evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-29--Here’s How We Get Around the Wikipedia Roadblock

Something has gone seriously wrong in our culture .
Amid the COVID-19 pandemic , strict , arbitrary , and undemocratic dictates for the law-abiding , and a free-for-all for those who sow chaos disguised as “ protest , ” you have to wonder what will come next .
In these mad times , Discovery Institute ’ s mission — to advance creativity over destruction — has never seemed more urgent .
I want to suggest a way that you can join us in that .
Many Americans are isolated from others .
At the same time , the King ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and inspiration — social media and other online sources — is increasingly blocked .
Facebook , Google , and Twitter no longer hide their bias and censorship .
Newcomers to ID often ask us about a certain influential online encyclopedia .
They say , “ Why don ’ t you fix your Wikipedia pages ?
” This makes us laugh , because we ’ ve been fighting the masked Wiki editors for years .
Evolution News awarded Wikipedia our 2018 Censor of the Year award , recognizing their vigilance in keeping the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countless readers .
Their main article on intelligent design begins with a sentence including no fewer than three lies .
Attempts to clean things up are reversed in minutes by “ editors ” on alert 24/7 who have nothing else to do with their time .
These editors , going by eerie pseudonyms , have erased or gutted entries for ID scientists including Günter Bechly and Walter Bradley .
Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has blasted the “ appallingly biased ” article on ID , adding , “ I completely despair of persuading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Is there any remedy ?
Yes — one notable way we get around the censors ( for now ! )
is our videos on intelligent design .
Led by documentaries and series like Human Zoos , Science Uprising , and Long Story Short , this is a major tool we use to bypass the thought police .
The Center for Science & Culture ’ s YouTube channel alone climbed to 1,355,987 views in the most recent 28 day period .
That ’ s fantastic , but it ’ s not enough .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ communication around .
Ours are widely shared , dramatic , sometimes humorous , easy to understand , and with a greater potential impact than anything Wikipedia can throw at us .
We control the content and can help direct where it goes .
That ’ s not easy , though , and above all , it ’ s expensive .
I also can ’ t guarantee that this road , via YouTube ( another medium that censors content ) , will remain open .
So I ’ m appealing to you now to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an even bigger audience — much bigger !
— that needs to know about the case for intelligent design , for purpose in life and in the universe .
We need to produce more videos and distribute them more widely !
Wiki editors are the vandals of information .
Please consider working with us now to restore truth over lies , creativity over chaos , and freedom over constriction .
Supporting our videos , with a gift of any size , is your affirmation that truth matters and it will find a way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s protest zone , by Derek Simeon via Flickr .

Something has gone seriously wrong in our culture. Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, strict, arbitrary, and undemocratic dictates for the law-abiding, and a free-for-all for those who sow chaos disguised as “protest,” you have to wonder what will come next.
In these mad times, Discovery Institute’s mission — to advance creativity over destruction — has never seemed more urgent. I want to suggest a way that you can join us in that.
Many Americans are isolated from others. At the same time, the King’s Highway of news, information, and inspiration — social media and other online sources — is increasingly blocked. Facebook, Google, and Twitter no longer hide their bias and censorship.
Newcomers to ID often ask us about a certain influential online encyclopedia. They say, “Why don’t you fix your Wikipedia pages?” This makes us laugh, because we’ve been fighting the masked Wiki editors for years.
Censor of the Year
Evolution News awarded Wikipedia our 2018 Censor of the Year award, recognizing their vigilance in keeping the truth about evidence of biological design hidden from countless readers. Their main article on intelligent design begins with a sentence including no fewer than three lies. Attempts to clean things up are reversed in minutes by “editors” on alert 24/7 who have nothing else to do with their time.
These editors, going by eerie pseudonyms, have erased or gutted entries for ID scientists including Günter Bechly and Walter Bradley. Even Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has blasted the “appallingly biased” article on ID, adding, “I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways.”
Is there any remedy? Yes — one notable way we get around the censors (for now!) is our videos on intelligent design. Led by documentaries and series like Human Zoos, Science Uprising, and Long Story Short, this is a major tool we use to bypass the thought police. The Center for Science & Culture’s YouTube channel alone climbed to 1,355,987 views in the most recent 28 day period.
That’s fantastic, but it’s not enough. Videos are the most accessible form of communication around. Ours are widely shared, dramatic, sometimes humorous, easy to understand, and with a greater potential impact than anything Wikipedia can throw at us.
Keep the Road Open
We control the content and can help direct where it goes. That’s not easy, though, and above all, it’s expensive. I also can’t guarantee that this road, via YouTube (another medium that censors content), will remain open.
So I’m appealing to you now to seize the moment and help us reach an even bigger audience — much bigger! — that needs to know about the case for intelligent design, for purpose in life and in the universe. We need to produce more videos and distribute them more widely!
Wiki editors are the vandals of information. Please consider working with us now to restore truth over lies, creativity over chaos, and freedom over constriction. Supporting our videos, with a gift of any size, is your affirmation that truth matters and it will find a way!
Photo: A scene from Seattle’s protest zone, by Derek Simeon via Flickr.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-29--C. S. Lewis and Evolution

C. S. Lewis and Evolution

From June 16-30 , we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture @ @ @ @ @ more than 100,000 views each .
Here is video # 14 , “ C.S .
@ @ @ @ @ video grew out of a book project exploring famed writer C. S. Lewis ’ s @ @ @ @ @ , and society .
The book was titled The Magician ’ s Twin .
We @ @ @ @ @ the contributing authors to the book and ended up producing three documentaries .
This is @ @ @ @ @ the video and see how relevant Lewis continues to be to current debates .
If @ @ @ @ @ to create more videos like this one , please consider becoming one of our “ @ @ @ @ @ to our video production fund .

From June 16-30, we are holding an Intelligent Design YouTube Festival by highlighting 15 Center for Science & Culture YouTube videos that have received more than 100,000 views each. Here is video #14, “C.S. Lewis and Evolution.”
This video grew out of a book project exploring famed writer C. S. Lewis’s views on science, scientism, and society. The book was titled The Magician’s Twin. We decided to interview many of the contributing authors to the book and ended up producing three documentaries. This is one of them. Watch the video and see how relevant Lewis continues to be to current debates.
If you’d like us to create more videos like this one, please consider becoming one of our “movie producers” by donating to our video production fund.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-02--From Evidence of Cosmology and Physics, Meyer’s New Book Points to a Personal God

Readers have been asking when Stephen Meyer ’ s next book , Return of the God Hypothesis , will be available .
Good news !
We now have a firm publication date of March 30 , 2021 .
Now , the hardcover edition of the book can be pre-ordered again on Amazon .
Thank you for your patience .
Order your copy now .
Here ’ s what you have to look forward to .
Beginning in the late 19th century , many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief — that science and belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Meyer , the philosopher of science and New York Times-bestselling author , challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications .
Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe .
Meyer argues that theism — with its affirmation of a transcendent , intelligent , and active creator — best explains the evidence we have concerning cosmological as well as biological origins .
Previously he refrained from attempting to answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ designed life .
Now he provides an evidence-based answer to the ultimate mystery of the universe .
In so doing , he reveals a stunning conclusion : the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind —but the existence of a personal God .
Dr. Meyer discussed some of this evidence in a presentation in January at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith :

Readers have been asking when Stephen Meyer’s next book, Return of the God Hypothesis, will be available. Good news! We now have a firm publication date of March 30, 2021. Now, the hardcover edition of the book can be pre-ordered again on Amazon. Thank you for your patience. Order your copy now.
Here’s what you have to look forward to. Beginning in the late 19th century, many intellectuals began to insist that scientific knowledge conflicts with traditional theistic belief — that science and belief in God are “at war.” Dr. Meyer, the philosopher of science and New York Times-bestselling author, challenges this view by examining three scientific discoveries with decidedly theistic implications. Meyer demonstrates how discoveries in cosmology and physics coupled with those in biology help to establish the identity of the designing intelligence behind life and the universe.
Meyer argues that theism — with its affirmation of a transcendent, intelligent, and active creator — best explains the evidence we have concerning cosmological as well as biological origins. Previously he refrained from attempting to answer questions about “who” might have designed life. Now he provides an evidence-based answer to the ultimate mystery of the universe. In so doing, he reveals a stunning conclusion: the data support not just the existence of an intelligent designer of some kind —but the existence of a personal God.
Dr. Meyer discussed some of this evidence in a presentation in January at the Dallas Conference on Science and Faith:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-01--Interview: John Lennox Answers Questions about Artificial Intelligence in 2084

This week , Oxford mathematician John Lennox ’ s new book , 2084 , on the problems raised by AI , hit the stands .
Lennox asks , “ What will the year 2084 hold for you — for your friends , for your family , and for our society ?
Are we doomed to the grim dystopia imagined in George Orwell ’ s 1984 ?
” Well , maybe not .
There are good reasons for doubt .
First , is it really true that computers can out-think humans ?
Mind Matters asked Lennox some searching questions about that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have heard in the sci-fi fright films : Mind Matters News : Dr. Lennox , you quote astronomer Martin Rees as saying , “ Abstract thinking by biological brains has underpinned the emergence of all culture and science .
But this activity — spanning tens of millennia at most — will be a brief precursor to the more powerful intellects of the inorganic post-human era.
” Okay .
But what reason have we to believe that our artefacts will really be smarter than ourselves ?
Isn ’ t that something of a skyhook @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is always dangerous to extrapolate exponentially and our undoubted progress in technology in terms of speed and competence can easily mask the huge barrier that stands in the way of superior intelligent machines — consciousness .
Smart humans are conscious — as since we do not even know what consciousness is , we are no further forward in that direction .
Mind Matters News : Now that you mention it , Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky have commented on the limitations of AI : “ Current AI algorithms with human equivalent or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ programmed competence only in a single , restricted domain .
Deep Blue became the world champion at chess , but it can not even play checkers , let alone drive a car or make a scientific discovery.
” That seems like a problem for the whole concept .
The intelligence is never generalized ; it exists only in the specific programming , which might mean it is merely the programmer ’ s intelligence .
Is that a wrong way to see it ?
John Lennox : That is my own feeling .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) researcher said in 1985 in a lecture at Yale : “ The artificial in artificial intelligence is real.
” An AI system is not intelligent in the human sense since the ‘ intelligent ’ behavior it manifests is due , as you suggest , to the intelligence of the constructor and programmer .
Mind Matters News : But , of course , that doesn ’ t mean that there are no problems .
You write that the power of such systems “ lies in their ability to handle vast amounts of data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ individuals , and to detect patterns , both within an individual ’ s behaviour and across a population.
” Surveying the scene in China , isn ’ t that the biggest problem ?
Not that the machines will outsmart us but that they will be used by powerful forces to control us in more detail than was ever possible before ?
John Lennox : Yes this is the much greater danger since it comes from ( narrow ) AI that has already been developed and is now in use , particularly in China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ made that all the necessary equipment to produce a totalitarian surveillance state is available in the West .
The only difference is that it is not ( yet ) under centralised state control .
Mind Matters News : Further to claims that computers will out-think people , you also write about “ the general-purpose ability to visualise things and to reason about scenarios of objects and processes that exist only in our minds .
This general-purpose capability , which humans all have , is phenomenal ; it is a key requirement for real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in AI systems .
There are reasons to doubt if we will ever get there.
” Some of us are not clear that there is any way to get there !
As a general principle , a cat only gives birth to kittens , not babies .
How will a human give birth to superhumans ?
John Lennox : I think that this is essentially a sci-fi hope .
One attempt to make super-humans is by starting with humans — which we can produce by the usual genetic process — and then enhancing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ micro-miniature technology , rearing them on drugs , etc .
The other way is the attempt to eliminate dependence on carbon-based life and construct more durable “ life ” on silicon .
That would be giving “ birth ” in an engineering and intellectual sense .
I do not see any evidence that either of these will happen and , even if it did , the products would not be human but , as C. S. Lewis said , artefacts : “ Man ’ s final conquest has proved to be the abolition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mind Matters News : Overall , do you see a more reasonable approach to these issues shaping up before 2084 ?
John Lennox : I see the hype continuing since it is not only being driven by sci-fi thriller writers but by leading scientists on the dubious assumption that since we have evolved to our present state by mindless unguided processes , we are now intelligent enough to take the process into our own hands and there is therefore no limit to the extent that we can accelerate the future shaping of humanity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a brake on this kind of hubris , but I see little hope of that since ethical thinking about these issues is far outpaced by the rate of technological development .
It is important for us to realise that worldview assumptions lie behind the transhumanist drive and there is a vast difference between those who hold the view just sketched and Christians who believe that God has authenticated humanity 1.0 by creating us in his own image .

This week, Oxford mathematician John Lennox’s new book, 2084, on the problems raised by AI, hit the stands.
Lennox asks, “What will the year 2084 hold for you — for your friends, for your family, and for our society? Are we doomed to the grim dystopia imagined in George Orwell’s 1984?”
Well, maybe not. There are good reasons for doubt. First, is it really true that computers can out-think humans? Mind Matters asked Lennox some searching questions about that. His answers are not what we have heard in the sci-fi fright films:
Mind Matters News: Dr. Lennox, you quote astronomer Martin Rees as saying, “Abstract thinking by biological brains has underpinned the emergence of all culture and science. But this activity — spanning tens of millennia at most — will be a brief precursor to the more powerful intellects of the inorganic post-human era.”
Okay. But what reason have we to believe that our artefacts will really be smarter than ourselves? Isn’t that something of a skyhook?
John Lennox: Very little. It is always dangerous to extrapolate exponentially and our undoubted progress in technology in terms of speed and competence can easily mask the huge barrier that stands in the way of superior intelligent machines — consciousness. Smart humans are conscious — as since we do not even know what consciousness is, we are no further forward in that direction.
The Limitations of AI
Mind Matters News: Now that you mention it, Nick Bostrom and Eliezer Yudkowsky have commented on the limitations of AI: “Current AI algorithms with human equivalent or superior performance are characterized by a deliberately programmed competence only in a single, restricted domain. Deep Blue became the world champion at chess, but it cannot even play checkers, let alone drive a car or make a scientific discovery.”
That seems like a problem for the whole concept. The intelligence is never generalized; it exists only in the specific programming, which might mean it is merely the programmer’s intelligence. Is that a wrong way to see it?
John Lennox: That is my own feeling. As Dr Mellichamp, an early (Christian) researcher said in 1985 in a lecture at Yale: “The artificial in artificial intelligence is real.” An AI system is not intelligent in the human sense since the ‘intelligent’ behavior it manifests is due, as you suggest, to the intelligence of the constructor and programmer.
Mind Matters News: But, of course, that doesn’t mean that there are no problems. You write that the power of such systems “lies in their ability to handle vast amounts of data, to build up a profile of individuals, and to detect patterns, both within an individual’s behaviour and across a population.”
Surveying the scene in China, isn’t that the biggest problem? Not that the machines will outsmart us but that they will be used by powerful forces to control us in more detail than was ever possible before?
John Lennox: Yes this is the much greater danger since it comes from (narrow) AI that has already been developed and is now in use, particularly in China. However, the point has been made that all the necessary equipment to produce a totalitarian surveillance state is available in the West. The only difference is that it is not (yet) under centralised state control.
Humans and Superhumans
Mind Matters News: Further to claims that computers will out-think people, you also write about “the general-purpose ability to visualise things and to reason about scenarios of objects and processes that exist only in our minds. This general-purpose capability, which humans all have, is phenomenal; it is a key requirement for real intelligence, but it is fundamentally lacking in AI systems. There are reasons to doubt if we will ever get there.”
Some of us are not clear that there is any way to get there! As a general principle, a cat only gives birth to kittens, not babies. How will a human give birth to superhumans?
John Lennox: I think that this is essentially a sci-fi hope. One attempt to make super-humans is by starting with humans — which we can produce by the usual genetic process — and then enhancing them by bioengineering, merging them with micro-miniature technology, rearing them on drugs, etc. The other way is the attempt to eliminate dependence on carbon-based life and construct more durable “life” on silicon. That would be giving “birth” in an engineering and intellectual sense.
I do not see any evidence that either of these will happen and, even if it did, the products would not be human but, as C. S. Lewis said, artefacts: “Man’s final conquest has proved to be the abolition of Man.”
The Hype Goes On
Mind Matters News: Overall, do you see a more reasonable approach to these issues shaping up before 2084?
John Lennox: I see the hype continuing since it is not only being driven by sci-fi thriller writers but by leading scientists on the dubious assumption that since we have evolved to our present state by mindless unguided processes, we are now intelligent enough to take the process into our own hands and there is therefore no limit to the extent that we can accelerate the future shaping of humanity.
However, ethical considerations may put a brake on this kind of hubris, but I see little hope of that since ethical thinking about these issues is far outpaced by the rate of technological development.
It is important for us to realise that worldview assumptions lie behind the transhumanist drive and there is a vast difference between those who hold the view just sketched and Christians who believe that God has authenticated humanity 1.0 by creating us in his own image.
Photo: John Lennox, by Pro Medienmagazin, via Flickr.
Cross-posted at Mind Matters.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-01--Mistakes Our Critics Make: Information Theory

In previous articles , I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information can not emerge through any natural process ( see here and here ) , and I described how such information unambiguously points to intelligent design .
Now , in posts today through Friday , I will address the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims ( see here , here , here , and here ) .
Nearly always , the errors fall into three categories : Skeptics of information-based design arguments typically misunderstand the nature of biological information ( see here and here ) .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Isaac , stated the following : His analysis reveals a common confusion between what is termed the Shannon measure of information and semantic information ( more generally , specified complexity ) .
The former relates to the information needed to define a specific state in a system such as the positions and momenta of the molecules in a gas .
The latter relates to the amount of meaningful information in some medium .
The claim that “ information ” can exchange with the environment confuses these two categories .
To illustrate , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first act of Shakespeare ’ s Macbeth .
And , the tiles could constantly interact thermodynamically with the environment by absorbing and releasing heat .
Yet a sudden chance in the temperature of the surrounding air would never cause additional tiles to arrange themselves so as to spell out the first line of the play ’ s second act .
Semantic information can never be appreciably increased by undirected physical processes .
Another common error is denying that the genetic code represents an abstract symbolic system .
The same author cited above @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The critic apparently did not carefully read Signature in the Cell where Meyer addresses the abstract specificity of DNA in detail ( here , here , and here ) .
In addition , the abstract symbolism intrinsic to the genetic code has been widely recognized since Watson and Crick first discovered DNA ’ s structure and information-carrying capacities .
Biologist and historian Ulrich Stegmann comments : According to Crick , the coding problem centres around the mapping of four types of things to twenty types of things ( see his quote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relations between two sets , which can be described by means of set-theoretic notions like surjectivity .
Since these features are the subject matter of a formal theory , it is reasonable to regard them as formal or abstract…The apparent conflict between the abstractness of coding schemes and their mechanistic commitments is thus dissolved .
The genetic code is an abstract symbolic system even through it is implemented through physical processes .
The same holds true for most codes including the ASCII code executed in computers and the Morse code historically applied to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A related error is claiming that the information carried in biological molecules is not comparable to human-generated semantic information .
Again , this claim stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of biological information .
The fact that DNA , RNA , and proteins contain meaningful semantic information has been recognized by leading experts in the field such as complex systems researcher Anne-Marie Grisogono : The connection between the information residing in proteins and that information ’ s meaning/purpose is further articulated by philosophers of science Karola Stotz and Paul E. Griffiths : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the information contained in the protein mold .
There is a nook in that mold for every piece and enough information passes hand for three functions : ( 1 ) the recognition of each piece , ( 2 ) the optimal positioning of the pieces relative to one another , and ( 3 ) the weakening or splitting of certain bonds in the pieces or the making of new bonds for welding the pieces together…In short , the enzyme mold here contains the core program for a sequential chemical reaction .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in that it directly corresponds to a proteins ’ physical structure , but this difference in no way diminishes its semantic character or its association with abstract meaning .
In fact , the connection between DNA , proteins , and the resulting biological structures in many ways resembles how information in CAD-CAM technology directs the production of airplane parts .
The striking similarity between proteins and human language is further elucidated by computational biologists Andrea Scaiewicz and Michael Levitt : These researchers felt compelled to describe biological information using such phrases as “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” “ core program , ” and “ hierarchical rules ( grammar ) .
” Such terminology clearly entails abstract reasoning and thus points to design even by the critics ’ own criteria .

In previous articles, I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information cannot emerge through any natural process (see here and here), and I described how such information unambiguously points to intelligent design. Now, in posts today through Friday, I will address the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims (see here, here, here, and here). Nearly always, the errors fall into three categories:
Misapplying information theory. Misinterpreting research related to protein rarity. Misunderstanding the creative potential of evolutionary processes.
The Nature of Biological Information
Skeptics of information-based design arguments typically misunderstand the nature of biological information (see here and here). For instance, one physicist, Randy Isaac, stated the following:
We first note that, from a thermodynamics perspective, living cells are dynamic, open systems that continually exchange energy, entropy, and information with their surrounding environment…Thus there is plenty of opportunity for information to be transformed from one variable to another, from various physical states to useful information-bearing variables. Information in a cell is not conserved, just as entropy is not conserved in an open system.
His analysis reveals a common confusion between what is termed the Shannon measure of information and semantic information (more generally, specified complexity).
The former relates to the information needed to define a specific state in a system such as the positions and momenta of the molecules in a gas. The latter relates to the amount of meaningful information in some medium. The claim that “information” can exchange with the environment confuses these two categories. To illustrate, a sequence of Scrabble letters could spell out the first act of Shakespeare’s Macbeth. And, the tiles could constantly interact thermodynamically with the environment by absorbing and releasing heat. Yet a sudden change in the temperature of the surrounding air would never cause additional tiles to arrange themselves so as to spell out the first line of the play’s second act. Semantic information can never be appreciably increased by undirected physical processes.
The Genetic Code
Another common error is denying that the genetic code represents an abstract symbolic system. The same author cited above levied the following criticism against Stephen Meyer:
One possibility that could relate intelligent agents to a subset of CSI [complex specified information] is abstract symbolism. With the ability to carry out abstract reasoning as a trait uniquely attributed to intelligent agents, it would follow that abstract specificity would therefore require intelligent agents. Unfortunately, Meyer does not pursue the distinction between physical and abstract specificity. Since the functionality of DNA information resides in its physical-chemical action, no abstract specificity is evident in a living cell.
The critic apparently did not carefully read Signature in the Cell where Meyer addresses the abstract specificity of DNA in detail (here, here, and here).
In addition, the abstract symbolism intrinsic to the genetic code has been widely recognized since Watson and Crick first discovered DNA’s structure and information-carrying capacities. Biologist and historian Ulrich Stegmann comments:
According to Crick, the coding problem centres around the mapping of four types of things to twenty types of things (see his quote in Section 2.1). Such mappings are relations between two sets, which can be described by means of set-theoretic notions like surjectivity. Since these features are the subject matter of a formal theory, it is reasonable to regard them as formal or abstract…The apparent conflict between the abstractness of coding schemes and their mechanistic commitments is thus dissolved.
The genetic code is an abstract symbolic system even through it is implemented through physical processes. The same holds true for most codes including the ASCII code executed in computers and the Morse code historically applied to signals transmitted over a telegraph wire.
Information in Biological Molecules
A related error is claiming that the information carried in biological molecules is not comparable to human-generated semantic information. Again, this claim stems from a misunderstanding of the nature of biological information. The fact that DNA, RNA, and proteins contain meaningful semantic information has been recognized by leading experts in the field such as complex systems researcher Anne-Marie Grisogono:
The fact that such information carries meaning, implications about something other than its own instantiation, places it in a unique category, which we might call semantic information, and its existence raises many deep and important questions and considerations.
The connection between the information residing in proteins and that information’s meaning/purpose is further articulated by philosophers of science Karola Stotz and Paul E. Griffiths:
The heart and soul of all this is the information contained in the protein mold. There is a nook in that mold for every piece and enough information passes hand for three functions: (1) the recognition of each piece, (2) the optimal positioning of the pieces relative to one another, and (3) the weakening or splitting of certain bonds in the pieces or the making of new bonds for welding the pieces together…In short, the enzyme mold here contains the core program for a sequential chemical reaction.
The information in proteins differs from human-generated information in that it directly corresponds to a proteins’ physical structure, but this difference in no way diminishes its semantic character or its association with abstract meaning. In fact, the connection between DNA, proteins, and the resulting biological structures in many ways resembles how information in CAD-CAM technology directs the production of airplane parts.
Proteins and Language
The striking similarity between proteins and human language is further elucidated by computational biologists Andrea Scaiewicz and Michael Levitt:
In this comparison, the vocabulary (domains) of proteins is built from an alphabet of amino acids. The syntax principles enable domain association to form multi-domain architectures, a process governed by hierarchical rules (grammar), that determine the structure and hence the biological function (semantics) of proteins.
These researchers felt compelled to describe biological information using such phrases as “coding schemes,” “carries meaning,” “core program,” and “hierarchical rules (grammar).” Such terminology clearly entails abstract reasoning and thus points to design even by the critics’ own criteria.
Tomorrow: Misinterpreting research related to protein rarity.
Photo: Scrambled Scrabble letters, by Surendran MP on Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-01--Unwary Darwinists Swallowed Whole by Seemingly Unthreatening Whale Video

In reality , whales are gentle and gorgeous giants .
But in legend , they are monsters , their bulk concealed below the ocean surface , posing a terrible hidden danger to the unwary .
Monstro , for example , is the whale that swallows Pinocchio and Geppetto in the 1940 Disney cartoon .
Two Darwinists , P.Z .
Myers and Jackson Wheat , were likewise incautious in challenging a recent Long Story Short video about whale evolution .
The lighthearted animation from Discovery Institute topples a Darwinist icon , said to be “ one of our best examples of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diehards .
If whales are the best they ’ ve got , they ’ re in trouble .
Myers is an atheist biologist who grumps about “ A whopper of a creationist tale.
” Wheat is the co-author of a book about fossils , The Rocks Were There .
They thought they were taking on a soft target .
Our colleague , whom I ’ ll call Long Story for short , who wrote and animated the video , uses whimsical humor to convey , in brief form , the essence of arguments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Long Story series was about the issue of homology .
His 10-minute whale video , “ Whale Evolution : Good Evidence for Darwin ?
, ” came packaged similarly .
Now in a new video , Long Story responds to the critics .
He begins , “ They make a lot of claims that we got some things wrong , but let ’ s look more closely and see if that ’ s the case.
” Poor guys , they are swallowed whole : There ’ s a bit less humor here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their education .
Whales are not trivial animals , and the question of how they “ evolved ” is not trivial either .
In fact , the idea that Darwinists have that enigma all figured out is what biologist Jonathan Wells calls a science “ zombie , ” a notion long ago shown to be false but that lumbers on nevertheless , apparently unkillable .
Watch “ Whale Evolution : Responding to Critics ” now .
It ’ s just over 12 minutes long .
It is good news that Darwin defenders are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substance .
When you ’ re done , you ’ ll probably have had your appetite whetted for further information about the problems with this evolutionary icon .
More good news is that we are offering a free download of the chapter on whales in Dr. Wells ’ s book Zombie Science : More Icons of Evolution .
Get it here now .

In reality, whales are gentle and gorgeous giants. But in legend, they are monsters, their bulk concealed below the ocean surface, posing a terrible hidden danger to the unwary. Monstro, for example, is the whale that swallows Pinocchio and Geppetto in the 1940 Disney cartoon. Two Darwinists, P.Z. Myers and Jackson Wheat, were likewise incautious in challenging a recent Long Story Short video about whale evolution.
The lighthearted animation from Discovery Institute topples a Darwinist icon, said to be “one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition” known to Darwinian diehards. If whales are the best they’ve got, they’re in trouble.
A Soft Target?
Myers is an atheist biologist who grumps about “A whopper of a creationist tale.” Wheat is the co-author of a book about fossils, The Rocks Were There. They thought they were taking on a soft target. Our colleague, whom I’ll call Long Story for short, who wrote and animated the video, uses whimsical humor to convey, in brief form, the essence of arguments about evolution. His first entry in the Long Story series was about the issue of homology. His 10-minute whale video, “Whale Evolution: Good Evidence for Darwin?,” came packaged similarly.
Now in a new video, Long Story responds to the critics. He begins, “They make a lot of claims that we got some things wrong, but let’s look more closely and see if that’s the case.” Poor guys, they are swallowed whole:
There’s a bit less humor here, as Jackson and P.Z. receive their education. Whales are not trivial animals, and the question of how they “evolved” is not trivial either. In fact, the idea that Darwinists have that enigma all figured out is what biologist Jonathan Wells calls a science “zombie,” a notion long ago shown to be false but that lumbers on nevertheless, apparently unkillable.
Watch “Whale Evolution: Responding to Critics” now. It’s just over 12 minutes long. It is good news that Darwin defenders are trying to engage with us on the substance. When you’re done, you’ll probably have had your appetite whetted for further information about the problems with this evolutionary icon. More good news is that we are offering a free download of the chapter on whales in Dr. Wells’s book Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. Get it here now.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-02--Tonight on Coast to Coast AM, Geoffrey Simmons on “Evolution & Intelligent Design”

Our friend and Center for Science & Culture colleague Geoffrey Simmons will be on the always entertaining and hugely popular @ @ @ @ @ , overnight tonight with host George Noory .
His subject : “ Evolution & Intelligent @ @ @ @ @ description : Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Disaster Medicine , Dr. Geoffrey Simmons was an @ @ @ @ @ .
Now , he claims the data supporting this theory is scientifically untenable .
He @ @ @ @ @ ” and intelligent-design theory and what it will take for humankind to travel into deep @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Simmons !
Coast to Coast airs live from 10 pm to 2 am Pacific @ @ @ @ @ on the second half of the program , so he will be staying up late @ @ @ @ @ is Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves ?
This is not a typical CSC audience @ @ @ @ @ a great opportunity .
Look here for your local radio station .

Photo source: Geoffrey Simmons.
Our friend and Center for Science & Culture colleague Geoffrey Simmons will be on the always entertaining and hugely popular Coast to Coast AM program, overnight tonight with host George Noory. His subject: “Evolution & Intelligent Design.” From the show description:
Board-certified in Internal Medicine and Disaster Medicine, Dr. Geoffrey Simmons was an ardent supporter of Darwinian ideas. Now, he claims the data supporting this theory is scientifically untenable. He’ll discuss “macroevolution” and intelligent-design theory and what it will take for humankind to travel into deep space.
You go, Dr. Simmons! Coast to Coast airs live from 10 pm to 2 am Pacific time. Geoff will be on the second half of the program, so he will be staying up late. His most recent book is Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? This is not a typical CSC audience, so it’s a great opportunity. Look here for your local radio station.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-02--Walking Whales: Get a Free Chapter of Zombie Science

“ Darwin thought that bears could turn into whales , ” explains the droll narrator of the recent superb Discovery Institute video , “ Whale Evolution : Good Evidence for Darwin ?
” It ’ s part of the Long Story Short series that identifies problems with evolutionary theory in the most compact , accessible , and charming manner .
Since Darwin , facing laughter from his own contemporaries , scrubbed the whale/bear connection from the second edition of the Origin of Species , the origin of whales has remained a sore point for evolutionists , on which they ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Today , Darwin defenders brandish the whale as no less than an evolutionary icon .
Yesterday , the animator of the Long Story series replied to critics of the whale video — with a new offering , “ Whale Evolution : Responding to Critics.
” The first video is only 10 minutes long and second , only 12 minutes .
The animator , whom we ’ re calling Long Story , knows his stuff .
But for even more background on “ Walking Whales , ” see the chapter by that name @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : More Icons of Evolution .
We ’ re currently offering the chapter FREE to download .
It comes with a subscription , also FREE , to the newsletter Nota Bene which collects the best of each week ’ s articles from Evolution News .
Find that here now !

“Darwin thought that bears could turn into whales,” explains the droll narrator of the recent superb Discovery Institute video, “Whale Evolution: Good Evidence for Darwin?” It’s part of the Long Story Short series that identifies problems with evolutionary theory in the most compact, accessible, and charming manner. Since Darwin, facing laughter from his own contemporaries, scrubbed the whale/bear connection from the second edition of the Origin of Species, the origin of whales has remained a sore point for evolutionists, on which they’ve tried to perform a miraculous transformation. Today, Darwin defenders brandish the whale as no less than an evolutionary icon.
Yesterday, the animator of the Long Story series replied to critics of the whale video — with a new offering, “Whale Evolution: Responding to Critics.” The first video is only 10 minutes long and second, only 12 minutes. The animator, whom we’re calling Long Story, knows his stuff. But for even more background on “Walking Whales,” see the chapter by that name in biologist Jonathan Wells’ book Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. We’re currently offering the chapter FREE to download. It comes with a subscription, also FREE, to the newsletter Nota Bene which collects the best of each week’s articles from Evolution News. Find that here now!
Photo credit: Jorge Vasconez via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-02--Mistakes Our Critics Make: Protein Rarity

In previous articles , I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information can not emerge through any natural process ( see here and here ) , and I described how such information points to intelligent design .
Now , I am addressing the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims ( see here , here , here , and here ) .
See my post yesterday , here , on misapplying information theory .
A second category of errors relates to arguments against the conclusion that the information content of many proteins is vastly greater than what any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the critiques are aimed at the research of Douglas Axe that estimated the rarity of amino acid sequences corresponding to a section of a functional β-lactamase enzyme .
Many of the attacks result from the skeptics ’ failure to properly understand Axe ’ s 2004 article in the Journal of Molecular Biology or the underlying science .
The most common mistake is to appeal to studies that demonstrate that random processes can generate structures that perform very simple functions .
For instance , our immunity system can manufacture at least a trillion unique @ @ @ @ @ @ @ typically bind to any invading germ .
This achievement is possible since the probability is relatively high for a random search to locate an amino acid sequence that sticks to some molecule , so the required amount of new information is relatively small .
For instance , only a few billion trials are needed to find an antibody that can bind to an antibiotic molecule and break it apart .
The problem is that this task is much easier than randomly generating an entirely new amino acid sequence that folds into an enzyme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ required complex structural ( conformational ) changes .
Highly specified dynamic structures are required to support an enzyme ’ s often very complex chemical activities .
In contrast , antibodies are comprised of unchanging constant regions that already provide the needed structural support , so only generating functional variable regions is required .
The difference between a random search finding an operative variable region and a random search stumbling upon a novel functional enzyme is comparable to the difference in difficulty of pushing a loaded wheelbarrow across a flat driveway and pushing it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The same general misunderstanding holds true for research presented by critics on polypeptides and DNA/RNA sequences .
For instance , experiments have generated libraries of randomized amino acid ( polypeptide ) sequences , some of which could bind to ATP and , after rounds of selection , accelerate its breakdown .
Yet , the generated chains do not have the same characteristics as natural proteins .
As Axe stated in his 2004 study , the focus of his research was on true enzymes which performed The polypeptides do not meet these criteria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bind to the ATP molecule and break it down into phosphate and ADP , but they do not release the ADP and then repeat the reaction .
Research on small nucleotide sequences has also only generated RNAs that perform the simplest of tasks not in any way comparable to true enzymes .
In the past , the general public lacked the technical knowledge to decipher the science underlying the evidence for protein rarity , so they were powerless to see past the critics ’ smoke and mirrors ( see here , here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straightforward analysis of the research by protein expert Dan Tawfik ( see here , here , and here ) not only confirms and generalizes Axe ’ s results , but is much more accessible to the public .
Tawfik ’ s research on β-lactamase yielded results that almost perfectly confirm Axe ’ s rarity estimate .
In addition , the former ’ s research and research on the HisA enzyme demonstrate that randomly altering less than 2 percent of the enzymes ’ amino acids disables them over half of the time .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nearly 100 percent of the time .
In contrast , altering 2 percent of a paragraph written in English is usually barely noticeable , and altering 10 percent still leaves a paragraph largely readable .
Therefore , protein sequences are often far rarer than readable English sentences , so they are even more difficult to generate by chance .
Photo : Pushing a loaded wheelbarrow across a flat driveway , by Matteo / CC BY .

In previous articles, I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information cannot emerge through any natural process (see here and here), and I described how such information points to intelligent design. Now, I am addressing the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims (see here, here, here, and here). See my post yesterday, here, on misapplying information theory.
A second category of errors relates to arguments against the conclusion that the information content of many proteins is vastly greater than what any undirected process could generate. Most of the critiques are aimed at the research of Douglas Axe that estimated the rarity of amino acid sequences corresponding to a section of a functional β-lactamase enzyme. Many of the attacks result from the skeptics’ failure to properly understand Axe’s 2004 article in the Journal of Molecular Biology or the underlying science.
Random Processes
The most common mistake is to appeal to studies that demonstrate that random processes can generate structures that perform very simple functions. For instance, our immunity system can manufacture at least a trillion unique antibodies, and at least one will typically bind to any invading germ. This achievement is possible since the probability is relatively high for a random search to locate an amino acid sequence that sticks to some molecule, so the required amount of new information is relatively small. For instance, only a few billion trials are needed to find an antibody that can bind to an antibiotic molecule and break it apart. The problem is that this task is much easier than randomly generating an entirely new amino acid sequence that folds into an enzyme’s three-dimensional structure and performs the required complex structural (conformational) changes. Highly specified dynamic structures are required to support an enzyme’s often very complex chemical activities.
In contrast, antibodies are comprised of unchanging constant regions that already provide the needed structural support, so only generating functional variable regions is required. The difference between a random search finding an operative variable region and a random search stumbling upon a novel functional enzyme is comparable to the difference in difficulty of pushing a loaded wheelbarrow across a flat driveway and pushing it across a tightrope suspended across Niagara Falls.
The same general misunderstanding holds true for research presented by critics on polypeptides and DNA/RNA sequences. For instance, experiments have generated libraries of randomized amino acid (polypeptide) sequences, some of which could bind to ATP and, after rounds of selection, accelerate its breakdown. Yet, the generated chains do not have the same characteristics as natural proteins. As Axe stated in his 2004 study, the focus of his research was on true enzymes which performed
…not mere catalytic activity but rather catalysis that is mechanistically enzyme-like, requiring an active site with definite geometry (at least during chemical conversion) by which particular side-chains make specific contributions to the overall catalytic process.
The polypeptides do not meet these criteria. Unlike true enzymes, they simply bind to the ATP molecule and break it down into phosphate and ADP, but they do not release the ADP and then repeat the reaction. Research on small nucleotide sequences has also only generated RNAs that perform the simplest of tasks not in any way comparable to true enzymes.
Smoke and Mirrors
In the past, the general public lacked the technical knowledge to decipher the science underlying the evidence for protein rarity, so they were powerless to see past the critics’ smoke and mirrors (see here, here, and here). Fortunately, a straightforward analysis of the research by protein expert Dan Tawfik (see here, here, and here) not only confirms and generalizes Axe’s results, but is much more accessible to the public. Tawfik’s research on β-lactamase yielded results that almost perfectly confirm Axe’s rarity estimate. In addition, the former’s research and research on the HisA enzyme demonstrate that randomly altering less than 2 percent of the enzymes’ amino acids disables them over half of the time. And, altering 10 percent will disable them nearly 100 percent of the time. In contrast, altering 2 percent of a paragraph written in English is usually barely noticeable, and altering 10 percent still leaves a paragraph largely readable. Therefore, protein sequences are often far rarer than readable English sentences, so they are even more difficult to generate by chance.
Tomorrow: Misunderstanding the creative potential of evolutionary processes.
Photo: Pushing a loaded wheelbarrow across a flat driveway, by Matteo / CC BY.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-03--In Nature Editorial, National Center for Science Education Downplays Policies that Critically Analyz

In Nature Editorial, National Center for Science Education Downplays Policies that Critically Analyze Evolution

Ann Reid , executive director of the National Center for Science Education , published a piece in Nature last month entitled , “ Good news : US classrooms are warming to evolution , thanks in part to scientist outreach ” in June .
Her article celebrates a rise in time spent teaching evolution and a decline in teaching “ creationism ” .
( The NCSE generally uses the label “ creationism ” to pejoratively refer to anything that expresses doubts about modern Darwinian theory . )
The rosy picture she paints for advocates of pro-Darwin-only education is not quite accurate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to note that Discovery Institute opposes teaching creationism in public schools .
In fact , we don ’ t even recommend teaching intelligent design !
Rather , we suggest teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution .
Our Science Education Policy page explains this position : As a matter of public policy , Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education .
Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among scholars and within the scientific community .
Furthermore , most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively .
Instead of recommending teaching about intelligent design in public K-12 schools , Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in curriculum .
It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students , and they should learn more about evolutionary theory , including its unresolved issues .
In other words , evolution should be taught as a scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , not as a sacred dogma that can ’ t be questioned .
Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strength s and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories ( rather than teaching an alternative theory , such as intelligent design ) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on .
Second , Reid highlights successes from 2007-present in advancing one-sided teaching of evolution .
But there have also been policy decisions that favor objective presentation of the scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Reid cites the 2017 Texas science standards .
In fact , these updated science standards called for objective examination of scientific data on evolution , including requiring “ critical thinking and scientific problem solving ” when studying evolution , such as requiring them to “ compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity ” and “ examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA.
” On specific evolution-related standards , students are to use critical thinking when studying evolution , including : More generally , students are to “ analyze , evaluate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ empirical evidence , logical reasoning , and experimental and observational testing , so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.
” The chair of the Board , Donna Bahorich , said this about two of the evolution standards in question ( 4a and 6a ) : It was clear from testifiers that many who had varied concerns found the compromise language chosen by the board to be acceptable , addressing both the need to streamline content while still encouraging critical thinking by students .
Furthermore , in 2008 Louisiana passed an academic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ schools should “ create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills , logical analysis , and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including , but not limited to , evolution , the origins of life , global warming , and human cloning.
” In 2012 Tennessee passed a similar academic freedom law which states that public schools shall allow teachers to “ understand , analyze , critique , and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taught.
” In 2017 , Louisiana reaffirmed its science education act by placing it in the introduction to its new science standards .
Alabama and the Indiana Senate also adopted academic freedom resolutions in recent years .
In 2017 Indiana ’ s Senate resolution recognized language from the Santorum Amendment in the No Child Left Behind Act conference report : They therefore resolved “ That the Indiana Senate urges the Department of Education to reinforce support of teachers who choose to teach a diverse curriculum.
” In Alabama a similar resolution was adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education may cause controversy including , but not limited to , biological evolution , the chemical origins of life , global warming , and human cloning ” and therefore teachers should be permitted to “ understand , analyze , critique , and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course.
” The Next Generation Science Standards ( NGSS ) are generally dogmatic when it comes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ majority of states ’ science standards – Reid is correct on this .
Unfortunately the NGSS ’ s approach to teaching evolution probably contributes to a lack of scientific objectivity when evolution is taught .
It ’ s also worth remembering that education standards are typically viewed as a floor rather than a ceiling for what must be taught .
Provided that a teacher covers the required elements of the NGSS , they may still have freedom to discuss additional evidence .
A variety of authorities support the well-accepted view that teaching students @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • According to a paper in the journal Science by Stanford science education theorist Jonathan Osborne , “ Critique is not , therefore , some peripheral feature of science , but rather it is core to its practice.
” He explains studies show that best understand science when learning “ to discriminate between evidence that supports ( inclusive ) or does not support ( exclusive ) .
” • U.S. Congress declared in the Conference Report to the No Child Left Behind Act that : “ [ A ] quality science education should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science .
Where topics are taught that may generate controversy ( such as biological evolution ) , the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist… ” • The United States Supreme Court has stated it is legal to teach scientific critique of prevailing scientific theories : “ We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.
” ( Edwards v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famously stated that : “ A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
” Unfortunately , the NGSS rejects this wisdom when it comes to teaching evolution .
The losers here are students who are forced to learn a one-sided version of evolution that fails to mention where the evidence is weak .
But again , the news isn ’ t all bad .
There is NGSS language that encourages critical thinking and could be used to justify supplementing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution .
The Science and Engineering practices encourage “ engaging in argument from evidence ” and “ analyzing and interpreting data ” .
And there are encouraging words in the National Science Teaching Association NGSS document “ Matrix of Connections to the Nature of Science ” : Even when teaching evolution , the NGSS emphasize that “ If new evidence is discovered that the theory does not accommodate , the theory is generally modified in light of this new evidence.
” I believe there is hope .
The current pandemic , tragic as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a nation to reject dogma about science and follow the evidence where it leads , and I hope that science instruction will follow .
Reid links her previous study of virology to the pandemic and to the importance of evolution .
But as scientists here at Evolution News have noted , the pandemic teaches us about the destructive nature of natural selection , the differences between small scale and large scale evolution , and the centrality of information .
It would be most unfortunate if students could not learn about these facts because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I do appreciate one point that Reid makes : scientist volunteers in schools make a positive impact on student learning .
However , this should not be confined to life and diversity origins issues – there are many areas of science where professionals can inspire children with a vision for discovery and STEM careers .
I hope that more and more scientists take initiative to become involved in schools – especially working for equitable opportunities for women and students of color .

Photo by Monkey Business at Adobe Stock
Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, published a piece in Nature last month entitled, “Good news: US classrooms are warming to evolution, thanks in part to scientist outreach.” Her article celebrates a rise in time spent teaching evolution and a decline in teaching “creationism.” (The NCSE generally uses the label “creationism” pejoratively to refer to anything that expresses doubts about modern Darwinian theory.)
The rosy picture she paints for advocates of pro-Darwin-only education is not quite accurate.
First, it’s important to note that Discovery Institute opposes teaching creationism in public schools. In fact, we don’t even recommend teaching intelligent design! Rather, we suggest teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. Our Science Education Policy page explains this position:
As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively. Instead of recommending teaching about intelligent design in public K-12 schools, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in curriculum. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can’t be questioned. Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strength s and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories (rather than teaching an alternative theory, such as intelligent design) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on.
Science Standards in Texas
Second, Reid highlights successes from 2007 to the present in advancing one-sided teaching of evolution. But there have also been policy decisions that favor objective presentation of the scientific controversy over biological evolution. For example, Reid cites the 2017 Texas science standards. In fact, these updated science standards called for objective examination of scientific data on evolution, including requiring “critical thinking and scientific problem solving” when studying evolution, such as requiring them to “compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity” and “examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA.” On specific evolution-related standards, students are to use critical thinking when studying evolution, including:
(A) analyze and evaluate how evidence of common ancestry among groups is provided by the fossil record, biogeography, and homologies, including anatomical, molecular, and developmental; (B) examine scientific explanations of abrupt appearance and stasis in the fossil record; (F) analyze other evolutionary mechanisms, including genetic drift, gene flow, mutation, and recombination.
More generally, students are to “analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.” The chair of the Board, Donna Bahorich, said this about two of the evolution standards in question (4a and 6a):
It was clear from testifiers that many who had varied concerns found the compromise language chosen by the board to be acceptable, addressing both the need to streamline content while still encouraging critical thinking by students.
Furthermore, in 2008 Louisiana passed an academic freedom law which states that Louisiana public schools should “create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of life, global warming, and human cloning.” In 2012 Tennessee passed a similar academic freedom law which states that public schools shall allow teachers to “understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.” In 2017, Louisiana reaffirmed its science education act by placing it in the introduction to its new science standards.
No Child Left Behind
Alabama and the Indiana Senate also adopted academic freedom resolutions in recent years. In 2017 Indiana’s Senate resolution recognized language from the Santorum Amendment in the No Child Left Behind Act conference report:
The Indiana General Assembly further understands the recommendation by the U.S. Congress, as stated in the report language of the 2001 No Child Left Behind Act, namely, “Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), that the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics can generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society”;
They therefore resolved “That the Indiana Senate urges the Department of Education to reinforce support of teachers who choose to teach a diverse curriculum.”
In Alabama a similar resolution was adopted recognizing that “the teaching of some scientific subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education may cause controversy including, but not limited to, biological evolution, the chemical origins of life, global warming, and human cloning” and therefore teachers should be permitted to “understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course.”
Dogmatic Standards
The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are generally dogmatic when it comes to evolution. They do now inform the majority of states’ science standards — Reid is correct on this. Unfortunately the NGSS’s approach to teaching evolution probably contributes to a lack of scientific objectivity when evolution is taught.
It’s also worth remembering that education standards are typically viewed as a floor rather than a ceiling for what must be taught. Provided that a teacher covers the required elements of the NGSS, she may still have freedom to discuss additional evidence. A variety of authorities support the well-accepted view that teaching students about scientific controversies is good pedagogy:
According to a paper in the journal Science by Stanford science education theorist Jonathan Osborne, “Critique is not, therefore, some peripheral feature of science, but rather it is core to its practice.” He explains studies show that best understand science when learning “to discriminate between evidence that supports (inclusive) or does not support (exclusive).”
The U.S. Congress declared in the Conference Report to the No Child Left Behind Act that: “[A] quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist…”
The United States Supreme Court has stated it is legal to teach scientific critique of prevailing scientific theories: “We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.” (Edwards v. Aguillard, 1987)
Charles Darwin famously said: “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
Who Loses? Students
Unfortunately, the NGSS rejects this wisdom when it comes to teaching evolution. The losers here are students who are forced to learn a one-sided version of evolution that fails to mention where the evidence is weak.
But again, the news isn’t all bad. There is NGSS language that encourages critical thinking and could be used to justify supplementing instruction with evaluation of the evidence regarding evolution. The Science and Engineering practices encourage “engaging in argument from evidence” and “analyzing and interpreting data.” And there are encouraging words in the National Science Teaching Association NGSS document “Matrix of Connections to the Nature of Science”:
“Scientific inquiry is characterized by a common set of values that include: logical thinking, precision, open-mindedness, objectivity, skepticism, replicability of results, and honest and ethical reporting of findings.” “Science depends on evaluating proposed explanations.” “Scientific explanations are subject to revision and improvement in light of new evidence.” “Science findings are frequently revised and/or reinterpreted based on new evidence.” “Scientific argumentation is a mode of logical discourse used to clarify the strength of relationships between ideas and evidence that may result in revision of an explanation.” “Scientists and engineers are guided by habits of mind such as intellectual honesty, tolerance of ambiguity, skepticism, and openness to new ideas.”
Even when teaching evolution, the NGSS emphasize that “If new evidence is discovered that the theory does not accommodate, the theory is generally modified in light of this new evidence.”
Reason for Hope
I believe there is hope. The current pandemic, tragic as it is, is pushing us as a nation to reject dogma about science and follow the evidence where it leads, and I hope that science instruction will follow. Reid links her previous study of virology to the pandemic and to the importance of evolution. But as scientists at Evolution News have noted, the pandemic teaches us about the destructive nature of natural selection, the differences between small scale and large scale evolution, and the centrality of information. It would be most unfortunate if students could not learn about these facts because of a highly flawed pedagogical philosophy.
I do appreciate one point that Reid makes: scientist volunteers in schools make a positive impact on student learning. However, this should not be confined to life and diversity origins issues — there are many areas of science where professionals can inspire children with a vision for discovery and STEM careers. I hope that more and more scientists take initiative to become involved in schools — especially working for equitable opportunities for women and students of color.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-03--Mistakes Our Critics Make: Limits of Evolutionary Processes

In previous articles , I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information can not emerge through any natural process ( see here and here ) , and I described how such information points to intelligent design .
Now , I am addressing the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims ( see here , here , here , and here ) .
See my post from Wednesday , here , on misapplying information theory ; and yesterday , here , on misinterpreting research related to protein rarity .
Another very common error is to assume that evolutionary processes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Often evolutionists appeal to such mechanisms as gene duplication , lateral gene transfer , gene fusion , gene fission , and de novo origination .
Unfortunately , no hard evidence exists that either these or any other mechanism can produce more than inconsequential amounts .
In contrast , all experiments and all studies on the genetic variation in species demonstrate that natural processes either degrade information or only make trivial modifications to it , and arguments to the contrary consistently rely on circular reasoning ( see here , here , here , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that viable proteins and other biological structures represent fantastically small targets in an immense space of possibilities .
And , no mechanism or search strategy can substantially increase the efficiency of finding a target above that of a random search .
This conclusion has been proven by the No Free Lunch theorems and the research I described in my previous article ( see here and here ) .
To fully appreciate the challenge , imagine taking the text of Macbeth and attempting to rearrange and duplicate sentences and randomly change letters until @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lord of the Flies appears .
Generating such a large quantity of new information would be impossible by any undirected means .
For the same reason , the chance of any novel protein evolving with a complexity comparable to or greater than β-lactamase is beyond remote .
Moreover , the evolution of many novel complex traits , such as echo location in whales , requires the modification or creation of numerous proteins , physical structures , and neural connections .
Such a feat is only possible through intelligent design .

In previous articles, I demonstrated how substantial quantities of biological information cannot emerge through any natural process (see here and here), and I described how such information points to intelligent design. Now, I am addressing the mistakes typically made by critics who challenge these claims (see here, here, here, and here). See my post from Wednesday, here, on misapplying information theory; and yesterday, here, on misinterpreting research related to protein rarity.
Another very common error is to assume that evolutionary processes can generate large quantities of new information. Often evolutionists appeal to such mechanisms as gene duplication, lateral gene transfer, gene fusion, gene fission, and de novo origination. Unfortunately, no hard evidence exists that either these or any other mechanism can produce more than inconsequential amounts. In contrast, all experiments and all studies on the genetic variation in species demonstrate that natural processes either degrade information or only make trivial modifications to it, and arguments to the contrary consistently rely on circular reasoning (see here, here, here, and here).
Small Targets in an Immense Space
The fundamental challenge is that viable proteins and other biological structures represent fantastically small targets in an immense space of possibilities. And, no mechanism or search strategy can substantially increase the efficiency of finding a target above that of a random search. This conclusion has been proven by the No Free Lunch theorems and the research I described in my previous article (see here and here).
To fully appreciate the challenge, imagine taking the text of Macbeth and attempting to rearrange and duplicate sentences and randomly change letters until the first few sentences of the book Lord of the Flies appears. Generating such a large quantity of new information would be impossible by any undirected means. For the same reason, the chance of any novel protein evolving with a complexity comparable to or greater than β-lactamase is beyond remote.
Moreover, the evolution of many novel complex traits, such as echo location in whales, requires the modification or creation of numerous proteins, physical structures, and neural connections. Such a feat is only possible through intelligent design.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-04--On Independence Day, Remember Thomas Jefferson’s Embrace of Intelligent Design

On Independence Day , it ’ s appropriate to review the sources of our rights as citizens .
There is one source that is more basic than any other , yet that receives less than the attention it deserves .
I refer to the idea that there is an intelligent creator who can be known by reason from nature , a key tenet underlying the Declaration of Independence — as well as , curiously , the modern theory of intelligent design .
The birth of our republic was announced in the Declaration through the pen of Thomas Jefferson .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on a belief in an intrinsic human dignity , bestowed by virtue of our having been made according to the design and in the image of a purposeful creator .
As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration , “ We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal , that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.
” If we had received our rights only from the government , then the government could justifiably take them away .
Jefferson himself thought that there was scientific evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he insisted so in a letter to John Adams : Contemplating everything from the heavenly bodies down to the creaturely bodies of men and animals , he argued : With such thoughts in mind , he wrote the Declaration , asserting the inalienable rights of human beings derived from “ the Laws of Nature and of Nature ’ s God.
” Is Jefferson ’ s belief still credible in light of current science ?
The decades following Darwin ’ s publication of Origin of Species saw the rise of “ social ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Jeffersonian principle of intrinsic dignity had been overturned .
Taken to heart , Darwin ’ s view of man does undermine the vision of the Founders .
As evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson explained , Darwinism denies evidence of design and shows instead that man is the product of a “ purposeless process that did not have him mind.
” Fortunately , discoveries in modern biology have challenged this perspective and vindicated Jefferson ’ s thinking .
Since 1953 , when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ importance of information to living cells .
The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code , similar to a computer code .
As Bill Gates has noted , “ DNA is like a computer program , but far , far more advanced than any software we ’ ve ever created.
” No theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth .
Yet we know from repeated experience — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that information invariably arises from minds rather than from material processes .
Software programs come from programmers .
Information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics , written in a book , or encoded in radio signals — always comes from a designing intelligence .
So the discovery of digital code in DNA points decisively back to an intelligent cause as the ultimate source of the information in living cells .
The growing evidence of design in life has stunning and gratifying implications for our understanding of America ’ s political history — and for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence , the evidence for “ Nature ’ s God , ” and thus for the reality of our rights , is stronger than ever .

Photo credit: Jefferson Memorial © romanslavik.com — stock.adobe.com.
On Independence Day, it’s appropriate to review the sources of our rights as citizens. There is one source that is more basic than any other, yet that receives less than the attention it deserves. I refer to the idea that there is an intelligent creator who can be known by reason from nature, a key tenet underlying the Declaration of Independence — as well as, curiously, the modern theory of intelligent design.
The birth of our republic was announced in the Declaration through the pen of Thomas Jefferson. He and the other Founders based their vision on a belief in an intrinsic human dignity, bestowed by virtue of our having been made according to the design and in the image of a purposeful creator.
“We Hold These Truths”
As Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” If we had received our rights only from the government, then the government could justifiably take them away.
Jefferson himself thought that there was scientific evidence for design in nature. In 1823, he insisted so in a letter to John Adams:
I hold (without appeal to revelation) that when we take a view of the Universe, in its parts general or particular, it is impossible for the human mind not to perceive and feel a conviction of design, consummate skill, and indefinite power in every atom of its composition.
Contemplating everything from the heavenly bodies down to the creaturely bodies of men and animals, he argued:
It is impossible, I say, for the human mind not to believe that there is, in all this, design, cause and effect, up to an ultimate cause, a fabricator of all things from matter and motion.
With such thoughts in mind, he wrote the Declaration, asserting the inalienable rights of human beings derived from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.”
Still Scientifically Credible?
Is Jefferson’s belief still credible in light of current science? The decades following Darwin’s publication of Origin of Species saw the rise of “social” Darwinism and eugenics, which suggested that the Jeffersonian principle of intrinsic dignity had been overturned.
Taken to heart, Darwin’s view of man does undermine the vision of the Founders. As evolutionary biologist George Gaylord Simpson explained, Darwinism denies evidence of design and shows instead that man is the product of a “purposeless process that did not have him mind.” Fortunately, discoveries in modern biology have challenged this perspective and vindicated Jefferson’s thinking.
Since 1953, when Watson and Crick elucidated the structure of the DNA molecule, biologists have increasingly come to recognize the importance of information to living cells. The structure of DNA allows it to store information in the form of a four-character digital code, similar to a computer code. As Bill Gates has noted, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”
No theory of undirected chemical evolution has explained the origin of the digital information in DNA needed to build the first living cell on earth. Yet we know from repeated experience — the basis of all scientific reasoning — that information invariably arises from minds rather than from material processes.
Software programs come from programmers. Information — whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book, or encoded in radio signals — always comes from a designing intelligence. So the discovery of digital code in DNA points decisively back to an intelligent cause as the ultimate source of the information in living cells.
The growing evidence of design in life has stunning and gratifying implications for our understanding of America’s political history — and for our country’s future. On the anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the evidence for “Nature’s God,” and thus for the reality of our rights, is stronger than ever.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-03--In Nature, National Center for Science Education Downplays Critical Analysis of Evolution


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-05--Listen: Michael Behe on a Citrate Death Spiral

On a new episode of ID the Future , biochemist Michael Behe reviews the Long Term Evolution Experiment ( LTEE @ @ @ @ @ where Richard Lenki ’ s team was initially excited to see what they thought was @ @ @ @ @ their flasks of E. coli .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
@ @ @ @ @ Evolution News , one flask of E. coli in Lenski ’ s experiment evolved the @ @ @ @ @ eat ” ) citrate in the presence of oxygen .
But along with it came @ @ @ @ @ degrading genetic information , and ultimately increasing the bacteria ’ s death rates .
It @ @ @ @ @ ’ s thesis in Darwin Devolves : evolution is good at creating niche advantages by @ @ @ @ @ ’ t good at building fundamentally novel forms , the very thing the grand narrative @ @ @ @ @ to do .
Photo : From Richard Lenski ’ s LTEE , by Brian Baer @ @ @ @ @ BY-SA 1.0 ] , via Wikimedia Commons .

Photo: Richard Lenski’s LTEE, by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela [CC BY-SA 1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
On a new episode of ID the Future, biochemist Michael Behe reviews the Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE) at Michigan State, where Richard Lenki’s team was initially excited to see what they thought was a new species forming in their flasks of E. coli. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
As Behe has written at Evolution News, one flask of E. coli in Lenski’s experiment evolved the ability to metabolize (“eat”) citrate in the presence of oxygen. But along with it came multiple mutations breaking genes, degrading genetic information, and ultimately increasing the bacteria’s death rates. It all goes to support Behe’s thesis in Darwin Devolves: evolution is good at creating niche advantages by breaking things; it isn’t good at building fundamentally novel forms, the very thing the grand narrative of modern evolutionary theory purports to do.
Photo: From Richard Lenski’s LTEE, by Brian Baer and Neerja Hajela [CC BY-SA 1.0], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-04--Thomas Jefferson’s Embrace of Intelligent Design


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-03--In Nature, NCSE Downplays Critical Analysis of Evolution

Ann Reid , executive director of the National Center for Science Education , published a piece in Nature last month entitled , “ Good news : US classrooms are warming to evolution , thanks in part to scientist outreach.
” Her article celebrates a rise in time spent teaching evolution and a decline in teaching “ creationism.
” ( The NCSE generally uses the label “ creationism ” pejoratively to refer to anything that expresses doubts about modern Darwinian theory . )
The rosy picture she paints for advocates of pro-Darwin-only education is not quite accurate .
First , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute opposes teaching creationism in public schools .
In fact , we don ’ t even recommend teaching intelligent design !
Rather , we suggest teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution .
Our Science Education Policy page explains this position : As a matter of public policy , Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education .
Attempts to require teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scientific community .
Furthermore , most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively .
Instead of recommending teaching about intelligent design in public K-12 schools , Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in curriculum .
It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students , and they should learn more about evolutionary theory , including its unresolved issues .
In other words , evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sacred dogma that can ’ t be questioned .
Discovery Institute believes that a curriculum that aims to provide students with an understanding of the strength s and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian and chemical evolutionary theories ( rather than teaching an alternative theory , such as intelligent design ) represents a common ground approach that all reasonable citizens can agree on .
Second , Reid highlights successes from 2007 to the present in advancing one-sided teaching of evolution .
But there have also been policy decisions that favor objective presentation of the scientific controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reid cites the 2017 Texas science standards .
In fact , these updated science standards called for objective examination of scientific data on evolution , including requiring “ critical thinking and scientific problem solving ” when studying evolution , such as requiring them to “ compare and contrast scientific explanations for cellular complexity ” and “ examine scientific explanations for the origin of DNA.
” On specific evolution-related standards , students are to use critical thinking when studying evolution , including : More generally , students are to “ analyze , evaluate , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence , logical reasoning , and experimental and observational testing , so as to encourage critical thinking by the student.
” The chair of the Board , Donna Bahorich , said this about two of the evolution standards in question ( 4a and 6a ) : It was clear from testifiers that many who had varied concerns found the compromise language chosen by the board to be acceptable , addressing both the need to streamline content while still encouraging critical thinking by students .
Furthermore , in 2008 Louisiana passed an academic freedom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ should “ create and foster an environment within public elementary and secondary schools that promotes critical thinking skills , logical analysis , and open and objective discussion of scientific theories being studied including , but not limited to , evolution , the origins of life , global warming , and human cloning.
” In 2012 Tennessee passed a similar academic freedom law which states that public schools shall allow teachers to “ understand , analyze , critique , and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” In 2017 , Louisiana reaffirmed its science education act by placing it in the introduction to its new science standards .
Alabama and the Indiana Senate also adopted academic freedom resolutions in recent years .
In 2017 Indiana ’ s Senate resolution recognized language from the Santorum Amendment in the No Child Left Behind Act conference report : They therefore resolved “ That the Indiana Senate urges the Department of Education to reinforce support of teachers who choose to teach a diverse curriculum.
” In Alabama a similar resolution was adopted recognizing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subjects required to be taught under the curriculum framework developed by the State Board of Education may cause controversy including , but not limited to , biological evolution , the chemical origins of life , global warming , and human cloning ” and therefore teachers should be permitted to “ understand , analyze , critique , and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course.
” The Next Generation Science Standards ( NGSS ) are generally dogmatic when it comes to evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of states ’ science standards — Reid is correct on this .
Unfortunately the NGSS ’ s approach to teaching evolution probably contributes to a lack of scientific objectivity when evolution is taught .
It ’ s also worth remembering that education standards are typically viewed as a floor rather than a ceiling for what must be taught .
Provided that a teacher covers the required elements of the NGSS , she may still have freedom to discuss additional evidence .
A variety of authorities support the well-accepted view that teaching students about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ According to a paper in the journal Science by Stanford science education theorist Jonathan Osborne , “ Critique is not , therefore , some peripheral feature of science , but rather it is core to its practice.
” He explains studies show that best understand science when learning “ to discriminate between evidence that supports ( inclusive ) or does not support ( exclusive ) .
” • The U.S. Congress declared in the Conference Report to the No Child Left Behind Act that : “ [ A ] quality science education should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science .
Where topics are taught that may generate controversy ( such as biological evolution ) , the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist… ” • The United States Supreme Court has stated it is legal to teach scientific critique of prevailing scientific theories : “ We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.
” ( Edwards v. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ famously said : “ A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.
” Unfortunately , the NGSS rejects this wisdom when it comes to teaching evolution .
The losers here are students who are forced to learn a one-sided version of evolution that fails to mention where the evidence is weak .
But again , the news isn ’ t all bad .
There is NGSS language that encourages critical thinking and could be used to justify supplementing instruction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Science and Engineering practices encourage “ engaging in argument from evidence ” and “ analyzing and interpreting data.
” And there are encouraging words in the National Science Teaching Association NGSS document “ Matrix of Connections to the Nature of Science ” : Even when teaching evolution , the NGSS emphasize that “ If new evidence is discovered that the theory does not accommodate , the theory is generally modified in light of this new evidence.
” I believe there is hope .
The current pandemic , tragic as it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to reject dogma about science and follow the evidence where it leads , and I hope that science instruction will follow .
Reid links her previous study of virology to the pandemic and to the importance of evolution .
But as scientists at Evolution News have noted , the pandemic teaches us about the destructive nature of natural selection , the differences between small scale and large scale evolution , and the centrality of information .
It would be most unfortunate if students could not learn about these facts because of a highly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one point that Reid makes : scientist volunteers in schools make a positive impact on student learning .
However , this should not be confined to life and diversity origins issues — there are many areas of science where professionals can inspire children with a vision for discovery and STEM careers .
I hope that more and more scientists take initiative to become involved in schools — especially working for equitable opportunities for women and students of color .