evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-15--New Video Course with Stephen Meyer on Design Science Offers Hope and Stimulation

At the beginning of the national shutdown , many of us declared grand ambitions for things we would do with our new spare time .
Learn Russian !
Take up a new musical instrument !
Achieve the peaks of physical fitness !
Likely these ambitions have had to be ratcheted back .
As sports writer Jason Gay laments in the Wall Street Journal , “ The goal posts have moved from write the next Great American Novel to put on pants by 3 p.m. ” It ’ s time for some mind-expanding but more realistic objectives .
Philosopher of science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a brand new video course on the full range of the scientific evidence for intelligent design , from cosmology to biology , the origin of the stars to the origins of complex life , appropriate for a range of ages .
See the trailer here : The course , Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design , covers 42 lectures .
That sounds like it could be a huge time commitment , but it ’ s not .
The brilliant part is that each lecture is only about 10 minutes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , for free , here : The presentations are bite-size , easily digestible , and you will be learning with the very best .
Dr. Meyer has been pursuing the case for intelligent design since completing his PhD at Cambridge University , comprehensively tackled in three books , Signature in the Cell , Darwin ’ s Doubt , and forthcoming Return of the God Hypothesis .
If you ever thought about how fantastic it would be to have Meyer as your college professor , this will give you a pretty good idea of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and suggested further reading , so this experience is fully scalable depending on the time you can devote to it .
To get started , go here for all the information you ’ ll need .
Look there for free previews including a course outline .
As an introductory courtesy , we are currently offering a coupon worth 25 percent off the full cost of the course .
Just enter the code mgen25 when you check out .
Dr. Meyer opens with accounts of some truly outrageous persecutions endured by scientists who questioned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
What is it about the thesis of design that attracts the attention of the censors and the bullies ?
And where is Meyer headed with this argument ?
Many have asked what or whom proponents of intelligent design nominate as the source of the purpose and design that courses through life and the weave of the whole cosmos .
Now it can be told .
Meyer cites the view of science historian Frederic Burnham , expressed in weighing the meaning of the Big Bang , that “ that the God hypothesis is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any time in the last one hundred years.
” Meyer himself argues that “ the theistic design hypothesis provides the best explanation for the information necessary to build new forms of life and the fine-tuning that has made life possible in the cosmos at all.
” This video course couldn ’ t come at a better time .
Over the recent first days of Passover , I shared with my family a thought from Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik about what it means to serve God .
The reality of “ man ’ s existential @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be reminded , is one in which a person is “ subject to the caprices of his state of health , ” with its intimations of “ the ever-hovering specter of possible death.
” A shelter , in which “ the ravages of life no longer terrorize , ” is offered by the “ faith in the transcendental orderliness of things ” ( on Lev .
25:55 ) .
It ’ s one of the grand and cruel ambitions of materialism to dispel that faith and ruin that shelter .
Unfortunately , unlike @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Novel while under quarantine , that ambition has met with much success .
An anxious and housebound world needs stimulation but also meaningful consolation , even more than we did a couple of months ago .
With that in mind , I hope you will consider spending time with Stephen Meyer in the days to come .

At the beginning of the national shutdown, many of us declared grand ambitions for things we would do with our new spare time. Learn Russian! Take up a new musical instrument! Achieve the peaks of physical fitness!
Likely these ambitions have had to be ratcheted back. As sports writer Jason Gay laments in the Wall Street Journal, “The goal posts have moved from write the next Great American Novel to put on pants by 3 p.m.” It’s time for some mind-expanding but more realistic objectives.
Philosopher of science Stephen Meyer has a solution. It’s a brand new video course on the full range of the scientific evidence for intelligent design, from cosmology to biology, the origin of the stars to the origins of complex life, appropriate for a range of ages. See the trailer here:
The Brilliant Part
The course, Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design, covers 42 lectures. That sounds like it could be a huge time commitment, but it’s not. The brilliant part is that most of the lectures are just about 10 minutes long. You can see Lecture 1, for free, here:
The presentations are bite-size, easily digestible, and you will be learning with the very best. Dr. Meyer has been pursuing the case for intelligent design since completing his PhD at Cambridge University, comprehensively tackled in three books, Signature in the Cell, Darwin’s Doubt, and forthcoming Return of the God Hypothesis.
A Fully Scalable Experience
If you ever thought about how fantastic it would be to have Meyer as your college professor, this will give you a pretty good idea of that. The course includes brief quizzes and suggested further reading, so this experience is fully scalable depending on the time you can devote to it.
To get started, go here for all the information you’ll need. Look there for free previews including a course outline. As an introductory courtesy, we are currently offering a coupon worth 25 percent off the full cost of the course. Just enter the code mgen25 when you check out.
Dr. Meyer opens with accounts of some truly outrageous persecutions endured by scientists who questioned the enshrined materialistic account off biological origins. What is it about the thesis of design that attracts the attention of the censors and the bullies?
And where is Meyer headed with this argument? Many have asked what or whom proponents of intelligent design nominate as the source of the purpose and design that courses through life and the weave of the whole cosmos. Now it can be told.
Meyer cites the view of science historian Frederic Burnham, expressed in weighing the meaning of the Big Bang, that “that the God hypothesis is now a more respectable hypothesis than at any time in the last one hundred years.” Meyer himself argues that “the theistic design hypothesis provides the best explanation for the information necessary to build new forms of life and the fine-tuning that has made life possible in the cosmos at all.”
A “Transcendental Orderliness”
This video course couldn’t come at a better time.
Over the recent first days of Passover, I shared with my family a thought from Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik about what it means to serve God. The reality of “man’s existential condition,” we hardly need to be reminded, is one in which a person is “subject to the caprices of his state of health,” with its intimations of “the ever-hovering specter of possible death.” A shelter, in which “the ravages of life no longer terrorize,” is offered by the “faith in the transcendental orderliness of things” (on Lev. 25:55).
It’s one of the grand and cruel ambitions of materialism to dispel that faith and ruin that shelter. Unfortunately, unlike the goal of writing the Great American Novel while under quarantine, that ambition has met with much success.
An anxious and housebound world needs stimulation but also meaningful consolation, even more than we did a couple of months ago. With that in mind, I hope you will consider spending time with Stephen Meyer in the days to come.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-15--Judge Michael Behe’s Case for Intelligent Design Yourself

“ That Behe fellow is a known Christian .
And he has been seen entering , and leaving , churches .
And so therefore this idea of intelligent design , that ’ s a religious idea .
That ’ s not science.
” With that line , summarizing the approach of many of his critics , biochemist Michael Behe got a laugh of recognition from the audience at the 2020 Dallas Conference Science & Faith this past January .
You can watch his presentation now : Behe got a laugh because , as with much of humor , he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Professor Behe invites us to review the sweep of his argument for intelligent design , as he has presented it in his books and other publications , form Darwin ’ s Black Box to Darwin Devolves , from irreducible complexity to the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution .
This is , from top to bottom , an empirical argument , as he points out .
It can only be fairly evaluated on empirical not religious grounds .
Too bad the critics ( with some noble exceptions ) have avoided doing that .
Does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you ?
As Behe has distilled the First Rule : “ Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain .
There only has to be a net benefit to a species to throw away a function .
That bodes quite poorly for constructive Darwinian evolution.
” This rule , he concludes here , applies “ whether you ’ re talking about bacteria , whether you ’ re talking about mammals , birds , Darwin ’ s finches are the same , anywhere , from eukaryotes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rule of Adaptive Evolution must hold .
It must hold.
” Other illustrations come from polar bears and our household canines : “ Darwin ’ s mechanism is dominated by ‘ Poison-Pill ’ mutations : positively-selected , loss-of-function mutation.
” It “ squanders genetic information for short-term gain.
” A dog , as we ’ ve said here in the past , for all that he or she is loving and lovable , is simply a damaged wolf .
The mutations that form dog breeds are “ pretty much all loss-of-function genes.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from daily headlines at the moment , remains a political and ideological football for many people on the public stage .
Dr. Behe , though , keeps the focus on science itself , not religion or other extraneous subjects .
You can judge his argument for yourself , and I promise you will enjoy doing so !
We have been presenting videos of the major presentations from the 2020 Dallas Conference .
You can find , and enjoy , the others here .

“That Behe fellow is a known Christian. And he has been seen entering, and leaving, churches. And so therefore this idea of intelligent design, that’s a religious idea. That’s not science.”
With that line, summarizing the approach of many of his critics, biochemist Michael Behe got a laugh of recognition from the audience at the 2020 Dallas Conference Science & Faith this past January. You can watch his presentation now:
Behe got a laugh because, as with much of humor, he was caricaturing…but not by a lot. Here Professor Behe invites us to review the sweep of his argument for intelligent design, as he has presented it in his books and other publications, form Darwin’s Black Box to Darwin Devolves, from irreducible complexity to the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution. This is, from top to bottom, an empirical argument, as he points out. It can only be fairly evaluated on empirical not religious grounds. Too bad the critics (with some noble exceptions) have avoided doing that.
Destructive Darwinian Evolution
Does this sound like “religion” to you? As Behe has distilled the First Rule: “Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. There only has to be a net benefit to a species to throw away a function. That bodes quite poorly for constructive Darwinian evolution.”
This rule, he concludes here, applies “whether you’re talking about bacteria, whether you’re talking about mammals, birds, Darwin’s finches are the same, anywhere, from eukaryotes, humans, to prokaryotes, the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution must hold. It must hold.”
Other illustrations come from polar bears and our household canines: “Darwin’s mechanism is dominated by ‘Poison-Pill’ mutations: positively-selected, loss-of-function mutation.” It “squanders genetic information for short-term gain.” A dog, as we’ve said here in the past, for all that he or she is loving and lovable, is simply a damaged wolf. The mutations that form dog breeds are “pretty much all loss-of-function genes.”
Science, as we’re seeing from daily headlines at the moment, remains a political and ideological football for many people on the public stage. Dr. Behe, though, keeps the focus on science itself, not religion or other extraneous subjects. You can judge his argument for yourself, and I promise you will enjoy doing so!
We have been presenting videos of the major presentations from the 2020 Dallas Conference. You can find, and enjoy, the others here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-15--Physician’s Diary: Our Remarkable Healing Processes and the Coronavirus Infection

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves ?
He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .
Given the increasing sadness associated with the coronavirus pandemic , I was slow to write about our remarkable abilities to fight infections .
Yet , watching how international medical researchers are capitalizing on the normal human body ’ s defense mechanisms to heal and protect us , I was reminded that there is much to marvel at here .
These physiological wonders are beyond simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just trial and error and Darwinian natural selection .
There is evidence of design here .
Nothing Random About It Normally , billions of white cells , including complex B and T lymphocytes , neutrophils , macrophages , dendritic cells , and plasma cells , stand guard throughout the body .
They are like sentinels with a whole host of weapons in hand .
When confronted by a foreign intruder , they quickly determine if this new protein , DNA or RNA particle , bacteria , fungus , virus , or a changed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or foe .
If they deem it worrisome , they immediately punch holes in it with tiny grenades called “ complement ” and tear it apart , figuratively limb-by-limb .
Select pieces are sent back to the rear-lines ( lymph nodes ) for analysis .
No one knows quite how all this is accomplished , but nothing about it is random .
The analysis leads to manufacturing antibodies , often Y-shaped chemicals to capture all or part of the intruder in the wedge of the Y. Antibodies will often attach to invaders at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Think of a submicroscopic porcupine rolled into a ball .
If the virus foreigner were covered with triangular spikes , the antibodies might have “ catcher ’ s mitts ” with triangular-shaped pouches .
Electrical charges and specific chemical bonds also play a role .
After that , the foreigner is beaten to a pulp , damaged beyond recognition , taken to be eaten by select cells or destroyed by acid .
Newly manufactured , shorter-lived antibodies are the first on the scene .
Days to weeks later , smaller , often lifelong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also become part of your permanent immunity .
For example , if you were exposed to or caught the mumps , your antibodies would keep you immune to mumps forever .
The memory banks in the immune system remember all details .
Think of a library with tens of millions of books , with a means to retrieve precise information from a single sentence , maybe phrase , in any book , in any language , in a nanosecond .
It ’ s similar to our search engines , but much faster and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overwhelming army of invaders , the sentinels will send for emergency reinforcements .
White cells , like the cavalry , rapidly arrive by the millions .
They travel through lymph channels , race from other organs , and squeeze in and out of blood vessels .
Pus is often the result of these battles .
This material is composed of millions of dead invaders and white cells , various bodily fluids , and all sorts of spent biological weapons , tools , and chemicals .
Recall teenage pimples or any abscess ; the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these pus pockets to the skin surface for drainage .
Analgesics help us with pain , like endorphins , and they treat fever .
It should be noted , however , that a fever is a natural defense and many invading organisms can not tolerate heat .
We used to treat patients with saunas , “ to sweat out a fever , ” and maybe that therapy should be revisited .
Millions of different foreign proteins enter our body every day through breaks in the skin , our gums and gut while eating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and even through portals in the eyes from another person ’ s sneeze or cough .
Most intruders are benign .
Many others are non-life threatening irritants , as with allergies , which prompt a slightly different response .
The deadly invasions , of course , must be confronted immediately .
Immunization ( vaccination ) is the ultimate tool in fighting these kinds of infections .
Doctors maximize what the body normally does .
One must keep in mind that we have never seen this new coronavirus before .
If it were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a child ( as would be the case with tetanus , mumps , and hepatitis C ) , your body would quickly recognize the intruder , immediately call for antibodies , and destroy it .
Unfortunately , pandemics are not new .
With urban crowding , international travel , our encroachment on forests and jungles , increasing antibiotic resistance , poverty , lack of knowledge , the eating of certain wildlife , and bioterrorism , they have or likely will become more common .
The closest parallel to the corona scourge is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flu ( H1N1 ) .
In that case , an estimated 250,000 people died worldwide .
The swine flu primarily attacked young adults , the most healthy members of society .
These were the ones who should be able to mount the most vigorous response .
But , it was too vigorous sometimes .
The body ’ s cure became worse than the disease .
Think of a house-fire or a one-alarm fire , where the response is more appropriate to a twenty-alarm blaze and the entire neighborhood is mistakenly destroyed in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , patients ’ lungs were destroyed by the response .
There are several ways to fight this pandemic besides social isolation , wearing masks , and proper hand-washing .
Certain medications interfere with the viral processes .
Many are being tested .
Some think hydroxychloroquine ( a malaria medicine ) shows promise .
It may prevent the virus from entering human cells .
Remdesivir ( an antiviral ) is another candidate .
It causes the RNA blueprint inside the virus to mutate and thereby become ineffective .
Vaccines prompt the body to make @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but the trick is creating the right antibodies .
Sometimes , the created antibodies get in the way .
Hyperimmune globulin ( IGG , consisting of antibodies collected from donors ) was used during the polio epidemic in the 1950s ; it was given to patients with the worst cases , with paralysis , and many improved .
Scientists are drawing on that experience .
We are now testing and giving monoclonal antibodies and convalescent serum to the sickest .
Both have the antibodies ( IGG ) from previously infected patients .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ by intelligent design — not accident — help keep us healthy .

Editor’s note: Dr. Simmons is the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
Given the increasing sadness associated with the coronavirus pandemic, I was slow to write about our remarkable abilities to fight infections. Yet, watching how international medical researchers are capitalizing on the normal human body’s defense mechanisms to heal and protect us, I was reminded that there is much to marvel at here. These physiological wonders are beyond simple accidents of nature. They are beyond just trial and error and Darwinian natural selection. There is evidence of design here.
Nothing Random About It
Normally, billions of white cells, including complex B and T lymphocytes, neutrophils, macrophages, dendritic cells, and plasma cells, stand guard throughout the body. They are like sentinels with a whole host of weapons in hand. When confronted by a foreign intruder, they quickly determine if this new protein, DNA or RNA particle, bacteria, fungus, virus, or a changed cell (cancer) is a friend or foe. If they deem it worrisome, they immediately punch holes in it with tiny grenades called “complement” and tear it apart, figuratively limb-by-limb. Select pieces are sent back to the rear-lines (lymph nodes) for analysis. No one knows quite how all this is accomplished, but nothing about it is random.
The analysis leads to manufacturing antibodies, often Y-shaped chemicals to capture all or part of the intruder in the wedge of the Y. Antibodies will often attach to invaders at specific locations along their outer shell. Think of a submicroscopic porcupine rolled into a ball. If the virus foreigner were covered with triangular spikes, the antibodies might have “catcher’s mitts” with triangular-shaped pouches. Electrical charges and specific chemical bonds also play a role. After that, the foreigner is beaten to a pulp, damaged beyond recognition, taken to be eaten by select cells or destroyed by acid.
The Body’s Memory Banks
Newly manufactured, shorter-lived antibodies are the first on the scene. Days to weeks later, smaller, often lifelong, antibodies begin arriving. They may also become part of your permanent immunity. For example, if you were exposed to or caught the mumps, your antibodies would keep you immune to mumps forever. The memory banks in the immune system remember all details. Think of a library with tens of millions of books, with a means to retrieve precise information from a single sentence, maybe phrase, in any book, in any language, in a nanosecond. It’s similar to our search engines, but much faster and more precise.
If there is an overwhelming army of invaders, the sentinels will send for emergency reinforcements. White cells, like the cavalry, rapidly arrive by the millions. They travel through lymph channels, race from other organs, and squeeze in and out of blood vessels. Pus is often the result of these battles. This material is composed of millions of dead invaders and white cells, various bodily fluids, and all sorts of spent biological weapons, tools, and chemicals. Recall teenage pimples or any abscess; the fight is concluded when the body moves these pus pockets to the skin surface for drainage. Analgesics help us with pain, like endorphins, and they treat fever. It should be noted, however, that a fever is a natural defense and many invading organisms cannot tolerate heat. We used to treat patients with saunas, “to sweat out a fever,” and maybe that therapy should be revisited.
Millions of different foreign proteins enter our body every day through breaks in the skin, our gums and gut while eating, our nose and lungs while inhaling, and even through portals in the eyes from another person’s sneeze or cough. Most intruders are benign. Many others are non-life threatening irritants, as with allergies, which prompt a slightly different response. The deadly invasions, of course, must be confronted immediately.
The Ultimate Tool
Immunization (vaccination) is the ultimate tool in fighting these kinds of infections. Doctors maximize what the body normally does. One must keep in mind that we have never seen this new coronavirus before. If it were the measles and you had been vaccinated as a child (as would be the case with tetanus, mumps, and hepatitis C), your body would quickly recognize the intruder, immediately call for antibodies, and destroy it.
Unfortunately, pandemics are not new. With urban crowding, international travel, our encroachment on forests and jungles, increasing antibiotic resistance, poverty, lack of knowledge, the eating of certain wildlife, and bioterrorism, they have or likely will become more common. The closest parallel to the corona scourge is the 2009 flu pandemic, aka swine flu (H1N1). In that case, an estimated 250,000 people died worldwide. The swine flu primarily attacked young adults, the most healthy members of society. These were the ones who should be able to mount the most vigorous response. But, it was too vigorous sometimes. The body’s cure became worse than the disease. Think of a house-fire or a one-alarm fire, where the response is more appropriate to a twenty-alarm blaze and the entire neighborhood is mistakenly destroyed in the fight against the flames. With H1N1, patients’ lungs were destroyed by the response.
Beyond Hand-Washing
There are several ways to fight this pandemic besides social isolation, wearing masks, and proper hand-washing. Certain medications interfere with the viral processes. Many are being tested. Some think hydroxychloroquine (a malaria medicine) shows promise. It may prevent the virus from entering human cells. Remdesivir (an antiviral) is another candidate. It causes the RNA blueprint inside the virus to mutate and thereby become ineffective.
Vaccines prompt the body to make antibodies by mimicking aspects of the virus, but the trick is creating the right antibodies. Sometimes, the created antibodies get in the way. Hyperimmune globulin (IGG, consisting of antibodies collected from donors) was used during the polio epidemic in the 1950s; it was given to patients with the worst cases, with paralysis, and many improved.
Scientists are drawing on that experience. We are now testing and giving monoclonal antibodies and convalescent serum to the sickest. Both have the antibodies (IGG) from previously infected patients. They mimic our antibodies, which, by intelligent design — not accident — help keep us healthy.
Photo credit: Airman 1st Class Alexis Christian, via Peterson Air Force Base.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-14--Rare Earth at Twenty — And My Connection

This past January marked the 20th anniversary of the publication of the best-selling and influential book Rare Earth : Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe , by Peter D. Ward and Donald E. Brownlee .
As the subtitle suggests , the authors argue that planets like Earth that have complex life are rare , while simple life may be common .
Brownlee and Ward were , and still are , professors at the University of Washington in Seattle .
Brownlee is an astronomer .
He specializes in meteorites and interplanetary dust particles .
Ward is a paleontologist in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major mass extinction events .
He ’ s also a prolific author , having written 16 books .
Mostly positive reviews appeared in leading newspapers and science magazines , including Science , American Scientist , and Physics Today .
Even scientists who probably don ’ t agree with the overall thesis of the book either endorsed or praised it , including Christopher McKay , Geoff Marcy , and James Kasting .
Steven J. Dick is an astronomer and historian who served as Chief Historian for NASA for several years .
He is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ history of the extraterrestrial life debate .
He expressed his thoughts on the book to me at an astrobiology conference I attended shortly after the book was published .
He thought that it was the most important work on the topic of extraterrestrial life in modern times .
I received my PhD in astronomy at the University of Washington in 1993 .
I took a graduate course on Solar System astrophysics from Brownlee around 1989 .
I went on to do a three-year post-doc at the University of Texas at Austin until 1996 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ UW astronomy department for a another research position that lasted until 2001 .
I had many conversations with Brownlee during that time , and I met Ward for the first time , probably in 1998 .
The three of us discovered that we shared skepticism of extraterrestrial intelligence ( ETI ) .
There was another interesting dynamic in the department .
Woodruff Sullivan , now professor emeritus , is a long-time SETI advocate .
I had taken a course on radio astronomy from him as a graduate student , and I was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He knew of our skepticism , but we got along very well .
It was during my second tenure at the UW that Brownlee , Ward , and I came up with the Galactic Habitable Zone ( GHZ ) concept .
It extends the idea of restricted zones of habitability from the domain of the Solar System to that of the Milky Way Galaxy .
The idea appeared in print first in Rare Earth .
We continued working on the GHZ after the book was released and published a popular article in Scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal Icarus , both in 2001 .
Since then , I have learned that at least a couple other astronomers were thinking along similar lines .
Charles Lineweaver published a paper in Icarus one month before us describing habitability on the cosmic scale arising for the dependence of planet formation on metallicity .
This was one of the two pillars of the GHZ concept .
Three years later , Lineweaver published in Science the results of a detailed set of calculations of the GHZ .
About that time Mario Livio told me at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science Institute that he had thought of writing a similar paper before he saw ours in print .
To date , our GHZ paper has been cited 130 times , and the GHZ continues to be an active topic of research .
Rare Earth itself has been cited 101 times in the scientific literature according to Google Scholar .
It is not that common in this field for books to be cited in journal papers .
Ward rebuked Brownlee for agreeing to be interviewed by Hugh Ross on his radio show just after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Brownlee also appeared on The Privileged Planet DVD .
As anyone who ’ s watched the DVD knows , however , Brownlee was not expressing agreement with ID .
I found Brownlee to be much more tolerant of people with different views and opinions than Ward .
Let ’ s just say Ward was not thrilled when he learned of my affiliation with Discovery Institute .
In principle , the conjoining of the many Rare Earth factors could overwhelm the available probabilistic resources and serve as evidence for Earth ’ s design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too soon to know the probabilities of all the important Rare Earth factors well enough to conclude this .
It could turn out to be the case , but we won ’ t know them for another ten years or so .
Still , the basic thesis of Rare Earth was defensible at the time , and I believe it still is .
At the time Rare Earth was published , Jay Richards and I were already working on early drafts of chapters for The Privileged Planet .
Having Rare Earth published several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ helpful , as it served as background for our book .
Photo credit : Coast of North Africa , by NASA via International Space Station .

This past January marked the 20th anniversary of the publication of the best-selling and influential book Rare Earth: Why Complex Life Is Uncommon in the Universe, by Peter D. Ward and Donald E. Brownlee. As the subtitle suggests, the authors argue that planets like Earth that have complex life are rare, while simple life may be common.
Some Background
Brownlee and Ward were, and still are, professors at the University of Washington in Seattle. Brownlee is an astronomer. He specializes in meteorites and interplanetary dust particles. Ward is a paleontologist in the biology department. He specializes in major mass extinction events. He’s also a prolific author, having written 16 books.
Mostly positive reviews appeared in leading newspapers and science magazines, including Science, American Scientist, and Physics Today. Even scientists who probably don’t agree with the overall thesis of the book either endorsed or praised it, including Christopher McKay, Geoff Marcy, and James Kasting.
Steven J. Dick is an astronomer and historian who served as Chief Historian for NASA for several years. He is the author of two important books on the history of the extraterrestrial life debate. He expressed his thoughts on the book to me at an astrobiology conference I attended shortly after the book was published. He thought that it was the most important work on the topic of extraterrestrial life in modern times.
My Connection with Rare Earth
I received my PhD in astronomy at the University of Washington in 1993. I took a graduate course on Solar System astrophysics from Brownlee around 1989. I went on to do a three-year post-doc at the University of Texas at Austin until 1996. Then, I returned to the UW astronomy department for a another research position that lasted until 2001. I had many conversations with Brownlee during that time, and I met Ward for the first time, probably in 1998. The three of us discovered that we shared skepticism of extraterrestrial intelligence (ETI).
There was another interesting dynamic in the department. Woodruff Sullivan, now professor emeritus, is a long-time SETI advocate. I had taken a course on radio astronomy from him as a graduate student, and I was a TA for his intro astronomy courses. He knew of our skepticism, but we got along very well.
It was during my second tenure at the UW that Brownlee, Ward, and I came up with the Galactic Habitable Zone (GHZ) concept. It extends the idea of restricted zones of habitability from the domain of the Solar System to that of the Milky Way Galaxy. The idea appeared in print first in Rare Earth. We continued working on the GHZ after the book was released and published a popular article in Scientific American and a technical paper in the journal Icarus, both in 2001.
Since then, I have learned that at least a couple other astronomers were thinking along similar lines. Charles Lineweaver published a paper in Icarus one month before us describing habitability on the cosmic scale arising for the dependence of planet formation on metallicity. This was one of the two pillars of the GHZ concept. Three years later, Lineweaver published in Science the results of a detailed set of calculations of the GHZ. About that time Mario Livio told me at an astrobiology conference at the Space Telescope Science Institute that he had thought of writing a similar paper before he saw ours in print. To date, our GHZ paper has been cited 130 times, and the GHZ continues to be an active topic of research. Rare Earth itself has been cited 101 times in the scientific literature according to Google Scholar. It is not that common in this field for books to be cited in journal papers.
Rare Earth and Intelligent Design
Ward rebuked Brownlee for agreeing to be interviewed by Hugh Ross on his radio show just after the publication of Rare Earth. Later, Brownlee also appeared on The Privileged Planet DVD. As anyone who’s watched the DVD knows, however, Brownlee was not expressing agreement with ID. I found Brownlee to be much more tolerant of people with different views and opinions than Ward. Let’s just say Ward was not thrilled when he learned of my affiliation with Discovery Institute.
In principle, the conjoining of the many Rare Earth factors could overwhelm the available probabilistic resources and serve as evidence for Earth’s design. However, it’s still too soon to know the probabilities of all the important Rare Earth factors well enough to conclude this. It could turn out to be the case, but we won’t know them for another ten years or so. Still, the basic thesis of Rare Earth was defensible at the time, and I believe it still is.
At the time Rare Earth was published, Jay Richards and I were already working on early drafts of chapters for The Privileged Planet. Having Rare Earth published several years prior to The Privileged Planet was helpful, as it served as background for our book.
Photo credit: Coast of North Africa, by NASA via International Space Station.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-14--Evolution, Intelligent Design, and the Coronavirus: Biologist Jonathan Wells Explains

On a new episode of ID the Future , biologist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells talks with host @ @ @ @ @ of evolution and intelligent design as they relate to the novel coronavirus SARS CoV-2 .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
Is the coronavirus a product of evolution , in the sense @ @ @ @ @ of Species ?
Wells argues to the contrary : It ’ s not a new @ @ @ @ @ aren ’ t even considered living species .
Does modern evolutionary theory guide medicine ’ @ @ @ @ @ you consider that most of the major treatments being used and pursued actually preceded Darwin @ @ @ @ @ ?
Yes and no , Wells says .
Listen in to get his take on @ @ @ @

On a new episode of ID the Future, biologist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Jonathan Wells talks with host Andrew McDiarmid and tackles questions of evolution and intelligent design as they relate to the novel coronavirus SARS CoV-2. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Is the coronavirus a product of evolution, in the sense of Darwin’s Origin of Species? Wells argues to the contrary: It’s not a new species; in fact viruses aren’t even considered living species. Does modern evolutionary theory guide medicine’s response? Not when you consider that most of the major treatments being used and pursued actually preceded Darwin. Is intelligent design involved? Yes and no, Wells says. Listen in to get his take on this and more.
Photo: Jonathan Wells, via Discovery Institute.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-13--Zoom Webinar with Wells, Sternberg on Whale Evolution; Join Us on April 23!

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition .
But is it ?
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species : “ I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered , by natural selection , more and more aquatic in their structure and habits , with larger and larger mouths , till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
” Bears turning into whales ?
Scientists today disagree , instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parameters that would have to be modified , ” says biologist and Center for Science & Culture Senior Fellow Richard Sternberg , “ and then multiply that by , I don ’ t know — a thousandfold , or more than that .
That ’ s the scale of the problem that you ’ re dealing with.
” Join us for the live , online premiere of the new video Whale of an Evolution Tale , the latest in the Long Story Short series of videos .
Immediately following the video we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A about whale evolution with senior Discovery Institute biologists Jonathan Wells and Richard Sternberg .
Mark your calendar for Thursday , April 23 , at 7 pm EST .
Join us then online for a Zoom webinar .
This event is easy to access , and free , but space is limited and registration is required .
For more information and to register , go here !
“ Long Story Short ” is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and quite amusing .
See our earlier “ Long Story Short , ” Is Homology Evidence for Evolution ?
, release here : Jonathan Wells has received two PhDs , one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley , and one in Religious Studies from Yale University .
Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist who also holds two PhD ’ s : one in Biology ( Molecular Evolution ) from Florida International University and another in Systems Science ( Theoretical Biology ) from Binghamton University .

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition. But is it?
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
Bears turning into whales? Scientists today disagree, instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today’s whales.
“Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified,” says biologist and Center for Science & Culture Senior Fellow Richard Sternberg, “and then multiply that by, I don’t know — a thousandfold, or more than that. That’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with.”
Mark Your Calendar
Join us for the live, online premiere of the new video Whale of an Evolution Tale, the latest in the Long Story Short series of videos. Immediately following the video we’ll have a live Q&A about whale evolution with senior Discovery Institute biologists Jonathan Wells and Richard Sternberg.
Mark your calendar for Thursday, April 23, at 7 pm EST. Join us then online for a Zoom webinar. This event is easy to access, and free, but space is limited and registration is required. For more information and to register, go here!
“Long Story Short” is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very welcome format: concise, accessible, and quite amusing.
See our earlier “Long Story Short,” Is Homology Evidence for Evolution?, release here:
Jonathan Wells has received two PhDs, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. Richard Sternberg is an evolutionary biologist who also holds two PhD’s: one in Biology (Molecular Evolution) from Florida International University and another in Systems Science (Theoretical Biology) from Binghamton University.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-13--Pseudogenes Are Going the Way of Darwin’s “Rudimentary Organs”

Long described as useless leftovers of evolution , pseudogenes are rising from the junk pile as functional entities — so much so , that scientists think a change in terminology is needed .
Wikipedia can be counted on to parrot the Darwinian view .
Here ’ s what they say about pseudogenes : It ’ s safe to say that many Darwin skeptics have felt intimidated by this apparent genetic evidence for evolution , not sure what to make of it or how to fit it into their own perspective .
Prominent Darwin defenders like Kenneth Miller , meanwhile , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligent design .
“ The human genome is littered with pseudogenes , ” he wrote in 1994 .
Pointless junk like this “ can not be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.
” He even characterized ID as a “ retreat back to into an unknowledge of biology that is unworthy of the scientific spirit of this century ” ( Life ’ s Grand Design ) .
Hints of unease with the conventional view appear , however , lower down in the Wikipedia article , where an unknown redactor admits that some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to have functions .
In his book The Myth of Junk DNA , Jonathan Wells wrote extensively about pseudogenes , setting the stage by quoting Miller , Dawkins , Futuyma , Coyne , Avise , Shermer , and even theistic evolutionist Francis Collins .
All point to pseudogenes as evidence against design and evidence confirming evolution .
In 2009 , Jerry Coyne boasted : Wells devotes a whole chapter to the subject , noting that at the time of writing in 2011 , evidence was accumulating that so-called pseudogenes were expressed and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expression , acting as decoys , and conducting RNA interference .
The fact that many are highly conserved , he wrote , also showed that they should be considered candidates for exploring unknown functions .
An important paradigm shift was announced in Nature Reviews Genetics this past December .
In their paper “ Overcoming challenges and dogmas to understand the functions of pseudogenes , ” Seth W. Cheetham , Geoffrey J. Faulkner , and Marcel E. Dinger say the time has come to reconsider these bits of code that were long dismissed as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or credit Jonathan Wells or any other ID advocate , as is so typical of Darwin dogmatists .
Nevertheless , this could represent a major turning point in thinking by the secular evolutionist community .
See an article at Evolution News , “ Nature Reviews Genetics — Pseudogene Function Is ‘ Prematurely Dismissed , ’ ” for more detail on the significance of this paper .
Given the current environment in academia , a better admission that “ Wells was right ” could hardly be wished for .
But of course , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary origins ” of pseudogenes , they say .
Whatever .
Let them sigh at their disappearing evidence a little longer .
Par for the Course Pseudogenes and the “ junk DNA ” myth are not the only times evolutionists have mislabeled phenomena they did not understand .
There are at least three other examples that could be cited .
One central proof for unguided evolution that was offered for decades was “ vestigial organs , ” a variation on the junk-DNA myth .
The evolutionary process supposedly littered our bodies with useless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as it littered our cells with useless genes .
So ingrained was this idea of vestigial organs , it was common thinking among biologists for a century .
Darwin started it , calling them “ rudimentary organs ” in both the Origin and The Descent of Man .
He considered them difficulties for a design view , and predictions of natural selection .
Robert Weidersheim made it his life ’ s work to catalog these evolutionary leftovers .
In 1895 , he published a list of over 100 body parts he deemed useless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appendix , tonsils , wisdom teeth , and the coccyx .
Even as late as the 1960s , tonsils were routinely removed from children on the grounds that they are unnecessary .
When inflamed by infection , they can be harmful , but today ’ s family doctors know that , as part of the immune system , they are best left intact .
Similarly , the appendix can be life-threatening when inflamed ; but only within the last two decades have scientists come to realize that the appendix serves a vital function @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gut biota after diarrhea .
Marcos Eberlin has made this point in his book Foresight and on a podcast for ID the Future .
Similarly , wisdom teeth are best left in unless they are impacted .
Some have argued that bad diet is behind our problems with third molars , not the supposition that the human jaw was shrinking and had no room for them , as Darwinians contended .
And for sure , no one would want to sit down without a coccyx or tailbone !
Important muscles are anchored to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ childbirth .
Weidersheim ’ s list of vestigial organs has shrunk to very few today .
He had included organs like the pituitary gland , spleen , and thymus gland whose vital functions were discovered later .
Evolutionists should have deduced that the argument was flawed anyway ; why would natural selection pay the energy cost of keeping useless organs around ?
The same applies to “ junk DNA ” — it makes no sense for a cell to keep copying and reading junk .
And what is meant by “ vestigial ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ live without fingers , arms , and legs ; are those vestigial ?
Some parts change during life history ; they may be important in the embryo and then atrophy in the adult , or become functional after puberty , but are not “ vestigial ” at other times .
Determining what constitutes a function can be subjective .
On the whole , the vestigial organs argument is slippery : natural selection predicts many vestiges , but also predicts few vestiges .
The doctrine of vestigial organs overlaps with Haeckel ’ s “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ basically does the same thing : sends scientists looking for vestiges of evolution in the embryo .
But again , why would natural selection pay the cost of keeping useless vestiges of a supposed evolutionary past around for millions of years , generation after generation , if they perform no service to the organism ?
Jonathan Wells deals with this myth extensively in his books Icons of Evolution and Zombie Science , so readers are encouraged to go there to learn about the rise and fall of Haeckel ’ s recapitulation theory ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Suffice it to say that this dead doctrine still lurks about in some textbooks today .
Pursuing the Darwinian myth of non-functionality to the extreme , evolution has also rendered the verdict “ junk ” on whole groups of organisms .
Some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century came from this attitude that spawned eugenics .
Undesirable groups have been judged defectives , imbeciles , or “ useless eaters.
” Do you see the connection with pseudogenes ?
Underlying all of these damnable doctrines — eugenics , recapitulation theory , vestigial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — is Darwin ’ s myth of progress , which leaves behind the losers strewn across the battleground in the unending war for survival of the fittest .
The awful outcome is depicted in the award-winning documentary short by Discovery Institute ’ s John West , “ The Biology of the Second Reich : Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War I.
” With Darwin ’ s suggestion that biology might be littered with useless remnants of natural selection , his disciples went on a wild goose chase to look for them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explain the existence of these features ; they were looking to support Darwin ’ s hunch .
Once his hunch about evolutionary leftovers became established as a doctrinaire assumption , it became an excuse for scientific laziness .
Leftovers could be explained away rather than explained .
Who wants to rummage through junk ?
In each case , history since Darwin has rendered each assumption false .
These assumptions delayed significant discoveries , and far worse : they justified horrific atrocities committed in the name of “ fitness.
” A proper scientific endeavor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is there for , not what trash it represents that has been left behind .
ID theory is better positioned philosophically and ethically to approach future biological questions , because it assumes “ innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
” If something works , it ’ s not happening by accident .
Chance accidents do occur , rendering some genes defective , some organs atrophied , and some individuals disabled .
These exceptions prove the rule .
They show the harm that results from unguided natural processes .
As Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can ’ t happen — the word has no meaning — in an entirely accidental world .
Chance presupposes design.
” Disabilities occur against the backdrop not of a battlefield , but of an interrelated , well-designed community , in which every individual has value as part of a tapestry of design and beauty that arouses awe .
If parts of the tapestry are not yet understood , they deserve investigation , not dismissal .
Photo : Charles Darwin in 1855 , by Maull and Polyblank , Literary and Scientific Portrait Club , @ @ @ @

Long described as useless leftovers of evolution, pseudogenes are rising from the junk pile as functional entities — so much so, that scientists think a change in terminology is needed.
Wikipedia can be counted on to parrot the Darwinian view. Here’s what they say about pseudogenes:
Gene duplication generates functional redundancy and it is not normally advantageous to carry two identical genes. Mutations that disrupt either the structure or the function of either of the two genes are not deleterious and will not be removed through the selection process. As a result, the gene that has been mutated gradually becomes a pseudogene and will be either unexpressed or functionless. This kind of evolutionary fate is shown by population genetic modeling and also by genome analysis. According to evolutionary context, these pseudogenes will either be deleted or become so distinct from the parental genes so that they will no longer be identifiable. Relatively young pseudogenes can be recognized due to their sequence similarity. [Emphasis added.]
It’s safe to say that many Darwin skeptics have felt intimidated by this apparent genetic evidence for evolution, not sure what to make of it or how to fit it into their own perspective. Prominent Darwin defenders like Kenneth Miller, meanwhile, trumpeted pseudogenes as prima facie evidence against intelligent design. “The human genome is littered with pseudogenes,” he wrote in 1994. Pointless junk like this “cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design.” He even characterized ID as a “retreat back to into an unknowledge of biology that is unworthy of the scientific spirit of this century” (Life’s Grand Design).
Evidence Against Design?
Hints of unease with the conventional view appear, however, lower down in the Wikipedia article, where an unknown redactor admits that some pseudogenes have been mislabeled, and others appear to have functions. In his book The Myth of Junk DNA, Jonathan Wells wrote extensively about pseudogenes, setting the stage by quoting Miller, Dawkins, Futuyma, Coyne, Avise, Shermer, and even theistic evolutionist Francis Collins. All point to pseudogenes as evidence against design and evidence confirming evolution. In 2009, Jerry Coyne boasted:
[T]he evolutionary prediction that we would find pseudogenes has been fulfilled — amply. Virtually every species harbors dead genes, many of them still active in its relatives. This implies that those genes were also active in a common ancestor, and were killed off in some descendants and not others…. Our genome — and that of other species — are truly well-populated graveyards of dead genes.
Wells devotes a whole chapter to the subject, noting that at the time of writing in 2011, evidence was accumulating that so-called pseudogenes were expressed and had functions, such as enhancing gene expression, acting as decoys, and conducting RNA interference. The fact that many are highly conserved, he wrote, also showed that they should be considered candidates for exploring unknown functions.
Paradigm Shift
An important paradigm shift was announced in Nature Reviews Genetics this past December. In their paper “Overcoming challenges and dogmas to understand the functions of pseudogenes,” Seth W. Cheetham, Geoffrey J. Faulkner, and Marcel E. Dinger say the time has come to reconsider these bits of code that were long dismissed as junk. The authors do not acknowledge or credit Jonathan Wells or any other ID advocate, as is so typical of Darwin dogmatists. Nevertheless, this could represent a major turning point in thinking by the secular evolutionist community. See an article at Evolution News, “Nature Reviews Genetics — Pseudogene Function Is ‘Prematurely Dismissed,’” for more detail on the significance of this paper.
Given the current environment in academia, a better admission that “Wells was right” could hardly be wished for. But of course, the new paradigm will help understand the “evolutionary origins” of pseudogenes, they say. Whatever. Let them sigh at their disappearing evidence a little longer.
Par for the Course
Pseudogenes and the “junk DNA” myth are not the only times evolutionists have mislabeled phenomena they did not understand. There are at least three other examples that could be cited. One central proof for unguided evolution that was offered for decades was “vestigial organs,” a variation on the junk-DNA myth. The evolutionary process supposedly littered our bodies with useless organs from our animal ancestry, just as it littered our cells with useless genes.
So ingrained was this idea of vestigial organs, it was common thinking among biologists for a century. Darwin started it, calling them “rudimentary organs” in both the Origin and The Descent of Man. He considered them difficulties for a design view, and predictions of natural selection. Robert Weidersheim made it his life’s work to catalog these evolutionary leftovers. In 1895, he published a list of over 100 body parts he deemed useless and non-functional. His list included the appendix, tonsils, wisdom teeth, and the coccyx. Even as late as the 1960s, tonsils were routinely removed from children on the grounds that they are unnecessary. When inflamed by infection, they can be harmful, but today’s family doctors know that, as part of the immune system, they are best left intact. Similarly, the appendix can be life-threatening when inflamed; but only within the last two decades have scientists come to realize that the appendix serves a vital function — that of “rebooting” the gut biota after diarrhea. Marcos Eberlin has made this point in his book Foresight and on a podcast for ID the Future. Similarly, wisdom teeth are best left in unless they are impacted. Some have argued that bad diet is behind our problems with third molars, not the supposition that the human jaw was shrinking and had no room for them, as Darwinians contended. And for sure, no one would want to sit down without a coccyx or tailbone! Important muscles are anchored to them, including muscles for elimination and childbirth.
Weidersheim’s list of vestigial organs has shrunk to very few today. He had included organs like the pituitary gland, spleen, and thymus gland whose vital functions were discovered later. Evolutionists should have deduced that the argument was flawed anyway; why would natural selection pay the energy cost of keeping useless organs around? The same applies to “junk DNA” — it makes no sense for a cell to keep copying and reading junk. And what is meant by “vestigial” in the first place? Humans can live without fingers, arms, and legs; are those vestigial? Some parts change during life history; they may be important in the embryo and then atrophy in the adult, or become functional after puberty, but are not “vestigial” at other times. Determining what constitutes a function can be subjective. On the whole, the vestigial organs argument is slippery: natural selection predicts many vestiges, but also predicts few vestiges.
Breaking the Biogenetic Law
The doctrine of vestigial organs overlaps with Haeckel’s “Biogenetic Law” of recapitulation, which basically does the same thing: sends scientists looking for vestiges of evolution in the embryo. But again, why would natural selection pay the cost of keeping useless vestiges of a supposed evolutionary past around for millions of years, generation after generation, if they perform no service to the organism? Jonathan Wells deals with this myth extensively in his books Icons of Evolution and Zombie Science, so readers are encouraged to go there to learn about the rise and fall of Haeckel’s recapitulation theory (which Darwin considered highly significant). Suffice it to say that this dead doctrine still lurks about in some textbooks today.
Vestigial Races
Pursuing the Darwinian myth of non-functionality to the extreme, evolution has also rendered the verdict “junk” on whole groups of organisms. Some of the worst atrocities of the 20th century came from this attitude that spawned eugenics. Undesirable groups have been judged defectives, imbeciles, or “useless eaters.” Do you see the connection with pseudogenes? Underlying all of these damnable doctrines — eugenics, recapitulation theory, vestigial organs, junk DNA and now pseudogenes — is Darwin’s myth of progress, which leaves behind the losers strewn across the battleground in the unending war for survival of the fittest. The awful outcome is depicted in the award-winning documentary short by Discovery Institute’s John West, “The Biology of the Second Reich: Social Darwinism and the Origins of World War I.”
Lessons from History
With Darwin’s suggestion that biology might be littered with useless remnants of natural selection, his disciples went on a wild goose chase to look for them. They weren’t trying to explain the existence of these features; they were looking to support Darwin’s hunch. Once his hunch about evolutionary leftovers became established as a doctrinaire assumption, it became an excuse for scientific laziness. Leftovers could be explained away rather than explained. Who wants to rummage through junk? In each case, history since Darwin has rendered each assumption false. These assumptions delayed significant discoveries, and far worse: they justified horrific atrocities committed in the name of “fitness.”
A proper scientific endeavor should approach a phenomenon by asking what it is there for, not what trash it represents that has been left behind. ID theory is better positioned philosophically and ethically to approach future biological questions, because it assumes “innocent till proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” If something works, it’s not happening by accident. Chance accidents do occur, rendering some genes defective, some organs atrophied, and some individuals disabled. These exceptions prove the rule. They show the harm that results from unguided natural processes. As Michael Egnor wrote here yesterday, “Chance can’t happen — the word has no meaning — in an entirely accidental world. Chance presupposes design.”
Disabilities occur against the backdrop not of a battlefield, but of an interrelated, well-designed community, in which every individual has value as part of a tapestry of design and beauty that arouses awe. If parts of the tapestry are not yet understood, they deserve investigation, not dismissal.
Photo: Charles Darwin in 1855, by Maull and Polyblank, Literary and Scientific Portrait Club, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-12--Irreconcilable Differences: Can Darwinism Be Pasteurized?

Editor ’ s note : As biologist Jonathan Wells observes , “ [ T ] he measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory.
” Yet a persistent claim from evolutionists is that medical research would be crippled without a Darwinian framework .
Evolution News presents a series of our previously published work addressing the myth of “ Darwinian medicine.
” Michael Egnor has criticized so-called “ Darwinian medicine ” as a useless concept , since medical science has had spectacular success without it .
Darwinism is about the death of the unfit , focused on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about healing individuals and anyone who needs help , including the unfit , the weak , and the vulnerable .
How can the father of evolutionary theory , Charles Darwin , and the father of biogenesis , pasteurization and vaccines , Louis Pasteur , be reconciled ?
In PLOS Biology , Samuel Alizon and Pierre-Olivier Méthot try to do just that .
Their paper is titled , “ Reconciling Pasteur and Darwin to control infectious diseases.
” It ’ s a noble aim to control diseases , but can their conciliatory approach work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pasteur probably never communicated .
“ Pasteur and Darwin both attended the International Medical Congress in London in 1881 but did not exchange words , ” they say .
It ’ s doubtful that Pasteur ’ s words to Darwin would have been friendly .
According to his grandson , Pasteur ’ s worldview had more in common with intelligent design than with Darwinian naturalism : Pasteur was also a deeply religious man , and adamantly anti-materialistic .
He said : It ’ s not hard to guess which “ modern materialistic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Alizon and Méthot know that the two men came from strongly different philosophical perspectives .
The Medicine of Death , and of Life “ Both also had a profound impact on medicine , ” eh ?
Yes , we see that with Pasteur , whose vaccines and discoveries in microbiology have saved countless millions of lives .
For Darwin , the story is quite different , as John West has recounted in Darwin Day in America , particularly in Chapters 13-15 .
And if Darwin ’ s motivations for Nazi ideology , eugenics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could call Darwin ’ s approach the medicine of death , and Pasteur ’ s the medicine of life .
It looks like a hard sell to unite these men from polar opposite ends of worldview spectrum .
Let ’ s see if Alizon and Méthot can pull it off .
They readily acknowledge their challenge : Scary last phrase there : “ at least in the public discourse.
” What ’ s happening behind closed doors at scientific institutions ?
Some evolutionists are very open about their eugenic views , as Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for lack of interest in Darwinian medicine , the authors say , is that “ evolutionary biology was still largely viewed as an observational science and no longer had a place within the new configuration of medical knowledge and training organized around specialities [ sic ] and characterized by experimentation.
” That tells us something important about Darwinism ; it ’ s less in the scientific business of experimentation as it is in the art of weaving narratives in order to fit observations into Darwin ’ s picture of the world .
Having @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Méthot make a plea for integrating evolution into medical training .
The way they define evolution , though , makes their particular advice uncontroversial : If that is all they are talking about , nobody will make a fuss .
Even the most ardent creationists acknowledge “ biological variations at the population level and how they change over time.
” The question then becomes , what has Darwin got to do with this plea ?
Variation has been observed for millennia .
What made Darwinism so controversial was his claim that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by blind , unguided processes .
To argue that , he had to make natural selection a creative force , able to create wings and eyes where none existed before .
In the bulk of their essay , Alizon and Méthot talk about antibacterial resistance ( see Jonathan Wells , Zombie Science , Chapter 8 , for discussion of what that has to do with Darwinism ) .
They suggest medical practices that are best suited to effectively control outbreaks of resistant strains .
Darwinism seems only marginally involved here , supported by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” situations and “ co-evolution.
” The authors illustrate it with examples , such as when a doctor ’ s ‘ hit hard and hit fast ’ strategy with antibiotics actually creates conditions for virulent mutants to multiply .
Nothing about this need involve Darwin , however .
It ’ s population dynamics , not creation of novelty .
They mention “ the emergence of new infections , ” saying “ Emergence often involves adaptation to new hosts , ” but that doesn ’ t involve the origin of species or the creation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Behe cogently pointed out in The Edge of Evolution , mutants become resistant by breaking things .
A bacterium might break its interface with a drug , for instance , achieving resistance but not creating anything new .
In a recent ID the Future episode , Ann Gauger described this kind of “ evolution ” as “ throwing the deck chairs off to make the boat go faster.
” The interplay between parasite and host has more to do with ecology than evolution .
Alizon and Méthot repeatedly conflate the two , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variants in parasites and hosts are always Darwinian in nature .
Not necessarily ; if no new information is added , and if no truly innovative complex structure is created , then neither organism makes the kind of upward progress Darwin envisioned .
It ’ s a demolition derby .
The ship that throws off the most cargo and remains the afloat would win .
That kind of ‘ evolution ’ is not what Darwin had in mind .
One of the illustrations in Alizon and Méthot ’ s paper shows resistant strains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to proliferate when antibiotics kill off most of the non-resistant cells .
Typically , resistant strains lose ability to compete in the wild , only succeeding in artificial environments like hospitals .
The authors even point this out : Those “ stochastic extinctions ” occur because the newly emerged resistant variants can not compete in more realistic environments , where wild-type strains have not had to throw their cargo and deck chairs overboard .
Understanding such ecological factors leads some hospitals to release patients earlier to their homes , so that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ compete with stronger ( and less virulent ) strains in the natural environment .
Some hospitals are providing environments like gardens where patients can be exposed to less hygienic , natural conditions .
These settings encourage recovery not only by driving resistant strains extinct faster , but by providing patients with opportunities for mental well-being that natural beauty engenders .
Additionally , evidence is growing that bacteria can obtain resistance genes through horizontal gene transfer , such as from soil bacteria .
If so , there ’ s nothing Darwinian about this , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicates design , not evolution .
All the proposed benefits of “ ecological perspectives ” in medicine can be achieved without Darwinism .
It ’ s hard to understand why some Darwinists are so intent on importing Darwinism into a field that doesn ’ t need it and has suffered from it .
What Has Darwin Got to Do with It ?
On what basis can Alizon and Méthot plead that their advice would be good for suffering humans ?
What ’ s Darwin got to do with help for the weak ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , arrived by accident , have no exceptional value , and will go extinct in time .
The Darwinian view of humanity is amoral and heartless .
If the bacteria win over the human , it just shows who won the evolutionary arms race and demonstrated survival of the fittest .
If you see a Darwinian doctor at your bedside , pull the alarm , because you won ’ t be able to tell if he is rooting for you or for the germs .
The best way to Pasteurize medicine is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas , like eugenics and survival of the fittest , die off .
The result will be a vibrant medical enterprise promoting human health and well-being with pure motives .
This article was originally published on February 20 , 2018 .

Editor’s note: As biologist Jonathan Wells observes, “[T]he measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory.” Yet a persistent claim from evolutionists is that medical research would be crippled without a Darwinian framework. Evolution News presents a series of our previously published work addressing the myth of “Darwinian medicine.”
Michael Egnor has criticized so-called “Darwinian medicine” as a useless concept, since medical science has had spectacular success without it. Darwinism is about the death of the unfit, focused on populations instead of individuals. Medicine is about healing individuals and anyone who needs help, including the unfit, the weak, and the vulnerable. How can the father of evolutionary theory, Charles Darwin, and the father of biogenesis, pasteurization and vaccines, Louis Pasteur, be reconciled?
A Noble Aim
In PLOS Biology, Samuel Alizon and Pierre-Olivier Méthot try to do just that. Their paper is titled, “Reconciling Pasteur and Darwin to control infectious diseases.” It’s a noble aim to control diseases, but can their conciliatory approach work?
The continual emergence of new pathogens and the increased spread of antibiotic resistance in bacterial populations remind us that microbes are living entities that evolve at rates that impact public health interventions. Following the historical thread of the works of Pasteur and Darwin shows how reconciling clinical microbiology, ecology, and evolution can be instrumental to understanding pathology, developing new therapies, and prolonging the efficiency of existing ones. [Emphasis added.]
The authors point out that Darwin and Pasteur probably never communicated. “Pasteur and Darwin both attended the International Medical Congress in London in 1881 but did not exchange words,” they say. It’s doubtful that Pasteur’s words to Darwin would have been friendly. According to his grandson, Pasteur’s worldview had more in common with intelligent design than with Darwinian naturalism:
Something deep in our soul tells us that the universe is more than an arrangement of certain compounds in a mechanical equilibrium, arisen from the chaos of elements by a gradual action of Nature’s forces. (Pasteur Vallery-Radot, Louis Pasteur, p. 157-158).
Pasteur was also a deeply religious man, and adamantly anti-materialistic. He said:
Posterity will one day laugh at the foolishness of modern materialistic philosophers. The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator. I pray while I am engaged at my work in the laboratory. (The Literary Digest, 18 October 1902, via Wikiquote).
It’s not hard to guess which “modern materialistic philosophers” Pasteur had in mind. Alizon and Méthot know that the two men came from strongly different philosophical perspectives.
The life and contributions of these two scientists may seem radically different at first (Fig 1): while Charles Darwin worked mostly alone (despite a large network of correspondents), gathered field data to support his theories, wrote books, and did relatively few experiments, Louis Pasteur led an ‘army’ of research assistants who performed a wide array of experiments, wrote research articles, and typically addressed applied problems of industrial or public health interest. In addition to having different research methods, they had contrasting religious outlooks; Pasteur was known for his devout personality, while Darwin described himself as ‘agnostic’ late in his life. However, both researchers shared the singular ability of being able to make sense of seemingly independent observations. Both also had a profound impact on medicine during their life, without being themselves medical doctors.
The Medicine of Death, and of Life
“Both also had a profound impact on medicine,” eh? Yes, we see that with Pasteur, whose vaccines and discoveries in microbiology have saved countless millions of lives. For Darwin, the story is quite different, as John West has recounted in Darwin Day in America, particularly in Chapters 13-15. And if Darwin’s motivations for Nazi ideology, eugenics and totalitarian dictatorships are included, we could call Darwin’s approach the medicine of death, and Pasteur’s the medicine of life.
It looks like a hard sell to unite these men from polar opposite ends of worldview spectrum. Let’s see if Alizon and Méthot can pull it off. They readily acknowledge their challenge:
Evolutionary biology currently has a marginal place within medicine. There is even a significant tendency to avoid the ‘e-word’ in the biomedical literature when referring to antimicrobial resistance. Yet in the 19th century, medical sciences were as enthusiastic for Darwin’s ideas as they were initially hostile to Pasteur’s. This support, often implicit, progressively came to a halt in the 20th century for at least two reasons. First, the intellectual proximity between evolution, eugenics, and medicine, most clearly articulated in Karl Pearson’s 1912 address (‘Darwinism, medical progress, and eugenics’) and in George Draper’s constitutional medicine, made scientists wary of implementing evolutionary approaches in medicine, particularly after World War II. Experimentation on human subjects in Nazi Germany revulsed public opinion worldwide and ended eugenic policies, at least in the public discourse.
Scary last phrase there: “at least in the public discourse.” What’s happening behind closed doors at scientific institutions? Some evolutionists are very open about their eugenic views, as Michael Egnor has shown.
The second reason for lack of interest in Darwinian medicine, the authors say, is that “evolutionary biology was still largely viewed as an observational science and no longer had a place within the new configuration of medical knowledge and training organized around specialities [sic] and characterized by experimentation.” That tells us something important about Darwinism; it’s less in the scientific business of experimentation as it is in the art of weaving narratives in order to fit observations into Darwin’s picture of the world.
Evolution and Medical Training
Having acknowledged the challenge before them, Alizon and Méthot make a plea for integrating evolution into medical training. The way they define evolution, though, makes their particular advice uncontroversial:
There is now increasing support for the teaching of evolutionary biology in medical faculties. When teaching medical students, however, one should call attention to the set of assumptions often made regarding ancestral lifestyles or the adaptative [sic] value of certain traits or behaviours. Furthermore, it should be emphasized that medicine and evolution have different ‘conceptual bases’ and are typically concerned with different problems: whereas the former focuses on restoring health at the individual level, the latter studies biological variations at the population level and how they change over time.
If that is all they are talking about, nobody will make a fuss. Even the most ardent creationists acknowledge “biological variations at the population level and how they change over time.” The question then becomes, what has Darwin got to do with this plea? Variation has been observed for millennia. What made Darwinism so controversial was his claim that the entire biosphere emerged from one primitive cell by blind, unguided processes. To argue that, he had to make natural selection a creative force, able to create wings and eyes where none existed before.
In the bulk of their essay, Alizon and Méthot talk about antibacterial resistance (see Jonathan Wells, Zombie Science, Chapter 8, for discussion of what that has to do with Darwinism). They suggest medical practices that are best suited to effectively control outbreaks of resistant strains. Darwinism seems only marginally involved here, supported by occasional references to “evolutionary arms race” situations and “co-evolution.” The authors illustrate it with examples, such as when a doctor’s ‘hit hard and hit fast’ strategy with antibiotics actually creates conditions for virulent mutants to multiply. Nothing about this need involve Darwin, however. It’s population dynamics, not creation of novelty.
They mention “the emergence of new infections,” saying “Emergence often involves adaptation to new hosts,” but that doesn’t involve the origin of species or the creation of novel complex designs. As Michael Behe cogently pointed out in The Edge of Evolution, mutants become resistant by breaking things. A bacterium might break its interface with a drug, for instance, achieving resistance but not creating anything new. In a recent ID the Future episode, Ann Gauger described this kind of “evolution” as “throwing the deck chairs off to make the boat go faster.”
Parasite and Host
The interplay between parasite and host has more to do with ecology than evolution. Alizon and Méthot repeatedly conflate the two, making it sound as if dynamic interplays of variants in parasites and hosts are always Darwinian in nature. Not necessarily; if no new information is added, and if no truly innovative complex structure is created, then neither organism makes the kind of upward progress Darwin envisioned. It’s a demolition derby. The ship that throws off the most cargo and remains the afloat would win. That kind of ‘evolution’ is not what Darwin had in mind. One of the illustrations in Alizon and Méthot’s paper shows resistant strains already present in the host, given the opportunity to proliferate when antibiotics kill off most of the non-resistant cells.
Typically, resistant strains lose ability to compete in the wild, only succeeding in artificial environments like hospitals. The authors even point this out:
Based on datasets from the United States and Ireland, it has also been argued that larger hospital sizes favour the spread of antibiotic resistance, one interpretation being that a network of small hospitals maximises the risk of stochastic extinctions of newly emerged resistant variants.
Those “stochastic extinctions” occur because the newly emerged resistant variants cannot compete in more realistic environments, where wild-type strains have not had to throw their cargo and deck chairs overboard. Understanding such ecological factors leads some hospitals to release patients earlier to their homes, so that the reservoirs of resistant strains have to compete with stronger (and less virulent) strains in the natural environment. Some hospitals are providing environments like gardens where patients can be exposed to less hygienic, natural conditions. These settings encourage recovery not only by driving resistant strains extinct faster, but by providing patients with opportunities for mental well-being that natural beauty engenders.
Additionally, evidence is growing that bacteria can obtain resistance genes through horizontal gene transfer, such as from soil bacteria. If so, there’s nothing Darwinian about this, either. The sharing of pre-existing information indicates design, not evolution.
In conclusion, there is an urgent need to switch from an eradication to a control perspective as already advocated in 1955 by René Dubos or in 2000 by Joshua Lederberg. We should add to the search for ‘magic bullets’ the development of strategies to manage and mitigate pathogen evolution. In that sense, interventions that have a strong ecological and evolutionary dimension, such as microbiota transplantation, new ways of administrating drugs (varying doses, alternating or combining molecules), or even advances in phage therapy, could be the future of public health.
All the proposed benefits of “ecological perspectives” in medicine can be achieved without Darwinism. It’s hard to understand why some Darwinists are so intent on importing Darwinism into a field that doesn’t need it and has suffered from it.
What Has Darwin Got to Do with It?
On what basis can Alizon and Méthot plead that their advice would be good for suffering humans? What’s Darwin got to do with help for the weak? Humans, in Darwin’s view, arrived by accident, have no exceptional value, and will go extinct in time. The Darwinian view of humanity is amoral and heartless. If the bacteria win over the human, it just shows who won the evolutionary arms race and demonstrated survival of the fittest. If you see a Darwinian doctor at your bedside, pull the alarm, because you won’t be able to tell if he is rooting for you or for the germs.
The best way to Pasteurize medicine is to raise the heat till the harmful Darwinian ideas, like eugenics and survival of the fittest, die off. The result will be a vibrant medical enterprise promoting human health and well-being with pure motives.
Image: Louis Pasteur, by Albert Edelfelt (1885)/ Public domain.
This article was originally published on February 20, 2018.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-11--Listen: Stephen Meyer on How Evolution Degrades Information

On a classic episode of ID the Future , hear Center for Science & Culture director Stephen C. Meyer ’ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 event , “ March for Science or March for Scientism ?
Understanding the Real @ @ @ @ @ , ” hosted by Discovery Institute and the Heritage Foundation .
Listen in as he @ @ @ @ @ of neo-Darwinism .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Photo : Stephen @ @ @ @ @ “ March for Science or March for Scientism ?
Understanding the Real Threats to Science @ @ @ @ @ YouTube .

On a classic episode of ID the Future, hear Center for Science & Culture director Stephen C. Meyer’s talk given at a 2017 event, “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America,” hosted by Discovery Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Listen in as he discusses weaknesses in the theory of neo-Darwinism. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo: Stephen Meyer (screenshot), “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America,” via YouTube.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-10--No, Despite Often-Heard Claims, Antibiotic Resistance in Bacteria Is Not Evolution

Editor ’ s note : As biologist Jonathan Wells observes , “ [ T ] he measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory.
” Yet a persistent claim from evolutionists is that medical research would be crippled without a Darwinian framework .
Evolution News presents a series of our previously published work addressing the myth of “ Darwinian medicine.
” Darwinian biologist and blogger P.Z .
Myers wrote a post in which he lamented the fact that medical researchers rarely invoke evolution in their published research , whereas evolutionary biologists routinely invoke evolution .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that this is because evolutionary inferences are of no significant help to medical research .
Inference to evolution is a narrative gloss on the real science in medicine .
It is a point that I , along with others , have been making for years .
Myers unintentionally provides striking confirmation that doctors and medical researchers don ’ t refer to evolution because it ’ s irrelevant to their science .
Now Myers writes a follow-up post in which he insists that evolution is relevant to medicine , despite the virtual absence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ literature .
Specifically , he insists that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an example of evolution — a common claim — and he scolds doctors and medical scientists for not explicitly saying so in their research .
You hear this all the time in the media .
Writing in The New Yorker last week , for example , Adam Gopnik scolded evolution doubters : This notion , however , is mistaken .
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with evolution .
Evolution , in the Darwinian sense of undirected ( unintelligent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ natural selection , is the process by which populations of living things change over time without intelligent agency causing or guiding the process .
When the process of change in populations is guided by intelligence , it is called artificial selection — breeding .
Of course I ’ m not the first to point this out .
Charles Darwin , in the Origin of Species , made exactly the same argument .
In his first chapter , he discussed artificial selection — animal husbandry and breeding of plants .
In subsequent chapters he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ changes in population are accomplished by natural selection , without intelligent agency .
Darwin distinguished artificial selection from natural selection — he distinguished breeding from evolution , and of course his theory of evolution is a theory of natural selection , not a theory of animal husbandry or plant breeding , which had been practiced for thousands of years and to which Darwin contributed nothing .
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is artificial selection .
Antibiotics are intelligently designed by medical researchers , deliberately administered to patients by doctors , who understand that there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the antibiotic and that have the potential to proliferate .
Actually , the administration of antibiotics that kill some but not all of the bacteria in the patient is quite deliberate , because there are huge populations of beneficial bacteria ( e.g.
, in the gut ) that should not be killed since they are necessary for health .
Antibiotic research and treatment is a carefully planned intelligently designed process of breeding the human microbiome ( the aggregate of bacteria that live in a human being ) .
The purpose of breeding @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing the disease but to preserve the beneficial bacteria ( and to preserve the patient ) .
Of necessity some of the bacteria must survive the treatment — the trick is to kill the pathological bacteria and leave only the beneficial bacteria alive .
This can not always be accomplished , and when it is not accomplished — that is , when some of the bacteria left alive are pathological and not beneficial — this is the development of antibiotic resistance .
Antibiotic resistance in pathological bacteria is the undesirable consequence of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not natural selection .
There are many strategies in place to minimize bacterial resistance to antibiotics , all of which are breeding the human microbiome — the process of treating a patient who has a bacterial infection .
Antibiotic treatment of infections — both the desirable and undesirable consequences of the planned therapy — is the application of intelligent design principles to medical research and treatment .
Antibiotic treatment and the development of antibiotic resistance are artificial selection .
Antibiotic treatment is not evolution , which is the consequence of unintelligent undirected unplanned @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Darwinian sense that Myers and other Darwinists intend , is precisely what antibiotic treatment is not .
An Obvious Example of ID What ’ s remarkable here is that Myers and others like him don ’ t even understand what evolution is .
They deny that intelligent design is evolution , yet they cite an obvious example of intelligent design ( antibiotic treatment ) as an example of evolution par excellence .
The treatment of infectious diseases with antibiotics is a superb example of intelligent design principles applied to medical research and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are not invoked by medical researchers because Darwinian principles contribute nothing to medical research , and medical researchers are relatively insulated from the career-threatening ideological pressure that permeates evolutionary biology .
Medical researchers are free to just do the science .
The magnificent advances in medical care in modern times attest to the success of the application of design principles , not Darwinian fairy tales , to medical science .
Image : “ Antibiotic resistance tests , ” by Dr Graham Beards ( Own work ) [ CC BY-SA 3.0 ] , via @ @ @ @ @ @ @ published on February 26 , 2015 .

Editor’s note: As biologist Jonathan Wells observes, “[T]he measures being taken against the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic owe nothing to evolutionary theory.” Yet a persistent claim from evolutionists is that medical research would be crippled without a Darwinian framework. Evolution News presents a series of our previously published work addressing the myth of “Darwinian medicine.”
Darwinian biologist and blogger P.Z. Myers wrote a post in which he lamented the fact that medical researchers rarely invoke evolution in their published research, whereas evolutionary biologists routinely invoke evolution. This is of course true.
I pointed out that this is because evolutionary inferences are of no significant help to medical research. Inference to evolution is a narrative gloss on the real science in medicine. It is a point that I, along with others, have been making for years. Myers unintentionally provides striking confirmation that doctors and medical researchers don’t refer to evolution because it’s irrelevant to their science.
A Common Claim
Now Myers writes a follow-up post in which he insists that evolution is relevant to medicine, despite the virtual absence of evolutionary reasoning expressed in the medical literature. Specifically, he insists that bacterial resistance to antibiotics is an example of evolution — a common claim — and he scolds doctors and medical scientists for not explicitly saying so in their research.
You hear this all the time in the media. Writing in The New Yorker last week, for example, Adam Gopnik scolded evolution doubters:
Evolutionary science is not abstract — evaluating reports of a “superbug” in Los Angeles, wrought immune by natural selection to antibiotics, means applying Darwinian principles as they go about their often scary work.
This notion, however, is mistaken. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution, in the Darwinian sense of undirected (unintelligent) process of random heritable variation and natural selection, is the process by which populations of living things change over time without intelligent agency causing or guiding the process. When the process of change in populations is guided by intelligence, it is called artificial selection — breeding.
Darwin’s Contribution?
Of course I’m not the first to point this out. Charles Darwin, in the Origin of Species, made exactly the same argument. In his first chapter, he discussed artificial selection — animal husbandry and breeding of plants. In subsequent chapters he developed an argument that in nature, changes in population are accomplished by natural selection, without intelligent agency. Darwin distinguished artificial selection from natural selection — he distinguished breeding from evolution, and of course his theory of evolution is a theory of natural selection, not a theory of animal husbandry or plant breeding, which had been practiced for thousands of years and to which Darwin contributed nothing.
Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is artificial selection. Antibiotics are intelligently designed by medical researchers, deliberately administered to patients by doctors, who understand that there are some bacteria that are not sensitive to the antibiotic and that have the potential to proliferate. Actually, the administration of antibiotics that kill some but not all of the bacteria in the patient is quite deliberate, because there are huge populations of beneficial bacteria (e.g., in the gut) that should not be killed since they are necessary for health.
Antibiotic research and treatment is a carefully planned intelligently designed process of breeding the human microbiome (the aggregate of bacteria that live in a human being). The purpose of breeding the microbiome is to eliminate the bacteria causing the disease but to preserve the beneficial bacteria (and to preserve the patient). Of necessity some of the bacteria must survive the treatment — the trick is to kill the pathological bacteria and leave only the beneficial bacteria alive. This cannot always be accomplished, and when it is not accomplished — that is, when some of the bacteria left alive are pathological and not beneficial — this is the development of antibiotic resistance. Antibiotic resistance in pathological bacteria is the undesirable consequence of the treatment of bacterial infections. It is not natural selection.
There are many strategies in place to minimize bacterial resistance to antibiotics, all of which are breeding the human microbiome — the process of treating a patient who has a bacterial infection. Antibiotic treatment of infections — both the desirable and undesirable consequences of the planned therapy — is the application of intelligent design principles to medical research and treatment.
Antibiotic treatment and the development of antibiotic resistance are artificial selection. Antibiotic treatment is not evolution, which is the consequence of unintelligent undirected unplanned natural selection. Evolution, understood in the Darwinian sense that Myers and other Darwinists intend, is precisely what antibiotic treatment is not.
An Obvious Example of ID
What’s remarkable here is that Myers and others like him don’t even understand what evolution is. They deny that intelligent design is evolution, yet they cite an obvious example of intelligent design (antibiotic treatment) as an example of evolution par excellence.
The treatment of infectious diseases with antibiotics is a superb example of intelligent design principles applied to medical research and human biology. Darwinian principles of evolution are not invoked by medical researchers because Darwinian principles contribute nothing to medical research, and medical researchers are relatively insulated from the career-threatening ideological pressure that permeates evolutionary biology.
Medical researchers are free to just do the science. The magnificent advances in medical care in modern times attest to the success of the application of design principles, not Darwinian fairy tales, to medical science.
Image: “Antibiotic resistance tests,” by Dr Graham Beards (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.
This post was originally published on February 26, 2015.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-15--Listen: Jay Richards on Distinguishing Science from Scientism

On a classic episode of ID the Future , hear a talk by Jay Richards , a Discovery Institute Senior @ @ @ @ @ Washington , D.C. , event entitled “ March for Science or March for Scientism ?
@ @ @ @ @ Science in America.
” Download the podcast or listen to it here .
The event @ @ @ @ @ and the Heritage Foundation .
Listen in as Dr. Richards discusses the issue of consensus @ @ @ @ @ to doubt such a consensus .

On a classic episode of ID the Future, hear a talk by Jay Richards, a Discovery Institute Senior Fellow. given at a Washington, D.C., event entitled “March for Science or March for Scientism? Understanding the Real Threats to Science in America.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The event was hosted by Discovery Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Listen in as Dr. Richards discusses the issue of consensus in science, and when to doubt such a consensus.
Photo credit: Bradhoc, via Flickr.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-14--Biophysicist and Philosopher Kirk Durston on Experimental, Inferential, and Fantasy Science

On a new episode of ID the Future , biophysicist and philosopher Kirk Durston continues a discussion with host Andrew @ @ @ @ @ science — ( 1 ) experimental science , ( 2 ) inferential science , and @ @ @ @ @ .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
In this second of three @ @ @ @ @ three types but focuses on inferential science .
He explains how it involves , in @ @ @ @ @ reasoning ( inference to the best explanation ) .
He also describes how such reasoning @ @ @ @ @ consider the best explanation for the origin of biological information , in such a way @ @ @ @ @ observation .

On a new episode of ID the Future, biophysicist and philosopher Kirk Durston continues a discussion with host Andrew McDiarmid about three types of science — (1) experimental science, (2) inferential science, and (3) fantasy science. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In this second of three episodes, Durston recaps the three types but focuses on inferential science. He explains how it involves, in the historical sciences, abductive reasoning (inference to the best explanation). He also describes how such reasoning can be used as we consider the best explanation for the origin of biological information, in such a way that it is rooted in observation.
Photo credit: Martin Adams via Unsplash.