiveness), to be able to judge the effects of temperature, to be able to switch attention back and forth between separate rapidly changing variables, and to be flexible enough to adjust to the variability inherent in naturally occurring ingredients."

In a Commentary on the paper, Wynn points out that the reasoning that leads to such a conclusion must be "based on a sequence of inferences, each of which must be explicit and persuasive if the argument as a whole is to be credible." He spells out the details of that reasoning process, "borrowed loosely from Botha's detailed critique of an archaeological argument for the use of syntactical language by people at Blombos Cave 77,000 years ago." The merit of this approach is that observations and inferences can be clearly identified and each step can be scrutinised carefully. Archaeologists have new avenues to explore, which is very exciting.

"Most of the focus in this debate has been on the role language and symbolism but, as Wadley et al. make clear, there is more to modern cognition than language and the use of symbols. Indeed, language has proven to be a particularly intractable topic for archaeologists, a point made cogently by Botha. By focusing on activities that tax reasoning ability and are also visible archaeologically, such as hafting, archaeologists are in a better position to contribute to an understanding of the evolution of the modern mind."

The second paper concerns the finding of musical instruments. "Researchers universally accept the existence of complex musical instruments as an indication of fully modern behaviour and advanced symbolic communication." Previously, the oldest instriument was about 30,000 years ago, but the new finds come from a site dated at about 35,000 years. Some of the reported comments are as follows:

"It's becoming increasingly clear that music was part of day-to-day life," he said.
"Music was used in many kinds of social contexts: possibly religious, possibly recreational - much like we use music today in many kinds of settings."
The researchers also suggest that not only was music widespread much earlier than previously thought, but so was humanity's creative spirit.
"The modern humans that came into our area already had a whole range of symbolic artifacts, figurative art, depictions of mythological creatures, many kinds of personal ornaments and also a well-developed musical tradition," Professor Conard explained.

The first general point I want to make is that the procedures described (for making inferences from archaeological data) are not dissimilar from the procedures used by Intelligent Design scholars for making inferences about design in nature. These procedures are not arbitrary or poorly conceived, but rigorous and evidence-based (and exciting!). This is why the objections most often heard are based on demarcation arguments: 'Design is not part of Science'. Clearly, in archaeology, design is part of science!

The second general point concerns the creeping awareness that Stone Age men were far more "modern" than we have given them credit for. The problem is that most scholars understand consciousness, capacity for abstract thought and aesthetics as emergent properties of evolving animals. They do not allow the thought that these capabilities might be present by design. So, the data is moulded to fit a slow evolutionary transformation and other ways of interpreting the data are neglected. To show that design perspectives can propose hypotheses that can be tested, here is possible scenario. All these Stone Age men are human and have essentially modern cognitive skills. However, they lived in environments where they needed to adopt survival strategies and this prevented the flowering of sedentary communities and limited evidences of creativity. The prediction is that evidences of modernity will continue to be found, pushing the appearance of cultural artefacts earlier and earlier in time.

Implications for complex cognition from the hafting of tools with compound adhesives in the Middle Stone Age, South Africa
Lyn Wadley, Tamaryn Hodgskiss and Michael Grant
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, Published online May 11, 2009 | doi: 10.1073/pnas.0900957106

Abstract: Compound adhesives made from red ochre mixed with plant gum were used in the Middle Stone Age (MSA), South Africa. Replications reported here suggest that early artisans did not merely color their glues red; they deliberately effected physical transformations involving chemical changes from acidic to less acidic pH, dehydration of the adhesive near wood fires, and changes to mechanical workability and electrostatic forces. Some of the steps required for making compound adhesive seem impossible without multitasking and abstract thought. This ability suggests overlap between the cognitive abilities of modern people and people in the MSA. Our multidisciplinary analysis provides a new way to recognize complex cognition in the MSA without necessarily invoking the concept of symbolism.

New flutes document the earliest musical tradition in southwestern Germany
Nicholas J. Conard, Maria Malina, Susanne C. Munzel
Nature (online 24 June 2009) | doi:10.1038/nature08169 (Abstract)

Considerable debate surrounds claims for early evidence of music in the archaeological record. Researchers universally accept the existence of complex musical instruments as an indication of fully modern behaviour and advanced symbolic communication but, owing to the scarcity of finds, the archaeological record of the evolution and spread of music remains incomplete. Although arguments have been made for Neanderthal musical traditions and the presence of musical instruments in Middle Palaeolithic assemblages, concrete evidence to support these claims is lacking. Here we report the discovery of bone and ivory flutes from the early Aurignacian period of southwestern Germany. These finds demonstrate the presence of a well-established musical tradition at the time when modern humans colonized Europe, more than 35,000 calendar years ago. Other than the caves of the Swabian Jura, the earliest secure archaeological evidence for music comes from sites in France and Austria and post-date 30,000 years ago.

See also:

Ghosh, P. 'Oldest musical instrument' found, BBC News, 25 June 2009.

Wynn, T. Hafted spears and the archaeology of mind, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA, 2009 | doi: 106:9544-9545 (Extract)

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

The summer of 2000 promised to be very exciting for ornithologists and paleontologists alike as they flew into Beijing for the fifth quadrennial meeting of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution (Ref 1). The setting was most appropriate given the richness of fossils that have been unearthed in Chinese soil. The central theme of the meeting lay in trying to resolve the question of whether birds had really evolved from dinosaurs (Ref 1). However, rather than a harmonious discussion with the constructive disagreement that one might expect from any scientific 'get-together' aimed at resolving discrepancies in data, the meeting did nothing but expose an underlying discord (Ref 1).

While some scientists such as Berkeley's John Hutchinson and Yale ornithologist Richard Prum were frustrated over issues that they considered long resolved, others were much more skeptical about the certainty of the facts. Storrs Olson, head of ornithology at the National Museum of Natural History, weighed in by accusing Prum of engaging in "ideological mumbo-jumbo" when Prum claimed that feathers had the same evolutionary origin as "hair like integuments found on dinosaur fossils" (Ref 1). So strong was Olson's feeling against the evolutionary link drawn between birds and dinosaurs that throughout the meeting he and others wore badges stating their case: "BIRDS ARE NOT DINOSAURS" (or B.A.N.D for short; Ref 1). University Of North Carolina paleontologist Alan Feduccia, well known for his discussions on temporal discrepancies between bird and dinosaur fossils, was similarly uncertain about the dinosaur-bird link. Feduccia made his uncertainty public to the sound of accusations claiming a creationist undertone (Ref 1).

With the latest evidence Olson and his 'BAND of merry men' appear to have been vindicated. New data on how birds breathe makes the dinosaur-bird link untenable. According to a recent study, the unique thigh bone and muscle structure in birds' legs play a key role in preventing lung collapse (Ref 2). For birds, that need about twenty times more oxygen than say reptiles, such structural support is crucial to survival (Ref 2). Theropod dinosaurs from which birds are thought to have descended, did not sport such a fixed thigh bone structure and are therefore not viable candidates for a hypothetical bird ancestor (Ref 2).

Of course the impasse over how birds evolved extends well beyond thigh bones and muscles. In fact, the origin of feathers continues to be a formidable stumbling block for 'evo-philes'. To further understand the difficulty that the feather poses to the assumed evolutionary transition from dinosaurs to birds, consider the feather's structural foundations. What we know is that the central rachis (or shaft) of the feather branches off into smaller barbs and barbules. The barbules are equipped with tiny hooklets at their ends that interlock with ridges in the posterior barbules to form an impervious, tightly-held vane (Ref 3).

From an aerodynamic standpoint, the arrangement of the feathers in the overall shape of the wing makes for an aerofoil that displays minimal levels of turbulence (Ref 3). The ability to change the geometry and shape of such an aerofoil makes it ideally suited for the various tasks that the bird has to perform such as landing, soaring and flapping. From a molecular and cellular perspective, the story is no less fascinating. The feather follicle, from which the central rachis projects, contains specific zones of epithelial cells specialized in the formation of each of the components of the feather (Ref 4). The molecular mechanisms by which such cell specialization is achieved have also been elucidated in recent years (Ref 4). Through concentration gradients and a highly-regulated activation of specific genes, the morphogenesis and development of a feather is a very tightly-controlled affair (Ref 4).

With such a realization, we begin to get a sense of why it was that twenty three years ago biologist Michael Denton so emphatically decried the step-by-step, unguided evolutionary origin of wings (Ref 3). As Oregon State University Professor John Ruben humorously quipped, "a velociraptor did not just sprout feathers and fly off into the sunset" (Ref 2). The wing- the perfect aerofoil- must meet rigorous criteria before it can provide the necessary lift (Ref 4). No slight fraying of dinosaur scales would have done the job.

Seemingly oblivious of these intractable challenges, some scientists have gone all out to prop up their evolutionary meanderings by focusing on the three-fingered limbs of theropod dinosaurs and modern day birds (Refs 5,6). Paleontologists Xing Xu and James Clark for example recently published on two specimens of a 156 million-old, toothless-beaked, herbivorous theropod called Limusaurus inextricabilis that, they maintain, is a Darwinian-style 'missing link' (Refs 5,6).

One factor that has long been a source of consternation is that the finger digits of theropods and birds do not appear to match. While theropods seemingly carried digits 1,2 and 3 of the pentadactyl arrangement, birds display what scientists believe to be digits 2,3 and 4 (Refs 5,6). Xu and Clark have ruffled feathers by claiming that theropod digits have historically been misidentified. Based on their study of L. inextricabilis, they contend that just like in birds early theropods would have had digits 2,3 and 4 (Refs 5,6).

Such a conclusion is not without its critics. In fact prominent Yale evolutionary geneticist Gunter Wagner has questioned the numbering assignments of bird digits adding that bird wings might be based on digits 1,2 and 3 after all (Ref 5). Wagner cites fundamental aspects of embryonic development in support of his case. University of California paleontologist Kevin Padian has similarly suggested that the digit morphology of L. inextricabilis might represent nothing more than an "oddly reduced hand", commensurate with its herbivorous lifestyle (Ref 5).

Today, nine years after the Beijing meeting, Olson would seemingly be justified in wearing his famous badge. For him and others, the 'B.A.N.D' does indeed play on. To be sure, contemporary evidence shows birds to be a distinct phyletic group not easily integrated into a man made evolutionary scheme. While evolutionists point proudly to the apparent anatomical similarities between birds and dinosaurs, they themselves admit to the pressing need to resolve crucial questions about the origin of flight, the evolution of feathers and the conversion to endothermy (Ref 7).

These are not side questions designed to obfuscate discussions, but rather questions that are central to the matter at hand. In light of such facts, perhaps a more radical message needs to be conveyed that echoes the beat of a different mantra: BIRDS ARE REALLY BIRDS (or B.A.R.B for short). It is perhaps time to re-examine our most treasured notions of bird evolution.

Literature Cited
1. Rex Dalton (2000), Feathers fly in Beijing, Nature, Volume 405, p.992

2. See 'Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird-links', http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-06/osu-drn060809.php

3. Michael Denton (1986), Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Adler and Adler Publishers, Bethesda Maryland, 1st Edition, pp. 202-208

4. Mingke Yu, Ping Wu, Randall B. Widelitz, Cheng-Ming Chuong (2002), The morphogenesis of feathers, Nature, Volume 420, pp.308-312

5. Matt Kaplan (2009), Dinosaur's digits show how birds got wings, 17 June 2009, Nature, doi:10.1038/news.2009.577

6. Xing Xu, James M. Clark, Jinyou Mo , Jonah Choiniere, Catherine A. Forster, Gregory M. Erickson, David W. E. Hone, Corwin Sullivan, David A. Eberth, Sterling Nesbitt, Qi Zhao, Rene Hernandez, Cheng-kai Jia, Feng-lu Han, Yu Guo (2009), A Jurassic ceratosaur from China helps clarify avian digital homologies, Nature 459, pp.940-944

7. See 'Are Birds Really Dinosaurs?', http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

On June 2, 2009 as Congress debated global warming legislation that would raise energy costs to consumers by hundreds of billions of dollars, the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released an 880-page book challenging the scientific basis of concerns that global warming is either man-made or would have harmful effects. In "Climate Change Reconsidered: The 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)," coauthors Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dr. Craig Idso and 35 contributors and reviewers present an authoritative and detailed rebuttal of the findings of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The scholarship in this book demonstrates overwhelming scientific support for the position that the warming of the twentieth century was moderate and not unprecedented, that its impact on human health and wildlife was positive, and that carbon dioxide probably is not the driving factor behind climate change. The full 880 page report, Climate Change Reconsidered, can be downloaded for free, along with a 48 page downloadable summary, Nature, Not Human Acivity, Rules the Climate, which is the recommended place to start for those who want a quick overview or the evidence and arguments.

Links to these reports have been added to the ARN resource page on global warming, which provides viewpoints from both the Alarmists and the Skeptics, a great place to start for those trying to sort out the facts.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

From "Looking for planets like ours", a review by Michael Brown of Alan Boss's The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets:

Even if the Kepler and COROT missions do find an abundance of planets, the Kantian revolution will not be complete. The new planets might be exactly the same size as Earth and orbit their stars at the same distance, and although an astronomer might be willing to call such a thing Earth-like, most people will look for more. Does it have liquid water? Does it have a recognizable atmosphere? And, inevitably, could it — does it — support life?

Finding the answers to these questions will take decades. Kepler and COROT are merely steps along the way. In the meantime, we can take solace from Kant: "I am of the opinion that it is not particularly necessary to assert that all planets must be inhabited. However, at the same time it would be absurd to deny this claim with respect to all or even to most of them."

It took nearly 250 years to prove him mostly right the first time. With a little luck and perseverance — and, as Boss shows, a lot of work by astronomers around the world — the final step may just come a little faster.

I wonder whether Kant would regard the discovery that bacteria had once lived on Mars or might live elsewhere - if it is made - as evidence for his position.

Just up at Colliding Universes, my blog on competing theories of our universe:

Response to search engine query: What is this blog about?

Extraterrestrial life: Immanuel Kant, meet Frank Drake and Carl Sagan

Recession? Finally, big science gets the picture: Think payload

Conference: Quantum to Cosmos Festival

Time and space: Can we cure everything by advanced technology?

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 question is here. It looks at “Does Dark Energy Really Exist? Or does Earth occupy a very unusual place in the universe?” by physicist Timothy Clifton and astrophysicist Pedro G. Ferreira, who 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)

The winning entry is by KeithDP:

I liked it because he made a number of pertinent points that less often raised than they should be:

- "The problem with the principle is how do you define special?" The fact that Earth is the only known home of life should cause it to be classified as special, at least for now.

- "Unlike the multiverse, the theory [re the existence or necessity of dark energy] is testable and efforts are underway to confirm or dismiss it." Indeed. Consider the upcoming SNO+ experiment in Sudbury, Canada, whose awesome facilities I toured recently - which aims to trap a particle of dark matter. That would be a good beginning.

- " ... will we also discover that Earth’s place in the centre of a vast cosmic void is another necessary precondition for life?" That too would be useful, because we could revise current estimates of where to look for life. Too many estimates have been Drake equation-style "choose your own parameters." Fun, sure, but science fiction.

So KeithDP needs to provide me with a current postal address at oleary@sympatico.ca to receive his free copy of the Privileged Planet DVD.

I will shortly judge Question 5: Darwinian fairy tales: Why middle-aged men have shiny scalps: "What is the down side for serious Darwinists to just cutting the “evolutionary psychology” psychodrama loose, and focusing on what real science can say about evolution?"

Now here is KeithDP's entry:

Copernicus’ modest proposition was that the solar system is heliocentric and not geocentric. Centuries later came the Copernican principle: the idea that Earth does not occupy any special position in the universe. In the last few decades this principle has been expanded to include the idea that there is nothing special about humans or the Earth. This idea is often called the Copernican principle of mediocrity. In recent years some astronomers have taken the idea further still and have popularized the notion that there is nothing special about our universe, as it is just one among an infinite number of other universes: a multiverse. Although no evidence supports the theory, and as it is not testable no evidence is ever likely to, it is considered the natural and ultimate culmination of the Copernican principle.

The problem with the principle is how do you define special? In the Rare Earth hypothesis, scientists Ward and Brownlee identify no less than a dozen factors that make complex life possible on Earth. In their view these factors make the Earth, if not special, than certainly very rare. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez goes further and identifies factors that make the Earth particularly suitable for scientific discovery. In his view the Earth is more than a rare planet; it is a privileged one. Recently some astronomers have questioned the standard model of the universe that holds that at least 70% of the universe is composed of mystery material. They propose this material is unnecessary if we ignore the Copernican principle and assume instead that the Earth lies at or near the centre of a vast cosmic void with far lower density than other regions of space.

Unlike the multiverse, the theory is testable and efforts are underway to confirm or dismiss it. Considering what we have learned about what makes the Earth’s particular location in the solar system and in the galaxy especially suitable for life, will we also discover that Earth’s place in the centre of a vast cosmic void is another necessary precondition for life?

Do we have further need of the Copernican principle? Or is it instead merely a personal philosophical position about humanity’s place? Does it tell us more about the belief system of those who hold it than it does about the 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).

Recently, I have been writing about the difference that the new social media are making to media in general.

Generally, the professional gatekeeper who controls the information members of the public receive is becoming redundant. There are many streams of information, increasingly free.

Here is an example: When ID folk point out that there are many examples in the professional literature of tax-supported Darwinian evolutionist talking honestly about the flaws, defects, or lack of evidence for Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation) in their professional journals, Darwin lobbyists accuse them of "quote mining."

The Darwin lobby is a splendid illustration of old media thinking. "Quote mining" is just telling the public what the privileged, salaried, tenured elite admit to each other - and always assumed that the public that supports them would never find out.

Sorry, folks, that circus has left town. I would have thought that Altenberg would warn them, but some people retire without seeing that the world is changing.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

In "Actually, the goal posts were just pulled up. Too much trouble to move...", I linked to Jonathan Well's comment on subtle attempts to change just what Darwinian evolution means, to avoid disconfirmation of any particular model. You know, first it's natural selection only, then, lo and behold, group selection is allowed, then Lamarckism (inheritance of acquired characteristics), then gene swapping ...

First junk DNA proved Darwin was right, then when it turned out not to be junk, you can be pretty sure, it will still prove Darwin was right. Darwinism has become a catch-all for a tired, worn-out theory, hysterically popular in the academic culture, with no real foundation for why.

Anyway, Mike Flannery, author of Alfred Russel Wallace's Theory of Intelligent Evolution, comments on my notes on the obviously unsupportable claim that artificial selection (= animal breeding) supports Darwinian evolution (random mutation acting on natural selection):

Anyone can breed a weird dog (I mean, assuming they have basic knowledge of canines).

But nature has a funnel.

There are only certain ways that dogs can really live in the wild.

For example, a greyhound can run faster than a wolf, because he doesn’t have heavy jaws - but what happens when he catches up with the prey?

Someone throws him a bag of Science Diet for Adult Working Dogs, right?

Human interventions almost always assume that we protect the life form from the normal routine of nature – otherwise there would be no reason to bother.

And nature is limited to certain routines. A wild animal that cannot feed itself will die.

But a Bassett Hound can live as long as its owner is willing to pay for advanced veterinary medicine, necessitated in part by the odd way the creature was bred.

If all the dogs in the world ran away, 50 years later, you would likely see only nature's usual wolfhound type.

Anyway, Flannery comments,

Jonathan revealingly quotes Mirsky in his excellent piece: "As Darwin did before him, Coyne noted that the development of new breeds through artificial selection is a good model for the evolution of new species by natural selection."

The model wasn't good when Darwin presented it and it cannot be improved in Coyne's re-telling. From the very beginning (even in the famous Ternate Letter of 1858), Alfred Russel Wallace pointed out, "in the domesticated animal all variations have an equal chance of continuance; and those which would decidedly render a wild animal unable to compete with its fellows and continue its existence are no disadvantage whatever in a state of domesticity. Our quickly fattening pigs, short-legged sheep, pouter pigeons, and poodle dogs could never have come into existence in a state of nature, because the very first step towards such inferior forms would have led to the rapid extinction of the race; still less could they now exist in competition with their wild allies. The great speed but slight endurance of the race horse, the unwieldy strength of the ploughman's team, would both be useless in a state of nature.

If turned wild on the pampas, such animals would probably soon become extinct, or under favourable circumstances might each lose those extreme qualities which would never be called into action, and in a few generations would revert to a common type, which must be that in which the various powers and faculties are so proportioned to each other as to be best adapted to procure food and secure safety,--that in which by the full exercise of every part of his organization the animal can alone continue to live. Domestic varieties, when turned wild, must return to something near the type of the original wild stock, or become altogether extinct." Wallace never would agree with Darwin on this point and it would lead to other more significant disagreements later.

Besides, AT BEST all domestic breeding examples merely established one thing: GUIDED and DIRECTED variation.

Maybe I am a Wallacist?

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

(Yesterday, at Write! Canada 2009, the annual conference sponsored by The Word Guild I gave a workshop on the way the new social media are changing the publishing world, and how writers might adapt. I made some notes and said I would put them up at Future Tense, the Canadian Christian writers' blog on the changing media environment.) This may be of interest to some people interested in the ID controversy because, with the decline of the old media, people must be reached through the new.

One caution: I am not an expert. I am in the process of working it out myself, and hope to share what I have learned so far.

1. Understand the difference new media make.

Let's look at how the tsunami of different choices in communication has impacted traditional media:

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).

Tuesday, June 23rd at 11am EDST Stephen Meyer will be a guest on the Laura Ingraham Show (http://www.lauraingraham.com/site) to discuss his new book "Signature in the Cell." This is the third hour of the program.

Laura and Steve will be joined by Francis Collins of Biologos.

Find a station that carries the program here: http://www.lauraingraham.com/stationfinder

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Some have claimed that swine flu is evidence of evolution. If so, it is not evidence of Darwinian evolution (natural selection acting on random mutation produces intricate structures), which is the money shot in the current system. Flu viruses swap genes, which is easy for them because it's not even clear that they are life forms (because they don't do anything other than borrow cells to reproduce). Nor do they usually become much different as a result of swapping genes.

Anyway, here is my most recent MercatorNet column on swine flu:

Now that the World Health Organization has declared swine flu (virus H1N1) a pandemic, their first since 1968's Hong Kong flu, we might consider how it emerged.

But first - Panic Alert: [nonsense avoidance]: People who are not already frail will probably be sick for about 48 hours if they get swine flu. They will not likely die. Symptoms are typical flu symptoms. When visiting anyone in frail health, please observe all sanitary precautions that medical authorities advise, especially if the frail person is in a hospital already. Shouldn't that tell us something?

So let's not panic. The main message is, in a global society, we cannot have completely different health standards on the same continent. Now let’s talk about two cities -- Mexico City and Winnipeg, Canada, where the virus was first identified.

Health care differs greatly between the two. In Winnipeg, every sick person - rich or poor - just goes to "the hospital," and is examined by a nurse practitioner and/or a physician who can order lab tests and a ward bed -- in an isolation unit, if necessary. It's all tax-supported, so no one goes bankrupt using the system.

But it is all different in Mexico.

Yes, it is a tale of the difference between Canada and Mexico. Read more 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).

June 23, 2009
Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

The Heritage Foundation and Discovery Institute invite you to hear Dr. Stephen Meyer speak from his new book Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.

Tuesday, June 23
Noon EST
Allison Auditorium
The Heritage Foundation
Washington, D.C.

For more information and to register for this event visit: http://www.heritage.org/press/events/ev062309a.cfm

June 25, 2009
McLean Bible Church Presents:
"Signature In The Cell" -- An Evening with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer

Come spend an evening with Dr. Stephen C. Meyer - a leading voice in the national discussion over intelligent design (ID). Dr. Meyer will present his brand new book "Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design."

Date: Thursday, June 25th , 2009
Location: McLean Bible Church's Tysons Campus
Community room C
Time: 7:30pm to 9:00pm
Cost: $10 for Adults or $5 for students

Visit http://www.mcleanbible.org/pages/page.asp?page_id=72084 for more information and registration.

In 2002, a team of Argentinian geologists published a paper on what they considered to be the oldest bird tracks. The lead researcher was quoted as saying: "The first and most striking feature of these fossil footprints is the overall resemblance with modern bird footprints". In commenting on the finds, Martin Lockley, a respected palaeontologist, said: "what is commendable here is that the Argentineans have presented their material well and these footprints seem to be distinctly bird-like and different from any known dinosaurs walking around at the time".

a) Footprints are numerous in this slab of the Santa Domingo Formation.
b) The arrows point to a track of footprints. Visible in each print of the track is the hallux, the digit that points backwards in birds. (Credit: Ricardo Melchor, Source here).

During the intervening years, the Argentinians have worked on their find and numerous related themes. For example, they have published "the first comprehensive ichnotaxonomic review of the Triassic tetrapod track record in Argentina, including previous accounts and new material recently discovered, and an analysis of its composition and stratigraphic distribution." They have analysed depositional environments and looked a a whole range of fossil traces. Most recently, they have used a modern-day locality to study trackways left by birds and compared them with previously-found fossil material. Their study is thorough and authoritative. Rather than review the details, we shall go straight to their conclusions:

"The presence of flight trace fossils (Volichnia), i.e. footprints with elongated hallux impressions that are interpreted as representing low angle landing, associated with probing marks and a similar morphology of Gruipeda dominguensis with tracks of modern shorebirds, strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks."

The claim for bird tracks in these rocks is no longer tentative. After rigorous examination, the fossil evidence points clearly to birds feeding and moving about in a "low-gradient fluvio-lacustrine setting under semi-arid climate". The problem this poses is integrating this with other knowledge regarding fossil birds. These deposits are thought to predate Archaeopteryx by 55 Ma. They conflict dramatically with those who claim that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Consequently, these traces are very controversial. The authors back off from confrontation by saying: "in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed".

However, the geological Period associated with these rocks may not be dismissed easily. There are three independent pointers to age and the lithology is also typical of rocks known as New Red Sandstone. The authors write:

"The track surface belongs to the Santo Domingo Formation, which is considered of Late Triassic-Early Jurassic age. This age is based on characteristic fossil wood remains, on a 40Ar/39Ar radiometric age from interbedded basalt flows, and palaeomagnetic studies. The formation reaches a minimum thickness of c. 1950 m and is in fault contact with Carboniferous igneous and sedimentary rocks. The Santo Domingo Formation is a red bed succession that displays, from base to top, a transition from alluvial fan, fluvial braided (with calcretes), ephemeral fluvial and shallow lakes, and eolian environments."

Whilst it is perfectly reasonable to revisit the question about assigned age, it is no less reasonable to revisit the supposed theropod-bird evolutionary transition. In particular, it is worth noting the research of BAND scholars (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs). One of these is John Ruben, who with colleagues (1997), compared the respiratory structures of modern birds, mammals, and crocodiles with those reconstructed from the fossils of early birds and theropod dinosaurs. There are big differences. Theropod dinosaurs appear to have crocodile-like diaphragms. Birds, however, lack a diaphragm and make use of pelvis and chest movements to breathe. The differences are so marked that, it is claimed, there are "fundamental problems" with the proposal that diaphragm-less birds evolved from dinosaurs with diaphragms. For more, go here.

Ruben has co-published another challenging study recently, related to avian respiration.

"It's been known for decades that the femur, or thigh bone in birds is largely fixed and makes birds into "knee runners," unlike virtually all other land animals, the [Oregon State University] experts say. What was just discovered, however, is that it's this fixed position of bird bones and musculature that keeps their air-sac lung from collapsing when the bird inhales. Warm-blooded birds need about 20 times more oxygen than cold-blooded reptiles, and have evolved a unique lung structure that allows for a high rate of gas exchange and high activity level. Their unusual thigh complex is what helps support the lung and prevent its collapse."

Like his analysis of the diaphragm in respiration, Ruben interprets the new findings in terms of a fundamental clash between the designs of birds and the design of dinosaurs. It is unreasonable to postulate an evolutionary transition.

"The implication, the researchers said, is that birds almost certainly did not descend from theropod dinosaurs, such as tyrannosaurus or allosaurus. The findings add to a growing body of evidence in the past two decades that challenge some of the most widely-held beliefs about animal evolution. "For one thing, birds are found earlier in the fossil record than the dinosaurs they are supposed to have descended from," Ruben said. "That's a pretty serious problem, and there are other inconsistencies with the bird-from-dinosaur theories.
"But one of the primary reasons many scientists kept pointing to birds as having descended from dinosaurs was similarities in their lungs," Ruben said. "However, theropod dinosaurs had a moving femur and therefore could not have had a lung that worked like that in birds. Their abdominal air sac, if they had one, would have collapsed. That undercuts a critical piece of supporting evidence for the dinosaur-bird link."

It will be a good day for science when these evidences get featured in educational materials and in media presentations. However, other factors affect this:

"Frankly, there's a lot of museum politics involved in this, a lot of careers committed to a particular point of view even if new scientific evidence raises questions," Ruben said. In some museum displays, he said, the birds-descended-from-dinosaurs evolutionary theory has been portrayed as a largely accepted fact, with an asterisk pointing out in small type that "some scientists disagree."

Application of neoichnological studies to behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of fossil bird-like tracks from lacustrine settings: The Late Triassic–Early Jurassic? Santo Domingo Formation, Argentina
Jorge F. Genise, Ricardo N. Melchor, Miguel Archangelsky, Luis O. Bala, Roberto Straneck and Silvina de Valais
Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 272(3-4), 15 February 2009, 143-161 | doi 10.1016/j.palaeo.2008.08.014

Abstract: The purpose of this study is to apply neoichnological observations to the behavioural and taphonomic interpretation of a Late Triassic-Early Jurassic track surface from the Santo Domingo Formation (Argentina) containing hundreds of bird-like tracks and trackways. [. . .] Field observations allowed to distinguish twenty one behaviours that produced distinct traces and four modern footprint types (1 to 4) related to specific substrate conditions. In particular, the preferential formation of bird tracks parallel to the waterline, also confirmed by studies on droppings and invertebrate fauna of the pond, and other associated sedimentary features (ripple marks, wrinkle marks, mud drape thickness) and trace fossils were important for recognition of the shoreline in the fossil example. [. . .]. Five of the behaviours recognised in the modern pond were inferred from the sixteen trackways distinguished on the fossil track surface, including walking, walking with a zig-zag path, short runs, probing, and landing with legs directed forward (possible trace of flight). The recognition of traces of flight (Volichnia), probing marks, and tracks showing morphology similar to modern shorebirds (G. dominguensis), strongly suggest an avian affinity for the producers of the fossil tracks and, in consequence, the Santo Domingo track site would be younger than supposed.

Cardio-pulmonary anatomy in theropod dinosaurs: Implications from extant archosaurs
Devon E. Quick, John A. Ruben
Journal of Morphology, Early View 20 May 2009 | doi 10.1002/jmor.10752

Abstract: Although crocodilian lung and cardiovascular organs are markedly less specialized than the avian heart and lung air-sac system, all living archosaurs possess four-chambered hearts and heterogeneously vascularized, faveolar lungs. In birds, normal lung function requires extensive, dorsally situated nonvascularized abdominal air-sacs ventilated by an expansive sternum and specially hinged costal ribs. The thin walled and voluminous abdominal air-sacs are supported laterally and caudally to prevent inward (paradoxical) collapse during generation of negative (inhalatory) pressure: the synsacrum, posteriorly directed, laterally open pubes and specialized femoral-thigh complex provide requisite support and largely prevent inhalatory collapse. In comparison, theropod dinosaurs probably lacked similarly enlarged abdominal air-sacs, and skeleto-muscular modifications consistent with their ventilation. In the absence of enlarged, functional abdominal air-sacs, theropods were unlikely to have possessed a specialized bird-like, air-sac lung. The likely absence of bird-like pulmonary function in theropods is inconsistent with suggestions of cardiovascular anatomy more sophisticated than that of modern crocodilians.

See also:

Discovery raises new doubts about dinosaur-bird links, EurekAlert, 9 June 2009.

By Robert Deyes
ARN Correspondent

"'Orchids are Rube Goldberg machines; a perfect engineer would certainly have come up with something better'". So spoke the late paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould who attributed the blunderings of nature to the limited powers of evolution (Ref 1). Richard Dawkins rode Gould's coattails with his own favorite contraption- the laryngeal nerve: "It starts in the head, goes down into the chest, loops round the aorta, then goes straight back into the head again. In a giraffe this detour must be wasteful indeed" (Ref 1).

Proponents of the 'imperfect design' argument state that an intelligent designer should have been able to construct living forms that were both free of flaws and optimal in their design (Ref 2). These same proponents use their own menagerie of apparent imperfections in the way that biological systems are organized to buttress their position against the existence of such a designer (Ref 2). Accompanying such a position is a blatant lack of objective reasoning. Why? Because we cannot assume that living forms are imperfect simply because their designs are different from those which we personally would have chosen (Ref 2). Moreover, the imperfect design premise overlooks the trade-offs that are often necessary to ensure the better design of a larger system (Ref 3). Philosopher Stephen Meyer hammered home this salient point several years ago in an interview with writer and former legal editor of the Chicago Tribune Lee Strobel. According to Meyer:

"Engineers know all designs require optimizing a whole suite of parameters, and so tradeoffs are inevitable to create the best overall result...One illustration that's sometimes given is the laptop...You could look at the screen and say, 'Bad design; it should have been bigger'. You could look at the memory and say, 'Bad design; should have had more capacity'. You could look at the keyboard and say, 'Bad design; should have been easier to use'. But the engineer isn't supposed to be creating the best screen, the best memory, and the best keyboard- he's supposed to be producing the best computer he can given certain size, weight, price, and portability requirements. Could the screen be bigger? Yes, but then portability suffers. Could the computer have more memory? Sure, but then the cost goes too high." (Ref 3)

Darwin of course developed his own flavor of the imperfect design argument by dedicating an entire section of the Origin Of Species to the apparent 'rudiments' of nature (Ref 4). He proposed that, through natural selection, anatomical structures that were in some way 'injurious' or of no use to the survival of an organism would over time diminish in size (Ref 4). Darwin challenged the special creationist viewpoint of the day which maintained that rudimentary organs had been created to "complete the scheme of nature" (Ref 4). Evolutionists today are quick to claim that the human anatomy is abounding in features that exhibit no apparent utility - little toes, ear muscles and male facial hair to name a few favorites. Just like Darwin they relegate these same features to nothing more than vestiges of a former state (Ref 5). Of course in so doing the burden of proof lies with evolutionists, who must demonstrate unequivocally an absence of function- a task that, as biophysicist Cornelius Hunter has argued, is practically impossible to fulfill:

"It is difficult to show that a particular organ lacks value. Whether we are talking about an organ that is thought to contribute little to overall fitness or one thought to be inefficient, our failure to find positive value does not imply that it is nonexistent. One cannot conclude something does not exist unless one has looked in all possible places at all possible times. In fact, the claim that an organ is vestigial [rudimentary] can only be rejected. When we find that the organ makes a positive contribution to fitness, then we disprove the vestigial claim, but it is practically impossible to prove the claim by failing to find such a contribution. It is not surprising that the history of vestigial organs involves shrinking lists." (Ref 6, p.32)

Discussions on functionality as relates to DNA only serve to demonstrate the underlying principle that just because a component of a system is not operationally essential for the system to function does not mean that it is operationally functionless. A study headed by Barbara Knowles from the Jackson Laboratory revealed just how small pieces of DNA called transposons can generate novel messenger RNAs that regulate oocyte and embryonic development (Ref 7). Transposons are fascinating to the molecular biologist for the simple reason that they occupy about 30% of the entire human genome (Ref 7). Historically transposons have been thought of by some as harmful parasites- 'junk' DNA that served no purpose other than to hitch an evolutionary ride through the eons (Ref 7).

Knowles' work was built on the pioneering discoveries of Barbara McClintock who in the 1950s determined that transposons could regulate genes in maize (Ref 7). In all, such efforts have put the 'junk' hypothesis in its place, revealing novel regulatory functions for stretches of DNA that were previously considered to be of little benefit. Intergenic DNA has also been shown to play a part in protecting chromosomes and might serve a role in genome expansion (Ref 8). That is not to say that certain DNA sequences are not dispensable. Indeed Lawrence Berkeley's Edward Rubin has shown that mice missing about 1% of their genome suffered no ill effects of health (Ref 9). Yet simply because large chunks of DNA can be removed from a genome, does not mean that they serve no function.

As a colleague recently reminded me, one would probably not notice if pianist Jacques Loussier missed a note in his glorification of Vivaldi's 'Four Seasons' or if Placido Domingo forgot a couple of words in his rendition of Verdi's 'Il Trovatore'. But one would almost certainly notice if Herbert von Karajan had left out a few baton strokes while conducting the accompanying orchestral scores for both these pieces. Still, we cannot ascribe an unnecessary or trivial role to Loussier's omitted notes or Domingo's forgotten words simply because their function does not stare us in the face. Both still play an important part in assuring artistic quality.

We can conclude that much of the so called 'science' of evolutionary theory is based not on cogent arguments but on personal philosophies that exclude design on the basis of methodological boundaries that need not exist.

Literature Cited

1. Richard Dawkins (2003), A Devil's Chaplain, Published by Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, UK, p.192

2. Michael J Behe (1996), Darwin's Black Box- The Biochemical Challenges to Evolution, 1st Edition Published by Simon and Schuster, New York, pp. 222-225

3. Lee Strobel (2004), The Case For A Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence That Points Towards God, Zondervan Publishers, Grand Rapids, Michigan, pp. 87-88

4. Charles Darwin (1859), The Origin of Species By Means of Natural Selection Or The Preservation of Favored Races In the Struggle For Survival Modern Library Paperbacks Edition (1998), New York, pp. 601-609

5. Jocelyn Selim (2004), Useless Body Parts, Discover Magazine, June 2004, Volume 25, Number 6, pp. 42-45

6. Cornelius Hunter (2001), Darwin's God, Evolution and the Problem of Evil, Brazos Press, A division of Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan

7. Anne E. Peaston, Alexei V. Evsikov, Joel H. Graber, Wilhelmine N. de Vries, Andrea E. Holbrook, Davor Solter, and Barbara B. Knowles (2004), Retrotransposons Regulate Host Genes in Mouse Oocytes and Preimplantation Embryos, Developmental Cell, Volume 7, pp. 597–606

8. Alfredo Flores (2009), Junk DNA Proves To Be Highly Valuable, See http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/pr/2009/090602.htm

9. Roxanne Khamsi (2004), Mice do fine without 'junk DNA', Nature News, 20th October, 2004, See http://www.nature.com/news/2004/041020/full/news041018-7.html

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

This one should be fun for students and parents: In a New Yorker article titled admirably simply, "Don't!" The secret of self-control, Jonah Lehrer reflects on what investigators have learned about how children develop self-control:

At the time, psychologists assumed that children's ability to wait depended on how badly they wanted the marshmallow. But it soon became obvious that every child craved the extra treat. What, then, determined self-control? Mischel's conclusion, based on hundreds of hours of observation, was that the crucial skill was the "strategic allocation of attention."

In other words, focus of attention.

Instead of getting obsessed with the marshmallow - the "hot stimulus" - the patient children distracted themselves by covering their eyes, pretending to play hide-and-seek underneath the desk, or singing songs from "Sesame Street." Their desire wasn't defeated - it was merely forgotten. "If you're thinking about the marshmallow and how delicious it is, then you're going to eat it," Mischel says. "The key is to avoid thinking about it in the first place."

In adults, this skill is often referred to as metacognition, or thinking about thinking, and it’s what allows people to outsmart their shortcomings. ... Mischel's large data set from various studies allowed him to see that children with a more accurate understanding of the workings of self-control were better able to delay gratification. "What's interesting about four-year-olds is that they're just figuring out the rules of thinking," Mischel says. "The kids who couldn't delay would often have the rules backwards. They would think that the best way to resist the marshmallow is to stare right at it, to keep a close eye on the goal. But that's a terrible idea. If you do that, you're going to ring the bell before I leave the room."

In the adult world, this need for focus of attention is one key reason for the millennia-old practice of religious retreats.

People often say they are going to make more time from their work day to think about the meaning of life. But do they? No, because they can't. They can't stop looking at the In Tray, the way many kids looked at the marshmallow.

Now just put that same person in a room with a chair, a desk, and a work by a serious spiritual writer - and NO phone, e-mail, or visitors - and many people begin to see key patterns in their lives that they had never noticed before. The trick is, as the kids discovered, to lose sight of the marshmallows of life.

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Consciousness: Conference offers challenging new ideas

Consciousness: Is there no such thing as a self?

Religion: Why did the pig become so unpopular?

Evolutionary psychology on the importance of - of all things - shopping

The Mindful Hack is my blog on neuroscience and spirituality issues, which supports 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).

Towards the end of the 17th Century in England, there was a fascinating debate between philosophers (scientists) and theologians about mountains. The question concerned their significance in our understanding of the natural world. Thomas Burnet triggered the debate by publishing "Sacred Theory of the Earth" in 1681 (in Latin) and in 1684 and 1690 (in English). This book was pioneering in its day in that it proposed a concordance between Biblical history and natural philosophy as well as arguing against Aristotle's eternalism.

"The book begins with the earth's creation from Chaos and goes on to explain the earth as paradise, the deluge, the destruction of the earth by fire and its eventual restitution at the end of time. What Burnet set out to do was to reconcile the scriptural account of the earth's history with recent sorts of natural philosophical explanations for them. His own preference was for a model of creation and physical causation that owed a great deal to the works of Rene Descartes. The different stages in the earth's history were illustrated in the book's beautiful frontispiece."

The frontispiece of the first volume of Burnet's Theory (Source here)

Burnet was taken to task by numerous scholars: "John Ray [botanist], the Newtonians John Keill and William Whiston, the scholar Richard Bentley and John Woodward [geologist]". They responded at two levels. The first area of concern was theological (which we will not consider further here), and the second was concerned with natural philosophy - particularly related to mountains.

Burnet presented mountains as a consequence of the Deluge, thereby associating them with God's judgment on human sinfulness. After the Deluge, the surface of the Earth was "a broken and confus'd heap of bodies" and mountains presented "the image or picture of a great Ruine".

"Burnet was unequivocal in his claim that mountains 'do not consist of any proportion of parts that is referable to any design, or that hath the least footsteps of Art or Counsel'."

His adversaries did not deny the Biblical narrative of Creation, the Antediluvian Earth, the Deluge and the Modern era - but they did not agree about design! Their writings reveal them demonstrating that mountains have uses (functionality) and that mountains are aesthetically pleasing (not ugly). It appears that the quest to strengthen functionality arguments stimulated scientific enquiry (particularly in understanding the role of mountains in the water cycle).

"Ray, Bentley, Keil and others set about enumerating all the different 'uses' of mountains that they could think of. Their discussions ranged from the role of mountains as alpine habitats, their supposed role in regulating the weather, and they even touted mountains as useful natural frontiers between nations. Perhaps most important to posterity are their inclusion of early explanations of the water cycle. Research carried out by Edmund Halley on St Helena into the possible role of mountains in the water cycle provided Burnet's critics with ammunition to prove that mountains were indeed useful, or perhaps even essential to the very preservation of human life on earth."

Regarding aesthetic arguments, Burnet found it easier to make a case for the ugliness of mountains by comparing them with the mountains of the Moon. If we viewed the Earth from afar, "look'd upon with a good Glass [telescope]",the mountains would appear "rude and ragged". In countering this argument, there was some incredulity with the idea of being elevated to so high a vantage point , but the main objection appealed to the aesthetics of landscape painting and gardening.

"The two key pieces of terminology used by Burnet's opponents to describe the place of mountains in the landscape were 'prospect' and 'variety'. [. . .] In seventeenth-century English discourse the word 'prospect' could be used interchangeably with 'landscape painting' and referred to landscape paintings made through the formal practices of mathematical perspective. [. . .] 'Variety' was the most important aesthetic consideration in contemporary discussions of landscape art. Early English theorists of landscape art praised mountains for their contribution to landscape paintings that would otherwise lack variety and fail to stimulate onlookers. Burnet's critics put this exact argument to use in their criticism of his aesthetic."

Wragge-Morley, the author of this analysis, points out that "the difference between seeing the truth about the design of mountains, and seeing nothing at all, lay in a simple perspectival shift". One person looks at a relief map of the globe and sees lumps and scars; another brings the perspective of landscape art and sees beauty, grandeur and majesty.

"This in turn could lend weight to an argument for or against their utility, which could in turn have ramifications for one's view of their theological meaning."

The history of ideas provides much food for thought, and this "strange and surprising debate" is no exception. There appear to be at least two applications that are relevant to our own day and to contemporary debates about design. First, Wragge-Morley's comments on perspective could be applied to design thinking generally. This is the explanation why some look at the natural world and see design everywhere, whereas others witness the same objects and declare them to be design-free. These perspective differences do not reflect on people's ability to think rationally, but rather point to underlying metaphysical differences affecting both thinking and scientific practice. In his essay, Wragge-Morley does not enlarge on these aspects, but he does draw attention to Burnet's interest in Cartesian philosophy which would be a good launching point for further analysis.

Second, this case-study reveals the way design-based thinking triggered research into functionality. Making a design inference actually stimulated enquiry, because intelligent design suggests purpose and meaning. This is a principle of general application, and it is an effective response to those who claim that ID is a science-stopper. The claim is entirely polemical, unsupported by evidence. A modern-day example is Junk DNA. Darwinian biologists regarded it as garbage and it was not targeted for research. Those brave scientists who were prepared to challenge the paradigm by postulating functionality found that they were stumbling on a treasure-trove of cellular information! (Go here and here).

It is worth pointing out, in conclusion, that design thinking is not lacking in theoretical development. This debate about mountains predated natural theology and William Paley: differences in emphasis can be traced through this period. The modern resurgence of design-thinking is not a return to Paley's watchmaker arguments. Finding complexity and functionality is not enough to confirm design. We recognise that some functionality can be introduced by natural processes: a fallen tree can provide a bridge over a river, but that does not mean the functionality was designed. Today, we talk more about information, and refer to complex specified information when making design inferences.

A strange and surprising debate: mountains, original sin and 'science' in seventeenth-century England
Alexander Wragge-Morley
Endeavour, Volume 33, Issue 2, June 2009, Pages 76-80 | doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2009.05.001

It could come as a shock to learn that some seventeenth-century men of science and learning thought that mountains were bad. Even more alarmingly, some thought that God had imposed them on the earth to punish man for his sins. By the end of the seventeenth century, surprisingly many English natural philosophers and theologians were engaged in a debate about whether mountains were 'good' or 'bad', useful or useless. At stake in this debate were not just the careers of its participants, but arguments about the best ways of looking at and reckoning with 'nature' itself.

Wow, is this another one?

At BeliefNet, David Klinghoffer writes,

Now isn't this fascinating. James von Brunn, the white-supremacist suspect in today's Holocaust Memorial Museum shooting in which the guard who was shot has now tragically died, describes the relevance of evolution to his sick thinking. He's obsessed with "genetics." He writes in his manifesto (emphasis added):

Aw, go there if you want to know what von Brunn thinks. [If a guy's in jail for murder, on good evidence, I don't care much what he thinks. I reserve that honour for scholars.]

It's the usual sicko stuff, but how come it is so commonly associated with Darwinism?

Both the Columbine school shooter and the Finnish school shooter would understand von B, about "evolution." See links to my files on them here.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Evolution Deceit, an interesting Turkish creationist book, is good at assembling and clearly explaining the arguments against Darwinism that you can be pretty sure the average lay person will not hear from conventional TV nature programs. It does, however, get some Western intellectual history wrong. This example attracted my attention, of course:

Quoting British journalist and broadcaster Malcolm Muggeridge (1903-1990),

I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has. - Deceit, p. 164, The End of Christendom (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, sp. 43.)

He is identified there as an atheist.

Now, I knew Muggeridge at that time, and he had slowly been making his way back to Christianity since the early 1970s (dying a Roman Catholic, in the words of the ancient curse).

"Evolution," in the popular "hey, we just evolved, that's all," sense was one of the many ideas Muggs had begun to forswear - indeed to abjure because he had witnessed first hand the cultural vulgarity it underwrites.

For example "evolution" supposedly explains why women kill their kids and also why they don't - making the two decisions appear of equal moral value. "Evolution" explains why men are unfaithful and also why they are not.

Presumably, Muggs picked up the same sense I later did - that evo psycho sounds far too much like the afternoon soaps to be taken seriously as science. But - far more perceptive than many ponderous pundits we are saddled with here in Canada - Muggs also saw that the form in which the public consumes the idea of "evolution," and always will do so, is basically permission to indulge in bad behaviour because it is supposedly "natural." After a ll, Mr. Ooga! Ooga! did those things, and who can argue with him? Especially if he never existed.

Gee. I'd just as soon get into a row with the Red Ettin of Ireland. It had, we are told, three heads - a classical evolutionary psychologist, I suppose - one says yes, one says no, and one says "Give us more money."

By the way, while I am here, let me remember another Brit journalist and commentator, Gordon Rattray Taylor, who also foreswore Darwinism - in the last year of his life.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist, my blog on the intelligent design controversy:

Darwinism and popular culture: Capturing traditional peoples and treating them as exhibits ...

The missed link still much missed,. Butremembered

African?: Ota Benga - the missed link?

Theistic evolution: What does it really mean? (I don''t know, but am relieved to learn that no one else does either)

Frank Beckwith, of all people, attacked

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).

In this Bicentennial year of Darwin's birth, there are many who want to drive a wedge between Darwinism as a scientific theory and Darwinism as a philosophical, social or political theory. Here in the UK, we have a Templeton Foundation-funded project called "Rescuing Darwin" which seeks to do exactly this. Darwinism, it is claimed, is essentially a scientific theory and it needs to be rescued from the atheists, the social-engineers and others who are taking it far beyond the domain of science. Here is an excerpt from the report "Rescuing Darwin".

"Social Darwinism did not have the monopoly on interpreting evolution. Indeed, in its time evolution has been used in support of every "ism" imaginable, including socialism, capitalism, racism, eugenics, feminism, theism and atheism. As George Bernard Shaw once remarked, Darwin "had the luck to please everybody who had an axe to grind". The key point is that, from the earliest times, evolution was understood - and sometimes rejected - as a philosophical, social or political theory, rather than simply a biological one." (page 25)

This strategy of presenting Darwinism as science with no philosophical or ideological baggage deserves to be critiqued and challenged. Many of us argue that science necessarily implies a philosophical underpinning, and that metaphysical foundation inevitably affects the way science is practised. This blog, however, is concerned with the evidence from history. What was Darwin's own thinking about laissez-faire social Darwinism? Does he deserve to be rescued from those who have inappropriately applied his science to the workings of human society? Or is he being expelled from his own house?

Will the real Darwin please stand up! (Source here)

In an incisive essay, Richard Weikart contributes to the scholarly answers to these questions. There have been some who say that "social Darwinism was an essential part of Darwin's theory". Others have denied that social Darwinism ever existed, and still others who "blame Herbert Spencer for originating and popularizing social Darwinism". The essay concerns the relationship between Spencer's and Darwin's social views over time.

"That is the task I set for myself, as I explore the following questions: How much influence did Spencer exert on Darwin's social thought and vice-versa? What did Spencer and Darwin think about each others' views of social evolution, especially as it related to laissez-faire economic theory? Was Spencer a social Darwinist? Was Darwin a social Darwinist?"

Both men were influenced by Thomas Malthus's population theory. Both used and developed arguments first made by Malthus. Weikart's analysis is that the views of Spencer and Darwin provide a striking example of convergent evolution.

"Because laissez-faire economic ideals were so prominent in English intellectual and political life in the mid-nineteenth century, it should come as no surprise that Darwin and Spencer imbibed these ideas independently. Their thinking about human society was shaped heavily by mid-Victorian economic values and concepts such as competition, division of labor, and adaptation."

Spencer's thinking was developed earlier than Darwin's, although Spencer's views can be described as Lamarkian. After reading Darwin, he incorporated selection into his thinking.

"Thus long before he read Darwin, Spencer (1851, 324) embraced the position that laissez-faire was necessary to ensure biological progress, not only by stimulating some people to improve themselves (Lamarckism), but also by society "excreting its unhealthy, imbecile, slow, vacillating, faithless members" (Darwinian selection)."

Although there are hints of Darwin's thinking on these matters before 1871, it was not until the publication of "The Descent of Man" that we have something more substantial to refer to.

"But would not the evolution of morality, based on what Darwin called social instincts, ameliorate the struggle for existence among humans? Would it not temper the struggle for existence with moral sentiments that would make humans cooperate? Yes, Darwin explained, when he forthrightly broached the subject in the last half of chapter five, in a section entitled, "Natural Selection as affecting Civilised Nations." In this section Darwin explained his views about how his theory impinged on human society. If one wants to know whether or not Darwin was a social Darwinist, especially in relation to laissez-faire economics, this is the section to examine."

After reviewing the views of different scholars and making his own arguments, Weikart concludes that:

"Though Darwin's advocacy of laissez-faire economic competition was neither as vocal nor as radical as Spencer's, he clearly viewed economic competition as an integral part of the human struggle for existence, and he insisted that governments should foster, not reduce, competition."

So, it is concluded that both men were social Darwinists and that they had come to their views largely independently. Darwin made no attempt to distance himself from Spencer on these matters.

"Despite any differences between them, Darwin and Spencer were both laissez-faire social Darwinists. They both used biological arguments to justify economic policies designed to sharpen human competition. They warned against government involvement or legislation that would significantly reduce economic competition because they thought this would result in biological deterioration. They developed these ideas in a common intellectual and social context where laissez-faire economics was economic orthodoxy. Spencer was certainly the first of the two to publish his social Darwinist ideas, if it is appropriate to use this term before 1859. Spencer's laissez-faire views were also even more radical than Darwin's since his opposition to government intervention was far more radical than most laissez-faire proponents. Darwin's views were more in line with mainstream laissez-faire economics."

The take-home message is this: Darwinism is NOT a purely scientific theory. The science cannot be divorced from the underpinning philosophy. Projects like "Rescuing Darwin" are fundamentally flawed and philosophically naive. Educationalists have a duty to introduce students to these issues in a way that encourages critical thought and analysis.

Was Darwin or Spencer the Father of Laissez-Faire Social Darwinism?
Richard Weikart
Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 71, 2009, 20-28 | doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2007.06.011

Abstract: This article explores the way that Darwin and Spencer integrated laissez-faire ideas into their evolutionary biology, and how they then extrapolated from their evolutionary theories to social and economic thought. It argues that Darwin and Spencer developed laissez-faire social Darwinism independently, making both important progenitors of it.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Recently, some friends and I were discussing methodological naturalism (MN),

The philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism holds that, for any study of the world to qualify as "scientific," it cannot refer to God's creative activity (or any sort of divine activity). The methods of science, it is claimed, "give us no purchase" on theological propositions--even if the latter are true--and theology therefore cannot influence scientific explanation or theory justification. Thus, science is said to be religiously neutral, if only because science and religion are, by their very natures, epistemically distinct. However, the actual practice and content of science challenge this claim. In many areas, science is anything but religiously neutral; moreover, the standard arguments for methodological naturalism suffer from various grave shortcomings

MN is a useful idea in its place. That is, if your dog dies, you might better look to natural causes than supernatural ones for an explanation. Dogs are natural creatures, subject to diseases and other misfortunes. If that was all MN meant, no reasonable person would doubt it.

But that is not all it means. It means that

1. "Naturalistic" explanations must be insisted on, no matter how ridiculous or unsatisfactory.

Once it hits the popular culture, MN also means that any methodological naturalist (MN) explanation is by definition better than any other one, no matter how stupid or useless. [break]

For example, the three-ring circus of “evolutionary psychology” is a direct outgrowth of MN.

No matter how stupid, unnatural, counterfactual, or counterintuitive an evo psycho explanation is, it must be treated with respect because it supposedly ties in to “evolution” – which is doctrinaire MN – even if the explanation is at the level of Ooga! Ooga! or the Big Bazooms theory of evolution. Go here
or here, if you want to know about more current nut moments in this supposed discipline.

The fact that a given evo psycho theory is stupid and unlikely, and unsupported by serious evidence, is not a detraction, provided that it invokes the sacred name of "evolution." The key reason is that "evolution" is believed to support MN.

Otherwise, people would say, "Look, evolution happened, but all this stupidity is just plain stupidity."

But they can't – not because of evolution but because of MN. That is precisely the stranglehold MN has on our culture. It forces people to believe stupid things, as a matter of moral and intellectual obligation, because believing smarter and more obvious things would violate the principle.

That's why people feel wounded when someone like me tells them

But your Big Bazooms theory is just plain stoopid! There is an easier explanation for why men prefer stacked women to skinny ones. How about this: It's not about having kids, it's about having fun. Kids arrive, sure, but that guy didn’t organize his life around kids at first … that came later, when he was appalled at how loud a newborn can shriek, and how hard it is to ignore that shrieking kid … and it's his kid anyway, so ...

2. MN also means, among other things, that useless supposed science projects (like trying to discover exactly how life originated) continue to attract funding and can never be evaluated in a rational way. That is, there is probably no way of determining exactly how life originated, whether life's origin was entirely by chance events or not. Indeed, if life originated purely by chance events, it is less likely that we can know exactly how it happened.

3. A third disadvantage of MN is that speculation comes to sound like science - as long as it agrees with MN. For example, take the view that we are not unusual - and therefore, there must be just tons of alien civilizations out there. How do we know? We don't. We certainly haven't heard from any of them.

4. A fourth disadvantage - and in my view, the biggest one - is that it forces people to decide that they cannot accept bodies of evidence that don't coincide with materialist atheism (MN's true sponsor, of course, however many Bible college profs may have embraced it). So there is this ridiculous dance around the "hard problem" of human consciousness., Why is it a hard problem? Because consciousness is not a material entity. That would suggest studying it as a non-material entity. Oh, but wait. MN says no, because that might open the door to the idea of divine action.

Therefore, there are no non-material entities.

Remember, You can't study consciousness the way it really is, so you must study it the way it really isn't, and come up with gimcrack theories that convince no one. Talk about a "science stopper ... "

So, the trick with MN is to see that it's not about science. It's a way of making decisions.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

Adnan Oktar: Catching up with my here and here.

Intellectual freedom: American novelist Toni Morrison's view

If you really need to hear from profs, you won't need to pay for these

"Theistic evolution: Facing the facts as if facts "mattered

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

Okay, okay, you always wondered where your great aunt got that perfectly awful stuff. But that's not what we are talking about here.

Haim Watzman tells us (NatureNews, 01 June 2009), "Earliest evidence for pottery making found: Fragments from a Chinese cave push back the dawn of the craft by more than 1,000 years":

Shards of pottery dating back 18,000 years have been unearthed in a cave in Hunan province, southern China.

The manufacture of ceramic pots and other items is generally associated with the change from Paleolithic hunter-gatherer societies into sedentary Neolithic communities, which began about 10,000 years ago in the eastern Mediterranean. But pottery manufacture began considerably earlier in East Asia, during the late Paleolithic. Until now, the earliest previous finds in East Asia were dated to 15,000–16,000 years ago.

Well, the basic idea isn't difficult. Clay grows very hard when subjected to intense heat, and most other methods of producing a waterproof container are much more labour intensive. So I wouldn't be surprised if the craft turns out to be older still.

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Measuring the impact of moods on information in visual cortex - help for depression?

An event I did not happen to attend: British atheist graces Toronto

You are your genes? Oh, maybe not ...

Woman turns brain tumour into art?

For all go to The Mindful Hack The Hack is my blog on issues in neuroscience, psychology, and spirituality.

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 "The Moon and Sparrows," David Warren of the Ottawa Citizen reflects on the comments of the men who first landed on the mon, forty years ago:

To be fair, more was established by the research of Riley and Olsson, although their other results will surely be challenged. They are further convinced, by Commander Armstrong's continuous movement and body language while speaking, that his line was not rehearsed. This would mean it wasn't "scripted by the White House," as two generations of the mildly paranoid have earnestly believed. It was the genuinely spontaneous poetical effusion of an engineer from Ohio, rising to a historic occasion.

My own view - not the product of forensic linguistics, but rather of mere literary criticism - was, and remains, that this line was prosaic, even corny. I do not condemn it on this account, however. It was a humble attempt at the grandiose, of just the sort one might expect from such a speaker, stepping out on the lunar surface, with a billion souls watching on TV. And it was beautiful for that reason.

There was high poetry, too, but it had been delivered less self-consciously, a little earlier, as the vehicle containing Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin touched down. Paradoxically, that line gained all its poetry from being spoken, not in poetical language, but in mission jargon. It was:

"Tranquillity Base here. The Eagle has landed."

I wonder if, once we get around to mining the moon, we will still want to call the base Tranquillity.

Also just up at Colliding Universes, my blog about competing theories of our universe.

Time: Can time flow backwards in quantum physics? Maybe ...

Hubble Space Telescope: And awesome introduction

History moment: Moon landing recalled

Can the laws of physics evolve?

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe. You can search it via the Search Blog box at the top left, beside the "B" logo.

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 Jonathan Wells writes about the junk that turned out not to be.

Suppose your genome was your late great aunt's attic. You think the stuff in her attic is all just a load of junk. But unknown to you, her great-great grandma's Georgian dressing table is worth US$50 000 on the museum market, and archivists would kill for her great-grandpa's letters from the front.

Darwinists assumed that everything that wasn't being used now was junk, but apparently they were wrong - because they neglected the value of information generally, and stored information in particular. They truly believe in randomness, not information. Anyway, here's Wells:

We are often told that the evidence for evolution is "overwhelming." If "evolution" is defined as "change over time" or "minor changes within existing species," this is a truism. But what if "evolution" means Charles Darwin's theory? According to Darwin, all living things are descendants of a common ancestor that have been modified by unguided processes such as random variation and natural selection.

Despite the hype from Darwin's followers, the evidence for his theory is underwhelming, at best.

Natural selection - like artificial selection - can produce minor changes within existing species. But in the 150 years since the publication of Darwin’s Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, no one has ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection - much less the origin of new organs and body plans.

As a result, the only evidence that all living things are biologically descended from a common ancestor comes from comparisons of the similarities and differences among fossil and living species. When making such comparisons, however, Darwinists start by assuming common ancestry. Then they try to fit similarities and differences into the branching-tree pattern that would result from it, and they ignore the glaring inconsistencies that often remain.

Read the rest here at Evolution News and Views

See also Wells's book Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (Regnery, 2006)

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

Creationism: Creationists visit temple of evolution

Darwinism and academic culture: Skepticism not allowed

Design: A military perspective

Darwinism and popular culture: Noticing the growing uproar

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

The word 'compaction' is one that in my mind conjures up images of vacations long-passed when I would cram as many clothes as I could into the smallest suitcases I could find. Such a task has become even more irksome in recent years with the hefty restrictions in place that limit the amount of luggage we can now take onto airplanes. But in at least one context- that of DNA biology- compaction refers to something much more exquisite and desirable.

The diploid eukaryotic cell faces the challenge of squeezing and compacting about two meters of DNA into the tiny space of the nucleus (Ref 1). As DNA structuralists Chris Calladine and Horace Drew described many years ago, DNA in most eukaryotic genomes is compressed 10,000-fold (Ref 2). This is partially achieved by highly specialized proteins called histones (denoted as H1, H2a, H2b, H3, H4) around which the DNA is wrapped (Ref 2). The resulting DNA/Histone complex, called a nucleosome subunit, is repeated tens of millions of times across the human genome to form chromatin, which is further compacted into ordered fibers 250-300 Angstroms in diameter (Refs 1-4). Such compaction is crucial if the billions of base pairs of DNA that make up, say, the human genome are to fit into the tiny space of the nucleus (Ref 1).

Much work still needs to be done to elucidate the precise mechanisms through which DNA becomes accessible to RNA polymerases and subsequently gets transcribed. Yet in a seminal paper co-authored by Wistar Institute molecular biologist Ronen Marmorstein, it has become clear that this increased accessibility of chromosomal DNA to the transcription machinery is dependent upon complex modifications of the histone proteins- a feature of transcriptional regulation that forms the basis of what is more commonly referred to as the 'histone code' (Refs 3-5).

Several classes of histone modification have now been documented in the scientific literature notably acetylation, phosphorylation and methylation (Ref 3). Of all, acetylation is perhaps the best characterized within the context of transcriptional regulation (Ref 3) although H3 and H4 acetylation also appears to play a key role in other cellular processes such as DNA replication (Ref 4). The synergistic nature of histone modifications has been extensively discussed (Refs 4,7). We now know for example that methylated, non-acetylated H4 tends to be associated with regions of the genome that are transcriptionally inactive. Conversely phosphorylated, acetylated H3 is usually present in transcriptionally active regions (Refs 4,6).

Histone modifications may be sensitive to external environmental cues, resulting in a rapid modulation of gene expression (Ref 7). Moreover they can exert long term, stable effects, maintaining DNA in either a transcriptionally active or inactive state over many rounds of cell division (Ref 7). Importantly, the histone code parallels the everyday usage of symbols in human communication systems (Ref 7). Just as traffic lights use an established code (green, yellow, red) to produce a desired outcome, for example, so too do histone modifications produce functionally-relevant outcomes in gene expression (Ref 7). In both cases there is a need for an 'interpreter' of the code. In the same way that a driver's brain interprets traffic light signals, modification-dependent binding proteins interpret modified histones, effectively kick-starting processes such as cellular differentiation (Ref 7).

Whether all histone modifications are involved in defining gene expression patterns is currently a matter of deep debate (Ref 7). Moreover, there are numerous other epigenetic factors such as DNA methylation that influence which genes are actively transcribed (Ref 7). What is clear however is that the histone code provides the foundations for a sound, logical thread of reasoning that ultimately leads us to infer the activity of an intelligent agency. As Discovery Institute philosopher Stephen Meyer remarked:

"Our experience-based knowledge of information-flow confirms that systems with large amounts of specified complexity (especially codes and languages) invariably originate from an intelligent source - that is, from a mind or personal agent. Clearly, intelligent agents have the causal powers to generate novel linear information-rich sequences of characters. To quote Henry Quastler...the "creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity". Experience teaches this obvious truth" (Ref 8).

It is with the acceptance of such a thread of reasoning that we can begin a more fruitful approach to understanding the molecular underpinnings of life.

Literature Cited
1. Anthony Anumziato (2008), DNA Packaging: Nucleosomes And Chromatin, Nature Education (1), See http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/DNA-Packaging-Nucleosomes-and-Chromatin-310

2. Chris Calladine & Horace Drew (1992), Understanding DNA: The Molecule And How It Works, 1st Edition, Academic Press, London, pp.138-143

3. Brian D. Strahl and C. David Allis (2000), The Language Of Covalent Histone Modifications, Nature, Vol 403, pp.41-45

4. 'The Histone Code- Genetics, Epigenetics And Histones', See http://www.histonecode.com

5. Adrienne Clements, Arienne N. Poux, Wan-Sheng Lo, Lorraine Pillus, Shelley L. Berger, Ronen Marmostein (2003), Structural Basis For Histone And Phophohistone Binding By The GCN5 Histone Acetyltransferase, Molecular Cell, Vol 12, pp.461-473

6. Raymond H Jacobson, Andreas G. Ladurner, David S. King, Robert Tjian (2000), Structure and Function of a Human TAFII250 Double Bromodomain Module, Science, Vol 288, pp.1422-1425

7. Bryan M Turner (2007), Defining An Epigenetic Code, Nature Cell Biology, Vol 9(1), pp.2-6

8. Stephen C. Meyer, Marcus Ross, Paul Nelson, and Paul Chien (2003), The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang, Appears in the peer-reviewed volume Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, Michigan State University Press p.381. See
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=639

My friend Forrest Mims, one of the 50 best brains in science, according to Discover Magazine, writers to say,

Your post on "DNA analysis means death of taxonomy (determining what a "species" is)?"

This is a significant post that should be of interest to the ID community.

I have considerable experience with this, having studied for 7 years variants of the baldcypress found along Texas Hill Country streams and rivers. Let us go so far as to assume that all baldcypress are the same species: Taxodium distichum, including T. mucronatum, the national tree of Mexico. This leaves the problem of assigning scientific names to the variants of the species, including those I study that have a very different appearance from the common baldcypress. Even the annual growth rings and distribution of tannin in the rings is obviously different.

In a future book I'll discuss some of my extensive correspondence with the new/old generations of botanists about my findings. The old generation is confident of the findings, but the young generation refuses to look at the actual specimens and wants only to see its DNA.

My main web site has a photo of the common baldcypress and the variants I study. Go here and scroll to end of page. The photo is low res on my site, but anyone can see the obvious difference that the molecular biologist I dealt with refused to acknowledge.

Speaking for myself, I have long been confused by the concept of "species" because it seems to be used in different ways.

Everybody agrees that beetles and butterflies belong to different species, but no one needs special training to see that.

But are dogs, wolves, and coyotes really different species? It's no secret that they can interbreed. Most sources discourage interbreeding because wolves, coyotes, and their offspring are not desirable domestic companions compared to dogs.

Should behaviour count in relation to species?

Horses and donkeys can also interbreed, but the resulting mules and hinnies are not fertile. So with them we are developing a clearer idea of what a species is.

Some animals that are generally considered members of the same species - Chihuahuas and Newfoundland rescue dogs - may not be able to interbreed for logistic reasons (size difference). But before we go making a big "evolution" argument out of that, we need to stop and remember that those animals were bred by humans for specific tasks, and would probably not be viable in nature.

Maybe the best long run solution would be a figure for the type and amount of genetic difference that should prompt us to classify a given life form as a different species from another.

(Note: The Discover editors, to their credit, did not back down when challenged over their choice of Mims, due to his ID sympathies. Indeed, they were wise to stand their ground. If they dump "best brains" due to politically incorrect sympathies, they must replace them with "second best" brains, at least in their own honest opinion. In short, having the correct opinion becomes more important than adding to knowledge. That is a classic recipe for cultural stagnation that they did well to avoid. As I said at the time, "Science motors along on facts, so political correctness is not one of the branches of science." )

Here is Forrest's comment, published at Science (free registration wall):

The Twilight of Taxonomy
by Forrest Mims III

[Comment posted 2009-06-03 12:22:04]

Bob Grant's piece on the fading of taxonomy (http://www.the-scientist.com/2009/06/1/32/1/) deserves a wide audience while there is still time to salvage what is left. The National Science Foundation should especially acknowledge this serious problem.

We have entered an era when some molecular biologists seem more interested in extracting DNA from museum specimens than in adding to the collections. A classic example is the destruction of very rare specimens preserved in amber to attempt DNA extraction (Mims, 1993).

For 7 years I have studied variants of the baldcypress found along Texas Hill Country streams and rivers. Let us go so far as to assume that all baldcypress are the same species: Taxodium distichum, including T. mucronatum, the national tree of Mexico. This leaves the problem of assigning scientific names to the variants of the species, including those I study that have a very different morphology than the common baldcypress. Even the annual growth rings and distribution of tannin in the rings is obviously different. While the old generation of botanists I have consulted is intrigued by these findings, the young generation has a very different view based solely on DNA.

Satellite remote sensing technology can lead to issues analogous to the twilight of taxonomy. For example, a decade ago colorful sunsets accompanied by extended twilights were observed from South Texas. These twilight glows looked much like those that followed the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo and suggested a new aerosol layer in the stratosphere. After I posted these observations on the Internet, two experienced twilight observers were among the respondents who reported seeing the same phenomenon. I then sent an inquiry to a team charged with measuring optical depth from a remote sensing satellite. Their response was that the twilights were probably caused by smoke from Mexican power plants, an impossibility due to the stratospheric altitude suggested by the lengthy duration of the twilight s. I suggested to the team that they simply go outdoors to watch the twilights with their own eyes, but persistent sulfate smog over their location blocked their view.

In the end, the high-tech satellite completely missed the phenomenon. Observations by much older lidars in Cuba and California confirmed the new aerosol layer that was first discovered simply by measuring the duration of twilight glows using unaided eyes and a watch (Mims, et al., 1996).

Forrest M. Mims III
www.forrestmims.org
www.sunandsky.org
twitter.com/fmims

References:

F. M. Mims III, Save the Amber, Nature 362, 389 (1993).

Ibid., et al., Lidar data from Cuba, Germany, and Hawaii; aerosol layer with unknown source, Bulletin of the Global Volcanism Network (Atmospheric Effects), http://www.volcano.si.edu/reports/bulletin/contents.cfm?issue=atmospheric, (February 1996).

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

Podcasts and a reading from interesting blogs: Perfection in biology? And new podcasts

Quantum computing: US to axe work?

Don't forget Uncommon Descent Contest Question 5: Darwinian fairy tales: Why middle-aged men have shiny scalps

The journal Science carries an interview with Eugenie Scott, who is executive director of the National Center for Science Education. She is presented as a tireless warrior, who is to be found "on the frontlines of the contentious battle over teaching evolution in U.S. public schools." She refers to her opponents as "the enemy". They are diverse: "creation science, intelligent design [ID], and antievolution" protagonists. Those of us who follow these issues are well aware of the stance Scott takes and the arguments she brings. This blog is concerned with the way Science presents her thinking as mainstream, with no attempt to provide analysis or to suggest that Scott's thinking deserves to be critiqued.

We have reached a situation today where any criticism of Darwinism is repackaged as an assault on science. To frame the issues in this way is to close down discussion and critical analysis. It is a problem, not only for ID scientists and creation-based scientists, but also for evolutionary biologists who accept that Darwinism does not deliver the mechanisms needed to accomplish biological transformation. For more on this, go here and here. Darwinians like Scott have a blind spot: they have so equated their cherished theory with 'science', that they are unable to appreciate that some of us want a genuine scientific debate about mechanisms: what they can achieve and what their limitations are.

Research has shown that 10% of blind dogs have blurred vision but this appears to make no difference to their day-to-day duties. It is thought that the animals compensate by relying more on smell and hearing. There is a useful analogy here with science leaders. (Source here)

This blind spot spills over into education. "Besides periodic assaults on science standards as we recently saw in Texas, we are concerned about antievolution legislation in different states under the guise of academic freedom bills." Scott does not admit that the principle of academic freedom implies the right to bring criticism of Darwinism into the classroom. Consequently, "academic freedom" advocates are painted as subversive to science. There are ideological agendas behind this opposition to developing the critical minds of students (for more, go here).

A revealing Q&A concerned the relevance of evolutionary theory for practicing scientists. The answer given by Scott is actually very weak. Instead of pointing out examples of relevance, she makes a sweeping statement about seeing the "big picture":

Q: Why is it important to teach evolution? Can't doctors and most life scientists do their jobs without accepting evolution?
E.S.: You can be a mechanic without understanding the niceties of the internal combustion engine. [But] wouldn't you rather go to a mechanic who has the big picture?

This fails to interact with those scientists who are prepared to say that evolutionary theory is more of a surficial veneer than an underpinning framework (go here). Also, it fails to do justice to the place of design in medicine: those who consider the human body to be designed have had a good track record for helping to cure ailments, whereas reductionistic biology tends to focus on symptoms rather than causes and the emerging field of Darwinian medicine is largely untried and untested (go here and here).

One further area where Scott needs to be challenged is in her understanding of the philosophy of science. She appears to think that science transcends philosophy. When talking about what scientists should not do, her argument envisages scientists drawing philosophical ideas from science. Some draw atheism; some draw theism. Here is the relevant part of the interview:

"What university scientists should not do is to force students to choose between religion and science. If a professor were to say that evolution proves there is no God, that's not just bad philosophy of science, it ensures that a significant number of students will stick their fingers in their ears.
When explaining biological questions, such as the evolution of the eye, there is no need to say that God had nothing to do with it. It's an irrelevant comment. I don't think a classroom is an appropriate place to try to create more atheists any more than it is an appropriate place to create more fundamentalist Christians."

A major element of the analysis contributed by ID scholars is that philosophy underpins science. This is not an exclusive emphasis by any means - for this view is common among philosophers of science. The problem is that few ask questions about the ideological underpinnings of science and whether different ideologies matter. Is it fairer to say "evolution proves there is no God" or "atheism leads to a science of origins where there is no purpose, guidance or any role for a Creator"? There is plenty of evidence for "bad philosophy of science", but it is evident at a deeper level than acknowledged by Scott. For more, go here.

What shall we say about Scott's approach to explaining "biological questions, such as the evolution of the eye". Notice that she does not refer to the functioning of the eye (which is a question for empirical science) but rather to the evolution of the eye (which is a question for historical science that presumes the eye has evolved). The philosophical issues needing consideration are affected by the questions asked. Scott says: "there is no need to say that God had nothing to do with it. It's an irrelevant comment." From a scientific perspective, the issue concerns causation. What causes are legitimate to consider within science? We are familiar with the role of natural law within science. We are also aware of chance events which need statistical description rather than physical or chemical laws. The controversial area of causation concerns intelligent agency (design). ID advocates do not think that it is irrelevant to consider the possibility of intelligent causation and have proposed various tests to distinguish law, chance and design. The unwillingness of Scott to acknowledge that design can be even considered within science is a reflection on the philosophy of science she has adopted: a metaphysical presupposition that prohibits design from being discerned. This metaphysical stance creates the blind spot. For more, go here.

The real concern is not that Scott holds these views (for we live in the free world where we protect academic freedom). It is problematical because Science did not think it appropriate to provide a forum for dialogue with scientists who have a different philosophy of science. To pretend that there is no debate over these issues is folly. For a recent contribution relating to the policy adopted by the Texas State Board of Education, go here.

Eugenie Scott Toils in Defense of Evolution
Yudhijit Bhattacharjee
Science 324, 5 June 2009: 1250-1251 | DOI: 10.1126/science.324_1250b

1st para: As executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, anthropologist Eugenie Scott has spent the past 2 decades on the frontlines of the contentious battle over teaching evolution in U.S. public schools. [. . .] Last week, Scott won the inaugural Stephen Jay Gould Prize from the Society for the Study of Evolution, only weeks after Scientific American ranked her among the country's top 10 science and technology leaders for her self-described role as "Darwin's golden retriever." Scott spoke to Science last week about where things now stand.

See also:

Hunter, C. Pure Dogma, Darwin's God (blog), 4 June 2009.

Mcleroy, D. State curriculum ensures only science taught in science classes, The Eagle, May 31, 2009

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here at Robert Murphy's "Free Advice" blog, a post called - advisedly - Just-So Darwinism:

"Art and hairlessness co-evolved because they fed off each other. The girl whose skin was least hairy could paint it, tattoo it, decorate it and clothe it more adventurously than could her furry sisters. So she got more and better men. And in consequence her children - even the males, though to a lesser degree - lost their hair too. We had become the naked ape."

OK, you got that? Remember, the whole point of this story is to explain why older men with thinning hair are actually attractive to young women (despite the myths that Rogaine and others would have you believe, and despite all those male models with full heads of hair). So to do that, the story starts out with why evolution made women lose their (body) hair, which then caused their male offspring to lose their (body and scalp?) hair, even though the original motivation (sexual selection a la the peacock) never caused female baldness to become prevalent.

Hat tip: Darwinian Tales (by "Vox Day"), who kindly wrote to say, "Knowing of your intense interest in the "big bazooms" theory [of evolution], I think you'll enjoy this."

Yes, it is true. I collect stupid theories (like the sexy baldy and the "big bazooms") theory of evolution, the way some people collect ceramic busts of Elvis Presley, not because they admire them but because they are intrigued by the fact that anyone, anywhere would actually admire them.

The biology of baldness is complex. Some theorists believe that it renders older men so unattractive that - rather than sowing additional wild oats - they are forced to spend more time with their families and so help their children to survive. But the myriad Becky Sharps [gold digggers] in literature and history help to disprove that theory.

[ ... ]

Terence Kealey is vice-chancellor of Buckingham University

It is a bad sign when an educated person emits this rubbish.

Years ago, I listened to a gynecologist explain during a panel discussion that hair provides sexual excitement, hence "evolution" retains pubic hair. Was she right? Wrong? Who cares?*

This much I know is true: Pop Darwinism is vastly more ridiculous than the real kind. What is interesting is that so few serious Darwinists wish to cut the pop science loose.

So, for a year's free subscription to Salvo (decidedly not yer granny's explanation of why younger Christians are getting tired of all this materialist rubbish, but a more plausible one) plus free, fun back issues, here's the contest question:

What is the down side for serious Darwinists to just cutting the "evolutionary psychology" psychodrama loose, and focusing on what real science can say about evolution?

Truth in Advertising: I write the Deprogram column for Salvo. (I have no ties to any of the other contest prize sponsors.) I don't deal only in ID at Salvo; I deprogram people from many health nut moments as well.

Get writing and have fun! You must go here to Uncommon Descent to register to comment. Here are the contest rules:

*Fact (that will save you thousands of dollars of therapy, medical treatments, and/or legal fees): If you are a guy and want a girl to be nice to you, just try being consistently nice to her. If that doesn't work, move on. Keep being consistently nice to girls until you find one who really appreciates that, and chances are you have found your match. Okay, maybe not - but your chances with her are waaaaaay better than they are with the girl who just wants a guy to be in a big fight with.

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

A new book, Nature's IQ: Extraordinary Animal Behaviors That Defy Evolution, by Hungarian Hindus, demonstrates the resonance of design in nature among the world's cultures.

I'll have more to say when I finish reading it, but one point they stress - that is often neglected in the West - is this: Intricate physical adaptations among animals are useless without adaptations in behaviour. How does the animal know that it has a skill? I mean "know" not so much in a philosophical sense, but just "know" how to do it? I think they are right to stress that behaviour is key to adaptation.

I well remember the day that a kitten rushed off the staircase while chasing a house fly. She propelled herself about two metres straight forward - and fell about 4.5 metres, a straight drop.
She picked herself up and went on with the hunt, but she never tried walking on air again. Of course, a fledged young bird, faced with similar circumstances, would have discovered that it could fly.

So far, my favourite thing about the book is the golden ant on the cover, carrying what looks like a computer chip (or something similar) in its mandibles.

The book is available here at Access Research Network.

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

DNA analysis means the death of taxonomy (discovering new species in the field)?

New Book: Ben Wiker's Life and Lies of Charles Darwin

Speaking: Five Critical Things You Must
Do With New Media

Human evolution: More on the Ida? I dunno ... files

Darwinism and academic culture: Not another one for the Expelled files ... ?

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 "Rewiring the Brain: Inside the New Science of Neuroengineering", Quinn Norton reports for Wired (03 02 09)

Most of what we think of as our ability to learn and change comes from the pattern of those synapses. In a way, history is the story of trying to manipulate those patterns through learning, faith, love, drugs, food, exercise — in short, anything and everything. We have spent thousands of years working out indirect ways of changing the contours of our brains to change the shape of our minds.

Neuroengineers, on the other hand, take a pragmatic and direct approach. They are trying to change brains by going in and just changing them.

[ ... ]

"How surprising [it is], clearly we did not evolve to do calculus. Nothing in our evolution involved calculus and yet we can do it. Why is that? It just shows the fundamental versatility of our brain. That it's set up to do unanticipated things gives me hope," he says.

Deisseroth started as a regular engineering undergrad at Harvard. But his path took a twist when he took a class on neural networks. He was enchanted, decided he wanted to spend his life focused on the real neural network, and became a psychiatrist. Eventually, frustrated with the paucity of tools for working directly with the brain, he started building his own.

In my experience, these things always end badly, principally because the idea that there is no underlying order - that it is all just a big accident - leads people to take chances with other people's lives that they should not.

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Materialist neuroscience leads to controlling politics?

Psychology: Hard times make you gullible about religion?

Nature vs. nurture: Intriguing new research

Psychology: What short attention spans cost us

The Mindful Hack is my blog on issues in neuroscience, psychology, and spirituality.

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

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe Americans are getting sick of all this Expelled stuff:

Recently, I received a rare student complaint over an e-mail I had sent to all my classes. In the e-mail, which welcomed all of my students back for a new semester, I characterized myself as an “outspoken Christian professor.” I admitted that I had been critical of some aspects of Darwinism and that I saw my students as more than mere “random mutations.” Finally, I said my Christian views would cause me to treat them differently – namely, by holding them all to a high standard that would help them find their purpose in life: a Divine purpose given to them by their Creator.

[ ... ]

In his letter to the department chair, the student claimed that it was inappropriate and offensive for a professor to reveal his religious affiliation in class. He said he was also offended by what he perceived as an inappropriate put-down of Darwinism. Finally, he expressed his concern that he would become a victim of religious discrimination because he did not share my religious views.

If he’d bothered to approach me directly, I could have told this student a little of what I know about inappropriate and offensive religious expression in the classroom. In fifth grade I had a teacher named Barbara O’Gara. Mrs. O’Gara was my favorite teacher despite the fact that I was then a Baptist and she was an atheist. Mrs. O’Gara made no secret of this fact. She mentioned it on the first day of class, and she mentioned it throughout the year.

During the course of the year, though, it never occurred to me to report Mrs. O’Gara for simply stating her religious affiliation. If it offended me, I simply dealt with it. Even as a fifth-grader, I sensed that this was how mature people handled things. She had a right to her feelings, and I had a right to mine.

Strange that a fifth grader in those days would have more sense of what North American culture is about than many postdocs do today.

As students in the 1960s, the Baby Boomers fought for the right to be treated as adults. After they became college administrators in the 1990s, they began to fight for students’ right to be treated like children. The war was waged principally with speech codes, which give almost unlimited power to college administrators who wish to control the marketplace of ideas.

Those of us who oppose these speech codes should not be angry when college administrators try to enforce them. We should thank God for the arrogance that these codes foster. They embolden these administrators in ways that seldom play well in front of a jury of their peers.

My own view is that university is a privilege for those who can tolerate ideas they don't agree with. If that is a big problem, I recommend a good trade school where one will learn only practical information and can make a good living out of it.

While we are here anyway:

- Canadian columnist to the world Mark Steyn's "Live Free or Die!" talk at Hillsdale College. (He was being sued by three different Canadian "human rights" commissions last year and was named Journalist of the Year for standing up to these new totalitarians.)

- Here, the Ontario Press Council has the good sense not to interfere with a boorish letter to the editor (against immigrants) that contains no defamation against any individual, so far as I can see. I expect that the social ostracism will be quite enough in this case.

For the record: So far as I know, everyone who has ever lived in Canada - including our Aboriginal peoples - was originally an immigrant or descended therefrom. So Canada is by definition a nation of immigrants. And indeed, for the last 10 000 years, I suppose, boors have groused about immigrants, forgetting that they themselves are the children of immigrants.

Also, re defamation, I cannot stress this too strongly: English common law on defamation (and its many ramifications) is intended to protect individuals against demonstrable harm caused by demonstrably false statements about them. It is not intended to protect anyone from feeling bad about something someone else says about the group he identifies with/is identified with. Nor does it protect dead people (who, we must decently assume, are with God and have nothing to fear from this world). Nor abstractions like religions, philosophies, causes, or political parties. That is just not what defamation law aims to do. It is aimed against concrete harms, not claims about abstract ones.

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).