evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-07--Courage, Courtesy, and the Origin of Life — Congratulations to Physicist Jeremy England

Masks , social distancing , ratting on nonconforming neighbors , inscrutable authority , the threat of unemployment — these are hallmarks of the COVID crisis .
But they were all somehow oddly familiar to proponents of intelligent design , and other skeptics of scientific materialism , when the virus came along .
In academia , these skeptics are the modern lepers , avoided as unclean by any self-protecting scientist .
To keep from being infected by the taint , six feet of distance is hardly sufficient .
Better make it six miles .
Always , the scientific establishment seeks to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin doubters , by the threat of being snitched on to the authorities and tossed out of your job .
You may recall the cases of Scott Minnich , Richard Sternberg , Günter Bechly , Eric Hedin , David Coppedge , Caroline Crocker , Martin Gaskell , and others .
Evolution skeptics on campus , no fools , have learned to keep their masks on .
As Yale ’ s David Gelernter has said of Darwinism , to challenge it is to “ take your life in your hands.
” To answer the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to provide a forum for discussion , is almost an equal risk .
So it ’ s the very rare critic of design thinking who has the guts to meet skeptics head-on .
Given that , physicist Jeremy England , a Principle Research Scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology , and the journal Inference merit a major shout-out and warm congratulations .
As Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller described here the other day , Dr. England got together with him virtually in the pages of Inference to explore their disagreements about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very big deal .
It ’ s not without precedent .
Recently on the U.K. program Unbelievable ?
, host Justin Brierly gave a forum to James Tour , a Rice University synthetic organic chemist and scathing critic of OOL theories , to debate with critic Lee Cronin , a University of Glasgow chemist .
Brierly had previously hosted Stephen Meyer in a discussion with U.C .
Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall , and Douglas Axe with University of Southampton chemist Keith Fox .
But encounters like these are not the norm .
Most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the exchange , Brian Miller goes first .
He critiques some of England ’ s work exploring the possibility that the origin of life might be explained on the basis of the physics of thermodynamics ( the study of energy and heat exchange ) .
England has used new theorems in thermodynamics , called fluctuation theorems , to analyze how systems behave far from equilibrium as energy passes through them .
He has suggested that these theorems may hold promise for understanding how life first self-organized on the basis of physics alone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Inference exchange .
He offered a less technical overview here at Evolution News : He [ Jeremy England ] purportedly developed a “ physics theory for life ” based on what are termed fluctuation theorems .
His research was portrayed by the media as holding the key to solving the mystery of life ’ s origin .
My article demonstrates that the fluctuation theorems actually prove the exact opposite .
Namely , systems driven far from equilibrium also tend to move toward greater entropy , and they tend to release heat into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requires the reverse : energy must be extracted from the environment in such a way as to raise a local collection of molecules ’ free energy and , in the process , assemble them into a highly specified , low-entropy state .
England doesn ’ t buy it .
His response is courteous ( citations deleted ) : In his statement above , Brian Miller thoughtfully expresses the view that this way of thinking has not made much progress so far .
In the course of making this case , he says a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He gives a fair , high-level account of some recent progress in thinking about nonequilibrium statistical mechanics .
It is true that fluctuation theorems have opened the door to proving general relationships between dissipation and fluctuation that hold far from thermal equilibrium .
It is also true that I have proposed a way of manipulating one of these results into a form that reveals part of the thermodynamics of lifelike self-organization .
My interlocutor has to be given tremendous credit for engaging with the right equation in the right paper , which has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feat among those reacting skeptically to the idea of dissipative adaptation .
In the end , the most important thing to emphasize is that the time has come to start being empirical in this research .
Back-of-the-envelope calculations of prohibitively great improbabilities like the one quoted from Morowitz in this piece ’ s partner have been around for a while .
They invariably rely on straw-man assumptions .
Let it be granted , once and for all : waiting for a thermal fluctuation at thermal equilibrium to slap together a living organism is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
The first equation mentioned in my response implies that if scientists actually intend to compute the probability of forming a live cell , they should have to specify how long it takes while making reference to kinetic factors controlling the rates of reactions and to the amount energy absorbed and dissipated per unit of time by the system .
If this sounds horribly complicated , it is .
It should bring a humble understanding that such probabilities are unlikely to ever be computed accurately .
Instead , our window onto thermodynamics should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationship between probability and dissipated work is a thread that if pulled harder may yet unravel the whole tapestry .
Coming into view is a gray spectrum of increasingly complex fine-tuning distinguishing the dust of the earth from life .
Already , examples exist of structures that can form rapidly at high energy and low entropy and last for a long time , so long as they are fed with more energy of the type that generated them .
That may not be life , but it surely is reason to hold back @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible until we have better explored a new frontier .
This is all doubly fascinating because of who Dr. England is , a star scientist but more than that , a very interesting person .
As a star at MIT , he somehow got knighted by atheists as their champion against God .
A headline from Salon in 2015 proclaimed , “ God is on the ropes : The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified.
” This was bizarre because England , supposedly making religious believers run scared @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has contributed reflections on Jewish theology to Commentary Magazine .
In his novel Origin , mega-bestseller Dan Brown subsequently picked up England to serve as whatever you ’ d call the opposite of a deus ex machina — a scientist descending in a machine to dispel the Creator — a use of himself with which England took issue .
I wrote about the book , which pushes atheism and assisted suicide , here back in 2017 : It would be absurd for me to try to render a judgment as to who “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You should read it yourself .
The most important thing is just showing up , and what that demonstrates : that there is something of profound substance here to discuss .
That was evident when the original edition of the the Ur-text of intelligent design , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin ( recently republished in a greatly expanded edition ) , was published in 1984 .
As James Tour , Brian Miller , and others have testified , it remains the case today .

Masks, social distancing, ratting on nonconforming neighbors, inscrutable authority, the threat of unemployment — these are hallmarks of the COVID crisis. But they were all somehow oddly familiar to proponents of intelligent design, and other skeptics of scientific materialism, when the virus came along.
In academia, these skeptics are the modern lepers, avoided as unclean by any self-protecting scientist. To keep from being infected by the taint, six feet of distance is hardly sufficient. Better make it six miles. Always, the scientific establishment seeks to maintain a sterile environment, cleansed of Darwin doubters, by the threat of being snitched on to the authorities and tossed out of your job. You may recall the cases of Scott Minnich, Richard Sternberg, Günter Bechly, Eric Hedin, David Coppedge, Caroline Crocker, Martin Gaskell, and others. Evolution skeptics on campus, no fools, have learned to keep their masks on.
As Yale’s David Gelernter has said of Darwinism, to challenge it is to “take your life in your hands.” To answer the challenge substantively in debate, or even to provide a forum for discussion, is almost an equal risk.
A Rare Critic
So it’s the very rare critic of design thinking who has the guts to meet skeptics head-on. Given that, physicist Jeremy England, a Principle Research Scientist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the journal Inference merit a major shout-out and warm congratulations. As Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller described here the other day, Dr. England got together with him virtually in the pages of Inference to explore their disagreements about the origin of life. That is a very big deal.
It’s not without precedent. Recently on the U.K. program Unbelievable?, host Justin Brierly gave a forum to James Tour, a Rice University synthetic organic chemist and scathing critic of OOL theories, to debate with critic Lee Cronin, a University of Glasgow chemist. Brierly had previously hosted Stephen Meyer in a discussion with U.C. Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, and Douglas Axe with University of Southampton chemist Keith Fox. But encounters like these are not the norm. Most evolutionists prefer to shelter in place.
Fluctuation Theorems
In the exchange, Brian Miller goes first. He critiques some of England’s work exploring the possibility that the origin of life might be explained on the basis of the physics of thermodynamics (the study of energy and heat exchange). England has used new theorems in thermodynamics, called fluctuation theorems, to analyze how systems behave far from equilibrium as energy passes through them. He has suggested that these theorems may hold promise for understanding how life first self-organized on the basis of physics alone. Miller responds to this idea in the Inference exchange. He offered a less technical overview here at Evolution News:
He [Jeremy England] purportedly developed a “physics theory for life” based on what are termed fluctuation theorems. His research was portrayed by the media as holding the key to solving the mystery of life’s origin. My article demonstrates that the fluctuation theorems actually prove the exact opposite. Namely, systems driven far from equilibrium also tend to move toward greater entropy, and they tend to release heat into the environment. The origin of life requires the reverse: energy must be extracted from the environment in such a way as to raise a local collection of molecules’ free energy and, in the process, assemble them into a highly specified, low-entropy state.
England doesn’t buy it. His response is courteous (citations deleted):
In his statement above, Brian Miller thoughtfully expresses the view that this way of thinking has not made much progress so far. In the course of making this case, he says a great many things that are true. He gives a fair, high-level account of some recent progress in thinking about nonequilibrium statistical mechanics. It is true that fluctuation theorems have opened the door to proving general relationships between dissipation and fluctuation that hold far from thermal equilibrium. It is also true that I have proposed a way of manipulating one of these results into a form that reveals part of the thermodynamics of lifelike self-organization. My interlocutor has to be given tremendous credit for engaging with the right equation in the right paper, which has sadly turned out to be an uncommon feat among those reacting skeptically to the idea of dissipative adaptation.
A wonderful writer, he concludes:
In the end, the most important thing to emphasize is that the time has come to start being empirical in this research. Back-of-the-envelope calculations of prohibitively great improbabilities like the one quoted from Morowitz in this piece’s partner have been around for a while. They invariably rely on straw-man assumptions. Let it be granted, once and for all: waiting for a thermal fluctuation at thermal equilibrium to slap together a living organism is not going to work. So what? The first equation mentioned in my response implies that if scientists actually intend to compute the probability of forming a live cell, they should have to specify how long it takes while making reference to kinetic factors controlling the rates of reactions and to the amount energy absorbed and dissipated per unit of time by the system. If this sounds horribly complicated, it is. It should bring a humble understanding that such probabilities are unlikely to ever be computed accurately. Instead, our window onto thermodynamics should spur new empirical investigation. The theoretical relationship between probability and dissipated work is a thread that if pulled harder may yet unravel the whole tapestry. Coming into view is a gray spectrum of increasingly complex fine-tuning distinguishing the dust of the earth from life. Already, examples exist of structures that can form rapidly at high energy and low entropy and last for a long time, so long as they are fed with more energy of the type that generated them. That may not be life, but it surely is reason to hold back grand declarations about what is likely or impossible until we have better explored a new frontier.
Mistaken Identity
This is all doubly fascinating because of who Dr. England is, a star scientist but more than that, a very interesting person. As a star at MIT, he somehow got knighted by atheists as their champion against God. A headline from Salon in 2015 proclaimed, “God is on the ropes: The brilliant new science that has creationists and the Christian right terrified.” This was bizarre because England, supposedly making religious believers run scared, is himself an Orthodox Jew who has contributed reflections on Jewish theology to Commentary Magazine.
In his novel Origin, mega-bestseller Dan Brown subsequently picked up England to serve as whatever you’d call the opposite of a deus ex machina — a scientist descending in a machine to dispel the Creator — a use of himself with which England took issue. I wrote about the book, which pushes atheism and assisted suicide, here back in 2017:
What follows is a spoiler, so be warned: At the climax, Brown recounts the contents of a splashy video by atheist computer savant and “futurist” Edmond Kirsch, supposedly demonstrating that England in his research has explained how life originated through the laws of physics alone. This echoes a claim about Dr. England made by some journalists, which we’ve addressed before. England himself protested last week in a well-timed Wall Street Journal article, pointing out that he himself is a religious believer, an Orthodox Jew, and that the physics of life’s origin presented in Brown’s book is a vacant space: “There’s no real science in the book to argue over.”
It would be absurd for me to try to render a judgment as to who “wins” in the Miller-England matchup. You should read it yourself. The most important thing is just showing up, and what that demonstrates: that there is something of profound substance here to discuss. That was evident when the original edition of the the Ur-text of intelligent design, The Mystery of Life’s Origin (recently republished in a greatly expanded edition), was published in 1984. As James Tour, Brian Miller, and others have testified, it remains the case today.
Image: Jeremy England lectures in Stockholm, via YouTube.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-08--Stephen Meyer, Eric Metaxas: Gain and Loss and the Origin of Life

Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany “ revolutionized U.S. science and innovation , ” as Stanford University historian Petra Moser and others have pointed out .
Hitler ’ s loss was our gain .
Something not entirely dissimilar is the case in the history of the intelligent design movement and its own revolution .
On his radio show today , Eric Metaxas talked with Darwin ’ s Doubt author Stephen Meyer about the reissue of the expanded version of the Ur-text of intelligent design , a 35th anniversary edition of The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Dr. Meyer contributed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tour , Brian Miller , and other scientists who have come to doubt purely materialist accounts of how the first life arose .
Steve points out to Eric that “ Some of our very best scientists are refugees from top-level institutions in the mainstream science establishment.
” That sounds like a familiar tale .
Meyer mentions Günter Bechly , Douglas Axe , and Richard Sternberg .
In their cases , Darwin ’ s loss was our gain .
In the years since the publication of Mystery , with its trio of authors ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Olsen ) , Dr. Meyer notes a significant pattern .
Scientists who were originally atheists or agnostics weighed the evidence for design in biology and in the origin of life .
This changed their thinking about science .
And in not a few cases , that in turn changed their thinking about the nature of reality , and about the possibility of a transcendent intelligence at the origin of all things .
Atheism ’ s loss , God ’ s gain .
Enjoy an entertaining and enlightening conversation between Eric Metaxas and Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the make-believe ” in what ’ s called consensus science .
You can also download the audio here .

Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany “revolutionized U.S. science and innovation,” as Stanford University historian Petra Moser and others have pointed out. Hitler’s loss was our gain. Something not entirely dissimilar is the case in the history of the intelligent design movement and its own revolution.
On his radio show today, Eric Metaxas talked with Darwin’s Doubt author Stephen Meyer about the reissue of the expanded version of the Ur-text of intelligent design, a 35th anniversary edition of The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Dr. Meyer contributed a new chapter, as did James Tour, Brian Miller, and other scientists who have come to doubt purely materialist accounts of how the first life arose. Steve points out to Eric that “Some of our very best scientists are refugees from top-level institutions in the mainstream science establishment.” That sounds like a familiar tale.
Meyer mentions Günter Bechly, Douglas Axe, and Richard Sternberg. In their cases, Darwin’s loss was our gain.
In the years since the publication of Mystery, with its trio of authors (Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, Roger Olsen), Dr. Meyer notes a significant pattern. Scientists who were originally atheists or agnostics weighed the evidence for design in biology and in the origin of life. This changed their thinking about science. And in not a few cases, that in turn changed their thinking about the nature of reality, and about the possibility of a transcendent intelligence at the origin of all things. Atheism’s loss, God’s gain.
Enjoy an entertaining and enlightening conversation between Eric Metaxas and Steve Meyer about “the wishful thinking and the make-believe” in what’s called consensus science. You can also download the audio here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-08--Why Building Animals Is Hard

Why Building Animals Is Hard

While out lecturing around the country — in May 2020 , just a fond memory ; only my cats hear @ @ @ @ @ , everyone else tunes in on Zoom — I ’ m often asked , “ @ @ @ @ @ Institute Summer Seminars like , anyway ?
” You can see for yourself by going @ @ @ @ @ material I have presented for the past few years , under the heading of “ @ @ @ @ @ evolution and development.
” I am revamping my evo-devo lectures from top to bottom , @ @ @ @ @ to anyone interested will take nothing away from future Summer Seminar students .
Comments welcome @ @ @ @ @ [ email protected ] , and I will take them seriously .

While out lecturing around the country — in May 2020, just a fond memory; only my cats hear me lecture in person now, everyone else tunes in on Zoom — I’m often asked, “So what are the Discovery Institute Summer Seminars like, anyway?” You can see for yourself by going here. This lecture represents material I have presented for the past few years, under the heading of “evo-devo,” or “evolution and development.” I am revamping my evo-devo lectures from top to bottom, so making this talk available to anyone interested will take nothing away from future Summer Seminar students. Comments welcome — please send them to cscinfo@discovery.org, and I will take them seriously.
Photo credit: Wolfgang Hasselmann via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-08--The Science Guild’s Mask Is Falling Off

The Science Guild’s Mask Is Falling Off

Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that science is iconoclastic .
He quipped that “ science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
” Good science is edgy , takes risks , thinks outside of the box .
Real experts are good at what they do , and they understand and acknowledge their own ignorance and welcome controversies and new insights .
Economist Alexander Salter at Texas Tech has an excellent essay for the American Institute for Economic Research .
From “ Incompetent Experts and Bad Government ” : Experts in the supposedly scientific fields of public health and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Their failures would be comedic , were the consequences not so tragic .
Instead of capable service for the public ’ s welfare , the American people have been made to suffer incompetence and malfeasance .
Unless we critically examine the failure of experts , we invite similar blunders in the future… In terms of incompetence , it would be difficult to top this country ’ s public health officials .
Case in point is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
The CDC , as it describes itself , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , safety , and security threats.
” In truth , it has directly contributed to the opposite .
If This Were a Novel Salter rightly takes the CDC to task , noting that we lag behind most other advanced nations in our testing for the coronavirus , and it is mostly the CDC ’ s fault .
Working physicians , including my colleagues here in New York at the corona front line , are acutely aware of that .
You ’ d think that the agency tasked with prevention of pandemics would be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was not .
Testing is essential for safely reemerging from our quarantine and also essential if we are to understand the epidemiological dynamics of this virus .
Even after the CDC failed to sound the alarm to close our borders to people , from Wuhan and then Europe , who were vectors for this virus — we had excellent reason to know in December that this was coming — the models for death rates and need for medical resources were basically worthless .
These models led us to make political and economic decisions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ haven ’ t even begun to discuss the WHO .
For months , the World Health Organization covered up the seriousness of this threat to world health .
If this were a novel , we ’ d conclude that the plot was too bizarre to believe .
There is another sharp irony here : Internet atheists ( and some journalists ) have used the pandemic to bash religious believers and to imply that the “ anti-intellectual ” behavior of people of faith plays a large role in the spread of this virus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific establishment — the largest community of atheist scientific experts on earth — who inflicted this pandemic on the world .
Perhaps a little belief in transcendent moral accountability would have tweaked the consciences of the “ freethinking ” scientific experts and politicians in China when they dissembled and covered up and let this virus spread , just to protect their own backsides .
The pandemic didn ’ t start at a church barbecue .
There is a context to the scientific and political culture in China that spawned this atrocity .
Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this — “ and that ’ s my best-case scenario ” — as journalistic “ Cassandra ” Laurie Garrett predicts to a deferential Frank Bruni in the New York Times ?
That would be the end not only of our economy but of Western civilization .
America needs good information , from many rigorously designed studies , about the prevalence and deadliness of coronavirus infections in given subsets of people , so that governors and mayors can develop rules for social distancing and reopening that are sensible , sustainable and tailored to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ federal government that assertively promotes and helps to coordinate that , not one in which experts like Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx tiptoe around a president ’ s tender ego .
Should it , then , be the experts , with their models and studies , who are the ones ultimately in charge , freed from “ tiptoeing ” around political leaders and the voters who lawfully elect them ?
On the contrary .
We , the American people , need to establish some limits on the authority of our “ experts.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci has to say , what Bill Gates has to say .
But listen to many other voices as well , inside and outside of the circle of public health doyens .
The American people is sovereign and we must take counsel together to decide on the best course of action .
The American scientific community has become a secular priesthood that desperately needs laicization .
We need to understand , too , that the experts who botched this pandemic are the same people who tell us we are obliged to embrace the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Darwin ’ s theory is a fact , that the mind is meat , that quantum mechanics is the “ nothing ” from which the universe popped into existence , that free will isn ’ t real , and that science disproves God ’ s existence .
Science by consensus is science by guild , and as we are seeing now , rule by the science guild is not merely unwise , it is deadly .
Just when we are putting masks on , the science guild ’ s mask is falling @ @

Theoretical physicist Richard Feynman pointed out that science is iconoclastic. He quipped that “science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” Good science is edgy, takes risks, thinks outside of the box. Real experts are good at what they do, and they understand and acknowledge their own ignorance and welcome controversies and new insights.
Economist Alexander Salter at Texas Tech has an excellent essay for the American Institute for Economic Research. From “Incompetent Experts and Bad Government”:
Experts in the supposedly scientific fields of public health and economics have made a mess of things. Their failures would be comedic, were the consequences not so tragic. Instead of capable service for the public’s welfare, the American people have been made to suffer incompetence and malfeasance. Unless we critically examine the failure of experts, we invite similar blunders in the future… In terms of incompetence, it would be difficult to top this country’s public health officials. Case in point is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC, as it describes itself, “saves lives and protects people from health, safety, and security threats.” In truth, it has directly contributed to the opposite.
If This Were a Novel
Salter rightly takes the CDC to task, noting that we lag behind most other advanced nations in our testing for the coronavirus, and it is mostly the CDC’s fault. Working physicians, including my colleagues here in New York at the corona front line, are acutely aware of that. You’d think that the agency tasked with prevention of pandemics would be ahead of the curve, but it was not. Testing is essential for safely reemerging from our quarantine and also essential if we are to understand the epidemiological dynamics of this virus. Even after the CDC failed to sound the alarm to close our borders to people, from Wuhan and then Europe, who were vectors for this virus — we had excellent reason to know in December that this was coming — the models for death rates and need for medical resources were basically worthless. These models led us to make political and economic decisions based on faulty science. And we haven’t even begun to discuss the WHO. For months, the World Health Organization covered up the seriousness of this threat to world health. If this were a novel, we’d conclude that the plot was too bizarre to believe.
There is another sharp irony here: Internet atheists (and some journalists) have used the pandemic to bash religious believers and to imply that the “anti-intellectual” behavior of people of faith plays a large role in the spread of this virus. Of course, it is the Chinese scientific establishment — the largest community of atheist scientific experts on earth — who inflicted this pandemic on the world. Perhaps a little belief in transcendent moral accountability would have tweaked the consciences of the “freethinking” scientific experts and politicians in China when they dissembled and covered up and let this virus spread, just to protect their own backsides. The pandemic didn’t start at a church barbecue. There is a context to the scientific and political culture in China that spawned this atrocity.
Certainly, Listen to Dr. Fauci
Will it then be another 36 months of this — “and that’s my best-case scenario” — as journalistic “Cassandra” Laurie Garrett predicts to a deferential Frank Bruni in the New York Times? That would be the end not only of our economy but of Western civilization.
Bruni comments:
America needs good information, from many rigorously designed studies, about the prevalence and deadliness of coronavirus infections in given subsets of people, so that governors and mayors can develop rules for social distancing and reopening that are sensible, sustainable and tailored to the situation at hand. America needs a federal government that assertively promotes and helps to coordinate that, not one in which experts like Tony Fauci and Deborah Birx tiptoe around a president’s tender ego.
Should it, then, be the experts, with their models and studies, who are the ones ultimately in charge, freed from “tiptoeing” around political leaders and the voters who lawfully elect them?
On the contrary. We, the American people, need to establish some limits on the authority of our “experts.” By all means listen to what Dr. Fauci has to say, what Bill Gates has to say. But listen to many other voices as well, inside and outside of the circle of public health doyens. The American people is sovereign and we must take counsel together to decide on the best course of action. The American scientific community has become a secular priesthood that desperately needs laicization.
We need to understand, too, that the experts who botched this pandemic are the same people who tell us we are obliged to embrace the “consensus” in other matters: that Darwin’s theory is a fact, that the mind is meat, that quantum mechanics is the “nothing” from which the universe popped into existence, that free will isn’t real, and that science disproves God’s existence. Science by consensus is science by guild, and as we are seeing now, rule by the science guild is not merely unwise, it is deadly. Just when we are putting masks on, the science guild’s mask is falling off.
Photo credit: ???????? Claudio Schwarz | @purzlbaum via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-08--Recommended Reading: A Handbook of the Big Bang

It would be easy to miss the new book on cosmology by Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis in a bookstore .
One could easily mistake the raised fist artwork on the cover for an indicator of Marxist content .
The book ’ s title , The Cosmic Revolutionary ’ s Handbook , is not helpful either .
Perhaps the publisher , Cambridge University Press , thought this might help sales with the younger hip generation .
Readers of Evolution News probably know this duo from their prior collaborative project , A Fortunate Universe : Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m asked about the best introductory and up-to-date book on cosmological fine-tuning .
Their new book is on the big bang theory and nicely complements the previous work .
Both A Fortunate Universe and Handbook would serve as helpful background for those interested in reading Stephen Meyer ’ s next book , The Return of the God Hypothesis .
Handbook is a modest 278 pages in length .
It has several helpful black-and-white images , drawings , and illustrations .
There are only a few simple equations .
Anyone with a high school @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Barnes and Lewis succinctly explain the title of their new book in the first line .
They say , “ We want to teach you how to overthrow a scientific theory.
” In other words , they ’ ve written a handbook for people who don ’ t agree with the current consensus cosmology and want to overthrow it .
In truth , anyone interested in cosmology , skeptic or not , will get much from their book .
They begin by discussing what makes for a good scientific model , relying heavily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mike Keas on the topic .
They go on to suggest several practical steps to getting your cosmological ideas published .
They warn potential revolutionaries that “ your glorious 400-page unsolicited Word document , with seven different fonts , Microsoft Paint diagrams , and ALL CAPS , is headed straight for the trash.
” You really do need to go through the tedious process of submitting to a scientific journal and multiple rounds of review and revision before cosmologists will pay any attention to you .
You Say You Want a Revolution In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Revolution ?
” the authors argue that journal editors and scientists want to encourage and publish new ideas , and that “ you don ’ t get new grant money for doing old science.
” This is one of the very few parts of the book that I disagree with .
While I would agree with their statements here in the general sense , there are some areas of science where these rules don ’ t apply .
I ’ m thinking of scientists critical of the old science of Darwinism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anthropogenic global warming alarmism .
The censorship ( and even punishment ) of scientists holding to these positions shows that the journal review and publication process is broken in these areas .
I do agree that the field of cosmology does not suffer from this malady , as evidenced , for example , by the publication of minority view theories like Modified Newtonian Dynamics ( MOND ) .
Several chapters read like condensed versions of chapters you would find in an introductory college astronomy textbook .
But I think Barnes and Lewis do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Chapter 2 , “ How Dark Is the Night ?
” the authors treat the reader to a refreshingly accurate , if brief , overview of the history of astronomy .
They quickly dispatch the “ dark ages ” and “ Copernican dethronement ” modern historical myths .
They also give a more in-depth discussion of Olber ’ s Paradox ( “ Why is the night sky dark ?
” ) than do most introductory textbooks .
Olber ’ s Paradox was the first evidence supportive of the big bang theory ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After setting the table in the first two chapters Barnes and Lewis begin serving the meat and veggies .
They introduce Hubble ’ s Law ( or , better yet , the Hubble-Lemaître Law ) , which describes how galaxy redshift depends on distance .
They don ’ t shy from covering controversies .
They write about Halton Arp ’ s catalog of quasars with anomalous redshifts , in which high-redshift quasars appear to be associated with low-redshift galaxies .
Even if this association were true ( highly doubtful ) , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Law , which is based on galaxy redshifts .
In the next chapters they cover a few important observational confirmations of the big bang theory usually not included in introductory treatments due to their technical nature .
One is the time dilation of supernova light curves .
This effect causes the light curves of high redshift ( more distant ) supernovae to change more slowly than those of low redshift supernovae .
This is a simple test of the big bang theory , as it only depends on the amount of expansion since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that only depends on its redshift ) .
The Tolman-Sandage test provides a less simple test .
It relates the surface brightness of an elliptical galaxy to its redshift .
While it also confirms the big bang theory , it depends on knowing several corrections which add uncertainty to the final results ( a fact the authors readily admit ) .
In a cleverly titled section , “ A Rival Falls : Putting Tired Light to Bed , ” we learn how an early attempt to explain the Hubble- Lemaître Law , tired @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Next , Barnes and Lewis discuss what has come to be seen as the most important big bang confirmation , the cosmic microwave background ( CMB ) radiation .
For background on the history of the CMB radiation measurements see here .
They make the important points that the CMB follows very precisely the spectrum of an ideal blackbody thermal emitter and that its radiation is coming to us from all directions .
A blackbody spectrum is produced when matter and light are in thermal equilibrium and have the same temperature .
However @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2.725 degrees K. There is no matter today that can be the source of this radiation .
The big bang provides the answer : the CMB is the hugely redshifted radiation from a time long ago , when the universe was much hotter and denser , when matter and radiation were strongly coupled .
They also describe a rarely noted confirmation , the evolution of the CMB temperature with redshift .
As the universe ages , the original CMB radiation becomes ever more redshifted and cooler .
This means that if we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( at large observed redshifts ) , we should see a higher temperature .
This is precisely what is observed ( equal to the predicted slope ) , using two different kinds of measurements .
Barnes and Lewis cover other observational confirmations of the big bang theory including the quasar Lyman alpha forest and the abundances of the light elements .
But , I won ’ t discuss these here .
I ’ ll leave something for the reader !
In their chapter , “ Balls from Left Field , ” Barnes and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standard big bang cosmology including Humphreys ’ s white hole cosmology , redshift quantization , and the linear universe model .
I think they do a good job here .
It is only near the end of the book that the reader finally gets to learn about dark matter and dark energy .
They admit that cosmologists are not happy with their ignorance of the nature of the “ dark sector.
” Is this why they deferred the discussion ?
No .
Here ’ s how they put it ( on page 226 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s predictions discussed so far do not depend on whether there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe or not.
” Remember , the big bang merely posits that the universe has been expanding and cooling over its history from a much denser and hotter state .
On the question that is undoubtedly at the front of the reader ’ s mind , “ So , was there a beginning ?
” , Barnes and Lewis are noncommittal .
They admit that a big bang model based on general relativity ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beginning .
As they put it , “ Many of our clues point to a beginning , but not all , and none decisively.
” ( page 254 ) I was hoping for a knock down drag out fight between Barnes ( a Christian ) and Lewis ( an atheist ) like they had in A Fortunate Universe .
Well , maybe it was more cordial than I recall .
Barnes could have mounted a powerful defense of a beginning to the material universe .
There is nothing in the basic big bang @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the origin of the universe .
But , it does strongly imply a beginning .
And , although it is beyond the scope of their book , the Second Law of Thermodynamics combined with the observation that the early universe was in a very low entropy state imply that it could not have existed from eternity past .
It corroborates the big bang evidence for a beginning .
For readers left wondering about a cosmic beginning , I recommend reading Bill Craig ’ s chapter , “ Creation Ex Nihilo : Theology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Cosmos : How the Heavens Declare the Glory of God .
Craig explains how the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies a beginning for the classical spacetime of general relativity and why a quantum gravity theory would not alter the need for a beginning .
Craig ’ s chapter can serve as the “ missing chapter ” in Handbook that answers this chief question of questions .
There is another missing chapter in Handbook , one that would cover the recent “ crisis in cosmology.
” ( See here . )
It became increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 and through 2019 .
Perhaps Barnes and Lewis had a deadline to get the book manuscript completed by 2018 .
So , I ’ ll give them a pass , but I do expect them to cover it in their second edition !
Overall , I would recommend Handbook for anyone who would like to learn about modern cosmology and who is open to learning why cosmologists are so convinced the evidence supports the big bang theory .

A new composite image of the Crab Nebula features X-rays from Chandra (blue and white), optical data from Hubble (purple), and infrared data from Spitzer (pink). Chandra has repeatedly observed the Crab since the telescope was launched into space in 1999. The Crab Nebula is powered by a quickly spinning, highly magnetized neutron star called a pulsar, which was formed when a massive star ran out of its nuclear fuel and collapsed. The combination of rapid rotation and a strong magnetic field in the Crab generates an intense electromagnetic field that creates jets of matter and anti-matter moving away from both the north and south poles of the pulsar, and an intense wind flowing out in the equatorial direction.
It would be easy to miss the new book on cosmology by Luke Barnes and Geraint Lewis in a bookstore. One could easily mistake the raised fist artwork on the cover for an indicator of Marxist content. The book’s title, The Cosmic Revolutionary’s Handbook, is not helpful either. Perhaps the publisher, Cambridge University Press, thought this might help sales with the younger hip generation.
Readers of Evolution News probably know this duo from their prior collaborative project, A Fortunate Universe: Life in a Finely Tuned Cosmos. I suggest it whenever I’m asked about the best introductory and up-to-date book on cosmological fine-tuning. Their new book is on the big bang theory and nicely complements the previous work. Both A Fortunate Universe and Handbook would serve as helpful background for those interested in reading Stephen Meyer’s next book, The Return of the God Hypothesis.
Handbook is a modest 278 pages in length. It has several helpful black-and-white images, drawings, and illustrations. There are only a few simple equations. Anyone with a high school education will understand the main points.
A Paper by Michael Keas
Barnes and Lewis succinctly explain the title of their new book in the first line. They say, “We want to teach you how to overthrow a scientific theory.” In other words, they’ve written a handbook for people who don’t agree with the current consensus on cosmology and want to overthrow it. In truth, anyone interested in cosmology, skeptic or not, will get much from their book. They begin by discussing what makes for a good scientific model, relying heavily on a recent paper by our own Mike Keas on the topic.
They go on to suggest several practical steps to getting your cosmological ideas published. They warn potential revolutionaries that “your glorious 400-page unsolicited Word document, with seven different fonts, Microsoft Paint diagrams, and ALL CAPS, is headed straight for the trash.” You really do need to go through the tedious process of submitting to a scientific journal and multiple rounds of review and revision before cosmologists will pay any attention to you.
You Say You Want a Revolution
In their section, “Does Science Want a Revolution?” the authors argue that journal editors and scientists want to encourage and publish new ideas, and that “you don’t get new grant money for doing old science.” This is one of the very few parts of the book that I disagree with. While I would agree with their statements here in the general sense, there are some areas of science where these rules don’t apply. I’m thinking of scientists critical of the old science of Darwinism, pro-ID scientists, and scientists skeptical of anthropogenic global warming alarmism. The censorship (and even punishment) of scientists holding to these positions shows that the journal review and publication process is broken in these areas. I do agree that the field of cosmology does not suffer from this malady, as evidenced, for example, by the publication of minority view theories like Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND).
Several chapters read like condensed versions of chapters you would find in an introductory college astronomy textbook. But I think Barnes and Lewis do a better job. For example, in Chapter 2, “How Dark Is the Night?” the authors treat the reader to a refreshingly accurate, if brief, overview of the history of astronomy. They quickly dispatch the “dark ages” and “Copernican dethronement” modern historical myths. They also give a more in-depth discussion of Olber’s Paradox (“Why is the night sky dark?”) than do most introductory textbooks. Olber’s Paradox was the first evidence supportive of the big bang theory (before the theory was even proposed).
Meat and Veggies
After setting the table in the first two chapters Barnes and Lewis begin serving the meat and veggies. They introduce Hubble’s Law (or, better yet, the Hubble-Lemaître Law), which describes how galaxy redshift depends on distance. They don’t shy from covering controversies. They write about Halton Arp’s catalog of quasars with anomalous redshifts, in which high-redshift quasars appear to be associated with low-redshift galaxies. Even if this association were true (highly doubtful), it has no bearing on Hubble’s Law, which is based on galaxy redshifts.
In the next chapters they cover a few important observational confirmations of the big bang theory usually not included in introductory treatments due to their technical nature. One is the time dilation of supernova light curves. This effect causes the light curves of high redshift (more distant) supernovae to change more slowly than those of low redshift supernovae. This is a simple test of the big bang theory, as it only depends on the amount of expansion since the light left the supernova (and that only depends on its redshift). The Tolman-Sandage test provides a less simple test. It relates the surface brightness of an elliptical galaxy to its redshift. While it also confirms the big bang theory, it depends on knowing several corrections which add uncertainty to the final results (a fact the authors readily admit). In a cleverly titled section, “A Rival Falls: Putting Tired Light to Bed,” we learn how an early attempt to explain the Hubble- Lemaître Law, tired light, fails both these tests.
The Most Important Confirmation
Next, Barnes and Lewis discuss what has come to be seen as the most important big bang confirmation, the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. For background on the history of the CMB radiation measurements see here. They make the important points that the CMB follows very precisely the spectrum of an ideal blackbody thermal emitter and that its radiation is coming to us from all directions. A blackbody spectrum is produced when matter and light are in thermal equilibrium and have the same temperature. However, the temperature of the CMB is 2.725 degrees K. There is no matter today that can be the source of this radiation. The big bang provides the answer: the CMB is the hugely redshifted radiation from a time long ago, when the universe was much hotter and denser, when matter and radiation were strongly coupled.
They also describe a rarely noted confirmation, the evolution of the CMB temperature with redshift. As the universe ages, the original CMB radiation becomes ever more redshifted and cooler. This means that if we can measure the CMB in the distant universe (at large observed redshifts), we should see a higher temperature. This is precisely what is observed (equal to the predicted slope), using two different kinds of measurements. Barnes and Lewis cover other observational confirmations of the big bang theory including the quasar Lyman alpha forest and the abundances of the light elements. But, I won’t discuss these here. I’ll leave something for the reader!
Out of Left Field
In their chapter, “Balls from Left Field,” Barnes and Lewis describe and criticize several challenges to standard big bang cosmology including Humphreys’s white hole cosmology, redshift quantization, and the linear universe model. I think they do a good job here.
It is only near the end of the book that the reader finally gets to learn about dark matter and dark energy. They admit that cosmologists are not happy with their ignorance of the nature of the “dark sector.” Is this why they deferred the discussion? No. Here’s how they put it (on page 226): “The big bang’s predictions discussed so far do not depend on whether there is dark matter and dark energy in the universe or not.” Remember, the big bang merely posits that the universe has been expanding and cooling over its history from a much denser and hotter state.
On the question that is undoubtedly at the front of the reader’s mind, “So, was there a beginning?”, Barnes and Lewis are noncommittal. They admit that a big bang model based on general relativity (and no quantum effects) has a beginning. As they put it, “Many of our clues point to a beginning, but not all, and none decisively.” (page 254) I was hoping for a knock down drag out fight between Barnes (a Christian) and Lewis (an atheist) like they had in A Fortunate Universe. Well, maybe it was more cordial than I recall. Barnes could have mounted a powerful defense of a beginning to the material universe.
The Beginning of Things
There is nothing in the basic big bang theory, by itself, that speaks to the origin of the universe. But, it does strongly imply a beginning. And, although it is beyond the scope of their book, the Second Law of Thermodynamics combined with the observation that the early universe was in a very low entropy state imply that it could not have existed from eternity past. It corroborates the big bang evidence for a beginning. For readers left wondering about a cosmic beginning, I recommend reading Bill Craig’s chapter, “Creation Ex Nihilo: Theology and Science,” in The Story of the Cosmos: How the Heavens Declare the Glory of God.
Craig explains how the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem implies a beginning for the classical spacetime of general relativity and why a quantum gravity theory would not alter the need for a beginning. Craig’s chapter can serve as the “missing chapter” in Handbook that answers this chief question of questions.
There is another missing chapter in Handbook, one that would cover the recent “crisis in cosmology.” (See here.) It became increasingly obvious that a crisis exists in April 2018 and through 2019. Perhaps Barnes and Lewis had a deadline to get the book manuscript completed by 2018. So, I’ll give them a pass, but I do expect them to cover it in their second edition!
Overall, I would recommend Handbook for anyone who would like to learn about modern cosmology and who is open to learning why cosmologists are so convinced the evidence supports the big bang theory.
Image: Crab Nebula, by NASA/CXC/SAO; Optical: NASA/STScI; Infrared: NASA-JPL-Caltech.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-09--Marks, Bringsjord: Confound Your Atheist Friends with Gödel’s “God Theorem”

I recommend that you listen to a fascinating conversation over at Mind Matters .
Robert J .
Marks , who @ @ @ @ @ Walter Bradley Center , talks with cognitive scientist Selmer Bringsjord of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute about @ @ @ @ @ ” formulated by Kurt Gödel .
You didn ’ t know that Gödel was a @ @ @ @ @ of God ’ s existence was discovered among his papers when he died ?
Well @ @ @ @ @ you can just go ahead and share that with your atheist friends — post it @ @ @ @ @ and watch them squirm .
I ’ m joking about that — but not about @ @ @ @ @ is .
Find it here at Mind Matters .
Dr. Marks and Dr. Bringsjord also @ @ @ @ @ proof of God ’ s existence and Bringsjord gives as lucid and easy-to-follow a rendition @ @ @ @ @ heard .
Images : “ The Gulf Stream in Infrared , ” via NASA ; @ @ @ @ @ “ God Theorem , ” via Wikipedia .

I recommend that you listen to a fascinating conversation over at Mind Matters. Robert J. Marks, who directs Discovery Institute’s Walter Bradley Center, talks with cognitive scientist Selmer Bringsjord of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute about the unpublished “God Theorem” formulated by Kurt Gödel. You didn’t know that Gödel was a theist and that a proof of God’s existence was discovered among his papers when he died? Well here it is:
So you can just go ahead and share that with your atheist friends — post it on social media! — and watch them squirm.
I’m joking about that — but not about what an interesting podcast this is. Find it here at Mind Matters. Dr. Marks and Dr. Bringsjord also discuss Anselm’s ontological proof of God’s existence and Bringsjord gives as lucid and easy-to-follow a rendition of that as I have heard.
Images: “The Gulf Stream in Infrared,” via NASA; Kurt Gödel’s unpublished “God Theorem,” via Wikipedia.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-10--How a Perfect Solar Eclipse Suggests Intelligent Design

What do you know about eclipses ?
Join us for a classic ID the Future episode and learn more .
Back in August 2017 , residents of the United States got to see a perfect solar eclipse .
CSC Senior Fellow Jay Richards explains how perfect solar eclipses are the tip of an iceberg-size design argument , fully articulated in a book he co-wrote , The Privileged Planet .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
The conditions for a habitable planet ( right distance from the right size star , a big but not too big moon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stabilize the planet ’ s tilt and circulate its oceans ) are also conditions that make perfect solar eclipses from the planet ’ s surface much more likely .
And perfect eclipses aren ’ t just eerie and beautiful .
They ’ ve helped scientists test and discover things , and they are part of a larger pattern : the conditions needed for a habitable place in the cosmos correlate with the conditions well suited for scientific discovery .
As Richards notes , this correlation is inexplicable if the cosmos is the product @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s intelligently designed with creatures like us in mind , it ’ s just what we might expect .
Photo : Center for Science & Culture Senior Fellow and Privileged Planet co-author Jay W. Richards takes in the total eclipse of the sun ; pictured here five minutes after totality .

What do you know about eclipses? Join us for a classic ID the Future episode and learn more. Back in August 2017, residents of the United States got to see a perfect solar eclipse. CSC Senior Fellow Jay Richards explains how perfect solar eclipses are the tip of an iceberg-size design argument, fully articulated in a book he co-wrote, The Privileged Planet. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The conditions for a habitable planet (right distance from the right size star, a big but not too big moon that is the right distance away to stabilize the planet’s tilt and circulate its oceans) are also conditions that make perfect solar eclipses from the planet’s surface much more likely. And perfect eclipses aren’t just eerie and beautiful. They’ve helped scientists test and discover things, and they are part of a larger pattern: the conditions needed for a habitable place in the cosmos correlate with the conditions well suited for scientific discovery. As Richards notes, this correlation is inexplicable if the cosmos is the product of chance. But if it’s intelligently designed with creatures like us in mind, it’s just what we might expect.
Photo: Center for Science & Culture Senior Fellow and Privileged Planet co-author Jay W. Richards takes in the total eclipse of the sun; pictured here five minutes after totality.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-11--Free Webinar, May 16: Compliant or Critical? Scientific Authority in the Age of COVID-19

The coronavirus and the lockdown have made taking a critical look at the moral authority of science more urgent than ever .
The same “ science guild ” that bungled the pandemic demands our consent in other matters : “ that Darwin ’ s theory is a fact , that the mind is meat , that quantum mechanics is the ‘ nothing ’ from which the universe popped into existence , that free will isn ’ t real , and that science disproves God ’ s existence.
” As neuroscientist Michael Egnor and others at Evolution News have asked : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about science , with its immense prestige and ever-changing prescriptions , in a less compliant and more skeptical light ?
Join Discovery Institute scholars this Saturday , May 16 , for a discussion of scientism and the scientific “ consensus.
” It ’ s a free live webinar , “ Science , Scientism , and Society , ” with political scientist John West , computer engineer Robert J .
Marks , and physicist Brian Miller .
We ’ ll open the conversation at 12 pm Pacific time .
Look here for more information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute ’ s last webinar was oversubscribed , so be sure to reserve your space now .
John West is Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture .
Robert J .
Marks is Director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence .
Brian Miller is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture .
In our culture , authorities in academia and the media increasingly use science as a tool , not for its traditional role in exploring nature , but for marshaling the public toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ our own flourishing .
“ Follow the science !
” we ’ re told .
“ Listen to the scientists !
” Should we submit to such calls , or insist on thinking for ourselves ?
This webinar sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute offers you a framework for considering science and scientists in new and more productive ways .
Please join us .

The coronavirus and the lockdown have made taking a critical look at the moral authority of science more urgent than ever. The same “science guild” that bungled the pandemic demands our consent in other matters: “that Darwin’s theory is a fact, that the mind is meat, that quantum mechanics is the ‘nothing’ from which the universe popped into existence, that free will isn’t real, and that science disproves God’s existence.”
As neuroscientist Michael Egnor and others at Evolution News have asked: Isn’t it time to think about science, with its immense prestige and ever-changing prescriptions, in a less compliant and more skeptical light? Join Discovery Institute scholars this Saturday, May 16, for a discussion of scientism and the scientific “consensus.” It’s a free live webinar, “Science, Scientism, and Society,” with political scientist John West, computer engineer Robert J. Marks, and physicist Brian Miller.
We’ll open the conversation at 12 pm Pacific time. Look here for more information and for a link to register. Discovery Institute’s last webinar was oversubscribed, so be sure to reserve your space now.
Hope or Despair from Science?
We will discuss:
“Science and Scientism in the Age of COVID-19: Wisdom from C. S. Lewis” (West)
“AI: Menace or Savior?” (Marks)
“Hope from Science: Evidence for a Purposeful Universe” (Miller)
John West is Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture. Robert J. Marks is Director of the Walter Bradley Center for Natural & Artificial Intelligence. Brian Miller is Research Coordinator for the Center for Science & Culture.
In our culture, authorities in academia and the media increasingly use science as a tool, not for its traditional role in exploring nature, but for marshaling the public toward destinations that may not be conducive to our own flourishing. “Follow the science!” we’re told. “Listen to the scientists!” Should we submit to such calls, or insist on thinking for ourselves? This webinar sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute offers you a framework for considering science and scientists in new and more productive ways. Please join us.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-11--On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England

I greatly appreciated the opportunity to interact with physicist Jeremy England in the journal Inference .
See my earlier article on the subject here .
England is a very talented researcher , and embodies the highest ideals of the academy .
He also addresses himself in other contexts to the general public .
I note that he has a new book due to be published in September , Every Life Is on Fire : How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things , which the publisher , Basic Books , offers as being “ in the tradition of Viktor Frankl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Meaning.
” Clearly , the questions he and I have discussed are not only of scientific or academic interest , but instead go to the root of life ’ s meaning and purpose .
His response to my article is both collegial and thoughtful .
He acknowledges my understanding of his work and of the underlying fluctuation theorems , and he respectfully expresses his disagreement with my conclusion .
In reality , the difference in our views stems less from our understanding of the science than from the different contexts in which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy ( higher free energy ) , thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life , at least in theory .
In contrast , I addressed the likelihood that , given the practical constraints , realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell .
In that context , England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be possible in principle , but it is completely implausible in practice .
The main points of my argument can be summarized as follows : • Natural processes tend to drive systems toward higher entropy , lower energy , or both .
In direct conflict , the origin of life requires a collection of molecules to move toward dramatically lower entropy and higher energy .
• The only way to overcome the thermodynamic barriers is for an engine to be present at the very instantiation of life that can convert some available source @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuel the construction and operations of a cell .
• Significant quantities of information must also be present both to steer a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that comprise a minimally viable cell and to direct the generated energy toward powering the otherwise nonspontaneous reactions .
The Need for Engines and Information In his response , England directly affirms the first and second points : What England calls a process that “ absorbs and dissipates a lot of energy from the environment ” in such a way as to create a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of matter ” is precisely what I called an engine .
Another useful designation in some contexts would be an energy converter .
And , in the earlier paragraphs he explicitly acknowledges that natural processes , without such an engine , always move matter toward high entropy , lower energy , or both .
England did not address my third point directly , but he did cite several research articles that affirm the need for preexisting information and for an engine/energy converter implicitly .
In my article , I demonstrated that England ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , here ) must incorporate the equivalent of the molecular engines and the information-rich enzymes seen in life .
England cited other studies that likewise demonstrate that energy converters and supplied information are required to drive matter to a raised free energy .
For instance , he referenced his study on a simulation of a spin glass driven by an applied time-varying magnetic field .
A spin glass models a network of atoms with spins aligned in non-uniform directions .
In the experiment , the field periodically switches between distinct time-varying patterns .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which generates fine-tuned memory effects .
Of central importance , the applied field and its pattern of switching is constructed to interact with the network in the distinct manner required to achieve the desired class of responses .
As such , the field effectively functions as a finely tuned energy converter .
The role of information in the simulation is more subtle and calls for a brief digression into information theory .
A key tenet is that information can often be thought of as that which enacts causal control over or reduces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the case of the experiment , the highly specified construction of the simulation entails the implementation of information .
The applied information constrains the dynamics ( reduces the uncertainty ) to effect a specific category of outcomes .
It functions equivalently to the information in an enzyme that directs the production of a specific molecule .
The same preconditions hold true for another experiment England referenced that studies the behavior of particles placed in a viscous liquid and confined within an acrylic tube that acts as a waveguide .
The particles are agitated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speakers .
The particles ’ motion and the sound transmission through the waveguide are measured respectively by a webcam and microphone .
The researchers reported self-organization and “ life-like ” behavior in the bandgap ( i.e.
, range of acoustic wavelengths with reduced transmission through the waveguide ) : The key observations are that the speakers convert electricity into acoustic waves of specific wavelengths that interact with the particles in the required manner , so a speaker acts as a highly calibrated energy converter .
And the experimental instructions specify the precise shape @ @ @ @ @ @ @ size , shape , and physical properties of the particles ; the positions and orientations of the speakers ; and the physical properties of the viscous fluid .
These specifications represent applied information that constrains the dynamics in such a way as to produce the desired results .
Here again , achieving noteworthy behavior requires an energy converter and the application of information .
Relevance to the Origin of Life A key question is to what extent the experiments England cites resemble processes on the early earth .
The answer is that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ metallic ore mirroring a spin glass would ever have encountered a time-varying magnetic field that could significantly raise the free energy of its atomic network .
Nor would any collection of rocks or organic globules have ever experienced an acoustic wave that could induce self-organizational dynamics with life-like behavior .
The experiments , in fact , demonstrate that any mechanism that could effectively act as an engine/energy converter requires goal-oriented engineering and careful implementation .
The constraints governing an emerging cell present even greater challenges than in the cited experiments for nature to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the energy produced must be in the form of high-energy ( energy-currency ) molecules that could power the chemical reactions undergirding cellular operations .
The challenge is that the energy requirement is enormous .
As I explained in my article , the minimal power production capacity needed for a nascent cell just to prevent it from degrading into simple chemicals approaches , if scaled , that of a high-performance racing car .
The most promising candidate for a “ natural engine ” is proton flows across thermal vents that theoretically could generate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vents under ideal conditions only produce chemical energy at a rate that is at least eight orders of magnitude too small .
And the actual product is formaldehyde in concentrations far too miniscule to contribute to any stage in the genesis of a cell .
Such meager results simply highlight the fact that no natural mechanism could realistically generate the required energy to power even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario .
Moreover , the driven objects in each of the cited experiments are identical , so they all interact uniformly with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the reactions in a cell are quite different .
As a result , no single engine could drive more than one or two of them even under ideal conditions .
Consequently , a cell requires multiple mechanisms to extract the energy from the energy-currency molecules and direct it toward powering each distinct reaction .
I detailed in my article how only a suite of hundreds of enzymes could meet this requirement , which corresponds to at least a million bits of information .
England ’ s response to my article has only reinforced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where some theories hypothesize that life originated , by NOAA [ Public domain ] , via Wikimedia Commons .

I greatly appreciated the opportunity to interact with physicist Jeremy England in the journal Inference. See my earlier article on the subject here. England is a very talented researcher, and embodies the highest ideals of the academy. He also addresses himself in other contexts to the general public. I note that he has a new book due to be published in September, Every Life Is on Fire: How Thermodynamics Explains the Origins of Living Things, which the publisher, Basic Books, offers as being “in the tradition of Viktor Frankl’s Man’s Search for Meaning.” Clearly, the questions he and I have discussed are not only of scientific or academic interest, but instead go to the root of life’s meaning and purpose.
His response to my article is both collegial and thoughtful. He acknowledges my understanding of his work and of the underlying fluctuation theorems, and he respectfully expresses his disagreement with my conclusion. In reality, the difference in our views stems less from our understanding of the science than from the different contexts in which we analyze the theory and the experimental data.
England rightly states that the fluctuation theorems allow for the possibility that some mechanism could drive matter to both lower entropy and higher energy (higher free energy), thus potentially solving the problem of the origin of life, at least in theory. In contrast, I addressed the likelihood that, given the practical constraints, realistic natural processes on the early earth could generate a minimally complex cell. In that context, England indirectly affirmed the main points of my argument and thus reinforced the conclusion that an undirected origin of life might be possible in principle, but it is completely implausible in practice.
The main points of my argument can be summarized as follows:
Natural processes tend to drive systems toward higher entropy, lower energy, or both. In direct conflict, the origin of life requires a collection of molecules to move toward dramatically lower entropy and higher energy. The only way to overcome the thermodynamic barriers is for an engine to be present at the very instantiation of life that can convert some available source of energy into a form that can fuel the construction and operations of a cell. Significant quantities of information must also be present both to steer a highly specific set of interconnected chemical reactions that comprise a minimally viable cell and to direct the generated energy toward powering the otherwise nonspontaneous reactions.
The Need for Engines and Information
In his response, England directly affirms the first and second points:
Given the relationship between work absorption and probability expressed, the equation suggests there may be a scenario in which a low-entropy, high-energy, stable state of matter may be a likely outcome of the dynamics, and if so, then it must involve a process that absorbs and dissipates a lot of energy from the environment. This scenario would be most interesting in cases where absorbing energy from the environment is difficult, because then it might be possible to see the signature of this energy flow in the exceptional capabilities of the structure that emerges.
What England calls a process that “absorbs and dissipates a lot of energy from the environment” in such a way as to create a “low-entropy, high-energy, stable state of matter” is precisely what I called an engine. Another useful designation in some contexts would be an energy converter. And, in the earlier paragraphs he explicitly acknowledges that natural processes, without such an engine, always move matter toward high entropy, lower energy, or both.
England did not address my third point directly, but he did cite several research articles that affirm the need for preexisting information and for an engine/energy converter implicitly. In my article, I demonstrated that England’s simulations of chemical networks (here, here) must incorporate the equivalent of the molecular engines and the information-rich enzymes seen in life. England cited other studies that likewise demonstrate that energy converters and supplied information are required to drive matter to a raised free energy.
Research Studies
For instance, he referenced his study on a simulation of a spin glass driven by an applied time-varying magnetic field. A spin glass models a network of atoms with spins aligned in non-uniform directions. In the experiment, the field periodically switches between distinct time-varying patterns. The switching applies work to the network, which generates fine-tuned memory effects. Of central importance, the applied field and its pattern of switching is constructed to interact with the network in the distinct manner required to achieve the desired class of responses. As such, the field effectively functions as a finely tuned energy converter.
The role of information in the simulation is more subtle and calls for a brief digression into information theory. A key tenet is that information can often be thought of as that which enacts causal control over or reduces the uncertainty in an outcome. In the case of the experiment, the highly specified construction of the simulation entails the implementation of information. The applied information constrains the dynamics (reduces the uncertainty) to effect a specific category of outcomes. It functions equivalently to the information in an enzyme that directs the production of a specific molecule.
The same preconditions hold true for another experiment England referenced that studies the behavior of particles placed in a viscous liquid and confined within an acrylic tube that acts as a waveguide. The particles are agitated by a continuous acoustic pressure exerted by speakers. The particles’ motion and the sound transmission through the waveguide are measured respectively by a webcam and microphone. The researchers reported self-organization and “life-like” behavior in the bandgap (i.e., range of acoustic wavelengths with reduced transmission through the waveguide):
Remarkably, the lifelike behaviours often observed in non-equilibrium structures are here bestowed to the emergent bandgap itself. This is manifested in its ability to self-heal to mechanical perturbations and self-adapt to changes in the drive wavelength.
The key observations are that the speakers convert electricity into acoustic waves of specific wavelengths that interact with the particles in the required manner, so a speaker acts as a highly calibrated energy converter. And the experimental instructions specify the precise shape and dimensions for the waveguide; the size, shape, and physical properties of the particles; the positions and orientations of the speakers; and the physical properties of the viscous fluid. These specifications represent applied information that constrains the dynamics in such a way as to produce the desired results. Here again, achieving noteworthy behavior requires an energy converter and the application of information.
Relevance to the Origin of Life
A key question is to what extent the experiments England cites resemble processes on the early earth. The answer is that they are not even remotely similar. No metallic ore mirroring a spin glass would ever have encountered a time-varying magnetic field that could significantly raise the free energy of its atomic network. Nor would any collection of rocks or organic globules have ever experienced an acoustic wave that could induce self-organizational dynamics with life-like behavior. The experiments, in fact, demonstrate that any mechanism that could effectively act as an engine/energy converter requires goal-oriented engineering and careful implementation.
The constraints governing an emerging cell present even greater challenges than in the cited experiments for nature to assemble a viable engine. In life, the energy produced must be in the form of high-energy (energy-currency) molecules that could power the chemical reactions undergirding cellular operations. The challenge is that the energy requirement is enormous. As I explained in my article, the minimal power production capacity needed for a nascent cell just to prevent it from degrading into simple chemicals approaches, if scaled, that of a high-performance racing car.
The most promising candidate for a “natural engine” is proton flows across thermal vents that theoretically could generate high-energy molecules. However, simulations of vents under ideal conditions only produce chemical energy at a rate that is at least eight orders of magnitude too small. And the actual product is formaldehyde in concentrations far too miniscule to contribute to any stage in the genesis of a cell. Such meager results simply highlight the fact that no natural mechanism could realistically generate the required energy to power even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario.
Moreover, the driven objects in each of the cited experiments are identical, so they all interact uniformly with the applied field. In contrast, the reactions in a cell are quite different. As a result, no single engine could drive more than one or two of them even under ideal conditions. Consequently, a cell requires multiple mechanisms to extract the energy from the energy-currency molecules and direct it toward powering each distinct reaction. I detailed in my article how only a suite of hundreds of enzymes could meet this requirement, which corresponds to at least a million bits of information. England’s response to my article has only reinforced these conclusions.
Photo: Hydrothermal vents, where some theories hypothesize that life originated, by NOAA [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-11--In Biology, Intelligent Designs that Amaze, Amuse, and Entertain

A parade of amazing designs from the living world has passed through these pages over the years , and it shows no sign of stopping .
Here are some entertaining examples from recent news .
Flea beetles , or Alticini , are high-jump champions among the coleopterans ( beetles ) in the insect world .
There are some 9,900 species of flea beetles , a “ hyper-diverse group ” that inhabits environments from deserts to rainforests all over the world .
The Pensoft blog shows a picture of one , saying , “ Exceptional catapulting jump mechanism in a tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Because flea beetles often rest on leaves , they are exposed to predators .
They have no need to worry .
They can disappear in an instant .
It must have been fun to watch them perform in the lab and then watch the high-speed video recordings .
The mechanism stores elastic potential energy which , upon release , converts to kinetic energy when the “ trigger ” is released , attaining “ an extraordinarily high acceleration.
” Because the jump is done without muscles , the beetles are able to perform @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found .
This simple yet efficient mechanism could find wide application .
The team made a blueprint of a robotic limb “ design of a bionic limb inspired by the studied beetles.
” And what do they say about this design ?
Why of course ; it is an “ evolutionary success ” !
Some of the biologists at Lehigh University may be mocking Behe ’ s views on intelligent design , but engineer Keith Moorad is using them .
He is studying the tail motions of toothed whales , including dolphins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He has no time for the evolution hypothesis ; he is too focused on the “ fin-tastic ” design of dolphins .
He ’ s also having fun using a $ 7 million grant from the Navy to study this .
Someday , he thinks , dolphin mimics that could fool both fish and humans will be able to roam among schools to monitor fish stocks .
If he can get his robot to jump and retrieve fish from a tower , find fish under the sea floor with echoes , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ really be onto something .
Human eyes are limited to the visible spectrum .
We can feel heat on the skin and sense the general direction it ’ s coming from , but imaging the source requires infrared cameras or night vision goggles .
A surprisingly diverse group of animals , though , have infrared cameras built in .
The International Society for Photonics and Optics , or SPIE , writes about “ Nature ’ s Infrared Club ” — There are shrimp that can “ see ” hydrothermal vents , for instance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hot plumes of water might appear like gaudy illuminated fountains in a background of profound blackness.
” Many diverse species of snakes belong to the infrared club , such as the pit vipers that have special organs for sensing prey .
They “ work like pinhole cameras and probably enable a kind of IR imaging , ” one herpetologist says .
In addition , some butterflies use infrared light to detect the host plants for egg-laying .
Rounding out the club are ticks , and even vampire bats , which employ IR to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biologists join the infrared club ?
Gang Han at the University of Massachusetts proposes a Bionic-Man solution , applying lab-made nanoparticles to retinas that can absorb infrared light .
So far , he has only demonstrated this capability with “ super-mice , ” but eventually , the technology might extend human vision into the infrared .
Francis Collins , head of the NIH , was impressed with this “ dramatic advance that brings together material science and the mammalian vision system….
” The SPIE adds : The article includes electron micrographs of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of vision .
The organs look elaborate , pointing like miniature cones into the environment .
These organs must not only detect infrared , but send it to the appropriate portions of the brain that know how to interpret the information and act on it .
And now , for the commercial : “ The pit organs ’ structural and material details embody the engineering brilliance that evolutionary forces can yield.
” For a final example , consider origami .
Paper sculptures are fun , but static .
What if you could make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what scientists in Singapore did .
Their secret was to take natural pollen and integrate it into the paper fabric .
When exposed to moisture , the petals of their paper “ flower ” opened up just like a bloom .
In another test , they were able to make paper “ walk ” through the self-actuation of pollen-impregnated paper .
How does this work ?
There ’ s evolution involved , but not the Darwinian kind : Many plant materials exhibit the same sensitivity to moisture .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rain , as shown in Illustra Media ’ s “ 2-Minute Wonders ” video , An Uplifting Story .
The Singapore team published their work in PNAS with video clips of the action .
This was serious fun .
To summarize : Design science is more fun than Darwinism , and does more good for humanity .

A parade of amazing designs from the living world has passed through these pages over the years, and it shows no sign of stopping. Here are some entertaining examples from recent news.
Jump Like a Flea, Beetle
Flea beetles, or Alticini, are high-jump champions among the coleopterans (beetles) in the insect world. There are some 9,900 species of flea beetles, a “hyper-diverse group” that inhabits environments from deserts to rainforests all over the world. The Pensoft blog shows a picture of one, saying, “Exceptional catapulting jump mechanism in a tiny beetle could be applied in robotic limbs.”
The fascinating and highly efficient jumping mechanism in flea beetles is described in a new research article in the open-access journal Zookeys. Despite having been known since 1929, the explosive jump — which is also the reason behind the colloquial name of this group of leaf beetles — has so far not been fully understood. [Emphasis added.]
Because flea beetles often rest on leaves, they are exposed to predators. They have no need to worry. They can disappear in an instant. It must have been fun to watch them perform in the lab and then watch the high-speed video recordings.
The apparatus responsible for this exceptional jump is hidden inside the beetle’s hind legs and is relatively simple. It contains only three sclerotised parts and a few muscles. Yet, it is, in reality, a highly efficient “catapult”, able to propel the beetle at a distance hundreds of times its body length.
The mechanism stores elastic potential energy which, upon release, converts to kinetic energy when the “trigger” is released, attaining “an extraordinarily high acceleration.” Because the jump is done without muscles, the beetles are able to perform 30 jumps in succession, the researchers found. This simple yet efficient mechanism could find wide application. The team made a blueprint of a robotic limb “design of a bionic limb inspired by the studied beetles.” And what do they say about this design? Why of course; it is an “evolutionary success”!
Fake Dolphins
Some of the biologists at Lehigh University may be mocking Behe’s views on intelligent design, but engineer Keith Moorad is using them. He is studying the tail motions of toothed whales, including dolphins, in hopes of building underwater swimming robots.
Such robots would need to be fast, efficient, highly maneuverable, and acoustically stealthy. In other words, they would have to be very much like bottlenose dolphins or killer whales.
He has no time for the evolution hypothesis; he is too focused on the “fin-tastic” design of dolphins.
“This fish swimming problem is a really exciting problem because it’s so complicated,” he says. “It’s fascinatingto take this chaos of variables and see order in it, to see the structure in it, and to understand what’s fundamentally happening.”
He’s also having fun using a $7 million grant from the Navy to study this. Someday, he thinks, dolphin mimics that could fool both fish and humans will be able to roam among schools to monitor fish stocks. If he can get his robot to jump and retrieve fish from a tower, find fish under the sea floor with echoes, or make baby robots, he’ll really be onto something.
Seeing the Invisible
Human eyes are limited to the visible spectrum. We can feel heat on the skin and sense the general direction it’s coming from, but imaging the source requires infrared cameras or night vision goggles. A surprisingly diverse group of animals, though, have infrared cameras built in. The International Society for Photonics and Optics, or SPIE, writes about “Nature’s Infrared Club” —
A handful of biological species can detect Infrared radiation. Envious of this evolution-honed sensory superpower, researchers with technological visions are working to emulate it.
There are shrimp that can “see” hydrothermal vents, for instance. “To the shrimp, the hot plumes of water might appear like gaudy illuminated fountains in a background of profound blackness.” Many diverse species of snakes belong to the infrared club, such as the pit vipers that have special organs for sensing prey. They “work like pinhole cameras and probably enable a kind of IR imaging,” one herpetologist says. In addition, some butterflies use infrared light to detect the host plants for egg-laying. Rounding out the club are ticks, and even vampire bats, which employ IR to locate their warm-blooded hosts.
How might biologists join the infrared club? Gang Han at the University of Massachusetts proposes a Bionic-Man solution, applying lab-made nanoparticles to retinas that can absorb infrared light. So far, he has only demonstrated this capability with “super-mice,” but eventually, the technology might extend human vision into the infrared. Francis Collins, head of the NIH, was impressed with this “dramatic advance that brings together material science and the mammalian vision system….” The SPIE adds:
Han acknowledged that the plan is to take necessary steps, through a series of primate studies and then by navigating relevant ethical and regulatory challenges, to develop a safe technology that would modify peoples’ eyes to directly see IR without any bulky goggles or other optical gadgetry. It’s the sort of superpower that brings soldiers and first-responders to the mind’s eye. If the researchers succeed in delivering this human vision-enhancement technology, then people will join what always has been a rarefied and enviable club of the living kingdom that can see infrared (IR) radiation.
The article includes electron micrographs of the pit organs that give snakes this kind of vision. The organs look elaborate, pointing like miniature cones into the environment. These organs must not only detect infrared, but send it to the appropriate portions of the brain that know how to interpret the information and act on it. And now, for the commercial: “The pit organs’ structural and material details embody the engineering brilliance that evolutionary forces can yield.”
Walking Paper
For a final example, consider origami. Paper sculptures are fun, but static. What if you could make a paper flower that blooms? That’s what scientists in Singapore did. Their secret was to take natural pollen and integrate it into the paper fabric. When exposed to moisture, the petals of their paper “flower” opened up just like a bloom. In another test, they were able to make paper “walk” through the self-actuation of pollen-impregnated paper. How does this work? There’s evolution involved, but not the Darwinian kind:
We interpret this differential behavior by noting that the smoother and more compact bottom layers of pollen paper demonstrate a greater propensity to hinder the diffusion of water molecules compared with the top layers. The result is an acceleration in the establishment of moisture equilibrium throughout the paper, which leads to larger differences in the degree of swelling and evolution of internal stress between the two sides of the paper. As a result, compared with the top surface, the bottom surface generally exhibited increased curvature, as shown in Fig. 6E.
Many plant materials exhibit the same sensitivity to moisture. For instance, dandelion “parachutes” fold up in the rain, as shown in Illustra Media’s “2-Minute Wonders” video, An Uplifting Story.
The Singapore team published their work in PNAS with video clips of the action. This was serious fun.
In summary, using eco-friendly treatment of naturally occurring pollen that is rendered nonallergenic through a simple fabrication process, we have created an economically viable soft actuator with a highly sensitive response to water vapor…. This pollen actuator demonstrates the potential for developing a wide spectrum of smart and eco-friendly actuation systems with tunable properties that dynamically respond to different functional needs.
To summarize: Design science is more fun than Darwinism, and does more good for humanity.
Photo: A flea beetle, by Beatriz Moisset / CC BY-SA.