evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-23--C. S. Lewis Helps Us See Design in Three Dimensions

C. S. Lewis , the beloved apologist , was not always a Christian .
He suffered greatly in his younger years , having lost his mother at an early age , and having survived years of unpleasantness in boarding schools .
Then , as a young man , he volunteered to go to the front in World War I , where he saw horrors that most of us would find hard to imagine , and was wounded .
All of this colored his view of the world .
He saw the world as a place of darkness , disease , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I mean that the world was not the result of a benevolent creator ’ s intelligently ordered process but rather the result of chance and purely natural causes , without guidance or purpose , with no goal , in a meaningless universe that cared nothing for us .
We are as nothing in the immensity of the cosmos and of no importance .
Three weeks before he died , the astronomer Carl Sagan expressed this idea in an interview with Ted Koppel : This bleak perspective is shared by many in the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think the world is a place of disease , death , and un-design , and many do come to the conclusion that the world is the product of un-design .
Yet , to do so they have to ignore some very significant things about reality , things that radiate a light that shows undesign to be an illusion .
It is because of that light that C. S. Lewis did not remain an atheist .
We will discuss three chief things whose light brought Lewis to reconsider his views on design versus un-design.1 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beauty , but describing it is difficult .
Beauty has a quality that surprises , that goes beyond the expected , that opens one up to a new way of perceiving .
Beauty is rich , many-layered , continually deepening , and never boring .
It is elegant , balanced , and evocative .
Beauty awakens in us a longing , a yearning after some unknown thing , or , as the Germans call it , Sehnsucht .
C. S. Lewis experienced that longing in nature and in certain books about Norse mythology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ himself , for something transcendent .
What particular beauty stirs the heart will vary from person to person , but I suspect we all have some point of contact with this longing , and , as with Lewis , the longing is for something greater than ourselves .
Just for a little while turn off the PBS science narrator in your head .
Why should there be beauty ?
What is it for ?
We find joy in beholding something truly beautiful , a sense of awe even .
And we never grow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spiritual sickness has entered and sapped us of all capacity for joy .
Even more strange , it is a great pleasure to participate in the creation of something beautiful , something that moves other people , that brings joy to them .
Why should this be , that there is joy for the creator in the creative act and joy for the audience also ?
All of this points toward a designer who knows joy in creating beauty for its own sake , and for the sake of others ( beauty can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ us to desire beauty , and to desire to communicate beauty in the world .
He made us and the world beautiful , but in a way that means we must always look to others to show us our own beauty ( we are made for relationships ) .
Now put your PBS science hat back on .
Scientifically speaking , does beauty indicate design or un-design ?
The answer is this : there is no reason to expect random mutation and selection to produce beauty , and no particular reason for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , yes .
But the beauty we see does not necessarily correlate with safety or suitability for eating or mating .
It has no particular survival value .
Instead , beauty is a lovely surprise that points toward the transcendent Something that is the source of beauty .
The second argument for design that C. S. Lewis found personally convincing , and that he used to good effect in Mere Christianity , is the argument from morality .
As he observed , when people quarrel , they often appeal to moral standards : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You shouldn ’ t treat people that way.
” They appeal to these standards expecting to be understood .
Where does our sense of right and wrong come from ?
Or even our belief that there is such a thing as right or wrong ?
There are certain acts that are universally acknowledged to be morally wrong , such as the killing of innocent human beings .
Where does such objective certainty come from ?
If someone says , “ Well , we evolved that view , ” then there is no reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objective truth .
Any moral view selected for its survival value loses any claim to objective truth .
Should it not be just as moral , if not more so , to kill innocent humans if it benefits you , under that scenario ?
On the other hand , if we concede that we didn ’ t evolve morality , a lot of people then default to the position that there is no objective basis for morality .
We must define it for ourselves .
Why , then , do most people still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is wrong to kill innocent human beings ?
I know an atheist who falls into this camp .
He denies objective morality and says he makes his own morality .
Yet he and I agree that helping those in need is good .
In fact , it ’ s one reason he likes me , because we share the same humanitarian values .
All this argues for the objective reality of moral values , and for our innate sense of them , sometimes called the natural law .
And the existence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who set this law into our hearts .
The fact that we reason at all , and that our reason corresponds with reality , is a remarkable thing .
Have you never thought that it should be surprising that our minds are capable of probing the deep things of the universe , and that the universe is constructed in such a way as to be discoverable ?
That it should be founded on laws that we can grasp and that surprisingly find a match with our abstract mathematics ?
Ape brains that evolved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should not be expected to do higher-order mathematics or particle physics .
Yet our brains are fitted for the task , as deep as we need to go .
Our brains and our abilities go so far beyond what survival requires that no evolutionary explanation could possibly account for the things we can do .
If evolution is all there is , then rationality hasn ’ t got a leg to stand on .
Natural selection may favor the fastest or strongest or most fertile , but it doesn ’ t care about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if all we have is an evolved feeling that our minds are trustworthy , then our minds aren ’ t trustworthy .
Even Darwin was plagued by the thought that his theory undermined rationality itself : Thus naturalism has cut itself off at the knees .
Naturalism depends on the idea that science has discovered the truth about the world — what the world really is — namely , that it is nothing but matter and energy , particles in motion , and neurons firing , with consciousness an epiphenomenon and free will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what basis do they claim to know ?
Science is supposed to be a logical enterprise that interrogates the natural world and discovers its hidden reality using reason and logic , which naturalism can not justify as being reliable .
C. S. Lewis was a very wise man .
He saw through the “ nothing buttery ” of his age : we are nothing but molecules in motion ; we are nothing but the predetermined pattern of neurons firing in our brains ; we are nothing but evolved apes dressed up in suits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Lewis knew it because of the glimpse of beauty and joy he saw in a far Northern sky , because of the plain sensibleness of people in their disputes , and because of the human intellect ’ s power and ability to penetrate the universe ’ s secrets .
What does this have to with evidence for intelligent design ?
If we can not account for ourselves and our abilities , or for the natural world itself , by purely natural means — and I believe we can not — then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Designer who is beyond the natural world , who writes beauty , morality , reason , and laws , beautiful and mysterious in their perfection , into the universe .
• John West , “ C .
S. Lewis and Intelligent Design , ” in The Magician ’ s Twin , John West , ed .
( Discovery Institute Press , 2012 ) , 153–178 .
• Letter to William Graham ( July 3 , 1881 ) , in The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin , Including an Autobiographical Chapter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : John Murry , Albemarle Street , 1887 ) , vol .
1 , 315–316 .
Photo : C.S .
Lewis , statue , Belfast , Northern Ireland , by Genvessel [ CC BY 2.0 ] , via Wikimedia Commons .
Editor ’ s note : A version of this article appears in Salvo 49 .
It is published here with the permission of Ann Gauger .

Selective focus on a tall, dark lamp post during a snow storm in the pacific northwest woodland
C. S. Lewis, the beloved apologist, was not always a Christian. He suffered greatly in his younger years, having lost his mother at an early age, and having survived years of unpleasantness in boarding schools. Then, as a young man, he volunteered to go to the front in World War I, where he saw horrors that most of us would find hard to imagine, and was wounded. All of this colored his view of the world.
He saw the world as a place of darkness, disease, death, and un-design. By un-design I mean that the world was not the result of a benevolent creator’s intelligently ordered process but rather the result of chance and purely natural causes, without guidance or purpose, with no goal, in a meaningless universe that cared nothing for us. We are as nothing in the immensity of the cosmos and of no importance.
Three weeks before he died, the astronomer Carl Sagan expressed this idea in an interview with Ted Koppel:
We live on a hunk of rock and metal that circles a humdrum star that is one of 400 billion other stars that make up the Milky Way Galaxy, which is one of billions of other galaxies which make up a universe which may be one of a very large number, perhaps an infinite number, of other universes. That is a perspective on human life and our culture that is well worth pondering. (ABC News Nightline, December 4, 1996)
This bleak perspective is shared by many in the world today. There are many reasons to think the world is a place of disease, death, and un-design, and many do come to the conclusion that the world is the product of un-design. Yet, to do so they have to ignore some very significant things about reality, things that radiate a light that shows undesign to be an illusion. It is because of that light that C. S. Lewis did not remain an atheist. We will discuss three chief things whose light brought Lewis to reconsider his views on design versus un-design.1
Argument from Beauty
We all share in the experience of beauty, but describing it is difficult. Beauty has a quality that surprises, that goes beyond the expected, that opens one up to a new way of perceiving. Beauty is rich, many-layered, continually deepening, and never boring. It is elegant, balanced, and evocative.
Beauty awakens in us a longing, a yearning after some unknown thing, or, as the Germans call it, Sehnsucht. C. S. Lewis experienced that longing in nature and in certain books about Norse mythology. This desire was for something beyond himself, for something transcendent. What particular beauty stirs the heart will vary from person to person, but I suspect we all have some point of contact with this longing, and, as with Lewis, the longing is for something greater than ourselves.
Just for a little while turn off the PBS science narrator in your head. Why should there be beauty? What is it for? We find joy in beholding something truly beautiful, a sense of awe even. And we never grow tired of that beauty, unless some spiritual sickness has entered and sapped us of all capacity for joy. Even more strange, it is a great pleasure to participate in the creation of something beautiful, something that moves other people, that brings joy to them. Why should this be, that there is joy for the creator in the creative act and joy for the audience also? All of this points toward a designer who knows joy in creating beauty for its own sake, and for the sake of others (beauty can bring healing). The designer made us to desire beauty, and to desire to communicate beauty in the world. He made us and the world beautiful, but in a way that means we must always look to others to show us our own beauty (we are made for relationships).
Now put your PBS science hat back on. Scientifically speaking, does beauty indicate design or un-design? The answer is this: there is no reason to expect random mutation and selection to produce beauty, and no particular reason for us to find certain things beautiful. Functional, yes. But the beauty we see does not necessarily correlate with safety or suitability for eating or mating. It has no particular survival value. Instead, beauty is a lovely surprise that points toward the transcendent Something that is the source of beauty.
Argument from Morality
The second argument for design that C. S. Lewis found personally convincing, and that he used to good effect in Mere Christianity, is the argument from morality. As he observed, when people quarrel, they often appeal to moral standards: “You promised,” or “You shouldn’t treat people that way.” They appeal to these standards expecting to be understood.
Where does our sense of right and wrong come from? Or even our belief that there is such a thing as right or wrong?
There are certain acts that are universally acknowledged to be morally wrong, such as the killing of innocent human beings. Where does such objective certainty come from? If someone says, “Well, we evolved that view,” then there is no reason to suppose it has any basis in objective truth. Any moral view selected for its survival value loses any claim to objective truth. Should it not be just as moral, if not more so, to kill innocent humans if it benefits you, under that scenario?
On the other hand, if we concede that we didn’t evolve morality, a lot of people then default to the position that there is no objective basis for morality. We must define it for ourselves. Why, then, do most people still choose to adopt the moral precept that it is wrong to kill innocent human beings?
I know an atheist who falls into this camp. He denies objective morality and says he makes his own morality. Yet he and I agree that helping those in need is good. In fact, it’s one reason he likes me, because we share the same humanitarian values.
All this argues for the objective reality of moral values, and for our innate sense of them, sometimes called the natural law. And the existence of objective moral law points toward a designer who set this law into our hearts.
Argument from Reason
The fact that we reason at all, and that our reason corresponds with reality, is a remarkable thing. Have you never thought that it should be surprising that our minds are capable of probing the deep things of the universe, and that the universe is constructed in such a way as to be discoverable? That it should be founded on laws that we can grasp and that surprisingly find a match with our abstract mathematics?
Ape brains that evolved to hunt prey and run from lions should not be expected to do higher-order mathematics or particle physics. Yet our brains are fitted for the task, as deep as we need to go. Our brains and our abilities go so far beyond what survival requires that no evolutionary explanation could possibly account for the things we can do.
If evolution is all there is, then rationality hasn’t got a leg to stand on. Natural selection may favor the fastest or strongest or most fertile, but it doesn’t care about syllogisms or propositions or inferences. And if all we have is an evolved feeling that our minds are trustworthy, then our minds aren’t trustworthy. Even Darwin was plagued by the thought that his theory undermined rationality itself:
With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?2
C. S. Lewis’s response:
All possible knowledge . . . depends on the validity of reasoning. If the feeling of certainty which we express by words like must be and therefore and since is a real perception of how things outside our own minds really “must” be, well and good. But if this certainty is merely a feeling in our own minds and not a genuine insight into realities beyond them — if it merely represents the way our minds happen to work — then we can have no knowledge. Unless human reasoning is valid no science can be true.3
Thus naturalism has cut itself off at the knees. Naturalism depends on the idea that science has discovered the truth about the world — what the world really is — namely, that it is nothing but matter and energy, particles in motion, and neurons firing, with consciousness an epiphenomenon and free will an illusion. But see — on what basis do they claim to know? Science is supposed to be a logical enterprise that interrogates the natural world and discovers its hidden reality using reason and logic, which naturalism cannot justify as being reliable.
Humble Acknowledgement
C. S. Lewis was a very wise man. He saw through the “nothing buttery” of his age: we are nothing but molecules in motion; we are nothing but the predetermined pattern of neurons firing in our brains; we are nothing but evolved apes dressed up in suits. None of those statements is true, and Lewis knew it because of the glimpse of beauty and joy he saw in a far Northern sky, because of the plain sensibleness of people in their disputes, and because of the human intellect’s power and ability to penetrate the universe’s secrets.
What does this have to with evidence for intelligent design? If we cannot account for ourselves and our abilities, or for the natural world itself, by purely natural means — and I believe we cannot — then we must acknowledge humbly that there is a Designer who is beyond the natural world, who writes beauty, morality, reason, and laws, beautiful and mysterious in their perfection, into the universe.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-24--Whale of a Webinar Debuts a Delightful “Long Story Short” Video

Today Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture hosted a webinar on whale evolution , and it was way oversubscribed .
We apologize to anyone who wasn ’ t able to make it into the crowded virtual seminar room .
Robert Crowther welcomed biologists Jonathan Wells and Richard Sternberg , and they discussed the new “ Long Story Short ” video , “ A Whale of an Evolution Tale , ” and much else .
Responding to questions from the audience , they ranged across the thoughts of Theodosius Dobzhansky , David Berlinski , and James Shapiro , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of convergent evolution and of waiting times , fruit fly experiments and how echolocation in bats and dolphins differ , and much else .
They were joined by a surprise guest , the video ’ s animator , who here goes by a first name only , Evan , for reasons you can imagine : even an animator has to worry that Darwinists will try to destroy him professionally ( as they sought to do to Dr. Sternberg ) .
You can watch Evan ’ s video for yourself now : The video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Whales are held up as a model of what unguided evolution can do in a short time : in this case , just 8 million years , or perhaps even half that .
The transition from the wolf-like Pakicetus to the familiar modern whale required countless ingenious innovations .
One is “ counter-current heat exchange system for inter-abdominal testes ( kind of a big deal ) .
” But the evidence runs into numerous problems : There doesn ’ t seem to have been anywhere near enough time for blind , groping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to have accomplished all the required engineering marvels .
Evolutionists claim numerous intermediate fossils , but to them , “ intermediate ” doesn ’ t mean what it means to most of us — “ The fossil evidence is so meager that Darwinists , in order to prove evolutionary ancestry , have to use a slippery definition that no one would accept in other areas of life.
” A seemingly smooth evolutionary story is far rougher and more confused than Darwin proponents typically are willing to admit , characterized by “ chronological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” “ fossils out of the order that supposed to be in , ” and more .
As the video asks : If this is the best that evolutionists have got , what does that tell you about the strength of the rest of the evidence for their theory ?
Evan did a wonderful job of conveying all this in just 10 minutes , packed with humor and remarkable for its lucidity .
As Rob Crowther commented at the end of the panel discussion , you will do your friends and family a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if you missed Evan ’ s first installment in the series , “ Is Homology Evidence for Evolution ?
, ” see that here :

Today Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture hosted a webinar on whale evolution, and it was way oversubscribed. We apologize to anyone who wasn’t able to make it into the crowded virtual seminar room. Robert Crowther welcomed biologists Jonathan Wells and Richard Sternberg, and they discussed the new “Long Story Short” video, “A Whale of an Evolution Tale,” and much else. Responding to questions from the audience, they ranged across the thoughts of Theodosius Dobzhansky, David Berlinski, and James Shapiro, microevolution versus macroevolution, the thorny problems of convergent evolution and of waiting times, fruit fly experiments and how echolocation in bats and dolphins differ, and much else. They were joined by a surprise guest, the video’s animator, who here goes by a first name only, Evan, for reasons you can imagine: even an animator has to worry that Darwinists will try to destroy him professionally (as they sought to do to Dr. Sternberg).
You can watch Evan’s video for yourself now:
The video’s point is actually pretty simple. Whales are held up as a model of what unguided evolution can do in a short time: in this case, just 8 million years, or perhaps even half that. The transition from the wolf-like Pakicetus to the familiar modern whale required countless ingenious innovations. One is “counter-current heat exchange system for inter-abdominal testes (kind of a big deal).” But the evidence runs into numerous problems: There doesn’t seem to have been anywhere near enough time for blind, groping evolution, fueled by random mutations alone, to have accomplished all the required engineering marvels. Evolutionists claim numerous intermediate fossils, but to them, “intermediate” doesn’t mean what it means to most of us — “The fossil evidence is so meager that Darwinists, in order to prove evolutionary ancestry, have to use a slippery definition that no one would accept in other areas of life.” A seemingly smooth evolutionary story is far rougher and more confused than Darwin proponents typically are willing to admit, characterized by “chronological inversions,” “ghost lineages,” “fossils out of the order that supposed to be in,” and more.
As the video asks: If this is the best that evolutionists have got, what does that tell you about the strength of the rest of the evidence for their theory?
Evan did a wonderful job of conveying all this in just 10 minutes, packed with humor and remarkable for its lucidity. As Rob Crowther commented at the end of the panel discussion, you will do your friends and family a favor by sharing this widely. And if you missed Evan’s first installment in the series, “Is Homology Evidence for Evolution?,” see that here:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-24--Sex Chromosomes Refuse to Fit One Origins Theory

Doesn ’ t everyone like sex ?
Of course they do — and the designer made the sexual organs of @ @ @ @ @ , to be the most spectacularly beautiful structures in biology , so he evidently likes @ @ @ @ @ review ( open access ) in Genome Biology and Evolution explores the “ incredible diversity @ @ @ @ @ ” but especially how their evolutionary origins refuse to fit any one theory .
See @ @ @ @ @ : So many exceptions to the rules.
” Despite many convergent genomic patterns exhibited by @ @ @ @ @ , and many case studies supporting these theoretical predictions , emerging data provide numerous interesting @ @ @ @ @ , and suggest that the remarkable diversity of sex chromosomes is matched by a similar @ @ @ @ @ Photo : Ophrys apifera , also known as the “ bee orchid , ” by @ @ @ @ @ CC BY-SA .

Doesn’t everyone like sex? Of course they do — and the designer made the sexual organs of angiosperms, namely, flowers, to be the most spectacularly beautiful structures in biology, so he evidently likes sex too. An invited review (open access) in Genome Biology and Evolution explores the “incredible diversity of sex chromosome systems,” but especially how their evolutionary origins refuse to fit any one theory. See, “Sex chromosome evolution: So many exceptions to the rules.”
From the abstract:
Despite many convergent genomic patterns exhibited by independently evolved sex chromosome systems, and many case studies supporting these theoretical predictions, emerging data provide numerous interesting exceptions to these long-standing theories, and suggest that the remarkable diversity of sex chromosomes is matched by a similar diversity in their evolution.
Photo: Ophrys apifera, also known as the “bee orchid,” by Bernard DUPONT from FRANCE / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-24--Push to Replace Earth Day with “Nature Rights”

Earth Day , celebrated this past Wednesday , launched the modern environmentalist movement in 1970 .
Since then , the movement has moved way beyond the principles of conservation , remediation of polluted areas , and protecting species to embrace an anti-humanism that seeks to throttle our thriving in the name of “ saving the earth.
” The Deep Ecology Movement is one example .
Proving the old maxim that the revolution always consumes itself , two environmental activists have now urged abandoning Earth Day as a “ failure ” in favor of pushing the “ rights of nature.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published in Common Dreams : Embedded within Earth Day is the pursuit of comfort : the feeling that a benevolent authority exists to protect human and ecological life .
People want to believe that laws — federal environmental regulations — protect them , and that all we need is to enforce those laws .
As one prominent environmental non-profit likes to boast : “ The most powerful tool for change is the law.
” But the writing is on the wall .
Earth Day ’ s laws have systematically failed to guard against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , deadly air pollution , the corporatization of freshwater , and the largest loss of biodiversity in human history .
Conventional environmental legal challenges have enjoyed some wins at stopping specific projects .
But they are losing the war .
It is time to rethink our approach — we can not afford to waste another 50 years .
Notice that substantial regulatory and litigation impediments that slow or outright thwart even reasonable development projects are seen as “ losing the war.
” The authors would replace the current system with granting personhood “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( now overturned ) law in Toledo that granted rights to Lake Erie ( which I wrote about here ) as an example : Our law recognizes the rights of the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist , flourish and naturally evolve , and the human right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo .
It also boldly states that those ecosystem and human rights supersede other laws such as corporate “ rights ” and illegitimate permits issued by state and federal governments that would cause harm to Lake Erie .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Good grief , boat basins interfere with the natural evolution of the lake !
The nature rights movement is gaining traction .
It has had national and international successes and was endorsed by the prestigious scientific journal Science .
Nature rights laws would be insidiously effective because they grant legal standing to anyone and everyone to bring lawsuits to protect nature ’ s putative rights “ to exist , persist , maintain and regenerate its vital cycles , structure , functions and its processes in evolution , ” as these laws are usually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most radical and unreasonable environmental obstructionists would be empowered to bring almost any human endeavor that uses or impacts the land to a screeching halt merely by taking them to court .
The activists are right about one thing .
Rights of nature would be far more effective in impeding development and extracting wealth from the land than the current system .
Nature rights ideology doesn ’ t permit weighing and balancing of human benefit versus environmental harm as now usually occurs .
Nor are restrictions subject to being adjusted with changing conditions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the extent and scope of environmental law .
Rights , after all , are rights !
Photo : Lake Erie , by Nicholas [ CC BY 2.0 ] , via Wikimedia Commons .

Earth Day, celebrated this past Wednesday, launched the modern environmentalist movement in 1970. Since then, the movement has moved way beyond the principles of conservation, remediation of polluted areas, and protecting species to embrace an anti-humanism that seeks to throttle our thriving in the name of “saving the earth.” The Deep Ecology Movement is one example.
Proving the old maxim that the revolution always consumes itself, two environmental activists have now urged abandoning Earth Day as a “failure” in favor of pushing the “rights of nature.” From “Abolish Earth Day,” published in Common Dreams:
Embedded within Earth Day is the pursuit of comfort: the feeling that a benevolent authority exists to protect human and ecological life. People want to believe that laws — federal environmental regulations — protect them, and that all we need is to enforce those laws. As one prominent environmental non-profit likes to boast: “The most powerful tool for change is the law.” But the writing is on the wall. Earth Day’s laws have systematically failed to guard against mass species die-offs, the climate crisis, deadly air pollution, the corporatization of freshwater, and the largest loss of biodiversity in human history. Conventional environmental legal challenges have enjoyed some wins at stopping specific projects. But they are losing the war. It is time to rethink our approach — we cannot afford to waste another 50 years.
Notice that substantial regulatory and litigation impediments that slow or outright thwart even reasonable development projects are seen as “losing the war.”
Personhood “Rights” for Nature
The authors would replace the current system with granting personhood “rights” to nature, using the (now overturned) law in Toledo that granted rights to Lake Erie (which I wrote about here) as an example:
Our law recognizes the rights of the Lake Erie Ecosystem to exist, flourish and naturally evolve, and the human right to a healthy environment for the residents of Toledo. It also boldly states that those ecosystem and human rights supersede other laws such as corporate “rights” and illegitimate permits issued by state and federal governments that would cause harm to Lake Erie. It immediately made headlines around the world.
Good grief, boat basins interfere with the natural evolution of the lake!
Rights Are Rights
The nature rights movement is gaining traction. It has had national and international successes and was endorsed by the prestigious scientific journal Science.
Nature rights laws would be insidiously effective because they grant legal standing to anyone and everyone to bring lawsuits to protect nature’s putative rights “to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution,” as these laws are usually phrased. In other words, the most radical and unreasonable environmental obstructionists would be empowered to bring almost any human endeavor that uses or impacts the land to a screeching halt merely by taking them to court.
The activists are right about one thing. Rights of nature would be far more effective in impeding development and extracting wealth from the land than the current system. Nature rights ideology doesn’t permit weighing and balancing of human benefit versus environmental harm as now usually occurs. Nor are restrictions subject to being adjusted with changing conditions. And it precludes democratic deliberation about the extent and scope of environmental law. Rights, after all, are rights!
Photo: Lake Erie, by Nicholas [CC BY 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-24--The Shadow of a Science Yet to Be Born

The Shadow of a Science Yet to Be Born

Here is a paper that should be in the files of everyone thinking about biological design .
It is Peter Tompa and George Rose ’ s “ The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome ” ( 2011 ) , from the journal Protein Science .
I have written about this paper before , but it needs much more attention from the ID community , or the scientific community at large , than it has yet received .
Their argument is far more important than I can state in full detail here , but a couple of comments : I have told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of students and colleagues about this paper .
Starting with basic facts about cell biology , Tompa and Rose explain that the parts of cells do not explain the origin of cells .
To understand the origin of cells , one must focus on the functional interrelations of those parts , which relations occupy the very tiny space of “ alive ” in the incomprehensibly larger space of “ not alive.
” That is something Richard Dawkins too understands .
As he wrote in The Blind Watchmaker ( 1987 , p. 9 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways there may be of being alive , it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead , or rather not alive .
You may throw cells together at random , over and over again for a billion years , and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs , or does anything , even badly , that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive .
Several years ago , when I first became convinced of the importance of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor and ran some calculations , using the formula ( p. 2075 ) for the possible pairwise interactions of the protein parts of a bacterial cell .
Bill ’ s calculations are here .
You can see that he stopped at 100 proteins .
As I recall , what Bill said to me ( with a laugh ) was “ I think this is enough to make the point , Paul.
” Any relation or interaction within a cell is not a material object .
It is not a part or a thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living state are functions , and , while requiring material parts , the functions can not be reduced to those parts .
Relations are inherently higher-level properties .
Tompa and Rose argue that the space of possible interrelations that fail to yield the living state is so much larger than the tiny neighborhood of “ alive ” that , if the living state is disrupted , the parts of the cell will never find their way back to that state .
Instead they embark on a one-way or irreversible random walk out into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ why a bacterium whose membrane or cell wall is disrupted by sonication in a sterile buffer will never come back to life — even though , at that moment , all the molecular parts ( DNA , RNA , ribosomes , proteins , lipids , etc . )
are co-present in the same microenvironment .
The essential relations have been lost , irretrievably .
The living state , a system of relations , presupposes material things .
It is not , however , a material thing itself , and can not be reduced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach to the origin of life can not possibly succeed , because it is committed to a category error ( i.e.
, error = the parts of a system are causally primary ) .
Category errors do not yield to further effort .
So , what I say to students is that Tompa and Rose 2011 represents the shadow of a science yet to be born , a science of biological design .
The image you should have is the shadow of someone , standing outside a window , with the bright sun @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the window into the room where we are sitting , and we can trace its outline .
This unborn science will explain why attempting to construct the living state bottom-up , from its parts , is doomed to failure — as quixotic an enterprise as trying to build a perpetual motion machine .
The paper by Tompa and Rose casts a shadow for us , and we need to trace its outline and derive the theory behind the shadow .
Note carefully : Tompa and Rose do not themselves support a design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They argue that some unknown , incremental pathway assembled cells : “ Presumably , early‐earth life forms originated through an accumulation of changes of ever increasing complexity ” ( p. 2077 ) .
But their interactome analysis does not explain how that pathway would have been traversed , without design – only that ( as noted above ) having the parts on hand will not yield a cell .
Einstein , in a famous 1918 letter to his friend Michele Besso , put the general epistemological point this way ( quoted by Gerald @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new book by Change Tan and Rob Stadler , The Stairway to Life : An Origin-of-Life Reality Check ( 2020 ) , is also helpful in this regard .

Here is a paper that should be in the files of everyone thinking about biological design. It is Peter Tompa and George Rose’s “The Levinthal Paradox of the Interactome” (2011), from the journal Protein Science. I have written about this paper before, but it needs much more attention from the ID community, or the scientific community at large, than it has yet received. Their argument is far more important than I can state in full detail here, but a couple of comments:
A System of Relations
I have told hundreds (maybe thousands, now) of students and colleagues about this paper. Starting with basic facts about cell biology, Tompa and Rose explain that the parts of cells do not explain the origin of cells. To understand the origin of cells, one must focus on the functional interrelations of those parts, which relations occupy the very tiny space of “alive” in the incomprehensibly larger space of “not alive.” That is something Richard Dawkins too understands. As he wrote in The Blind Watchmaker (1987, p. 9, emphasis in original):
…however many ways there may be of being alive, it is certain that there are vastly more ways of being dead, or rather not alive. You may throw cells together at random, over and over again for a billion years, and not once will you get a conglomeration that flies or swims or burrows or runs, or does anything, even badly, that could remotely be construed as working to keep itself alive.
Several years ago, when I first became convinced of the importance of this paper, Bill Dembski did me a favor and ran some calculations, using the formula (p. 2075) for the possible pairwise interactions of the protein parts of a bacterial cell. Bill’s calculations are here. You can see that he stopped at 100 proteins. As I recall, what Bill said to me (with a laugh) was “I think this is enough to make the point, Paul.”
Any relation or interaction within a cell is not a material object. It is not a part or a thing. The relations that matter to the living state are functions, and, while requiring material parts, the functions cannot be reduced to those parts. Relations are inherently higher-level properties. Tompa and Rose argue that the space of possible interrelations that fail to yield the living state is so much larger than the tiny neighborhood of “alive” that, if the living state is disrupted, the parts of the cell will never find their way back to that state. Instead they embark on a one-way or irreversible random walk out into the universe of not-alive. This is why a bacterium whose membrane or cell wall is disrupted by sonication in a sterile buffer will never come back to life — even though, at that moment, all the molecular parts (DNA, RNA, ribosomes, proteins, lipids, etc.) are co-present in the same microenvironment.
The essential relations have been lost, irretrievably. The living state, a system of relations, presupposes material things. It is not, however, a material thing itself, and cannot be reduced to materiality. Thus, the bottom-up approach to the origin of life cannot possibly succeed, because it is committed to a category error (i.e., error = the parts of a system are causally primary). Category errors do not yield to further effort.
The Shadow of a Science
So, what I say to students is that Tompa and Rose 2011 represents the shadow of a science yet to be born, a science of biological design. The image you should have is the shadow of someone, standing outside a window, with the bright sun at his back. His shadow falls through the window into the room where we are sitting, and we can trace its outline. This unborn science will explain why attempting to construct the living state bottom-up, from its parts, is doomed to failure — as quixotic an enterprise as trying to build a perpetual motion machine. The paper by Tompa and Rose casts a shadow for us, and we need to trace its outline and derive the theory behind the shadow.
Note carefully: Tompa and Rose do not themselves support a design view of the origin of life. They argue that some unknown, incremental pathway assembled cells: “Presumably, early‐earth life forms originated through an accumulation of changes of ever increasing complexity” (p. 2077). But their interactome analysis does not explain how that pathway would have been traversed, without design – only that (as noted above) having the parts on hand will not yield a cell.
A Theory Worthy of Trust
Einstein, in a famous 1918 letter to his friend Michele Besso, put the general epistemological point this way (quoted by Gerald Holton, emphasis added):
…a theory which wishes to deserve trust must be built upon generalizable facts. Old examples: Chief postulates of thermodynamics [based] on impossibility of perpetuum mobile. Mechanics [based] on grasped [ertasteten] law of inertia. Kinetic gas theory [based] on equivalence of heat and mechanical energy (also historically). Special Relativity on the constancy of light velocity and Maxwell’s equation for the vacuum, which in turn rest on empirical foundations. Relativity with respect to uniform [?] translation is a fact of experience. General [Relativity]: Equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass. Never has a truly useful and deep-going theory really been found purely speculatively.
A new book by Change Tan and Rob Stadler, The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check (2020), is also helpful in this regard.
Photo credit: Adeline Ferolo on Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-25--Michael Denton Explore the Miracle of Air and Sun

A classic episode of ID the Future shines a light on Discovery Institute biochemist Michael Denton ’ s book , @ @ @ @ @ Astonishing Properties of Sunlight that Make Us Possible .
Denton explores the properties of sun @ @ @ @ @ podcast or listen to it here .
In Children of Light , Denton shows how @ @ @ @ @ parts of the larger story of our fine-tuned place in the cosmos .
Or as @ @ @ @ @ book , “ Whatever the cause and whatever the ultimate explanation , nature appears to @ @ @ @ @ degree for beings of our biology .
”

A classic episode of ID the Future shines a light on Discovery Institute biochemist Michael Denton’s book, Children of Light: The Astonishing Properties of Sunlight that Make Us Possible. Denton explores the properties of sun and air. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In Children of Light, Denton shows how sun and air are crucial parts of the larger story of our fine-tuned place in the cosmos. Or as he puts it in the book, “Whatever the cause and whatever the ultimate explanation, nature appears to be fine-tuned to an astonishing degree for beings of our biology.”
Photo credit: Ingmar H on Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-25--Michael Denton Explores the Miracle of Air and Sun


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-27--Paper by Biologist Antony Jose Seeks to Understand Heritability Beyond DNA

Some readers may know that fierce debates have occurred among intelligent design theorists — mostly behind the scenes — about the causal role of DNA .
Without naming names ( because blessed are the peacemakers ) , I can say that I have friends on both sides of these debates .
The pro-DNA side argues that nucleic acid is the causally privileged information carrier in all organisms .
The DNA-is-cool-but-not-the-whole-story side , by contrast , says not so fast : DNA is important , but naked DNA is an inert molecule .
Stone-cold dead , in fact .
These debates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ID is , or should be , about as a scientific theory in biology .
Thus it ’ s encouraging , REALLY encouraging , to see the work of University of Maryland biologist Antony Jose , who ( as far as I know ) has no detectable ID sympathies .
In an open access paper , Jose tries to understand how the transmission of information in inheritance occurs without making DNA carry the whole burden — because , he argues , DNA simply can not carry the whole burden .
See , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface .
H/t to Denyse O ’ Leary for this reference .
See here for a popular science take on Jose ’ s project : “ DNA may not be life ’ s instruction book — just a jumbled list of ingredients .
”

Some readers may know that fierce debates have occurred among intelligent design theorists — mostly behind the scenes — about the causal role of DNA. Without naming names (because blessed are the peacemakers), I can say that I have friends on both sides of these debates. The pro-DNA side argues that nucleic acid is the causally privileged information carrier in all organisms. The DNA-is-cool-but-not-the-whole-story side, by contrast, says not so fast: DNA is important, but naked DNA is an inert molecule. Stone-cold dead, in fact.
These debates go right to the heart of what ID is, or should be, about as a scientific theory in biology. Thus it’s encouraging, REALLY encouraging, to see the work of University of Maryland biologist Antony Jose, who (as far as I know) has no detectable ID sympathies. In an open access paper, Jose tries to understand how the transmission of information in inheritance occurs without making DNA carry the whole burden — because, he argues, DNA simply cannot carry the whole burden. See, “A framework for parsing heritable information,” published in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface.
H/t to Denyse O’Leary for this reference. See here for a popular science take on Jose’s project: “DNA may not be life’s instruction book — just a jumbled list of ingredients.”
Image source: Phys.org, via University of Maryland/CC0 Public Domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-27--Coronavirus Response: Dr. Geoffrey Simmons on Design in Nature and Medical Science

On a new episode of ID the Future , internal medicine specialist Dr. Geoffrey Simmons speaks with host Andrew McDiarmid about his recent Evolution News article on the immune system and our body ’ s response to the coronavirus .
It comprises an enormously complex biological enterprise with adaptive memory for millions of pathogens and the ability to keep on learning more .
Researchers study it to learn how to create vaccines for diseases like COVID-19 .
Their work is one of intelligent design from start to finish .
But , Simmons says , we ought to recognize that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that are even more intelligently designed .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
One might object that if our immune system were intelligently designed , it would be utterly immune to all pathogens , but such an objection makes theological or philosophical assumptions about the intentions of any would-be designer of life .
The objection also overlooks the fact that we routinely recognize intelligent design in objects that are masterfully designed and yet not invulnerable to attack .
Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .

Photo source: Geoffrey Simmons.
On a new episode of ID the Future, internal medicine specialist Dr. Geoffrey Simmons speaks with host Andrew McDiarmid about his recent Evolution News article on the immune system and our body’s response to the coronavirus. It comprises an enormously complex biological enterprise with adaptive memory for millions of pathogens and the ability to keep on learning more. Researchers study it to learn how to create vaccines for diseases like COVID-19. Their work is one of intelligent design from start to finish. But, Simmons says, we ought to recognize that it starts with studying systems in our bodies that are even more intelligently designed. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
One might object that if our immune system were intelligently designed, it would be utterly immune to all pathogens, but such an objection makes theological or philosophical assumptions about the intentions of any would-be designer of life. The objection also overlooks the fact that we routinely recognize intelligent design in objects that are masterfully designed and yet not invulnerable to attack.
Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
Photo: Dr. Geoffrey Simmons in Jerusalem.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-27--Echoing the Bible, Cosmos Concludes with a Materialist Origins Myth and Future Heavenly Bliss

With its theme of “ Possible Worlds , ” the third season of Cosmos was awkwardly timed .
The series , hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson , concluded last week on Fox and the National Geographic Channel .
It conjures dreams of interstellar travel at a moment when most people are much more concerned about whether they can make it to the grocery store and back without contracting COVID-19 .
The backdrop of a pandemic was , of course , unique to this season .
It probably contributed to a lower-than-hoped-for viewership .
But as writers for Evolution News have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , as we call it , is in other ways right in line with its predecessors .
Like the 1980 original with Carl Sagan and the 2014 reboot with Dr. Tyson , this Cosmos series advances numerous myths about the relationship between science and faith .
Here is the final narration from Cosmos 2020 : Stars make worlds , and a world made life .
And there came a time when heat shot out from the molten heart of this world and it warmed the waters .
And the matter that had rained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And that star stuff became aware .
And that life was sculpted by the earth , and it struggles with the other living things .
And a great tree grew up , one with many branches .
And six times it was almost felled , but still it grows .
And we are but one small branch , one that can not live without its tree .
And slowly we learned to read the book of nature , to learn her laws , to nurture the tree , to become a way for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to return to the stars .
Tyson ends his summary of cosmic history since the Big Bang with this soaring narrative focused on earth .
It sounds like the exalted prose of the book of Genesis — minus God .
It is a worldview-shaping narrative , a myth in the anthropological sense .
When connected with earlier Cosmos episodes that give details ( typically without sufficient evidence ) , this narrative answers profound questions .
Or it seeks to answer them .
Where did we come from ?
Answer : we are star @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution , powered by unguided material processes .
What is our purpose ( teleology ) ?
Answer : to be one of the ways , along with extraterrestrial civilizations , that the universe knows itself through science .
Where are we going ( eschatology ) ?
Answer : our destiny is to become connected with civilizations located around countless other stars , and thereby be liberated from terrestrial religions and scientific infancy ( Tyson earlier held a baby to make this point ) .
Six times terrestrial life worked hard to avoid total @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seventh period we will enter our cosmic rest of extraterrestrial enlightenment .
While resting in the lap of ET we will read the Encyclopedia Galactica , Tyson suggests .
This book represents the fantastically advanced accumulated knowledge of cosmic communal intelligent life , an idea that Carl Sagan helped transfer from science fiction to “ documentary ” film back in the 1980 Cosmos series .
We ’ ll enjoy heavenly bliss while reading the good book .
That ’ s a key message from the Cosmos franchise .
Seven Wonders of the New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Seven Wonders of the New World.
” In Biblical terms , seven symbolizes completion .
Are we uncovering Team Tyson ’ s numerological opium for the masses ?
The Cosmos storytellers invented a 2039 New York World ’ s Fair with seven theme park attractions that celebrate cosmic history and life ’ s heroic accomplishments .
The year 2039 would be the centennial of the 1939 New York World ’ s Fair that helped awaken Carl Sagan ’ s scientific-materialist imagination ( also depicted endearingly in this final episode ) .
Sagan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retelling .
Such World ’ s Fair science-fiction storytelling works well as it builds upon a certain measure of legitimate science .
There are five widely recognized mass extinction events in our planet ’ s history .
Throw in human-caused global warming as the sixth catastrophe ( allegedly in the making in our own time ) and you have a great recipe for cosmic mythology .
Let ’ s save our Mother Earth in act six and join the extraterrestrial choir of enlightened ETs in the triumphant seventh act .
Hey everyone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ geocentric , flat-earth-believing , climate-science deniers who are destined for extinction .
Science is our only salvation .
( See my historical analyses of Christianity as being responsible for flat-earth-belief here and unthinking resistance to Copernicanism here ) .
The makers of Cosmos wish to reach your heart with their message .
It ’ s a materialistic imitation of biblical religion and eschatology .
Mother Nature is god and Tyson is her prophet .
“ Learn her laws , ” he declares , echoing Moses .
Nurture the Tree of Life she has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series Tyson says “ Come with me , ” imitating Jesus ’ call for disciples .
The grand story is dressed up to look scientific , but at heart it is mostly materialistic mythology .
Its bipolar identity teeters between atheism and pantheism .
I make a rigorous case for this conclusion in my book Unbelievable , which includes the chapters “ Extraterrestrial Enlightenment ” and “ Preaching Anti-theism on TV : Cosmos.
” In the Cosmos chapter I discuss Cosmos 1980 and 2014 .
Cosmos 2020 dishes up more of the same @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Down to Earth Day ( or Easter ? )
Did you notice the timing of the season finale , on April 20 ?
It aired two days before Earth Day , which this year celebrated its 50th anniversary .
Many now celebrate Earth Day within a Deep Ecology worldview that owes much to pre-modern pagan earth worship .
Easter , which also falls at this time of year , had long ago largely displaced the old earth-worshipping holidays in Europe .
Do the makers of Cosmos hope that Earth Day will win back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It sure looks that way when you combine my analysis here with this critique of the flimsy Cosmos treatment of global warming .
It is no surprise that the National Geographic Channel blasted Cosmos viewers with many Earth Day-related TV advertisements ( I lost count of just how many ) .
Meanwhile , after celebrating or ignoring Easter and Earth Day , many coronavirus-besieged earthlings toggle between anxiety and quarantined boredom .
Cosmos 3.0 doesn ’ t seem to be helping much .
But for some people false hope is better than no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ futuristic dreams via Cosmos might bring comfort .
Team Tyson envisions how in the near future a person ’ s neural network ( connectome ) might be resurrected .
In this future world , maybe with ET ’ s help ( or so the story goes ) , we will be able to recreate a deceased person ’ s connectome .
It ’ s your own personal techno-Easter , if you will ( provided that others in the future approve of your reappearance ) .
The details for how this could happen are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such obligation .
The constraints on this kind of storytelling are minimal .
Carl Sagan ’ s widow , Ann Druyan , is the key figure who made the Cosmos series rise again ( twice now ) .
She had this to say about her team ’ s storytelling : Referring to traditional religions , especially the one that celebrates Easter , she finally says in the same interview : “ I think we have a much better story to tell than they do.
” I doubt this even if both were treated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth or fiction of each story is the subject of the main debate .
More on “ Telling the Story ” Seth MacFarlane ( a Hollywood atheist worried about the influence of intelligent design ) introduced Ann Druyan to atheist Brannon Braga , who helped Ms. Druyan produce the two reboots of Cosmos .
Here ’ s a sample of how I treat Braga ’ s key role in the Cosmos franchise .
It ’ s from the Cosmos chapter of my book Unbelievable .
The materialist agenda of Braga is documented below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( omitted here ) .
The executive producer of Cosmos 2014 says that he has spent most of his professional life creating myths for the greater truth of atheism .
His name is Brannon Braga .
Speaking at the 2006 International Atheist Conference , he celebrated his part in creating “ atheistic mythology ” in more than 150 episodes of Star Trek : Next Generation .
He summed up his mission — which violates the original Star Trek “ prime directive ” of not altering native culture — as showing that “ religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science great , ” and finally “ how the hell do we get the other 95 percent of the population to come to their senses ?
” These are remarkable confessions .
As we saw in Chapter 8 , Kepler helped establish sci-fi as a way to promote very different ideas : “ God rules the cosmos , ” “ isn ’ t science great , ” and finally “ how for heaven ’ s sake do we get the other 99.9 percent of the population to come to their senses so they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Braga , teaching atheistic myth is the work of sci-fi films and TV documentaries like Cosmos .
Indeed , he said that Cosmos 2014 was designed to combat “ dark forces of irrational thinking.
” He emphasized : “ Religion doesn ’ t own awe and mystery .
Science does it better.
” But as we have seen , rendering Christianity as the historical enemy of science is itself an exercise in unreasonable and reckless historiography .
Myth , not science , recognizes the cosmos as “ all that is , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Sagan knew this statement would inspire awe because it imitated the biblical description of God .
No doubt , Braga and his team of like-minded creators were delighted to rerun this mythical mantra at the beginning of Cosmos 2014 .
It served well the greater good of anti-theism .
There ’ s much more where that came from : It ’ s Unbelievable !
Editor ’ s note : Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos , “ Possible Worlds , ” here : • “ Neil deGrasse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Copernicus Demoted Earth ” • “ Medicine , Religion , and Cosmos — Was Andrew Cuomo Wrong to Invoke God ?
” • “ Cosmos Episode 6 — That ’ s Entertainment !
( But Is It Science ? )
” • “ The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero ” • “ New Cosmos Episodes : Only Part of the Story ” • “ Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat Dented ” Image : Host Neil deGrasse Tyson in a screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0 , “ Possible Worlds .
”

With its theme of “Possible Worlds,” the third season of Cosmos was awkwardly timed. The series, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson, concluded last week on Fox and the National Geographic Channel. It conjures dreams of interstellar travel at a moment when most people are much more concerned about whether they can make it to the grocery store and back without contracting COVID-19.
The backdrop of a pandemic was, of course, unique to this season. It probably contributed to a lower-than-hoped-for viewership. But as writers for Evolution News have demonstrated in recent weeks, Cosmos 3.0, as we call it, is in other ways right in line with its predecessors. Like the 1980 original with Carl Sagan and the 2014 reboot with Dr. Tyson, this Cosmos series advances numerous myths about the relationship between science and faith.
Here is the final narration from Cosmos 2020:
Stars make worlds, and a world made life. And there came a time when heat shot out from the molten heart of this world and it warmed the waters. And the matter that had rained down from the stars came alive. And that star stuff became aware. And that life was sculpted by the earth, and it struggles with the other living things. And a great tree grew up, one with many branches. And six times it was almost felled, but still it grows. And we are but one small branch, one that cannot live without its tree. And slowly we learned to read the book of nature, to learn her laws, to nurture the tree, to become a way for the cosmos to know itself, and to return to the stars.
Tyson ends his summary of cosmic history since the Big Bang with this soaring narrative focused on earth. It sounds like the exalted prose of the book of Genesis — minus God. It is a worldview-shaping narrative, a myth in the anthropological sense.
Interpreting the Myth
When connected with earlier Cosmos episodes that give details (typically without sufficient evidence), this narrative answers profound questions. Or it seeks to answer them. Where did we come from? Answer: we are star stuff shaped by the branching tree of evolution, powered by unguided material processes. What is our purpose (teleology)? Answer: to be one of the ways, along with extraterrestrial civilizations, that the universe knows itself through science. Where are we going (eschatology)? Answer: our destiny is to become connected with civilizations located around countless other stars, and thereby be liberated from terrestrial religions and scientific infancy (Tyson earlier held a baby to make this point). Six times terrestrial life worked hard to avoid total extinction and succeeded, but in the seventh period we will enter our cosmic rest of extraterrestrial enlightenment.
While resting in the lap of ET we will read the Encyclopedia Galactica, Tyson suggests. This book represents the fantastically advanced accumulated knowledge of cosmic communal intelligent life, an idea that Carl Sagan helped transfer from science fiction to “documentary” film back in the 1980 Cosmos series. We’ll enjoy heavenly bliss while reading the good book. That’s a key message from the Cosmos franchise.
Seven Wonders of the New World
The season finale is titled: “Seven Wonders of the New World.” In Biblical terms, seven symbolizes completion. Are we uncovering Team Tyson’s numerological opium for the masses? The Cosmos storytellers invented a 2039 New York World’s Fair with seven theme park attractions that celebrate cosmic history and life’s heroic accomplishments. The year 2039 would be the centennial of the 1939 New York World’s Fair that helped awaken Carl Sagan’s scientific-materialist imagination (also depicted endearingly in this final episode). Sagan’s legacy grows with each multimillion-dollar retelling.
Such World’s Fair science-fiction storytelling works well as it builds upon a certain measure of legitimate science. There are five widely recognized mass extinction events in our planet’s history. Throw in human-caused global warming as the sixth catastrophe (allegedly in the making in our own time) and you have a great recipe for cosmic mythology. Let’s save our Mother Earth in act six and join the extraterrestrial choir of enlightened ETs in the triumphant seventh act. Hey everyone, make sure you oppose those fanatically religious geocentric, flat-earth-believing, climate-science deniers who are destined for extinction. Science is our only salvation. (See my historical analyses of Christianity as being responsible for flat-earth-belief here and unthinking resistance to Copernicanism here).
Prophets and Preachers
The makers of Cosmos wish to reach your heart with their message. It’s a materialistic imitation of biblical religion and eschatology. Mother Nature is god and Tyson is her prophet. “Learn her laws,” he declares, echoing Moses. Nurture the Tree of Life she has mindlessly created. Countless times in the series Tyson says “Come with me,” imitating Jesus’ call for disciples.
The grand story is dressed up to look scientific, but at heart it is mostly materialistic mythology. Its bipolar identity teeters between atheism and pantheism. I make a rigorous case for this conclusion in my book Unbelievable, which includes the chapters “Extraterrestrial Enlightenment” and “Preaching Anti-theism on TV: Cosmos.” In the Cosmos chapter I discuss Cosmos 1980 and 2014. Cosmos 2020 dishes up more of the same. Many will swallow it.
Back Down to Earth Day (or Easter?)
Did you notice the timing of the season finale, on April 20? It aired two days before Earth Day, which this year celebrated its 50th anniversary. Many now celebrate Earth Day within a Deep Ecology worldview that owes much to pre-modern pagan earth worship. Easter, which also falls at this time of year, had long ago largely displaced the old earth-worshipping holidays in Europe. Do the makers of Cosmos hope that Earth Day will win back this time of year from Easter? It sure looks that way when you combine my analysis here with this critique of the flimsy Cosmos treatment of global warming. It is no surprise that the National Geographic Channel blasted Cosmos viewers with many Earth Day-related TV advertisements (I lost count of just how many).
Meanwhile, after celebrating or ignoring Easter and Earth Day, many coronavirus-besieged earthlings toggle between anxiety and quarantined boredom. Cosmos 3.0 doesn’t seem to be helping much. But for some people false hope is better than no hope at all. For some, futuristic dreams via Cosmos might bring comfort. Team Tyson envisions how in the near future a person’s neural network (connectome) might be resurrected. In this future world, maybe with ET’s help (or so the story goes), we will be able to recreate a deceased person’s connectome. It’s your own personal techno-Easter, if you will (provided that others in the future approve of your reappearance). The details for how this could happen are not provided. Sci-fi is under no such obligation. The constraints on this kind of storytelling are minimal.
Carl Sagan’s widow, Ann Druyan, is the key figure who made the Cosmos series rise again (twice now). She had this to say about her team’s storytelling:
Every story that we tell has to satisfy different criteria. It has to be a way into a complex scientific idea or an important scientific idea…. We’re aiming for your brain, your eye, your heart, your senses, your ear … via effects. Everything has to be working together in concert to give you a consummate experience, and to attract you to want to know more.
Referring to traditional religions, especially the one that celebrates Easter, she finally says in the same interview: “I think we have a much better story to tell than they do.” I doubt this even if both were treated as fictional narratives. Of course the truth or fiction of each story is the subject of the main debate.
More on “Telling the Story”
Seth MacFarlane (a Hollywood atheist worried about the influence of intelligent design) introduced Ann Druyan to atheist Brannon Braga, who helped Ms. Druyan produce the two reboots of Cosmos. Here’s a sample of how I treat Braga’s key role in the Cosmos franchise. It’s from the Cosmos chapter of my book Unbelievable. The materialist agenda of Braga is documented below and in my book’s footnotes (omitted here).
The executive producer of Cosmos 2014 says that he has spent most of his professional life creating myths for the greater truth of atheism. His name is Brannon Braga. Speaking at the 2006 International Atheist Conference, he celebrated his part in creating “atheistic mythology” in more than 150 episodes of Star Trek: Next Generation. He summed up his mission — which violates the original Star Trek “prime directive” of not altering native culture — as showing that “religion sucks,” “isn’t science great,” and finally “how the hell do we get the other 95 percent of the population to come to their senses?” These are remarkable confessions. As we saw in Chapter 8, Kepler helped establish sci-fi as a way to promote very different ideas: “God rules the cosmos,” “isn’t science great,” and finally “how for heaven’s sake do we get the other 99.9 percent of the population to come to their senses so they can embrace Copernican astronomy?” According to Braga, teaching atheistic myth is the work of sci-fi films and TV documentaries like Cosmos. Indeed, he said that Cosmos 2014 was designed to combat “dark forces of irrational thinking.” He emphasized: “Religion doesn’t own awe and mystery. Science does it better.” But as we have seen, rendering Christianity as the historical enemy of science is itself an exercise in unreasonable and reckless historiography. Myth, not science, recognizes the cosmos as “all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Sagan knew this statement would inspire awe because it imitated the biblical description of God. No doubt, Braga and his team of like-minded creators were delighted to rerun this mythical mantra at the beginning of Cosmos 2014. It served well the greater good of anti-theism.
There’s much more where that came from: It’s Unbelievable!
Editor’s note: Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos, “Possible Worlds,” here:
Image: Host Neil deGrasse Tyson in a screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0, “Possible Worlds.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-28--Journal Prints “Intelligent Design”! But…

You ’ re not likely to see the phrase “ intelligent design ” in any typical science journal , except to mock it .
A recent example by a doctrinaire evolutionist is , not surprisingly , intended to subvert the design inference for a molecular machine .
Did his intention backfire ?
Read on .
J.C. Phillips is a physicist at Rutgers University who has taken an interest in the concept of “ self-organized criticality , ” something that sounds as credible as “ unguided excellence.
” Phillips believes that unintelligent Darwinian natural selection moves molecular machines toward optimum performance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how computers and other technology get more and more sophisticated the longer you leave them left outside to be buffeted by wind , rain , and ice storms .
In his recent paper in PNAS , he takes on a marvelous walking machine , dynein , to illustrate “ Darwinian evolution of dynein rings , stalks , and stalk heads ” as examples of self-organized networks .
It ’ s a tall order , because , as we will see , some of dynein ’ s features are truly remarkable , all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Papers in PNAS usually begin with a “ Significance ” statement , which serves as a layman-level abstract .
Here ’ s where Phillips sneaks in the deplorable phrase “ intelligent design ” — Essentially , he ’ s restating the “ blind watchmaker ” thesis .
Science doesn ’ t need to consider a designer , the idea goes , because natural selection is fully capable of achieving functionally optimized machines that give the appearance of design .
Dynein ’ s “ dynamical critical point ” ( i.e.
, functional perfection ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear “ indicative ” of intelligent design , but that indication is an illusion .
So he thinks .
Interestingly , Phillips never again uses the phrase .
The editors of PNAS apparently tolerated this infraction , because they must have been assured he would defeat it , and keep the crown on Darwin ’ s head .
In his ending discussion , he claims success .
“ Here , we have found that the positive effects of evolution are especially dramatic in dynein , ” he says .
Dynein is a motor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ highways that make up the cellular skeleton .
It cooperates with kinesin ( see “ The Workhorse of the Cell : Kinesin ” ) but moves in the opposite direction ( see “ Researchers Find that in Cells , Trains Run on Time ” ) .
Like kinesin , it is long and skinny , with “ feet ” that move along the microtubule , a long stalk composed of two coiled coils ( called CC1 and CC2 ) , and a “ stalk head ” at the other end , made up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ members of a family of “ TPases ssociated with diverse cellular ctivities ” ) .
AAA proteins bind to ATP , which channel power to various machines by undergoing conformational changes .
These twists and bends at the stalk head of dynein can cause changes throughout the machine , such as moving the “ feet ” along the microtubule forward , one step per ATP .
Dynein ’ s job , like kinesin ’ s , is to transport cargo in the cell , and to create bending motions .
Dynein motors help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ axonemes of cilia , they move cargo in the intraflagellar transport process , and also provide the bending motion of motile cilia .
Cytoplasmic dyneins also perform cargo-carrying work in the Golgi complex , the endoplasmic reticulum , and in the centrosomes , where they help position the spindle assembly during cell division .
The wave-like beats of cilia along our air passages are powered by dynein .
Michael Behe included dynein as his first example of irreducibly complex molecular machines in Darwin ’ s Black Box .
Perhaps that is one reason @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been motivated to prove that Darwinism could defeat Behe ’ s design inference , and answer the claim that no evolutionist had ever shown how it could evolve .
Behe did a masterful job explaining to the layman how dynein works and what it looks like , but that was 24 years ago .
Much more has been learned in the interim .
One question Phillips examines in detail is how the ATP power released in the AAA+ ring in the stalk head gets down to the “ feet ” that attach to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ distance away at that scale .
In the Abstract , he describes a remarkable mechanism : the power is assisted by a water wave that travels like a tsunami down the stalk .
( Ignore the Darwin dogma for now . )
This is a remarkable thing : living matter cooperating with nonliving matter ( water ) .
Cilia are known to cause currents to flow by their beating , and such currents participate in moving cells during development to their destination .
In the case of dynein , the use of water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Phillips is saying that the conformational changes in the stalk head set up waves of water molecules that surround the stalk , carrying the energy down to the microtubule ( MT ) binding domains ( the “ feet ” mentioned earlier ) .
He likens it to tsunamis that can transport the energy of an earthquake clear across an ocean with little loss .
Clearly , this has to be a tightly regulated process to work .
The energy can not just spread out at random .
How do the water molecules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CC1 and CC2 ?
Behe could have fun with this finding .
Consider the genetic coding required to get amino acids into such an order that they attract water molecules that would position themselves so precisely as to focus energy received from the AAA+ ring ’ s conformational change all the way down to the other end of the stalk – a distance 1,500 times the diameter of a single amino acid !
Imagine a beach game with 1,500 players lined up .
They try to pass a volleyball overhead down the line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to keep it going , without grabbing it .
Then the player at the far end reverses the direction , and all the players must nudge the ball up the line to the starting position .
Just one goof would ruin the game .
Dynein plays this game in the dark , rapidly and without mistake , thousands of times a minute .
( A paper in NIH Biochemistry says that kinesin , a similar machine to dynein , hydrolyzes 80 ATP per second .
If that corresponds to one step on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operations per minute , and 4,800 “ tsunami ” waves down the stalk . )
Moreover , Phillips says that the amino acids in the stalk function like mechanical springs , “ tilting the stalk head to drive cytoskeleton cargo.
” The two stalk coils , CC1 and CC2 , are open enough to permit the association of the needed water molecules , which allows the water waves to become excited with less energy .
As a result of this fine tuning of both the linear and cross-sectional structure , “ linear water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dynein surface great distances , much as linear seismic water waves travel across oceans.
” How is evolution going to explain this ?
If Phillips ever thought he had a defeater for intelligent design , he has dug a deeper hole to climb out of .
One tactic is an appeal to homology , comparing dynein between slime molds , worms , and humans ( but see “ Long Story Short : Is Homology Evidence for Evolution ?
” ) .
His main tactic , though , is simple assertion .
Natural selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business of optimizing molecular machines .
Just believe in the power of self-organized criticality !
In a final flourish , to make his evolutionary hypothesis appear less absurd , Phillips engages in name-dropping .
He appeals to historical examples of physicists and biologists who also used some of the concepts he used .
What a convoluted , motley group he comes up with !
Surely you ’ re joking , Mr. Feynman !
Maxwell ?
Huxley ?
Schrodinger ?
Stephen Jay Gould ?
Mandelbrot ?
What does punk eek have to do with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fractal , and Maxwell ’ s thought experiment about the “ demon ” presupposes an intelligent agent able to violate the second law of thermodynamics locally and temporarily , using directed energy for a purpose .
Readers can ponder whether this name-dropping paragraph helps Phillips ’ case at all .
If Phillips intended to show that design is an illusion , he did it by assertion , not by demonstration ( e.g.
, “ Proteins are the prime example of self-organized networks , as they have benefited from extensive natural [ Darwinian ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flabbergasted his readers with descriptions of fantastically fine-tuned machinery .
One thing everyone can agree with on .
He said that dynein is close to a “ dynamical critical point , indicative of intelligent design.
” To that , Darwin skeptics can all respond : yea , verily , and amen .
Diagram : Cytoplasmic dyneins perform cargo-carrying work in the Golgi complex , among other functions ; by TheTrappist / CC BY-SA .

You’re not likely to see the phrase “intelligent design” in any typical science journal, except to mock it. A recent example by a doctrinaire evolutionist is, not surprisingly, intended to subvert the design inference for a molecular machine. Did his intention backfire? Read on.
J.C. Phillips is a physicist at Rutgers University who has taken an interest in the concept of “self-organized criticality,” something that sounds as credible as “unguided excellence.” Phillips believes that unintelligent Darwinian natural selection moves molecular machines toward optimum performance. It’s kind of like how computers and other technology get more and more sophisticated the longer you leave them left outside to be buffeted by wind, rain, and ice storms. In his recent paper in PNAS, he takes on a marvelous walking machine, dynein, to illustrate “Darwinian evolution of dynein rings, stalks, and stalk heads” as examples of self-organized networks. It’s a tall order, because, as we will see, some of dynein’s features are truly remarkable, all the way down to the quantum-mechanical details.
A Deplorable Phrase
Papers in PNAS usually begin with a “Significance” statement, which serves as a layman-level abstract. Here’s where Phillips sneaks in the deplorable phrase “intelligent design” —
Proteins are the prime example of self-organized networks, as they have benefited from extensive natural (Darwinian) selection. Here, we quantify the dynamical shapes of dynein as they have evolved through interactions with water films. The interactions are long-range and are easily identified, and their improvement by evolution varies with the functions of parts of this molecular motor. It appears that evolution has brought human dynein close to a dynamical critical point, indicative of intelligent design. [Emphasis added.]
Essentially, he’s restating the “blind watchmaker” thesis. Science doesn’t need to consider a designer, the idea goes, because natural selection is fully capable of achieving functionally optimized machines that give the appearance of design. Dynein’s “dynamical critical point” (i.e., functional perfection), he intends to show, may appear “indicative” of intelligent design, but that indication is an illusion. So he thinks.
Interestingly, Phillips never again uses the phrase. The editors of PNAS apparently tolerated this infraction, because they must have been assured he would defeat it, and keep the crown on Darwin’s head. In his ending discussion, he claims success. “Here, we have found that the positive effects of evolution are especially dramatic in dynein,” he says.
What Is Dynein?
Dynein is a motor protein that walks on microtubules, the highways that make up the cellular skeleton. It cooperates with kinesin (see “The Workhorse of the Cell: Kinesin”) but moves in the opposite direction (see “Researchers Find that in Cells, Trains Run on Time”). Like kinesin, it is long and skinny, with “feet” that move along the microtubule, a long stalk composed of two coiled coils (called CC1 and CC2), and a “stalk head” at the other end, made up of a ring of AAA proteins (members of a family of “ A TPases A ssociated with diverse cellular A ctivities”). AAA proteins bind to ATP, which channel power to various machines by undergoing conformational changes. These twists and bends at the stalk head of dynein can cause changes throughout the machine, such as moving the “feet” along the microtubule forward, one step per ATP.
Dynein’s job, like kinesin’s, is to transport cargo in the cell, and to create bending motions. Dynein motors help sperm cells to swim. In the axonemes of cilia, they move cargo in the intraflagellar transport process, and also provide the bending motion of motile cilia. Cytoplasmic dyneins also perform cargo-carrying work in the Golgi complex, the endoplasmic reticulum, and in the centrosomes, where they help position the spindle assembly during cell division. The wave-like beats of cilia along our air passages are powered by dynein.
Michael Behe included dynein as his first example of irreducibly complex molecular machines in Darwin’s Black Box. Perhaps that is one reason Phillips selected it; he may have been motivated to prove that Darwinism could defeat Behe’s design inference, and answer the claim that no evolutionist had ever shown how it could evolve. Behe did a masterful job explaining to the layman how dynein works and what it looks like, but that was 24 years ago. Much more has been learned in the interim.
The News on Dynein
One question Phillips examines in detail is how the ATP power released in the AAA+ ring in the stalk head gets down to the “feet” that attach to the microtubule, which are a long distance away at that scale. In the Abstract, he describes a remarkable mechanism: the power is assisted by a water wave that travels like a tsunami down the stalk. (Ignore the Darwin dogma for now.)
Cytoskeletons are self-organized networks based on polymerized proteins: actin, tubulin, and driven by motor proteins, such as myosin, kinesin, and dynein. Their positive Darwinian evolution enables them to approach optimized functionality (self-organized criticality). Dynein has three distinct titled subunits, but how these units connect to function as a molecular motor is mysterious.
Now, the mystery solved:
Dynein binds to tubulin through two coiled coil stalks and a stalk head. The energy used to alter the head binding and propel cargo along tubulin is supplied by ATP at a ring 1,500 amino acids away. Here, we show how many details of this extremely distant interaction are explained by water waves quantified by thermodynamic scaling. Water waves have shaped all proteins throughout positive Darwinian evolution, and many aspects of long-range water–protein interactions are universal (described by self-organized criticality). Dynein water waves resembling tsunami produce nearly optimal energy transport over 1,500 amino acids along dynein’s one-dimensional peptide backbone.
This is a remarkable thing: living matter cooperating with nonliving matter (water). Cilia are known to cause currents to flow by their beating, and such currents participate in moving cells during development to their destination. In the case of dynein, the use of water waves is much more delicate and precise. Phillips is saying that the conformational changes in the stalk head set up waves of water molecules that surround the stalk, carrying the energy down to the microtubule (MT) binding domains (the “feet” mentioned earlier). He likens it to tsunamis that can transport the energy of an earthquake clear across an ocean with little loss.
Clearly, this has to be a tightly regulated process to work. The energy cannot just spread out at random. How do the water molecules confine their positions to the stalks, CC1 and CC2?
These linear shallow surface waves explain the remarkable distance covered by ATP excitation in AAA1 across a thousand amino acids to reach the stalk head. The more hydrophobic features of CC2 suggest that it can reflect the ATP wave from AAA1 back to the stalk head, increasing the intensity there, much like a nonlinear tsunami wave approaching shore. Note that the role of gravity in shallow water waves is played in protein hydropathic waves by the van der Waals dispersion attraction between water and amino acids. Also note that all our profiles are based on linear average; nonlinear tsunami effects could be even larger but are beyond present methods.
Even More Irreducible Complexity
Behe could have fun with this finding. Consider the genetic coding required to get amino acids into such an order that they attract water molecules that would position themselves so precisely as to focus energy received from the AAA+ ring’s conformational change all the way down to the other end of the stalk – a distance 1,500 times the diameter of a single amino acid! Imagine a beach game with 1,500 players lined up. They try to pass a volleyball overhead down the line to the far end by gently hitting it to keep it going, without grabbing it. Then the player at the far end reverses the direction, and all the players must nudge the ball up the line to the starting position. Just one goof would ruin the game. Dynein plays this game in the dark, rapidly and without mistake, thousands of times a minute. (A paper in NIH Biochemistry says that kinesin, a similar machine to dynein, hydrolyzes 80 ATP per second. If that corresponds to one step on the microtubule, that would represent 4,800 operations per minute, and 4,800 “tsunami” waves down the stalk.)
Moreover, Phillips says that the amino acids in the stalk function like mechanical springs, “tilting the stalk head to drive cytoskeleton cargo.” The two stalk coils, CC1 and CC2, are open enough to permit the association of the needed water molecules, which allows the water waves to become excited with less energy. As a result of this fine tuning of both the linear and cross-sectional structure, “linear water film surface waves can travel along the dynein surface great distances, much as linear seismic water waves travel across oceans.” How is evolution going to explain this?
The Evolutionary Tale
If Phillips ever thought he had a defeater for intelligent design, he has dug a deeper hole to climb out of. One tactic is an appeal to homology, comparing dynein between slime molds, worms, and humans (but see “Long Story Short: Is Homology Evidence for Evolution?”). His main tactic, though, is simple assertion. Natural selection, he claims, is in the business of optimizing molecular machines. Just believe in the power of self-organized criticality!
Here, we have found that the positive effects of evolution are especially dramatic in dynein, where the linear waves in monolayer water films propagate along the protein chain 1,500 aa from their source in AAA1 to the dynein stalk head tubulin binding sites. Within a W = 1 perspective, such “action at a distance” looks impossible in the presence of thermal fluctuations, while it is natural enough in terms of shallow water waves with W ∼10–30 bound to an aqueously and critically self-organized amino acid backbone. Note that close to a critical point large-density fluctuations may involve only small energy differences incorporated over long wavelengths.
One Last Thing
In a final flourish, to make his evolutionary hypothesis appear less absurd, Phillips engages in name-dropping. He appeals to historical examples of physicists and biologists who also used some of the concepts he used. What a convoluted, motley group he comes up with!
An historical note: The underlying mechanism of molecular motors has been discussed for decades, for instance by Huxley (1957) and Feynman (1963), usually in terms of harnessing thermal fluctuations, a task apparently involving Maxwell demons for “thermal rectification”. We have shown here that Darwinian selection has shaped motor proteins so that even linear water waves can transmit chemical energy over very long distances. Our statistical mechanical approach was anticipated by Schrodinger in 1943. Self-organized criticality was used in a schematic model to derive modular (or “punctuated”) evolution in 1995, and fractals emerged explicitly in 2007. The concept of self-organized criticality, with potential applications to living matter, has been widely discussed for decades.
Surely you’re joking, Mr. Feynman! Maxwell? Huxley? Schrodinger? Stephen Jay Gould? Mandelbrot? What does punk eek have to do with molecular machines? Dynein is not a fractal, and Maxwell’s thought experiment about the “demon” presupposes an intelligent agent able to violate the second law of thermodynamics locally and temporarily, using directed energy for a purpose. Readers can ponder whether this name-dropping paragraph helps Phillips’ case at all.
If Phillips intended to show that design is an illusion, he did it by assertion, not by demonstration (e.g., “Proteins are the prime example of self-organized networks, as they have benefited from extensive natural [Darwinian)] selection”). Then he flabbergasted his readers with descriptions of fantastically fine-tuned machinery. One thing everyone can agree with on. He said that dynein is close to a “dynamical critical point, indicative of intelligent design.” To that, Darwin skeptics can all respond: yea, verily, and amen.
Diagram: Cytoplasmic dyneins perform cargo-carrying work in the Golgi complex, among other functions; by TheTrappist / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-28--Robert J. Marks: Coronavirus and the “Primacy of Information”

At Mind Matters , information theorist Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón talks with Bradley Center director Robert J .
Marks about the little bit of information that has overturned the economic order of our modern world .
This is the kind of insight that halts you in your tracks : “ Human biology is so finely tuned that less than a kilobyte of information can stop the world.
” From the podcast , “ COVID-19 : When 900 Bytes Shut Down The World ” : Robert J .
Marks : There ’ s a bunch of coronaviruses and this one deviates from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : Yes .
The easiest type of mutation found for other coronaviruses coming from bats in China has been about 88 % similarity so what mutated was about 12 % .
And that 12 % corresponds to about 0.9 kilobytes or 7.2 kilobits .
Robert J .
Marks : Okay , we can talk about that as 900 bytes actually .
Which is really nothing if you think of a 10 × 10 black square , like a sticker at WhatsApp .
Now , this 900 bytes of information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the world economically .
Robert J .
Marks : We read about the fine-tuning of the universe but there ’ s really a fine-tuning of the biology of the ecosystem , economics , etc.
, as well .
That is a little bit scary .
So what is your takeaway from all of this ?
Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón : I really think that information is more fundamental to nature than matter and energy and what we are seeing here is how this small amount of information can produce a big change .
Not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the whole world that is paralyzed… There is a primacy of information , as some physicists have said in the past .
It ’ s the idea that information comes before matter and that it is the primary stuff of the universe .
That does not prove that information is generating matter or energy but what it shows is how a small amount of information can produce a big change in a lot of things that we know .
This is , needless to say , at loggerheads with the materialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and mind is just an epiphenomenon of it .
Life is not sloppily put together by blind material processes alone .
It reflects the most exquisitely precise planning and design .
The downside is that a tiny departure — those 900 bytes — can turn our lives upside down .

Image: Fusion Medical Animation, via Unsplash.
At Mind Matters, information theorist Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón talks with Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks about the little bit of information that has overturned the economic order of our modern world. This is the kind of insight that halts you in your tracks: “Human biology is so finely tuned that less than a kilobyte of information can stop the world.”
From the podcast, “COVID-19: When 900 Bytes Shut Down The World”:
Robert J. Marks: There’s a bunch of coronaviruses and this one deviates from another coronavirus by just a little bit. Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: Yes. The easiest type of mutation found for other coronaviruses coming from bats in China has been about 88% similarity so what mutated was about 12%. And that 12% corresponds to about 0.9 kilobytes or 7.2 kilobits. Robert J. Marks: Okay, we can talk about that as 900 bytes actually. Which is really nothing if you think of a 10 × 10 black square, like a sticker at WhatsApp. Now, this 900 bytes of information, as everybody knows, shut down the world economically. … Robert J. Marks: We read about the fine-tuning of the universe but there’s really a fine-tuning of the biology of the ecosystem, economics, etc., as well. That is a little bit scary. So what is your takeaway from all of this? Daniel Andrés Díaz-Pachón: I really think that information is more fundamental to nature than matter and energy and what we are seeing here is how this small amount of information can produce a big change. Not only in a small area; it’s the whole world that is paralyzed… There is a primacy of information, as some physicists have said in the past. It’s the idea that information comes before matter and that it is the primary stuff of the universe. That does not prove that information is generating matter or energy but what it shows is how a small amount of information can produce a big change in a lot of things that we know.
This is, needless to say, at loggerheads with the materialist idea that physical stuff rules the universe and mind is just an epiphenomenon of it.
Life is not sloppily put together by blind material processes alone. It reflects the most exquisitely precise planning and design. The downside is that a tiny departure — those 900 bytes — can turn our lives upside down.
Image: Fusion Medical Animation via Unsplash.