evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-09--From Birds and Lemurs, Lessons About Human Exceptionalism

Mind Matters offers a pair of new studies on animal minds that underline the exceptional place of humans in nature .
Denyse O ’ Leary writes : Although the Deutsches Primatenzentrum ( DPZ ) study is said to provide “ provides important insights into the evolution of cognitive abilities in primates , ” these insights are not spelled out .
The obvious conclusion from the research is that all primates show a more similar level of intelligence than expected — except for humans , who are highly exceptional .
And it ’ s not clear how to account for that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In that sense , the study is reminiscent of two that we looked at yesterday , in which smart birds were found to have brains more like the brains of mammals than expected .
For some reason , the researchers thought that this finding was an argument against human exceptionalism .
But it is quite the opposite .
If , as believed , the last common ancestor of birds and mammals lived 320 million years ago , life forms back then may have been smarter than we think .
But such findings only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ humans and lemurs , chimpanzees , or ravens today .
Efforts to account for this gap in evolutionary terms have not been particularly successful .
On the lemur study , paleontologist Günter Bechly adds : “ Mouse lemurs are as intelligent as chimps , or in other words : chimps are mentally as different from humans as the tiny and primitive mouse lemurs .
Another failed prediction of Darwinism.
” The most diminutive of lemurs , Madame Berthe ’ s mouse lemur , making it also the slightest of all primates , is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a delicate ecological relationship with the insect that produces its food as a waste product .
Denyse highlights this from the BBC and David Attenborough : As I noted here the other day , human exceptionalism is so repugnant to Darwinists that it can only be admitted where the admission “ sets our species and its privileges in a worse light than before.
” Self-degradation , like the “ Galileo legend , ” is a vital fuel from Darwinism .

Photo: A mouse lemur, by Cornischong at Luxembourgish Wikipedia / Public domain.
Mind Matters offers a pair of new studies on animal minds that underline the exceptional place of humans in nature. Denyse O’Leary writes:
Although the Deutsches Primatenzentrum (DPZ) study is said to provide “provides important insights into the evolution of cognitive abilities in primates,” these insights are not spelled out. The obvious conclusion from the research is that all primates show a more similar level of intelligence than expected — except for humans, who are highly exceptional. And it’s not clear how to account for that according to conventional theories of evolution. In that sense, the study is reminiscent of two that we looked at yesterday, in which smart birds were found to have brains more like the brains of mammals than expected. For some reason, the researchers thought that this finding was an argument against human exceptionalism. But it is quite the opposite. If, as believed, the last common ancestor of birds and mammals lived 320 million years ago, life forms back then may have been smarter than we think. But such findings only accentuate the vast gap in intelligence between humans and lemurs, chimpanzees, or ravens today. Efforts to account for this gap in evolutionary terms have not been particularly successful.
On the lemur study, paleontologist Günter Bechly adds: “Mouse lemurs are as intelligent as chimps, or in other words: chimps are mentally as different from humans as the tiny and primitive mouse lemurs. Another failed prediction of Darwinism.”
The most diminutive of lemurs, Madame Berthe’s mouse lemur, making it also the slightest of all primates, is adorable, lightning fast, and lives in a delicate ecological relationship with the insect that produces its food as a waste product. Denyse highlights this from the BBC and David Attenborough:
As I noted here the other day, human exceptionalism is so repugnant to Darwinists that it can only be admitted where the admission “sets our species and its privileges in a worse light than before.” Self-degradation, like the “Galileo legend,” is a vital fuel from Darwinism.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-09--Corruption Watch: Biology Journal Blames the Innocent, Turns ID Scientists into Fall Guys

Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch has taken notice of the editorial disclaimer slapped on a pro-intelligent design research article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology .
He makes a helpful observation .
Editors at science journals , when they want to distance themselves from what they have published , commonly resort to “ technicalities ” — “ finding a technicality instead of engaging with the real issues — when they publish something embarrassing.
” That perfectly describes the editors ’ complaint about putting “ intelligent design ” in the keywords .
As Evolution News observes , of course ID belongs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an article about intelligent design , for goodness sake , about the fine-tuning in biology .
And it uses that language ( “ design ” and “ intelligent design ” ) explicitly .
To help Internet search engines find your work , why in the world would you NOT put ID in the keywords ?
Authors Even Put It in Italics I want to emphasize something else that ’ s obvious .
The authors of the article , Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer , are being turned into the fall guys here .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the restrained way of writing that ’ s characteristic of scientific journals , couldn ’ t be clearer in its objective but favorable treatment of what it also calls , in the final words of the final sentence , “ Design Science.
” Right , they even put it in italics for you , so you can ’ t miss the point .
Now the three co-Chief Editors — Denise Kirschner , Mark Chaplain , and Akira Sasaki — insinuate that they were somehow misled , by the addition of the keyword , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pro-ID , which they could have figured out from reading the paper .
The paper cites numerous ID proponents , ideas , and , again , uses the phrase “ intelligent design ” explicitly .
The editors now say , “ We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
” Well , there are only two possibilities .
( a ) The editors believed ID was unsuitable for discussion at the time of accepting the paper .
In that case , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through an article openly arguing for intelligent design .
Or , ( b ) They believed that ID is suitable for discussion in a prominent science journal , and that ’ s why they considered and accepted the paper ( while subjecting to the normal peer-review , which goes without saying ) .
I ’ m not just giving the benefit of the doubt when I say I don ’ t believe that possibility ( a ) is credible .
Surely you can ’ t rise to sufficient prominence in your scientific field @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of you , Dr. Kirschner , Dr. Chaplain , and Dr. Sasaki , could read a paper , approve it , and not realize what it was about .
Or that the three of you could jointly publish a paper none of you had read .
Sorry .
No way .
That leaves us with possibility ( b ) .
The co-Chief Editors jointly understood that ID was under discussion in their journal , and they thought that was suitable .
So what happened , then ?
I ’ m no mind reader @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think of is that when word of the paper got out and Darwinists ganged up on them , the editors backed down .
I can understand that .
That ’ s what a lot of people would do when the bullies and censors come after you .
They had their reputations , their careers and livelihoods , at stake .
They folded .
It ’ s only human .
What ’ s reprehensible is turning the authors into the fall guys : blaming the whole thing on them , though they did nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote an article interesting and rigorous enough that , as John West points out , whatever anti-ID prejudices the editors had were overcome .
Talk about a disturbing look inside the sausage factory .
The disclaimer may not have been the editors ’ own choice .
Perhaps they were compelled by the publisher , Elsevier .
It doesn ’ t matter .
As Retraction Watch notes , hanging a disclaimer or retraction on technicalities is standard operating procedure for science journals .
I can ’ t speak to such cases in general , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blaming the innocent when what you are really seeking to do is save your own skin — it is wrong , it is corrupt , and it is cowardly .
Whatever the strength of the article ’ s argument for intelligent design — and readers should judge that for themselves — the episode says as much about the corruption of professional science , how fear and dishonesty reign there .
It ’ s how the “ consensus ” is maintained .
For those who are always lecturing us about “ Follow the science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” this episode should be an eye opener .

Image credit: Adrian Malec via Pixabay.
Adam Marcus at Retraction Watch has taken notice of the editorial disclaimer slapped on a pro-intelligent design research article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. He makes a helpful observation. Editors at science journals, when they want to distance themselves from what they have published, commonly resort to “technicalities” — “finding a technicality instead of engaging with the real issues — when they publish something embarrassing.” That perfectly describes the editors’ complaint about putting “intelligent design” in the keywords.
As Evolution News observes, of course ID belongs in the keywords. It’s an article about intelligent design, for goodness sake, about the fine-tuning in biology. And it uses that language (“design” and “intelligent design”) explicitly. To help Internet search engines find your work, why in the world would you NOT put ID in the keywords?
Authors Even Put It in Italics
I want to emphasize something else that’s obvious. The authors of the article, Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer, are being turned into the fall guys here. They produced an article that, given the restrained way of writing that’s characteristic of scientific journals, couldn’t be clearer in its objective but favorable treatment of what it also calls, in the final words of the final sentence, “Design Science.” Right, they even put it in italics for you, so you can’t miss the point.
Now the three co-Chief Editors — Denise Kirschner, Mark Chaplain, and Akira Sasaki — insinuate that they were somehow misled, by the addition of the keyword, by the fact that the authors are pro-ID, which they could have figured out from reading the paper. The paper cites numerous ID proponents, ideas, and, again, uses the phrase “intelligent design” explicitly. The editors now say, “We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.”
Well, there are only two possibilities. (a) The editors believed ID was unsuitable for discussion at the time of accepting the paper. In that case, they are guilty of notable incompetence in allowing through an article openly arguing for intelligent design. Or, (b) They believed that ID is suitable for discussion in a prominent science journal, and that’s why they considered and accepted the paper (while subjecting to the normal peer-review, which goes without saying).
Editors Can’t Be That Inept
I’m not just giving the benefit of the doubt when I say I don’t believe that possibility (a) is credible. Surely you can’t rise to sufficient prominence in your scientific field while being so inept that the three of you, Dr. Kirschner, Dr. Chaplain, and Dr. Sasaki, could read a paper, approve it, and not realize what it was about. Or that the three of you could jointly publish a paper none of you had read. Sorry. No way.
That leaves us with possibility (b). The co-Chief Editors jointly understood that ID was under discussion in their journal, and they thought that was suitable. So what happened, then? I’m no mind reader, but the only explanation I can think of is that when word of the paper got out and Darwinists ganged up on them, the editors backed down. I can understand that. That’s what a lot of people would do when the bullies and censors come after you. They had their reputations, their careers and livelihoods, at stake. They folded. It’s only human.
What’s reprehensible is turning the authors into the fall guys: blaming the whole thing on them, though they did nothing wrong. On the contrary, they wrote an article interesting and rigorous enough that, as John West points out, whatever anti-ID prejudices the editors had were overcome.
Talk about a disturbing look inside the sausage factory. The disclaimer may not have been the editors’ own choice. Perhaps they were compelled by the publisher, Elsevier. It doesn’t matter. As Retraction Watch notes, hanging a disclaimer or retraction on technicalities is standard operating procedure for science journals. I can’t speak to such cases in general, but in this case — one of blaming the innocent when what you are really seeking to do is save your own skin — it is wrong, it is corrupt, and it is cowardly.
Whatever the strength of the article’s argument for intelligent design — and readers should judge that for themselves — the episode says as much about the corruption of professional science, how fear and dishonesty reign there. It’s how the “consensus” is maintained. For those who are always lecturing us about “Follow the science” and “Believe the scientists,” this episode should be an eye opener.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-10--Listen: Scott Turner on Evolutionary Biology’s Mechanistic Bias

On a classic episode of ID the Future , host Rob Crowther continues his conversation with J. Scott Turner , @ @ @ @ @ of New York ( SUNY ) , author of the book Purpose and Desire : @ @ @ @ @ ” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It .
Turner critiques evolutionary biology @ @ @ @ @ and gene-centric thinking , and contemporary biology ’ s failure to come to grips with @ @ @ @ @ intentionality at many levels of biology .
Viewing the brain as a computer , for @ @ @ @ @ about the brain and the mind that exceed computers , both quantitatively and qualitatively .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .

Image source: aytuguluturk via Pixabay.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, host Rob Crowther continues his conversation with J. Scott Turner, biologist at the State University of New York (SUNY), author of the book Purpose and Desire: What Makes Something “Alive” and Why Modern Darwinism Has Failed to Explain It. Turner critiques evolutionary biology’s bias toward mechanistic and gene-centric thinking, and contemporary biology’s failure to come to grips with the evidence of purpose and intentionality at many levels of biology. Viewing the brain as a computer, for example, obscures many things about the brain and the mind that exceed computers, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-11--Remarkable Coincidences in Photosynthesis Shout “Intelligent Design”

On another classic episode of ID the Future , listen in on a few minutes from a lecture given by @ @ @ @ @ of the brand new book The Miracle of the Cell .
In this segment , @ @ @ @ @ set of coincidences ” that makes the creation of oxygen through photosynthesis possible .
From @ @ @ @ @ light to the unique properties of water , this degree of fine-tuning for life shouts @ @ @ @ @ podcast or listen to it here .

Photo credit: Kumiko SHIMIZU, via Unsplash.
On another classic episode of ID the Future, listen in on a few minutes from a lecture given by biochemist Michael Denton, author of the brand new book The Miracle of the Cell. In this segment, Denton explains the “remarkable set of coincidences” that makes the creation of oxygen through photosynthesis possible. From the specific energy of visible light to the unique properties of water, this degree of fine-tuning for life shouts intelligent design. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-12--Shall We Be Darwin’s Yes-Men?

Shall We Be Darwin’s Yes-Men?

The motto on U.S. currency says “ In God We Trust.
” But as you may have noticed from media headlines , our culture is much more anxious at the moment that we should trust scientists .
Or trust “ Science , ” aka “ The Science.
” The latter is defined not as a search for truth , unleashed from predetermined conclusions , but as whatever “ The Scientists , ” the right scientists , say at any given moment .
It ’ s sycophancy , really , that is being asked of us .
Remember those “ IN @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” yard signs ?
If Michael Denton and other proponents of intelligent design had been Darwin ’ s yes-men and just trusted “ the science , ” we would all be in the dark about the reality of biological and cosmological origins .
In an excellent ID the Future episode coinciding with the release of his new book , The Miracle of the Cell , Dr. Denton describes his own journey as a Darwin skeptic .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Talking with host Eric Anderson , Dr. Denton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ goes back 50 years .
Around 1970 he was a young researcher at Kings College London , thinking about how mammalian red blood cell could have become anucleate , that is , losing their nucleus .
Could a process like that have evolved unguided through a series of gradual steps , as Darwin required ?
Such a thing seemed impossible to conceive .
Later , the biochemist and physician practiced intensive care medicine .
In his hospital work , he watched the delicacy of all the biological systems that kept his patients alive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s edge of life .
He reflected on the extreme fine-tuning of biology for life , and again could not accept the Darwinian assurance that unintelligent evolution had it all in hand , offering a convincing explanation of life ’ s miracles , including the cell .
Denton , influenced by Harvard biochemist Lawrence Henderson ’ s The Fitness of the Environment , wrote his own classic , Evolution : A Theory in Crisis .
His work has extended now to The Miracle of the Cell , part of Denton ’ s Privileged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fine-tuning arguments is that of course the environment is fit for life .
If it weren ’ t , we wouldn ’ t be around to observe it !
Denton ’ s reply is that the fine-tuning is far , far , far more intricate , exacting , and interdependent than we could have expected .
It ’ s more exacting than we know even today .
As he emphasizes , this itself is a scientific discovery , but one that points away from materialist understandings of a universe without purpose .
As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ points ” from above and below — from the level of the universe as a whole , and from the atomic level , the macro and micro — to living creatures of our biology .
Physics and chemistry don ’ t just loosely “ permit ” us .
They define exquisitely precise preconditions for our lives , and must have done so from the origin of the universe .
As a young scientist , Dr. Denton came to realize this — that a designing intelligence had been active from the inception of physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The Miracle of the Cell , he leads readers on to the next stage of his own journey of discovery .

Image credit: Red blood cells, Gerd Altmann via Pixabay.
The motto on U.S. currency says “In God We Trust.” But as you may have noticed from media headlines, our culture is much more anxious at the moment that we should trust scientists. Or trust “Science,” aka “The Science.” The latter is defined not as a search for truth, unleashed from predetermined conclusions, but as whatever “The Scientists,” the right scientists, say at any given moment.
It’s sycophancy, really, that is being asked of us. Remember those “IN THIS HOUSE, WE BELIEVE…SCIENCE IS REAL” yard signs? If Michael Denton and other proponents of intelligent design had been Darwin’s yes-men and just trusted “the science,” we would all be in the dark about the reality of biological and cosmological origins. In an excellent ID the Future episode coinciding with the release of his new book, The Miracle of the Cell, Dr. Denton describes his own journey as a Darwin skeptic. Download the podcast or listen to it here. Talking with host Eric Anderson, Dr. Denton says the story behind his evolutionary skepticism goes back 50 years. Around 1970 he was a young researcher at Kings College London, thinking about how mammalian red blood cell could have become anucleate, that is, losing their nucleus. Could a process like that have evolved unguided through a series of gradual steps, as Darwin required? Such a thing seemed impossible to conceive.
The Edge of Life
Later, the biochemist and physician practiced intensive care medicine. In his hospital work, he watched the delicacy of all the biological systems that kept his patients alive, or trembling on the knife’s edge of life. He reflected on the extreme fine-tuning of biology for life, and again could not accept the Darwinian assurance that unintelligent evolution had it all in hand, offering a convincing explanation of life’s miracles, including the cell. Denton, influenced by Harvard biochemist Lawrence Henderson’s The Fitness of the Environment, wrote his own classic, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. His work has extended now to The Miracle of the Cell, part of Denton’s Privileged Species series.
A shallow response to fine-tuning arguments is that of course the environment is fit for life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be around to observe it! Denton’s reply is that the fine-tuning is far, far, far more intricate, exacting, and interdependent than we could have expected. It’s more exacting than we know even today. As he emphasizes, this itself is a scientific discovery, but one that points away from materialist understandings of a universe without purpose. As Anderson and Denton discuss, fine-tuning “points” from above and below — from the level of the universe as a whole, and from the atomic level, the macro and micro — to living creatures of our biology. Physics and chemistry don’t just loosely “permit” us. They define exquisitely precise preconditions for our lives, and must have done so from the origin of the universe.
As a young scientist, Dr. Denton came to realize this — that a designing intelligence had been active from the inception of physical reality at the Big Bang. In The Miracle of the Cell, he leads readers on to the next stage of his own journey of discovery.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-12--Oxford’s John Lennox: Battle Cry of the “Believing Scientist”

“ I do argue that there is evidence for the existence of an intelligent God behind the universe , ” So says Oxford University mathematician John Lennox in the film Against the Tide , which will screen just one night in theaters nationally , November 19 .
“ I ’ m convinced of it , not simply as a Christian but as a believing scientist.
” That last phrase — “ as a believing scientist ” — is the key .
Given the prestige of science , its tendency now to grow ever more tyrannically ideological and political , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Many religiously affiliated people , including clergy and other leaders , would prefer to let their faith float free of challenging questions about objective evidence .
That lets us off the hook from having to argue with atheists whose own slogan is “ Science Says.
” It may make us feel more sophisticated .
And with this escape clause we don ’ t need to think deeply about biology or cosmology .
The problem is that excusing religious belief from having to make a rational case for itself against rival views sends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to our children — that faith has no rational basis .
That ’ s just as Darwinists , materialists , and atheists say .
John Lennox is a C. S. Lewis for today .
He has debated the smartest and most aggressive atheists , and he possesses a gift for making his scientific case in an accessible , uplifting , and charming way .
Paired with actor Kevin Sorbo , he stands “ against the tide ” of corrosive doubt that ’ s pumped into our culture by social media , the culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ See the trailer here : You will appreciate the scientific case made by Against the Tide .
The second half of the film makes , in addition , a specific religious case for Lennox ’ s own Christian faith .
Remember , it ’ s that one night only .
You can reserve your tickets here .

Photo: Iris Nebula, by NASA/ESA.
“I do argue that there is evidence for the existence of an intelligent God behind the universe,” So says Oxford University mathematician John Lennox in the film Against the Tide, which will screen just one night in theaters nationally, November 19. “I’m convinced of it, not simply as a Christian but as a believing scientist.”
That last phrase — “as a believing scientist” — is the key. Given the prestige of science, its tendency now to grow ever more tyrannically ideological and political, it is nothing less than a battle cry. Many religiously affiliated people, including clergy and other leaders, would prefer to let their faith float free of challenging questions about objective evidence. That lets us off the hook from having to argue with atheists whose own slogan is “Science Says.” It may make us feel more sophisticated. And with this escape clause we don’t need to think deeply about biology or cosmology. The problem is that excusing religious belief from having to make a rational case for itself against rival views sends a damaging message — to ourselves, to our children — that faith has no rational basis. That’s just as Darwinists, materialists, and atheists say.
John Lennox is a C. S. Lewis for today. He has debated the smartest and most aggressive atheists, and he possesses a gift for making his scientific case in an accessible, uplifting, and charming way. Paired with actor Kevin Sorbo, he stands “against the tide” of corrosive doubt that’s pumped into our culture by social media, the culture, and our sources of entertainment. See the trailer here:
You will appreciate the scientific case made by Against the Tide. The second half of the film makes, in addition, a specific religious case for Lennox’s own Christian faith. Remember, it’s that one night only. You can reserve your tickets here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-12--Repentant Biology Journal Offers a Weak Rebuttal to Its Own Pro-ID Fine-Tuning Paper

Following its editorial disclaimer that we discussed last week , the repentant Journal of Theoretical Biology has gone further in seeking atonement from Darwin enforcers .
What was the journal ’ s sin ?
The editors published a pro-intelligent design article on biological fine-tuning .
So now they have published a short letter critiquing the original article .
The authors , who are all biologists at Georgia Tech , submitted a surprisingly weak response .
It doesn ’ t take issue with the factual claims in the article but rather focuses on attacking the logic behind the design inference : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding of theoretical biology ?
The primary claim of Thorvaldsen and Hössjer is that protein complexes , molecular motors , and biological networks are not random .
This is true — in a mathematical sense — but is not a new discovery .
What they claim to be novel is the conclusion that the existence of these specific systems amongst the space of all possible systems is so rare as to only possibly exist by ‘ fine-tuning ’ — a proxy for intelligent design .
That components of living systems — or systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest agency or intent .
Of course it isn ’ t just “ rarity ” that implies intelligent design .
As we ’ ve explained many times , unlikelihood alone is not enough to detect design .
Rare or unlikely events happen all the time .
But what if a specific rare or unlikely event is needed for something to occur , like performing some complex biological function ?
To detect design we need specification , or matching an independently derived pattern .
We call this specified complexity .
Here is how the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biology defines fine-tuning : Fine-tuning is thus another way of saying “ specified complexity ” : it ’ s an unlikely scenario that matches a precise pattern that is needed for some living system to operate .
It ’ s tuned to just the right setting so life can exist ( i.e.
, it ’ s specified ) , and this setting is unlikely , making it “ finely tuned.
” In our experience specification plus rarity — i.e.
, fine-tuning — implies design .
Even non-ID scientists acknowledge that fine-tuning “ smacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biologist Simon Conway Morris emphasizes .
He writes : If fine-tuning can imply design in physics , why not in biology ?
In biology , life runs on information .
The kind of complex and specified information found in life is a prime example of fine-tuning .
There ’ s no physical or chemical law that dictates the ordering of nucleotide bases in our DNA , and yet it matches specific patterns that are necessary to produce functional proteins .
Stephen Meyer explains why fine-tuning points to design : The authors of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t imply design .
They just assert that it doesn ’ t .
They then wade into an even bigger pool of logical fallacies : So ID arguments “ ignore ” what ’ s possible in the “ pool of variation ” ?
Hardly !
In fact we spend a great amount of time thinking about and measuring what ’ s possible in the pool of variation .
One fundamental observation we make is that irreducibly complex ( IC ) systems won ’ t persist in the “ pool of variation ” unless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ systems do not perform a selectable function .
If they don ’ t perform a selectable function , then they are not preserved by natural selection .
That poses a major problem for maintaining incomplete IC systems in the pool .
This means it ’ s very difficult for IC systems to be built by Darwinian evolution ’ s stepwise mechanism .
But wait , isn ’ t this basically what the letter said ?
As the critics wrote : Yes , that ’ s exactly right !
But rather than showing how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precisely why they won ’ t evolve through an unguided Darwinian process : unless all the pieces are put together “ just right ” — i.e.
, are finely-tuned — an organism won ’ t survive and won ’ t pass on its genes .
This point is true as the day is long .
So how can you reconcile this with the idea that organisms evolve in a stepwise manner where small-scale changes build complex systems one small step at a time ?
It doesn ’ t seem possible in the real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ irreducible complexity by saying that organisms without functional systems won ’ t pass on their genes .
But that is purifying selection only and does not account for how those systems came to be in the first place .
Is it likely that the “ pool of variation ” would come to hold these complex and functional adaptations just by chance ?
Are there stepwise pathways for building these systems ?
Perhaps the authors will explain how it ’ s possible , but the next sentence doesn ’ t help them at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligent design is required when sample spaces are viewed through the lens of evolutionary dynamics.
” Huh ?
They just said that most individuals won ’ t pass on their genes because they lack the right set of complex components for life , and then they conclude that intelligent design and fine-tuning aren ’ t necessary ?
Their conclusion does not follow from the argument .
In fact their conclusion is the opposite of what the argument implies .
Appealing to the non-controversial principle that broken systems don ’ t get passed on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could help build complete IC systems .
Understood properly , their argument shows precisely why IC can not be built by Darwinian evolution : incomplete IC systems don ’ t work and thus tend not to be passed on to the next generation .
Rather than showing how these complex systems evolve , their argument shows why they can not evolve by Darwinian means .
The authors close by quoting Carl Sagan ’ s famous adage that “ extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
” We in the ID movement are happy to affirm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tuned , information-rich , and irreducibly complex biological systems can be built in a blind , stepwise manner via Darwinian mechanisms is extraordinary .
It requires extraordinary evidence .
But when we seek such evidence we don ’ t receive it .
Hence our skepticism of neo-Darwinism .
This paper has hardly provided that evidence .
If the letter is the best reply that ID-critics can muster to the ID-friendly paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology , then that must have been a strong paper indeed !

Photo credit: Timo Volz via Unsplash.
Following its editorial disclaimer that we discussed last week, the repentant Journal of Theoretical Biology has gone further in seeking atonement from Darwin enforcers. What was the journal’s sin? The editors published a pro-intelligent design article on biological fine-tuning. So now they have published a short letter critiquing the original article. The authors, who are all biologists at Georgia Tech, submitted a surprisingly weak response. It doesn’t take issue with the factual claims in the article but rather focuses on attacking the logic behind the design inference:
What does this paper contribute to our understanding of theoretical biology? The primary claim of Thorvaldsen and Hössjer is that protein complexes, molecular motors, and biological networks are not random. This is true — in a mathematical sense — but is not a new discovery. What they claim to be novel is the conclusion that the existence of these specific systems amongst the space of all possible systems is so rare as to only possibly exist by ‘fine-tuning’ — a proxy for intelligent design. That components of living systems — or systems themselves — are exceedingly rare does not suggest agency or intent.
Design and Specification
Of course it isn’t just “rarity” that implies intelligent design. As we’ve explained many times, unlikelihood alone is not enough to detect design. Rare or unlikely events happen all the time. But what if a specific rare or unlikely event is needed for something to occur, like performing some complex biological function? To detect design we need specification, or matching an independently derived pattern. We call this specified complexity. Here is how the ID paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology defines fine-tuning:
We define fine-tuning as an object with two properties: it must a) be unlikely to have occurred by chance, under the relevant probability distribution (i.e. complex), and b) conform to an independent or detached specification (i.e. specific).
Fine-tuning is thus another way of saying “specified complexity”: it’s an unlikely scenario that matches a precise pattern that is needed for some living system to operate. It’s tuned to just the right setting so life can exist (i.e., it’s specified), and this setting is unlikely, making it “finely tuned.”
In our experience specification plus rarity — i.e., fine-tuning — implies design. Even non-ID scientists acknowledge that fine-tuning “smacks of design,” as British evolutionary biologist Simon Conway Morris emphasizes. He writes:
[W]e must also acknowledge that it is the interdependence of each value as much as the fine tuning of any one that is so remarkable. All this smacks of design: physicists are rightly wary and the invisible hosts of multiverses is ever-popular. Simon Conway Morris, “Darwin’s Compass,” in Intelligent Faith: A Celebration of 150 Years of Darwinian Evolution, p. 74 (2009)
If fine-tuning can imply design in physics, why not in biology? In biology, life runs on information. The kind of complex and specified information found in life is a prime example of fine-tuning. There’s no physical or chemical law that dictates the ordering of nucleotide bases in our DNA, and yet it matches specific patterns that are necessary to produce functional proteins. Stephen Meyer explains why fine-tuning points to design:
Where did that information come from? [Stuart] Kauffman doesn’t say, but it is an essential part of what needs explanation in the history of life. Similarly, in his light system, the order that allegedly arises “for free”— that is, apart from an intelligent input of information — only does so if, as Kauffman acknowledges, the programmer “tunes” the system to keep it from either (a) generating an excessively rigid order or (b) devolving into chaos. This tuning presum[es] an intelligent programmer selecting certain parameters and excluding others—that is, inputting information. Stephen Meyer, Darwin’s Doubt, p. 298
The authors of the letter never explain why fine-tuning doesn’t imply design. They just assert that it doesn’t.
An Even Bigger Pool
They then wade into an even bigger pool of logical fallacies:
Furthermore, irreducible complexity ignores the idea that evolution and natural selection act on a pool of variation: any number of individuals within the pool will not pass on their genes because their specific complement of protein complexes and cellular networks do not accomplish the necessary functions for life to continue. Hence, neither fine-tuning nor intelligent design is required when sample spaces are viewed through the lens of evolutionary dynamics.
So ID arguments “ignore” what’s possible in the “pool of variation”? Hardly! In fact we spend a great amount of time thinking about and measuring what’s possible in the pool of variation. One fundamental observation we make is that irreducibly complex (IC) systems won’t persist in the “pool of variation” unless they are complete, because incomplete IC systems do not perform a selectable function. If they don’t perform a selectable function, then they are not preserved by natural selection. That poses a major problem for maintaining incomplete IC systems in the pool. This means it’s very difficult for IC systems to be built by Darwinian evolution’s stepwise mechanism.
But wait, isn’t this basically what the letter said? As the critics wrote:
[A]ny number of individuals within the pool will not pass on their genes because their specific complement of protein complexes and cellular networks do not accomplish the necessary functions for life to continue.
Yes, that’s exactly right! But rather than showing how IC systems evolve, their point shows precisely why they won’t evolve through an unguided Darwinian process: unless all the pieces are put together “just right” — i.e., are finely-tuned — an organism won’t survive and won’t pass on its genes. This point is true as the day is long. So how can you reconcile this with the idea that organisms evolve in a stepwise manner where small-scale changes build complex systems one small step at a time? It doesn’t seem possible in the real world.
A Strange Argument
The authors argue strangely against irreducible complexity by saying that organisms without functional systems won’t pass on their genes. But that is purifying selection only and does not account for how those systems came to be in the first place. Is it likely that the “pool of variation” would come to hold these complex and functional adaptations just by chance? Are there stepwise pathways for building these systems?
Perhaps the authors will explain how it’s possible, but the next sentence doesn’t help them at all: “Hence, neither fine-tuning nor intelligent design is required when sample spaces are viewed through the lens of evolutionary dynamics.”
Huh? They just said that most individuals won’t pass on their genes because they lack the right set of complex components for life, and then they conclude that intelligent design and fine-tuning aren’t necessary? Their conclusion does not follow from the argument. In fact their conclusion is the opposite of what the argument implies.
Appealing to the non-controversial principle that broken systems don’t get passed on hardly helps explain how incomplete IC systems could help build complete IC systems. Understood properly, their argument shows precisely why IC cannot be built by Darwinian evolution: incomplete IC systems don’t work and thus tend not to be passed on to the next generation. Rather than showing how these complex systems evolve, their argument shows why they cannot evolve by Darwinian means.
Extraordinary Claims, Extraordinary Evidence
The authors close by quoting Carl Sagan’s famous adage that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” We in the ID movement are happy to affirm this principle — the claim that finely tuned, information-rich, and irreducibly complex biological systems can be built in a blind, stepwise manner via Darwinian mechanisms is extraordinary. It requires extraordinary evidence. But when we seek such evidence we don’t receive it. Hence our skepticism of neo-Darwinism.
This paper has hardly provided that evidence. If the letter is the best reply that ID-critics can muster to the ID-friendly paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, then that must have been a strong paper indeed!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-13--Book Launch! Join Us for a Global Webinar with Michael Denton, Wednesday, October 21

Biochemist Michael Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell , launched this month , and next Wednesday you can join us in celebrating with Dr. Denton himself .
He is , of course , not only a pre-eminent proponent of the scientific theory of intelligent design but also a wonderful and charming personality .
He ’ ll speak with us live from Australia on Wednesday , October 21 , from 6 to 7 pm Pacific time .
There is a cap to how many can participate so be sure to register now .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance to ask your questions and offer your own challenges on the theme of what Denton calls the cell ’ s “ infinite complexity.
” More information and a link to register are here .
As I said the other day , “ A shallow response to fine-tuning arguments is that of course the environment is fit for life .
If it weren ’ t , we wouldn ’ t be around to observe it !
Denton ’ s reply is that the fine-tuning is far , far , far more intricate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could have expected .
It ’ s more exacting than we know even today.
” With his important Privileged Species series , Dr. Denton brings news of how science — biology , chemistry , and physics — is discovering the message hidden in ultra-fine-tuned life .
Find an excerpt from The Miracle of the Cell here .

Biochemist Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell, launched this month, and next Wednesday you can join us in celebrating with Dr. Denton himself. He is, of course, not only a pre-eminent proponent of the scientific theory of intelligent design but also a wonderful and charming personality. He’ll speak with us live from Australia on Wednesday, October 21, from 6 to 7 pm Pacific time.
There is a cap to how many can participate so be sure to register now. It’s a global webinar and you will get a chance to ask your questions and offer your own challenges on the theme of what Denton calls the cell’s “infinite complexity.” More information and a link to register are here.
As I said the other day, “A shallow response to fine-tuning arguments is that of course the environment is fit for life. If it weren’t, we wouldn’t be around to observe it! Denton’s reply is that the fine-tuning is far, far, far more intricate, exacting, and interdependent than we could have expected. It’s more exacting than we know even today.” With his important Privileged Species series, Dr. Denton brings news of how science — biology, chemistry, and physics — is discovering the message hidden in ultra-fine-tuned life. Find an excerpt from The Miracle of the Cell here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-13--Stephen Meyer Gets a Suitably Impressive New Website

However profound the stakes with our colleague Stephen Meyer ’ s previous two major books , Signature in the Cell and Darwin ’ s Doubt , the consequences of his next book , Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe , promise to be still greater .
Because of the response we knew he would get to the New York Times bestseller Darwin ’ s Doubt , from critics and new friends alike , that launch felt like going to war .
If that was the case then , I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what to expect from the new book — mega-war ?
Fitting to the circumstances , we are delighted to introduce an impressive new website for the book and for Dr. Meyer ’ s other work .
Find the new Stephen Meyer site here , beautifully designed by Discovery Institute web genius Nathan Jacobson .
Return of the God Hypothesis ratchets the debate about intelligent design up to the maximum .
Until now , Meyer limited his argument to biology and the fossil record , making the case for a designing intelligence behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scientific evidence permitted .
By turning to physics and cosmology — the study of the universe and its origins — he brings powerful evidence not just for an unidentified designer but for a personal God .
Stakes don ’ t come higher than that .
Preorder your copy now .
Take a look at the new website , and let it accompany you into battle !
It ’ s a wonderful resource with articles , videos , research , events , and a full online course about intelligent design taught by Steve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ March 30 , 2021 .
I ’ ve read it and it is fantastic .
And important .

Photo: Stephen Meyer at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, by Chris Morgan.
However profound the stakes with our colleague Stephen Meyer’s previous two major books, Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt, the consequences of his next book, Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, promise to be still greater. Because of the response we knew he would get to the New York Times bestseller Darwin’s Doubt, from critics and new friends alike, that launch felt like going to war. If that was the case then, I’m not quite sure how to characterize what to expect from the new book — mega-war?
Fitting to the circumstances, we are delighted to introduce an impressive new website for the book and for Dr. Meyer’s other work. Find the new Stephen Meyer site here, beautifully designed by Discovery Institute web genius Nathan Jacobson. Return of the God Hypothesis ratchets the debate about intelligent design up to the maximum. Until now, Meyer limited his argument to biology and the fossil record, making the case for a designing intelligence behind the history of life because that is what the scientific evidence permitted. By turning to physics and cosmology — the study of the universe and its origins — he brings powerful evidence not just for an unidentified designer but for a personal God. Stakes don’t come higher than that. Preorder your copy now.
Take a look at the new website, and let it accompany you into battle! It’s a wonderful resource with articles, videos, research, events, and a full online course about intelligent design taught by Steve Meyer. The book comes out on March 30, 2021. I’ve read it and it is fantastic. And important.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-13--Humans Evolving? Armed with the Evidence, the Story Breaks Down

Editor ’ s note : Eric Anderson is an attorney , software company executive , and co-author of the recently released book , Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell .
This past week , science readers woke up to breathless headlines about our own continuing evolution .
The evidence ?
An extra artery in the forearm of some adults .
This time it wasn ’ t about some obscure bird on a remote island .
This was us — hard evidence that humans are still evolving !
Given this personal interest factor , the story quickly spread .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” as Cosmos quipped .
A Science Alert headline was more direct , both about the observation and the implications : “ More Humans Are Growing an Extra Artery in Our Arms , Showing We ’ re Still Evolving.
” Reporting in the Journal of Anatomy , scientists in Australia had uncovered that more adults now possess a “ median artery of the forearm , ” contrasted with studies over the past two centuries .
Specifically , based on a sample of “ 78 upper limbs dissected at two different Australian Universities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ median artery in the forearm was present .
They then compared this number to those of prior studies and concluded that “ the prevalence of median arteries of forearms ” since 1846 had increased from approximately 10 percent to over 30 percent .
The authors calculate that if the trend continues , nearly every person born after 2100 will have a median artery .
Prevalence of this additional artery may be of significance to modern medicine , because sometimes the “ the median artery , when present , passes through the carpal tunnel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nerve , causing carpal tunnel syndrome.
” Given that millions of us struggle with carpal tunnel syndrome in our device-infested world , this is potentially a legitimate cause for concern .
Setting aside for a moment the small sample size ( as the authors acknowledge ) , let ’ s assume that the numbers reported in this study and in prior studies back to the mid 1800s are reflective of a genuine trend in the prevalence of the forearm median artery .
Let ’ s further assume that the researchers ’ projections for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spot on and that everyone born after 2100 will carry a median artery .
What does this demonstrate about evolution ?
After all , it isn ’ t sufficient to simply observe a biological change and then declare that , therefore , humans are “ evolving.
” We must look at the underlying cause to understand what is really happening .
The authors of the study acknowledge that the cause of this change is unknown , but suggest it is likely the result of a mutation in a regulatory structure .
Specifically , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ structure , which normally regresses around the 8th week of gestation.
” The median artery is therefore a perfectly normal aspect of human anatomy , present during early embryonic development and then typically fading or disappearing altogether as the radial and ulnar arteries on either side of the forearm develop and take over the job .
If we pause here and consider the facts , we can already see the clear outlines of a rational fact-based answer to the question at hand .
The median artery is a normal ( presumably essential ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the artery has done its job , the developing embryo shuts down the median artery as it develops the radial and ulnar arteries .
This speaks clearly to regulation and control .
The kinds of things that are consistent with a planned and purposeful process .
Indeed , the authors recognize that a regulated system is at work : “ The mechanism for the regression of the median artery is initiated and regulated by specific genes .
Persistence of the median artery into adulthood indicates the failure of the expression of these genes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers go on to suggest that this failure of the regression process “ could have resulted from alteration of or damage to genes by mutations , ” or perhaps an environmental factor , such as an infection of the mother , could have disrupted the regression process .
In either case , what we have is a carefully controlled process toward a particular outcome that has been disrupted .
Unfortunately , the authors do not pursue this clear line of thinking , but instead immediately revert to the evolutionary paradigm within which they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arguing that the increased prevalence of the median artery “ over the last 125 years means a true evolutionary process of the change in gene pools ” and “ the prevalence of persistent median arteries in adult forearms of people in many countries may be a trend associated with the evolutionary process.
” References to evolution are sprinkled throughout the paper .
Yet despite the clear implication that the failure of median artery regression is due to a hitch in a sophisticated control process , little additional attention is paid to this fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regulation ” again , and there is no discussion of controls or outlines of additional research that could be pursued along these lines .
Instead , the observations are shoehorned into a mental box of Darwinian thinking , with vague appeals to “ selection pressure ” as the cause of the observed change .
There seems to be a collective blindness to the evidence right under our noses .
Two final points of particular note .
First , no new biological structures were observed and there is no evidence that evolution produced any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A functional structure , necessary for early embryonic development , failed to be removed when it would normally be eliminated in the developmental process .
If this counts as “ evolution , ” as the authors say and the eager headlines proclaim , then it certainly is not evolution as Darwin envisioned it .
Evolution needs to explain ( and Darwin thought he was explaining ) the origin of new biological features , and eventually completely new biological forms .
Observing that a pre-existing structure remains on the scene after it was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing about the structure ’ s origin .
Instead , what we seem to be observing in the case of the human median artery is a breakdown of a pre-existing system and a failure of a regulatory process to proceed along its pre-programmed lines .
In spite of the evolutionary narrative , breakdown of existing systems and disruption of genetic programming is precisely what we can expect from mutations .
If it turns out that the persistence of the median artery into adulthood is indeed the result of mutations , then what we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broken genes and a broken process — another example of loss-of-function mutations , just as Michael Behe argued in Darwin Devolves .
Such de-evolutionary changes may be interesting , but they are of no comfort to the evolutionary story .
Indeed , they are precisely the opposite of what evolutionary theory has to explain .
Second , despite suggestions in the researchers ’ paper to the contrary , the persistence of the median artery can hardly be viewed as an example of natural selection acting on variations .
If it is , then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what the theory states .
As already mentioned , potential negative implications for carpal tunnel syndrome are at hand .
Additionally , the authors note the disadvantages of the persistent artery in terms of potential “ thrombosis , aneurysm , calcification or traumatic rupture , ” and acknowledge that “ a median artery is usually considered a disadvantage when complications arise due to its presence.
” Why then would natural selection aggressively select for the median artery in the course of just a few generations ?
The best the authors can offer for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rare instances , ” the median artery could act as a backup “ emergency vessel ” if damage to the radial or ulnar arteries occurs .
On balance , the authors ’ own cited evidence points to an overarching disadvantage in the persistence of the median artery , suggesting ( one might reasonably conclude ) that there was a purpose in the first place for the regression of the artery after it had done its job in early embryonic development .
In order to shoehorn the persistence of the median artery into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up with little more than a possible contingent advantage that might occur in “ rare instances ” as an emergency backup ( precisely the kind of thing , by the way , that natural selection would be blind to in all but the most unusual circumstances ) .
Succumbing to evolution ’ s siren song and ignoring the weight of the own evidence they have presented , the authors ’ evolutionary explanation consists of little more than a vague reference to “ selection pressure , ” coupled with a curious blindness to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disruption of a pre-existing regulatory structure .
This simplistic shout-out to Darwin is not anything that can be taken seriously as a scientific explanation .
Rather , it hampers our understanding .
By all accounts , the researchers have done excellent work and have presented good information .
I do not in any way denigrate their research efforts .
Indeed , there are a number of valuable design-related questions that naturally flow from this research .
What is the initial biological purpose of the median artery ?
Why is the embryo pre-programmed to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design and engineering constraints necessitate this regression ?
How is the regression controlled and initiated ?
If persistence of the median artery is due to a breakdown in a regulatory switch , are there ways to re-activate the switch ?
Yet with evolution as a guide , there is little of significance .
This is plainly not an example of evolution producing a new biological structure or a novel anatomical feature — precisely the kinds of things that evolution must be able to explain .
If anything , this is an example of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear , despite the authors ’ appeals to a “ selection pressure , ” that this change in the human population has anything to do with natural selection — the regular go-to explanation for these kinds of observations .
This appears to be a non-beneficial change , with natural selection failing to prevent the negative persistence of the artery , and certainly not responsible for producing the artery in the first place .
So much for natural selection “ daily and hourly scrutinizing , throughout the world , every variation , even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , preserving and adding up all that is good , ” as Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species .
From an evolutionary perspective , natural selection seems to have been caught napping on the job .

Photo credit: Sincerely Media via Unsplash.
Editor’s note: Eric Anderson is an attorney, software company executive, and co-author of the recently released book, Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell.
This past week, science readers woke up to breathless headlines about our own continuing evolution. The evidence? An extra artery in the forearm of some adults. This time it wasn’t about some obscure bird on a remote island. This was us — hard evidence that humans are still evolving! Given this personal interest factor, the story quickly spread. “Evolution arms us with an extra artery,” as Cosmos quipped. A Science Alert headline was more direct, both about the observation and the implications: “More Humans Are Growing an Extra Artery in Our Arms, Showing We’re Still Evolving.”
Reporting in the Journal of Anatomy, scientists in Australia had uncovered that more adults now possess a “median artery of the forearm,” contrasted with studies over the past two centuries. Specifically, based on a sample of “78 upper limbs dissected at two different Australian Universities,” the researchers analyzed whether a median artery in the forearm was present. They then compared this number to those of prior studies and concluded that “the prevalence of median arteries of forearms” since 1846 had increased from approximately 10 percent to over 30 percent. The authors calculate that if the trend continues, nearly every person born after 2100 will have a median artery.
A Legitimate Cause for Concern
Prevalence of this additional artery may be of significance to modern medicine, because sometimes the “the median artery, when present, passes through the carpal tunnel, thus it can compress the median nerve, causing carpal tunnel syndrome.” Given that millions of us struggle with carpal tunnel syndrome in our device-infested world, this is potentially a legitimate cause for concern.
Setting aside for a moment the small sample size (as the authors acknowledge), let’s assume that the numbers reported in this study and in prior studies back to the mid 1800s are reflective of a genuine trend in the prevalence of the forearm median artery. Let’s further assume that the researchers’ projections for the future increase of this prevalence are spot on and that everyone born after 2100 will carry a median artery. What does this demonstrate about evolution? After all, it isn’t sufficient to simply observe a biological change and then declare that, therefore, humans are “evolving.” We must look at the underlying cause to understand what is really happening.
Regulating Embryonic Development
The authors of the study acknowledge that the cause of this change is unknown, but suggest it is likely the result of a mutation in a regulatory structure. Specifically, the median artery is “an embryonic structure, which normally regresses around the 8th week of gestation.” The median artery is therefore a perfectly normal aspect of human anatomy, present during early embryonic development and then typically fading or disappearing altogether as the radial and ulnar arteries on either side of the forearm develop and take over the job.
If we pause here and consider the facts, we can already see the clear outlines of a rational fact-based answer to the question at hand. The median artery is a normal (presumably essential) part of early embryonic development. After the artery has done its job, the developing embryo shuts down the median artery as it develops the radial and ulnar arteries. This speaks clearly to regulation and control. The kinds of things that are consistent with a planned and purposeful process. Indeed, the authors recognize that a regulated system is at work: “The mechanism for the regression of the median artery is initiated and regulated by specific genes. Persistence of the median artery into adulthood indicates the failure of the expression of these genes” (emphasis added). The researchers go on to suggest that this failure of the regression process “could have resulted from alteration of or damage to genes by mutations,” or perhaps an environmental factor, such as an infection of the mother, could have disrupted the regression process.
In either case, what we have is a carefully controlled process toward a particular outcome that has been disrupted. Unfortunately, the authors do not pursue this clear line of thinking, but instead immediately revert to the evolutionary paradigm within which they think the evidence needs to fit, arguing that the increased prevalence of the median artery “over the last 125 years means a true evolutionary process of the change in gene pools” and “the prevalence of persistent median arteries in adult forearms of people in many countries may be a trend associated with the evolutionary process.”
References to evolution are sprinkled throughout the paper. Yet despite the clear implication that the failure of median artery regression is due to a hitch in a sophisticated control process, little additional attention is paid to this fact. The authors do not mention “regulation” again, and there is no discussion of controls or outlines of additional research that could be pursued along these lines. Instead, the observations are shoehorned into a mental box of Darwinian thinking, with vague appeals to “selection pressure” as the cause of the observed change. There seems to be a collective blindness to the evidence right under our noses.
Two final points of particular note.
Darwin Devolves — Again
First, no new biological structures were observed and there is no evidence that evolution produced any new biological feature. Quite the contrary. A functional structure, necessary for early embryonic development, failed to be removed when it would normally be eliminated in the developmental process. If this counts as “evolution,” as the authors say and the eager headlines proclaim, then it certainly is not evolution as Darwin envisioned it. Evolution needs to explain (and Darwin thought he was explaining) the origin of new biological features, and eventually completely new biological forms. Observing that a pre-existing structure remains on the scene after it was supposed to depart stage left tells us nothing about the structure’s origin.
Instead, what we seem to be observing in the case of the human median artery is a breakdown of a pre-existing system and a failure of a regulatory process to proceed along its pre-programmed lines. In spite of the evolutionary narrative, breakdown of existing systems and disruption of genetic programming is precisely what we can expect from mutations. If it turns out that the persistence of the median artery into adulthood is indeed the result of mutations, then what we will have is yet another example of broken genes and a broken process — another example of loss-of-function mutations, just as Michael Behe argued in Darwin Devolves. Such de-evolutionary changes may be interesting, but they are of no comfort to the evolutionary story. Indeed, they are precisely the opposite of what evolutionary theory has to explain.
Natural Selection to the Rescue?
Second, despite suggestions in the researchers’ paper to the contrary, the persistence of the median artery can hardly be viewed as an example of natural selection acting on variations. If it is, then it seems to be exactly backwards from what the theory states. As already mentioned, potential negative implications for carpal tunnel syndrome are at hand. Additionally, the authors note the disadvantages of the persistent artery in terms of potential “thrombosis, aneurysm, calcification or traumatic rupture,” and acknowledge that “a median artery is usually considered a disadvantage when complications arise due to its presence.” Why then would natural selection aggressively select for the median artery in the course of just a few generations? The best the authors can offer for a selection advantage is that “in rare instances,” the median artery could act as a backup “emergency vessel” if damage to the radial or ulnar arteries occurs.
On balance, the authors’ own cited evidence points to an overarching disadvantage in the persistence of the median artery, suggesting (one might reasonably conclude) that there was a purpose in the first place for the regression of the artery after it had done its job in early embryonic development. In order to shoehorn the persistence of the median artery into the evolutionary narrative, the authors can come up with little more than a possible contingent advantage that might occur in “rare instances” as an emergency backup (precisely the kind of thing, by the way, that natural selection would be blind to in all but the most unusual circumstances).
Succumbing to evolution’s siren song and ignoring the weight of the own evidence they have presented, the authors’ evolutionary explanation consists of little more than a vague reference to “selection pressure,” coupled with a curious blindness to the fact-based observation they previously made about the disruption of a pre-existing regulatory structure. This simplistic shout-out to Darwin is not anything that can be taken seriously as a scientific explanation. Rather, it hampers our understanding.
A Better Understanding
By all accounts, the researchers have done excellent work and have presented good information. I do not in any way denigrate their research efforts. Indeed, there are a number of valuable design-related questions that naturally flow from this research. What is the initial biological purpose of the median artery? Why is the embryo pre-programmed to eliminate the median artery, and what design and engineering constraints necessitate this regression? How is the regression controlled and initiated? If persistence of the median artery is due to a breakdown in a regulatory switch, are there ways to re-activate the switch?
Yet with evolution as a guide, there is little of significance. This is plainly not an example of evolution producing a new biological structure or a novel anatomical feature — precisely the kinds of things that evolution must be able to explain. If anything, this is an example of devolution. Nor is it at all clear, despite the authors’ appeals to a “selection pressure,” that this change in the human population has anything to do with natural selection — the regular go-to explanation for these kinds of observations. This appears to be a non-beneficial change, with natural selection failing to prevent the negative persistence of the artery, and certainly not responsible for producing the artery in the first place.
So much for natural selection “daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good,” as Darwin wrote in the Origin of Species. From an evolutionary perspective, natural selection seems to have been caught napping on the job.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-14--When “Science” Becomes a Cult

When “Science” Becomes a Cult

As protein chemist Douglas Axe tweets , “ The people who keep insisting they ’ re on the side of science don ’ t get that science is an open approach , not a list of settled dogmas.
” I think the problem is that there are two phenomena here , both going by the name “ science.
” On one hand there is “ science ” in the sense that Dr. Axe first uses it , an “ open approach ” to seeking the truth about nature .
And then there is “ science ” in the sense that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they invoke sacred dogmas and demand that we “ Trust the Science ” or “ Trust the Scientists.
” Science in this usage has taken on an increasingly cult-like aspect .
No one would insist that you blindly “ trust ” an open process that follows the evidence wherever it leads .
A process like that expects debate , not trust .
Even as its own demands have been continually ratcheted up in volume and stridency , “ science ” as a cult has suffered multiple blows to its prestige .
One blow @ @ @ @ @ @ @ science in the “ process ” sense are increasingly corrupted by politics .
The politics then becomes the dogma and the object of commands that we accept and venerate it .
Our colleague Wesley Smith has an excellent article out now arguing that “ Ideology in Science is Destroying Trust ” : Science should never be tainted by ideology .
After all , science isn ’ t supposed to be about political beliefs but is a powerful method for learning about and understanding the physical universe .
Science ’ s tools are decidedly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , experimentation , falsification , and the like .
To be effective , science must be pursued objectively .
The point is to determine what is — not what one wants to be — real .
Which is why I am so alarmed that highly respected science and medical journals are becoming so political .
For example , Science — one of the world ’ s most respected scientific publications — recently published a stridently ideological column advocating granting “ rights ” to nature .
The “ nature rights ” movement is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ environmentalism It ’ s goal is to grant flora , fauna , ecosystems — even geological features — human-type rights , “ toexist , persist , evolve , and regenerate its vital cycles in evolution.
” What are the scientific bases for granting “ rights ” to nature ?
There aren ’ t any .
“ This claim is not grounded in scientific evidence , ” the authors admit .
Then , why in the world would a prominent science journal grant its imprimatur to such a clearly ideological agenda ?
To lend @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in short , politics .
Wesley points to a remarkable editorial in the journal Nature : Nature cast aside all pretense of objectivity with a just-released editorial promising “ to publish more primary research in political science and related fields.
” Wait !
Political science is one of the humanities — like sociology and philosophy — an area of academic advocacy , which , not coincidentally , has grown stridently leftwing in past decades .
It is also subjective and almost definitionally ideological in its techniques , approaches , and conclusions .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Science and research inform and shape a spectrum of public policies , from environmental protection to data ethics , ” the editorialists write .
For example , they can “ commit institutions to work harder to protect equality , diversity and inclusion , and to give more space to voices from previously marginalized communities.
” Those may well be laudable social goals .
But they are hardly scientific matters .
Today at The Stream , John Zmirak gives a concrete illustration : the “ fervent , devout attachment to abortion , right @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at taxpayer expense isn ’ t grounded in reason .
Or science.
” Ideologues “ pretend that their own value systems are somehow neutral , based on objective facts and ‘ science.
’ But what if that isn ’ t true ?
What if , in fact , the very opposite proved to be the case ?
” He notes the irony that dogma and creed are loudest among those who insist on an absolute abortion right , in the name of “ science , ” even as they defy what science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indicates : It ’ s interesting that so many founders of the pro-life movement were Catholics , and that so many who carry it on today are either Catholics or evangelicals .
But that ’ s not because “ life begins at conception ” is some Christian dogma , like the Incarnation .
No , it ’ s a sober fact of science , which appeared in embryology texts around the world before Roe v. Wade .
Religious faith forces us , despite what we might want to think , to accept the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abortion creed back to the source : “ Simone de Beauvoir ’ s claim , borrowed from the Marquis de Sade , that women could only be truly equal if they , like men , could freely evade the consequences of sex .
Hence abortion.
” Biologist Jonathan Wells has written here recently about the science ( “ open process ” sense ) of embryology and what it tells us about the unborn human in the womb .
See : • “ At What Point In Its Development Can a Human Being Feel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ separate senses of science : Or in other words , that is science as an “ open process.
” Dr. Wells goes on : In a second sense , science can refer to the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything — that is , accounting for all phenomena in terms of material objects and the physical forces among them .
But this is equivalent to materialistic philosophy , which regards material objects and physical forces as the only realities .
Mind , free will , spirit , and God are considered illusions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a third sense , science can refer to the scientific establishment , which consists of people who are trained and employed to conduct research in various areas .
The majority opinion of this group is referred to as “ the scientific consensus.
” Unfortunately , the scientific consensus has changed many times in the course of history , so it is not a reliable guide to the truth .
And although many people in the scientific establishment do excellent empirical science , the scientific consensus is currently dominated by materialistic philosophy .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where the “ consensus ” has drifted toward materialist dogma .
The cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it “ science.
” That hurts the credibility of whatever goes by the name of science , unfortunately including the open-ended process of discovery that truly is scientific .
The ideologues have themselves to blame .
But what a mess !
It impacts everyone , inside and outside of cult .
I don ’ t have a problem with “ cults ” as such , by the way .
Every religion , whether @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whatever example you choose , started out being dismissed as a cult .
When Pharaoh first met Moses , no doubt he thought of him as a cult leader .
The problem comes when , in order to win our acceptance , double-talk is used to pretend that a cult is something other than what it is .

Photo: Bill Nye and the March for Science, by Paul and Cathy / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
As protein chemist Douglas Axe tweets, “The people who keep insisting they’re on the side of science don’t get that science is an open approach, not a list of settled dogmas.”
I think the problem is that there are two phenomena here, both going by the name “science.” On one hand there is “science” in the sense that Dr. Axe first uses it, an “open approach” to seeking the truth about nature. And then there is “science” in the sense that others seem to have in mind when they invoke sacred dogmas and demand that we “Trust the Science” or “Trust the Scientists.” Science in this usage has taken on an increasingly cult-like aspect. No one would insist that you blindly “trust” an open process that follows the evidence wherever it leads. A process like that expects debate, not trust.
Politics Becomes Dogma
Even as its own demands have been continually ratcheted up in volume and stridency, “science” as a cult has suffered multiple blows to its prestige. One blow has come from seeing how institutions of science in the “process” sense are increasingly corrupted by politics. The politics then becomes the dogma and the object of commands that we accept and venerate it.
Our colleague Wesley Smith has an excellent article out now arguing that “Ideology in Science is Destroying Trust”:
Science should never be tainted by ideology. After all, science isn’t supposed to be about political beliefs but is a powerful method for learning about and understanding the physical universe. Science’s tools are decidedly empirical, i.e., observation, measurement, experimentation, falsification, and the like. To be effective, science must be pursued objectively. The point is to determine what is — not what one wants to be — real. Which is why I am so alarmed that highly respected science and medical journals are becoming so political. For example, Science — one of the world’s most respected scientific publications — recently published a stridently ideological column advocating granting “rights” to nature. The “nature rights” movement is a left-wing and anti-free market ideological faction within environmentalism It’s goal is to grant flora, fauna, ecosystems — even geological features — human-type rights, “toexist, persist, evolve, and regenerate its vital cycles in evolution.” What are the scientific bases for granting “rights” to nature? There aren’t any. “This claim is not grounded in scientific evidence,” the authors admit. Then, why in the world would a prominent science journal grant its imprimatur to such a clearly ideological agenda? To lend its prestige to a radical cause, in short, politics.
Wesley points to a remarkable editorial in the journal Nature:
Nature cast aside all pretense of objectivity with a just-released editorial promising “to publish more primary research in political science and related fields.” Wait! Political science is one of the humanities — like sociology and philosophy — an area of academic advocacy, which, not coincidentally, has grown stridently leftwing in past decades. It is also subjective and almost definitionally ideological in its techniques, approaches, and conclusions. That would appear to be the point. “Science and research inform and shape a spectrum of public policies, from environmental protection to data ethics,” the editorialists write. For example, they can “commit institutions to work harder to protect equality, diversity and inclusion, and to give more space to voices from previously marginalized communities.” Those may well be laudable social goals. But they are hardly scientific matters.
An Absolute Right
Today at The Stream, John Zmirak gives a concrete illustration: the “fervent, devout attachment to abortion, right up through birth, for any reason, at taxpayer expense isn’t grounded in reason. Or science.” Ideologues “pretend that their own value systems are somehow neutral, based on objective facts and ‘science.’ But what if that isn’t true? What if, in fact, the very opposite proved to be the case?” He notes the irony that dogma and creed are loudest among those who insist on an absolute abortion right, in the name of “science,” even as they defy what science in the “open process” sense indicates:
It’s interesting that so many founders of the pro-life movement were Catholics, and that so many who carry it on today are either Catholics or evangelicals. But that’s not because “life begins at conception” is some Christian dogma, like the Incarnation. No, it’s a sober fact of science, which appeared in embryology texts around the world before Roe v. Wade. Religious faith forces us, despite what we might want to think, to accept the verdict of science.
Zmirak traces the abortion creed back to the source: “Simone de Beauvoir’s claim, borrowed from the Marquis de Sade, that women could only be truly equal if they, like men, could freely evade the consequences of sex. Hence abortion.”
An Unborn Life
Biologist Jonathan Wells has written here recently about the science (“open process” sense) of embryology and what it tells us about the unborn human in the womb. See:
He actually distinguishes three separate senses of science:
In one sense, science is the enterprise of seeking truth by formulating hypotheses and testing them against the evidence. If a hypothesis is repeatedly tested and found to be consistent with the evidence, we may tentatively regard it as true. If it is repeatedly found to be inconsistent with the evidence, we should revise it or reject it as false. This is empirical science.
Or in other words, that is science as an “open process.” Dr. Wells goes on:
In a second sense, science can refer to the enterprise of providing natural explanations for everything — that is, accounting for all phenomena in terms of material objects and the physical forces among them. But this is equivalent to materialistic philosophy, which regards material objects and physical forces as the only realities. Mind, free will, spirit, and God are considered illusions. This is materialistic science. In a third sense, science can refer to the scientific establishment, which consists of people who are trained and employed to conduct research in various areas. The majority opinion of this group is referred to as “the scientific consensus.” Unfortunately, the scientific consensus has changed many times in the course of history, so it is not a reliable guide to the truth. And although many people in the scientific establishment do excellent empirical science, the scientific consensus is currently dominated by materialistic philosophy.
The science cult unites those two final senses, where the “consensus” has drifted toward materialist dogma.
The cult enthrones politics and ideology and calls it “science.” That hurts the credibility of whatever goes by the name of science, unfortunately including the open-ended process of discovery that truly is scientific. The ideologues have themselves to blame. But what a mess! It impacts everyone, inside and outside of the cult.
I don’t have a problem with “cults” as such, by the way. Every religion, whether my own or the New Atheism or whatever example you choose, started out being dismissed as a cult. When Pharaoh first met Moses, no doubt he thought of him as a cult leader. The problem comes when, in order to win our acceptance, double-talk is used to pretend that a cult is something other than what it is.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-14--Optimism in a Dark Time: Meyer, Lennox, and the “God Hypothesis”

Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer recommends the forthcoming “ one night only ” film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science .
It stars Oxford University mathematician John Lennox and actor Kevin Sorbo , and you can see it on November 19 .
Be sure to reserve your tickets here .
There are many theater locations across the country .
Here is Meyer ’ s view : One night only !
Bring your friends and family .
As Steve Meyer points out , John Lennox is a charming presence and the science here is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate not only about intelligent design but about the “ God Hypothesis.
” The latter , of course , is the subject of Meyer ’ s new book — Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe — which comes out in March .
We are living in a dark time .
The culture that holds up our nation rocks dangerously , buffeted by the winds of cult-like , nihilistic ideologies .
Against those winds , giving reason for optimism , stand people like Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the universe offers us scientific evidence of purpose .
And not only purpose in a generic sense but purpose reflecting the mind of a Person — a personal God as in the Judeo-Christian tradition .
Steve Meyer and John Lennox , by the way , sat down for a conversation recently that we will be releasing soon .
Stay tuned for that !

Photo: Kevin Sorbo and John Lennox, a scene from Against the Tide.
Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer recommends the forthcoming “one night only” film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science. It stars Oxford University mathematician John Lennox and actor Kevin Sorbo, and you can see it on November 19. Be sure to reserve your tickets here. There are many theater locations across the country. Here is Meyer’s view:
One night only! Bring your friends and family. As Steve Meyer points out, John Lennox is a charming presence and the science here is at the cutting edge — of the debate not only about intelligent design but about the “God Hypothesis.” The latter, of course, is the subject of Meyer’s new book — Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe — which comes out in March.
We are living in a dark time. The culture that holds up our nation rocks dangerously, buffeted by the winds of cult-like, nihilistic ideologies. Against those winds, giving reason for optimism, stand people like Dr. Lennox and Dr. Meyer. They argue that the universe offers us scientific evidence of purpose. And not only purpose in a generic sense but purpose reflecting the mind of a Person — a personal God as in the Judeo-Christian tradition.
Steve Meyer and John Lennox, by the way, sat down for a conversation recently that we will be releasing soon. Stay tuned for that!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-14--Excerpt — The Chosen Atom

Excerpt — The Chosen Atom

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to offer this excerpt from Dr. Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell .
Join us on October 21 for a global webinar with Michael Denton celebrating the launch of his new book !
While there may be other forms of chemical life , perhaps based on boron or silicon ( for which there is at present no empirical or theoretical evidence ) , what seems not in doubt is the supreme fitness of carbon for any chemical life form analogous to that on Earth .
As Gross @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the end there may very well be only a single element — carbon… the basis of all life on Earth — that is able to support the complex chemistry presumably required to create a self-replicating chemical system.
” 1 What is particularly striking about the properties of the carbon atom is that they appear to be fine-tuned in several different but complementary ways to generate the plenitude of compounds uniquely useful to life .
Such a suite of properties , all seemingly arranged to generate a vast inventory of molecules ideal for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a powerful impression of contrivance .
More than a century ago Alfred Russel Wallace expressed , in his World of Life : We see , therefore , that carbon is perhaps the most unique , in its physical and chemical properties , of the whole series of the elements , and so far as the evidence points , it seems to exist for the one purpose of rendering the development of organized life a possibility .
It further appears that its unique chemical properties , in combination with those of the other elements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ various forms of life to produce that almost infinite variety of substances adapted for man ’ s use and enjoyment , and especially to serve the purposes of his ever-advancing research into the secrets of the universe.2 It turns out that Wallace , peering into the biochemical basis of life , saw what has now become even clearer .
Many have believed ( and many still do believe ) that Darwin drove teleology out of biology forever .
But more than a century and half of scientific research since Darwin has shown that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Earth , exemplified so wonderfully in the chosen atom , points irresistibly to purpose and design .
• Alfred Russel Wallace , The World of Life : A Manifestation of Creative Power , Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose ( London : Chapman and Hall , 1911 ) , 393 .

Photo: Glassy carbon, by Alchemist-hp (talk) (www.pse-mendelejew.de) / FAL.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to offer this excerpt from Dr. Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell. Join us on October 21 for a global webinar with Michael Denton celebrating the launch of his new book!
While there may be other forms of chemical life, perhaps based on boron or silicon (for which there is at present no empirical or theoretical evidence), what seems not in doubt is the supreme fitness of carbon for any chemical life form analogous to that on Earth. As Gross and Plaxco confess in Astrobiology, “In the end there may very well be only a single element — carbon… the basis of all life on Earth — that is able to support the complex chemistry presumably required to create a self-replicating chemical system.”1
What is particularly striking about the properties of the carbon atom is that they appear to be fine-tuned in several different but complementary ways to generate the plenitude of compounds uniquely useful to life. Such a suite of properties, all seemingly arranged to generate a vast inventory of molecules ideal for the biochemistry of living cells, conveys a powerful impression of contrivance. More than a century ago Alfred Russel Wallace expressed, in his World of Life:
We see, therefore, that carbon is perhaps the most unique, in its physical and chemical properties, of the whole series of the elements, and so far as the evidence points, it seems to exist for the one purpose of rendering the development of organized life a possibility. It further appears that its unique chemical properties, in combination with those of the other elements which constitute protoplasm, have enabled the various forms of life to produce that almost infinite variety of substances adapted for man’s use and enjoyment, and especially to serve the purposes of his ever-advancing research into the secrets of the universe.2
It turns out that Wallace, peering into the biochemical basis of life, saw what has now become even clearer. Many have believed (and many still do believe) that Darwin drove teleology out of biology forever. But more than a century and half of scientific research since Darwin has shown that the fitness of nature for life on Earth, exemplified so wonderfully in the chosen atom, points irresistibly to purpose and design.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-15--Taking Applications Now to Be Our New Education and Outreach Coordinator!

What if scientists in the intelligent design movement went about their work , uncovering powerful evidence of direction and meaning @ @ @ @ @ but…no one ever heard about it ?
That would kind of defeat the purpose .
@ @ @ @ @ and outreach — our Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design , ID Education Days , Faith @ @ @ @ @ and webinars , grassroots activism , and more — are at the core of our @ @ @ @ @ Science and Culture .
It ’ s a way we share scientific evidence of design @ @ @ @ @ makes that evidence so important , with the world .
Some excellent news , then @ @ @ @ @ expanding our staff , adding a new Education and Outreach Coordinator to work with Daniel @ @ @ @ @ the role of Education and Outreach Director .
All the information you need to apply @ @ @ @ @ , compensation , and qualifications , can be found here .
This is a junior-level @ @ @ @ @ ’ ll be delighted to welcome the right person as a new colleague .

Photo: ID Education Day, in Seattle.
What if scientists in the intelligent design movement went about their work, uncovering powerful evidence of direction and meaning in biology and cosmology, but…no one ever heard about it? That would kind of defeat the purpose. That’s why education and outreach — our Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design, ID Education Days, Faith and Science Conferences, events and webinars, grassroots activism, and more — are at the core of our mission at the Center for Science and Culture. It’s a way we share scientific evidence of design, and the hope that makes that evidence so important, with the world.
Some excellent news, then, is that we are expanding our staff, adding a new Education and Outreach Coordinator to work with Daniel Reeves, stepping up to the role of Education and Outreach Director. All the information you need to apply, including details about duties, compensation, and qualifications, can be found here. This is a junior-level but important position. We’ll be delighted to welcome the right person as a new colleague.