The ID Update http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php The ID Update en-US hourly 1 2000-01-01T12:00+00:00 Darwinism and the adoption of Chinese Marxism http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/20/darwinism_and_the_adoption_of_chinese_ma 2009-11-20T17:43:42Z David Tyler Literature - Articles According to James Pusey, writing in Nature, "Charles Darwin's banner was first unfurled in China during the Reform Movement of 1895-98, in response to China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese War." There were two groups seeking change: the reformers, who were loyal to the Manchu Qing Dynasty, and the revolutionaries, who wanted a clean break with the past. "The watchword of the reform movement was 'bianfa', meaning 'change our institutions'. But the very word 'change' was anathema to the conservative officialdom of China. So reformers turned to Darwin as a foreign authority on change, presenting him not first and foremost as a natural scientist who had discovered an amazing fact of life, but as a political scientist who had discovered a cosmic imperative for change." Some today see Darwin as inspiring revolution (Source here) This led to a change in the way intellectuals approached ethics: reform meant that traditional codes of conduct were fast losing their appeal. "Meanwhile, the Europeans waved Darwin's banner to justify imperialism. Dubbing themselves 'the fit', they declared their right to rule the 'unfit'. And some Chinese accepted this argument. Liang Qichao, one of the leading reformers, said in 1898: "If a country can strengthen itself and make itself one of the fittest, then, even if it annihilates the unfit and the weak, it can still not be said to be immoral. Why? Because it is a law of evolution."" The reformers were very interested in democracy, but realized the people were totally unprepared to handle it. Their solution was to emphasise the step-by-step gradualism of Darwinism with direction and stability provided by an appeal to natural law. The revolutionaries also embraced Darwin, drawing inspiration from the thought that the "superior survive and the inferior are defeated". "The man who introduced Darwinian evolution to the reformers of 1895 was Yan Fu." "Yan wanted democracy for China - even anarchic democracy, without presidential rule. In Whence Strength? his call for reform was revolutionary: "Establish a parliament at the capital and let each province and county elect its own officials." But 'Darwin' held him back from real revolution. Yan believed that step-by-step progress was a fixed natural law, so stages had to be taken in order. America had skipped constitutional monarchy and gone straight to democracy, but a resulting class war, he felt, would be their undoing. "Should we, then, now throw away all loyalty to our ruler?" he asked in his essay. "We most certainly should not! Because the time has not arrived. ... Our people are not yet ready to rule themselves."" The reformers and the revolutionaries debated vigorously "with both sides wildly waving Darwin's banner" The leaders of these movements imbibed the message of scientific racism coming from America and Europe and presented themselves as 'fit' to rule. "Sadly, both camps also accepted the pervasive Western view that Darwin had proven races unequal - that one race was 'fitter' and therefore better than another. The reformers had originally done so to disassociate themselves from those who had fallen prey to the imperialists, such as the Africans and Indians. But in their exile in Japan, reformers and revolutionaries alike turned angrily on the Manchus as scapegoats, labelling them evolutionary low life, whose 'unnatural' conquest of the Han Chinese was responsible for China's peril." The tensions after the end of World War I were extreme. The traditional pacifist Chinese philosophies were perceived as weak and this led to a philosophical and political vacuum. In their place came Marxism: this "seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive". "This was not, of course, all Darwin's doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a 'racial' struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled. Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin." Ideas have legs and ideas walk. These developments are possible because Darwinism is more than a scientific theory: it is fundamentally a philosophical stance about the nature of reality. The materialism that underpins the Darwinian worldview has spawned scientific racism + eugenics in the West, and revolutionary fervor in the East. We should help the next generation understand and recognize the significance of such matters, and encourage them to ask questions about the philosophical roots of science. Global Darwin: Revolutionary road James Pusey Nature 462, 162-163 (12 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/462162a (Restricted access link) In China, under the threat of Western imperialism, interpretations of Darwin's ideas paved the way for Marx, Lenin and Mao, argues James Pusey in the third in our series on reactions to evolutionary theory. According to James Pusey, writing in Nature, "Charles Darwin's banner was first unfurled in China during the Reform Movement of 1895-98, in response to China's defeat in the Sino-Japanese War." There were two groups seeking change: the reformers, who were loyal to the Manchu Qing Dynasty, and the revolutionaries, who wanted a clean break with the past.
"The watchword of the reform movement was 'bianfa', meaning 'change our institutions'. But the very word 'change' was anathema to the conservative officialdom of China. So reformers turned to Darwin as a foreign authority on change, presenting him not first and foremost as a natural scientist who had discovered an amazing fact of life, but as a political scientist who had discovered a cosmic imperative for change."

Darwin the revolutionary
Some today see Darwin as inspiring revolution (Source here)

This led to a change in the way intellectuals approached ethics: reform meant that traditional codes of conduct were fast losing their appeal.

"Meanwhile, the Europeans waved Darwin's banner to justify imperialism. Dubbing themselves 'the fit', they declared their right to rule the 'unfit'. And some Chinese accepted this argument. Liang Qichao, one of the leading reformers, said in 1898: "If a country can strengthen itself and make itself one of the fittest, then, even if it annihilates the unfit and the weak, it can still not be said to be immoral. Why? Because it is a law of evolution.""

The reformers were very interested in democracy, but realized the people were totally unprepared to handle it. Their solution was to emphasise the step-by-step gradualism of Darwinism with direction and stability provided by an appeal to natural law. The revolutionaries also embraced Darwin, drawing inspiration from the thought that the "superior survive and the inferior are defeated". "The man who introduced Darwinian evolution to the reformers of 1895 was Yan Fu."

"Yan wanted democracy for China - even anarchic democracy, without presidential rule. In Whence Strength? his call for reform was revolutionary: "Establish a parliament at the capital and let each province and county elect its own officials." But 'Darwin' held him back from real revolution. Yan believed that step-by-step progress was a fixed natural law, so stages had to be taken in order. America had skipped constitutional monarchy and gone straight to democracy, but a resulting class war, he felt, would be their undoing. "Should we, then, now throw away all loyalty to our ruler?" he asked in his essay. "We most certainly should not! Because the time has not arrived. ... Our people are not yet ready to rule themselves.""

The reformers and the revolutionaries debated vigorously "with both sides wildly waving Darwin's banner" The leaders of these movements imbibed the message of scientific racism coming from America and Europe and presented themselves as 'fit' to rule.

"Sadly, both camps also accepted the pervasive Western view that Darwin had proven races unequal - that one race was 'fitter' and therefore better than another. The reformers had originally done so to disassociate themselves from those who had fallen prey to the imperialists, such as the Africans and Indians. But in their exile in Japan, reformers and revolutionaries alike turned angrily on the Manchus as scapegoats, labelling them evolutionary low life, whose 'unnatural' conquest of the Han Chinese was responsible for China's peril."

The tensions after the end of World War I were extreme. The traditional pacifist Chinese philosophies were perceived as weak and this led to a philosophical and political vacuum. In their place came Marxism: this "seemed to them the fittest faith on Earth to help China to survive".

"This was not, of course, all Darwin's doing, but Darwin was involved in it all. To believe in Marxism, one had to believe in inexorable forces pushing mankind, or at least the elect, to inevitable progress, through set stages (which could, however, be skipped). One had to believe that history was a violent, hereditary class struggle (almost a 'racial' struggle); that the individual must be severely subordinated to the group; that an enlightened group must lead the people for their own good; that the people must not be humane to their enemies; that the forces of history assured victory to those who were right and who struggled.
Who taught Chinese these things? Marx? Mao? No. Darwin."

Ideas have legs and ideas walk. These developments are possible because Darwinism is more than a scientific theory: it is fundamentally a philosophical stance about the nature of reality. The materialism that underpins the Darwinian worldview has spawned scientific racism + eugenics in the West, and revolutionary fervor in the East. We should help the next generation understand and recognize the significance of such matters, and encourage them to ask questions about the philosophical roots of science.

Global Darwin: Revolutionary road
James Pusey
Nature 462, 162-163 (12 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/462162a (Restricted access link)

In China, under the threat of Western imperialism, interpretations of Darwin's ideas paved the way for Marx, Lenin and Mao, argues James Pusey in the third in our series on reactions to evolutionary theory.

]]> The Darwin Debates - November 30 http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2009/11/18/the_darwin_debates_november_30 2009-11-19T03:29:39Z Tom Magnuson Current Events The American Freedom Alliance will sponsor The Origin of Life Debates at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills, California on December 30th. This will be a Public Debate featuring... Stephen Meyer, Rick Sternberg, Michael Shermer and Don Prothero Two advocates for Intelligent Design; Two advocates for Evolution More here... The American Freedom Alliance will sponsor The Origin of Life Debates at the Saban Theatre in Beverly Hills, California on December 30th.

This will be a Public Debate featuring...
Stephen Meyer, Rick Sternberg, Michael Shermer and Don Prothero

Two advocates for Intelligent Design; Two advocates for Evolution

More here...

]]> Meyer on Miller last month http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2009/11/18/meyer_on_miller_last_month 2009-11-19T02:42:34Z Tom Magnuson Current Events The audio of this interview is on this LINK. And Stephen Meyer will be on the Dennis Miller Show again on December 2nd. Here's the LINK. The audio of this interview is on this LINK.

And Stephen Meyer will be on the Dennis Miller Show again on December 2nd. Here's the LINK.

]]> Uncommon Descent Question 11 - can biotechnology bring back extinct animals - winners announced http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/11/18/uncommon_descent_question_11_can_biotech 2009-11-19T02:05:39Z Denyse O'Leary Commentary - Announcements by Denyse O'Leary ARN correspondent For Uncommon Descent Question 11: Can biotechnology bring back extinct animals?, we have declared a winner, and it is binary! Twins! Aussie ID and Nakashima. I loved Aussie ID's information about the specifics of attempts to restore the thylacine - he calls it a Tasmanian tiger. Possibly due to culture issues, I am more familiar with hearing the animal called a Tasmanian wolf. But anyone interested should review his information. I'd love to know what a staked out* sled pack in northern Canada would make of the marsupial Tasmanian. He doesn't look to me like he has three coats of hair, so he might need to work in the office. I also appreciated Nakashima's thoughtful reflections on the question of how behaviour might not follow the physical recreation of an animal. I suspect he's right; it's an open question indeed. Each of you must provide me with a valid postal address** in order to receive the prize, a free copy of Steven Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009). If you go here, you will get a bit of background on the contest, and read many interesting contributions, but for now, here is the skinny: This one's a bit of fun, but there is a serious purpose behind it. In "A Life of Its Own: Where will synthetic biology lead us?" (September 28, 2009 New Yorker mag), Michael Specter reports, "If the science truly succeeds, it will make it possible to supplant the world created by Darwinian evolution with one created by us." Jurassic Park, anyone? Additional notes on interesting posts as well. 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 Denyse O'Leary
ARN correspondent

For Uncommon Descent Question 11: Can biotechnology bring back extinct animals?, we have declared a winner, and it is binary! Twins!

Aussie ID and Nakashima.

I loved Aussie ID's information about the specifics of attempts to restore the thylacine - he calls it a Tasmanian tiger. Possibly due to culture issues, I am more familiar with hearing the animal called a Tasmanian wolf. But anyone interested should review his information.

I'd love to know what a staked out* sled pack in northern Canada would make of the marsupial Tasmanian. He doesn't look to me like he has three coats of hair, so he might need to work in the office.

I also appreciated Nakashima's thoughtful reflections on the question of how behaviour might not follow the physical recreation of an animal. I suspect he's right; it's an open question indeed.

Each of you must provide me with a valid postal address** in order to receive the prize, a free copy of Steven Meyer's Signature in the Cell (Harper One, 2009).

If you go here, you will get a bit of background on the contest, and read many interesting contributions, but for now, here is the skinny:

This one's a bit of fun, but there is a serious purpose behind it.

In "A Life of Its Own: Where will synthetic biology lead us?" (September 28, 2009 New Yorker mag), Michael Specter reports, "If the science truly succeeds, it will make it possible to supplant the world created by Darwinian evolution with one created by us."

Jurassic Park, anyone?

Additional notes on interesting posts as well.

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).

]]> "Not to mince words - the modern synthesis is gone" http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/18/not_to_mince_words_the_modern_synthesis 2009-11-18T14:17:04Z David Tyler Literature - Articles Earlier this year, Eugene Koonin published a masterly analysis of the impact of genomics on evolutionary thinking. This proved to be too meaty a study for a concise blog, and my initial draft was abandoned. Happily, a shorter overview has now been published, and this abstracts salient points from the research paper. Koonin notes that the 1959 Origin centennial was "marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis" but subsequent years have witnessed great changes which have undermined its credibility. "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair." It is time for a paradigm change - but neoDarwinists are stuck because they have so much philosophical baggage holding them down (Image credit: Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images, Source here) Koonin uses the metaphor of "the landscape of evolutionary biology". There are three distinct revolutions have occurred over the past half-century: the molecular, the microbiological and the genomic revolutions. "[T]his year is the perfect time to ask some crucial questions: how has evolutionary biology changed in the 50 years since the hardening of the modern synthesis? Is it still a viable conceptual framework for evolutionary thinking and research?" The molecular revolution culminated, says Koonin, in the neutral theory, which means that purifying selection is more common than positive selection. The microbiological revolution brought the world of prokaryotes into the domain of evolutionary biology, but it then became apparent that the concepts of Darwinism and the modern synthesis "applied only to multicellular organisms". The genomic revolution revealed that the living world was "a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the modern synthesis". In particular, it is now interpreted as an "extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT are ubiquitous". "The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable." Koonin is serious in saying that all the concepts of the modern synthesis are in need of a fundamental overhaul."Moreover, with pan-adaptationism gone forever, so is the notion of evolutionary progress that is undoubtedly central to traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit. The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking. In the postgenomic era, all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone." Koonin tentatively identifies two candidates to fill the vacuum left by the discarded modern synthesis. The first of these appears to emphasis the role of chance; the second appears to emphasise law. "The first is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture, according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adaptive evolutionary processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak. The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolution such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes, which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals or the equally universal anticorrelation between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene. The existence of these universals suggests that simple theory of the kind used in statistical physics might explain some crucial aspects of evolution." It is not difficult to predict that Koonin's analysis will not be received quietly by the very vocal leaders of evolutionary biology. They are still entrenched in neoDarwinism and show no signs of conceding any ground to anyone. From a design perspective, Koonin's analysis of the changing landscape of evolutionary biology is spot on. His two candidates for moving forward the theoretical framework are interesting - but lack any recognition of purposeful design in nature. Dembski's design filter concept is relevant here: there are features in the biological world that are best understood in terms of stochastic processes; there are other features that are best understood in terms of natural law; but there are also features that require a design perspective in order to understand them. It is the latter element, prominent in the thinking of design-orientated scientists, which needs to be part of any discussion of where evolutionary biology is heading. The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? Eugene V. Koonin Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, 473-475. Abstract: The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the On the Origin of Species could prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis. The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution. Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics Eugene V. Koonin Nucleic Acids Research, 2009, 37(4), 1011-1034 | doi:10.1093/nar/gkp089 ABSTRACT: Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future. Earlier this year, Eugene Koonin published a masterly analysis of the impact of genomics on evolutionary thinking. This proved to be too meaty a study for a concise blog, and my initial draft was abandoned. Happily, a shorter overview has now been published, and this abstracts salient points from the research paper. Koonin notes that the 1959 Origin centennial was "marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis" but subsequent years have witnessed great changes which have undermined its credibility.
"The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair."

Darwin images
It is time for a paradigm change - but neoDarwinists are stuck because they have so much philosophical baggage holding them down (Image credit: Shaun Curry/AFP/Getty Images, Source here)

Koonin uses the metaphor of "the landscape of evolutionary biology". There are three distinct revolutions have occurred over the past half-century: the molecular, the microbiological and the genomic revolutions.

"[T]his year is the perfect time to ask some crucial questions: how has evolutionary biology changed in the 50 years since the hardening of the modern synthesis? Is it still a viable conceptual framework for evolutionary thinking and research?"

The molecular revolution culminated, says Koonin, in the neutral theory, which means that purifying selection is more common than positive selection. The microbiological revolution brought the world of prokaryotes into the domain of evolutionary biology, but it then became apparent that the concepts of Darwinism and the modern synthesis "applied only to multicellular organisms". The genomic revolution revealed that the living world was "a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the modern synthesis". In particular, it is now interpreted as an "extremely dynamic world where horizontal gene transfer (HGT) is not a rarity but the regular way of existence, and mobile genetic elements that are vehicles of HGT are ubiquitous".

"The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable."

Koonin is serious in saying that all the concepts of the modern synthesis are in need of a fundamental overhaul.

"Moreover, with pan-adaptationism gone forever, so is the notion of evolutionary progress that is undoubtedly central to traditional evolutionary thinking, even if this is not always made explicit.
The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking. In the postgenomic era, all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone."

Koonin tentatively identifies two candidates to fill the vacuum left by the discarded modern synthesis. The first of these appears to emphasis the role of chance; the second appears to emphasise law.

"The first is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture, according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adaptive evolutionary processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak. The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolution such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes, which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals or the equally universal anticorrelation between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene. The existence of these universals suggests that simple theory of the kind used in statistical physics might explain some crucial aspects of evolution."

It is not difficult to predict that Koonin's analysis will not be received quietly by the very vocal leaders of evolutionary biology. They are still entrenched in neoDarwinism and show no signs of conceding any ground to anyone. From a design perspective, Koonin's analysis of the changing landscape of evolutionary biology is spot on. His two candidates for moving forward the theoretical framework are interesting - but lack any recognition of purposeful design in nature. Dembski's design filter concept is relevant here: there are features in the biological world that are best understood in terms of stochastic processes; there are other features that are best understood in terms of natural law; but there are also features that require a design perspective in order to understand them. It is the latter element, prominent in the thinking of design-orientated scientists, which needs to be part of any discussion of where evolutionary biology is heading.

The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?
Eugene V. Koonin
Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, 473-475.

Abstract: The 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin and the 150th jubilee of the On the Origin of Species could prompt a new look at evolutionary biology. The 1959 Origin centennial was marked by the consolidation of the modern synthesis. The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution.

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics
Eugene V. Koonin
Nucleic Acids Research, 2009, 37(4), 1011-1034 | doi:10.1093/nar/gkp089

ABSTRACT: Comparative genomics and systems biology offer unprecedented opportunities for testing central tenets of evolutionary biology formulated by Darwin in the Origin of Species in 1859 and expanded in the Modern Synthesis 100 years later. Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a nonadaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation. Several universals of genome evolution were discovered including the invariant distributions of evolutionary rates among orthologous genes from diverse genomes and of paralogous gene family sizes, and the negative correlation between gene expression level and sequence evolution rate. Simple, non-adaptive models of evolution explain some of these universals, suggesting that a new synthesis of evolutionary biology might become feasible in a not so remote future.

]]> Neuroscience: Neurolaw could confuse intent with motive, posing a threat to civil rights http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/11/18/neuroscience_neurolaw_could_confuse_inte 2009-11-18T09:47:40Z Denyse O'Leary Commentary - OpEd by Denyse O'Leary ARN correspondent My concern with "neurolaw" (the attempt to scan brains to identify criminal behaviour) is this: Law is, or should be, concerned with "intent", not "motive." Yes, yes, in detective fiction, everything hinges on motive: Cousin Harry murdered Aunt Sally to get her fortune; plain Jane murdered pretty Kitty because Kitty got the man; squadron leader Beeder murdered that guy because of a long ago wartime betrayal .... However, real law depends on design inferences, not speculations about motive. Here is the story I sometimes tell to explain that: Tom and Dick are enjoying beer and wings in a pub. Suddenly, the conversation becomes loud and animated. Tom seizes a dinner knife and tries to plunge it into Dick's chest. He is restrained by burly patron Harry and several others. The whole thing is caught on videocam. Mid-uproar, the bartender calls the police, who charge Tom with attempted manslaughter. The police need not know his motive, only his intent - which was pretty obvious. That's a design inference. Later, the investigating officer learns how the quarrel began: Dick had informed Tom that he was seeing Tom's girlfriend, so Tom should just buzz off. Tom didn't like that idea. Knowing a person's motive certainly helps us understand the story. But intent - the demonstrated attempt at murder in this case - is what matters in law. Here's the difficulty: Suppose Tom had just got up from the table and left, and spent three months fantasizing in the wee hours about killing Dick - without ever seeing either Dick or the former girlfriend again. He has plenty of motive, but the fact is, he never did anything. Then Tom is of no interest to the law, as it now stands - though his family doctor should be concerned. Tom needs a more constructive way to deal with rejection. (He also needs a more faithful girlfriend, but all in good time.) However, in a materialist environment, I would hardly be surprised to hear theories about Tom's violence genes and violence neurons, some based on neuroscience techniques - even if all the violence was inside his own head. Some may argue for action against Tom "pre-crime". That's where the threat to civil liberties comes in. Neurolaw seems like materialism applied to law, hence a threat to civil rights, because it can easily confuse motive with intent - overturning centuries of progress in justice. 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

My concern with "neurolaw" (the attempt to scan brains to identify criminal behaviour) is this: Law is, or should be, concerned with "intent", not "motive."

Yes, yes, in detective fiction, everything hinges on motive: Cousin Harry murdered Aunt Sally to get her fortune; plain Jane murdered pretty Kitty because Kitty got the man; squadron leader Beeder murdered that guy because of a long ago wartime betrayal ....

However, real law depends on design inferences, not speculations about motive. Here is the story I sometimes tell to explain that:

Tom and Dick are enjoying beer and wings in a pub.

Suddenly, the conversation becomes loud and animated.

Tom seizes a dinner knife and tries to plunge it into Dick's chest. He is restrained by burly patron Harry and several others.

The whole thing is caught on videocam.

Mid-uproar, the bartender calls the police, who charge Tom with attempted manslaughter.

The police need not know his motive, only his intent - which was pretty obvious. That's a design inference.

Later, the investigating officer learns how the quarrel began: Dick had informed Tom that he was seeing Tom's girlfriend, so Tom should just buzz off. Tom didn't like that idea.

Knowing a person's motive certainly helps us understand the story. But intent - the demonstrated attempt at murder in this case - is what matters in law.

Here's the difficulty: Suppose Tom had just got up from the table and left, and spent three months fantasizing in the wee hours about killing Dick - without ever seeing either Dick or the former girlfriend again. He has plenty of motive, but the fact is, he never did anything.

Then Tom is of no interest to the law, as it now stands - though his family doctor should be concerned. Tom needs a more constructive way to deal with rejection. (He also needs a more faithful girlfriend, but all in good time.)

However, in a materialist environment, I would hardly be surprised to hear theories about Tom's violence genes and violence neurons, some based on neuroscience techniques - even if all the violence was inside his own head. Some may argue for action against Tom "pre-crime". That's where the threat to civil liberties comes in.

Neurolaw seems like materialism applied to law, hence a threat to civil rights, because it can easily confuse motive with intent - overturning centuries of progress in justice.

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).

]]> Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with brief comments http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/11/17/podcasts_in_the_intelligent_design_contr_2 2009-11-17T07:47:18Z Denyse O'Leary Commentary - Announcements by Denyse O'Leary ARN correspondent Intelligently Designed Nanotechnology As Casey Luskin reveals in this episode of ID the Future, eminent biologists have said that they must continually remind themselves that what they see in biology evolved, and was not designed. But now engineers are turning to biology to replace human technology because biological pathways provide superior solutions to biomedical-technological needs. Is this trend more consistent with an evolved biosphere, or an intelligent designed one? Listen to this podcast and decide for yourself. Listen here. Yes, but sometimes people don't see the forest for the trees. The majority of humans think, where it is safe to do so, that there is a God, based on personal experience. No surprise there. If there is a God, he can communicate with humans when he wishes to do so, just as Elizabeth, Queen of England, can do*. And she would be the first to say that her rank is at a fundamentally much lower grade. The question is, why is this controversial? Why should it be any surprise? Why do I keep running into efforts to prove it is not true? If that is really science (space aliens, multiple universes), I could not distinguish it from witchcraft or some other foolishness. I think we'd just get more done if we accepted, with Antony Flew , that There IS a God and got on with useful projects in science, like cures for AIDS and non-polluting sources of energy. Oh, and weight loss programs for people who used to suffer from famine but are now afflicted with obesity - an outcome of modern science. *I still have my father's commission, courtesy Elizabeth's father, advancing him to the rank of officer. Also: Chris Mooney's War on Intelligent Design Listen here. On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Rob Crowther interviews Casey Luskin about his in-depth response to Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, correcting fourteen major factual and logical errors in Mooney's chapter on intelligent design. How can Chris Mooney be so wrong on this issue? Listen in and find out. Read the original response to Mooney here. Yes, well, I don't know why anyone should be surprised. Darwinism has morphed into a major public enterprise and anyone who wants his finger in the pie ... I think we can wait a long time before a guy like Chris Mooney even needs to get anything right. More stories from the Post-Darwinist: Interesting design inference concerning a historic photo Morning coffee!! Bear meets cat ... No! No! Not what you think! Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks (Note: This series may sometimes be interrupted by news from the crisis in intellectual freedom in Canada. If you are not interested, just scroll down.) 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

Intelligently Designed Nanotechnology

As Casey Luskin reveals in this episode of ID the Future, eminent biologists have said that they must continually remind themselves that what they see in biology evolved, and was not designed. But now engineers are turning to biology to replace human technology because biological pathways provide superior solutions to biomedical-technological needs. Is this trend more consistent with an evolved biosphere, or an intelligent designed one? Listen to this podcast and decide for yourself.

Listen here.

Yes, but sometimes people don't see the forest for the trees. The majority of humans think, where it is safe to do so, that there is a God, based on personal experience. No surprise there. If there is a God, he can communicate with humans when he wishes to do so, just as Elizabeth, Queen of England, can do*. And she would be the first to say that her rank is at a fundamentally much lower grade.

The question is, why is this controversial? Why should it be any surprise? Why do I keep running into efforts to prove it is not true?

If that is really science (space aliens, multiple universes), I could not distinguish it from witchcraft or some other foolishness. I think we'd just get more done if we accepted, with Antony Flew , that There IS a God and got on with useful projects in science, like cures for AIDS and non-polluting sources of energy. Oh, and weight loss programs for people who used to suffer from famine but are now afflicted with obesity - an outcome of modern science.

*I still have my father's commission, courtesy Elizabeth's father, advancing him to the rank of officer.

Also: Chris Mooney's War on Intelligent Design

Listen here.

On this episode of ID the Future, CSC's Rob Crowther interviews Casey Luskin about his in-depth response to Chris Mooney's The Republican War on Science, correcting fourteen major factual and logical errors in Mooney's chapter on intelligent design. How can Chris Mooney be so wrong on this issue? Listen in and find out.
Read the original response to Mooney here.

Yes, well, I don't know why anyone should be surprised. Darwinism has morphed into a major public enterprise and anyone who wants his finger in the pie ... I think we can wait a long time before a guy like Chris Mooney even needs to get anything right.

More stories from the Post-Darwinist:

Interesting design inference concerning a historic photo

Morning coffee!! Bear meets cat ... No! No! Not what you think!

Podcasts in the intelligent design controversy, with comments

Darwinism and popular culture: A tour of the textbooks

(Note: This series may sometimes be interrupted by news from the crisis in intellectual freedom in Canada. If you are not interested, just scroll down.)

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).

]]> Intelligent Design Book Cracks Bestseller List at Amazon.com http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/3/2009/11/16/intelligent_design_book_cracks_bestselle 2009-11-17T02:27:38Z Tom Magnuson Books/Videos/Reviews Today Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category. More... Today Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category.

More...

]]> Curiosity and the dead cat http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/2/2009/11/16/curiosity_and_the_dead_cat 2009-11-16T15:55:56Z Denyse O'Leary Commentary - OpEd by Denyse O'Leary ARN correspondent In Does curiosity kill more than the cat?, prof Stanley Fish wonders Last Thursday, the new Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities James A. Leach gave an address at the University of Virginia with the catchy title, "Is There an Inalienable Right to Curiosity?" Taking his cue from Thomas Jefferson's "trinity of inalienable rights: 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" Leach reasoned that even though Jefferson never wrote about curiosity, "a right to be curious would have been a natural reflection of his own personality." Interesting, considering that academic freedom is under huge assault these days. I have said in private correspondence as follows: It is good to be curious about the exact cause of Alzheimer syndrome or whether that fellow hanging around in the parking lot has lawful business around here. It is not good to be curious about whether my neighbour is a closet racist or having an affair with the letter carrier. I'd say curiosity is an inescapable and necessary human quality that must be steered in an appropriate direction. Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose PS: I know a bit about cats. Curiosity does kill cats sometimes. But kidney disease is their biggest problem. Cats are obligate carnivores. So they generally last as long as their kidneys - or so a vet once told me, and in my experience it is certainly true. Also just up at The Mindful Hack, my blog on neuroscience issues: Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this? Materialism and popular culture: The human brain as a machine? Spiritual Brain: Polish translation rights bought 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 Does curiosity kill more than the cat?, prof Stanley Fish wonders

Last Thursday, the new Chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities James A. Leach gave an address at the University of Virginia with the catchy title, "Is There an Inalienable Right to Curiosity?"

Taking his cue from Thomas Jefferson's "trinity of inalienable rights: 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,'" Leach reasoned that even though Jefferson never wrote about curiosity, "a right to be curious would have been a natural reflection of his own personality."

Interesting, considering that academic freedom is under huge assault these days.

I have said in private correspondence as follows:

It is good to be curious about the exact cause of Alzheimer syndrome or whether that fellow hanging around in the parking lot has lawful business around here.

It is not good to be curious about whether my neighbour is a closet racist or having an affair with the letter carrier.

I'd say curiosity is an inescapable and necessary human quality that must be steered in an appropriate direction.

Hat tip: Stephanie West Allen at Brains on Purpose PS: I know a bit about cats. Curiosity does kill cats sometimes. But kidney disease is their biggest problem. Cats are obligate carnivores. So they generally last as long as their kidneys - or so a vet once told me, and in my experience it is certainly true.

Also just up at The Mindful Hack, my blog on neuroscience issues:

Do you really need a refrigerator when you have this?

Materialism and popular culture: The human brain as a machine?

Spiritual Brain: Polish translation rights bought

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).

]]> Intelligent agents appraising natural selection http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/11/16/intelligent_agents_appraising_natural_se 2009-11-16T13:48:35Z David Tyler Literature - Articles Darwin was a great composer of metaphors, of which "natural selection" is the best known. Today, few are aware of negative responses from scientists uncomfortable with Darwin's imagery. One of these was Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-originator of evolution by natural selection. "Wallace remarked, in his article Mr Darwin's Metaphors Liable to Misconception (1868), that the Malthusian progressions and struggle for existence were self-evident "facts". Yet because natural selection seemed to personify a perceptive and forward-thinking selector, or god, he urged Darwin to replace the term with "survival of the fittest". [See also here] Darwin, however, had brushed him off. "Everyone knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions," he had demurred. "And they are almost necessary for brevity"." Does "natural selection" have the dominant role in unravelling Darwin's entangled bank? (source here) In a perceptive essay, Daniel Todes focuses attention on the reactions of Russian biologists to Darwin's writings. Many of these naturalists "were evolutionists before 1859", so they did not dissent from common ancestry. However, their experiences of the living world were quite different from Darwin and Wallace, who drew their inspiration from densely populated tropical forests and related habitats. They witnessed a struggle for existence that matched the description Thomas Malthus had given of human communities. Using the same logic, Darwin and Wallace were stimulated to think about winners and losers in populations of animals and plants. The Russian scientists lived in a different world. [They] "investigated a vast under-populated continental plain. For them, nature was not an "entangled bank" - the image Darwin took from the Brazilian jungle. It was a largely empty Siberian expanse in which overpopulation was rare and only the struggle of organisms against a harsh environment was dramatic." The Russian response to living in a harsh environment was to develop "the language of communalism - stressing not individual initiative and struggle, but the importance of cooperation within social groups and the virtues of social harmony." The analysis of Malthus did not match the biological communities in their part of the world, so Darwin's metaphor of the "struggle for existence" was not, in their view, well grounded. "Russian political commentators of the left, right and centre reviled Malthus as an apologist for predatory capitalism and soulless individualism." [. . .] "[F]ew Russians shared Darwin and Wallace's respect for Malthus, and [. . .] many saw the struggle for existence as an infusion of the British enthusiasm for individualistic competition into natural science. Darwin's theory, as Danilevskii put it, was a "purely English doctrine"." Dissent did not apply just to the "struggle for existence" metaphor. Natural selection was equally controversial. The Russians wanted to give more emphasis to concepts like the "harmony of nature" and "cooperation". Many of them advocated "the theory of mutual aid". Indeed, Todes says that it became a "staple of Russian evolutionary thought". "Darwin too had called attention to such cooperation, but the theory of mutual aid went further. It held that the central aspect of the struggle for existence is an organism's struggle with abiotic conditions, that organisms join forces in this struggle, that such mutual aid is favoured by natural selection, and that cooperation so vitiated intraspecific competition as to render it unimportant in the origin of new species." This essay highlights issues which have been discussed often by design-orientated scientists. These are identified below. 1. Scientific criticism of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. It will come as a surprise to many that dissent about the role of natural selection comes from within science. Such dissent was present in Darwin's day and it is still significant. This blog has drawn attention to relevant papers here and here. Those who portray requests for a 'critical evaluation of the role of natural selection' as religiously motivated are living in denial of history and are undermining the integrity of science. 2. Scientific analysis of harmony within the natural world. Due to the dominance of Darwinism, ecological studies have been imbalanced. Evidences of populations regulating their own numbers and of cooperative behaviour have been underplayed or reinterpreted in terms of a "struggle for survival". 3. Science is not a culture-free discipline. Objectivity is a worthy aspiration but it cannot be fully realised because scientists are unaware of most of the cultural norms they bring to their work. Since many aspects of culture are linked to religious/secular convictions, it is absurd when individuals and organisations try to set up demarcation arguments to separate science from ideology (whether religious or atheistic). "Researchers bring their life experiences and culture with them into the field and laboratory, and in the course of their investigations actively originate, interpret, develop and reject metaphorical pathways. As is shown by the reception of Darwin's theory in Russia, the deployment and criticism of metaphors are part of the ineffably human process by which scientists mobilise their experiences and values to explore the infinite complexity of nature." Global Darwin: Contempt for competition Daniel Todes Nature 462, 36-37 (5 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/462036a (restricted access here) Darwin's idea of the 'struggle for existence' struck a chord with his fellow countrymen. But Russians rejected the alien metaphor, says Daniel Todes, in the second of four weekly pieces on reactions to evolutionary theory. See also: Todes, D.P. Darwin's Malthusian Metaphor and Russian Evolutionary Thought, 1859-1917, Isis, 78(4), December 1987, 537-551 Darwin was a great composer of metaphors, of which "natural selection" is the best known. Today, few are aware of negative responses from scientists uncomfortable with Darwin's imagery. One of these was Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-originator of evolution by natural selection.
"Wallace remarked, in his article Mr Darwin's Metaphors Liable to Misconception (1868), that the Malthusian progressions and struggle for existence were self-evident "facts". Yet because natural selection seemed to personify a perceptive and forward-thinking selector, or god, he urged Darwin to replace the term with "survival of the fittest". [See also here]
Darwin, however, had brushed him off. "Everyone knows what is meant and is implied by such metaphorical expressions," he had demurred. "And they are almost necessary for brevity"."

Entangled bank graphic
Does "natural selection" have the dominant role in unravelling Darwin's entangled bank? (source here)

In a perceptive essay, Daniel Todes focuses attention on the reactions of Russian biologists to Darwin's writings. Many of these naturalists "were evolutionists before 1859", so they did not dissent from common ancestry. However, their experiences of the living world were quite different from Darwin and Wallace, who drew their inspiration from densely populated tropical forests and related habitats. They witnessed a struggle for existence that matched the description Thomas Malthus had given of human communities. Using the same logic, Darwin and Wallace were stimulated to think about winners and losers in populations of animals and plants. The Russian scientists lived in a different world.

[They] "investigated a vast under-populated continental plain. For them, nature was not an "entangled bank" - the image Darwin took from the Brazilian jungle. It was a largely empty Siberian expanse in which overpopulation was rare and only the struggle of organisms against a harsh environment was dramatic."

The Russian response to living in a harsh environment was to develop "the language of communalism - stressing not individual initiative and struggle, but the importance of cooperation within social groups and the virtues of social harmony." The analysis of Malthus did not match the biological communities in their part of the world, so Darwin's metaphor of the "struggle for existence" was not, in their view, well grounded.

"Russian political commentators of the left, right and centre reviled Malthus as an apologist for predatory capitalism and soulless individualism." [. . .]
"[F]ew Russians shared Darwin and Wallace's respect for Malthus, and [. . .] many saw the struggle for existence as an infusion of the British enthusiasm for individualistic competition into natural science. Darwin's theory, as Danilevskii put it, was a "purely English doctrine"."

Dissent did not apply just to the "struggle for existence" metaphor. Natural selection was equally controversial. The Russians wanted to give more emphasis to concepts like the "harmony of nature" and "cooperation". Many of them advocated "the theory of mutual aid". Indeed, Todes says that it became a "staple of Russian evolutionary thought".

"Darwin too had called attention to such cooperation, but the theory of mutual aid went further. It held that the central aspect of the struggle for existence is an organism's struggle with abiotic conditions, that organisms join forces in this struggle, that such mutual aid is favoured by natural selection, and that cooperation so vitiated intraspecific competition as to render it unimportant in the origin of new species."

This essay highlights issues which have been discussed often by design-orientated scientists. These are identified below.

1. Scientific criticism of natural selection as an evolutionary mechanism. It will come as a surprise to many that dissent about the role of natural selection comes from within science. Such dissent was present in Darwin's day and it is still significant. This blog has drawn attention to relevant papers here and here. Those who portray requests for a 'critical evaluation of the role of natural selection' as religiously motivated are living in denial of history and are undermining the integrity of science.

2. Scientific analysis of harmony within the natural world. Due to the dominance of Darwinism, ecological studies have been imbalanced. Evidences of populations regulating their own numbers and of cooperative behaviour have been underplayed or reinterpreted in terms of a "struggle for survival".

3. Science is not a culture-free discipline. Objectivity is a worthy aspiration but it cannot be fully realised because scientists are unaware of most of the cultural norms they bring to their work. Since many aspects of culture are linked to religious/secular convictions, it is absurd when individuals and organisations try to set up demarcation arguments to separate science from ideology (whether religious or atheistic).

"Researchers bring their life experiences and culture with them into the field and laboratory, and in the course of their investigations actively originate, interpret, develop and reject metaphorical pathways. As is shown by the reception of Darwin's theory in Russia, the deployment and criticism of metaphors are part of the ineffably human process by which scientists mobilise their experiences and values to explore the infinite complexity of nature."

Global Darwin: Contempt for competition
Daniel Todes
Nature 462, 36-37 (5 November 2009) | doi:10.1038/462036a (restricted access here)

Darwin's idea of the 'struggle for existence' struck a chord with his fellow countrymen. But Russians rejected the alien metaphor, says Daniel Todes, in the second of four weekly pieces on reactions to evolutionary theory.

See also:

Todes, D.P. Darwin's Malthusian Metaphor and Russian Evolutionary Thought, 1859-1917, Isis, 78(4), December 1987, 537-551

]]>