Science Literature

The journal Nature drew attention to concerns about the Templeton Foundation's activities on the occasion of the death of John Templeton in 2008. At that time, the editors indicated that "human moral impulses" have a natural, rather than a spiritual explanation and that their stance is to "turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works". That editorial elicited a blog from me, pointing out that many funding bodies have agendas that can raise suspicions of advocacy rather than following the evidence wherever it leads.

"This publication [i.e. Nature] would turn away from religion in seeking explanations for how the world works, and believes that science is likely to go further in explaining human moral impulses than some religious people will welcome. Thus it shares a degree of suspicion with many in the scientific community at any attempt by religiously driven organizations to fund science. A chief concern is that the influential Templeton Foundation might be seeking to inject religion into the scientific world."

Templeton priorities: then and now (Source here)

Now, Nature has revisited the topic in a news feature authored by Mitchell Waldrop, one of their US editors. The Templeton Foundation logo has the phrase "Supporting science - Investing in the Big Questions". This claim to be the friend of science is not accepted in some quarters - which is why Waldrop asks: "So why does it make so many researchers uneasy?" First witness is Jerry Coyne, evolutionary biologist, who calls the foundation "sneakier than the creationists". Through its grants to researchers, Coyne alleges, the foundation is trying to insinuate religious values into science. "It claims to be on the side of science, but wants to make faith a virtue," he says. This is countered by the testimony of Michael Shermer, editor of Skeptic and recipient of a Templeton grant: "The Templeton Foundation has never in my experience pressured, suggested or hinted at any kind of ideological slant".

Apparently, starting before and continuing since the death of its founder, the Foundation has been "radically reframing its research programme". According to Waldrop, "it is reducing its emphasis on religion to make its programmes more palatable to the broader scientific community." As evidence of this, look at the way the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion has been used. When first introduced in 1973, the award winners were not scientists. The first time a scientist received this award was in 1985. Now, it is normal to award it to a scientist. The critical witness for this is Harold Kroto:

"The prize has come in for some academic scorn. "There's a distinct feeling in the research community that Templeton just gives the award to the most senior scientist they can find who's willing to say something nice about religion," says Harold Kroto, a chemist at Florida State University in Tallahassee, who was co-recipient of the 1996 Nobel Prize in Chemistry and describes himself as a devout atheist."

The change of emphasis came because of the perception that the word "religion" was alienating too many senior scientists. These people were suspicious and whatever the Foundation did, failed to ease the suspicions. Vocabulary was changed and the Foundation presented itself as supporting science and sponsoring research into the Big Questions of life. (See the word clouds above - larger image here). Waldrop summarises the change in this way:

"This prompted a rethink of the foundation's research programme - a change most clearly seen in the organization's new website, launched last June. Gone were old programme names such as 'science and religion' - or almost any mention of religion at all. Instead, the foundation has embraced the theme of 'science and the big questions' - an open-ended list that includes topics such as 'Does the Universe have a purpose?'"

The Templeton Foundation is interested in meaning and purpose in the Cosmos, but definitely not in intelligent design. Although some ID advocates have received Templeton money in the past, this has proved so embarrassing to the Foundation that the door is now firmly closed. In the FAQ section of the Templeton website, the question is asked: Does the Foundation support "intelligent design"? The answer given is as follows:

"No. We do not support the political movement known as "intelligent design," which denies large areas of well-documented scientific knowledge in evolutionary biology. As a matter of policy and in keeping with our legal status, we do not support or endorse political movements of any kind."

This description is way off the mark. ID scholars are not waging a political battle, but are engaged in these issues as scientists, philosophers or educators. Those who oppose what they are saying do not interact with their arguments but invent strategies to discount them without acknowledging there are issues needing discussion. Unfortunately, the Templeton Foundation has imbibed the falsehoods of ID opponents and have closed down avenues of enquiry "as a matter of policy" instead of being open to the evidence wherever it leads.

The Foundation still faces the wrath of those who oppose ID. Here is Jerry Coyne again:

"Religion is based on dogma and belief, whereas science is based on doubt and questioning," says Coyne, echoing an argument made by many others. "In religion, faith is a virtue. In science, faith is a vice." The purpose of the Templeton Foundation is to break down that wall, he says - to reconcile the irreconcilable and give religion scholarly legitimacy.

The Templeton Foundation is deluded if it thinks it can win over these scientists by taking a stand against ID. The key to the problem is readily found in the writings of ID scholars: science has been hi-jacked by "devout atheists" like Coyne and Kroto. They base their arguments on obsolete positivist views of science that are blind to the metaphysical presuppositions that scientists bring to their work. The secularisation of science has become dominant amongst the leaders of science organisations and journals. Dissent about this issue is not tolerated. Only purely material explanations of the universe are allowed: talk of spirituality, consciousness and morality are acceptable as long as it is understood these characteristics are all products of material forces. One more witness:

"Yet, even scientists who give the foundation high marks for openness often find it hard to shake their unease. Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena, is willing to participate in Templeton-funded events - but worries about the foundation's emphasis on research into 'spiritual' matters. "The act of doing science means that you accept a purely material explanation of the Universe, that no spiritual dimension is required," he says."

Unless the Templeton Foundation grapples with the secularism that threatens the scientific enterprise, it will slowly retreat from the real issues and end up, as Waldrop notes, as a funding agency with "a certain New Age quality". That will be sad.

Faith in science
M. Mitchell Waldrop
Nature 470, 323-325 (16 February 2011) | doi:10.1038/470323a

First para: At the headquarters of the John Templeton Foundation, a dozen kilometres outside Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the late billionaire seems to watch over everything. John Templeton's larger-than-life bust stands at one end of the main conference room. His life-sized portrait smiles down from a side wall. His face peers out of framed snapshots propped on bookshelves throughout the many offices.

One of the pleasures of walking through a wood is hearing the distant drumming of woodpeckers. We know they are searching for food, but few of us grasp the extraordinary nature of their achievement. Drumming rates of about 20 impacts per second are normal, with decelerations of 1200 g, and the drumming sessions may be repeated 500-600 times per day. By contrast, humans can lose consciousness when experiencing 4-6 g and are left concussed with a single deceleration of about 100 g. The authors of a recent analysis of the woodpecker's shock-absorbing mechanism describes it as "advanced" and "special". By looking at video material of drumming and CT scans of the bird's head and neck, they found four structures that absorb mechanical shock:

"These are its hard-but-elastic beak; a sinewy, springy tongue-supporting structure that extends behind the skull called the hyoid; an area of spongy bone in its skull; and the way the skull and cerebrospinal fluid interact to suppress vibration." (source)

Golden-fronted Woodpecker (source here)

Informed by these findings, the research sought to mimic these characteristics and construct a system that could protect micromachined devices from high-g impacts.

"To mimic the beak's deformation resistance, they use a cylindrical metal enclosure. The hyoid's ability to distribute mechanical loads is mimicked by a layer of rubber within that cylinder, and the skull/cerebrospinal fluid by an aluminium layer. The spongy bone's vibration resistance is mimicked by closely packed 1-millimetre-diameter glass spheres, in which the fragile circuit sits."

To test out their shock-absorbing material, they used a 60 mm air gun capable of generating scenarios of 60,000 g. For comparison, a hard resin shock absorbing system was used (representing current state-of-the-art technology). They fired micromachined devices and checked them for damage. They found that the hard resin system protected up to 40,000 g but 26.4% were damaged at 60,000 g. By contrast:

"In the bio-inspired shock absorbing system, almost all the micromachined devices survived at a high-g mechanical excitation of 60,000 g. This is because high-frequency mechanical excitations corresponding to the resonance frequencies of the micromachined devices are absorbed by the bio-inspired shock-absorbing system and even the transmitted mechanical excitations are detoured around the micromachined devices."

The researchers are understandably pleased with their new shock-absorbing system, and already the work is creating interest - with many diverse application areas (see Marks). Of particular interest here is the way woodpecker drumming has stimulated this research and has provided the conceptual model for developing the biomimetic system. The authors refer to the conventional Darwinian framework for understanding design in nature:

"Nature causes some traits that aid survival and reproduction to become commoner, and makes other traits that hinder them to become rarer; all creatures in nature are believed to be perfectly equipped with biological features over successive generations through natural selection."

If this is the much-vaunted role of Darwinism underpinning biology, then it is not impressive. When the designs make the organism "perfectly equipped", Darwinism is the explanation; when the designs are 'imperfect' and 'cobbled together', Darwinism is the explanation. Whatever the evidence, Darwinism has the answer! Yet, when the power of natural selection to select characters is studied, it does not appear very effective at all. Whether it is finch beaks or peppered moths, the classic proofs of the power of natural selection do not take us very far. The suggestion that natural selection acting on successive generations of woodpeckers is a convincing explanation of all the adaptations necessary for the birds to engage in drumming must be challenged. What we have here is a complex and sophisticated system of interrelated traits. Natural selection does not begin to address the assembly of such an exquisite design. The only way we know such systems can be assembled is, like the researchers' new shock-absorbing system, by intelligent design.

A mechanical analysis of woodpecker drumming and its application to shock-absorbing systems
Sang-Hee Yoon and Sungmin Park
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, 6(1), 2011, 016003 | doi: 10.1088/1748-3182/6/1/016003

Abstract: A woodpecker is known to drum the hard woody surface of a tree at a rate of 18 to 22 times per second with a deceleration of 1200 g, yet with no sign of blackout or brain damage. As a model in nature, a woodpecker is studied to find clues to develop a shock-absorbing system for micromachined devices. Its advanced shock-absorbing mechanism, which cannot be explained merely by allometric scaling, is analyzed in terms of endoskeletal structures. In this analysis, the head structures (beak, hyoid, spongy bone, and skull bone with cerebrospinal fluid) of the golden-fronted woodpecker, Melanerpes aurifrons, are explored with x-ray computed tomography images, and their shock-absorbing mechanism is analyzed with a mechanical vibration model and an empirical method. Based on these analyses, a new shock-absorbing system is designed to protect commercial micromachined devices from unwanted high-g and high-frequency mechanical excitations. The new shock-absorbing system consists of close-packed microglasses within two metal enclosures and a viscoelastic layer fastened by steel bolts, which are biologically inspired from a spongy bone contained within a skull bone encompassed with the hyoid of a woodpecker. In the experimental characterizations using a 60 mm smoothbore air-gun, this bio-inspired shock-absorbing system shows a failure rate of 0.7% for the commercial micromachined devices at 60 000 g, whereas a conventional hard-resin method yields a failure rate of 26.4%, thus verifying remarkable improvement in the g-force tolerance of the commercial micromachined devices

See also:

Marks, P. Woodpecker's head inspires shock absorbers, New Scientist (4 February 2011)

As the Urey-Miller model of abiogenesis has grown weaker with time, interest in extra-terrestrial sources of amino acids has increased. The phrase "building blocks of life" is well-used: in 2005, space.com referred to amino acid precursors formed "in the winds of dying stars and spread all over interstellar space"; in 2008, National Geographic used the phrase when reporting on the detection of a precursor of glycine in the galaxy Arp 220. In December 2010, Nasa reported the presence of 19 amino acids in a carbon-rich meteorite and commented: "Finding them in this type of meteorite suggests that there is more than one way to make amino acids in space, which increases the chance for finding life elsewhere in the Universe." Clearly, these sources are promoting the idea that finding amino acids provides a significant part of an abiogenesis solution. This is also the message picked up by the world's media, which dutifully (and uncritically) passes on the hype.

(Source here)

One of the first challenges to be faced when assembling the "building blocks of life" comes from chirality. Of the 20 amino acids found in the biosphere, all except glycine can exist as a left-handed form or a right-handed form. Natural processes generate racemic mixtures, where left-handed and right-handed forms are in equal quantities. In living things, however, only the left-handed forms are found: the L-isomer. This phenomenon (known as an enantiomeric excess) has long been a puzzle to abiogenesis researchers. Some have concluded it was an accident: there is no reasoned explanation of the cause. Those favouring a source of amino acids from space have noted that some meteorites have yielded non-racemic mixtures. Many have not found the argument convincing: Moran provides some reasons. First, the flux of amino acids today is far too small to act as a foundation for a theory of origins. Second, even allowing favourable figures for higher quantities of amino acids in the past, the conclusion is unchanged. Third, racemisation occurs with time, resulting in 50/50 mixtures of left-handed and right-handed forms. Moran cites a paper Bada published in 1991, concluding that chance must be invoked.

"Because of the problem of racemization, it is likely that only after biotic protein synthesis became an efficient process in the evolution of early life could the chirality of amino acids be maintained in proteins. Instead of amino acid chirality preceding the origin of life, it may have developed after life was well established, and possibly in close association with the origin of protein biosynthesis. As to why the protein amino acids consist only of the L-enantiomers, it is probably just a matter of chance."

Notwithstanding all this, papers continue to be published that seek natural causes for producing non-racemic amino acids. The latest reports "the first abiotic cosmic ice simulation experiments that produce species with enantiomeric excesses". For some time, people have anticipated that circularly polarized ultraviolet light might disturb the equilibrium between L- and D-forms. This has now been confirmed. The paper's conclusions are related directly to models of abiogenesis:

"This result, directly comparable with some L excesses measured in meteorites, supports a scenario in which exogenous delivery of organics displaying a slight L excess, produced in an extraterrestrial environment by an asymmetric astrophysical process, is at the origin of biomolecular asymmetry on Earth."

The paper is accompanied by a press release and the media have taken an interest. BBC News carried a report.

"This excess is pretty cool," Dr Glavin [from Nasa] told BBC News. "You've got to break the symmetry somehow, this is critical. But how do you break it? That's one of the most important questions: did life just randomly choose one type over another? It's starting to look like Nature helped a bit."

A welcome critique has come from Larry Moran, who describes their abiogenesis scenario as "nonsense". His first objection to the Primordial Soup model is that amino acid concentrations are far too low (already noted above). Secondly, he asks - what happens next? This is not a trivial question! What processes are going to turn this sterile "broth" into proteins and more? People have spent years working on possible routes and have come up with nothing convincing.

"Instead of trying to prove that asteroids could carry a slight excess of L-amino acids, I wish these workers would apply a bit of healthy skepticism to the subsequent steps of the scenario. It's not reasonable to assume that minute quantities of amino acids could ever fuel the origin of life. Incidentally, the Primordial Soup Hypothesis also imagines that early cells used exogenous glucose as a fuel. This implies that the glycolysis pathway is more primitive that the gluconeogenesis pathway for synthesis of glucose. Unfortunately the data disproves this prediction. Gluconeogenesis is more ancient and glycolysis evolved later [Aldolase in Gluconeogenesis & Glycolysis]. A nasty little fact."

Maybe Moran is prepared to use tough word ("nonsense") because he is growing more confident with the Metabolism First Hypothesis. Certainly, more and more evolutionary biologists are giving positive comments about this alternative approach. However, the majority are still giving lip service to the Primordial Soup and that gets fed to the public. What gets unsaid is that there are natural causes producing amino acids and other organic molecules in space (go here), and there are natural causes creating non-racemic mixtures of these organic molecules, but the findings relate to extraterrestrial chemistry and have no relevance to the origin of life on earth. The situation reveals an unacceptable face of science. Moran has it exactly right when he says:

"The problem is that most scientists are not thinking critically about the origin of life. There are several possibilities and none of them are particularly convincing. However, the Primordial Soup Hypothesis has a number of glaring weaknesses that need to be addressed honestly and it doesn't do anyone any good if scientists sweep these weaknesses under the rug."

Non-Racemic Amino Acid Production By Ultraviolet Irradiation Of Achiral Interstellar Ice Analogs With Circularly Polarized Light
Pierre de Marcellus, Cornelia Meinert, Michel Nuevo, Jean-Jacques Filippi, Gregoire Danger, Dominique Deboffle, Laurent Nahon, Louis Le Sergeant d'Hendecourt, and Uwe J. Meierhenrich.
The Astrophysical Journal Letters, January 2011, Volume 727, Number 2, L27 | doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/727/2/L27

Abstract: The delivery of organic matter to the primitive Earth via comets and meteorites has long been hypothesized to be an important source for prebiotic compounds such as amino acids or their chemical precursors that contributed to the development of prebiotic chemistry leading, on Earth, to the emergence of life. Photochemistry of inter/circumstellar ices around protostellar objects is a potential process leading to complex organic species, although difficult to establish from limited infrared observations only. Here we report the first abiotic cosmic ice simulation experiments that produce species with enantiomeric excesses (e.e.'s). Circularly polarized ultraviolet light (UV-CPL) from a synchrotron source induces asymmetric photochemistry on initially achiral inter/circumstellar ice analogs. Enantioselective multidimensional gas chromatography measurements show significant e.e.'s of up to 1.34% for (13C)-alanine, for which the signs and absolute values are related to the helicity and number of CPL photons per deposited molecule. This result, directly comparable with some L excesses measured in meteorites, supports a scenario in which exogenous delivery of organics displaying a slight L excess, produced in an extraterrestrial environment by an asymmetric astrophysical process, is at the origin of biomolecular asymmetry on Earth. As a consequence, a fraction of the meteoritic organic material consisting of non-racemic compounds may well have been formed outside the solar system. Finally, following this hypothesis, we support the idea that the protosolar nebula has indeed been formed in a region of massive star formation, regions where UV-CPL of the same helicity is actually observed over large spatial areas.

See also:

Moran, L. More Prebiotic Soup Nonsense, Sandwalk (27 January 2011)

Palmer, J. 'Life chemicals' may have formed around far-flung star, BBC News (26 January 2011)

Some have described the survey as shocking. The authors of the report are gloomy about their findings. The perceived problem is this: evolutionists have won court cases bearing on the teaching of evolution in schools; state curricular standards have been revised to reinforce the status of evolutionary theory in biology - but despite all this, "considerable research suggests that supporters of evolution, scientific methods, and reason itself are losing battles in America's classrooms". The problem is that only 28% of teachers are forthrightly explaining evolutionary biology. The situation is deemed to "expose a cycle of ignorance in which community antievolution attitudes are perpetuated by teaching that reinforces local community sentiment". The recalcitrant teachers are "hindering scientific literacy in the United States", failing "to explain the nature of scientific inquiry", undermining "the authority of established experts", and legitimizing "creationist arguments, even if unintentionally".

Coffee for US biology teachers (Source here)

The sheer magnitude of the "problem" raises the question: have the authors read the situation correctly? Are these teachers really falling down badly in their communication of biological science? Words of commendation are reserved only for the 28% of biology teachers who "consistently implement the major recommendations and conclusions of the National Research Council". These are said to be "outstanding, effective educators of evolutionary biology". The rest are made up of 13% "at the opposite extreme" (who are creationists and are willing to present creation or intelligent design in a positive light) and the "cautious 60%" who implement "strategies of emphasizing microevolution, justifying the curriculum on the basis of state-wide tests, or "teaching the controversy"." John Rennie of Scientific American calls these the "mushy middle". The difficulty I find with all this relates to the value judgments placed on the actions of educators. Should we rather presume that the majority of both the 60% group and the 13% group are committed teachers who seek to promote a love of biological science in their students? It is far more likely that Berkman and Plutzer (and Rennie) are drawing erroneous conclusions from their survey and that their comments undermine and insult the work of thousands of dedicated teachers.

Previous blogs have discussed the merits of "teaching the controversy" (here and here). Also considered are the failures of neodarwinism to address the evidence provided by molecular biology (here, here and here), experimental evolution (here and here), and natural variation (the Galapagos finches, peppered moths and deer mice). The point is this: an uncritical approach to teaching Darwinism is indoctrination, not education. The theory deserves to be critiqued whenever it is not supported by evidence and whenever there are alternative ways of understanding the evidence. Similarly, alternatives to Darwinism also deserve to be critiqued. This principle impacts directly on the nature of scientific enquiry - the testing of hypotheses. Those who want to close down discussion about the ways evidences can be interpreted are themselves undermining the integrity of science. Furthermore, those who advise bowing before the "authority of established experts" are introducing values that are alien to science. The motto of the Royal Society is Nullius in Verba, usually translated as 'on the word of no one'. Science appeals to evidence when testing hypotheses. Concepts like 'consensus science' may appeal to politicians, but they should be allowed no place in scientific discourse.

There is another reason why the analysis of Berkman and Plutzer is deeply flawed. They appear to be oblivious to the teaching approach promoted by Professor Michael Reiss, Director of the Institute of Education, University of London and the Royal Society's Director of Education until September 2008. Reiss has pointed out the need for a culturally-sensitive pedagogy, in the interests of young people developing positive attitudes towards science. He is well aware that many students find a tension between the blind mechanisms of Darwinism and their worldview, which gives purpose and meaning to the natural world. He is also aware that many evolutionists appeal to Darwinism to give scientific credibility to their own atheistic worldview. Further comments on Reiss' approach are here. Reiss' thinking is not just to be found in educational literature, he has also published a paper on the subject in the journal Evolution. He knows that conflict strategies by teachers are counter-productive because students find them threatening. What is remarkable is that this topic has been so little researched. Claims are made about the dangers of "scientific illiteracy", but what evidence is there to back them up? What research has been done shows that the educational setting is the key factor, not the student worldview. There are some answers to these questions, but they do not support the stance taken by Berkman and Plutzer. The settings that adversely impact education are where teachers create an atmosphere of hostility that crushes open discussion. For more on this, go here.

Berkman and Plutzer have written a report that provides a legitimising narrative for traditional evolutionary biology. Professor Steve Fuller has an interesting phrase to describe this behaviour: the authors are acting as underlaborers to science. They portray creationism and intelligent design as anti-science and mourn the failure of 72% of biology teachers to comply with their expectations of how they should treat evolutionary theory. Rather than pondering why, the authors offer a two-pronged plan of action. First, they recommend putting on "outreach efforts such as webinars, guest speakers, and refresher courses" for in-service teachers - to better equip them for their work. Second, they want to target teachers in training:

"More effectively integrating evolution into the education of preservice biology teachers may also have the indirect effect of encouraging students who cannot accept evolution as a matter of faith to pursue other careers. Effective programs directed at preservice teachers can therefore both reduce the number of evolution deniers in the nation's classrooms, increase the number who would gladly accept help in teaching evolution, and increase the number of cautious teachers who are nevertheless willing to embrace rigorous standards. This would reduce the supply of teachers who are especially attractive to the most conservative school districts, weakening the cycle of ignorance."

In my experience, students who are critical of evolutionary theory know much more biology than those who are uncritical. Will discussion and dialogue be permitted in Berkman and Plutzer's preservice programs? It appears not, because they want "effective" programs that weed out the dissenters. How will they guard against this proposal degenerating into an Orwellian 'Big Brother' scenario? Judging from their intemperate language, they cannot even see the problem. It is my hope that the biology teaching profession will take responsibility for their own future - for if they do not, there seem to be quite a few underlaborers to science who will do it for them.

Defeating Creationism in the Courtroom, But Not in the Classroom
Michael B. Berkman and Eric Plutzer
Science, 28 January 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6016 pp. 404-405 | DOI: 10.1126/science.1198902

Summary: Just over 5 years ago, the scientific community turned its attention to a courtroom in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Eleven parents sued their Dover, Pennsylvania, school board to overturn a policy explicitly legitimizing intelligent design creationism. The case, Kitzmiller v. Dover, followed a familiar script: Local citizens wanted their religious values validated by the science curriculum; prominent academics testified to the scientific consensus on evolution; and creationists lost decisively. Intelligent design was not science, held the court, but rather an effort to advance a religious view via public schools, a violation of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment Clause. Many scientists cheered the decision, agreeing with the court that the school board displayed "breathtaking inanity". We suggest that the cheering was premature and the victory incomplete.

See also:

High School Biology Teachers in U.S. Reluctant to Endorse Evolution in Class, Study Finds, ScienceDaily (28 January 2011)