In the News

The first major reviews of Michael Behe's The Edge of Evolution are appearing in places like Science, The New Republic, and The Globe and Mail. Dr. Behe has now responded to their criticisms over at his Amazon blog, a dynamic new forum where authors are able to reach their readers in a powerful new way.

More...

Lucy Sherriff, of The Register, reports that the UK government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.

It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with "creationism".

More...

While in Utah recently, I came upon a curiously named ale, being advertised as intelligently designed.

More...

The Brussels Journal reports that a German court sentenced a 55-year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail for "Volksverhetzung" (incitement of the people) because he compared the killing of the unborn in contemporary Germany to the holocaust. Next week, the Council of Europe is going to vote on a resolution imposing Darwinism as Europe's official ideology. The European governments are asked to fight the expression of creationist opinions, such as young earth and intelligent design theories. According to the Council of Europe these theories are "undemocratic" and "a threat to human rights."

More...

Evolution News & Views, points to a recent article by J. Scott Turner, a pro-Darwin biology professor at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry in Syracuse, New York, modern Neo-Darwinists are failing to heed Darwin's advice. Turner is up front with his skepticism of intelligent design (ID), which will hopefully allow his criticisms to strike a chord with other Darwinists.

Turner starts by observing that the real threat to education today is not ID itself, but the attitude of scientists towards ID: "Unlike most of my colleagues, however, I don't see ID as a threat to biology, public education or the ideals of the republic. To the contrary, what worries me more is the way that many of my colleagues have responded to the challenge." He describes the "modern academy" as "a tedious intellectual monoculture where conformity and not contention is the norm."

More...

Kevin Myers produces his second installment of a review of Christopher Hitchens book in the Independent Ireland.

Myers is an agnostic, taking swipes at both atheism and intelligent design. It is entertaining reading.

More...

In FirstThings, Dr. Francis Beckwith explores the muddled thinking of Richard Dawkins.

Richard Dawkins laments the career path of Kurt Wise, who has, since 2006, held the positions of professor of science and theology and director of the Center for Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky.

Dawkins believes that Wise is "wasting his talents". But Dawkins, in fact, does not actually believe that living beings, including human beings, have intrinsic purposes or are designed so that one may conclude that violating one's proper function amounts to a violation of one's moral duty to oneself.

More...

James Hoskins, a Philosophy student, often enjoys imagining dogmatists locked in a room with Socrates; the master of interrogation and debate. His latest fantasy, found on the IDArts website, involves Socrates questioning the archetype of the philosophical materialist, whom he calls Hector Dawkins, on the definition of science and the justification of Guillermo Gonzalez' tenure denial from Iowa State University.

Two recent news articles are discussing the death of the junk-DNA icon of Neo-Darwinism.

From Evolution News & Views, more...

On this Italian ID Web site, there is a mathematical explanation of why more information cannot come from less. It includes lengthy discussion (sans equations) of Goedel's work as well as that of Turing and Dembski.

More...

ScienceDaily reports that an international research consortium just published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood.

Ken Miller, 13 years ago, said, "the designer made serious errors, wasting millions of bases of DNA on a blueprint full of junk and scribbles. Evolution, in contrast, can easily explain them as nothing more than failed experiments in a random process..."

How wrong he was.

For more on the complexity of DNA, CLICK HERE.

For the entire paper, CLICK HERE.

The latest issue of the C.S. Lewis Society has the following...

- The Atheist Delusion:

Within the past year, numerous best-selling books by atheists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens have ruthlessly attacked theism and Christianity. The timing of many of these books in part has resulted from a deep frustration by many disillusioned supporters of the U.S. war in Iraq who are seeking religious scapegoats, but the books also vividly illustrate the reality and profound weaknesses of the widespread materialist world view in much of academia and mainstream culture. Meanwhile, other key books by Francis Collins, Owen Gingerich, Rodney Stark, N.T. Wright, and Douglas Wilson champion Christianity.

As a result, here are recent debates with some of these authors:

"God vs. Science: Francis Collins vs. Richard Dawkins" (Time):
HERE.

"The God Debate: Rick Warren vs. Sam Harris" (Newsweek):
HERE.

"Is Christianity Good for the World? Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson" (Christianity Today):
HERE.

Here also are key critical reviews of some of these books:

"Darwin, Mind and Meaning: Review of Daniel Dennett's Darwin's Dangerous Idea," by Alvin Plantinga
HERE.

"The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum:
Review of Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion," by Alvin Plantinga (Books and Culture)
HERE.

Lonely Atheists of the Global Village," by Michael Novak
HERE.

And, here is a recent study that uses the work of C.S. Lewis:

"Mere Economic Science: C. S. Lewis and the Poverty of Naturalism," by David Theroux
HERE.

Finally, here is a parody of an audio interview which uses many of Dawkins's actual arguments:

"The Dawkins Delusion"
HERE.

A thoughtful op-ed piece by Dr. David K. DeWolf on the "right question" to ask the Presidential candidates was published in the Boston Globe.

More...

Here...is a comprehensive review of the flaws of the Kitzmiller decision by Discovery Institute scholars.

Explore Evolution: The Arguments For and Against Neo-Darwinism (Hill House Publishers Ltd., Melbourne and London, 2007) is the first biology textbook to present the scientific evidence both for and against key aspects of Darwinian evolution.

"Sadly, the majority of biology textbooks in use today are 'dumbed-down' and do a poor job explaining evolution," said Dr. John West of Discovery Institute, the book's United States distributor. "Explore Evolution will improve the teaching of evolution by providing teachers and students with more information about evolution than they are likely to find in any other textbook written at the same level." West is Associate Director of the Institute's Center for Science and Culture.

Explore Evolution promotes inquiry-based learning, encouraging students to participate in the process of discovery, deliberation, and argument that scientists use to form their theories.

"Explore Evolution brings to the classroom data and debates that already are raised regularly by scientists in their science journals," emphasized science education policy analyst Casey Luskin, M.S., J.D. "Exposure to these real-world scientific debates will make the study of evolution more interesting to students, and it will train them to be better scientists by encouraging them to actually practice the kind of critical thinking and analysis that forms the heart of science."

Co-authored by two state university biology professors, two philosophers of science, and a science curriculum writer, Explore Evolution was peer-reviewed by biology faculty at both state and private universities, teachers with experience in both AP and pre-AP life science courses, and doctoral scientists working for industry and government. The textbook has been pilot-tested in classes at both the secondary school and college levels.

The textbook looks at five areas of biology that are typically viewed as confirming the modern theory of evolution: fossil succession, anatomical homology, embryology, natural selection, and natural selection and mutation. For each area of study, Explore Evolution explains the evidence and arguments used to support Darwin's theory and then examines the evidence and arguments that lead some scientists to question the adequacy of Darwinian explanations. Each chapter concludes with a section called Further Debate that explores the current state of the discussion.

Explore Evolution is ideally suited for:

AP Biology teachers who need a stimulating capstone unit for the last 5-6 weeks of their AP course after their students have taken the AP biology test.

High School General Biology teachers who wish to deepen their own understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of modern evolutionary theory and want to incorporate inquiry-based learning into their teaching of evolution.

College-level biology instructors who teach freshman or honors General Biology courses or stand-alone courses on evolution.

Home school teachers who want to provide their students with a rigorous college-preparatory curriculum in the life sciences that stresses critical thinking skills.

Parents who desire to supplement and enrich their children's school instruction in biological evolution in preparation for college.

Interested adults who wish to inform themselves about the scientific debates over key aspects of modern evolutionary theory.

For more information, visit the textbook website at www.exploreevolution.com, where you will find the introduction to the textbook, table of contents, author and publisher information, as well as sample pages from the book. Review copies and materials can be requested from Anika Smith, (206) 292-0401 ext. 155, or asmith@discovery.org.

About the Publisher
Established in 1982, Hill House Publishers Pty. Ltd. (Melbourne and London) specializes in publishing science and nature books of exceptional quality. In addition to Explore Evolution, its books include The Concise Atlas of Butterflies of the World (2001), The Birds of Asia, vol. 7 (1992), The Mammals of Australia, vol 2 (2002), and World Butterflies (2006). A publishing partner of the Natural History Museum in London, Hill House has been awarded an exclusive license by the museum to produce authentic facsimiles of priceless and rare antiquarian books, prints and maps from the world-famous libraries of that institution. For more information about Hill House Publishers, visit www.worldbutterflies.co.uk/.

Book Review: The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism

By Fritz R. Ward

What in essence is Darwinian Evolution? Many philosophers would find that a fairly difficult question. For Daniel Dennett, it is a universal solvent that dissolves all non-materialist ideas. For some creationists, it is the root of much evil in the modern world, including racism, war, and a lack of compassion for the poor. For Kenneth Miller, a biologist at Brown University, it is an extraordinarily successful set of explanations for the diversity of life. But for Michael Behe, and one suspects many biologists, Darwinism is simply a series of propositions. These are 1) common descent of life, 2) natural selection (sometimes termed "survival of the fittest") and 3) random mutation at the cellular level driving the changes. The difference between Behe, an advocate of intelligent design, and Miller is simply one of the degree to which each thinks these propositions are applicable in describing life as we observe it. (Readers should note that Behe fully accepts common descent and natural selection. It is the random mutation mechanism that he has difficulty with.)

In this book Behe strikes off in a new direction from his previous work, Darwin's Black Box. Rather than simply explore cellular mechanisms that seem unlikely to arise from chance, Behe instead considers all the areas where evolution seems to function very well. For example, the rise of resistance among certain diseases, notably malaria, to synthetic drugs. Remarkable evolutionary pressures are at work in the struggle between humans and deadly pathogens. Humans who develop an immunity to malaria have a strong evolutionary advantage over those who don't. Similarly, protozoan parasites which can avoid the drugs we use to combat them also have an evolutionary advantage. Indeed, this is common knowledge among all biologists and most of the literate public. Germ resistance of all kinds to drug treatments is the star example of evolution at work.

But what is not so commonly known is that random mutation has severe limits in how effectively it can cope with evolutionary pressure. Indeed, what Behe demonstrates in precise detail is that evolutionary mechanisms are for the most part destructive: a part of the DNA stand is destroyed or replaced with a less efficient coding and the result is a weaker organism, though one which can survive the "trench warfare" of survival with hostile organisms. Thus, for example, humans have developed sickle cell anemia to cope with malaria. This is hardly beneficial, in and of itself, but compared to malarial death, it is a very helpful mutation. Similarly, malaria can rapidly evolve resistance to some drugs, slowly to others (more changes are required, and hence far fewer resistant copies of the cell are likely) but the mutated genes that come from this battle for survival are not optimal. Indeed, like sickle cell anemia, they rapidly die out of the malarial population if not subjected to the pressure of deadly (for the parasite) toxins in the form of antimalarial drugs.

So, while malaria (and several other cases Behe examines) suggests the efficacy of random mutation, it also suggests limits to just how much it can accomplish. Indeed, Behe finds that even two or three simultaneous random changes in DNA sequencing is exceedingly unlikely, and more just about impossible. This is very important because it suggests real limits to the amount of random mutation that could happen among higher mammals. People mistakenly believe that time is the most important factor in allowing for evolutionary change but as Behe demonstrates, population, not time, is what determines successful mutations. Malaria, and even more so HIV are extraordinarily effective at utilizing evolution. There are a lot of such organisms and they reproduce quickly. Humans, and indeed, all vertebrate and most invertebrate animals, do not. Even given the entire history of life on the planet, it is extremely unlikely that the random mutation proposition of evolution could account for a significant amount of the diversity we witness in the world around us.

Indeed, the situation is even worse than that according to Behe, because the mutations we actually observe in nature are almost always destructive or at a very minimum, sub optimal. They do not build up new structures. Despite strong evolutionary pressure, neither malarial protozoa nor HIV and similar retroviruses have ever developed a single new cellular structure. Indeed, as Behe tellingly notes, "Until an organism is found that is demonstrated to be much more adept than the malarial parasite at building coherent molecular machinery by random mutation and natural selection, there is no positive reason to believe it can be done. And the best evidence we have from malaria and HIV argues it is biologically unreasonable to think so."(p.155)

So if random mutation does not facilitate change in species, what does? For Behe the answer is clear: non-random mutation. But what causes that? One possibility, of course, is chance. A variant of this possibility is favored by physicists who believe in a multiverse. We are just extraordinarily lucky to have life here, but it looks designed to us. Aside from the fact that there is no evidence for a multiverse, there are logical problems with this solution to the problem of life and the forms it takes on earth. Behe discusses these and then moves on to more serious territory. Should we examine the possibility of a natural law that guides the evolutionary processes of natural selection leading to common descent? In and of itself, Behe finds this approach unappealing. Instead he advocates intelligent design, but in my opinion, especially as described by Behe, this is pretty much indistinguishable from such a natural law. Indeed, many of the natural laws in our universe are at present only explained by the anthropic principle and it is hard to imagine that this one would be any different.

Ultimately, of course, Behe moves from science proper (what we can infer from actual observations of evolution--namely random mutation is insufficient to explain common descent) to more philosophical speculations. What would the designer(s) be like? Can we infer anything about motive? What about the problem of evil? After all, any designer who might have "pre-programed" the possibility of intelligent life into the universe, say us, must also be responsible for malaria as well. These are serious issues and Behe is right to raise them. His critics will no doubt hammer him for it. These speculation are not "scientific" but that doesn't mean they are inappropriate. I think Behe is right when he notes that knowledge need not respect the boundaries we set for it in modern universities. Just because a topic does not yield to scientific inquiry hardly makes it unfit for all inquiry. Moreover, considering other questions will hardly invalidate the scientific portion of Behe's book or the considerable math behind it.

In my opinion this final chapter, where Behe takes on these philosophical questions, is the most important part of the book. It is also the most controversial. Readers will probably come to different conclusions, but Behe's ideas deserve serious consideration. As for the rest of the book, it lives up to its title. There is a clear edge or limit beyond which evolution is a poor mechanism for understanding life on the planet. That line may not be precisely where Behe claims it is, and future research will undoubtedly refine this edge further. But to persist in maintaining no such line exists requires at this point faith. Indeed, the next time a critic of ID suggests that scholars like Behe should be ignored because "they" are religiously motivated, readers would do well to remember that Freud, like Darwin, is largely discredited. But his theory of projection is still valid, much as Darwin's observations still apply to bacteria and antibiotics. Indeed, I predict such projections will figure very prominently in some reviews of this book. Those with an ideological axe to grind will not appreciate it. Thoughtful readers, on the other hand, will be fascinated with this excellent book.

(This review is reprinted with permission of the author)

This conference will provide an opportunity to think afresh about the legacy of Darwinism and the efforts of historians to understand that legacy.

The aim is to encourage new historical and historiographic perspectives on the ideas, research practices, and wider sociopolitics related to evolutionary theory from the late-nineteenth to the twenty-first centuries.

*PROGRAMME*
Monday 3rd September

1.00 Welcome

1.10 Histories

Science and the life story: the historical development of biographies of Darwin Suzanne Gapps, University of Western Sydney

A lesson from the past: how biologists use history Graeme Beale, Edinburgh University

Historiographical constraints: the divergence of conceptualisations of 'inheritance of acquired characteristics' Fern Elsdon-Baker, University of Leeds

"Sure, we know all that...": dealing with popular Darwin myths Peter C. Kjaergaard, University of Aarhus

3.40 Religion

Paley evolving: natural theologies in the post-Darwinian nineteenth century Richard England, Salisbury University, USA

The un-heretical Christian: Lynn Harold Hough, Darwinism and Christianity in 1920s America Dawn Mooney Digrius, Drew University, New Jersey

Arguing from the evidence: the correct approach to Intelligent Design and the U.S. courts Brian Thomasson, University of California

6.00 PUBLIC EVENT From Darwin to Hitler: author meets critics

Richard Weikart responds to critics of his work. Participants include Staffan Mueller-Wille (University Of Exeter), Steve Fuller (University of Warwick), and John Harwood (University of Manchester)

And so much more...

Michael Penfold has developed a Web site to act as a window to multiple web resources (articles, books, DVDs etc.) that people will find helpful in rebutting the claims of Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion."

Check it out...

ScienceDaily reported on scientists who have captured on video the intracellular version of a postal delivery service. Reporting in the journal Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications (BBRC), bioengineering researchers at UC San Diego published videos of a key message-carrying protein called paxillin moving abruptly from hubs of communication and transportation activity on the cell surface toward the nucleus. Paxillin was labeled with a red fluorescence marker to make it stand out in live cells.

"It's amazing to us. We thought the cell was so simple," said Shu Chien, the senior author of the BBRC paper and a professor of bioengineering at UCSD's Jacobs School of Engineering. "But it's really very complex and I'm not sure we're covering much as yet. We certainly don't know all the interactions among these molecules that bring the cell into action."

Most do not take the time to look at the stunning design of living systems.

More...

More from Evolution News & Views on the ISU's Dr. Gonzalez denial of tenure.

Read...

The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
by Michael J. Behe

When Michael J. Behe's first book, Darwin's Black Box, was published in 1996, it was instrumental in launching the intelligent design movement. Critics howled, yet hundreds of thousands of readers -- and a growing number of scientists -- were intrigued by Behe's claim that Darwinism could not explain the complex machinery of the cell.

Now, in his long-awaited follow-up, Behe presents far more than a challenge to Darwinism: He presents the evidence of the genetics revolution -- the first direct evidence of nature's mutational pathways -- to radically redefine the debate about Darwinism. How much of life does Darwin's theory explain? Most scientists believe it accounts for everything from the machinery of the cell to the history of life on earth. Behe points out that Darwin?s theory is a mixture of several unrelated, entirely separate ideas including: random mutation, natural selection, and common descent. The evidence for each must be carefully examined.

Darwin's proposed mechanism -- random mutation and natural selection -- has been accepted largely as a matter of faith and deduction or, at best, circumstantial evidence. Only now, thanks to genetics, does science allow us to seek direct evidence. The genomes of many organisms have been sequenced, and the machinery of the cell has been analyzed in great detail. The evolutionary responses of microorganisms to antibiotics and humans to parasitic infections have been traced over tens of thousands of generations.

As a result, for the first time in history Darwin's theory can be rigorously evaluated. The results are shocking. Although it can explain marginal changes in evolutionary history, random mutation and natural selection explain very little of the basic machinery of life. The "edge" of evolution, a line that defines the border between random and non-random mutation, lies very far from where Darwin pointed. Behe argues convincingly that most of the mutations that have defined the history of life on earth have been non-random.

Although it will be controversial and stunning, this finding actually fits a general pattern discovered by other branches of science in recent decades: The universe as a whole was fine-tuned for life. From physics to cosmology to chemistry to biology, life on earth stands revealed as depending upon an endless series of unlikely events. The clear conclusion: The universe was designed for life.

View the table of contents or order your copy today from ARN.

Reviews
"In The Edge of Evolution Michael Behe carefully assesses the evidence of what Darwin's mechanism of random mutation and selection can achieve in well documented cases, and shows that even in those cases that maximize its power as a creative force it has only been able to generate very trivial examples of evolutionary change. Could such an apparently impotent and mindless force really have built the sophisticated molecular devices found throughout nature? The answer, he insists, is no. The only common-sense explanation is intelligent design."

-- Michael Denton, M.D., Ph.D., author of Nature's Destiny

David Evans is a mathematician and engineer who spent six years doing global warming-related research for the Australian government. He jumped on the funding gravy train as a true believer, convinced by the early data that a strong link existed between carbon emissions and climate change, but in time became more skeptical, as new scientific evidence made the causal connection seem more tenuous. His "confession" reveals that the debate is no longer just about the evidence.

Evolution News & Views expands on the recent Gonzalez tenure appeal denial.

More...

In Evolution News & Views, a statement by Dr. Gonzalez on his ongoing ordeal.

More...

The Guardian Unlimited reports that State schools could teach the theory of intelligent design in science lessons, the Church of England's new head of education has suggested.

The Rev Jan Ainsworth, who is responsible for more than 4,600 schools, said intelligent design could be included in a study of the history of science.

The church stressed that she was not backing intelligent design as a valid theory.

More...

Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas recently had an op-ed piece in the New York Times. Reaction has obviously been widespread and mixed. Below are some weigh-ins from Christianity Today's blog.

More...