evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-27--Scientist Admits Biologists Are Obsessed with Intelligent Design

What do scientists spend more time thinking about — sex , or the theory of intelligent design ?
Scientific research famously gives a range of answers to the question of how many times per day men think about sex ( from 19 times to 7,200 times ) .
If one European researcher is correct , scientists in the United States ( who are mostly male ) spend one-fifth of their waking time thinking about how to “ combat intelligent design.
” Despite incessant declarations that “ there is no controversy ” about evolution , ID is evidently on the mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of obsession !
Evolution News recently commented on an article in an Italian philosophy journal that took intelligent design ( ID ) arguments with refreshing seriousness .
Now another European journal has published its own noteworthy commentary .
The author is Giuseppe Longo , who studies mathematical computer science and epistemology as research director ( emeritus ) at Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique ( National Center for Scientific Research ) in Paris .
His article , “ Scientific thought and absolutes for an image of the sciences , between computing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal Angelaki .
First , if the critics are right to say ID is “ dead , ” why devote so much time to it ?
Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID .
As Laland et al .
( 2014 ) conceded : “ Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design , evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.
” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm .
Clearly , ID arguments are potent , and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don ’ t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus .
Second , intelligent design ’ s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason .
The notion that “ financing of research ” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable .
Pure ID research @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Government .
From other sources , the amount of money available to fund ID research , though not trivial , is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science .
No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain .
Third , it ’ s a shame that “ 20 percent of their time and brain power ” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship .
Fourth , it does happen from time to time that ID critics reply to ID arguments .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacking straw man mischaracterizations , as in the recent BioEssays that demanded censorship of Evolution News and other ID publications .
In his article , Giuseppe Longo himself goes after ID straw men : Creationist theories require divine intervention case by case : there is no universality of either method or criteria , but only faith in an omnipotent God , who created species and biological functions one by one , each with their own characteristics .
Generality is in God , not in the method of knowledge .
We can say the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ absolutism : “ intelligent design ” theory , which is having great success with the American public .
Tapping the molecular alphabet on the genetic keyboard , God would program DNA mutations for his own supreme ends .
But then , paleontological evidence tells us that approximately 99 percent of species that were formed on earth have disappeared , and that , especially in the five greatest known extinctions , massacres and death have ravaged our planet .
That all of this has taken place to conserve us , as well as the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , does not seem to be very productive , or particularly intelligent .
Hence , we invoke the impenetrability of divine design , of the Absolute Programmer , as the face of the tens of millions of deaths caused by the mutation of the flu virus ( the “ Spanish flu ” of 1918 for example ) .
Whenever we see fit , this “ intelligent design ” becomes impenetrable ( unintelligible ) , the criteria change , and we invoke faith .
What a mess .
It ’ s hard to know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proponent actually argues like that ?
Who says that ID “ requires … faith in an omnipotent God ” ?
Not Stephen Meyer : The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers .
Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity , the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that .
Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world , the theory can not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience .
Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information life acted from the natural or the “ supernatural ” realm .
Instead , the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause ( with power , at least , equivalent to those we know from experience ) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious , intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence , even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider , for example , a specifically theistic design hypothesis.
” Meyer , Signature in the Cell : DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design , pp .
428-429 ( HarperOne , 2009 ) Or who says that the theory of intelligent design requires “ divine design ” where God “ created species and biological functions one by one , each with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael Behe : [ ID ] is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God , as Paley ’ s was .
I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God , and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument .
But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far .
Thus while I argue for design , the question of the identity of the designer is left open .
Possible candidates for the role of designer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an angel–fallen or not ; Plato ’ s demi-urge ; some mystical new age force ; space aliens from Alpha Centauri ; time travelers ; or some utterly unknown intelligent being .
Of course , some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science .
Nonetheless , as regards the identity of the designer , modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton ’ s phrase hypothesis non fingo .
ID grants that organisms might undergo various degrees of Darwinian evolution .
Within vertebrates Behe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the level of the class — hardly requiring that God specially creates each type of organism in its current form .
This is what Behe calls the “ edge of evolution.
” William Dembski agrees that ID does not require special creation : And who says that “ there is no universality of either method or criteria ” by which we detect design , “ but only faith in an omnipotent God ” ?
Not Dembski .
He laid out an objective criteria by which we can detect design , requiring no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on recognizing information in nature , indicating the past action of intelligence : The type of information that indicates the prior action of intelligence is “ complex and specified information ” ( CSI ) .
We can rigorously measure CSI : To see why CSI is a reliable indicator of design , we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation .
The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency , or what we call choice .
Whenever an intelligent cause acts , it chooses from a range of competing possibilities .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ choosing certain things , ruling out others .
… Given this characterization of intelligent causes , the crucial question is how to recognize their operation .
Intelligent causes act by making a choice .
How then do we recognize that an intelligent cause has made a choice ?
… The actualization of one among several competing possibilities , the exclusion of the rest , and the specification of the possibility actualized encapsulate how we recognize intelligent causes , or equivalently , how we detect design .
… We can summarize this argument for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of design as follows : CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally .
To recognize intelligent causation , we must establish that one possibility from a range of competing possibilities was actualized , determine which possibilities were excluded , and then specify the actualized possibility .
When Longo says that ID is based on “ faith ” and “ absolutism , ” this bears no resemblance to the actual theory of ID .
What about Longo ’ s claim that if organisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ does not seem to be very productive , or particularly intelligent ” ?
He argues that unless we admit that extinction refutes design , this shows “ the impenetrability of divine design.
” By that he means ID proponents change the goalposts arbitrarily , and “ Whenever we see fit … the criteria change , and we invoke faith.
” If ID proponents had ever argued that design requires that all species must live eternally , he might have a point .
But no mainstream ID proponent has ever said that , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ occurs .
Evolution News dealt with the “ perfect design ” objection in response to BioEssays as well .
Imperfect design is still design .
Anyone who ever got stuck trying to upgrade a computer ’ s operating system is well aware of this fact .
From the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design : [ W ] hen ID proponents use the term “ intelligent , ” they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint .
But does intelligent design require perfect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ constitutes biological perfection ?
Take humans for example .
Should our bodies all last 100 years ?
200 years ?
Forever ?
Should we be impervious to injury and never get sick ?
These are philosophical or theological questions , having little or nothing to do with science .
Holding biological systems to a vaguely defined standard of “ perfect ” design is the wrong way to test ID .
The examples at the beginning of this chapter — broken machinery , computer failures , and decaying buildings — all show that a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if it breaks or has flaws .
Intelligent design does not mean perfect design .
It doesn ’ t even require optimal design .
It means exactly what it says : design by an intelligent agent .
In attacking such outlandish straw men , ID critics parade their own ignorance .
Four Options for the Critics So as we ’ ve seen , evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design quite a bit ( whether it ’ s 20 percent of the time , who knows ? )
, and sometimes they get very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t like that there are potent challenges to their materialistic origins paradigm .
Sometimes it seems they wish ID would just go away .
As recent responses indicate , they typically deal with ID in three different ways : ( 1 ) They may pretend that ID challenges don ’ t exist , as Laland et al .
( 2014 ) suggested , and Laland ( 2017 ) later practiced .
( 2 ) They may put out a fake response , attacking straw men versions of ID , as Giuseppe Longo does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Dave Speijer followed approach ( 2 ) , but added an extra touch of malice by calling for Internet censorship .
That ’ s always an option for dealing with ideas you dislike .
Of course , there ’ s a fourth option .
It ’ s a tougher assignment : respond substantively to ID ’ s arguments .
If the critics could do that , they probably would .

What do scientists spend more time thinking about — sex, or the theory of intelligent design? Scientific research famously gives a range of answers to the question of how many times per day men think about sex (from 19 times to 7,200 times). If one European researcher is correct, scientists in the United States (who are mostly male) spend one-fifth of their waking time thinking about how to “combat intelligent design.” Despite incessant declarations that “there is no controversy” about evolution, ID is evidently on the mind of many biologists, to the point of obsession!
Evolution News recently commented on an article in an Italian philosophy journal that took intelligent design (ID) arguments with refreshing seriousness. Now another European journal has published its own noteworthy commentary. The author is Giuseppe Longo, who studies mathematical computer science and epistemology as research director (emeritus) at Le Centre national de la recherche scientifique (National Center for Scientific Research) in Paris. His article, “Scientific thought and absolutes for an image of the sciences, between computing and biology,” appears in the humanities journal Angelaki.
He writes:
During a recent colloquium on biology in Paris, I have heard with dread all American colleagues, but fortunately only them (for the moment), lost 20 percent of their time and brain power combat [sic] intelligent design theory, so much the stakes have become drastically central, even for the financing of research, in this country.
Multiple thoughts come to mind.
ID Is Dead, Long Live ID!
First, if the critics are right to say ID is “dead,” why devote so much time to it? Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID. As Laland et al. (2014) conceded: “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed his own advice, refusing to admit in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, ID arguments are potent, and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don’t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus.
Second, intelligent design’s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason. The notion that “financing of research” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable. Pure ID research gets exactly zero dollars from the Federal Government. From other sources, the amount of money available to fund ID research, though not trivial, is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science. No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain.
Third, it’s a shame that “20 percent of their time and brain power” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship.
Where to Begin?
Fourth, it does happen from time to time that ID critics reply to ID arguments. More often what they are doing is attacking straw man mischaracterizations, as in the recent BioEssays that demanded censorship of Evolution News and other ID publications. In his article, Giuseppe Longo himself goes after ID straw men:
Creationist theories require divine intervention case by case: there is no universality of either method or criteria, but only faith in an omnipotent God, who created species and biological functions one by one, each with their own characteristics. Generality is in God, not in the method of knowledge. We can say the same of the modern version of creationist absolutism: “intelligent design” theory, which is having great success with the American public. Tapping the molecular alphabet on the genetic keyboard, God would program DNA mutations for his own supreme ends. But then, paleontological evidence tells us that approximately 99 percent of species that were formed on earth have disappeared, and that, especially in the five greatest known extinctions, massacres and death have ravaged our planet. That all of this has taken place to conserve us, as well as the 1 percent of species that have survived, does not seem to be very productive, or particularly intelligent. Hence, we invoke the impenetrability of divine design, of the Absolute Programmer, as the face of the tens of millions of deaths caused by the mutation of the flu virus (the “Spanish flu” of 1918 for example). Whenever we see fit, this “intelligent design” becomes impenetrable (unintelligible), the criteria change, and we invoke faith.
What a mess. It’s hard to know where to begin. What mainstream ID proponent actually argues like that? Who says that ID “requires … faith in an omnipotent God”? Not Stephen Meyer:
The theory of intelligent design does not claim to detect a supernatural intelligence possessing unlimited powers. Though the designing agent responsible for life may well have been an omnipotent deity, the theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine that. Because the inference to design depends upon our uniform experience of cause and effect in this world, the theory cannot determine whether or not the designing intelligence putatively responsible for life has powers beyond those on display in our experience. Nor can the theory of intelligent design determine whether the intelligent agent responsible for information life acted from the natural or the “supernatural” realm. Instead, the theory of intelligent design merely claims to detect the action of some intelligent cause (with power, at least, equivalent to those we know from experience) and affirms this because we know from experience that only conscious, intelligent agents produce large amounts of specified information. The theory of intelligent design does not claim to be able to determine the identity or any other attributes of that intelligence, even if philosophical deliberation or additional evidence from other disciplines may provide reasons to consider, for example, a specifically theistic design hypothesis.” Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, pp. 428-429 (HarperOne, 2009)
Or who says that the theory of intelligent design requires “divine design” where God “created species and biological functions one by one, each with their own characteristics”? Here is Michael Behe:
So, based on developmental biology and our new knowledge of life’s molecules, can we draw a reasonable, tentative line between Darwin and design in animal evolution? …. Combining the reasoning from the past several sections, then, we can conclude that animal design probably extends into life at least as far as vertebrate classes, maybe deeper, and that random mutation likely explains differences at least up to the species level, perhaps somewhat beyond. Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian evolution. Behe, The Edge of Evolution, pp. 193, 201 (Free Press, 2007)
Behe again:
[ID] is not an argument for the existence of a benevolent God, as Paley’s was. I hasten to add that I myself do believe in a benevolent God, and I recognize that philosophy and theology may be able to extend the argument. But a scientific argument for design in biology does not reach that far. Thus while I argue for design, the question of the identity of the designer is left open. Possible candidates for the role of designer include: the God of Christianity; an angel–fallen or not; Plato’s demi-urge; some mystical new age force; space aliens from Alpha Centauri; time travelers; or some utterly unknown intelligent being. Of course, some of these possibilities may seem more plausible than others based on information from fields other than science. Nonetheless, as regards the identity of the designer, modern ID theory happily echoes Isaac Newton’s phrase hypothesis non fingo. Behe, “The Modern Intelligent Design Hypothesis,” Philosophia Christi, Series 2, Vol. 3, No. 1 (2001), p. 165
ID grants that organisms might undergo various degrees of Darwinian evolution. Within vertebrates Behe allows that this may extend even up to the level of the class — hardly requiring that God specially creates each type of organism in its current form. This is what Behe calls the “edge of evolution.”
William Dembski agrees that ID does not require special creation:
Intelligent design does not require organisms to emerge suddenly or to be specially created from scratch by the intervention of a designing intelligence. To be sure, intelligent design is compatible with the creationist idea of organisms being suddenly created from scratch. But it is also perfectly compatible with the evolutionist idea of new organisms arising from old by gradual accrual of change. What separates intelligent design from naturalistic evolution is not whether organisms evolved or the extent to which they evolved, but what was responsible for their evolution. Dembski, The Design Revolution, p. 178 (InterVarsity Press, 2004)
And who says that “there is no universality of either method or criteria” by which we detect design, “but only faith in an omnipotent God”? Not Dembski. He laid out an objective criteria by which we can detect design, requiring no religious premises. The method is based on recognizing information in nature, indicating the past action of intelligence:
[I]ntelligent design can be formulated as a scientific theory having empirical consequences and devoid of religious commitments. Intelligent design can be unpacked as a theory of information. Within such a theory, information becomes a reliable indicator of design as well as a proper object for scientific investigation. Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information,” in Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics, edited by Robert Pennock (MIT Press 2002), p. 553
The type of information that indicates the prior action of intelligence is “complex and specified information” (CSI). We can rigorously measure CSI:
To see why CSI is a reliable indicator of design, we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation. The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. … Intelligent causation always entails discrimination, choosing certain things, ruling out others. … Given this characterization of intelligent causes, the crucial question is how to recognize their operation. Intelligent causes act by making a choice. How then do we recognize that an intelligent cause has made a choice? … The actualization of one among several competing possibilities, the exclusion of the rest, and the specification of the possibility actualized encapsulate how we recognize intelligent causes, or equivalently, how we detect design. … We can summarize this argument for showing that CSI is a reliable indicator of design as follows: CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. To recognize intelligent causation, we must establish that one possibility from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the actualized possibility. Dembski, “Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information,” pp. 565-568
When Longo says that ID is based on “faith” and “absolutism,” this bears no resemblance to the actual theory of ID.
Return of the “Perfect Design” Straw Man
What about Longo’s claim that if organisms go extinct then this shows the design “does not seem to be very productive, or particularly intelligent”? He argues that unless we admit that extinction refutes design, this shows “the impenetrability of divine design.” By that he means ID proponents change the goalposts arbitrarily, and “Whenever we see fit … the criteria change, and we invoke faith.”
If ID proponents had ever argued that design requires that all species must live eternally, he might have a point. But no mainstream ID proponent has ever said that, and ID readily allows that mass extinction occurs. Evolution News dealt with the “perfect design” objection in response to BioEssays as well. Imperfect design is still design. Anyone who ever got stuck trying to upgrade a computer’s operating system is well aware of this fact. From the textbook Discovering Intelligent Design:
[W]hen ID proponents use the term “intelligent,” they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint. But does intelligent design require perfect design? For that matter, what constitutes biological perfection? Take humans for example. Should our bodies all last 100 years? 200 years? Forever? Should we be impervious to injury and never get sick? These are philosophical or theological questions, having little or nothing to do with science. Holding biological systems to a vaguely defined standard of “perfect” design is the wrong way to test ID. The examples at the beginning of this chapter — broken machinery, computer failures, and decaying buildings — all show that a structure might be designed by intelligence even if it breaks or has flaws. Intelligent design does not mean perfect design. It doesn’t even require optimal design. It means exactly what it says: design by an intelligent agent.
In attacking such outlandish straw men, ID critics parade their own ignorance.
Four Options for the Critics
So as we’ve seen, evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design quite a bit (whether it’s 20 percent of the time, who knows?), and sometimes they get very frustrated about it. They don’t like that there are potent challenges to their materialistic origins paradigm. Sometimes it seems they wish ID would just go away. As recent responses indicate, they typically deal with ID in three different ways:
(1) They may pretend that ID challenges don’t exist, as Laland et al. (2014) suggested, and Laland (2017) later practiced.
(2) They may put out a fake response, attacking straw men versions of ID, as Giuseppe Longo does.
(3) Writing in BioEssays, Dave Speijer followed approach (2), but added an extra touch of malice by calling for Internet censorship. That’s always an option for dealing with ideas you dislike.
Of course, there’s a fourth option. It’s a tougher assignment: respond substantively to ID’s arguments. If the critics could do that, they probably would.
Photo credit: ThisisEngineering RAEng via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-28--“Nobody Expects the Darwinist Inquisition”? I Do

As a reader and supporter of Evolution News , you must have noticed the same thing I have .
It ’ s an ominous sight to observe the two waves approaching each other .
On one side is an intensifying drive to police social media , where countless people get most of their information .
On the other are biologists who spend a fifth of their time ( according to a Darwinist scientist ! )
fretting about how to “ combat intelligent design , ” as we reported here the other day .
One prominent scientific journal , BioEssays , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They have called for Internet censorship of intelligent design , identifying Discovery Institute by name as being in need of special attention by the censors .
If giants like Facebook and Twitter don ’ t follow through on the threat , then says biologist Dave Speijer , the government should “ Make them.
” It ’ s only because we are changing how people think about life and its origins — thanks to you !
— that we have attracted this malice .
Don ’ t doubt that their idea has a bright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin ’ s “ Inquisition.
” “ Nobody Expects the Darwinist Inquisition , ” as Zmirak quips in a clever headline at The Stream , a twist on a line from a Monty Python sketch .
Well , I expect it !
He cites the BioEssays article that takes aim at Discovery Institute and its Center for Science & Culture : Zmirak adds that ideology isn ’ t all that motivates the would-be Internet police : “ It ’ s the classic will to dominate , to bully and rule your neighbor.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appeal to you this month to join us in resisting these moves .
“ A universe designed and replete with meaning ” is a vision that strict Darwinists can ’ t stand .
They will do what they can to suppress it .
The fact that a designed universe is supported by responsible science , as we make clear here every day for our growing audience , is what really drives them to the edge .
Every indication suggests that before long , they will take action against those who argue in public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cosmos .
Please consider donating now to the Center for Science & Culture and its campaign for Evolution News and for freedom of speech .
They ’ ve already come for the professors .
Next they ’ ll come for us .
Expect it .

As a reader and supporter of Evolution News, you must have noticed the same thing I have. It’s an ominous sight to observe the two waves approaching each other. On one side is an intensifying drive to police social media, where countless people get most of their information. On the other are biologists who (according to a Darwinist scientist!) spend a fifth of their time fretting about how to “combat intelligent design,” as we reported here the other day.
One prominent scientific journal, BioEssays, has already brought the waves together. They have called for Internet censorship of intelligent design, identifying Discovery Institute by name as being in need of special attention by the censors. If giants like Facebook and Twitter don’t follow through on the threat, then says biologist Dave Speijer, the government should “Make them.” It’s only because we are changing how people think about life and its origins — thanks to you! — that we have attracted this malice.
“Drilling Down to Essential Matters”
Don’t doubt that their idea has a bright future with what journalist John Zmirak calls Darwin’s “Inquisition.” “Nobody Expects the Darwinist Inquisition,” as Zmirak says in a headline at The Stream, a wry homage to a famous line from a Monty Python sketch. Well, I expect it! He cites the BioEssays article that takes aim at Discovery Institute and its Center for Science & Culture:
They’re drilling down to essential matters, to the fundamental divide of basic worldviews. That is, the yawning chasm between Darwinian nihilism, and a universe designed and replete with meaning.
Zmirak adds that ideology isn’t all that motivates the would-be Internet police: “It’s the classic will to dominate, to bully and rule your neighbor.”
As editor of Evolution News, I appeal to you to join us in resisting these moves. “A universe designed and replete with meaning” is a vision that strict Darwinists can’t stand. They will do what they can to suppress it. The fact that a designed universe is supported by responsible science, as we make clear here every day for our growing audience, is what really drives them to the edge.
Every indication suggests that before long, they will take action against those who argue in public for design in life and in the cosmos. Please consider donating now to the Center for Science & Culture and its campaign for Evolution News and for freedom of speech. They’ve already come for the professors. Next they’ll come for us. Expect it.
Image credit: Francisco de Goya, “Escena de Inquisición, via Wikimedia Commons.


What Scientists Know

Our scientific elites insist that the “ scientific consensus ” be accepted without question , and that to raise doubts ( about climate change , about the mind-body relationship , you name it ) is “ science-denial ” or “ anti-intellectualism.
” On Darwinian evolution , questioning the consensus now merits suppression by the government .
As readers of Evolution News are likely aware , the science journal BioEssays recently demanded censorship of intelligent design , mandated by the government if Internet search engines resist .
The author of the article , biologist Dave Speijer , singled out Evolution News @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article was published , biologist Jonathan Wells recounted a relevant story : Some years ago I submitted an article on cell biology to a prominent British journal .
After making some recommended corrections my article passed peer review , and the editor emailed to tell me he wanted to publish it .
He had just one final question : Was I “ the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame ?
” ( His words exactly . )
Afterwards he sent the article to yet another reader , whose “ review ” didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article at all but sounded like a rant from [ the Darwinist website ] Panda ’ s Thumb .
The editor then rejected my article .
Well , scientists really know what they ’ re doing and shouldn ’ t be questioned .
Isn ’ t that right ?
Sometimes a couple of points in public discussion intersect in a way that takes your breath away , and point to a much deeper problem .
Here ’ s an example , one from Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella and another from Fox News .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ should examine in determining mask effectiveness , but this question is hardly “ incredibly complicated.
” We probe the Big Bang , we land spacecraft on asteroids , we decode genomes , and we explore the inner workings of subatomic particles .
Surely we can compare different kinds of face masks .
Sounds like a nice 7th-grade science project .
Novella , after reviewing the scientific literature on this ( literally ) life-and-death issue , concludes : Here ’ s a second news report , that , in light of Novella ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Wrap your mind around that : after spending $ 100 billion on pandemic readiness over the past decade , scientists still don ’ t know if face masks work .
That ’ s not the only thing they don ’ t know .
The COVID crisis has been remarkable for the number of hairpin turns taken by scientific opinion .
Early on , public health experts warned of infection through contact with surfaces .
Now that advice is abruptly reversed : “ Virus ‘ does not spread easily ’ from contaminated surfaces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ( Washington Post ) .
Goodness gracious .
What scientists don ’ t know is astonishing .
Even I ’ m amazed .
There ’ s a real chance that this virus arose due to the incompetence of scientists who handled it in the Wuhan lab .
It is clear that scientists in China and at the World Health Organization misrepresented the facts about the pandemic and covered up the seriousness of the outbreak for months .
Pandemic models have proved worse than worthless , and scientists in the Centers for Disease @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at wit ’ s end in dealing with the virus once it reached our shores .
Even the most basic questions — for instance , how much social distancing and economic ruin are called for to save how many lives , etc .
— remain unanswered , even after spending $ 100 billion in the past decade on pandemic research .
Rather than handing over the censors ’ s power to consensus enforcers , there needs to be an accounting for the manifest incompetence of the scientific profession .
That is across a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fiasco is one illustration , the one at the forefront of most people ’ s minds .
But it mustn ’ t end there .
The same scientific profession that doesn ’ t know if face masks work , or whether the virus is communicated by surfaces , doesn ’ t know if materialism explains the mind or if undirected natural selection explains life , either .
Scientists don ’ t really know any more about the origin of life or about the evolution of biological complexity or about how the brain gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the effectiveness of face masks .
The only difference is that scientists can ’ t fake knowledge about face masks any longer .

Our scientific elites insist that the “scientific consensus” be accepted without question, and that to raise doubts (about climate change, about the mind-body relationship, you name it) is “science-denial” or “anti-intellectualism.”
On Darwinian evolution, questioning the consensus now merits suppression by the government. As readers of Evolution News are likely aware, the science journal BioEssays recently demanded censorship of intelligent design, mandated by the government if Internet search engines resist. The author of the article, biologist Dave Speijer, singled out Evolution News for this treatment.
After the BioEssays article was published, biologist Jonathan Wells recounted a relevant story:
Some years ago I submitted an article on cell biology to a prominent British journal. After making some recommended corrections my article passed peer review, and the editor emailed to tell me he wanted to publish it. He had just one final question: Was I “the Jonathan Wells of intelligent design fame?” (His words exactly.) Afterwards he sent the article to yet another reader, whose “review” didn’t deal with the contents of my article at all but sounded like a rant from [the Darwinist website] Panda’s Thumb. The editor then rejected my article. The journal was BioEssays.
Well, scientists really know what they’re doing and shouldn’t be questioned. Isn’t that right?
“Do Face Masks Work?”
Sometimes a couple of points in public discussion intersect in a way that takes your breath away, and point to a much deeper problem. Here’s an example, one from Yale neuroscientist Steven Novella and another from Fox News.
Do Facemasks Work? The question of whether or not wearing a facemask “works” is incredibly complicated. It may not seem so at first, but let me list some of the specific questions contained in that broad question. We need to consider different kinds of masks — cloth, surgical, N95. We need to consider who is wearing the mask …
Dr. Novella discusses several variables that we should examine in determining mask effectiveness, but this question is hardly “incredibly complicated.” We probe the Big Bang, we land spacecraft on asteroids, we decode genomes, and we explore the inner workings of subatomic particles.
Surely we can compare different kinds of face masks. Sounds like a nice 7th-grade science project.
Novella, after reviewing the scientific literature on this (literally) life-and-death issue, concludes:
… [s]o wear the mask properly, but act as if the mask does not work.
*Sigh*
COVID-19’s $100 Billion Question
Here’s a second news report, that, in light of Novella’s post, ought to give us pause:
Feds spent nearly $100B on pandemic readiness, health security in decade leading up to coronavirus crisis Numbers from a paper in the academic journal “Health Security” released in late 2018 indicate that the government spent between $10 billion and $12 billion each year from 2010 to 2018 across several agencies on programs that contribute to “biosecurity,” the management of “pandemic influenza and emerging infectious diseases,” and “multiple-hazard and general preparedness” programs that assist in readiness for and response to different types of health threats, including diseases like the coronavirus.
Wrap your mind around that: after spending $100 billion on pandemic readiness over the past decade, scientists still don’t know if face masks work.
That’s not the only thing they don’t know. The COVID crisis has been remarkable for the number of hairpin turns taken by scientific opinion. Early on, public health experts warned of infection through contact with surfaces. Now that advice is abruptly reversed: “Virus ‘does not spread easily’ from contaminated surfaces or animals, revised CDC website states” (Washington Post).
Goodness gracious. What scientists don’t know is astonishing. Even I’m amazed.
There’s a real chance that this virus arose due to the incompetence of scientists who handled it in the Wuhan lab. It is clear that scientists in China and at the World Health Organization misrepresented the facts about the pandemic and covered up the seriousness of the outbreak for months. Pandemic models have proved worse than worthless, and scientists in the Centers for Disease Control were and are manifestly unprepared and at wit’s end in dealing with the virus once it reached our shores. Even the most basic questions — for instance, how much social distancing and economic ruin are called for to save how many lives, etc. — remain unanswered, even after spending $100 billion in the past decade on pandemic research.
A Needed Accounting
Rather than handing over the censors’s power to consensus enforcers, there needs to be an accounting for the manifest incompetence of the scientific profession. That is across a broad spectrum of issues. The COVID-19 fiasco is one illustration, the one at the forefront of most people’s minds. But it mustn’t end there.
The same scientific profession that doesn’t know if face masks work, or whether the virus is communicated by surfaces, doesn’t know if materialism explains the mind or if undirected natural selection explains life, either.
Scientists don’t really know any more about the origin of life or about the evolution of biological complexity or about how the brain gives rise to the mind than they know about the effectiveness of face masks. The only difference is that scientists can’t fake knowledge about face masks any longer.
Photo source: National Institutes of Health, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-29--Applied Intelligent Design: Engineers Know Engineering When They See It

Engineers of all types ( e.g.
, mechanical , electrical , hydraulic , civil , software ) are focused on how to get things to work .
They need to pull together all that is known about materials and properties , and organize them to perform a function .
They need to meet design requirements : a company or government says “ Here is what we need to do ; how can we get it done within the limits of cost and time available ?
” Knowledge of engineering principles grows as the needs of a society grow , often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of know-how .
Engineers are trained to see design and judge good design .
Human engineers must also navigate intellectual property laws , because many engineers want to patent their designs and protect them from theft .
There ’ s a lot of angst going on in America on this very issue .
China and other countries are accused of stealing our intellectual property , which can have not only economic but national security consequences .
But who owns the patent on a leaf , or a coral ?
Engineers don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care .
Perhaps that ’ s part of what makes biomimetics so popular .
They see a good design , and they can copy it without violating any laws .
Take materials science .
Engineers are always looking for better materials with which to make prosthetic devices , adhesives , tools that are flexible yet strong , and many other things .
They see successful materials in nature , and can measure their performance characteristics , which is great : engineering is big on measurement .
Who is going to sue them if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nobody .
It ’ s a winning strategy , and it drives science forward .
It drives biologists and engineers to understand the organism , and it gives engineers measurable design principles to strive for .
Let ’ s take a look at specific organisms that produce very enviable materials , and learn how knowledge about the organisms is leading to superior designs for human productivity .
America can ’ t sue China for using fish technology .
New Scientist says that the materials in fish scales have desirable properties : Think of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waste in seafood .
Consumers don ’ t like to eat the skin , but that wasted material adds up to two million tons globally each year — material that is flexible , low-cost , and eco-friendly .
That gave engineers at Nanjing Tech University an idea : The researchers see green in more ways than one .
The material is ideal for low-cost , temporary electronic displays that could be marketed ( score one for green ) and are biodegradable after just 24 days in soil ( score two for green ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could take centuries to break down .
The American Chemical Society ( ACS ) points out that this kind of flexible material could be applied in single-use applications .
“ Flexible temporary electronic displays may one day make it possible to sport a glowing tattoo or check a reading , like that of a stopwatch , directly on the skin.
” The Nanjing University engineers deserve credit , but ultimately , it is the fish that should arouse our admiration .
They come designed to produce this ideal material in ways we can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ leaves , engineers at Northwestern University have come up with a way to reduce frost on any surface by 60 percent or more without electrical power .
Reducing frost formation is important for airplanes , windows and machinery .
How do leaves do it ?
Some materials need to absorb as much light as possible .
It would be great to do this without paint .
Duke University announced a discovery by its engineers : “ To Make Ultra-Black Materials That Won ’ t Weigh Things Down , Consider the Butterfly.
” Biologists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world that have black in their wings , and found that it wasn ’ t added melanin ( a protein pigment ) that made certain species ultra-black , but the geometry of the wing scales .
The blackness is an illusion created by the micro-structure of the scale material .
“ Light goes into their scales , but very little of it bounces back out.
” This 3-D geometry is so effective , you can coat it with gold and it still looks black .
“ You almost can ’ t make them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
How could this be used ?
Some on the team want to figure out why this ability “ evolved ” numerous times in butterflies .
It ’ s unlikely that soldiers or stargazers will care about that .
Another desirable property for materials is strength without weight .
Bone and coral reefs are showing the way to researchers at Johns Hopkins University .
Engineers have had difficulty fulfilling such design principles using synthetic materials .
Natural materials like bone , coral and wood succeed because they have internal signaling systems that can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s a tall order to imitate .
So far , the Hopkins team working on this have made only a cheap imitation , using electrical charges that are activated by pressure as “ signals ” to draw more ions to the spot .
Consumers have grown to love the robotic floor vacuums that clean the house on their own .
Wouldn ’ t it be great if they could also clean the walls ?
Georgia Institute of Technology invites us to consider wall-crawling vacuums using gecko-foot material .
The adhesive properties @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atomic van der Waals attraction , have been understood for years now .
The problem has been mass producing that kind of adhesion on synthetic materials .
Georgia Tech researchers now feel that “ surfaces that grip like gecko feet could be easily mass-produced.
” An embedded video shows devices they engineered that can pick up anything when a knob is turned : fruit , golf balls , and even an egg .
Turn the knob back , and the adhesion stops .
A variety of applications come to mind : No more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a picture where you want it , then easily removing it and putting it somewhere else .
It ’ s all conceivable if materials scientists can create the microscopic protrusions that make geckos able to climb glass , trees and almost anything .
These designs are free for the observant engineer , because nature had it first .
Biomimetics would be no big deal if natural designs were simple , but biomimicry is thriving because engineers know when they have found something incredibly well designed .
Animal and plant designs are often so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , that engineers struggle to imitate them .
That ’ s good , because it pushes the envelope .
Understanding the design principles behind natural materials requires close observation with electron microscopes and experimental manipulation , then a lot of thought about how to imitate them with synthetic materials .
The future looks bright for biomimetic engineering — the science of applied intelligent design .

Engineers of all types (e.g., mechanical, electrical, hydraulic, civil, software) are focused on how to get things to work. They need to pull together all that is known about materials and properties, and organize them to perform a function. They need to meet design requirements: a company or government says “Here is what we need to do; how can we get it done within the limits of cost and time available?” Knowledge of engineering principles grows as the needs of a society grow, often becoming more sophisticated, pushing the boundaries of know-how. Engineers are trained to see design and judge good design.
Human engineers must also navigate intellectual property laws, because many engineers want to patent their designs and protect them from theft. There’s a lot of angst going on in America on this very issue. China and other countries are accused of stealing our intellectual property, which can have not only economic but national security consequences. But who owns the patent on a leaf, or a coral? Engineers don’t know, and they don’t care. Perhaps that’s part of what makes biomimetics so popular. They see a good design, and they can copy it without violating any laws.
Take materials science. Engineers are always looking for better materials with which to make prosthetic devices, adhesives, tools that are flexible yet strong, and many other things. They see successful materials in nature, and can measure their performance characteristics, which is great: engineering is big on measurement. Who is going to sue them if they try to mimic the material? Nobody. It’s a winning strategy, and it drives science forward. It drives biologists and engineers to understand the organism, and it gives engineers measurable design principles to strive for.
Let’s take a look at specific organisms that produce very enviable materials, and learn how knowledge about the organisms is leading to superior designs for human productivity.
Fish Scale Electronics
America can’t sue China for using fish technology. New Scientist says that the materials in fish scales have desirable properties:
Fish scales could provide an eco-friendly alternative to plastic for use in flexible displays for electronic devices. Flexibility is important for wearable electronics to enable the creation of displays that bend, fold or twist easily, says Hai-Dong Yu at Nanjing Tech University in China. Plastic has been the go-to material for achieving this kind of flexibility but because of its harmful impact on the environment, sustainable, low-cost alternatives are highly sought after. [Emphasis added.]
Think of all the fish parts that go to waste in seafood. Consumers don’t like to eat the skin, but that wasted material adds up to two million tons globally each year — material that is flexible, low-cost, and eco-friendly. That gave engineers at Nanjing Tech University an idea:
The team extracted gelatin from fish scales and used this to create an extremely thin film. Tiny silver nanowires were then incorporated into it, to act as electrodes, along with a light-emitting material made of zinc sulphide and copper, to provide light for the electronic display.
The researchers see green in more ways than one. The material is ideal for low-cost, temporary electronic displays that could be marketed (score one for green) and are biodegradable after just 24 days in soil (score two for green). Plastic displays, by contrast, could take centuries to break down.
The American Chemical Society (ACS) points out that this kind of flexible material could be applied in single-use applications. “Flexible temporary electronic displays may one day make it possible to sport a glowing tattoo or check a reading, like that of a stopwatch, directly on the skin.” The Nanjing University engineers deserve credit, but ultimately, it is the fish that should arouse our admiration. They come designed to produce this ideal material in ways we cannot yet fully understand.
Leaf Technology
Inspired by leaves, engineers at Northwestern University have come up with a way to reduce frost on any surface by 60 percent or more without electrical power. Reducing frost formation is important for airplanes, windows and machinery. How do leaves do it?
“This idea came from looking at leaves,” said Northwestern’s Kyoo-Chul (Ken) Park, who led the study. “There is more frost formation on the convex regions of a leaf. On the concave regions (the veins), we see much less frost. We found that it’s the geometry — not the material — that controls this.”
Butterfly Black
Some materials need to absorb as much light as possible. It would be great to do this without paint. Duke University announced a discovery by its engineers: “To Make Ultra-Black Materials That Won’t Weigh Things Down, Consider the Butterfly.”
Biologists at Duke studied butterflies from around the world that have black in their wings, and found that it wasn’t added melanin (a protein pigment) that made certain species ultra-black, but the geometry of the wing scales. The blackness is an illusion created by the micro-structure of the scale material. “Light goes into their scales, but very little of it bounces back out.”
Butterfly wings may look smooth to the naked eye. Up close it’s a different story. Magnified thousands of times, butterfly wings are covered in scales with a mesh-like surface of ridges and holes that channel light into the scale’s spongy interior. There, pillar-like beams of tissue scatter light until it is absorbed.
This 3-D geometry is so effective, you can coat it with gold and it still looks black. “You almost can’t make them shiny,” a team member remarked. How could this be used?
Ultimately, the findings could help engineers design thinner ultra-black coatings that reduce stray light without weighing things down, for applications ranging from military camouflage — for stealth aircraft that can’t be seen at night or detected by radar — to lining space telescopes aimed at faint, distant stars.
Some on the team want to figure out why this ability “evolved” numerous times in butterflies. It’s unlikely that soldiers or stargazers will care about that.
Bone and Coral Tech
Another desirable property for materials is strength without weight. Bone and coral reefs are showing the way to researchers at Johns Hopkins University.
Inspired by how human bone and colorful coral reefs adjust mineral deposits in response to their surrounding environments, Johns Hopkins researchers have created a self-adapting material that can change its stiffness in response to the applied force. This advancement can someday open the doors for materials that can self-reinforce to prepare for increased force or stop further damage.
Engineers have had difficulty fulfilling such design principles using synthetic materials. Natural materials like bone, coral and wood succeed because they have internal signaling systems that can resupply damaged parts with more material. That’s a tall order to imitate. So far, the Hopkins team working on this have made only a cheap imitation, using electrical charges that are activated by pressure as “signals” to draw more ions to the spot.
Gecko Tech
Consumers have grown to love the robotic floor vacuums that clean the house on their own. Wouldn’t it be great if they could also clean the walls? Georgia Institute of Technology invites us to consider wall-crawling vacuums using gecko-foot material.
The adhesive properties of gecko toe pads, based on atomic van der Waals attraction, have been understood for years now. The problem has been mass producing that kind of adhesion on synthetic materials. Georgia Tech researchers now feel that “surfaces that grip like gecko feet could be easily mass-produced.” An embedded video shows devices they engineered that can pick up anything when a knob is turned: fruit, golf balls, and even an egg. Turn the knob back, and the adhesion stops. A variety of applications come to mind:
Polymers with “gecko adhesion” surfaces could be used to make extremely versatile grippers to pick up very different objects even on the same assembly line. They could make picture hanging easy by adhering to both the picture and the wall at the same time. Vacuum cleaner robots with gecko adhesion could someday scoot up tall buildings to clean facades. “With the exception of things like Teflon, it will adhere to anything. This is a clear advantage in manufacturing because we don’t have to prepare the gripper for specific surfaces we want to lift. Gecko-inspired adhesives can lift flat objects like boxes then turn around and lift curved objects like eggs and vegetables,” said Michael Varenberg, the study’s principal investigator and an assistant professor in Georgia Tech’s George W. Woodruff School of Mechanical Engineering.
No more nails in the wall; imagine putting a picture where you want it, then easily removing it and putting it somewhere else. It’s all conceivable if materials scientists can create the microscopic protrusions that make geckos able to climb glass, trees and almost anything.
It’s All Free
These designs are free for the observant engineer, because nature had it first. Biomimetics would be no big deal if natural designs were simple, but biomimicry is thriving because engineers know when they have found something incredibly well designed. Animal and plant designs are often so good, and so detailed, in fact, that engineers struggle to imitate them. That’s good, because it pushes the envelope. Understanding the design principles behind natural materials requires close observation with electron microscopes and experimental manipulation, then a lot of thought about how to imitate them with synthetic materials. The future looks bright for biomimetic engineering — the science of applied intelligent design.
Photo: A gecko, by Elisabeth via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-30--Why “Humanize”? A New Effort to Defend the Unique Dignity of Human Beings

Hello .
My name is Wesley J. Smith and I am honored to be chairman of Discovery Institute ’ s Center on Human Exceptionalism .
I am writing to you here to introduce the CHE ’ s new blog , which we call Humanize .
Humanize will complement and supplement the important work of the Center for Science & Culture and its invaluable Evolution News site .
Why did we choose “ Humanize ” as the name for the site ?
The once self-evident truth of human exceptionalism is under intensifying attack , as readers of Evolution News know well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trends in thinking about evolution has been to blur the distinction between humans and animals .
History warns us not to regard this lightly .
Recent documentaries by Discovery Institute Vice President John West , Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich , illuminate the evils that came from this tendency in the past century .
Today , whether it is to denigrate the intrinsic equal dignity of all human beings or the proposed or actual breaching of our human duty to care for the weakest and most vulnerable of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to robustly advocate for the unique dignity and equal moral worth of all human beings .
Our approach will be principled and intellectually rigorous , standing steadfastly for human equality , without being unduly esoteric .
For example , we have joined the world ’ s rising chorus against the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China , the mass incarceration by that country ’ s government of Uyghur Muslims , and the establishment of a tyrannical “ social credit ” system that deploys powerful technologies such as facial recognition and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heterodox thinkers with societal excommunication .
Our work is as current as today ’ s headlines .
In the current COVID-19 crisis , we have supported medical efforts to limit the spread of the virus , but have also insisted that the pandemic not become a justification to dehumanize and abandon devalued people such as our frail elderly in the name of protecting the public health .
In this regard , we are not naïve and understand that there are times of emergency when unthinkably difficult choices may have to be made .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis — when it appeared that there might be insufficient medical resources to treat all who needed care — we explained the crucial moral distinction between the awful , but sometimes necessary medical act of triage , in which all patients are viewed as equals , while forcefully rejecting utilitarian approaches to rationing care based on ideologies such as the inherently discriminatory and invidious “ quality of life ethic ” promoted ubiquitously in bioethics literature .
When it comes to the environment , we enthusiastically endorse the human duty to treat our world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and remediation of polluted areas , while rejecting misanthropic approaches that would unduly interfere with human thriving and liberty .
For example , a new “ nature rights ” movement would declare geological features such as rivers and glaciers to be akin to “ persons ” with the “ right ” to “ exist , persist , maintain and regenerate its vital cycles , structure , functions and processes in evolution.
” These laws have the potential to thwart most enterprises because they permit anyone to sue to defend the supposedly violated rights @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the potential to bring economic development to a screeching halt .
Alarmingly , “ nature rights ” has been endorsed by science journals and the movement has succeeded in having four rivers and two glaciers declared to be rights-bearing entities .
Similarly , Humanize will support the establishment of proper animal welfare standards , while rejecting “ animal rights.
” The former concept recognizes the crucial moral distinction between humans and animals , recognizes the propriety of making use of animals for our benefit , while also insisting that animals be treated humanely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to experience pain and feel emotions .
In contrast , “ animal rights ” is an ideology that denies any moral distinction between humans and animals , and that seeks ultimately to prevent all human ownership of animals or their use for any reason .
The harm this would cause , for example , to medical research is beyond quantifying .
Humanize will also focus readers ’ attention on bioethical issues and controversies that roil our public discourse .
We see assisted suicide/euthanasia as a profound abandonment of those who are most in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We will fight against the ongoing drive to allow infanticide of babies born with disabilities or not wanted by parents , and will resist deconstructing the ethics of organ donation , for example , the proposal to permit vital organs to be harvested as a means of voluntary euthanasia .
And we will resist the “ transhumanist ” movement ’ s attempt to deploy technology to manufacture a “ post-human species.
” In addition to my contributions here , our Research Fellow Tom Shakely will also be a regular writer , bringing with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contemporary cultural trends to enliven the discussion .
The Center on Human Exceptionalism reflects Discovery Institute ’ s larger vision of human uniqueness , of “ purpose , creativity , and innovation , ” as Discovery President Steven Buri has summarized the Institute ’ s mission .
Humanize will thus share the work of Fellows representing other Discovery Institute programs .
For example , we will feature John West ’ s powerful critiques of the threat of a new eugenics , discussed in his book Darwin Day In America : How Our Politics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Name of Science , as well as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor ’ s cogent takes on technology , the neurological sciences , and theories of the mind .
The latter are points of emphasis for Discovery ’ s Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence .
Evolution News editor David Klinghoffer , of the Center for Science & Culture , recently contributed a thoughtful reflection on the potential dehumanizing impact of ubiquitous wearing of masks during the pandemic .
All of Discovery ’ s programs , an intellectual community serving the public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ readers , are advanced by this exchange of ideas .
We hope that you will subscribe — it ’ s free — and join us in the understanding that the morality of the 21st century will depend on our responding energetically and affirmatively to this simple but profound question : “ Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human ?
” Image : La Bella Principessa , perhaps by Leonardo da Vinci , via Wikimedia Commons .

Hello. My name is Wesley J. Smith and I am honored to be chairman of Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism. I am writing to you here to introduce the CHE’s new blog, which we call Humanize. Humanize will complement and supplement the important work of the Center for Science & Culture and its invaluable Evolution News site.
Why did we choose “Humanize” as the name for the site? The once self-evident truth of human exceptionalism is under intensifying attack, as readers of Evolution News know well. Indeed, one of the tragic trends in thinking about evolution has been to blur the distinction between humans and animals. History warns us not to regard this lightly. Recent documentaries by Discovery Institute Vice President John West, Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich, illuminate the evils that came from this tendency in the past century.
Today, whether it is to denigrate the intrinsic equal dignity of all human beings or the proposed or actual breaching of our human duty to care for the weakest and most vulnerable of our fellow humans, the time is ripe to robustly advocate for the unique dignity and equal moral worth of all human beings.
Our approach will be principled and intellectually rigorous, standing steadfastly for human equality, without being unduly esoteric. For example, we have joined the world’s rising chorus against the forced organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners in China, the mass incarceration by that country’s government of Uyghur Muslims, and the establishment of a tyrannical “social credit” system that deploys powerful technologies such as facial recognition and AI to effectively persecute religious believers and heterodox thinkers with societal excommunication.
Public Health and Public Good
Our work is as current as today’s headlines. In the current COVID-19 crisis, we have supported medical efforts to limit the spread of the virus, but have also insisted that the pandemic not become a justification to dehumanize and abandon devalued people such as our frail elderly in the name of protecting the public health. In this regard, we are not naïve and understand that there are times of emergency when unthinkably difficult choices may have to be made. Thus, at the height of the crisis — when it appeared that there might be insufficient medical resources to treat all who needed care — we explained the crucial moral distinction between the awful, but sometimes necessary medical act of triage, in which all patients are viewed as equals, while forcefully rejecting utilitarian approaches to rationing care based on ideologies such as the inherently discriminatory and invidious “quality of life ethic” promoted ubiquitously in bioethics literature.
When it comes to the environment, we enthusiastically endorse the human duty to treat our world responsibly and with proper approaches to conservation and remediation of polluted areas, while rejecting misanthropic approaches that would unduly interfere with human thriving and liberty. For example, a new “nature rights” movement would declare geological features such as rivers and glaciers to be akin to “persons” with the “right” to “exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and processes in evolution.” These laws have the potential to thwart most enterprises because they permit anyone to sue to defend the supposedly violated rights of nature. Such an approach has the potential to bring economic development to a screeching halt. Alarmingly, “nature rights” has been endorsed by science journals and the movement has succeeded in having four rivers and two glaciers declared to be rights-bearing entities.
Animal Rights Versus Animal Welfare
Similarly, Humanize will support the establishment of proper animal welfare standards, while rejecting “animal rights.” The former concept recognizes the crucial moral distinction between humans and animals, recognizes the propriety of making use of animals for our benefit, while also insisting that animals be treated humanely and with due respect for their ability to experience pain and feel emotions. In contrast, “animal rights” is an ideology that denies any moral distinction between humans and animals, and that seeks ultimately to prevent all human ownership of animals or their use for any reason. The harm this would cause, for example, to medical research is beyond quantifying.
Humanize will also focus readers’ attention on bioethical issues and controversies that roil our public discourse. We see assisted suicide/euthanasia as a profound abandonment of those who are most in need of our support and care. We will fight against the ongoing drive to allow infanticide of babies born with disabilities or not wanted by parents, and will resist deconstructing the ethics of organ donation, for example, the proposal to permit vital organs to be harvested as a means of voluntary euthanasia. And we will resist the “transhumanist” movement’s attempt to deploy technology to manufacture a “post-human species.”
A Cross-Program Effort
In addition to my contributions here, our Research Fellow Tom Shakely will also be a regular writer, bringing with him a youthful energy and understanding of contemporary cultural trends to enliven the discussion.
The Center on Human Exceptionalism reflects Discovery Institute’s larger vision of human uniqueness, of “purpose, creativity, and innovation,” as Discovery President Steven Buri has summarized the Institute’s mission. Humanize will thus share the work of Fellows representing other Discovery Institute programs. For example, we will feature John West’s powerful critiques of the threat of a new eugenics, discussed in his book Darwin Day In America: How Our Politics and Culture Have Been Dehumanized in the Name of Science, as well as neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s cogent takes on technology, the neurological sciences, and theories of the mind. The latter are points of emphasis for Discovery’s Walter Bradley Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence. Evolution News editor David Klinghoffer, of the Center for Science & Culture, recently contributed a thoughtful reflection on the potential dehumanizing impact of ubiquitous wearing of masks during the pandemic. All of Discovery’s programs, an intellectual community serving the public and made possible by our supporters and our readers, are advanced by this exchange of ideas.
We hope that you will subscribe — it’s free — and join us in the understanding that the morality of the 21st century will depend on our responding energetically and affirmatively to this simple but profound question: “Does every human life have equal moral value simply and merely because it is human?”
Image: La Bella Principessa, perhaps by Leonardo da Vinci, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-01--Lee Spetner on Convergent and Non-Random Evolution

On a classic episode of ID the Future , host Ira Berkowitz interviews MIT PhD Lee Spetner in Jerusalem .
@ @ @ @ @ convergent evolution and explains his non-random evolutionary hypothesis .
Download the podcast or listen to @ @ @

Archives
Archives Select Month August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 April 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 November 2022 October 2022 September 2022 August 2022 July 2022 June 2022 May 2022 April 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 December 2021 November 2021 October 2021 September 2021 August 2021 July 2021 June 2021 May 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 January 1970


Virology Keeps Evolving

The science behind the COVID-19 lockdown is evolving again .
A headline at PJ Media over the weekend attests : @ @ @ @ @ , scene of “ the most shocking display of nihilism and anarchy in an American @ @ @ @ @ in New York during the Civil War .
But by gum , if you ’ @ @ @ @ @ Mayor Frey ’ s ] city down , you damn well better be wearing a @ @ @ @ @ that COVID-19 spreads less readily when rioting than when worshiping !
Even more remarkable , @ @ @ @ @ leaders are responding , it seems that the infectiousness of coronavirus varies with the ideological @ @ @ @ @ Virology , in other words , is situational .
Never forget the government lockdown is @ @ @ @ @ Government actions may be informed to a greater or lesser degree by science .
Lesser @ @ @ @ @ trend .
Photo credit : Lorie Shaull , Minneapolis , Minnesota on May 28 , @ @ @ @ @ .

The science behind the COVID-19 lockdown is evolving again. A headline at PJ Media over the weekend attests:
That’s from Minneapolis, scene of “the most shocking display of nihilism and anarchy in an American city since the draft riots in New York during the Civil War. But by gum, if you’re going to burn [Mayor Frey’s] city down, you damn well better be wearing a mask.”
It turns out that COVID-19 spreads less readily when rioting than when worshiping! Even more remarkable, to judge from how elected leaders are responding, it seems that the infectiousness of coronavirus varies with the ideological content of the protest. Virology, in other words, is situational.
Never forget the government lockdown is fundamentally a political act. Government actions may be informed to a greater or lesser degree by science. Lesser seems to be the current trend.
Photo credit: Lorie Shaull, Minneapolis, Minnesota on May 28, 2020, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-02--Reeves: Natural Selection, Explanatory Deficits, and Bunnies (Dark and Light)

On a new episode of ID the Future we hear the first part of Discovery Institute education outreach associate Daniel @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 Dallas Science and Faith Conference .
Download the podcast or listen to it @ @ @ @ @ meaning of natural selection , and traces its history , starting from Darwin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ days when cells were viewed as just blobs of protoplasm .
He carries the story @ @ @ @ @ modern synthesis and into the extended evolutionary synthesis , culminating in a 2016 meeting of @ @ @ @ @ theory ’ s continuing — and still unresolved — explanatory deficits .

On a new episode of ID the Future we hear the first part of Discovery Institute education outreach associate Daniel Reeves’s talk at the 2020 Dallas Science and Faith Conference. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Reeves outlines the meaning of natural selection, and traces its history, starting from Darwin’s early understanding, in the days when cells were viewed as just blobs of protoplasm. He carries the story from there through the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis and into the extended evolutionary synthesis, culminating in a 2016 meeting of the Royal Society on the theory’s continuing — and still unresolved — explanatory deficits.
Photo: Daniel Reeves, by Nathan Jacobson.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-01--Human Zoos — How “Science” Fueled the Racial Fire

Scorching images from across the country fill our screens , a reminder that the racial past remains an unhealed burn in America ’ s present .
The mood in our own area is shocked and anxious , as we watched violence and looting spread from Seattle to outlying cities like Bellevue and Tukwila .
It is getting very close to home .
Some have called racism America ’ s historical “ original sin.
” Where did many white people of the past get the wicked idea that their lives matter more than black lives ?
The question is complex but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to fuel our present racial fire .
Comprehending the national burden of hatred is a task not only for scholars but for all Americans .
So too with understanding the origins of the opportunistic criminality that has piggybacked on heartfelt protests against racism and police brutality .
As others have pointed out , forcing young males to sit idle for months in an open-ended lockdown was to invite an eventual explosion .
But the history , of course , goes back much further .
The pandemic has been a seminar on how science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the cross-country chaos of the past few nights , a convulsion that has a stout tendril tracing back to scientific thinking .
It ’ s a good time to review that legacy by watching the documentary Human Zoos : America ’ s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism , written and directed by Discovery Institute Vice President John West .
As Charles Darwin conceived it , evolution posits a racial hierarchy .
That ’ s not surprising , since the theory sees all of life as a vast smudge , graduating from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In any hierarchy , someone has to be at the bottom .
As Darwin stated explicitly in The Descent of Man , that place was occupied by Africans .
For generations , American public school children learned from their biology textbooks the pseudoscience that Caucasians are more “ advanced ” on the evolutionary ladder than Africans .
Yet this was the scientific consensus of its day .
“ Listen to the scientists , ” I imagine that 19th- and 20th-century racists might have instructed us .
In the multiple award-winning Human Zoos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instructive chapter in that painful history .
As Wesley Smith noted here the other day , “ one of the tragic trends in thinking about evolution has been to blur the distinction between humans and animals .
History warns us not to regard this lightly.
” Indeed , dehumanizing Africans and others is not only part of America ’ s but of evolutionary biology ’ s terrible burden .
Near the turn of the last century , in New York City , St. Louis , Seattle , and elsewhere , Africans and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ zoos , as animals .
Human Zoos recounts , among other heart-breaking stories , the life of African pygmy Ota Benga ( 1883-1916 ) .
He was bought in a slave auction and displayed in 1906 alongside an orangutan in the Monkey House at the Bronx Zoo .
The organizers intended this as a lesson for the public illustrating the scientific truths of Darwinian theory .
African-American clergy at the time spoke out against the insult to their dignity , only to be dismissed by the New York Times , which explained that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the human scale.
” That may seem long ago .
But as Human Zoos also documents , present-day racists of the Alt-Right continue to drawn on Darwinian racial theory .
Over this past weekend , at the South Bronx intersection called The Hub , peaceful protesters called for racial justice , remembering George Floyd and his death at the end of Minneapolis police .
I wonder how many who came out to demand life — “ We deserve to live !
” — also remembered the horrific injustice that occurred , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miles away .
Ota Benga ’ s own protest — “ I am a man !
I am a man !
” — summarizes the very best message of the Black Lives Matter movement .
Human Zoos reminds us that this history must not be forgotten .
What is going in our country at this moment can ’ t be grasped without it .
Please consider sharing the film , already seen by nearly a million viewers on YouTube , with your friends and family .
Photo : A peaceful protest in Minneapolis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

Scorching images from across the country fill our screens, a reminder that the racial past remains an unhealed burn in America’s present. The mood in our own area is shocked and anxious, as we watched violence and looting spread from Seattle to outlying cities like Bellevue and Tukwila. It is getting very close to home.
Some have called racism America’s historical “original sin.” Where did many white people of the past get the wicked idea that their lives matter more than black lives? The question is complex but, without doubt, Darwinian theory helped to fuel our present racial fire.
Comprehending the national burden of hatred is a task not only for scholars but for all Americans. So too with understanding the origins of the opportunistic criminality that has piggybacked on heartfelt protests against racism and police brutality. As others have pointed out, forcing young males to sit idle for months in an open-ended lockdown was to invite an eventual explosion. But the history, of course, goes back much further.
A Forgotten Legacy? No Longer
The pandemic has been a seminar on how science intersects with culture. Now add to that the cross-country chaos of the past few nights, a convulsion that has a stout tendril tracing back to scientific thinking. It’s a good time to review that legacy by watching the documentary Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism, written and directed by Discovery Institute Vice President John West.
As Charles Darwin conceived it, evolution posits a racial hierarchy. That’s not surprising, since the theory sees all of life as a vast smudge, graduating from the simplest to the most complex animal life. In any hierarchy, someone has to be at the bottom. As Darwin stated explicitly in The Descent of Man, that place was occupied by Africans. For generations, American public school children learned from their biology textbooks the pseudoscience that Caucasians are more “advanced” on the evolutionary ladder than Africans. Yet this was the scientific consensus of its day. “Listen to the scientists,” I imagine that 19th- and 20th-century racists might have instructed us. In the multiple award-winning Human Zoos, Dr. West unearths a forgotten but instructive chapter in that painful history.
“Very Low in the Human Scale”
As Wesley Smith noted here the other day, “one of the tragic trends in thinking about evolution has been to blur the distinction between humans and animals. History warns us not to regard this lightly.” Indeed, dehumanizing Africans and others is not only part of America’s but of evolutionary biology’s terrible burden. Near the turn of the last century, in New York City, St. Louis, Seattle, and elsewhere, Africans and other native people were put on exhibit in zoos, as animals. Human Zoos recounts, among other heart-breaking stories, the life of African pygmy Ota Benga (1883-1916). He was bought in a slave auction and displayed in 1906 alongside an orangutan in the Monkey House at the Bronx Zoo. The organizers intended this as a lesson for the public illustrating the scientific truths of Darwinian theory. African-American clergy at the time spoke out against the insult to their dignity, only to be dismissed by the New York Times, which explained that “the pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”
That may seem long ago. But as Human Zoos also documents, present-day racists of the Alt-Right continue to drawn on Darwinian racial theory.
Over this past weekend, at the South Bronx intersection called The Hub, peaceful protesters called for racial justice, remembering George Floyd and his death at the end of Minneapolis police. I wonder how many who came out to demand life — “We deserve to live!” — also remembered the horrific injustice that occurred, in the name science, just a few miles away. Ota Benga’s own protest — “I am a man! I am a man!” — summarizes the very best message of the Black Lives Matter movement.
Human Zoos reminds us that this history must not be forgotten. What is going in our country at this moment can’t be grasped without it. Please consider sharing the film, already seen by nearly a million viewers on YouTube, with your friends and family.
Photo: A peaceful protest in Minneapolis, by Fibonacci Blue / CC BY.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-01--Much Nothing about Ado: The Uselessness of Dehumanized Darwinism

Humans are mere animals in Darwinian thinking .
The same evolutionary mechanisms and selective pressures that make fruit flies cooperate , or fish to swarm , or rams to bash their heads together , cause Homo sapiens to form political parties , revolt against kings , or cheer at baseball games .
Human exceptionalism is omitted from their equations .
According to Darwinians , every human behavior , as well as every fish behavior or fruit fly behavior or chimpanzee behavior , is a consequence of natural selection .
If this premise were scientific , evolutionary anthropologists should be able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Suppose a scientist tells you about his new model .
It goes like this : If we assume X , then Y might result under particular circumstances , as long as we hold A constant , as Dr. Wizard surmised in his widely accepted model of the evolution of human and non-human animal behavior H. But according to our revised model , the situation is more complex .
It turns out that B is a function of C , which affects A in unpredictable ways , resulting in chaotic behavior , depending @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
When selection is not considered , stable cyclic behavior is a possible outcome , at least in some studies , but those models do not correlate with field observations .
Our revised model finds that D ( E ) has been overlooked , which is likely influenced by F ( P ) , and since A is not always constant , as has been assumed , one might get a stable equilibrium , or a cycle , or chaos , depending on the weather .
It ’ s complicated .
Are you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ understanding of human nature ?
Something very similar to it was just published in PNAS by four scientists from Stanford and Tel Aviv Universities pretending to explain “ Cultural evolution of conformity and anticonformity.
” Conformity might be illustrated by a fruit fly imitating its neighbor ’ s behavior , or a teen following what the other teens are doing .
Anticonformity might be a bird leaving the flock , or a man defying his state ’ s coronavirus lockdown guidelines .
To Kaleda Krebs Denton , Yoav Ram , Uri Liberman , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the population make no difference , because “ We ’ re all in this [ Darwinian thing ] together.
” This paper illustrates two things : ( 1 ) Darwinian theory is utterly useless when applied to human behavior , and ( 2 ) no amount of mathematical hand-waving can fix bad premises .
Admittedly , there may be a little predictability to human behavior in regard to conformity .
When a “ wave ” starts in a football stadium , most people ( but not all ) will cheerfully join in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worries about peer pressure their offspring will face at college .
Military recruits are drilled to obey orders , fearing the bad consequences of disobedience .
But people are not fish !
Papers like this one relegate humans to pawns of evolutionary forces .
It ’ s a denial of free will .
And it ’ s absurd ; if a person conforms , natural selection did it .
If the person does not conform , natural selection did that , too .
Natural selection is Darwin ’ s catch-all explanation for everything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called it a “ universal acid , ” but didn ’ t catch the fact that it dissolves its container , too — evolutionary theory itself !
In the end , it explains absolutely nothing .
Naïve readers of this PNAS paper might be intimidated by the math .
You can ignore the following example paragraph , because it is so vague , it has nothing to do with the real world .
Human behavior is a subject that matters to all of us , but this Darwinian approach to behavior signifies much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fuss , or busy activity about something that matters ) .
To borrow another line from Shakespeare , it is full of sound and fury , signifying nothing .
The real message is in the theory rescue words between the symbols : It might be expected that if p∗=12 is the unique polymorphic equilibrium , then either p∗=0 and p∗=1 are both stable and p∗=12 is not stable , or both p∗=0 and p∗=1 are not stable and p∗=12 is stable , since it is a protected polymorphism .
In fact , when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there is global convergence to one of them ; p∗=12 is not stable , such that [ 0,12 ) is the domain of attraction of p∗=0 and ( 12,1 ] that of p∗=1 .
However , when both p∗=0 and p∗=1 are not stable , then even when p∗=12 is the unique polymorphic equilibrium , it is possible that p∗=12 is not stable .
For example , following Eq .
B8 in SI Appendix , section B , let ϕn=1+ ( 12 ) n−2∑n−1j=kD ( j ) n ( nj ) ( 2j−n @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the lower bound of ϕn occurs when D ( j ) =−j for all k≤j≤n−1 , in which case all of the D ( j ) s are negative and p∗=12 is unique by Result 3 .
SI Appendix , Table S1 presents the lower bounds on ϕn for n=3,4 , …,20 .
The bounds on D , namely , −j < D ( j ) < n−j , do not provide a predictable relationship between j and D. Changing n can change the bounds on ϕ ( n ) , and if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower bound , then the dynamics are affected by n. On and on this paper goes , manipulating symbols this way and that , qualifying every situation with exceptions , ending with a final dramatic letdown : Does their model make any predictions ?
No .
Is it falsifiable ?
No .
Did it advance human understanding in any measurable way ?
Certainly not .
In fact , it undermined earlier models that tried to do the same thing by noting more exceptions and omissions .
Whatever it is trying to model is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ premises , namely , that humans are mere animals .
It is hard to find any redeeming value in this exercise , and yet the NAS printed it gleefully , because it is Darwinian .
There ’ s a stronger reason for dismissing this paper .
As Nancy Pearcey has shown on ID the Future , Darwinians almost always fail to apply their own models to themselves .
If these four authors really believed their own assumptions , the act of writing the paper was a consequence of natural selection , too .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
They were not searching for unbiased truth .
They merely wanted to boost their own fitness , and the best way to do it was to take the “ conformist ” position on Darwinism .
One could go further and say their minds were not even involved ; the words on the page came about by “ selection pressure.
” What You Are Reading Is Not Real Another article in PNAS is downright scary .
In an article on Science and Culture ( sound familiar ? )
, David Adam advocates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , “ Science and Culture : ‘ Design fiction ’ skirts reality to provoke discussion and debate.
” By “ design fiction , ” he means that researchers are learning how to create fake realities , in order to watch how humans react .
He starts with an example : David Adam doesn ’ t appear to have any ethical qualms about misleading people in this way .
It “ generated lively discussion , ” that ’ s all .
The ethical qualms were about drone use — not about the fictional @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The experiment was “ provocative by design.
” Is that not like evidence that Russians are trying to divide Americans by provoking discord from both sides of the aisle ?
The popular YouTube channel Smarter Every Day spoke with the leading social media giants to show how the Internet is filled with bots using high tech to manipulate public opinion .
What if science journals did that ?
What if they decided never to reveal that their “ design fiction ” research was all fictional ?
Who could trust any research ever again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dismiss the PNAS paper about the “ evolution of conformity ” and call it design fiction ?
If it is fine for the researchers to dissemble , it is fine for their readers to dismiss it as Darwinian fiction .
We ’ re onto them .
We are human beings .
We don ’ t get pushed around by blind , unguided processes like natural selection .
We use our minds .
If they respond with the claim that “ natural selection nudged you into the anticonformist position , ” we can counter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you to write this paper.
” Photo : Football fans do “ The Wave ” at the University of Michigan , by Ken Lund from Reno , Nevada , USA / CC BY-SA .

Humans are mere animals in Darwinian thinking. The same evolutionary mechanisms and selective pressures that make fruit flies cooperate, or fish to swarm, or rams to bash their heads together, cause Homo sapiens to form political parties, revolt against kings, or cheer at baseball games. Human exceptionalism is omitted from their equations. According to Darwinians, every human behavior, as well as every fish behavior or fruit fly behavior or chimpanzee behavior, is a consequence of natural selection. If this premise were scientific, evolutionary anthropologists should be able to model human behavior and make predictions.
Suppose a scientist tells you about his new model. It goes like this:
If we assume X, then Y might result under particular circumstances, as long as we hold A constant, as Dr. Wizard surmised in his widely accepted model of the evolution of human and non-human animal behavior H. But according to our revised model, the situation is more complex. It turns out that B is a function of C, which affects A in unpredictable ways, resulting in chaotic behavior, depending on whether selection is taken into account. When selection is not considered, stable cyclic behavior is a possible outcome, at least in some studies, but those models do not correlate with field observations. Our revised model finds that D(E) has been overlooked, which is likely influenced by F(P), and since A is not always constant, as has been assumed, one might get a stable equilibrium, or a cycle, or chaos, depending on the weather. It’s complicated.
Are you impressed by this advance toward the scientific understanding of human nature?
Research from Stanford and Tel Aviv
Something very similar to it was just published in PNAS by four scientists from Stanford and Tel Aviv Universities pretending to explain “Cultural evolution of conformity and anticonformity.” Conformity might be illustrated by a fruit fly imitating its neighbor’s behavior, or a teen following what the other teens are doing. Anticonformity might be a bird leaving the flock, or a man defying his state’s coronavirus lockdown guidelines. To Kaleda Krebs Denton, Yoav Ram, Uri Liberman, and Marcus W. Feldman, the subjects in the population make no difference, because “We’re all in this [Darwinian thing] together.”
The evolutionary dynamics of cultural variants under conformist- and anticonformist-biased transmission have implications for humans and nonhuman animals. Humans display both conformist and anticonformist biases, and models of conformist-biased transmission have been proposed to explain large-scale human cooperation. Nonhuman animals have been shown to display conformist biases in mating and foraging decisions. Here, we investigate established mathematical models of conformist and anticonformist bias with and without selection and find complex dynamics, including multiple stable polymorphic equilibria, stable cycles, and chaos. [Emphasis added.]
This paper illustrates two things: (1) Darwinian theory is utterly useless when applied to human behavior, and (2) no amount of mathematical hand-waving can fix bad premises.
A “Wave” of Fans
Admittedly, there may be a little predictability to human behavior in regard to conformity. When a “wave” starts in a football stadium, most people (but not all) will cheerfully join in to keep it going. Every parent worries about peer pressure their offspring will face at college. Military recruits are drilled to obey orders, fearing the bad consequences of disobedience. But people are not fish! Papers like this one relegate humans to pawns of evolutionary forces. It’s a denial of free will. And it’s absurd; if a person conforms, natural selection did it. If the person does not conform, natural selection did that, too. Natural selection is Darwin’s catch-all explanation for everything, even opposite things. Daniel Dennett called it a “universal acid,” but didn’t catch the fact that it dissolves its container, too — evolutionary theory itself! In the end, it explains absolutely nothing.
Naïve readers of this PNAS paper might be intimidated by the math. You can ignore the following example paragraph, because it is so vague, it has nothing to do with the real world. Human behavior is a subject that matters to all of us, but this Darwinian approach to behavior signifies much nothing (emptiness) about ado (fuss, or busy activity about something that matters). To borrow another line from Shakespeare, it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. The real message is in the theory rescue words between the symbols:
It might be expected that if p∗=12 is the unique polymorphic equilibrium, then either p∗=0 and p∗=1 are both stable and p∗=12 is not stable, or both p∗=0 and p∗=1 are not stable and p∗=12 is stable, since it is a protected polymorphism. In fact, when p∗=0 and p∗=1 are both stable, there is global convergence to one of them; p∗=12 is not stable, such that [0,12) is the domain of attraction of p∗=0 and (12,1] that of p∗=1. However, when both p∗=0 and p∗=1 are not stable, then even when p∗=12 is the unique polymorphic equilibrium, it is possible that p∗=12 is not stable. For example, following Eq. B8 in SI Appendix, section B, let ϕn=1+(12)n−2∑n−1j=kD(j)n(nj)(2j−n). From Eq. 4, the lower bound of ϕn occurs when D(j)=−j for all k≤j≤n−1, in which case all of the D(j) s are negative and p∗=12 is unique by Result 3. SI Appendix, Table S1 presents the lower bounds on ϕn for n=3,4,…,20. The bounds on D, namely, −j