Citrate Death Spiral

Michigan State University biologist Richard Lenski and collaborators have just published a terrific new paper in the journal eLife.1 Anyone who wants to see a crystal-clear example of the inherent , unavoidable , fatal difficulties that the Darwinian mechanism itself poses for unguided evolution should read it closely .
The paper concerns the further evolution of a widely discussed mutant strain of the bacterium E. coli discovered during the course of Lenski ’ s Long Term Evolution Experiment ( LTEE ) .
The LTEE is his more-than-three-decades-long project in which E. coli was allowed to grow continuously in laboratory flasks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ As I ’ ve written before , almost all of the beneficial mutations that were discovered to have spread through the populations of bacteria in the LTEE were ones that either blunted pre-existing genes ( decreasing their previous biochemical activity ) or outright broke them.3 There seemed , however , to be one interesting exception.4 One morning after more than 30,000 generations of bacterial growth , one flask of E. coli ( out of 12 separate flasks that Lenski maintained for comparison and replication ’ s sake ) seemed cloudier than the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacteria than usual had grown in the nutrient broth .
After much hard laboratory work , Lenski ’ s group showed that a region of the prodigious bacterium ’ s DNA that was close to a gene coding for a citrate transporter ( that is , a protein whose job is to bring external , dissolved citrate into the cell ; citrate is a common chemical that cells metabolize ) had duplicated.5 The duplication mutation placed the control region of a different gene next to that of the citrate transporter .
Here ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gene ’ s natural regulator causes the gene to be turned off whenever oxygen is around , as it was under the normal laboratory growth conditions at MSU .
The second regulator , however , allows the gene it controls to be turned on in the presence of oxygen .
The mutation that placed a copy of the regulator of the second gene next to the citrate gene then allowed the citrate gene to be turned on in the presence of oxygen , too .
Since for technical purposes there was a lot @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the mutant E. coli could import and metabolize ( “ eat ” ) the citrate , which was unavailable to nonmutants .
With all that extra food , the mutant grew like crazy , quickly surpassing nonmutants .
The novel result was widely reported , and the conjecture was floated that perhaps the mutant was on its way to forming a new species.6 As I wrote in Darwin Devolves , however , other , much more ominous , genetic results should have tempered any optimism .
For example , the citrate mutant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutations that had previously spread through the population — the new mutation did not , could not , restore them .
And later work showed that several more broken genes had been selected in the mutant , apparently to help it metabolize citrate more efficiently.3 The new paper now reports on 2,500 generations of further evolution of the citrate mutant , in nutrient media that contains either citrate alone or citrate plus glucose ( as for earlier generations ) .
As always with the Lenski lab , the research is well and thoroughly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is one sick puppy .
Inside the paper they report that “ The spectrum of mutations identified in evolved clones was dominated by structural variation , including insertions , deletions , and mobile element transpositions.
” All of those are exceedingly likely to break or degrade genes .
Dozens more genes were lost .
The citrate mutant tossed genetic information with mindless abandon for short term advantage .
In a particularly telling result , the authors “ serendipitously discovered evidence of substantial cell death in cultures of a Cit+ clone sampled from … @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other words , those initial random “ beneficial ” citrate mutations that had been seized on by natural selection tens of thousands of generations earlier had led to a death spiral .
The death rate of the ancestor of the LTEE was ~10 percent ; after 33,000 generations it was ~30 percent ; after 50,000 , ~40 percent .
For the newer set of experiments , the death rate varied for different strains of cells in different media , but exceeded 50 percent for some cell lines in a citrate-only environment .
Indeed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutations — again , almost certainly degradative ones — in genes for fatty acid metabolism that , they write with admirable detachment , “ suggest adaptation to scavenging on dead and dying cells.
” The degraded E. coli was eating its dead .
Let me emphasize : the only result from the decades-long , 50,000-plus generation E. coli evolution experiment that even seemed at first blush like it had a bit of potential to yield a novel pathway in the bacterium has resulted instead in spectacular devolution .
As Lenski and co-authors wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ review of Darwin Devolves ( which focused strongly on the clear degradation occurring over the course of the LTEE ) :7 The “ one new ” function was the citrate mutation .
I had called it a “ side show ” in Darwin Devolves precisely because the E. coli of the LTEE were accumulating degradative mutations much faster than any mutations that might with charity be called constructive:3 The more molecular evolutionary work that rolls in , the more the above conclusion becomes a mere truism .
In their new paper the Lenski @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its experimental evolutionary system.1 Exactly .
That means the LTEE gives us our clearest insight into the general effects of Darwin ’ s mechanism , which continues to operate no matter what other processes may also be occurring ( I ’ m looking at you , Extended Evolutionary Synthesis ) , no matter whether an organism is in a lab or in the wild , no matter which kind of organism — whether microbe , plant , or animal — is subject to its tender care .
So , thanks to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is relentless — it never rests .
In good times and bad , if a change in a species could help it adapt more closely to its environment , degradative mutations will arrive most quickly by far to offer their assistance .
And , of course , under selective pressure a species has no choice but to accept helpful ones , even if that eventually leads to the species languishing .
Thanks in very large part to the fine work done over decades at Michigan State we can now be certain that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explanation for the great features of life Darwin ’ s theory itself is in a death spiral .
• Blount , Z. , et al .
( 2020 ) .
“ Genomic and phenotypic evolution of Escherichia coli in a novel citrate-only resource environment.
” eLife 9 : e55414 .
• Lenski , R. E. ( 2017 ) .
“ Convergence and Divergence in a Long-Term Experiment with Bacteria.
” The American Naturalist 190 : S57-S68 .
• Behe , M. J .
( 2019 ) .
Darwin devolves : the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York , NY , HarperOne , Ch .
7 .
• Blount , Z. D. , C. Z. Borland and R. E. Lenski ( 2008 ) .
“ Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli.
” Proc .
Natl .
Acad .
Sci .
USA 105 : 7899-7906 .
• Blount , Z. D. , et al .
( 2012 ) .
“ Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population.
” Nature 489 : 513-518 .

Richard Lenski, by Zachary Blount [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons
Michigan State University biologist Richard Lenski and collaborators have just published a terrific new paper in the journal eLife.1 Anyone who wants to see a crystal-clear example of the inherent, unavoidable, fatal difficulties that the Darwinian mechanism itself poses for unguided evolution should read it closely.
The paper concerns the further evolution of a widely discussed mutant strain of the bacterium E. coli discovered during the course of Lenski’s Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE). The LTEE is his more-than-three-decades-long project in which E. coli was allowed to grow continuously in laboratory flasks simply to observe how it would evolve.2 As I’ve written before, almost all of the beneficial mutations that were discovered to have spread through the populations of bacteria in the LTEE were ones that either blunted pre-existing genes (decreasing their previous biochemical activity) or outright broke them.3
An Interesting Exception?
There seemed, however, to be one interesting exception.4 One morning after more than 30,000 generations of bacterial growth, one flask of E. coli (out of 12 separate flasks that Lenski maintained for comparison and replication’s sake) seemed cloudier than the other 11 flasks. That indicated substantially more bacteria than usual had grown in the nutrient broth. After much hard laboratory work, Lenski’s group showed that a region of the prodigious bacterium’s DNA that was close to a gene coding for a citrate transporter (that is, a protein whose job is to bring external, dissolved citrate into the cell; citrate is a common chemical that cells metabolize) had duplicated.5 The duplication mutation placed the control region of a different gene next to that of the citrate transporter.
Here’s why that helped. The citrate-transporter gene’s natural regulator causes the gene to be turned off whenever oxygen is around, as it was under the normal laboratory growth conditions at MSU. The second regulator, however, allows the gene it controls to be turned on in the presence of oxygen. The mutation that placed a copy of the regulator of the second gene next to the citrate gene then allowed the citrate gene to be turned on in the presence of oxygen, too. Since for technical purposes there was a lot of dissolved citrate in the nutrient broth, the mutant E. coli could import and metabolize (“eat”) the citrate, which was unavailable to nonmutants. With all that extra food, the mutant grew like crazy, quickly surpassing nonmutants.
The novel result was widely reported, and the conjecture was floated that perhaps the mutant was on its way to forming a new species.6 As I wrote in Darwin Devolves, however, other, much more ominous, genetic results should have tempered any optimism. For example, the citrate mutant had accumulated many of the same beneficial-but-degradative mutations that had previously spread through the population — the new mutation did not, could not, restore them. And later work showed that several more broken genes had been selected in the mutant, apparently to help it metabolize citrate more efficiently.3
A Sick Puppy
The new paper now reports on 2,500 generations of further evolution of the citrate mutant, in nutrient media that contains either citrate alone or citrate plus glucose (as for earlier generations). As always with the Lenski lab, the research is well and thoroughly done. But the resulting E. coli is one sick puppy. Inside the paper they report that “The spectrum of mutations identified in evolved clones was dominated by structural variation, including insertions, deletions, and mobile element transpositions.” All of those are exceedingly likely to break or degrade genes. Dozens more genes were lost. The citrate mutant tossed genetic information with mindless abandon for short term advantage.
In a particularly telling result, the authors “serendipitously discovered evidence of substantial cell death in cultures of a Cit+ clone sampled from … the LTEE at 50,000 generations.” In other words, those initial random “beneficial” citrate mutations that had been seized on by natural selection tens of thousands of generations earlier had led to a death spiral. The death rate of the ancestor of the LTEE was ~10 percent; after 33,000 generations it was ~30 percent; after 50,000, ~40 percent. For the newer set of experiments, the death rate varied for different strains of cells in different media, but exceeded 50 percent for some cell lines in a citrate-only environment. Indeed, the authors identified a number of mutations — again, almost certainly degradative ones — in genes for fatty acid metabolism that, they write with admirable detachment, “suggest adaptation to scavenging on dead and dying cells.”
The degraded E. coli was eating its dead.
Lessons to Draw
Let me emphasize: the only result from the decades-long, 50,000-plus generation E. coli evolution experiment that even seemed at first blush like it had a bit of potential to yield a novel pathway in the bacterium has resulted instead in spectacular devolution. As Lenski and co-authors wrote in Science in 2019 in their dismissive review of Darwin Devolves(which focused strongly on the clear degradation occurring over the course of the LTEE):7
There are indeed many examples of loss-of-function mutations that are advantageous, but Behe is selective in his examples. He dedicates the better part of chapter 7 to discussing a 65,000-generation Escherichia coli experiment, emphasizing the many mutations that arose that degraded function — an expected mode of adaptation to a simple laboratory environment, by the way — while dismissing improved functions and deriding one new one as a “sideshow”. (Full disclosure: The findings in question were published by co-author Richard Lenski.)
The “one new” function was the citrate mutation. I had called it a “side show” in Darwin Devolves precisely because the E. coli of the LTEE were accumulating degradative mutations much faster than any mutations that might with charity be called constructive:3
Interesting as it is, the ambiguous citrate mutation that started the hoopla is a side show. The overwhelmingly important and almost completely unnoticed lesson is that genes are being degraded left and right, both when they directly benefit the bacteria and when they do so indirectly in support of another mutation. The occasional, particularly noticeable modification-of-function or gain-of-FCT mutation can’t turn back the tide of damaging and loss-of-FCT ones.
The more molecular evolutionary work that rolls in, the more the above conclusion becomes a mere truism.
A Great Strength
In their new paper the Lenski group rightfully points out the great strength of its experimental evolutionary system.1
It is rarely feasible to examine evolution in action as organisms invade, colonize, and adapt to a new niche in nature, especially with independently evolving replicates and control populations. In this study, we investigated how E. coli variants with the new ability to grow aerobically on citrate adapted to a novel, citrate-only resource environment in the laboratory.
Exactly. That means the LTEE gives us our clearest insight into the general effects of Darwin’s mechanism, which continues to operate no matter what other processes may also be occurring (I’m looking at you, Extended Evolutionary Synthesis), no matter whether an organism is in a lab or in the wild, no matter which kind of organism — whether microbe, plant, or animal — is subject to its tender care. So, thanks to the Lenski group, we know that devolution is relentless — it never rests. In good times and bad, if a change in a species could help it adapt more closely to its environment, degradative mutations will arrive most quickly by far to offer their assistance. And, of course, under selective pressure a species has no choice but to accept helpful ones, even if that eventually leads to the species languishing. Thanks in very large part to the fine work done over decades at Michigan State we can now be certain that, like the citrate-eating E. coli, as an explanation for the great features of life Darwin’s theory itself is in a death spiral.
References
Photo: Richard Lenski, by Zachary Blount [CC BY-SA 4.0], from Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-18--Chance, Necessity, and Design

Chance, Necessity, and Design

ID supporters continue to send me emails about Josh Swamidass .
The latest hammers on a comment I made in 2008 at Uncommon Descent , namely : “ I ’ ve pretty much dispensed with the EF [ Explanatory Filter ] .
It suggests that chance , necessity , and design are mutually exclusive .
They are not .
Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.
” I would not write that now .
In my view the filter is just fine and it neither conflates nor falsely differentiates the three modes of explanation ( chance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comment back then should be seen as an unnecessary concession to critics , not as undercutting the filter per se .
To properly use the Explanatory Filter , it is vital to identify what exactly one is trying to explain .
Take a rusted automobile .
In Jonathan Waldman ’ s wonderful book Rust : The Longest War , one reads that an average car can lose 10 pounds of weight per year .
So , if one is trying to explain why a car after ten years has lost about 90-100 pounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a high probability event .
Is it chance or necessity ?
Rust , as with the kinetic theory of heat , is at base a probabilistic phenomenon , but when averaged over huge numbers of molecular events , the probabilities come so close to one that necessity becomes a natural explanation as well ( it ’ s no criticism of the filter if it allows chance and necessity to bleed into one another for events with probability extremely close to one ) .
What about the sagging of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It seems that can readily be explained by necessity .
What about the pattern or rust on the doors ?
It seems chance is as good an explanation here as any .
What about the structure of the chassis or the differential ?
Put that into the filter , and you ’ ll get design .
So let me reiterate : I really still like the Explanatory Filter , and any “ backing off ” I may have done reflects an unnecessary concession to critics .
Editor ’ s note : See also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Retirement ≠ Repudiation ” and “ Postscript on the Explanatory Filter.
” Cross-posted with permission from “ Freedom , Technology , Education.
” Photo : The work of rust on an automobile , by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash .

ID supporters continue to send me emails about Josh Swamidass. The latest hammers on a comment I made in 2008 at Uncommon Descent, namely: “I’ve pretty much dispensed with the EF [Explanatory Filter]. It suggests that chance, necessity, and design are mutually exclusive. They are not. Straight CSI is clearer as a criterion for design detection.”
I would not write that now. In my view the filter is just fine and it neither conflates nor falsely differentiates the three modes of explanation (chance, necessity, and design). My comment back then should be seen as an unnecessary concession to critics, not as undercutting the filter per se.
To properly use the Explanatory Filter, it is vital to identify what exactly one is trying to explain. Take a rusted automobile. In Jonathan Waldman’s wonderful book Rust: The Longest War, one reads that an average car can lose 10 pounds of weight per year. So, if one is trying to explain why a car after ten years has lost about 90-100 pounds, that is the result of rust. It’s a high probability event.
A Probabilistic Phenomenon
Is it chance or necessity? Rust, as with the kinetic theory of heat, is at base a probabilistic phenomenon, but when averaged over huge numbers of molecular events, the probabilities come so close to one that necessity becomes a natural explanation as well (it’s no criticism of the filter if it allows chance and necessity to bleed into one another for events with probability extremely close to one). What about the sagging of the car’s shocks over time? It seems that can readily be explained by necessity. What about the pattern or rust on the doors? It seems chance is as good an explanation here as any.
What about the structure of the chassis or the differential? Put that into the filter, and you’ll get design. So let me reiterate: I really still like the Explanatory Filter, and any “backing off” I may have done reflects an unnecessary concession to critics.
Editor’s note: See also Dr. Dembski’s earlier posts, “Retirement ≠ Repudiation” and “Postscript on the Explanatory Filter.” Cross-posted with permission from “Freedom, Technology, Education.”
Photo: The work of rust on an automobile, by Tim Mossholder on Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-18--Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 3 , “ Revolutionary.
” @ @ @ @ @ 20th anniversary of the publication of biochemist Michael Behe ’ s pathbreaking book Darwin ’ @ @ @ @ @ well as the 20th anniversary of the founding of Discovery Institute ’ s Center for @ @ @ @ @ celebrate , we wanted to do something special , and we came up with this @ @ @ @ @ Michael Behe and the people he influenced .
We hope you will learn things you @ @ @ @ @ .
Be sure to watch to the end for the timeline of key events in @ @ @ @ @ !
If you ’ d like us to create more videos like this one , @ @ @ @ @ our “ movie producers ” by donating to our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #3, “Revolutionary.”
The year 2016 marked the 20th anniversary of the publication of biochemist Michael Behe’s pathbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box, as well as the 20th anniversary of the founding of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. To celebrate, we wanted to do something special, and we came up with this documentary telling the story of Michael Behe and the people he influenced. We hope you will learn things you didn’t know before. Be sure to watch to the end for the timeline of key events in the history of intelligent design!
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-18--A Note from the Canaries

A Note from the Canaries

2020 is turning out to be an American annus horribilis .
After political turmoil in January we had a viral pandemic that killed a hundred thousand Americans and crashed our economy , destroying 40 million jobs .
In its wake we ’ ve had civil violence on a scale not seen since 1968 .
It seems that our nation — our civil contract — is falling apart .
Let us hope and pray it is not .
Perhaps the most terrifying characteristic of this collapse is the precipitous loss of ordinary civility and ordinary conventions of interpersonal conduct .
Diversity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dissenters from the mob are routinely hounded out of their jobs .
Groupthink is mandatory in many sectors of our society , particularly ( ironically ) in academia .
Simply to speak up to question orthodoxy is to invite professional and even personal ruin .
It is undeniable that there is a totalitarian flavor to this forced orthodoxy .
For those of us in the intelligent design movement , this is not new .
This emerging Orwellian society is just a grand version of the Orwellian science we ID folks have been dealing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In science , and especially in evolutionary biology , there has been a progressive loss of ordinary civility and ordinary conventions of scientific conduct .
Challenging Darwinian groupthink in the biology community — merely asking questions about the adequacy of Darwinian theory to explain all of life — is professional suicide .
Diversity of scientific opinion is not tolerated , and dissenters from the Darwinian mob have been hounded out of their jobs .
Simply to speak up to question Darwinian orthodoxy is to invite professional and personal ruin — subjecting Darwinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence is unthinkable in most public schools — and scientists — professional colleagues who should be devoted to academic freedom and open discussion — will testify that you should be silenced by legal force .
Forced Darwinian orthodoxy was the first glimmer of a much larger project now gaining stride .
We in the ID movement have been fighting censorship , mandated orthodoxy and professional destruction of dissenters for quite a while .
Most Americans are well-intentioned and support the ID perspective , but have not been motivated to work actively for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now clear that forced orthodoxy in science and in our society as a whole threatens all of us .
ID proponents have been the canaries in this coal mine .
Now that the spread of this cancer is obvious to all , we ask others in the scientific community and in America as a whole to join us in the struggle to preserve freedom of speech and thought and respect for diversity of opinion in our schools and universities and in our nation .

2020 is turning out to be an American annus horribilis. After political turmoil in January we had a viral pandemic that killed a hundred thousand Americans and crashed our economy, destroying 40 million jobs. In its wake we’ve had civil violence on a scale not seen since 1968. It seems that our nation — our civil contract — is falling apart. Let us hope and pray it is not.
Perhaps the most terrifying characteristic of this collapse is the precipitous loss of ordinary civility and ordinary conventions of interpersonal conduct. Diversity of opinion is not tolerated, and dissenters from the mob are routinely hounded out of their jobs. Groupthink is mandatory in many sectors of our society, particularly (ironically) in academia. Simply to speak up to question orthodoxy is to invite professional and even personal ruin. It is undeniable that there is a totalitarian flavor to this forced orthodoxy.
Orwellian Science
For those of us in the intelligent design movement, this is not new. This emerging Orwellian society is just a grand version of the Orwellian science we ID folks have been dealing with for the past couple of decades. In science, and especially in evolutionary biology, there has been a progressive loss of ordinary civility and ordinary conventions of scientific conduct. Challenging Darwinian groupthink in the biology community — merely asking questions about the adequacy of Darwinian theory to explain all of life — is professional suicide. Diversity of scientific opinion is not tolerated, and dissenters from the Darwinian mob have been hounded out of their jobs. Simply to speak up to question Darwinian orthodoxy is to invite professional and personal ruin — subjecting Darwinian orthodoxy to an objective discussion of the evidence is unthinkable in most public schools — and scientists — professional colleagues who should be devoted to academic freedom and open discussion — will testify that you should be silenced by legal force.
Forced Darwinian orthodoxy was the first glimmer of a much larger project now gaining stride. We in the ID movement have been fighting censorship, mandated orthodoxy and professional destruction of dissenters for quite a while. Most Americans are well-intentioned and support the ID perspective, but have not been motivated to work actively for the cause of academic freedom. It is now clear that forced orthodoxy in science and in our society as a whole threatens all of us. ID proponents have been the canaries in this coal mine. Now that the spread of this cancer is obvious to all, we ask others in the scientific community and in America as a whole to join us in the struggle to preserve freedom of speech and thought and respect for diversity of opinion in our schools and universities and in our nation.
Photo credit: Andreas P. via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-19--Save the Washington Monument. But How?

Save the Washington Monument. But How?

At dinner recently I said to my kids that I ’ m glad they ’ ve seen the Washington Monument in person because I ’ m not sure it will still be there in a year .
This was following nights of rioting when news helicopters showed fires in the capital obscuring the structure .
My oldest son scoffed .
“ They ’ re not talking about taking down the Washington Monument !
” Nobody would have predicted all the changes we ’ ve witnessed in 2020 , what seems to be evidence of national demoralization .
Freedom of assembly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the country , with hardly a protest ?
Revolutionary unrest in the cities ?
Statues and other monuments defaced or torn down ?
Serious discussion of abolishing the police ?
What will come next ?
Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture understands that ideas about origins underlie the culture ’ s attitude toward its past and its future .
The American people , and our leaders , are divided and uncertain about our heritage , with its basis in an understanding of man ’ s designed place in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a shot in the arm of positive reinforcement .
“ The birth of our republic was announced in the Declaration through the pen of Thomas Jefferson , ” as Stephen Meyer has written here .
“ He and the other Founders based their vision on a belief in an intrinsic human dignity , bestowed by virtue of our having been made according to the design and in the image of a purposeful creator.
” The Jefferson Memorial — there ’ s another one whose continuing intact survival I worry about .
The republic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ editor , I ’ d like to think that words can save our country .
But experience shows that words coupled with powerful images are the key .
That ’ s the reason we are seeking your support now in expanding the CSC ’ s program of excellent , provocative , and accessible videos .
Many of these have been written and directed by our CSC colleague John West .
All of them convey the message of a purposefully ordered universe .
One that has had a tremendous impact is Human Zoos : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Racism , documenting how false science undermines the traditional understanding of human dignity .
It ’ s had over 1.8 million views .
In just the last three months , our videos have had 1.3 million unique viewers .
Since last year , they have counted 6.3 million new views .
Free to Watch , Not to Make The crucial thing about these videos , including the upcoming continuation of the popular Science Uprising series , is that they are FREE on our YouTube channels .
However , producing more , and letting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NOT free .
Far from it .
You , our generous supporters , are aware of that , and we are grateful !
Now please help expand the reach of our message !
The need is urgent because another rapid evolution in the culture is toward controls on social and other online media .
Scientists are eyeing government censorship of intelligent design content on the Internet .
They ’ ve said so in the journal BioEssays .
Do you doubt that using YouTube to censor us would be very tempting ?
There could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with your help , we can reach millions of more viewers and make an important difference for the future .
Consider adding to your support now !

At dinner recently I said to my kids that I’m glad they’ve seen the Washington Monument in person because I’m not sure it will still be there in a year. This was following nights of rioting when news helicopters showed fires in the capital obscuring the structure. My oldest son scoffed. “They’re not talking about taking down the Washington Monument!”
“Not yet,” I said.
Nobody would have predicted all the changes we’ve witnessed in 2020, what seems to be evidence of national demoralization. Freedom of assembly and of worship canceled overnight across swaths of the country, with hardly a protest? Revolutionary unrest in the cities? Statues and other monuments defaced or torn down? Serious discussion of abolishing the police? What will come next?
Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture understands that ideas about origins underlie the culture’s attitude toward its past and its future. The American people, and our leaders, are divided and uncertain about our heritage, with its basis in an understanding of man’s designed place in the cosmos. What’s needed is a shot in the arm of positive reinforcement.
A Purposeful Creator
“The birth of our republic was announced in the Declaration through the pen of Thomas Jefferson,” as Stephen Meyer has written here. “He and the other Founders based their vision on a belief in an intrinsic human dignity, bestowed by virtue of our having been made according to the design and in the image of a purposeful creator.”
The Jefferson Memorial — there’s another one whose continuing intact survival I worry about. The republic stands at a crossroads. As an editor, I’d like to think that words can save our country. But experience shows that words coupled with powerful images are the key.
That’s the reason we are seeking your support now in expanding the CSC’s program of excellent, provocative, and accessible videos. Many of these have been written and directed by our CSC colleague John West. All of them convey the message of a purposefully ordered universe. One that has had a tremendous impact is Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism, documenting how false science undermines the traditional understanding of human dignity. It’s had over 1.8 million views.
In just the last three months, our videos have had 1.3 million unique viewers. Since last year, they have counted 6.3 million new views.
Free to Watch, Not to Make
The crucial thing about these videos, including the upcoming continuation of the popular Science Uprising series, is that they are FREE on our YouTube channels. However, producing more, and letting the world know about them, is NOT free. Far from it. You, our generous supporters, are aware of that, and we are grateful! Now please help expand the reach of our message!
The need is urgent because another rapid evolution in the culture is toward controls on social and other online media. Scientists are eyeing government censorship of intelligent design content on the Internet. They’ve said so in the journal BioEssays. Do you doubt that using YouTube to censor us would be very tempting?
There could be a narrowing time window in which, with your help, we can reach millions of more viewers and make an important difference for the future. Consider adding to your support now!
Photo credit: IIONA VIRGIN, via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-19--For Juneteenth, Watch Human Zoos

For Juneteenth, Watch Human Zoos

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each .
Today is Juneteenth , celebrating the freedom of American slaves in the South .
In recognition of the anniversary , here is our video # 4 , Human Zoos , an award-winning documentary exposing some of America ’ s history of scientific racism .
As we noted here earlier this week , the Confederacy justified slavery on 19th-century pseudo-scientific grounds , which survive today , proclaiming itself the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a good occasion to learn about and share this history .
According to the Oregon Documentary Film Festival , “ You have to see [ Human Zoos ] to believe it , and then wonder why they didn ’ t teach you this chapter in history class.
” Written and directed by John West , the film has been shown in the United States , Canada , and South Africa , and it became the first Center for Science & Culture YouTube video to receive more than 1 million views .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If you ’ d like us to create more videos like this one , please consider becoming one of our “ movie producers ” by donating to our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each.
Today is Juneteenth, celebrating the freedom of American slaves in the South. In recognition of the anniversary, here is our video #4, Human Zoos, an award-winning documentary exposing some of America’s history of scientific racism. As we noted here earlier this week, the Confederacy justified slavery on 19th-century pseudo-scientific grounds, which survive today, proclaiming itself the first “scientific” republic. So today is a good occasion to learn about and share this history.
According to the Oregon Documentary Film Festival, “You have to see [Human Zoos] to believe it, and then wonder why they didn’t teach you this chapter in history class.” Written and directed by John West, the film has been shown in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, and it became the first Center for Science & Culture YouTube video to receive more than 1 million views. It’s now up to 1.8+ million.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-19--The Information Enigma: A Closer Look

The Information Enigma: A Closer Look

The first video in our Intelligent Design YouTube Festival , “ The Information Enigma , ” consolidates the research and writing of Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe into a 21-minute video .
The presentation demonstrates how the information present in life points unambiguously to intelligent design .
This topic is central to intelligent design arguments and the ID research program .
Here I will flesh out in greater detail the concept of biological information , and I will explain why significant quantities of it can not be generated through natural processes .
A pioneer in the field of information theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of information to the reduction in uncertainty and to probability .
As an example , knowing the five-digit ZIP Code for an address eliminates uncertainty about a building ’ s location .
And , the four-digit extension to the ZIP Code provides additional information that reduces the uncertainty even further .
Conversely , randomly generating the correct five-digit ZIP Code corresponds to a probability of 1 in 100,000 , while generating the correct nine-digit ZIP Code corresponds to a probability of 1 in a billion .
The latter is much less probable , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Shannon quantified the amount of information in a pattern in what he defined as the Shannon measure of information .
In the simplest case , the quantity is proportional to the log of 1/p , where p is the probability of a pattern occurring by chance. For the five-digit code , p would be 1/100,000 , and 1/p would be 100,000 .
This measure can be thought of as the minimal number of answers to Yes-No questions that would be required to identify 1 out of N choices .
To illustrate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actor out of eight possible people .
If the answer to each question about the mystery individual eliminated half of the options , the correct answer could be determined with three questions .
Therefore , learning the answer corresponds to acquiring 3 bits of information .
Note that 2 to the power of 3 is 8 , or conversely , log ( base 2 ) of 8 is 3 .
Information theory has been applied to biology by such figures as Hubert Yockey .
In this context , Shannon ’ s definition had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patterns and those that performed some function. Shannon ’ s measure was modified to quantify “ functional information.
” The measure of functional information corresponds to the probability of a random pattern achieving some target goal .
For instance , if 1 in 1024 amino acid sequences formed a structure that accelerated a specific reaction , the functional information associated with that sequence would equate to 10 bits since 10 Yes-No questions would have to be asked to select 1 entity out of 1024 possibilities .
Mathematically , 2 to the power of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ base 2 ) of 1024 is 10 .
More advanced measures for functional information have been developed including algorithmic specified complexity and the more generalized canonical specified complexity .
They follow the same basic logic .
These measures help relate the information content of biological molecules and structures to their functional capacities .
The information content of a protein ’ s amino acid sequence directly relates to its ability to control chemical reactions or other processes .
In general , the higher the information content , the higher the level of fine-grained control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for elaborate molecular manipulations .
For amino acid sequences with higher information content are more specified , so they can fold into three-dimensional shapes of greater precision and complexity .
In turn , the higher specificity requirement corresponds to proteins being more susceptible to mutations — a few amino acid changes will often completely disable them .
Functional sequences are consequently less probable , which is another signature of greater information content .
This connection between information , sequence rarity , and complexity of function has profound implications for Doug Axe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probability for a random amino acid sequence to fold into one section ( domain ) of a functional β-lactamase protein is far too small for it to ever occur by chance .
Therefore , the information content is too great to originate through a random search .
Yet β-lactamase performs the relatively simple task of breaking apart an antibiotic molecule .
In contrast , many of the proteins required for the origin of life perform much more complex operations ( see here , here , and here ) .
The same holds true @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of new groups of organisms ( e.g.
, animal phyla ) .
Therefore , these proteins ’ information content must be even greater .
So the probability of their originating through a random search is even smaller .
This conclusion is deeply problematic for evolutionary theory since no natural process can generate quantities of information substantially larger than what could result from a random search .
The limitation results from No Free Lunch theorems as demonstrated by the research of Robert J .
Marks , Winston Ewert , and William Dembski ( see @ @ @ @ @ @ @ further supported by theorems derived from research in computer science .
For instance , computer scientist Leonid Levin demonstrated the “ conservation of independence ” in information-bearing systems .
He stated the following : The conservation law simply means that the information , I ( x : y ) , present in one system , x , coinciding with another , y , can not increase through any natural process .
A nearly identical conclusion comes from information theory in what is known as the data processing inequality .
It states that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be increased by any local physical operation .
In terms of evolution , the first system ( the signal ) could be a duplicated gene or a nonfunctional section of DNA freely mutating , and the second could be any functional protein sequence into which the gene/section could potentially evolve .
The theorems mandate that a DNA sequence ( x ) could never appreciably increase in functional information , such as more greatly resembling a new enzyme ( y ) .
This constraint makes the evolution of most novel proteins entirely implausible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how information points to intelligent design by the same logic used in the historical sciences .
In addition , the information processing machinery of life demonstrates unmistakable evidence of foresight , coordination , and goal direction .
And , these signatures unambiguously point to intelligent agency .
The same arguments hold true to an even greater degree for the origin of life .
The only pressing question is to what extent critics can continue to allow their philosophical bias to override biological information ’ s clear design implications .

The first video in our Intelligent Design YouTube Festival, “The Information Enigma,” consolidates the research and writing of Stephen Meyer and Douglas Axe into a 21-minute video. The presentation demonstrates how the information present in life points unambiguously to intelligent design. This topic is central to intelligent design arguments and the ID research program. Here I will flesh out in greater detail the concept of biological information, and I will explain why significant quantities of it cannot be generated through natural processes.
A Primer on Information
A pioneer in the field of information theory was Claude Shannon who connected the concept of information to the reduction in uncertainty and to probability. As an example, knowing the five-digit ZIP Code for an address eliminates uncertainty about a building’s location. And, the four-digit extension to the ZIP Code provides additional information that reduces the uncertainty even further. Conversely, randomly generating the correct five-digit ZIP Code corresponds to a probability of 1 in 100,000, while generating the correct nine-digit ZIP Code corresponds to a probability of 1 in a billion. The latter is much less probable, so the nine-digit code contains more information.
Shannon quantified the amount of information in a pattern in what he defined as the Shannon measure of information. In the simplest case, the quantity is proportional to the log of 1/p, where p is the probability of a pattern occurring by chance. For the five-digit code, p would be 1/100,000, and 1/p would be 100,000. This measure can be thought of as the minimal number of answers to Yes-No questions that would be required to identify 1 out of N choices. To illustrate, imagine attempting to identify a pre-chosen famous actor out of eight possible people. If the answer to each question about the mystery individual eliminated half of the options, the correct answer could be determined with three questions. Therefore, learning the answer corresponds to acquiring 3 bits of information. Note that 2 to the power of 3 is 8, or conversely, log (base 2) of 8 is 3.
Information and Biology
Information theory has been applied to biology by such figures as Hubert Yockey. In this context, Shannon’s definition had to be modified to distinguish between arbitrary patterns and those that performed some function. Shannon’s measure was modified to quantify “functional information.” The measure of functional information corresponds to the probability of a random pattern achieving some target goal. For instance, if 1 in 1024 amino acid sequences formed a structure that accelerated a specific reaction, the functional information associated with that sequence would equate to 10 bits since 10 Yes-No questions would have to be asked to select 1 entity out of 1024 possibilities. Mathematically, 2 to the power of 10 is 1024, or log (base 2) of 1024 is 10. More advanced measures for functional information have been developed including algorithmic specified complexity and the more generalized canonical specified complexity. They follow the same basic logic. These measures help relate the information content of biological molecules and structures to their functional capacities.
Information and Proteins
The information content of a protein’s amino acid sequence directly relates to its ability to control chemical reactions or other processes. In general, the higher the information content, the higher the level of fine-grained control over outcomes and the greater the capacity for elaborate molecular manipulations. For amino acid sequences with higher information content are more specified, so they can fold into three-dimensional shapes of greater precision and complexity. In turn, the higher specificity requirement corresponds to proteins being more susceptible to mutations — a few amino acid changes will often completely disable them. Functional sequences are consequently less probable, which is another signature of greater information content. This connection between information, sequence rarity, and complexity of function has profound implications for Doug Axe’s protein research.
Axe demonstrated that the probability for a random amino acid sequence to fold into one section (domain) of a functional β-lactamase protein is far too small for it to ever occur by chance. Therefore, the information content is too great to originate through a random search. Yet β-lactamase performs the relatively simple task of breaking apart an antibiotic molecule. In contrast, many of the proteins required for the origin of life perform much more complex operations (see here, here, and here). The same holds true for many proteins required in the construction of new groups of organisms (e.g., animal phyla). Therefore, these proteins’ information content must be even greater. So the probability of their originating through a random search is even smaller.
Information and Design
This conclusion is deeply problematic for evolutionary theory since no natural process can generate quantities of information substantially larger than what could result from a random search. The limitation results from No Free Lunch theorems as demonstrated by the research of Robert J. Marks, Winston Ewert, and William Dembski (see here and here). It is further supported by theorems derived from research in computer science. For instance, computer scientist Leonid Levin demonstrated the “conservation of independence” in information-bearing systems. He stated the following:
The information I(x:y) has a remarkable invariance; it cannot be increased by random or deterministic (recursive) processing of x or y. This is natural, since if x contains no information about y then there is little hope to find out something about y by processing x. (Torturing an uninformed witness cannot give information about the crime!)
The conservation law simply means that the information, I(x:y), present in one system, x, coinciding with another, y, cannot increase through any natural process. A nearly identical conclusion comes from information theory in what is known as the data processing inequality. It states that the information content of a signal cannot be increased by any local physical operation.
In terms of evolution, the first system (the signal) could be a duplicated gene or a nonfunctional section of DNA freely mutating, and the second could be any functional protein sequence into which the gene/section could potentially evolve. The theorems mandate that a DNA sequence (x) could never appreciably increase in functional information, such as more greatly resembling a new enzyme (y). This constraint makes the evolution of most novel proteins entirely implausible.
In the video, Stephen Meyer explains how information points to intelligent design by the same logic used in the historical sciences. In addition, the information processing machinery of life demonstrates unmistakable evidence of foresight, coordination, and goal direction. And, these signatures unambiguously point to intelligent agency. The same arguments hold true to an even greater degree for the origin of life. The only pressing question is to what extent critics can continue to allow their philosophical bias to override biological information’s clear design implications.
Image: A scene from “The Information Enigma,” via Discovery Institute.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-20--James Tour on the Riddle of Life’s Beginnings

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science and Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 5 , an episode from @ @ @ @ @ ” A filmmaker from Hollywood contacted us with the vision of creating a sharp-edged YouTube @ @ @ @ @ “ Science Uprising.
” The series drew on the talents of a lot of young @ @ @ @ @ industry .
Here ’ s the installment on the origin of life featuring renowned scientist @ @ @ @ @ .
If you ’ d like us to create more videos like this one , @ @ @ @ @ our “ movie producers ” by donating to our video production fund .

Photo: James Tour in a scene from Science Uprising, via Discovery Institute.
From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science and Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #5, an episode from our series “Science Uprising.”
A filmmaker from Hollywood contacted us with the vision of creating a sharp-edged YouTube series, which ultimately became “Science Uprising.” The series drew on the talents of a lot of young professionals from the commercial television industry. Here’s the installment on the origin of life featuring renowned scientist James Tour of Rice University.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-21--Signature in the Cell: Stephen Meyer Faces His Critics

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 6 .
In addition to @ @ @ @ @ we also post lectures by our scientists and scholars .
This is one of the @ @ @ @ @ speaking to a large live audience about his book Signature in the Cell .
If @ @ @ @ @ to create more videos like this one , please consider becoming one of our “ @ @ @ @ @ to our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #6. In addition to producing documentaries and animations, we also post lectures by our scientists and scholars. This is one of the best: Dr. Stephen Meyer speaking to a large live audience about his book Signature in the Cell.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-22--The Atheist Who Helped Shape Intelligent Design

It ’ s wonderful to remember mentors who helped shaped us , often in ways that might have surprised the influential person if he ’ d known about it beforehand .
On a new episode of ID the Future , philosopher of science Paul Nelson talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about Dr. Nelson ’ s own mentor , atheist philosopher Adolf Grünbaum ( 1923-2018 ) at the University of Pittsburgh .
Nelson was an ex-art student turned philsophy graduate student when he met Grünbaum .
Paul cites William Blake and his saying that “ Opposition is true friendship.
” It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s perspective that Nelson became a prominent figure in the ID movement , but rather from their friendship and the creative sparks that came from it , inspiring a lifelong search for truth .
Nelson discusses the difference between truth-seeking and point-scoring as different approaches in navigating scientific and other controversies .
It ’ s important advice .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Photo at the top : Adolf Grünbaum , a screenshot from “ GrunbaumEngage , ” a tribute by the Center for Philosophy of Science , @ @ @ @

It’s wonderful to remember mentors who helped shaped us, often in ways that might have surprised the influential person if he’d known about it beforehand. On a new episode of ID the Future, philosopher of science Paul Nelson talks with host Andrew McDiarmid about Dr. Nelson’s own mentor, atheist philosopher Adolf Grünbaum (1923-2018) at the University of Pittsburgh.
Nelson was an ex-art student turned philosophy undergraduate when he met Grünbaum. Paul cites William Blake and his saying that “Opposition is true friendship.” It wasn’t from directly absorbing Grünbaum’s perspective that Nelson became a prominent figure in the ID movement, but rather from their friendship and the creative sparks that came from it, inspiring a lifelong search for truth.
Nelson discusses the difference between truth-seeking and point-scoring as different approaches in navigating scientific and other controversies. It’s important advice. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo at the top: Adolf Grünbaum, a screenshot from “GrunbaumEngage,” a tribute by the Center for Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-22--Bits and Bytes at the Bottom

Bits and Bytes at the Bottom

Editor ’ s note : Ken Pedersen holds a PhD in electrical engineering and is a retired Vice President of Raytheon .
Jonathan Witt is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture and the author or co-author of numerous articles and books .
A version of this article appears in Salvo 52 .
It is published here with permission of the authors .
Scientific materialism is an atheistic worldview that sees all reality as the result of accidental collisions and combinations of elementary particles governed by a mysteriously fortuitous set of laws that control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a worldview devoid of higher meaning and purpose .
Today , scientific materialism has captured much of the academic world .
Science itself has virtually come to be defined as the study of this mechanical , robotic , meaningless , accidental combination of particles of matter and energy .
Any belief in design , purpose , ultimate meaning , inherent values , morality , or beauty is ridiculed as equivalent to belief in the Easter Bunny .
Although scientific materialists in the last century didn ’ t usually pretend to have all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it was only a matter of time before any shortcomings in their paradigm would be shored up by fresh discoveries .
But a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century .
The computer revolution and information age , combined with advances in microscopy and theoretical physics , have transformed our understanding of the power of information processing and opened our eyes to the deep structures of physical reality .
The central insight : the essence of the physical world is energy and information .
There is no such thing as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the substructure of physical reality is an unbelievably complex network of interlocking information-processing systems all working in harmony to afford progressively more capable information-processing systems .
As the renowned theoretical physicist John Wheeler put it , “ It from Bit.
” That is , the subatomic realm , along with the laws and constants of physics , which guide and shape physical interactions large and small , are shot through with information .
And the information isn ’ t just along for the ride .
The material it is literally in-formed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a fall 1989 paper,1 “ It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom , in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation.
” We now know that three quantum fields undergird physical reality — the electron , the up quark and the down quark .
These “ particles ” are in fact tiny clouds of pure energy .
And somehow , they encode digital information for establishing what is known as a particle ’ s quantum state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not visualize what this ghostly energy is .
But we do know that it can not be created or destroyed by any natural power .
We also know that we can use mathematics to model how these tiny clouds of digital information behave as they flow through time and combine to undergird larger and larger patterns of energy and information .
Information All the Way Down Think about it .
There is a form of digital computing constantly whirring along at the quantum-field level of reality .
And that digital computing proceeds upward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate , guide , and allow for atoms , radiant energy , hydrogen clouds , galaxies , stars , stardust , planets , molecular chemistry , the DNA-RNA information-coding system , a living cell , multi-cellular life , ecosystems , and ultimately conscious human minds with a capacity for perception , memory , emotions , learning , curiosity , imagination , free will , creativity , and language .
Since these patterns overlap and interfuse one another , the boundary line between one information layer and another is not always neat and discrete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
Below the quantum layer — or we might say , interpenetrating and informing the quantum layer — are the rule sets governing the fundamental forces of electromagnetism , gravity , and the strong and weak nuclear forces .
Without those precisely tuned rule sets , there are no atoms more complicated than hydrogen — and really , good luck even getting hydrogen .
Also , no stars and galaxies , no planets , no life .
Above the level of quantum “ particles ” is the atomic layer of information processing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the myriad of chemical compounds that make stars and a planet such as Earth possible .
Other layers include the information-processing found in DNA and RNA , the accompanying layer found in the amino acids that code for proteins , the higher-level information-processing systems at the cellular level , and on up the hierarchy to the extraordinary information-processing that occurs in conscious creatures such as ourselves , able to unravel and marvel over these layered networks .
Anyone who understands our current scientific knowledge base has to live in awe of existence , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , of the purposeful flow of energy and information underpinning both matter and man , of the absolute necessity of all of this for the functioning of our brains and the magnificent physical and mental gifts humans have been given .
One of us ( Ken ) brings to this a background in computer information processing , mathematics , and physics , along with a career as a system engineer working on advanced information-processing systems and sensors , and overseeing the development of sophisticated missile systems .
That advanced technology is all about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sophistication of those systems is dwarfed by the that of the information systems that undergird nature .
Science can observe what each of these information-processing layers does and , in many cases , accurately model its behavior .
Each layer of the design is unique , stunningly complex , and precisely tuned to interface with its adjoining layers .
However , a science wedded to materialism can not explain how the layers came to be or why they exist .
Ken ’ s recent book , Modern Science Proves Intelligent Design ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reader through the systematic emergence of all of these progressively more complex information-processing layers .
The origin of the total design is a baffling mystery to scientific materialists .
However , for any scientist willing simply to follow the evidence , one purpose of it all strongly suggests itself .
Physical reality is designed as a multilayered information-processing system to guide the flow of energy and information from the elemental level of quantum computing up to the miraculous information processing found amidst the neural networks of the human mind .
Some may object @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the vast reaches of the cosmos , with its billions and billions of galaxies stretching across billions of light years , isn ’ t solely about human beings .
We don ’ t claim otherwise .
If the universe is the work of purposive design , it quite likely has many purposes .
We are only arguing that the layer upon layer of information-processing systems fine-tuned to allow for that most impressive of natural information-processing systems , the human mind/brain , has for one of its purposes creatures like ourselves .
As the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ put it , “ The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture , the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.
” 2 Dyson isn ’ t alone .
Many theoretical physicists now recognize the sobering challenge of random accidents creating the multi-layered information-processing system one accidental rule at a time and then accidentally self-assembling these accidental rules into the magnificently complex and bizarre system of tiny clouds of energy that constantly process digital information at the speed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forms the structure of physical reality could not have sprung from a fortuitous string of a few billion random accidents ( make that a few quadzillion accidents if you include the DNA program ) .
It is mathematically impossible .
Instead , the fact that each layer is the precise foundational layer for all of the subsequent higher layers of more complex information processing strongly suggests that each layer was foreseen , and intelligently designed for a purpose .
All of this means that the victory lap for the scientific materialists has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , they are scrambling to save their accidental universe .
Also , there is an irony in the way many of them are going about it .
After generations of labeling their opponents as irrational and anti-science , many of these materialists now appeal to a kind of supernatural genie to save their accidental universe — the claim that beyond the space and time of our universe is a myriad — perhaps an infinity — of other universes , with ours simply being one of the lucky ones fine-tuned to allow for advanced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the genie known as the multiverse , everything happens somewhere , so why not humans here ?
Yes , that is their solution .
They dream of genie .

Editor’s note: Ken Pedersen holds a PhD in electrical engineering and is a retired Vice President of Raytheon. Jonathan Witt is a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture and the author or co-author of numerous articles and books. A version of this article appears in Salvo 52. It is published here with permission of the authors.
Scientific materialism is an atheistic worldview that sees all reality as the result of accidental collisions and combinations of elementary particles governed by a mysteriously fortuitous set of laws that control how matter interacts. It’s a worldview devoid of higher meaning and purpose.
Today, scientific materialism has captured much of the academic world. Science itself has virtually come to be defined as the study of this mechanical, robotic, meaningless, accidental combination of particles of matter and energy. Any belief in design, purpose, ultimate meaning, inherent values, morality, or beauty is ridiculed as equivalent to belief in the Easter Bunny.
Although scientific materialists in the last century didn’t usually pretend to have all the answers, most did express confidence that it was only a matter of time before any shortcomings in their paradigm would be shored up by fresh discoveries.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the 21st century.
It from Bit
The computer revolution and information age, combined with advances in microscopy and theoretical physics, have transformed our understanding of the power of information processing and opened our eyes to the deep structures of physical reality. The central insight: the essence of the physical world is energy and information. There is no such thing as mere “solid” matter. Instead, the substructure of physical reality is an unbelievably complex network of interlocking information-processing systems all working in harmony to afford progressively more capable information-processing systems.
As the renowned theoretical physicist John Wheeler put it, “It from Bit.” That is, the subatomic realm, along with the laws and constants of physics, which guide and shape physical interactions large and small, are shot through with information. And the information isn’t just along for the ride. The material it is literally in-formed by immaterial in-formation. Or as Wheeler elaborated in a fall 1989 paper,1 “It from Bit symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation.”
We now know that three quantum fields undergird physical reality — the electron, the up quark and the down quark. These “particles” are in fact tiny clouds of pure energy. And somehow, they encode digital information for establishing what is known as a particle’s quantum state.
We do not understand and cannot visualize what this ghostly energy is. But we do know that it cannot be created or destroyed by any natural power. We also know that we can use mathematics to model how these tiny clouds of digital information behave as they flow through time and combine to undergird larger and larger patterns of energy and information.
Information All the Way Down
Think about it. There is a form of digital computing constantly whirring along at the quantum-field level of reality. And that digital computing proceeds upward through the information-processing capacities that emerge to generate, guide, and allow for atoms, radiant energy, hydrogen clouds, galaxies, stars, stardust, planets, molecular chemistry, the DNA-RNA information-coding system, a living cell, multi-cellular life, ecosystems, and ultimately conscious human minds with a capacity for perception, memory, emotions, learning, curiosity, imagination, free will, creativity, and language.
Since these patterns overlap and interfuse one another, the boundary line between one information layer and another is not always neat and discrete, but we can still profitably delineate them. Below the quantum layer — or we might say, interpenetrating and informing the quantum layer — are the rule sets governing the fundamental forces of electromagnetism, gravity, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. Without those precisely tuned rule sets, there are no atoms more complicated than hydrogen — and really, good luck even getting hydrogen. Also, no stars and galaxies, no planets, no life.
Above the level of quantum “particles” is the atomic layer of information processing, where the various atoms combine into the myriad of chemical compounds that make stars and a planet such as Earth possible. Other layers include the information-processing found in DNA and RNA, the accompanying layer found in the amino acids that code for proteins, the higher-level information-processing systems at the cellular level, and on up the hierarchy to the extraordinary information-processing that occurs in conscious creatures such as ourselves, able to unravel and marvel over these layered networks.
Higher than High Tech
Anyone who understands our current scientific knowledge base has to live in awe of existence, of this multi-layered structure of physical reality, of the purposeful flow of energy and information underpinning both matter and man, of the absolute necessity of all of this for the functioning of our brains and the magnificent physical and mental gifts humans have been given.
One of us (Ken) brings to this a background in computer information processing, mathematics, and physics, along with a career as a system engineer working on advanced information-processing systems and sensors, and overseeing the development of sophisticated missile systems. That advanced technology is all about layer upon layer of information-processing. But the sophistication of those systems is dwarfed by the that of the information systems that undergird nature.
Where Science Takes Us
Science can observe what each of these information-processing layers does and, in many cases, accurately model its behavior. Each layer of the design is unique, stunningly complex, and precisely tuned to interface with its adjoining layers. However, a science wedded to materialism cannot explain how the layers came to be or why they exist.
Ken’s recent book, Modern Science Proves Intelligent Design (Archway, 2019), walks the reader through the systematic emergence of all of these progressively more complex information-processing layers. The origin of the total design is a baffling mystery to scientific materialists. However, for any scientist willing simply to follow the evidence, one purpose of it all strongly suggests itself. Physical reality is designed as a multilayered information-processing system to guide the flow of energy and information from the elemental level of quantum computing up to the miraculous information processing found amidst the neural networks of the human mind.
Some may object that this is anthropic narcissism. Surely the vast reaches of the cosmos, with its billions and billions of galaxies stretching across billions of light years, isn’t solely about human beings. We don’t claim otherwise. If the universe is the work of purposive design, it quite likely has many purposes. We are only arguing that the layer upon layer of information-processing systems fine-tuned to allow for that most impressive of natural information-processing systems, the human mind/brain, has for one of its purposes creatures like ourselves. As the great mathematician and theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson put it, “The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known that we were coming.”2
Dyson isn’t alone. Many theoretical physicists now recognize the sobering challenge of random accidents creating the multi-layered information-processing system one accidental rule at a time and then accidentally self-assembling these accidental rules into the magnificently complex and bizarre system of tiny clouds of energy that constantly process digital information at the speed of light. This layered network that forms the structure of physical reality could not have sprung from a fortuitous string of a few billion random accidents (make that a few quadzillion accidents if you include the DNA program). It is mathematically impossible.
Instead, the fact that each layer is the precise foundational layer for all of the subsequent higher layers of more complex information processing strongly suggests that each layer was foreseen, and intelligently designed for a purpose.
Multiverse Magic
All of this means that the victory lap for the scientific materialists has been put on hold, indefinitely. Instead, they are scrambling to save their accidental universe.
Also, there is an irony in the way many of them are going about it. After generations of labeling their opponents as irrational and anti-science, many of these materialists now appeal to a kind of supernatural genie to save their accidental universe — the claim that beyond the space and time of our universe is a myriad — perhaps an infinity — of other universes, with ours simply being one of the lucky ones fine-tuned to allow for advanced life. In essence, thanks to the genie known as the multiverse, everything happens somewhere, so why not humans here?
Yes, that is their solution. They dream of genie.
Notes:
Photo credit: Michael Dziedzic via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-22--Stephen Meyer: God and the Origin of the Universe

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 7 .
It is another @ @ @ @ @ cosmology and intelligent design , delivered to an audience of nearly 1,000 people at the @ @ @ @ @ and Faith .
If you ’ d like us to create more videos like this @ @ @ @ @ one of our “ movie producers ” by donating to our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #7.
It is another lecture by Stephen Meyer on cosmology and intelligent design, delivered to an audience of nearly 1,000 people at the 2019 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-23--The Biology of the Second Reich

The Biology of the Second Reich

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 8 , “ The Biology @ @ @ @ @ Darwinism isn ’ t just bad for science .
It ’ s been bad for @ @ @ @ @ tells the little known story of Darwinism ’ s influence on Germany before World War @ @ @ @ @ in the genocide against the Herero people in German Southwest Africa .
A couple of @ @ @ @ @ YouTube suddenly restricted the video to older viewers ( and rejected our appeal to lift @ @ @ @ @ you will need to log-in to your YouTube account to view it .
If you @ @ @ @ @ create more videos like this one , please consider becoming one of our “ movie @ @ @ @ @ our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #8, “The Biology of the Second Reich.”
Darwinism isn’t just bad for science. It’s been bad for society. This award-winning documentary tells the little known story of Darwinism’s influence on Germany before World War I, including its role in the genocide against the Herero people in German Southwest Africa. A couple of years after its debut, YouTube suddenly restricted the video to older viewers (and rejected our appeal to lift the restriction) — so you will need to log-in to your YouTube account to view it.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-23--Science as Politics — An Evolutionist’s Admission

That swaths of science are animated in large part by ideology has been a theme of writers for Evolution News forever ( see , for example , here , here , here , here , and here ) .
Most evolutionists would dispute the contention as far as their own thinking goes .
They would insist that their science bears no taint of an ideological agenda .
Scientists like themselves are above that !
Yet if the one-two punch of the coronavirus and nationwide urban unrest teaches anything , it ’ s that a scientist is like anyone else — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” as Aristotle put it .
Our Discovery Institute colleague Chris Rufo , with the Center on Wealth & Poverty , reports on a monumental demonstration of that fact : how public-health and other scientists flipped their stance on social distancing , almost overnight , when a favored political cause beckoned .
As a clear illustration he gives evolutionary biologist Carl Bergstrom .
Rufo writes at Discovery ’ s Wealth and Poverty Review ( cross-posted from City Journal ) : Early in the pandemic , University of Washington professor Carl Bergstrom established himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Imperial College model that predicted up to 2.2 million American deaths and arguing that the health-care system would be “ overrun.
” During the initial lockdowns , Bergstrom warned against “ kids hanging out by the lake , ” criticized Florida for “ leaving beaches open , ” and mocked leaders who “ want us all back in church on Easter Sunday.
” Bergstrom ’ s subsequent conversion to “ woke science , ” however , was swift and absolute .
On May 27 , before the death of George Floyd @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he would wear a mask while walking alone in a public park , even if there is “ only a 1-in-100,000 chance [ to ] save a life.
” Three days later , after the outbreak of protests in Minneapolis and other cities , he tweeted that he was “ heartbroken by the endemic state violence against people of color in America ” and was reading Ibram X. Kendi ’ s book , How to Be an Antiracist .
A few days later , Bergstrom conceded that “ science is an inherently political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making the dubious claim that millions of protesters rallying , chanting , and gathering in close quarters wouldn ’ t necessarily spread Covid-19 — and even if they did , he “ wholeheartedly support [ ed ] the protests nonetheless.
” Here ’ s the problem : Bergstrom and other public-health experts persuaded Americans that their advice on the pandemic response was driven exclusively by science and underwritten by cold fact .
They argued that politics should be subordinated to scientific knowledge — but when the political grounds shifted , they immediately reversed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is especially damning .
In less than a week , he made the moral leap from recommending behavioral modification for a “ 1-in-100,000 chance ” of death to supporting protests that , according to his colleague Trevor Bedford , could cause up to 4,000 Covid-19 deaths .
Nature may not make jumps , but Carl Bergstrom sure does .
I ’ m not judging either the science of social distancing or the politics of recent protests .
The content of the protests is not at issue here .
Professor Bergstrom ’ s point @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about .
His abrupt saltation can be explained only one way , as he himself puts it , by recognizing how “ science is an inherently political activity.
” What an honest and helpful thing to say !
I ’ m sorry I hadn ’ t heard of Dr. Bergstrom before , but I see politics and pandemics are not his only interests .
An article for NBC News praises him for his stance on COVID and notes too that he ’ s been a critic of intelligent design : His new book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bull**** : The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven Word .
According to his Wikipedia page , that ’ s also the title of a class he teaches at the University of Washington .
The book explains , “ We have always needed people who call bull**** when necessary , whether within a circle of friends , a community of scholars , or the citizenry of a nation.
” Agreed , and this has been the role of the ID community and other Darwin skeptics in the “ evolution wars.
” In that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and his example , are going to come in handy .
File this one away for future reference .
Photo : A June 3 protest in Seattle with minimal opportunity for social distancing , by SounderBruce , via Wikimedia Commons .

That swaths of science are animated in large part by ideology has been a theme of writers for Evolution News forever (see, for example, here, here, here, here, and here). Most evolutionists would dispute the contention as far as their own thinking goes. They would insist that their science bears no taint of an ideological agenda. Scientists like themselves are above that!
Yet if the one-two punch of the coronavirus and nationwide urban unrest teaches anything, it’s that a scientist is like anyone else — “by nature a political animal,” as Aristotle put it. Our Discovery Institute colleague Chris Rufo, with the Center on Wealth & Poverty, reports on a monumental demonstration of that fact: how public-health and other scientists flipped their stance on social distancing, almost overnight, when a favored political cause beckoned.
Danger by the Lake
As a clear illustration he gives evolutionary biologist Carl Bergstrom. Rufo writes at Discovery’s Wealth and Poverty Review (cross-posted from City Journal):
Early in the pandemic, University of Washington professor Carl Bergstrom established himself as a coronavirus hawk, defending Britain’s Imperial College model that predicted up to 2.2 million American deaths and arguing that the health-care system would be “overrun.” During the initial lockdowns, Bergstrom warned against “kids hanging out by the lake,” criticized Florida for “leaving beaches open,” and mocked leaders who “want us all back in church on Easter Sunday.” Bergstrom’s subsequent conversion to “woke science,” however, was swift and absolute. On May 27, before the death of George Floyd dominated the news, the professor insisted he would wear a mask while walking alone in a public park, even if there is “only a 1-in-100,000 chance [to] save a life.” Three days later, after the outbreak of protests in Minneapolis and other cities, he tweeted that he was “heartbroken by the endemic state violence against people of color in America” and was reading Ibram X. Kendi’s book, How to Be an Antiracist. A few days later, Bergstrom conceded that “science is an inherently political activity” and endorsed the protests, making the dubious claim that millions of protesters rallying, chanting, and gathering in close quarters wouldn’t necessarily spread Covid-19 — and even if they did, he “wholeheartedly support[ed] the protests nonetheless.” Here’s the problem: Bergstrom and other public-health experts persuaded Americans that their advice on the pandemic response was driven exclusively by science and underwritten by cold fact. They argued that politics should be subordinated to scientific knowledge — but when the political grounds shifted, they immediately reversed that formulation. Bergson’s case is especially damning. In less than a week, he made the moral leap from recommending behavioral modification for a “1-in-100,000 chance” of death to supporting protests that, according to his colleague Trevor Bedford, could cause up to 4,000 Covid-19 deaths.
Nature may not make jumps, but Carl Bergstrom sure does. I’m not judging either the science of social distancing or the politics of recent protests. The content of the protests is not at issue here. Professor Bergstrom’s point would be Illuminating, whatever they were about. His abrupt saltation can be explained only one way, as he himself puts it, by recognizing how “science is an inherently political activity.” What an honest and helpful thing to say!
A Critic of ID
I’m sorry I hadn’t heard of Dr. Bergstrom before, but I see politics and pandemics are not his only interests. An article for NBC News praises him for his stance on COVID and notes too that he’s been a critic of intelligent design:
“I was involved to some degree in the so-called evolution wars and arguments about intelligent design and creationism,” [Bergstrom] said. “But I just really like talking to people about science.”
His new book, out in August, is Calling Bull****: The Art of Skepticism in a Data-Driven Word. According to his Wikipedia page, that’s also the title of a class he teaches at the University of Washington. The book explains, “We have always needed people who call bull**** when necessary, whether within a circle of friends, a community of scholars, or the citizenry of a nation.” Agreed, and this has been the role of the ID community and other Darwin skeptics in the “evolution wars.” In that effort, Bergstrom’s admission, and his example, are going to come in handy. File this one away for future reference.
Photo: A June 3 protest in Seattle with minimal opportunity for social distancing, by SounderBruce, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-24--In the NGSS, a Dogmatic Standard on Evolution

Inaccurate teaching about evolution is widespread , as Jonathan Wells ’ s review of textbooks shows .
The 2013 Next Generation Science Standards ( NGSS , which most states have adopted verbatim or used to inform their science standards , are one sided on the issue as well .
I ’ ve recently been perusing Proficiency Scales for the New Science Standards : A Framework for Science Instruction and Assessment , by Robert J. Marzano and David C. Yanoski .
Marzano is a big name in education .
The Marzano Framework and the Danielson Framework are the two most prominent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frameworks that help teachers grade students according to a state standard , to measure their progress of learning .
This book provides proficiency scales for each of the NGSS .
Proficiency scales are generally on a 4-point scale , with a score of 3 meaning meets standard .
2 .
A score of 4 means a student “ demonstrates in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond what was taught ” according to Marzano .
Scores lower than 2 demonstrate partial success at 2 , with or without teacher help .
I ’ d @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of the most dogmatic standards on evolution in the NGSS : Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence ( for example , communicate orally , graphically , or textually to give evidence for common ancestry and biological evolution — such as similarities in DNA sequences , anatomical structures , and the order of appearance of structures in embryological development — and to explain how each line of evidence relates to common ancestry and biological evolution ) .
What does Marzano list for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : ( a ) Recognize or recall specific vocabulary ( for example , anatomical structure , biochemical characteristic , biological evolution , common ancestry , degree of kinship , development , DNA sequence , embryological , evidence for unity of life , order of appearance , origin of life , phylogenetics , shared characteristic , similarity , structure ) .
( b ) Describe similarities in DNA sequences , anatomical structures , and order of appearance of structures in embryological development of various organisms .
( c ) Describe the process of biological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Do ?
Let ’ s analyze each of these in turn .
For ( a ) some of these vocabulary terms are a great choice , but some are somewhat complex to define ( origin of life or biological evolution , for example ) .
More importantly , there are issues with using phylogenetics and embryological development as evidence for common ancestry and biological evolution .
Okay , ( b ) .
Jonathan Wells ( Icons of Evolution , Zombie Science both address this ) and others have written extensively on homology and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fail to support evolution .
And ( c ) .
Well , scientists are still trying to figure out how to “ describe the process of biological evolution.
” A student performing below standard is supposed to be able to do this ?
And what specifically is the student to describe — neo-Darwinian theory ?
Genetic drift ?
Evo-devo ?
The Marzano proficiency scales are undoubtedly used by a myriad of science teachers .
At least on evolution , that ’ s contributing to inaccurate education .

Inaccurate teaching about evolution is widespread, as Jonathan Wells’s review of textbooks shows. The 2013 Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS, which most states have adopted verbatim or used to inform their science standards) are one sided on the issue as well.
I’ve recently been perusing Proficiency Scales for the New Science Standards: A Framework for Science Instruction and Assessment, by Robert J. Marzano and David C. Yanoski. Marzano is a big name in education. The Marzano Framework and the Danielson Framework are the two most prominent teacher evaluation models. Proficiency scales are frameworks that help teachers grade students according to a state standard, to measure their progress of learning.
This book provides proficiency scales for each of the NGSS. Proficiency scales are generally on a 4-point scale, with a score of 3 meaning meets standard. 2. A score of 4 means a student “demonstrates in-depth inferences and applications that go beyond what was taught” according to Marzano. Scores lower than 2 demonstrate partial success at 2, with or without teacher help.
A Dogmatic Standard
I’d like to examine the proficiency scale for one of the most dogmatic standards on evolution in the NGSS:
Communicate scientific information that common ancestry and biological evolution are supported by multiple lines of empirical evidence (for example, communicate orally, graphically, or textually to give evidence for common ancestry and biological evolution — such as similarities in DNA sequences, anatomical structures, and the order of appearance of structures in embryological development — and to explain how each line of evidence relates to common ancestry and biological evolution).
What does Marzano list for score 2.0 criteria? The student will:
(a) Recognize or recall specific vocabulary (for example, anatomical structure, biochemical characteristic, biological evolution, common ancestry, degree of kinship, development, DNA sequence, embryological, evidence for unity of life, order of appearance, origin of life, phylogenetics, shared characteristic, similarity, structure). (b) Describe similarities in DNA sequences, anatomical structures, and order of appearance of structures in embryological development of various organisms. (c) Describe the process of biological evolution.
What Is a Student to Do?
Let’s analyze each of these in turn. For (a) some of these vocabulary terms are a great choice, but some are somewhat complex to define (origin of life or biological evolution, for example). More importantly, there are issues with using phylogenetics and embryological development as evidence for common ancestry and biological evolution. Okay, (b). Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution, Zombie Science both address this) and others have written extensively on homology and embryology in the past and how they fail to support evolution. And (c). Well, scientists are still trying to figure out how to “describe the process of biological evolution.” A student performing below standard is supposed to be able to do this? And what specifically is the student to describe — neo-Darwinian theory? Genetic drift? Evo-devo?
The Marzano proficiency scales are undoubtedly used by a myriad of science teachers. At least on evolution, that’s contributing to inaccurate education.
Photo credit: Yustinus Tjiuwanda via Unsplash.


Privileged Species

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 9 , “ Privileged Species.
@ @ @ @ @ negative influence on our conceptions of human dignity and uniqueness .
But geneticist Michael Denton @ @ @ @ @ the way to the specialness of all humanity .
This video was inspired by Denton @ @ @ @ @ his book Nature ’ s Destiny .
We hope you are inspired too !
And @ @ @ @ @ up on Denton ’ s ideas , read his more recent books Fire-Maker , The @ @ @ @ @ Children of Light .
If you ’ d like us to create more videos like @ @ @ @ @ becoming one of our “ movie producers ” by donating to our video production fund @

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #9, “Privileged Species.”
Darwinism has had a negative influence on our conceptions of human dignity and uniqueness. But geneticist Michael Denton thinks science is now pointing the way to the specialness of all humanity. This video was inspired by Denton’s vision presented in his book Nature’s Destiny. We hope you are inspired too! And if you want to follow up on Denton’s ideas, read his more recent books Fire-Maker, The Wonder of Water, and Children of Light.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.