evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-31--Textbooks Still Misrepresent the Origin of Life

Editor ’ s note : The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter .
Dr. Wells , the author of the chapter , is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Science & Culture .
He holds PhDs in Molecular and Cell Biology ( U.C .
Berkeley ) and Religious Studies ( Yale University ) .
The Miller-Urey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ child for origin-of-life research .
Most modern biology students have seen some version of the drawing below , which represents an experimental apparatus used in 1952 by University of Chicago graduate student Stanley L. Miller .
Because Miller performed his experiment under the supervision of Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey , and the results were published in 1953 , it became known as the “ 1953 Miller-Urey experiment.
” In 2000 , I published a book titled Icons of Evolution : Why Much of What we Teach About Evolution is Wrong .
I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ icons of evolution ” ) commonly used in biology textbooks to teach high school and college students about evolutionary theory .
I showed that all ten icons misrepresent the evidence — and that some scientists had known this for decades .
After 2000 , some textbooks were corrected , but in many cases the corrections were minor and the books continued to perpetuate the misrepresentations .
This prompted me to publish another book in 2017 , titled Zombie Science , which included six more icons of evolution that I didn ’ t have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
All sixteen icons misrepresented the evidence , but many were still being used in 2017 .
I called this “ zombie science , ” because although the icons were empirically dead they continued to stalk our classrooms and research institutions .
I argued that this was not due simply to laziness or a reluctance to give up an attractive theory .
It revealed something much deeper : a dogmatic commitment to materialistic philosophy .
Biology courses were being misused to indoctrinate students in materialism , the view that only material objects and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In this view free will , spirit , intelligent design , and God are mere illusions .
One of the icons of evolution was the Miller-Urey experiment .
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .
Photo credit : In the Miller-Urey apparatus , a spark from two electrodes simulated lightning , shown above , by Griffinstorm / CC BY-SA .

Editor’s note: The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter. Dr. Wells, the author of the chapter, is a Senior Fellow with the Center for Science & Culture. He holds PhDs in Molecular and Cell Biology (U.C. Berkeley) and Religious Studies (Yale University).
The Miller-Urey experiment may well be called the poster child for origin-of-life research. Most modern biology students have seen some version of the drawing below, which represents an experimental apparatus used in 1952 by University of Chicago graduate student Stanley L. Miller. Because Miller performed his experiment under the supervision of Nobel laureate Harold C. Urey, and the results were published in 1953, it became known as the “1953 Miller-Urey experiment.”
In 2000, I published a book titled Icons of Evolution: Why Much of What we Teach About Evolution is Wrong. I described and analyzed ten images (“icons of evolution”) commonly used in biology textbooks to teach high school and college students about evolutionary theory. I showed that all ten icons misrepresent the evidence — and that some scientists had known this for decades.
After 2000, some textbooks were corrected, but in many cases the corrections were minor and the books continued to perpetuate the misrepresentations. This prompted me to publish another book in 2017, titled Zombie Science, which included six more icons of evolution that I didn’t have room to include in my 2000 book. All sixteen icons misrepresented the evidence, but many were still being used in 2017. I called this “zombie science,” because although the icons were empirically dead they continued to stalk our classrooms and research institutions.
I argued that this was not due simply to laziness or a reluctance to give up an attractive theory. It revealed something much deeper: a dogmatic commitment to materialistic philosophy. Biology courses were being misused to indoctrinate students in materialism, the view that only material objects and the forces among them are real. In this view free will, spirit, intelligent design, and God are mere illusions.
One of the icons of evolution was the Miller-Urey experiment.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Photo credit: In the Miller-Urey apparatus, a spark from two electrodes simulated lightning, shown above, by Griffinstorm / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-01--Another Cosmos Episode, Another Sermon from Pastor Tyson

Several themes weave their way through the current season of Cosmos , “ Possible Worlds.
” The careful viewer will detect at least one in each episode .
They include the ideas that a modern intellectual awakening took place when science ( defined as applied naturalistic philosophy ) triumphed over religion and superstition ; that human exceptionalism is an ancient prejudice we must abandon ; and that you can find meaning in a universe without a god .
Episode 7 , which aired last night on Fox and National Geographic , presents the viewer with a heavy dose of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neil deGrasse Tyson walking on the perimeter of the recently completed 500-meter single dish radio telescope , FAST , in China .
The episode is about the first contact with another intelligence , which many hope will be made with this telescope .
But the name of the episode is “ The Search for Intelligent Life on Earth.
” Tyson walks down the hillside to a forest beside the telescope and describes how trees communicate with each other via their roots and fungal networks underground using chemical signals .
Tyson tells us that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He suggests trees can know and have consciousness .
He uses highly anthropomorphic language throughout this segment .
This is not presented as a controversial idea , which it certainly is .
Tyson doesn ’ t mention that this idea comes from a book written by a German forester , The Hidden Life of Trees .
There ’ s also an older book with similar claims called The Secret Life of Plants .
Smithsonian Magazine ran a fairly balanced article on this topic in 2018 .
A skeptical biologist the writer interviewed had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s so anthropomorphized that it ’ s really not helpful .
The case is overstated and suffused with vitalism .
Trees do not have will or intention .
What worries me is that people find this so appealing that they immediately leap to faulty conclusions .
Namely that trees are sentient beings like us .
It ’ s ironic that Tyson , who believes in the magical powers of natural selection , shows no skepticism about this idea .
He believes that natural selection can create anything , even trees with consciousness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes heavy use of anthropomorphisms .
Tyson calls Karl von Frisch ’ s ground-breaking work with bees the “ first contact ” with another intelligent species .
Both these segments attempt to demonstrate that we are not exceptional .
See , bees and trees can talk and empathize with each other just like us , and bees even demonstrate the value of skepticism .
If only Tyson and the writers of Cosmos would look in the mirror when they say that .
Eventually , Tyson gets to Saint Charles .
No , we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the greatest spiritual teacher of the last 1000 years.
” Never mind those backwards rubes , Christian saints Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi , Jewish Torah scholar Maimonides , and Muslim theologian Al Ghazali .
Other notable statements in this episode include , “ Life is an emergent property of chemistry .
Science is an emergent property of life .
Life can begin to know itself.
” Also , “ Darwin debunked the story of Adam and Eve .
Humans are not the kings of life , created separately and charged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin worshiped nature.
” We prefer instead our own description : Darwin was the greatest teacher of materialism since the Atomists .
Tyson shows the extent to which Darwinism is a religion , not empirical science .
After all , if Darwinism is the all-encompassing worldview that the Cosmos writers and host believe it to be , then it will have to completely displace any worldviews that get in its way .
For previous coverage from Evolution News of the new Cosmos season , “ Possible Worlds , ” see there : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — 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 the Past , with Familiar Historical Mythmaking ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 8 PM , Somewhat Dented ”

Several themes weave their way through the current season of Cosmos, “Possible Worlds.” The careful viewer will detect at least one in each episode. They include the ideas that a modern intellectual awakening took place when science (defined as applied naturalistic philosophy) triumphed over religion and superstition; that human exceptionalism is an ancient prejudice we must abandon; and that you can find meaning in a universe without a god. Episode 7, which aired last night on Fox and National Geographic, presents the viewer with a heavy dose of the second idea.
The episode begins with Neil deGrasse Tyson walking on the perimeter of the recently completed 500-meter single dish radio telescope, FAST, in China. The episode is about the first contact with another intelligence, which many hope will be made with this telescope. But the name of the episode is “The Search for Intelligent Life on Earth.” Tyson walks down the hillside to a forest beside the telescope and describes how trees communicate with each other via their roots and fungal networks underground using chemical signals.
Anthropomorphic Language
Tyson tells us that trees can exchange information and empathy. He suggests trees can know and have consciousness. He uses highly anthropomorphic language throughout this segment. This is not presented as a controversial idea, which it certainly is. Tyson doesn’t mention that this idea comes from a book written by a German forester, The Hidden Life of Trees. There’s also an older book with similar claims called The Secret Life of Plants. Smithsonian Magazine ran a fairly balanced article on this topic in 2018. A skeptical biologist the writer interviewed had this to say about it:
It’s so anthropomorphized that it’s really not helpful. The case is overstated and suffused with vitalism. Trees do not have will or intention. What worries me is that people find this so appealing that they immediately leap to faulty conclusions. Namely that trees are sentient beings like us.
It’s ironic that Tyson, who believes in the magical powers of natural selection, shows no skepticism about this idea. He believes that natural selection can create anything, even trees with consciousness.
A segment on bee communication similarly makes heavy use of anthropomorphisms. Tyson calls Karl von Frisch’s ground-breaking work with bees the “first contact” with another intelligent species. Both these segments attempt to demonstrate that we are not exceptional. See, bees and trees can talk and empathize with each other just like us, and bees even demonstrate the value of skepticism. If only Tyson and the writers of Cosmos would look in the mirror when they say that.
Saint Charles (No Kidding)
Eventually, Tyson gets to Saint Charles. No, we mean that literally. Tyson calls Darwin “the greatest spiritual teacher of the last 1000 years.” Never mind those backwards rubes, Christian saints Thomas Aquinas and Francis of Assisi, Jewish Torah scholar Maimonides, and Muslim theologian Al Ghazali.
Other notable statements in this episode include, “Life is an emergent property of chemistry. Science is an emergent property of life. Life can begin to know itself.” Also, “Darwin debunked the story of Adam and Eve. Humans are not the kings of life, created separately and charged with its management.” Finally, “Darwin worshiped nature.”
We prefer instead our own description: Darwin was the greatest teacher of materialism since the Atomists. Tyson shows the extent to which Darwinism is a religion, not empirical science. After all, if Darwinism is the all-encompassing worldview that the Cosmos writers and host believe it to be, then it will have to completely displace any worldviews that get in its way.
For previous coverage from Evolution News of the new Cosmos season, “Possible Worlds,” see there:
Photo: The Chinese FAST telescope, by 罗放 / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-01--Evolution and the “Experts” — A Liberating Message from Molecular Biologist Doug Axe

As molecular biologist Douglas Axe recalls , the Greek philosopher Gorgias ( born about 483 BC ) spent a lifetime pondering the nature of existence .
At last he arrived at a firm conclusion : “ Nothing exists.
” In a presentation at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith , Dr. Axe used Gorgias to illustrate his point that “ expertise does not necessarily drive you in the right direction.
” Sometimes it does the exact opposite .
How could that be ?
Watch now and find out : The controversy about Darwinian evolution is often framed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ listen to the “ experts ” !
Please precious experts , tell us what to think !
When Dr. Axe was planning his book , Undeniable : How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed , he considered doing as other scientists have done : distill a lot of technical literature down for a lay audience .
But he ultimately decided that that was to “ play into the hands ” of those atheists and materialists he was arguing against .
They would simply tell his lay readers that the readers were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ultimate question like this — the origins of life — and must instead docilely confirm the majority or “ consensus ” view of people holding PhDs in the correct fields .
As Axe says here , “ I firmly believe you don ’ t need a PhD to decide whether we are cosmic accidents or not.
” Axe tells some of his own personal story , which I did not know .
As a high school student he dissected frogs in biology class and found that uninspiring .
It wasn ’ t until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school at Caltech that he came to appreciate the wonders of life at the molecular level .
He realized , “ This is engineering , remarkable engineering , far beyond anything humans can do.
” But he explains why , even without his background as a professional scientist , we all already know what we need to know to decide whether life reflects intelligent purpose .
This is an affirming and liberating message .
Looking for more great content in contrast to all the negativity everywhere else in the media and online ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute ’ s January event in Dallas .
Come back next Wednesday for Stephen Meyer on “ The Return of the God Hypothesis .
”

As molecular biologist Douglas Axe recalls, the Greek philosopher Gorgias (born about 483 BC) spent a lifetime pondering the nature of existence. At last he arrived at a firm conclusion: “Nothing exists.” In a presentation at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, Dr. Axe used Gorgias to illustrate his point that “expertise does not necessarily drive you in the right direction.” Sometimes it does the exact opposite. How could that be? Watch now and find out:
The controversy about Darwinian evolution is often framed as a matter of credentials. We must listen to the “experts”! Please precious experts, tell us what to think!
When Dr. Axe was planning his book, Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Our Intuition That Life Is Designed, he considered doing as other scientists have done: distill a lot of technical literature down for a lay audience. But he ultimately decided that that was to “play into the hands” of those atheists and materialists he was arguing against. They would simply tell his lay readers that the readers were in no position to judge even an ultimate question like this — the origins of life — and must instead docilely confirm the majority or “consensus” view of people holding PhDs in the correct fields. As Axe says here, “I firmly believe you don’t need a PhD to decide whether we are cosmic accidents or not.”
Professor Axe’s Personal Story
Axe tells some of his own personal story, which I did not know. As a high school student he dissected frogs in biology class and found that uninspiring. It wasn’t until college at U.C. Berkley and grad school at Caltech that he came to appreciate the wonders of life at the molecular level. He realized, “This is engineering, remarkable engineering, far beyond anything humans can do.”
But he explains why, even without his background as a professional scientist, we all already know what we need to know to decide whether life reflects intelligent purpose. This is an affirming and liberating message.
Looking for more great content in contrast to all the negativity everywhere else in the media and online? We have been releasing videos from Discovery Institute’s January event in Dallas. Come back next Wednesday for Stephen Meyer on “The Return of the God Hypothesis.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-01--Breaking: Freedom From Religion Foundation Opposes Teaching Evolution in Public Schools

The Freedom from Religion Foundation ( FFRF ) was founded in 1976 by a prominent American atheist and abortion advocate .
As the foundation ’ s website explains : “ The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.
” The website also features a quote from Charles Darwin ’ s unabridged autobiography : “ I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true… this is a damnable doctrine.
” Appropriately , FFRF has in the past honored prominent Darwinists Richard Dawkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( among others ) with its prestigious “ Emperor Has No Clothes ” award .
Although FFRF devotes most of its energy to stamping out public displays of Christianity , it has also opposed the teaching of intelligent design ( ID ) .
According to ID , it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world , including some features of living things , result from intelligence rather than unguided natural processes .
Since ID contradicts Darwin ’ s core ( and atheism-friendly ) belief that evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ID as a form of religious creationism .
As such , FFRF argues that ID can not legally be taught in publicly funded institutions .
The crowning achievement in FFRF ’ s crusade against ID was its 2013 takedown of Professor Eric Hedin ( pronounced he-DEEN ) at Ball State University ( BSU ) in Indiana .
Evolutionary biologist and FFRF Honorary Board member Jerry Coyne led the charge .
Up until 2013 , BSU physics professor Eric Hedin had taught an interdisciplinary honors elective that emphasized “ the relationships of the sciences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explored differing viewpoints on a number of issues , including intelligent design , and the assigned readings included critics as well as defenders of ID .
Hedin had prepared the class in accordance with university regulations through the usual processes .
FFRF wrote a letter to BSU complaining that Hedin was engaged in religious proselytizing .
BSU ended up cancelling Hedin ’ s course .
The following September , University of Washington evolutionary biologist David Barash published a piece in the New York Times titled “ God , Darwin , and My College @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one student , Barash then had his class of 200 undergraduates sing his version of a Hank Williams classic : Inspired by Barash , FFRF added the following logo to their stationery , “ Praise Darwin : Evolve Beyond Belief.
” Two members of FFRF ’ s Executive Board of Directors had misgivings about adopting the logo .
“ It looks too much like religion to me , ” one of them said privately .
But the logo remained .
Two years later , Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse published Darwinism as Religion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has always functioned as much as a secular form of religion as anything purely scientific .
Two more Executive Board members became uneasy at FFRF ’ s position on evolution .
But the four dissenters were in the minority , and FFRF ’ s position remained unchanged .
Then , early in 2020 , FFRF received word that a high school student had secretly taped a biology teacher making disparaging comments about the theory of evolution .
Outraged , an attorney for FFRF wrote to the school district that “ no controversy exists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of evolution , and the teaching of alternative theories or a controversy is not only inappropriate and dishonest , it is unconstitutional.
” The tiny rural school district lacked the resources to challenge the FFRF , which has a legal staff of ten attorneys and two legal assistants .
So the superintendent merely replied that the teacher in question would “ comply with the New York State Education Law and the U.S. Constitution.
” On February 28 , 2020 , the FFRF issued a press release announcing : “ N.Y .
public school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ advice.
” According to the press release , the teacher ’ s “ anti-scientific rant was both unconstitutional and pedagogically deplorable.
” The incident was subsequently reviewed by an FFRF Executive Board member ( not one of the four original dissenters ) who had training in both biological science and constitutional law .
She knew that controversy over evolution does exist in the scientific community .
Furthermore , she noted that FFRF ’ s letter to the school district cited several court decisions but left out the most relevant one : Edwards v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creation science in public schools is unconstitutional , but questioning the scientific validity of evolution is not unconstitutional and may in fact be encouraged .
FFRF ’ s criticism of the teacher had been dead wrong .
The board member agreed with the four dissenters who had already concluded that Darwinism was functioning as a religion .
At an emergency meeting a week ago , a majority of the members on FFRF ’ s Executive Board of Directors voted that Darwinian evolution is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ board resolved that FFRF would henceforth oppose public funding for it and work to prohibit its teaching in public schools and universities .
In other news : Today is April Fools ’ Day .
Photo : A ( genuine ) sign in Harrisburg , PA , from the Freedom from Religion Foundation , by Jason / CC BY-SA .

Editor’s note: We have received some queries as to whether this post is true or a gag. While liberally mixing in truth (see the hyperlinks), it is indeed an April Fools’ Day joke!
The Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) was founded in 1976 by a prominent American atheist and abortion advocate. As the foundation’s website explains: “The history of Western civilization shows us that most social and moral progress has been brought about by persons free from religion.”
The website also features a quote from Charles Darwin’s unabridged autobiography: “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true… this is a damnable doctrine.” Appropriately, FFRF has in the past honored prominent Darwinists Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Lawrence Krauss (among others) with its prestigious “Emperor Has No Clothes” award.
Opposition to Intelligent Design
Although FFRF devotes most of its energy to stamping out public displays of Christianity, it has also opposed the teaching of intelligent design (ID). According to ID, it is possible to infer from evidence in nature that some features of the world, including some features of living things, result from intelligence rather than unguided natural processes. Since ID contradicts Darwin’s core (and atheism-friendly) belief that evolution was unguided, FFRF has long regarded ID as a form of religious creationism. As such, FFRF argues that ID cannot legally be taught in publicly funded institutions.
The crowning achievement in FFRF’s crusade against ID was its 2013 takedown of Professor Eric Hedin (pronounced he-DEEN) at Ball State University (BSU) in Indiana. Evolutionary biologist and FFRF Honorary Board member Jerry Coyne led the charge. Up until 2013, BSU physics professor Eric Hedin had taught an interdisciplinary honors elective that emphasized “the relationships of the sciences to human concerns and society.” It explored differing viewpoints on a number of issues, including intelligent design, and the assigned readings included critics as well as defenders of ID. Hedin had prepared the class in accordance with university regulations through the usual processes.
FFRF wrote a letter to BSU complaining that Hedin was engaged in religious proselytizing. BSU ended up cancelling Hedin’s course.
I Saw the Light
The following September, University of Washington evolutionary biologist David Barash published a piece in the New York Times titled “God, Darwin, and My College Biology Class.” Barash wrote:
Every year around this time, with the college year starting, I give my students The Talk. It isn’t, as you might expect, about sex, but about evolution and religion, and how they get along. More to the point, how they don’t.
He continued:
The more we know of evolution, the more unavoidable is the conclusion that living things, including human beings, are produced by a natural, totally amoral process, with no indication of a benevolent, controlling creator.
According to one student, Barash then had his class of 200 undergraduates sing his version of a Hank Williams classic:
I’ve wandered so aimless, life filled with doubt.
I didn’t know what truth was about.
Then Darwin came like a stranger in the night.
Praise evolution, I saw the light! I saw the light, I saw the light.
No more darkness, no more night.
No higher power, but I’m oh so bright.
Praise evolution, I saw the light!
Inspired by Barash, FFRF added the following logo to their stationery, “Praise Darwin: Evolve Beyond Belief.” Two members of FFRF’s Executive Board of Directors had misgivings about adopting the logo. “It looks too much like religion to me,” one of them said privately. But the logo remained.
Two years later, Darwinian philosopher Michael Ruse published Darwinism as Religion, which pointed out that Darwinian evolution has always functioned as much as a secular form of religion as anything purely scientific. Two more Executive Board members became uneasy at FFRF’s position on evolution. But the four dissenters were in the minority, and FFRF’s position remained unchanged.
No Criticism of Darwinian Evolution Allowed
Then, early in 2020, FFRF received word that a high school student had secretly taped a biology teacher making disparaging comments about the theory of evolution. Outraged, an attorney for FFRF wrote to the school district that “no controversy exists in the scientific community regarding the fact of evolution, and the teaching of alternative theories or a controversy is not only inappropriate and dishonest, it is unconstitutional.” The tiny rural school district lacked the resources to challenge the FFRF, which has a legal staff of ten attorneys and two legal assistants. So the superintendent merely replied that the teacher in question would “comply with the New York State Education Law and the U.S. Constitution.”
On February 28, 2020, the FFRF issued a press release announcing: “N.Y. public school reins in proselytizing teacher, per FFRF advice.” According to the press release, the teacher’s “anti-scientific rant was both unconstitutional and pedagogically deplorable.”
The incident was subsequently reviewed by an FFRF Executive Board member (not one of the four original dissenters) who had training in both biological science and constitutional law. She knew that controversy over evolution does exist in the scientific community. Furthermore, she noted that FFRF’s letter to the school district cited several court decisions but left out the most relevant one: Edwards v. Aguillard (1987). In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that teaching creation science in public schools is unconstitutional, but questioning the scientific validity of evolution is not unconstitutional and may in fact be encouraged. FFRF’s criticism of the teacher had been dead wrong. The board member agreed with the four dissenters who had already concluded that Darwinism was functioning as a religion.
Breaking with Precedent
At an emergency meeting a week ago, a majority of the members on FFRF’s Executive Board of Directors voted that Darwinian evolution is, in fact, a religion. The board resolved that FFRF would henceforth oppose public funding for it and work to prohibit its teaching in public schools and universities.
Yesterday, FFRF issued a brief press release confirming the board’s decision:
After long and careful deliberation The Freedom from Religion Foundation has recognized that Darwinism, like Christianity, is a religion. So the foundation now opposes the teaching — or even the mention — of Darwinian evolution in publicly funded institutions. Let freedom ring!
In other news: Today is April Fools’ Day.
Photo: A (genuine) sign in Harrisburg, PA, from the Freedom from Religion Foundation, by Jason / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-01--Viruses: An Intelligent Design Perspective

The COVID-19 virus is on a rampage in the world , killing thousands in the U.S. so far , shutting down whole countries ’ economies , and possibly altering aspects of modern life for the future , after the virus has waned .
What the complete impact will be is of course unknowable .
In the meantime , though , questions arise about this and other , related sub-microscopic entities .
Viruses seem so evil .
What is their place in life ?
And like other aspects of nature , do they give evidence of intelligent design ?
Certainly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this is a subject that needs to be approached with sensitivity and humility .
It isn ’ t the purpose of this article to adequately address great philosophical questions .
That can wait for another occasion .
But before such questions can even be considered , it ’ s necessary to look at viruses dispassionately .
Then it will be helpful to evaluate whether they are , on the whole , beneficial or harmful .
Here are some scientific findings to help make those determinations .
There are viruses that look like lunar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like alien spaceships .
They can locate and land on a cell membrane , puncture the lipid bilayer , and insert their genetic material through a tube with a twisting motion .
Most fundamentally , viruses carry and transmit information .
Or perhaps better put , they require pre-existing information-copying systems , such as those found in cells , in order to replicate .
Their “ capsules ” contain the genetic material — information-carrying genetic molecules , needed to hijack a cell ’ s machinery in order to make copies of themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , very clever little machines .
In some viruses the genetic material is entirely DNA , in others it is RNA .
These can then be broken down into single- or double-stranded DNA viruses , or single- or double-stranded RNA viruses .
RNA viruses are more efficient than DNA viruses because they can skip the process of transcription and their RNA molecules can be directly translated into proteins .
Single-stranded RNA viruses can be further broken down into two types : “ positive-sense ” RNA which can be directly translated into protein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ genetic information on a complementary strand .
The latter must first be converted to positive-sense RNA before it can be translated , however the former is most efficient because it can be immediately translated into protein .
The SARS-CoV-2 virus which is causing the current pandemic is the most “ efficient ” type : it is a positive-sense single-strained RNA virus .
Compared to DNA viruses , RNA viruses are also generally harder to combat through modern medicine .
This is because RNA replication error-checking machinery is less efficient than DNA replication error-checking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more prone to mutations , which makes it harder to develop a vaccine to target the virus .
After the viral genetic material enters a cell , it commandeers the translation machinery ( and in the case of a DNA virus , the transcription machinery ) , forcing the cell to make copies of the virus .
The cell then dies , splitting open to release hundreds of new virus particles ready to repeat the process on other cells .
Growth would be exponential were the immune system not prepared to attack them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses as enemy combatants in all-out war , and tempting to root for the immune system as a national defense program in a desperate attempt to stamp out the invaders .
Such personifications can be misleading , however , and should be avoided .
Even an enemy tank can show strong evidence of intelligent design .
Details of their construction can help determine if viruses pass the design filter .
The protein coat covering the viral genome often resembles a polyhedron , a geometrical solid comprised of polygons .
Think of a soccer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ California at Riverside describes soccer ball geometry and expands it into the class of other polyhedra , including the icosahedron shape that some viruses build : The author , Iqbal Pittalwala , is interested primarily in the energetics of how viruses build their protein coats , called capsids .
Dr. Zandi studies them with her team in hopes of learning how engineers might mimic the production for nano-vehicles .
“ What makes them highly promising for drug delivery and gene delivery purposes is that they are stable , have a high uptake efficiency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says .
Learning about their construction can also help pharmaceutical companies devise drugs to interfere with or block viral assembly .
Their lab has found that the capsids self-assemble very quickly , on the order of milliseconds .
On the way , the proteins have to circumvent many energy barriers .
The paper by Zandi ’ s team , published in ACS Nano , describes how the shells , even if disordered , can break apart and reassemble into symmetrical forms by physical forces like elastic energy .
As the proteins attract @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by natural forces is interesting , but insufficient for detecting design .
Snowflakes , buckyballs , and other crystals can do that .
More instructive is how the viruses pack their DNA or RNA and inject it into cells .
In 2008 , Purdue University learned about a “ powerful molecular motor ” that packs the DNA into the capsid of a T4 virus ( a virus that infects and kills bacteria ) .
“ Parts of the motor move in sequence like the pistons in a car ’ s engine , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sounding more like an irreducibly complex molecular machine !
A more recent article ( 2014 ) from University of California at San Diego makes a capsid motor look smarter still .
The motor can relax when the density of DNA in the capsid gets too tight , allowing it to readjust so that the motor can continue .
Without that flexibility , the DNA could start tangling and forming knots .
The image shows the DNA neatly wrapped inside .
If a flagellar motor or ATP synthase is sufficient to conclude intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exclude a capsid motor just because of the harm a virus might do .
The design filter does not concern itself with the purpose of a design , whether for good or bad , but just whether a purpose exists .
OK .
So it seems that viruses are intelligently designed .
In a timely podcast for ID the Future , Michael Behe shed light on why “ bad ” viruses like COVID-19 exist .
He compares them to storms at sea .
Most design advocates wouldn ’ t hesitate to say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That includes the oceans .
Sometimes , however , there are violent storms at sea .
A ship caught in a storm might perish just because of the way the laws of nature operate in a designed biosphere that needs oceans .
COVID-19 has been quietly at work in some animals , Professor Behe says , but made the jump to humans , perhaps through mutations that expanded its affinity for other species .
Our immune systems were caught off guard and have not had time to develop immunity .
Even more interesting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for beneficial functions in viruses .
Biologists tell us that our bodies carry 10 times more microbes than our own cells .
That number is even higher for viruses by two orders of magnitude .
And yet we usually thrive in this ocean of viruses we move about in .
For one thing , our immune systems become adjusted to viruses and know how to keep them in check .
Another more design-friendly finding is that “ viral DNA ” in the human genome — once thought to represent invasions that became established @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transcribed .
This suggests that these retrotransposons are actually beneficial .
If so , another kind of “ junk DNA ” should be viewed as “ gems ” that help us in ways we can not imagine .
In 2011 , Elizabeth Pennisi , writing for Science , opened the door to a positive attitude about viruses .
Microbiologists already know that a class of internal viruses called bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria .
Phages are , in fact , essential to our health .
So there is one known benefit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ might discover other benefits of viruses .
Could they provide local information and protection as we move about into new habitats ?
Could they act as checks against unrestricted growth of other threats ?
Could they keep our immune systems in peak condition ?
While it tests our ability as human beings to think from a larger perspective , perhaps we can start considering viruses as essential partners , welcoming our numerous passengers along as we seek to weather the current storm .
Photo : Bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

The COVID-19 virus is on a rampage in the world, killing thousands in the U.S. so far, shutting down whole countries’ economies, and possibly altering aspects of modern life for the future, after the virus has waned. What the complete impact will be is of course unknowable. In the meantime, though, questions arise about this and other, related sub-microscopic entities. Viruses seem so evil. What is their place in life? And like other aspects of nature, do they give evidence of intelligent design?
Certainly, in a context of global anxiety, this is a subject that needs to be approached with sensitivity and humility. It isn’t the purpose of this article to adequately address great philosophical questions. That can wait for another occasion. But before such questions can even be considered, it’s necessary to look at viruses dispassionately. Then it will be helpful to evaluate whether they are, on the whole, beneficial or harmful. Here are some scientific findings to help make those determinations.
Overview
There are viruses that look like lunar landers from the Apollo era. Others look like alien spaceships. They can locate and land on a cell membrane, puncture the lipid bilayer, and insert their genetic material through a tube with a twisting motion. Most fundamentally, viruses carry and transmit information. Or perhaps better put, they require pre-existing information-copying systems, such as those found in cells, in order to replicate. Their “capsules” contain the genetic material — information-carrying genetic molecules, needed to hijack a cell’s machinery in order to make copies of themselves.
Viruses are, to all appearances, very clever little machines. In some viruses the genetic material is entirely DNA, in others it is RNA. These can then be broken down into single- or double-stranded DNA viruses, or single- or double-stranded RNA viruses. RNA viruses are more efficient than DNA viruses because they can skip the process of transcription and their RNA molecules can be directly translated into proteins. Single-stranded RNA viruses can be further broken down into two types: “positive-sense” RNA which can be directly translated into protein, and “negative-sense” RNA which carries genetic information on a complementary strand. The latter must first be converted to positive-sense RNA before it can be translated, however the former is most efficient because it can be immediately translated into protein.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus which is causing the current pandemic is the most “efficient” type: it is a positive-sense single-strained RNA virus. Compared to DNA viruses, RNA viruses are also generally harder to combat through modern medicine. This is because RNA replication error-checking machinery is less efficient than DNA replication error-checking machinery. That means RNA viruses are more prone to mutations, which makes it harder to develop a vaccine to target the virus.
After the viral genetic material enters a cell, it commandeers the translation machinery (and in the case of a DNA virus, the transcription machinery), forcing the cell to make copies of the virus. The cell then dies, splitting open to release hundreds of new virus particles ready to repeat the process on other cells. Growth would be exponential were the immune system not prepared to attack them. It’s easy to imagine viruses as enemy combatants in all-out war, and tempting to root for the immune system as a national defense program in a desperate attempt to stamp out the invaders. Such personifications can be misleading, however, and should be avoided. Even an enemy tank can show strong evidence of intelligent design. Details of their construction can help determine if viruses pass the design filter.
Construction
The protein coat covering the viral genome often resembles a polyhedron, a geometrical solid comprised of polygons. Think of a soccer ball. News from the University of California at Riverside describes soccer ball geometry and expands it into the class of other polyhedra, including the icosahedron shape that some viruses build:
An icosahedron is a geometrical structure with 12 vertices, 20 faces, and 30 sides. An official soccer ball is a kind of icosahedron called a truncated icosahedron; it has 32 panels cut into the shape of 20 hexagons and 12 pentagons, with the pentagons separated from each other by hexagons…. “A viral shell is highly symmetric,” [Roya] Zandi said. “If one pentagonal defect forms in the wrong location, it breaks down the symmetry. Despite this sensitivity, viral shells are often assembled into well-defined symmetric structures.” [Emphasis added.]
The author, Iqbal Pittalwala, is interested primarily in the energetics of how viruses build their protein coats, called capsids. Dr. Zandi studies them with her team in hopes of learning how engineers might mimic the production for nano-vehicles. “What makes them highly promising for drug delivery and gene delivery purposes is that they are stable, have a high uptake efficiency, and have low toxicity,” she says. Learning about their construction can also help pharmaceutical companies devise drugs to interfere with or block viral assembly.
Their lab has found that the capsids self-assemble very quickly, on the order of milliseconds. On the way, the proteins have to circumvent many energy barriers.
“Our study shows that if a messy shell forms because of the high protein concentration or strong attractive interaction, then, as the shell grows larger, the cost of elastic energy becomes so high that several bonds can get broken, resulting in the disassembly and subsequent reassembly of a symmetric shell.”
The paper by Zandi’s team, published in ACS Nano, describes how the shells, even if disordered, can break apart and reassemble into symmetrical forms by physical forces like elastic energy. As the proteins attract,
the key for the disorder–order transition in both en masse and nucleation and growth pathways lies in the strength of elastic energy compared to the other forces in the system including protein–protein interactions and the chemical potential of free subunits. Our findings explain, at least in part, why perfect virions with icosahedral order form under different conditions including physiological ones.
Motor Activation
The self-assembly of symmetric geometrical capsids by natural forces is interesting, but insufficient for detecting design. Snowflakes, buckyballs, and other crystals can do that. More instructive is how the viruses pack their DNA or RNA and inject it into cells.
In 2008, Purdue University learned about a “powerful molecular motor” that packs the DNA into the capsid of a T4 virus (a virus that infects and kills bacteria). “Parts of the motor move in sequence like the pistons in a car’s engine,” the researchers found. Now this is sounding more like an irreducibly complex molecular machine!
Other researchers have determined that the T4 molecular motor is the strongest yet discovered in viruses and proportionately twice as powerful as an automotive engine. The motors generate 20 times the force produced by the protein myosin, one of the two proteins responsible for the contraction and strength of muscles. The virus consists of a head and tail portion. The DNA-packaging motor is located in the same place where the tail eventually connects to the head. Most of the motor falls off after the packaging step is completed, allowing the tail to attach to the capsid. The DNA is a complete record of a virus’s properties, and the capsid protects this record from damage and ensures that the virus can reproduce by infecting a host organism.
A more recent article (2014) from University of California at San Diego makes a capsid motor look smarter still. The motor can relax when the density of DNA in the capsid gets too tight, allowing it to readjust so that the motor can continue. Without that flexibility, the DNA could start tangling and forming knots. The image shows the DNA neatly wrapped inside.
DNA is a long, unwieldy molecule that tends to repel itself because it is negatively charged, yet it can spool tightly. Within the heads of viruses, DNA can be packed to near crystalline densities, crammed in by a molecular motor. “These are among the most powerful molecular motors we know of,” says Douglas Smith, a professor of physics whose group studies them.
If a flagellar motor or ATP synthase is sufficient to conclude intelligent design, there is no good reason to exclude a capsid motor just because of the harm a virus might do. The design filter does not concern itself with the purpose of a design, whether for good or bad, but just whether a purpose exists. OK. So it seems that viruses are intelligently designed.
What Good Is a Virus?
In a timely podcast for ID the Future, Michael Behe shed light on why “bad” viruses like COVID-19 exist. He compares them to storms at sea. Most design advocates wouldn’t hesitate to say that the Earth is well-designed for life. That includes the oceans. Sometimes, however, there are violent storms at sea. A ship caught in a storm might perish just because of the way the laws of nature operate in a designed biosphere that needs oceans. COVID-19 has been quietly at work in some animals, Professor Behe says, but made the jump to humans, perhaps through mutations that expanded its affinity for other species. Our immune systems were caught off guard and have not had time to develop immunity.
Even more interesting, Behe adds, is growing evidence for beneficial functions in viruses. Biologists tell us that our bodies carry 10 times more microbes than our own cells. That number is even higher for viruses by two orders of magnitude. And yet we usually thrive in this ocean of viruses we move about in. For one thing, our immune systems become adjusted to viruses and know how to keep them in check.
Another more design-friendly finding is that “viral DNA” in the human genome — once thought to represent invasions that became established as useless junk — is actually being transcribed. This suggests that these retrotransposons are actually beneficial. If so, another kind of “junk DNA” should be viewed as “gems” that help us in ways we cannot imagine. In 2011, Elizabeth Pennisi, writing for Science, opened the door to a positive attitude about viruses.
In the past decade, scientists have learned that the vast bacterial world inside the human body plays a role in regulating the energy we take in from food, primes the immune system, and performs a variety of other functions that help maintain our health. Now, researchers are gaining similar respect for the viruses we carry around. For a start, the variety and sheer number of viruses that inhabit us put our bacterial companions to shame. Many of the viruses prey on the bacteria in our bodies, altering their numbers and diversity and shuffling genes — including genes for antibiotic resistance — from one bacterium to another.
Microbiologists already know that a class of internal viruses called bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria. Phages are, in fact, essential to our health. So there is one known benefit. More research from a design perspective might discover other benefits of viruses. Could they provide local information and protection as we move about into new habitats? Could they act as checks against unrestricted growth of other threats? Could they keep our immune systems in peak condition?
While it tests our ability as human beings to think from a larger perspective, perhaps we can start considering viruses as essential partners, welcoming our numerous passengers along as we seek to weather the current storm.
Photo: Bacteriophages help us by destroying invasive bacteria, by Dr. Graham Beards / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-02--Amazing Offer from Illustra Media — All Videos on Intelligent Design in Life, Now Free to Screen

Our friends at Illustra Media have produced amazing videos over the years making beautifully clear the evidence for intelligent design , in a way that ’ s accessible to all .
Now they are making an amazing and generous offer .
While most of us are getting some first-hand experience of what house arrest must feel like , Illustra has made all of their feature-length videos free to screen .
The documentaries include Metamorphosis : The Beauty and Design of Butterflies , Flight : The Genius of Birds , and Living Waters : Intelligent Design in the Oceans of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are featured in these works , including Stephen Meyer , Jay Richards , Ann Gauger , Richard Sternberg , and Paul Nelson .
I ’ m convinced that some positive things will come out of this experience of nationwide shutdown .
I don ’ t know what those will be .
Discovery Institute president Steven Buri has offered some thoughts .
But perhaps one is an occasion you may have missed up till now , an opportunity to sit down with your family , or by yourself , and consider how the wonders @ @ @ @ @ @ @ terms not only intuitive or emotional ones , to a design at work behind nature ’ s veil .
They have also made available a range of other videos on subjects apart from ID .
Many thanks to the good folks at Illustra .
Please look here for a links to the full lineup of free documentaries , good for 60 days .
Photo : A scene from Metamorphosis : The Beauty and Design of Butterflies ( screenshot ) , via Illustra Media .

Our friends at Illustra Media have produced amazing videos over the years making beautifully clear the evidence for intelligent design, in a way that’s accessible to all. Now they are making an amazing and generous offer. While most of us are getting some first-hand experience of what house arrest must feel like, Illustra has made all of their feature-length videos free to screen. The documentaries include Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies, Flight: The Genius of Birds, and Living Waters: Intelligent Design in the Oceans of the Earth. Discovery Institute scientists and scholars are featured in these works, including Stephen Meyer, Jay Richards, Ann Gauger, Richard Sternberg, and Paul Nelson.
I’m convinced that some positive things will come out of this experience of nationwide shutdown. I don’t know what those will be. Discovery Institute president Steven Buri has offered some thoughts. But perhaps one is an occasion you may have missed up till now, an opportunity to sit down with your family, or by yourself, and consider how the wonders of life give testimony, in scientific terms not only intuitive or emotional ones, to a design at work behind nature’s veil. They have also made available a range of other videos on subjects apart from ID.
Many thanks to the good folks at Illustra. Please look here for a links to the full lineup of free documentaries, good for 60 days.
Photo: A scene from Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies (screenshot), via Illustra Media.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-02--Security Gates in the Cell

Security Gates in the Cell

A key characteristic of life is active transport : control over what enters and exits the cell .
Closer looks reveal exquisite “ selectivity filters ” with moving parts that make active transport work .
The simplistic portrayals of cells taught in high school biology classes of the 1970s ( let us say ) stressed general functions , not detailed structures .
These included terms like active transport , metabolism , reproduction , and the like , described in broad terms with simple diagrams .
Ions go in ; waste products go out .
No wonder students were bored .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ if they had been shown the images at the nanometer scale now available to us through advanced imaging technologies like cryo-EM microscopy ?
They would be texting the images to friends with “ Wow !
” emojis .
Some might have been inspired to become molecular biologists .
Scientists have learned much in the last fifty years about the channels that enable active transport .
They have learned that multiple channels exist that control specific molecules .
Some aquaporin channels let water in or out .
Some voltage-gated channels control the flow of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potassium , sodium , and chloride .
Some mechanosensitive channels respond to touch .
They have also subdivided these channels into families with similar functions that differ in particular applications , and noted that some channels are so specific , they can distinguish between molecules that differ only minutely in size .
In recent decades , the nature of selectivity filters has been elucidated at the atomic level .
Often it is the specific placement of amino acids in the filter that validates and regulates the passage of molecules .
Other exciting discoveries @ @ @ @ @ @ @ i.e.
, moving parts ) in the proteins surrounding the channel pores .
Some of these conformational changes mimic the action of slots in a vending machine that will accept dimes but not pennies .
Channel structure is a lively field in molecular biology .
Here are some recent discoveries about diverse channels and how they work .
To emphasize their importance , the papers usually describe dire health consequences when they don ’ t work .
Prokaryotic microbes have channels , too , making the “ origin of life ” all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the most intensely studied is the bacterial potassium channel KcsA .
This is one of the channels that Roderick MacKinnon studied that earned him a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1998 .
It contains a ring of proteins that extend through the lipid membrane , selectively permitting potassium ions but not others .
The analogues to KcsA in humans are important for regulation of the heart and conduction of nerve impulses .
Research on KcsA continues , as shown in a paper in PNAS by Sun , Xu et al .
KcsA activates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inactivates slowly ( on the order of a millisecond to a second ) , blocking the channel .
This team wanted to learn how inactivation occurs .
Is it due to the pH gate or the selectivity filter ?
It turns out that the pH gate , although 30 Angstroms away from the selectivity filter , changes potassium affinity at the filter by four orders of magnitude at neutral pH .
This “ dramatic effect ” implies that the two parts are allosterically coupled .
The finding shows that even for the best-studied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is still much to learn .
Related : A paper by Zhao et al .
in Science Advances investigates how potent neurotoxins , such as those in sea anemones , tether themselves to membranes and try to hitchhike onto K+ ions to block the KcsA channels .
For scientists , this kind of research helps them understand the mechanisms of ion channels .
“ Metal ions such as zinc ( Zn2+ ) , iron and copper are a subset of nutrients called micronutrients , and act as cofactors for proteins that have roles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Citron and Zoncu in a news item in Nature .
Here ’ s why zinc is important : Citron and Zoncu report on the discovery of a “ zinc sensor ” in Nature by Redhai et al .
that allows the lowly fruit fly to respond to shortages in zinc , which can hinder growth and metabolism .
The study included two dozen co-authors .
The main actor is a transmembrane channel they named Hodor ( for “ Hold on , don ’ t rush ” ) .
The chloride ions , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of spent proteins .
The acidified lysosomes then promote the TORC1 pathway ( a network that regulates metabolic processes and growth in all animals ) , and also stimulates feeding by fruit flies both in the brain and in the gut .
For these reasons , Hodor is a little player in little insects that can have profound , organism-wide effects .
Related : In Science Advances , Pedemonte et al .
( Feb 21 ) investigate mutations in another chloride channel named CFTR , which opens and closes by ATP-driven conformational changes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epithelial membranes of the gut , lungs , and reproductive organs , defects in this channel are a leading cause of cystic fibrosis .
When the chloride channels can not secrete chloride and bicarbonate , the result is “ the production of dense mucus secretions that clog the airways and exocrine gland ducts.
” This leads to “ progressive loss of respiratory function , pancreatic insufficiency , and infertility.
” Here again is a channel that , when its proteins accumulate mutations that break its function , can result in profound , organism-wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plugs attached to a chain .
A sudden change in flow can cause the plug to move and close the drain , depending on the design .
Something like that has been discovered in a potassium channel named MthK that works in bacteria around hydrothermal vents .
Because this channel is easier to study than the mammalian counterpart named BK , researches at Cornell imaged MthK to study the mechanism in activated and inactivated states .
News from Weill Cornell Medicine shares what they found : A diagram at the top shows the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the channel and swings over to plug or “ inactivate ” the pore .
The paper in Nature by Fan et al.
, “ Ball-and-chain inactivation in a calcium-gated potassium channel , ” gives the details .
It ’ s important to realize that these channels require directed energy to go “ against the flow.
” The natural tendency of an opening in the cell membrane is osmosis — flow from high concentration to low concentration .
Active transport , therefore , would have been necessary in the earliest presumed “ protocell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ keep undesirable molecules out .
This is another big hurdle for materialist origin-of-life theories .
A self-assembling lipid bilayer enclosing hopeful RNA molecules performing simple metabolism is nice to imagine , but it would be a death trap if nutrients could not enter , and if waste products could not exit .
Additionally , toxins and harmful molecules would swarm into the protocell by osmosis if simple pores formed in the lipid bilayer “ container.
” When all the requirements for a functioning protocell are considered , success by chance is beyond unimaginable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thermodynamics in the system , these amazing channels locally act like “ Maxwell ’ s demon ” machines , forcing separation of ingredients that would normally diffuse to equilibrium .
The reduction of entropy locally is due to the expenditure of molecular energy in ATP , in very precise ways .
Sometimes Maxwell ’ s hypothetical demon is imaged as a little intelligent being directing traffic , but it could be a robotic device .
Either way , contradicting natural tendencies requires intelligent design in every mechanism for which we have observed it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which this article only begins to explore — are the Rolls-Royces of traffic-controlling mechanisms .

A key characteristic of life is active transport: control over what enters and exits the cell. Closer looks reveal exquisite “selectivity filters” with moving parts that make active transport work.
The simplistic portrayals of cells taught in high school biology classes of the 1970s (let us say) stressed general functions, not detailed structures. These included terms like active transport, metabolism, reproduction, and the like, described in broad terms with simple diagrams. Ions go in; waste products go out. No wonder students were bored. Memorize; repeat on test. What if they had been shown the images at the nanometer scale now available to us through advanced imaging technologies like cryo-EM microscopy? They would be texting the images to friends with “Wow!” emojis. Some might have been inspired to become molecular biologists.
Scientists have learned much in the last fifty years about the channels that enable active transport. They have learned that multiple channels exist that control specific molecules. Some aquaporin channels let water in or out. Some voltage-gated channels control the flow of electrically charged molecules, like ions of potassium, sodium, and chloride. Some mechanosensitive channels respond to touch. They have also subdivided these channels into families with similar functions that differ in particular applications, and noted that some channels are so specific, they can distinguish between molecules that differ only minutely in size.
In recent decades, the nature of selectivity filters has been elucidated at the atomic level. Often it is the specific placement of amino acids in the filter that validates and regulates the passage of molecules. Other exciting discoveries explore the nature of conformational changes (i.e., moving parts) in the proteins surrounding the channel pores. Some of these conformational changes mimic the action of slots in a vending machine that will accept dimes but not pennies.
Channel structure is a lively field in molecular biology. Here are some recent discoveries about diverse channels and how they work. To emphasize their importance, the papers usually describe dire health consequences when they don’t work.
Voltage-Gated Channels
Prokaryotic microbes have channels, too, making the “origin of life” all the more difficult to explain. One of the most intensely studied is the bacterial potassium channel KcsA. This is one of the channels that Roderick MacKinnon studied that earned him a Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1998. It contains a ring of proteins that extend through the lipid membrane, selectively permitting potassium ions but not others. The analogues to KcsA in humans are important for regulation of the heart and conduction of nerve impulses.
Research on KcsA continues, as shown in a paper in PNAS by Sun, Xu et al. KcsA activates rapidly, allowing ions in, but inactivates slowly (on the order of a millisecond to a second), blocking the channel. This team wanted to learn how inactivation occurs. Is it due to the pH gate or the selectivity filter?
Transmembrane allosteric coupling is a feature of many critical biological signaling events…. Activation of KcsA is initiated by proton binding to the pH gate upon an intracellular drop in pH. Numerous studies have suggested that this proton binding also prompts a conformational switch, leading to a loss of affinity for potassium ions at the selectivity filter and therefore to channel inactivation. [Emphasis added.]
It turns out that the pH gate, although 30 Angstroms away from the selectivity filter, changes potassium affinity at the filter by four orders of magnitude at neutral pH. This “dramatic effect” implies that the two parts are allosterically coupled. The finding shows that even for the best-studied channel in a lowly microbe, there is still much to learn.
Related: A paper by Zhao et al. in Science Advances investigates how potent neurotoxins, such as those in sea anemones, tether themselves to membranes and try to hitchhike onto K+ ions to block the KcsA channels. For scientists, this kind of research helps them understand the mechanisms of ion channels.
Chloride Channel: “Hold On, Don’t Rush”
“Metal ions such as zinc (Zn2+), iron and copper are a subset of nutrients called micronutrients, and act as cofactors for proteins that have roles in growth and development,” write Citron and Zoncu in a news item in Nature. Here’s why zinc is important:
A plethora of proteins rely on Zn2+ to carry out their functions. As a result, extensive cellular resources are devoted to ensuring that Zn2+ concentrations in cells are kept within an optimal range. Notably, many DNA-binding proteins require Zn2+, including some that coordinate the production of proteins that themselves help to balance metal levels. Thus, a cellular feedback loop keeps Zn2+ levels in check.
Citron and Zoncu report on the discovery of a “zinc sensor” in Nature by Redhai et al. that allows the lowly fruit fly to respond to shortages in zinc, which can hinder growth and metabolism. The study included two dozen co-authors. The main actor is a transmembrane channel they named Hodor (for “Hold on, don’t rush”).
The authors showed that mutation of Hodor, a transmembrane protein, leads not only to a reduction in growth of the fruit-fly larvae, but also to a diminished body-fat content and to lower food intake throughout the flies’ development. They demonstrated that Hodor is not a Zn2+ transporter, but instead behaves as a Zn2+-regulated channel that, when activated by Zn2+ binding, allows chloride ions (Cl−) to cross plasma membranes.
The chloride ions, in turn, acidify lysosomes to promote dismantling of spent proteins. The acidified lysosomes then promote the TORC1 pathway (a network that regulates metabolic processes and growth in all animals), and also stimulates feeding by fruit flies both in the brain and in the gut. For these reasons, Hodor is a little player in little insects that can have profound, organism-wide effects.
Related: In Science Advances, Pedemonte et al. (Feb 21) investigate mutations in another chloride channel named CFTR, which opens and closes by ATP-driven conformational changes. Because this channel is essential in epithelial membranes of the gut, lungs, and reproductive organs, defects in this channel are a leading cause of cystic fibrosis. When the chloride channels cannot secrete chloride and bicarbonate, the result is “the production of dense mucus secretions that clog the airways and exocrine gland ducts.” This leads to “progressive loss of respiratory function, pancreatic insufficiency, and infertility.” Here again is a channel that, when its proteins accumulate mutations that break its function, can result in profound, organism-wide effects.
Calcium-Gated Potassium Channel: Ball-and-Chain Mechanism
Some washtubs and toilets have plugs attached to a chain. A sudden change in flow can cause the plug to move and close the drain, depending on the design. Something like that has been discovered in a potassium channel named MthK that works in bacteria around hydrothermal vents. Because this channel is easier to study than the mammalian counterpart named BK, researches at Cornell imaged MthK to study the mechanism in activated and inactivated states. News from Weill Cornell Medicine shares what they found:
With low-temperature electron microscopy (cryo-EM), which bounces electrons instead of light off objects to make atomic-resolution images of them, the scientists obtained pictures of the MthK channel when it was switched open by calcium and switched closed. The pictures revealed that even when the MthK channel is in the calcium-activated, “open” state, the pathway through which ions flow was plugged by a flexible element that sticks into the pore of the channel structure. The scientists confirmed the function of this plug mechanism by showing that when the ‘ball-and-chain’ was deleted genetically, the flow of potassium ions through the calcium-activated MthK channel was no longer regulated.
A diagram at the top shows the basic idea. The plug is attached to the channel and swings over to plug or “inactivate” the pore. The paper in Nature by Fan et al., “Ball-and-chain inactivation in a calcium-gated potassium channel,” gives the details.
Success by Chance?
It’s important to realize that these channels require directed energy to go “against the flow.” The natural tendency of an opening in the cell membrane is osmosis — flow from high concentration to low concentration. Active transport, therefore, would have been necessary in the earliest presumed “protocell” to let desired molecules in and keep undesirable molecules out. This is another big hurdle for materialist origin-of-life theories. A self-assembling lipid bilayer enclosing hopeful RNA molecules performing simple metabolism is nice to imagine, but it would be a death trap if nutrients could not enter, and if waste products could not exit. Additionally, toxins and harmful molecules would swarm into the protocell by osmosis if simple pores formed in the lipid bilayer “container.” When all the requirements for a functioning protocell are considered, success by chance is beyond unimaginable.
While obeying the second law of thermodynamics in the system, these amazing channels locally act like “Maxwell’s demon” machines, forcing separation of ingredients that would normally diffuse to equilibrium. The reduction of entropy locally is due to the expenditure of molecular energy in ATP, in very precise ways. Sometimes Maxwell’s hypothetical demon is imaged as a little intelligent being directing traffic, but it could be a robotic device. Either way, contradicting natural tendencies requires intelligent design in every mechanism for which we have observed it coming into being. Membrane channels — which this article only begins to explore — are the Rolls-Royces of traffic-controlling mechanisms.
Photo: A traffic cop directing traffic, by Calebrw / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-02--Roger Olsen: The Mystery of Life’s Origin on the Early Earth

On a new episode of ID the Future , Bradley Center director Robert J .
Marks interviews geochemist Roger Olsen @ @ @ @ @ 1984 book The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Download the podcast or listen @ @ @ @ @ the book ’ s epilogue , Dr. Olsen and co-authors Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley @ @ @ @ @ stands as the best explanation for the origin of life .
And with a revised @ @ @ @ @ of the book now available — The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The @ @ @ @ @ that 36 years of additional research from the origin-of-life community has left their conclusions stronger @ @ @ @ @ environmental scientist , Olsen has spent his career since then helping homes and families abroad @ @ @ @ @ of environmental pollution .
Photo : ( l. to r. ) Roger Olsen with co-authors @ @ @ @ @ signing books at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith , by Chris Morgan @

On a new episode of ID the Future, Bradley Center director Robert J. Marks interviews geochemist Roger Olsen, co-author of the groundbreaking 1984 book The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In the book’s epilogue, Dr. Olsen and co-authors Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley suggested that a designing intelligence stands as the best explanation for the origin of life. And with a revised and greatly expanded new edition of the book now available — The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy — he says that 36 years of additional research from the origin-of-life community has left their conclusions stronger than ever. As an environmental scientist, Olsen has spent his career since then helping homes and families abroad protect children from the ravages of environmental pollution.
Photo: (l. to r.) Roger Olsen with co-authors Charles Thaxton and Walter Bradley signing books at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, by Chris Morgan.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-03--The Myth of “Darwinian Medicine”

The Myth of “Darwinian Medicine”

Editor ’ s note : As biologist Jonathan Wells observes , “ [ T ] he measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory.
” Yet a persistent claim from evolutionists is that medical research would be crippled without a Darwinian framework .
Evolution News presents a series of our previously published work addressing the myth of “ Darwinian medicine.
” Darwinist Randolph Nesse has been peddling “ Darwinian medicine ” for years .
He laid out his vision of medical science informed by Darwinian speculations two decades ago in a book , Why We Get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Medicine , co-authored with Darwinist George C. Williams .
He pointed out ( correctly ) that Darwinism has no current role in medical education and medical research .
He means to change that .
He argues for integration of Darwinian science into medical school curricula , and he argues that the light cast by Darwinian insights will significantly advance medical education and research .
That is a dubious claim .
The very admission that Darwinism has had no role in medical science is a telling argument not for its inclusion , but for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful .
Antibiotics , cybernetics , cancer chemotherapy , bone marrow transplants , hip replacements , heart transplants , and a host of near-miraculous advances have greatly extended our lifespan and improved the quality of our lives — all without Darwin .
Whether or not Darwinian hypotheses can be teased out of some medical advances , it is simply a fact that doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work , and their work has been astonishingly successful .
Would heart transplants work better if cardiac surgeons speculated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heart ?
Would chemotherapy for leukemia be more effective if oncologists speculated about the adaptive benefits of bone marrow proliferation in Pleistocene apes ?
Would antibiotics be more effective if microbiologists applied the Darwinian observation that antibiotics kill bacteria that are killed by antibiotics ?
The questions answer themselves .
Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr observed many years ago that there are two ways to understand biology : proximate explanations and evolutionary explanations .
Proximate explanations are the actual explanations for the disease process .
Malaria is caused by eukaryotic protists of the genus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anti-parasitic drugs .
The biochemical basis for the infection and the pharmacological basis for the treatment of the infection are reasonably well understood .
In other words , proximate explanations in medicine are explanations for the cause and treatment of the disease .
Evolutionary explanations are speculations about how natural selection supposedly gave rise to adaptation and to disease .
Some speculations are of some interest ( e.g.
, the speculation that the sickle cell trait confers some protection from malaria ) , while other speculations are more akin to stand-up comedy ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ renders the patient prostrate so more mosquitoes can land more easily on the motionless body ) .
Evolutionary explanations for diseases are fanciful .
To wit : • We become obese because our primate ancestors on the savanna had to suffer prolonged periods of famine , causing us to adapt by storing more energy as fat .
• We resist exercise because it served no purpose on the savanna when we weren ’ t being chased by predators .
• Anxiety disorders are caused by our prehistoric fight-or-flight mechanism , which served adaptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of little use in today ’ s society .
• Symptoms of disease such as fever , cough , shaking , chills , etc .
are useful from a Darwinian standpoint ( rallying the body ’ s defenses , expelling pulmonary secretions , etc. )
.
Whatever the value of these Darwinian stories to evolutionary biology , there is no discernable value to medical practice or research .
For example , the role of fever in fighting infection is a topic of genuine and important medical research .
All of the actually useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the proximate explanation for fever and infection , not from the evolutionary explanation .
Does fever help the immune system fight infection ?
When is the negative effect of fever more of a danger to the patient than the positive effect ?
What are the biochemical and physiological substrates of the fever response , and how can they be modified therapeutically ?
These are the important questions for medical research and treatment .
The role of fever in illness in apes in Africa 3.5 million years ago is a fine topic for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have some extra time on their hands ) , but is of no discernable use to actual medical treatment or research .
Evolutionary medicine is to medicine as evolutionary psychology is to psychology .
Medicine and psychology are flourishing disciplines of clinical practice and basic research .
Evolutionary medicine and evolutionary psychology are disciplines of evolutionary biology that contribute nothing of tangible value to the medical and psychological sciences .
There is no justification for the use of scarce resources in medical education and research on storytelling .
Evolutionary medicine is a jobs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effort by Darwinists to polish the reputation of an increasingly discredited Darwinian paradigm .
There ’ s money and prestige in medical science .
Ergo — Darwinian medicine !
Is Darwinism an increasingly discredited paradigm , you may ask ?
Well , yes .
Nesse in an article asks and answers ten questions about Darwinian medicine .
I ask Nesse an eleventh question .
His book , published in 1996 , is subtitled The New Science of Darwinian Medicine .
Why did evolutionary biologists drop “ Darwinian ” medicine and replace it with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own admission , “ Darwinian medicine ” remains the accurate designation for the strategy to inject Darwinian stories into medical science .
The fact that the evolutionary biologists and even the founder of “ Darwinian medicine ” recognize the need to drop “ Darwinian ” from the name suggests that storytelling predicated on Darwin ’ s theory is losing cachet , another hint that Darwinism is headed for the dustbin of discredited pseudoscience , where it belongs .
Photo : Randolph M. Nesse , by Panek ( Own work ) [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ via Wikimedia Commons .
This article was originally published on August 9 , 2016 .

Editor’s note: As biologist Jonathan Wells observes, “[T]he measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory.” Yet a persistent claim from evolutionists is that medical research would be crippled without a Darwinian framework. Evolution News presents a series of our previously published work addressing the myth of “Darwinian medicine.”
Darwinist Randolph Nesse has been peddling “Darwinian medicine” for years. He laid out his vision of medical science informed by Darwinian speculations two decades ago in a book, Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, co-authored with Darwinist George C. Williams. He pointed out (correctly) that Darwinism has no current role in medical education and medical research. He means to change that. He argues for integration of Darwinian science into medical school curricula, and he argues that the light cast by Darwinian insights will significantly advance medical education and research.
That is a dubious claim. The very admission that Darwinism has had no role in medical science is a telling argument not for its inclusion, but for its irrelevance. Medical science is remarkably successful. Antibiotics, cybernetics, cancer chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants, hip replacements, heart transplants, and a host of near-miraculous advances have greatly extended our lifespan and improved the quality of our lives — all without Darwin.
The Questions Answer Themselves
Whether or not Darwinian hypotheses can be teased out of some medical advances, it is simply a fact that doctors and medical researchers pay no attention to Darwinian speculations in their work, and their work has been astonishingly successful. Would heart transplants work better if cardiac surgeons speculated about the Darwinian origin of the four-chamber heart? Would chemotherapy for leukemia be more effective if oncologists speculated about the adaptive benefits of bone marrow proliferation in Pleistocene apes? Would antibiotics be more effective if microbiologists applied the Darwinian observation that antibiotics kill bacteria that are killed by antibiotics? The questions answer themselves.
Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr observed many years ago that there are two ways to understand biology: proximate explanations and evolutionary explanations. Proximate explanations are the actual explanations for the disease process. Malaria is caused by eukaryotic protists of the genus Plasmodium, which are sensitive to certain anti-parasitic drugs. The biochemical basis for the infection and the pharmacological basis for the treatment of the infection are reasonably well understood. In other words, proximate explanations in medicine are explanations for the cause and treatment of the disease.
More Akin to Stand-Up Comedy
Evolutionary explanations are speculations about how natural selection supposedly gave rise to adaptation and to disease. Some speculations are of some interest (e.g., the speculation that the sickle cell trait confers some protection from malaria), while other speculations are more akin to stand-up comedy (e.g., the Darwinian speculation that malaria renders the patient prostrate so more mosquitoes can land more easily on the motionless body). Evolutionary explanations for diseases are fanciful. To wit:
We become obese because our primate ancestors on the savanna had to suffer prolonged periods of famine, causing us to adapt by storing more energy as fat.
We resist exercise because it served no purpose on the savanna when we weren’t being chased by predators.
Anxiety disorders are caused by our prehistoric fight-or-flight mechanism, which served adaptive purposes for our simian ancestors but are of little use in today’s society.
Symptoms of disease such as fever, cough, shaking, chills, etc. are useful from a Darwinian standpoint (rallying the body’s defenses, expelling pulmonary secretions, etc.).
Whatever the value of these Darwinian stories to evolutionary biology, there is no discernable value to medical practice or research. For example, the role of fever in fighting infection is a topic of genuine and important medical research. All of the actually useful information gathered from this research is gleaned from the proximate explanation for fever and infection, not from the evolutionary explanation. Does fever help the immune system fight infection? When is the negative effect of fever more of a danger to the patient than the positive effect? What are the biochemical and physiological substrates of the fever response, and how can they be modified therapeutically?
These are the important questions for medical research and treatment. The role of fever in illness in apes in Africa 3.5 million years ago is a fine topic for speculation by evolutionary biologists (if they have some extra time on their hands), but is of no discernable use to actual medical treatment or research.
No Tangible Contribution
Evolutionary medicine is to medicine as evolutionary psychology is to psychology. Medicine and psychology are flourishing disciplines of clinical practice and basic research. Evolutionary medicine and evolutionary psychology are disciplines of evolutionary biology that contribute nothing of tangible value to the medical and psychological sciences. There is no justification for the use of scarce resources in medical education and research on storytelling.
Evolutionary medicine is a jobs program for evolutionary biologists, and an effort by Darwinists to polish the reputation of an increasingly discredited Darwinian paradigm. There’s money and prestige in medical science. Ergo — Darwinian medicine!
An Increasingly Discredited Paradigm
Is Darwinism an increasingly discredited paradigm, you may ask? Well, yes. Nesse in an article asks and answers ten questions about Darwinian medicine. I ask Nesse an eleventh question. His book, published in 1996, is subtitled The New Science of Darwinian Medicine.
Nesse now admits:
… Darwinian medicine was the more accurate designation… Over the decades, however, evolutionary medicine has become the standard term…
Why did evolutionary biologists drop “Darwinian” medicine and replace it with “evolutionary” medicine? By Nesse’s own admission, “Darwinian medicine” remains the accurate designation for the strategy to inject Darwinian stories into medical science. The fact that the evolutionary biologists and even the founder of “Darwinian medicine” recognize the need to drop “Darwinian” from the name suggests that storytelling predicated on Darwin’s theory is losing cachet, another hint that Darwinism is headed for the dustbin of discredited pseudoscience, where it belongs.
Photo: Randolph M. Nesse, by Panek (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY-SA 4.0-3.0-2.5-2.0-1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
This article was originally published on August 9, 2016.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-03--Evidence of Intelligent Design in the Origin of Life

Editor ’ s note : The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter .
Dr. Meyer , the author of the chapter , is a Director of the Center for Science & Culture .
His books include Signature in the Cell : DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design .
Theories about the origin of life necessarily presuppose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As historian of biology Harmke Kamminga has observed , “ At the heart of the problem of the origin of life lies a fundamental question : What is it exactly that we are trying to explain the origin of ?
” Or as the pioneering chemical evolutionary theorist Alexander Oparin put it , “ The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable.
” Origin-of-life researchers want to explain the origin of the first and presumably simplest — or , at least , minimally complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , developments in fields that explicate the nature of unicellular life have historically defined the questions that origin-of-life scenarios must answer .
What We Mean by “ Information ” Since the late 1950s and 1960s , origin-of-life researchers have increasingly recognized the complex and specific nature of unicellular life and the biomacromolecules on which such systems depend .
Further , molecular biologists and origin-of-life researchers have characterized this complexity and specificity in informational terms .
Molecular biologists routinely refer to DNA , RNA , and proteins as carriers or repositories of “ information.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin of the information in these biomacromolecules as the central question facing their research .
As Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has stated , “ The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.
” This chapter will evaluate competing explanations for the origin of the information necessary to build the first living cell .
To do so will require determining what biologists have meant by the term information as it has been applied to biomacromolecules .
As many have noted , “ information ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This chapter will attempt to eliminate this ambiguity and to determine precisely what type of information origin-of-life researchers must explain “ the origin of.
” What follows will first seek to characterize the information in DNA , RNA , and proteins as a fact in need of explanation ; and , second , to evaluate the efficacy of competing classes of explanation for the origin of biological information .
Part I will seek to show that molecular biologists have used the term “ information ” consistently to refer to the joint properties of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biological usage of the term will be contrasted with its classical information-theoretic usage to show that “ biological information ” entails a richer sense of information than the classical mathematical theory of Shannon and Wiener .
Part I will also argue against attempts to treat biological “ information ” as a metaphor lacking empirical content and/or ontological status .
It will show that the term biological information refers to two real features of living systems , complexity and specificity , features that jointly do require explanation .
Part II will evaluate competing types @ @ @ @ @ @ @ specified biological information necessary to produce the first living system .
From the 1920s to the mid 1960s , origin-of-life researchers relied heavily on theories emphasizing the creative role of random events — “ chance ” — often in tandem with some form of prebiotic natural selection .
Since the late 1960s , theorists have instead emphasized deterministic self-organizational laws or properties — that is , physical-chemical “ necessity.
” Part II will show the causal inadequacy of explanations involving “ chance , ” “ necessity , ” and the combination of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the origin of biological information requires a radically different explanatory approach .
It will argue that our present knowledge of causal powers suggests intelligent design as a better , more causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified complexity ( the information so defined ) present in large biomolecules such as DNA , RNA , and proteins .
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .

Photo: Bust of Alexander Oparin, Moscow, via Wikimedia Commons.
Editor’s note: The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from a brand new chapter. Dr. Meyer, the author of the chapter, is a Director of the Center for Science & Culture. His books include Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design.
Theories about the origin of life necessarily presuppose knowledge of the attributes of living cells. As historian of biology Harmke Kamminga has observed, “At the heart of the problem of the origin of life lies a fundamental question: What is it exactly that we are trying to explain the origin of?” Or as the pioneering chemical evolutionary theorist Alexander Oparin put it, “The problem of the nature of life and the problem of its origin have become inseparable.” Origin-of-life researchers want to explain the origin of the first and presumably simplest — or, at least, minimally complex — living cell. As a result, developments in fields that explicate the nature of unicellular life have historically defined the questions that origin-of-life scenarios must answer.
What We Mean by “Information”
Since the late 1950s and 1960s, origin-of-life researchers have increasingly recognized the complex and specific nature of unicellular life and the biomacromolecules on which such systems depend. Further, molecular biologists and origin-of-life researchers have characterized this complexity and specificity in informational terms. Molecular biologists routinely refer to DNA, RNA, and proteins as carriers or repositories of “information.” Many origin-of-life researchers now regard the origin of the information in these biomacromolecules as the central question facing their research. As Bernd-Olaf Kuppers has stated, “The problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”
This chapter will evaluate competing explanations for the origin of the information necessary to build the first living cell. To do so will require determining what biologists have meant by the term information as it has been applied to biomacromolecules. As many have noted, “information” can denote several theoretically distinct concepts. This chapter will attempt to eliminate this ambiguity and to determine precisely what type of information origin-of-life researchers must explain “the origin of.” What follows will first seek to characterize the information in DNA, RNA, and proteins as a fact in need of explanation; and, second, to evaluate the efficacy of competing classes of explanation for the origin of biological information.
Competing Explanations
Part I will seek to show that molecular biologists have used the term “information” consistently to refer to the joint properties of complexity and functional specificity or specification. Biological usage of the term will be contrasted with its classical information-theoretic usage to show that “biological information” entails a richer sense of information than the classical mathematical theory of Shannon and Wiener. Part I will also argue against attempts to treat biological “information” as a metaphor lacking empirical content and/or ontological status. It will show that the term biological information refers to two real features of living systems, complexity and specificity, features that jointly do require explanation.
Part II will evaluate competing types of explanation for the origin of the specified biological information necessary to produce the first living system. From the 1920s to the mid 1960s, origin-of-life researchers relied heavily on theories emphasizing the creative role of random events — “chance” — often in tandem with some form of prebiotic natural selection. Since the late 1960s, theorists have instead emphasized deterministic self-organizational laws or properties — that is, physical-chemical “necessity.” Part II will show the causal inadequacy of explanations involving “chance,” “necessity,” and the combination of the two.
Part III will suggest that the origin of biological information requires a radically different explanatory approach. It will argue that our present knowledge of causal powers suggests intelligent design as a better, more causally adequate explanation for the origin of the specified complexity (the information so defined) present in large biomolecules such as DNA, RNA, and proteins.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.