The ID Report

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

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

Also just up at The Post-Darwinist:

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

Ken Miller and Darwin's god

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here's my Mercator.Net story on Francis Collins as new NIH head:

President Obama has chosen an evangelical Christian as the new head of the National Institutes of Health. He is coming under fire from both sides of the culture wars.

[ ... ]

Of course, his advocacy of faith as a public scientist has received mixed reviews, to the point of attracting histrionics about looming "theocracy."

But now that Collins faces confirmation hearings before the Senate, the focus will shift from his persona to his view on issues relevant to his new job. He seems much more relaxed about abortion and human embryonic stem cell research than the average evangelical leader, so it will be interesting to see if he attracts any flak on that account.

Go here for more.

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

by Dr Caroline Crocker

I recently attended a lecture by Michael Shermer at the UCSD Biological Science Symposium (4/2/09). His title was, "Why Darwin Matters", but his topic was mostly religion. He started by defining science as looking for natural explanations for natural phenomena and said that his purpose was to "debunk the junk and expose sloppy thinking." So, I must go on to the content of the lecture - or lack of it. What a disappointment! I was hoping to hear some reasoned thoughts, maybe even something to challenge my way of thinking. Instead we were subjected to an evening of slapstick comedy, cheap laughs and the demolition of strawmen. Lots of cartoons, a film of the evolution of Homer Simpson, photos of the Creation Science Museum with lots of ridicule. I wondered if the 1500 people listening registered how their intelligence was being insulted since Shermer obviously did not consider them capable of logical thinking - only bully-like laughter.

Michael Shermer entertains (Source here)

Or, is it possible that Shermer actually is incapable of understanding what intelligent design (ID) theorists have been trying to explain for so long? His characterization of ID was that the theory says,
1) It looks designed,
2) We can't think how it was designed naturally,
3) Therefore it was designed supernaturally. (God of the gaps.)
Okay everyone, laugh at the stupid ID theorists. Shermer then went on to give the example of Sir Isaac Newton who assumed that the planets line up in a plane because God made things this way. Shermer told his audience that ID theorists do not talk about this because science has now discovered a natural explanation for this phenomenon.

But, is that what ID says? Not at all. Rather, ID says that it is possible to detect the action of intelligence in the world by the presence of two features: complexity and specificity. Our experience with the world shows that if something that is highly complex and ALSO conforms to a pre-existing pattern or contains information, then it designed by an intelligent being. Therefore, when we see these features in naturally-occurring objects, we posit that an intelligent being may have played a part in designing them. Science of course cannot speculate about the identity of this being. So, what about Newton's planets? Well, they do not exhibit much complexity and lining up is not exactly spectacular specificity. Perhaps this is why ID theorists do not talk about Newton's ideas?

Shermer then made a very quick foray into explaining away some of the concerns that ID theorists have with regard to evolution. The Cambrian explosion and lack of transitional forms in the fossil record were addressed by saying that the Cambrian period was actually quite long. Also many of the transitional forms had soft bodies - and anyway, we do have some transitional forms, like Ambulocetus. Irreducible complexity was quickly dismissed by a slide showing a bird with wings that are not used for flying and pictures of a mousetrap with fewer than all of its parts. He did not attempt an explanation of how it would work. Shermer did not explain specified complexity, possibly because he did understand the concept.

After this, Shermer began to air his philosophical and theological ignorance (yes, in a science lecture). I was astonished at how a Darwinist who complains about mixing science and religion spent most of his time at the Biological Science Symposium talking about religion. Especially when he made a point that he is not opposed to discussing religion, just not in science class. One is forced to wonder at the duplicity of his actions. Shermer repeatedly complained that his evaluation of the design seen in nature is that it is not intelligent. For example, why would a designer cause the eye to see upside down and backwards? Obviously, Shermer could have done it better. So, his argument, if I am understanding him, is that if something is designed badly, it was not designed. Hmm, does that apply to faulty appliances, automobiles, and even rockets? Those that malfunction were not designed but evolved?

Then Dr. Shermer came to the question that children always ask, "Well, if God made everything, who made God?" The answer they were hoping for was, "Oh, yeah, you're the first one to think of that. Hmm, guess He doesn't exist." But this is an age-old question, almost the pons asinorum of philosophy and theology. An immense sophisticated literature has been developed around the First Case question, and Shermer acted like he'd never heard of it. Some of my more astute readers may have noticed that this is definitely not science, as Shermer defined it, but he did not seem to realize. He said that all good scientists would ask who made the designer, and who made him and so on, seemingly forgetting the first few sentences of his lecture where he said that science looks only for natural explanations for natural phenomena.

And the lecture went on - from bad to worse. Now, Shermer began to throw in a few mistakes. For example, he claimed that all ID advocates believe in the God of Abraham and are motivated by wanting to share Jesus. His evidence? Shermer claims that after two beers all ID advocates admit that they are Christians (the closet variety I presume). Is it possible that he has never heard of Sir Anthony Flew who is no longer an atheist, but is certainly not a Christian? Or, what about Dr. David Berlinski, Ben Stein or Dr. Steve Fuller, none of whom would claim to be Christians, not all of whom are even theists. Of more concern is that it would appear that Shermer is saying that having a religious belief makes one unable to think scientifically. This is dangerous ground, Dr. Shermer, since atheism has also been defined as a religion (7th Circuit Court of Appeals)! My assessment of last night's talk is that Shermer's atheism (he calls it skepticism) is even evangelistic.

The talk was concluded with a consideration of the Anthropic Principle or the fact that the universe is fine-tuned for life. Shermer admitted that he has been given cause for thought by six key physical constants and the narrow range of values that enable our existence, but then went on to dismiss their significance by suggesting the possibility of parallel universes, which also "evolve". He admitted that there is no evidence for a multiverse, but claimed that since religion is "anthropocentrically absurd" we need to "climb to a higher plane of humanity and humility" and embrace "sciensuality" and buy his book. Are you convinced? I am not.

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

">Out of Our Heads: Why You Are Not Your Brain, and Other Lessons from the Biology of Consciousnessby Alva Noë. Hill and Wang, 2009

Alva No, a University of California, Berkeley, philosopher and cognitive scientist, argues that after decades of concerted effort on the part of neuroscientists, psychologists and philosophers "only one proposition about how the brain makes us conscious ... has emerged unchallenged: we don't have a clue." The reason we have been unable to explain the neural basis of consciousness, he says, is that it does not take place in the brain.

Consciousness is not something that happens inside us but something we achieve it is more like dancing than it is like the digestive process. To understand consciousness the fact that we think and feel and that a world shows up for us we need to look at a larger system of which the brain is only one element.

Consciousness requires the joint operation of brain, body and world. "You are
not your brain. The brain, rather, is part of what you are."

I must get this book and read it.

The typical materialist, of course, wants to understand consciousness as like digesting, not dancing - and that position has been a total flop that makes the American auto sector look prosperous.

Here's a review:

Although Noë is a philosopher, his argument is carefully built on scientific evidence, as he considers everything from studies of cells in the visual cortex to examples of neural plasticity. In each instance, he interprets the data in a startlingly original fashion, such as when he uses experiments showing that ferrets can learn to "see" with cells in their auditory cortex as proof that "there isn't anything special about the cells in the so-called visual cortex that makes them visual. Cells in the auditory cortex can be visual just as well. There is no necessary connection between the character of experience and the behavior of certain cells."

Certainly, many of the scientists cited by Noë would disagree with his interpretations, but that's part of what makes this book so important: It's an audacious retelling of the standard story, an exploration of the mind that questions some of our most cherished assumptions about what the mind is.

Also just up at The Mindful Hack:

Neuroscience: Your local marketing research pest is getting into the action ...

Psychology: Intelligence does not lead to better judgement, decision-making

Religion on the decline? Maybe, but then again maybe not

The latest on God neurons: There ARE no God neurons

Mind: Yet another effort to explain to materialists why minds are not like computers

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).

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I've been neglecting this blog for a while, mainly due to a ton of other work, and certainly not because there aren't universes in collision out there. Recently, Oxford's acclaimed physicist Roger Penrose, speaking at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, advanced the notion of cyclical universes as more satisfactory than the now conventional Big Bang theory.

In "The big bounce vs. the big bang" National Post (October 3, 2008), Joseph Brean reports,

"The universe seems to go through cycles of some kind ... Our universe is what I call an aeon in an endless sequence of aeons," ...

He described data he received just this week that appears to show traces of the previous aeon in the microwave background radiation that fills the universe and is regarded as the lingering "flash" of the Big Bang. If it actually does, a lot of science will have to be reconsidered.

But no one gasped in awe. There were no hoots of surprise, no muttering about this seeming heresy, this contradiction of everything the general public thinks they know about the creation of the universe -- that it happened just the once, about 14 billion years ago, when space and time exploded together out of a single point, infinitely hot and dense, called a singularity. There is not supposed to be any such thing as before the Big Bang. Eternal cycles, Sir Roger? What are you, Hindu?

Penrose is not Hindu, but the idea is Hindu (and Buddhist), and it is a very old one. As Brean explains,

They all seem to be describing something very close to the account in the Hindu Rig Veda of a universe that is cyclically born and dies, each lasting a little over four million years, and representing a day in the life of the deity Brahma, or Buddhism's mahakalpa, the "great eon" between destruction and rebirth.

Brean wonders whether the aeons idea might undermine the Catholic Church’s comfortable relationship with physics. The Church, after all, teaches that the universe did have a beginning, and - not surprisingly, perhaps - it was Belgian priest Georges LeMaitre (1894-1966), who originated the Big Bang theory, which is now the dominant one.

By contrast, the Dalai Lama acknowledges that a beginning to the universe is a problem for Eastern faiths:

From the Buddhist perspective, the idea that there is a single definite beginning is highly problematic. If there were such an absolute beginning, logically speaking, this leaves only two options. One is theism, which proposes that the universe is created by an intelligence that is totally transcendent, and therefore outside the laws of cause and effect. The second option is that the universe came into being from no cause at all. Buddhism rejects both these options. (The Universe in a Single Atom P. 82)

Penrose apparently disclaimed any theological interest to Brean,

Sir Roger was quick to point out that such theological coincidences do not figure in his research. They are no more than pleasing curiosities.

With due respect to Sir Roger, I do not believe that. Such disclaimers belong in the same category as journalists' claims to be "objective": they never have been true and never could be.

Discomfort with the Big Bang theory - for essentially theological/philosophical reasons goes back right to its origin:

Lemaître’s theory was revolutionary. It overturned a century and a half of science.
Initially, many scientists did not like the theory much, and some, like Arthur Eddington (1882–1944), said so. His comment was: "Philosophically, the notion of a beginning to the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole." To most scientists of the day, it sounded too much like religion. Thus, Lemaitre, a priest, was in the unusual position of trying to focus attention on the science that supported his idea, while many atheists were more concerned with the religious implications. This odd turnabout continues to the present day, as we will see. (Pp. 2-3 By Design or by Chance?)

The Large Hadron Collider broke some magnets and is out till mid next year, so it will b e some months whether we know if Penrose's "traces of the previous aeon" are vital evidence or faces in the clouds.

See also: Like clouds in our coffee ... all these other universes

Also just up at Collliding Universes:

A theory of "almost" everything is the best we can do?

Quantum mechanics and popular culture: Artist's kit offers chance to produce trillions of new universes

Alfred Russel Wallace on why Mars is not habitable

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 "Team finds Earth's 'oldest rocks'" (BBC News, September 26, 2008) James Morgan reports:

Writing in Science journal, a team reports finding that a sample of Nuvvuagittuq greenstone is 250 million years older than any rocks known.

It may even hold evidence of activity by ancient life forms.

Geologist Don Francis and graduate student Jonathan O'Neil of McGill University in Montreal have found an ancient greenstone ("faux amphibolite") which may be the oldest rock known.

The rock was dated to between 3.8 and 4.28 billion years ago. "4.28 billion is the figure I favour," says Francis. It is not surprising that he favours the latter date, since it would make his find about 250 million years older than the second oldest one, the Acasta Gneiss in Canada's Northwest Territories, dated at 4.03 billion years old.

But now what's this about life? Well, honestly, right now, it's mostly imagination. The greenstone shows a banded iron formation of magnetite and quartz also found in rock around deep sea hydrothermal vents. Many think that these vents hosted early life on earth.

"These ribbons could imply that 4.3 billion years ago, Earth had an ocean, with hydrothermal circulation," said Francis.

"Now, some people believe that to make precipitation work, you also need bacteria.

"If that were true, then this would be the oldest evidence of life.

"But if I were to say that, people would yell and scream and say that there is no hard evidence."

O'Neil adds,

We know that probably the right environment was there for life to be on the Earth -- so liquid water and all it takes to have life. Now was there life? This is a big question mark"

Actually, the geologists are probably safe. People are pretty open to speculation around the origin of life. But let us say that their wildest dreams come true an they do find hard evidence of life in these rocks. In that case, life started on Earth almost immediately after the planet cooled (in geological terms, that is). If so, then life clearly did not originate via a long slow random swish of chemicals, as we have been encouraged to believe.

Francis and O'Neil hade been looking for clues on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec about the Earth's mantle from 3.8 billion years ago when they found the outcrop of the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt. It was dated at the Carnegie Institution of Washington by measuring the isotopes of neodymium and samarium, rare elements that decay at a known rate.

Here are some other "oldest rocks" stories, and some photos put up by Professor Francis.

See also

Origin of life: Positive evidence of intelligent design?

Origin of life: But is being greedy enough?

Origin of life: Ah, that "just so happens" intermediate series of chemical steps

Why should the search for Darwin's "warm little puddle" be publicly funded?

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

Galactic habitable zone not unique, computer sim suggests

Hail, ceaseless complexity! Or maybe
FAIL, ceaseless complexity. How much can complexity really do for us without design or purpose?

Time is the only true mystery?

Like clouds in our coffee ... all these other universes ...

Mathematics: 46th Mersenne prime number found

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

Robert C. Richardson, a philosophy prof at the University of Cincinnati, has written a long-overdue critique of evolutionary psychology.

Regular readers of this space will know that I do not doubt evolution, still less that some factors in human psychology are best understood in the light of our evolution. But - like a growing number of people - I have limited patience with the nonsense fronted under the label of "evolutionary psychology" - much of which would be better presented (and perhaps more profitable for its authors) as "Clan of the Cave Bear" fiction.

In Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology, Richardson's thesis is,

The claims of evolutionary psychology may pass muster as psychology; but what are their evolutionary credentials? Richardson considers three ways adaptive hypotheses can be evaluated, using examples from the biological literature to illustrate what sorts of evidence and methodology would be necessary to establish specific evolutionary and adaptive explanations of human psychological traits. He shows that existing explanations within evolutionary psychology fall woefully short of accepted biological standards. The theories offered by evolutionary psychologists may identify traits that are, or were, beneficial to humans. But gauged by biological standards, there is inadequate evidence: evolutionary psychologists are largely silent on the evolutionary evidence relevant to assessing their claims, including such matters as variation in ancestral populations, heritability, and the advantage offered to our ancestors. As evolutionary claims they are unsubstantiated. Evolutionary psychology, Richardson concludes, may offer a program of research, but it lacks the kind of evidence that is generally expected within evolutionary biology. It is speculation rather than sound science--and we should treat its claims with skepticism.

Johan J. Bolhuis, reviewing the book in Science ("Piling On the Selection Pressure" Science 320, 6 June 2008: 1293 [PAYWALL]), says,

The study of evolution is concerned with a historical reconstruction of traits. It does not, and cannot, address the mechanisms that are involved in the human brain. Those fall within the domains of neuroscience and cognitive psychology. In that sense, evolutionary psychology will never succeed, because it attempts to explain mechanisms by appealing to the history of these mechanisms. To use the author's words, "We might as well explain the structure of orchids in terms of their beauty." In this excellent book, Richardson shows very clearly that attempts at reconstruction of our cognitive history amount to little more than "speculation disguised as results." The book's title implies that the field is itself subject to selection pressure. Richardson is certainly piling it on.

Piling it on? Actually, I think Richardson better hire a dump truck. A wheelbarrow would be way too slow.

Also at The Mindful Hack:

Real Buddhism scholar to "neural Buddhists": The Buddha does not infinitely morph and would never drop two g's for "meditation gear"

The Spiritual Brain gets Award of Merit at Write! Canada, plus Mario gets tenure

Free will: How can a guy who doesn't believe in free will take credit for writing a book? I mean ...

Evidence? If you are a materialist, trust me, you need never bother with evidence.

Alzheimer helps atheist appreciate God. Yes, really

Evolutionary psychology: Speculation rather than sound science, says new MIT Press book (= Future lies with "Clan of the Cave Bear" fiction)

World's ten worst books?: Read them so you don't end up living them.

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

I have been invited to an advance screening of Expelled (the widely denounced #5 political documentary about the attempts to silence the intelligent design guys) on Thursday, June 26, at 7:00pm at The Varsity Theatre - 55 Bloor St. West in Toronto. The film opens the following Friday June 27 (or Saturday June 28) at the Cineplex Odeon.

I wonder who will picket or try to crash? (There was a big hoo-haw over the screening at the Mall of the Americas when "raving atheist" biologist PZ Myers got ejected by line producer Mark Mathis.) Perhaps I will recognize some prominent local figures strutting importantly on the sidewalk.

Picketers please note, there is a wide sidewalk, and plenty of coffee shops nearby. The restrooms in the Cumberland Terrace are usually pretty clean too.

Be reassured, picketers! The government-funded Nanny Monster is always right, and she says that neither the universe nor life forms show evidence of design, despite the evidence. And in our random universe, the biggest Monster should rule, and that is She.

She said it. You believe it. That settles it. Now get out there and give the legacy media some good photo ops, will you? Most of you are supported by my tax dollars, among other things, and I deserve something for that. Don't look too ragged, or people won't believe that you are as important as you believe yourselves to be.

Insufficiently Nannied? Then see clips from the film here.

I understand that somewhere or other, a helpline is available for anyone who - on learning information that is new to them - has (cue menace music) Doubts. You can contact them through ohjustgrowup.com

From the invite,

In the film, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein examines the attempts of scientists to challenge the idea of Darwinism only to be expelled from the academic community.

More, from the presser:

Controversial feature documentary starring Ben Stein - opens across Canada - Friday, June 27, 2008

In a controversial new satirical documentary, author, former presidential speechwriter, economist, lawyer and actor Ben Stein travels the world, looking to some of the best scientific minds of our generation for the answer to the biggest question facing all Canadians and Americans today:

Are we still free to disagree about the meaning of life?

Or has the whole issue already been decided…
while most of us weren't looking?

Toronto) June 3, 2008 — It's a movie that Ferris Bueller would take the day off to go see. What freedom-loving student wouldn't be outraged to discover that his high school science teacher is teaching a theory as indisputable fact, and that university professors oppose any fellow scientists who dare question the prevailing system of belief? This isn't the latest Hollywood comedy; it's a disturbing new documentary that will shock anyone who thinks all scientists are free to follow the evidence wherever it may lead.

If you are from the legacy media and want to see the film before harrumphing that it is false, all utterly false (just like Mark Steyn "isn't" really a good writer):

Toronto Press Screenings:

Friday, June 6 10:00am Scotiabank Theatre (259 Richmond St W)
Monday, June 9 10:30am Scotiabank Theatr (259 Richmond St W)
Friday, June 13 10:00am Varsity Cinemas (55 Bloor St W, 2nd Floor)
Monday, June 16 10:30am Varsity Cinemas (55 Bloor St W, 2nd Floor)
Thursday, June 26 07:00pm Varsity Cinemas (55 Bloor St W, 2nd Floor)

I expect you should contact V Kelly & Associates 416-466-9799, info@vkpr.ca for a press pass.

See also:

The Expelled film (#5 in political documentaries) is coming to 50 screens in Canada, ... plus a surprise in two in store for Americans (Expelled haters, take heed)!

Canadian radio bureau chief: Yes, the campaign to suppress free speech in Canada does affect the United States

Recently, there was a special screening for Members of Parliament.

Other Post-Darwinist stories you can't miss:

Intellectual freedom: Survival is design not chance. O'Leary's plenary address to Write! Canada 2008, for which she received a standing ovation (hey!)

Canadian radio bureau chief: Yes, the campaign to suppress free speech in Canada does affect the United States

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

by Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

Here is Eric Hand for Nature News on the subject:

“We will see organics, for sure, because we’re bringing them,” says Aaron Zent, a mission scientist from NASA’s Ames Research Center in California. Likely contaminants include skin flakes, dead microbes and volatile lubricants. “The problem with an instrument so sensitive is all you detect is your own schmutz,” says Zent.

[ ... ]

The $420 million Phoenix mission, by comparison, is low-budget, built from parts recycled from a cancelled mission — the Mars Surveyor Lander — that had been kept in a warehouse – and how much dust those parts gathered is a worry. “We’re doing a quick and dirty organic analysis,” says TEGA lead scientist William Boynton, of the University of Arizona in Tucson. “We’re kind of doing it on a shoestring.” ("'Dandruff' could contaminate Phoenix landing site" June 6, 2008)

and here Ewen Callaway weighs in for New Scientist, revealing that despite NASA's war on bacteria (to prevent spacecraft contaminating extraterrestrial environments),

Among the bacteria in the assembly room were bugs able to tolerate heat, cold, and salt. One particularly resilient bug called Bacillus pumilus can withstand doses of UV light that kill nearly all other life.

"This is the hardiest organism we have ever isolated," says Parag Vaishampayan, a microbiologist at JPL, who presented the findings this week at the annual meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in Boston, Massachusetts.

- "Could microbes on Phoenix survive on Mars?" (June 6, 2008)

Nice to know. If the space aliens ever invade, pumilus could be our secret weapon.

The hardihood of some bacteria can either demonstrate that life should be common in the universe or that after 4 billion years, bacteria have found a piece of just about every type of action on Earth - whether or not they have ever existed or ever could exist anywhere else.

We shall see.

Also just up at Colliding Universes:

Humanity killing the universe? In the dark dreams of a few physicists ...

Hints of a time before the big bang? Or of reaching for a story?

"Did you imagine that science was a disinterested pursuit of truth? Well, ... "

"Now remind me again why we needed this multiverse theory in the first place?"

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

Christian mathematician John Lennox and atheist public understanding of science prof Richard Dawkins will continue in October 2008 their 2007 discussion on the spot where Thomas Huxley and Samuel Wilberforce duked it out a century and a half ago:

At 6:00 p.m. on the 20th of October, Fixed Point Foundation will host a public DVD screening of last year's God Delusion Debate between Professor Richard Dawkins and Dr. John Lennox, both of the University of Oxford. The screening will take place in the Main Hall of the Oxford Town Hall and is free and open to the public. For more information about the debate, click here.

The following night, Fixed Point will sponsor a discussion between Dawkins and Lennox on the main floor of the Oxford Museum of Natural History at 7:00 p.m. Both scientists will discuss atheism, the Christian faith, and the claims of their respective books: The God Delusion and God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God? The building marks the historical site of the famed evolution debate of 1860 between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.
General admission tickets for the October 21st discussion with Dawkins and Lennox are available through Tickets Oxford and can be purchased online at www.oxfordplayhouse.com/ticketsoxford or by contacting the box office at (Tel) 01865 305305 (Fax) 01865 305335. Only 500 tickets are available. They are £15 each and £10 for students.

Richard Dawkins and John Lennox met for the first time in Birmingham, Alabama this past October for another event sponsored by Fixed Point, The God Delusion Debate. The debate, moderated by United States Federal Judge William H. Pryor, examined six theses from Dawkins' book The God Delusion. Garnering the attention of Fox News, Wall Street Journal, London Times, and BBC Radio, the event took place in front of a sold out crowd of almost 1,400. Fixed Point is seeking to generate further public interest on this topic by taking the two men back to their hometown for another event.

Got to hand it to Fixed Point for knowing how to frame a discussion!

Also, just up at The Mindful Hack:

Would you shove a fat man off a trestle to save five people?

The Mark Steyn show trial in Vancouver

Coffee break: The Zen pensioner says ...

Brain: Octopus develops advanced brain, but what does it do?

Theological speculation - just what the cave man needed ...

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).