evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-23--Praise for Behe’s Latest: “Facts Before Theory”

Biologist Michael Denton welcomes the latest from Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe — A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics : Wow , what a book !
Michael Behe ’ s A Mousetrap for Darwin is a compelling read for anyone following the Darwin vs. ID debate .
It not only is a magnificent testimony to his own massive contributions in so many areas of ID over more than two decades since he first published Darwin ’ s Black Box , but also provides perhaps the most comprehensive and incisive critique of neo-Darwinism currently in print @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles and posts in the book , Behe revisits key arguments for ID which he initially developed and that have since become foundational to the defense of ID , such as the argument from irreducible complexity and the argument from waiting times .
The book represents a devastatingly brilliant unanswerable response to his Darwinian critics and to the whole Darwinian worldview .
Behe brings out more forcibly than any other author I have recently read just how vacuous and biased are the criticisms of his work and of the ID position in general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwinism .
And what is so telling about his many wonderfully crafted responses to his Darwinian critics is that it is Behe who is putting the facts before theory while his many detractors — Kenneth Miller , Jerry Coyne , Larry Moran , Richard Lenski , and others — are putting theory before the facts .
In short , this volume shows that it is Behe rather than his detractors who is carefully following the evidence .
Of all the fine essays in this volume , I think his responses to Lenski in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and unanswerable .
Lenski ’ s inability to undermine Behe ’ s critique gives the lie to the notion that Darwinism provides anything resembling a convincing account of the biological world .

Biologist Michael Denton welcomes the latest from Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe — A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics:
Wow, what a book! Michael Behe’s A Mousetrap for Darwin is a compelling read for anyone following the Darwin vs. ID debate. It not only is a magnificent testimony to his own massive contributions in so many areas of ID over more than two decades since he first published Darwin’s Black Box, but also provides perhaps the most comprehensive and incisive critique of neo-Darwinism currently in print. In the more than one hundred articles and posts in the book, Behe revisits key arguments for ID which he initially developed and that have since become foundational to the defense of ID, such as the argument from irreducible complexity and the argument from waiting times. The book represents a devastatingly brilliant unanswerable response to his Darwinian critics and to the whole Darwinian worldview. Behe brings out more forcibly than any other author I have recently read just how vacuous and biased are the criticisms of his work and of the ID position in general by so many mainstream academic defenders of Darwinism. And what is so telling about his many wonderfully crafted responses to his Darwinian critics is that it is Behe who is putting the facts before theory while his many detractors — Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne, Larry Moran, Richard Lenski, and others — are putting theory before the facts. In short, this volume shows that it is Behe rather than his detractors who is carefully following the evidence. Of all the fine essays in this volume, I think his responses to Lenski in Parts 4 and 7 are particularly outstanding and unanswerable. Lenski’s inability to undermine Behe’s critique gives the lie to the notion that Darwinism provides anything resembling a convincing account of the biological world.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-23--Thanksgiving in the Light of Darwin’s Vision

Happy Thanksgiving — that is , in case you are planning to celebrate Thanksgiving in the way that we were accustomed to doing before 2020 .
For most of us , the holidays with friends and family from outside the confinement of your home are canceled this year .
Like so much of our lives have been in the past year , they are locked down .
With the COVID pandemic as an accelerator , we are seeing society shifted on a scale and with a speed no one could have imagined a year ago .
I first heard of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Reset just a couple of weeks ago .
It sounded like a conspiracy theory , but it ’ s far from that .
It is spoken of openly by the likes of the World Economic Forum , and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau , who explain that COVID was just the right occasion for redesigning society .
Some put a time frame on it : a new world by 2030 .
As a Member of Parliament , Ida Auken , from Denmark explained on the WEF website , she expects by that year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Welcome to the year 2030 .
Welcome to my city — or should I say , ‘ our city.
’ I don ’ t own anything .
I don ’ t own a car .
I don ’ t own a house .
I don ’ t own any appliances or any clothes.
” It ’ s all about the retraining of men and women in a way that we previously associated with — what ?
It reminds me of our own pets .
Animals have no property .
We give them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t own the toys .
They have no have no privacy either .
We don ’ t have much of that left ourselves .
They are confined to our homes , for the most part , and trained to obey , much as we have been this past year .
Dogs have their crates , their form of quarantine , for their own good !
If need be , they are muzzled — again , as we now take for granted on social media and with other censorship .
We make all needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the language of our increasingly technocratic culture , we are their “ experts.
” We control their interaction with other animals , except when we bring them to the fenced-in “ dog run.
” For them , it ’ s all routine .
For us in 2020 , it ’ s increasingly so .
Our Discovery Institute colleague Wesley Smith has written trenchantly about the Great Reset ( see here and here ) , observing , “ When I was young , the watchword of the left was ‘ question authority.
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ authority.
’ ” This vision , where humans are reframed in an extraordinary new light , may appear to have come over the horizon suddenly .
In fact , it ’ s been a long time on its way .
Where did the idea of people as animals come from ?
It may be the single profoundest consequence of the thinking of Charles Darwin .
Darwin , ironically , stepped out onto the world stage , with the publication of the Origin of Species , on the day that would in the future @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : the last Thursday in November , 1859 .
He outlined a world of life without a source of design to which we could owe thanks .
In later writing , he inveighed against the idea of a unique status or nature for humans .
In the Descent of Man he asserted , “ There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.
” In the future , he wrote , people would find it “ wonderful ” — in other words , shocking — that anyone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origins we are anything but animals : If humans are not exceptional or designed in a divine image , reflected in our own faces , it makes a certain sense to control and mask us .
This will be no ordinary Thanksgiving and it won ’ t be an ordinary Christmas .
Locking down the holidays may well be vital .
I don ’ t claim expertise about public health .
It is , though , without doubt in line with the Reset .
There ’ s no conspiracy but , instead , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and prominent people openly wishing to act on what they see as in the world ’ s best interest .
And when did pets need occasions for reverence , thanks , or worship , anyway ?
Darwin , I think , would understand .

Photo credit: Jose Antonio Gallego Vázquez via Unsplash.
Happy Thanksgiving — that is, in case you are planning to celebrate Thanksgiving in the way that we were accustomed to doing before 2020. For most of us, the holidays with friends and family from outside the confinement of your home are canceled this year. Like so much of our lives have been in the past year, they are locked down. With the COVID pandemic as an accelerator, we are seeing society shifted on a scale and with a speed no one could have imagined a year ago.
I first heard of what’s being called a Great Reset just a couple of weeks ago. It sounded like a conspiracy theory, but it’s far from that. It is spoken of openly by the likes of the World Economic Forum, and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who explain that COVID was just the right occasion for redesigning society. Some put a time frame on it: a new world by 2030. As a Member of Parliament, Ida Auken, from Denmark explained on the WEF website, she expects by that year to live on a transformed planet: “Welcome to the year 2030. Welcome to my city — or should I say, ‘our city.’ I don’t own anything. I don’t own a car. I don’t own a house. I don’t own any appliances or any clothes.”
Humans, Retrained
It’s all about the retraining of men and women in a way that we previously associated with — what? It reminds me of our own pets.
Animals have no property. We give them toys to play but they don’t own the toys. They have no have no privacy either. We don’t have much of that left ourselves. They are confined to our homes, for the most part, and trained to obey, much as we have been this past year. Dogs have their crates, their form of quarantine, for their own good! If need be, they are muzzled — again, as we now take for granted on social media and with other censorship. We make all needed decisions for our cats and dogs. In the language of our increasingly technocratic culture, we are their “experts.” We control their interaction with other animals, except when we bring them to the fenced-in “dog run.” For them, it’s all routine. For us in 2020, it’s increasingly so.
Our Discovery Institute colleague Wesley Smith has written trenchantly about the Great Reset (see here and here), observing, “When I was young, the watchword of the left was ‘question authority.’ Today, it is “‘obey authority.’” This vision, where humans are reframed in an extraordinary new light, may appear to have come over the horizon suddenly. In fact, it’s been a long time on its way.
Origin of an Idea
Where did the idea of people as animals come from? It may be the single profoundest consequence of the thinking of Charles Darwin. Darwin, ironically, stepped out onto the world stage, with the publication of the Origin of Species, on the day that would in the future be celebrated by all Americans as Thanksgiving: the last Thursday in November, 1859. He outlined a world of life without a source of design to which we could owe thanks. In later writing, he inveighed against the idea of a unique status or nature for humans. In the Descent of Man he asserted, “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.” In the future, he wrote, people would find it “wonderful” — in other words, shocking — that anyone should ever have thought that in our origins we are anything but animals:
The time will before long come when it will be thought wonderful, that naturalists, who were well acquainted with the comparative structure and development of man and other mammals, should have believed that each was the work of a separate act of creation.
If humans are not exceptional or designed in a divine image, reflected in our own faces, it makes a certain sense to control and mask us.
This will be no ordinary Thanksgiving and it won’t be an ordinary Christmas. Locking down the holidays may well be vital. I don’t claim expertise about public health. It is, though, without doubt in line with the Reset. There’s no conspiracy but, instead, lines of thought in our culture, and prominent people openly wishing to act on what they see as in the world’s best interest. And when did pets need occasions for reverence, thanks, or worship, anyway? Darwin, I think, would understand.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-23--Distancing Darwin from Racism Is a Fool’s Errand

A recent article by Livia Gershon examines so-called “ Bizarre Theories of the American School of Evolution.
” She tries to implicitly distance Darwin from racism by suggesting that his outspoken critic , famed paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope ( 1840-1897 ) , opposed women ’ s suffrage and equality for African Americans as “ two perils of the Indo-European.
” These racist and misogynistic views , insists Gershon , were shared by the “ American School ” of evolutionary anthropology , a group that had morphed from the polygenism of a previous generation led by men like Samuel George Morton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1807-1873 ) , and Josiah Clark Nott ( 1804-1873 ) into a new brand of neo-Lamarckian theory .
According to the article , “ They [ Cope and his colleagues ] rejected Charles Darwin ’ s theory of evolution .
Instead , they built on the work of French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck ( 1744-1829 ) .
Unlike Darwin , Lamarck believed that acquired characteristics like strong muscles could be passed on to descendants.
” Gershon continues , “ In humans , Lamarck argued , sentiment — emotional responses to physical sensations — gradually @ @ @ @ @ @ @ It is this “ sentimental ” view that allegedly permitted the kind of racial and gender-biased calculus to permeate the thinking of the “ American School ” in contrast supposedly to Darwin , whose “ random , amoral process ” of blind evolution simply allowed the chips to fall where they might without such judgmental prejudices .
Actually , Gershon is merely highlighting an article by Rutgers University Women ’ s and Gender Studies professor Kyla Schuller , “ Taxonomies of Feeling : The Epistemology of Sentimentalism in Late-Nineteenth-Century Racial and Sexual Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anfractuous academese .
It is best not to wander too deeply into Schuller ’ s intellectual weeds except to say that it only adds tortuous detail to the summary errors of Gershon ’ s briefer piece .
So in the interest of keeping this simple , let ’ s just say that the most “ bizarre ” aspect of this is not neo-Lamarckism , but rather the strange bifurcated equation that neo-Lamarckism = racial and gender bias while Darwinism = objective “ science ” shorn of all prejudicial baggage .
This is demonstrably @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Bulldog Was No Better Historically , Darwin and his cohorts were just as racist and gender biased as Cope or anyone else of their era .
As I have pointed out , Darwin was certainly as racist as the notorious species fixist Louis Agassiz .
And Darwin ’ s Bulldog , Thomas Henry Huxley ( 1825-1895 ) , was no better , arguing shortly after the American Civil War that blacks were doomed now that they were cut free from the purported protective influences of their owners .
Huxley stated boldly that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the facts , believes that the average negro is the equal , still less the superior , of the average white man.
” In fact , one man did , the Darwinists ’ arch enemy Richard Owen ( 1804-1892 ) .
A fascinating examination of this important point is presented in Christopher E. Cosans ’ Owen ’ s Ape & Darwin ’ s Bulldog .
As for women , Darwin was no champion of gender equality .
As he stated in the Descent of Man , “ Man is more courageous , pugnacious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has a more inventive genius.
” With their male counterparts having a brain that is “ absolutely larger , ” Darwin doubted that women could possibly surmount their biological limitations .
Nevertheless , social class could create , for Darwin , a state of general improvement for women .
But according to Darwin it was male selection mediated by social class that made the difference .
Again in the Descent he writes , There is , of course , no mention of this by the gender studies expert Schuller .
Gershon and Schuller @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s problem was that “ Many Anglo-Saxons looked forward not just to ongoing biosocial evolution but also to a millennial ascent into perfection.
” Perhaps , but so did Darwin !
Writing to the Rev .
Charles Kingsley ( 1819-1879 ) on February 6 , 1862 , he stated , “ It is very true what you say about the higher races of men , when high enough , replacing & clearing off the lower races .
In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ race , viewed as a unit , will have risen in rank.
” He voiced the same sentiment years later in a letter to Irish philosopher and political economist William Graham ( 1839-1911 ) on July 3 , 1881 , “ Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran , not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks , and how ridiculous such an idea now is .
The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence .
Looking to the world at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.
” For Darwin , racial superiority was “ survival of the fittest ” put into terms of national expansion and even of human progress .
Moreover , that progress was defined in explicitly racial terms .
Darwin believed this was confirmed in the “ science ” of craniotomy , the idea that races could be ranked by measuring the cranial capacities of their respective skulls .
If Cope could be a racist by “ sentiment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the cold , hard “ facts ” of his racialized science .
It is inaccurate to divide 19th-century evolutionary racial theory on the basis of a Lamarckian litmus test in any case .
The reason is that although Cope was a neo-Lamarckian , so was Darwin .
Neither Gershon nor Schuller mentions Darwin ’ s pangenesis theory of inheritance , which was Lamarckian .
As evolutionary historian Peter Bowler has point out in Evolution : The History of an Idea , “ Darwin ’ s lifelong commitment to a limited amount of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blending inheritance ( the mixture of parental characters ) were integral parts of his worldview.
” Biologist Rupert Sheldrake in Science Set Free agrees : Such a historical context makes Lamarckian distinctions — racial or otherwise — meaningless .
Of course Lamarckism need not be expressed as benighted racial and gender prejudice .
Gershon ’ s characterization of Lamarckian evolution as “ bizarre ” is simply scientifically wrong .
For example , geneticist Eva Jablonka is presently arguing for a more Lamarckian approach , as is bioengineer Raju Pookottil , cell biologist Mariusz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Again , Rupert Sheldrake sheds some light : Schuller ’ s blinkered views are only magnified by Gershon ’ s repeating them .
It is astonishing that such stunning ignorance of history and science can be displayed in an academic publication , only to be repeated by way of summation .
But this is what happens when an article — peer-reviewed or not — says the “ right ” things .
Clearly , historical and scientific accuracy takes a back seat to providing cover for Darwin ’ s own views on race and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swept under the rug when sanitizing Darwin .
But finger-pointing at “ bizarre theories ” and one-sided race-baiting are thin disguises for a worldview that lives in a glass house .
What Schuller and Gershon are trying to protect Darwinism from are the social applications to which it has been so prone .
Indeed , Darwin was as much committed to a racialized and misogynistic ethos as any of his generation .
What Adrian Desmond and James Moore wrote nearly thirty years ago in Darwin remains as true as ever : Historian of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1942-2013 ) was even more emphatic , stating that “ scholars have wasted their time trying to exonerate Darwin of responsibility for Social Darwinism , for he was a Social Darwinist.
” What a shame that Schuller sent Gershon on such a fool ’ s errand .
Both returned empty-handed and ended up looking either deceitful or ignorant .
I ’ ll assume the latter ; it seems the more charitable conclusion .
Editor ’ s note : For more on Darwinism ’ s enduring legacy of racism , watch the award-winning documentary @ @ @

Photo: Visitors admire the iconic Darwin statue at London's Natural History Museum, by Thomas Fabian, via Flickr.
A recent article by Livia Gershon examines so-called “Bizarre Theories of the American School of Evolution.” She tries to implicitly distance Darwin from racism by suggesting that his outspoken critic, famed paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope (1840-1897), opposed women’s suffrage and equality for African Americans as “two perils of the Indo-European.” These racist and misogynistic views, insists Gershon, were shared by the “American School” of evolutionary anthropology, a group that had morphed from the polygenism of a previous generation led by men like Samuel George Morton (1799-1851), Louis Agassiz (1807-1873), and Josiah Clark Nott (1804-1873) into a new brand of neo-Lamarckian theory. According to the article, “They [Cope and his colleagues] rejected Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Instead, they built on the work of French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829). Unlike Darwin, Lamarck believed that acquired characteristics like strong muscles could be passed on to descendants.” Gershon continues, “In humans, Lamarck argued, sentiment — emotional responses to physical sensations — gradually made physical changes in the body.”
It is this “sentimental” view that allegedly permitted the kind of racial and gender-biased calculus to permeate the thinking of the “American School” in contrast supposedly to Darwin, whose “random, amoral process” of blind evolution simply allowed the chips to fall where they might without such judgmental prejudices. Actually, Gershon is merely highlighting an article by Rutgers University Women’s and Gender Studies professor Kyla Schuller, “Taxonomies of Feeling: The Epistemology of Sentimentalism in Late-Nineteenth-Century Racial and Sexual Science,” written in a dense, anfractuous academese. It is best not to wander too deeply into Schuller’s intellectual weeds except to say that it only adds tortuous detail to the summary errors of Gershon’s briefer piece. So in the interest of keeping this simple, let’s just say that the most “bizarre” aspect of this is not neo-Lamarckism, but rather the strange bifurcated equation that neo-Lamarckism = racial and gender bias while Darwinism = objective “science” shorn of all prejudicial baggage. This is demonstrably wrong historically and scientifically.
Darwin’s Bulldog Was No Better
Historically, Darwin and his cohorts were just as racist and gender biased as Cope or anyone else of their era. As I have pointed out, Darwin was certainly as racist as the notorious species fixist Louis Agassiz. And Darwin’s Bulldog, Thomas Henry Huxley (1825-1895), was no better, arguing shortly after the American Civil War that blacks were doomed now that they were cut free from the purported protective influences of their owners. Huxley stated boldly that “no rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the average white man.” In fact, one man did, the Darwinists’ arch enemy Richard Owen (1804-1892). A fascinating examination of this important point is presented in Christopher E. Cosans’ Owen’s Ape & Darwin’s Bulldog.
As for women, Darwin was no champion of gender equality. As he stated in the Descent of Man, “Man is more courageous, pugnacious, and energetic than woman, and has a more inventive genius.” With their male counterparts having a brain that is “absolutely larger,” Darwin doubted that women could possibly surmount their biological limitations. Nevertheless, social class could create, for Darwin, a state of general improvement for women. But according to Darwin it was male selection mediated by social class that made the difference. Again in the Descent he writes,
It appears to me with justice, that the members of our aristocracy, including under this term all wealthy families in which primogeniture has long prevailed, from having chosen during many generations from all classes the more beautiful women as their wives, have become handsomer, according to the European standard of beauty, than the middle classes; yet the middle classes are placed under equally favourable conditions of life for the perfect development of the body.
There is, of course, no mention of this by the gender studies expert Schuller.
“A Millennial Ascent into Perfection”
Gershon and Schuller seem to imply that part of Cope’s problem was that “Many Anglo-Saxons looked forward not just to ongoing biosocial evolution but also to a millennial ascent into perfection.” Perhaps, but so did Darwin! Writing to the Rev. Charles Kingsley (1819-1879) on February 6, 1862, he stated, “It is very true what you say about the higher races of men, when high enough, replacing & clearing off the lower races. In 500 years how the Anglo-Saxon race will have spread & exterminated whole nations; & in consequence how much the human race, viewed as a unit, will have risen in rank.” He voiced the same sentiment years later in a letter to Irish philosopher and political economist William Graham (1839-1911) on July 3, 1881, “Remember what risks the nations of Europe ran, not so many centuries ago of being overwhelmed by the Turks, and how ridiculous such an idea now is. The more civilised so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilised races throughout the world.”
For Darwin, racial superiority was “survival of the fittest” put into terms of national expansion and even of human progress. Moreover, that progress was defined in explicitly racial terms. Darwin believed this was confirmed in the “science” of craniotomy, the idea that races could be ranked by measuring the cranial capacities of their respective skulls. If Cope could be a racist by “sentiment,” Darwin could confirm his racism in the cold, hard “facts” of his racialized science.
Darwin the Neo-Lamarckian
It is inaccurate to divide 19th-century evolutionary racial theory on the basis of a Lamarckian litmus test in any case. The reason is that although Cope was a neo-Lamarckian, so was Darwin. Neither Gershon nor Schuller mentions Darwin’s pangenesis theory of inheritance, which was Lamarckian. As evolutionary historian Peter Bowler has point out in Evolution: The History of an Idea, “Darwin’s lifelong commitment to a limited amount of Lamarckism and to what was later called blending inheritance (the mixture of parental characters) were integral parts of his worldview.” Biologist Rupert Sheldrake in Science Set Free agrees:
In Darwin’s day, most people assumed that acquired characteristics could indeed be inherited. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck had taken this for granted in his theory of evolution published more than fifty years before Darwin’s, and the inheritance of acquired characteristics was often referred to as “Lamarckian inheritance.” Darwin shared this belief and cited many examples to support it. In this respect Darwin was a Lamarckian, not so much because of Lamarck’s influence but because he and Lamarck both accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a matter of common sense.
Such a historical context makes Lamarckian distinctions — racial or otherwise — meaningless.
Simply Scientifically Wrong
Of course Lamarckism need not be expressed as benighted racial and gender prejudice. Gershon’s characterization of Lamarckian evolution as “bizarre” is simply scientifically wrong. For example, geneticist Eva Jablonka is presently arguing for a more Lamarckian approach, as is bioengineer Raju Pookottil, cell biologist Mariusz Nowacki, and biophysicist Yoav Soen. Again, Rupert Sheldrake sheds some light:
The taboo against the inheritance of acquired characteristics began to dissolve around the turn of the millennium. There is a growing recognition that some acquired characteristics can indeed be inherited. This kind of inheritance is now called “epigenetic inheritance.” In this context, the word “epigenetic” signifies “over and above genetics.” Some kinds of epigenetic inheritance depend on chemical attachments to genes, particularly of methyl groups. Genes can be “switched off” by the methylation of the DNA itself or of the proteins that bind to it.
Schuller’s blinkered views are only magnified by Gershon’s repeating them. It is astonishing that such stunning ignorance of history and science can be displayed in an academic publication, only to be repeated by way of summation. But this is what happens when an article — peer-reviewed or not — says the “right” things. Clearly, historical and scientific accuracy takes a back seat to providing cover for Darwin’s own views on race and gender. Details and facts are easily swept under the rug when sanitizing Darwin. But finger-pointing at “bizarre theories” and one-sided race-baiting are thin disguises for a worldview that lives in a glass house.
What Schuller and Gershon are trying to protect Darwinism from are the social applications to which it has been so prone. Indeed, Darwin was as much committed to a racialized and misogynistic ethos as any of his generation. What Adrian Desmond and James Moore wrote nearly thirty years ago in Darwin remains as true as ever:
Did he [Darwin] see society, like nature, progress by culling its unfit members? “Social Darwinism” is often taken to be something extraneous, an ugly concretion added to the pure Darwinian corpus after the event, tarnishing Darwin’s image. But his notebooks make plain that competition, free trade, imperialism, racial extermination, and sexual inequality were written into the equation from the start — “Darwinism” was always intended to explain human society.
Historian of science and social anthropologist Henrika Kuklik (1942-2013) was even more emphatic, stating that “scholars have wasted their time trying to exonerate Darwin of responsibility for Social Darwinism, for he was a Social Darwinist.”
What a shame that Schuller sent Gershon on such a fool’s errand. Both returned empty-handed and ended up looking either deceitful or ignorant. I’ll assume the latter; it seems the more charitable conclusion.
Editor’s note: For more on Darwinism’s enduring legacy of racism, watch the award-winning documentary Human Zoos:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-25--Design Triangulation: My Thanksgiving Gift to All

Hey — wan na see a talk that combines the following ?
Black swallowtail butterflies , William Harvey , snarky robotic aliens from Alpha Centauri ( pictured above ) , Immanuel Kant , Lego bricks , the mathematics of coding puzzles , my 2003 Honda Odyssey , Francis Crick , locomotives , mysterious black boxes that play J. S. Bach and the Beatles — also , Houdini , magic bridges , René Descartes , nematodes , anarchist manifestos , Richard Dawkins , Niels Bohr , and sand piles .
And William Blake , just to round out the crazy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ my “ naturalistic parabola ” series ( find Part 1 here , Part 2 here ) .
It was delayed because I wanted to incorporate ideas from Jeremy England ’ s new book , Every Life Is On Fire , and the fascinating Allchemy chemical evolution simulation just published in Science .
And the snarky aliens kept pestering me , as you ’ ll see .
Comments welcome .
I can ’ t improve these ideas if I don ’ t hear from you .
Well , I could , but it will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so .
Happy Thanksgiving !

Photo: Alpha Centauri, where aliens come from, by ESO/DSS 2, CC BY 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Hey — wanna see a talk that combines the following? Black swallowtail butterflies, William Harvey, snarky robotic aliens from Alpha Centauri (pictured above), Immanuel Kant, Lego bricks, the mathematics of coding puzzles, my 2003 Honda Odyssey, Francis Crick, locomotives, mysterious black boxes that play J. S. Bach and the Beatles — also, Houdini, magic bridges, René Descartes, nematodes, anarchist manifestos, Richard Dawkins, Niels Bohr, and sand piles. And William Blake, just to round out the crazy.
This downloadable PDF is Part 3 of my “naturalistic parabola” series (find Part 1 here, Part 2 here). It was delayed because I wanted to incorporate ideas from Jeremy England’s new book, Every Life Is On Fire, and the fascinating Allchemy chemical evolution simulation just published in Science. And the snarky aliens kept pestering me, as you’ll see.
Comments welcome. I can’t improve these ideas if I don’t hear from you. Well, I could, but it will take a whole lot longer to do so. Happy Thanksgiving!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-25--Bechly on Denton’s Latest: “Seminal,” a “Milestone in this Ongoing Scientific Revolution”

Paleontologist Günter Bechly welcomes the latest from biologist Michael Denton — The Miracle of the Cell : In this seminal @ @ @ @ @ Michael Denton takes the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design to a whole new level .
@ @ @ @ @ the chemical elements themselves and their properties are delicately fine-tuned for life , and the @ @ @ @ @ such as water .
Denton also makes a convincing case that all these instances of @ @ @ @ @ primal blueprint ” that existed prior to the arrival of the first living cell .
@ @ @ @ @ of assembling this evidence as a cumulative case for teleology in nature .
The Miracle @ @ @ @ @ the case in favor of intelligent causes in the natural sciences .
The growing body @ @ @ @ @ more and more calls for a paradigm shift away from the ruling but obsolete paradigm @ @ @ @ @ action of natural laws , and mere matter in motion .
Michael Denton ’ s @ @ @ @ @ a milestone in this ongoing scientific revolution .

Paleontologist Günter Bechly welcomes the latest from biologist Michael Denton — The Miracle of the Cell:
In this seminal new book, distinguished biologist Michael Denton takes the fine-tuning argument for intelligent design to a whole new level. He shows that many of the chemical elements themselves and their properties are delicately fine-tuned for life, and the same holds for crucial compounds such as water. Denton also makes a convincing case that all these instances of fine-tuning converge towards a “primal blueprint” that existed prior to the arrival of the first living cell. Denton is at the forefront of assembling this evidence as a cumulative case for teleology in nature. The Miracle of the Cell greatly advances the case in favor of intelligent causes in the natural sciences. The growing body of evidence from modern science more and more calls for a paradigm shift away from the ruling but obsolete paradigm of materialism, the blind action of natural laws, and mere matter in motion. Michael Denton’s work will prove to be a milestone in this ongoing scientific revolution.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-25--Galápagos Finches — Some Contradictions Solved

Author ’ s note : Are Darwin ’ s finches “ a particularly compelling example of speciation ” as well as “ evolution in action ” ?
In a series of posts , I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands .
Please find the full series here .
It may perhaps sound a bit confusing and contradictory when we read ( Lamichhaney et al .
in Nature 2015 , referred to in my last post ) that , “ After a year of drought the finches with slightly larger beaks survived @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” and also : “ When the weather is dry , bigger-beaked birds do better .
When the rain returns , smaller-beaked birds return to previous levels , ” etc.
, and that during the time of the drought : “ the researchers found that the large-beak HMGA2 variant was more common in birds that starved to death , while the small-beak variant was more common in birds that survived ” ( emphasis added ) .
The solution to the riddle , according to Lamichhaney et al.
?
During the rainy season of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Two of the main finch species were hit exceptionally hard and many of them died .
The lack of rain caused major food sources to become scarce , causing the need to find alternative food sources .
The smaller , softer seeds ran out , leaving only the larger , tougher seeds .
The finch species with smaller beaks struggled to find alternate seeds to eat .
The following two years suggested that natural selection could happen very rapidly .
Because the smaller finch species could not eat the large seeds , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beaks were able to eat the seeds and reproduce .
The population in the years following the drought in 1977 had “ measurably larger ” beaks than had the previous birds .
Over the course of 1982–1983 , El Niño brought a steady eight months of rain .
In a normal rainy season Daphne Major usually gets two months of rain .
The excessive rain brought a turnover in the types of vegetation growing on the island .
The seeds shifted from large , hard to crack seeds to many different types of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birds with smaller beaks an advantage when another drought hit the following year .
Small-beaked finch could eat all of the small seeds faster than the larger beaked birds could get to them .
Now you would expect that the events that happened in 1977 would be repeated , namely : But far from it .
Instead , the following was observed : Why ?
The authors offer the following selectionist explanation , which is nevertheless uncertain .
Note the repeated use of the subjunctive : …in the time between the droughts ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ large ground finch ( Geospiza magnirostris ) had established a breeding population on the island .
This species has diet overlap with the medium ground finch ( G. fortis ) , so they are potential competitors .
The 2003 drought and resulting decrease in food supply may have increased these species ’ competition with each other , particularly for the larger seeds in the medium ground finches ’ diet .
This was hypothesized to be due to the presence of the large ground finch ; the smaller-beaked individuals of the medium ground finch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to a lack of competition over large seeds with the large ground finch .
So , the situation concerning natural selection is not as simple as usually presented in the textbooks or in the later deleted comment of the National Academy of Sciences , which I discussed in the first two posts in this series .
Rather , there are obviously important open questions yet to be solved , including the possible ( not even mentioned above ) effects of hybridization between Geospiza magnirostris and G. fortis .
Nevertheless , even if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were true , it would change the “ Sisyphean evolution of Darwin ’ s finches ” only with regard to its length and the number of its steps to fulfill the Sisyphean cycle .
The more extensive but misleading claim of Peter and Rosemary Grant is that “ selection oscillates in a direction.
” Even if this doubtful assertion were true , it would ultimately be irrelevant for the origin of primary species and higher systematic categories .
A sieve ( natural selection ) , after all , can not create new grains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Species : Typogenesis , Typostasis or Typolysis ?
”

Photo: Galápagos finch, by Mike's Birds from Riverside, CA, US, CC BY-SA 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here.
It may perhaps sound a bit confusing and contradictory when we read (Lamichhaney et al. in Nature 2015, referred to in my last post) that, “After a year of drought the finches with slightly larger beaks survived earlier than those with smaller beaks,” and also: “When the weather is dry, bigger-beaked birds do better. When the rain returns, smaller-beaked birds return to previous levels,” etc., and that during the time of the drought: “the researchers found that the large-beak HMGA2 variant was more common in birds that starved to death, while the small-beak variant was more common in birds that survived” (emphasis added).
Solving the Riddle
The solution to the riddle?
First phase (for the Wikipedia article, see here):
During the rainy season of 1977 only 24 millimeters of rain fell. Two of the main finch species were hit exceptionally hard and many of them died. The lack of rain caused major food sources to become scarce, causing the need to find alternative food sources. The smaller, softer seeds ran out, leaving only the larger, tougher seeds. The finch species with smaller beaks struggled to find alternate seeds to eat. The following two years suggested that natural selection could happen very rapidly. Because the smaller finch species could not eat the large seeds, they died off. Finches with larger beaks were able to eat the seeds and reproduce. The population in the years following the drought in 1977 had “measurably larger” beaks than had the previous birds.
Second phase (for the Wikipedia article that is the source for this and subsequent quotations, see here):
Over the course of 1982–1983, El Niño brought a steady eight months of rain. In a normal rainy season Daphne Major usually gets two months of rain. The excessive rain brought a turnover in the types of vegetation growing on the island. The seeds shifted from large, hard to crack seeds to many different types of small, softer seeds. This gave birds with smaller beaks an advantage when another drought hit the following year. Small-beaked finch could eat all of the small seeds faster than the larger beaked birds could get to them.
Third phase:
In 2003, a drought similar in severity to the 1977 drought occurred on the island.
Events Repeated?
Now you would expect that the events that happened in 1977 would be repeated, namely:
Because the smaller finch species could not eat the large seeds, they died off. Finches with larger beaks were able to eat the seeds and reproduce. The population in the years following the drought in 1977 had “measurably larger” beaks than had the previous birds.
But far from it. Instead, the following was observed:
Following the drought, the medium ground finch population had a decline in average beak size, in contrast to the increase in size found following the 1977 drought.
Note the Subjunctive
Why? The authors offer the following selectionist explanation, which is nevertheless uncertain. Note the repeated use of the subjunctive:
…in the time between the droughts (beginning in late 1982), the large ground finch (Geospiza magnirostris) had established a breeding population on the island. This species has diet overlap with the medium ground finch (G. fortis), so they are potential competitors. The 2003 drought and resulting decrease in food supply may have increased these species’ competition with each other, particularly for the larger seeds in the medium ground finches’ diet. This was hypothesized to be due to the presence of the large ground finch; the smaller-beaked individuals of the medium ground finch may have been able to survive better due to a lack of competition over large seeds with the large ground finch.
So, the situation concerning natural selection is not as simple as usually presented in the textbooks or in the later deleted comment of the National Academy of Sciences, which I discussed in the first two posts in this series. Rather, there are obviously important open questions yet to be solved, including the possible (not even mentioned above) effects of hybridization between Geospiza magnirostris and G. fortis.
Nevertheless, even if the competition hypothesis between these two species were true, it would change the “Sisyphean evolution of Darwin’s finches” only with regard to its length and the number of its steps to fulfill the Sisyphean cycle.
The more extensive but misleading claim of Peter and Rosemary Grant is that “selection oscillates in a direction.” Even if this doubtful assertion were true, it would ultimately be irrelevant for the origin of primary species and higher systematic categories. A sieve (natural selection), after all, cannot create new grains.
Next, “Island Evolution of Species: Typogenesis, Typostasis or Typolysis?”
Editor’s note: This article was updated on November 30, 2020.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-24--Behe’s New “Mousetrap” Book — The Fragility of Darwinism

Darwinism is “ sustained mostly by sociology.
” Meaning , career pressures , groupthink , media hypnotism , and the like .
So says biochemist Michael Behe , author of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics , in a webinar conversation with Discovery Institute ’ s John West .
The webinar was held over the past weekend and you can see it now .
The video recording of the event is quite entertaining , covering topics both weighty and whimsical — like Behe ’ s comparison of life , with its molecular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trek .
And what is the Lehigh University biochemist ’ s favorite Star Trek episode , anyway ?
Dr. Behe and Dr. West discuss the purpose of gathering Behe ’ s replies to the stronger and the weaker critiques of his earlier books .
They take on a diverse range of live questions from viewers around the world .
Why this book and why now ?
The idea of the volume is not merely to dunk on the critics .
Behe , to be frank , doesn ’ t find of any their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just to shoot down what West calls the fake news-like “ fake criticism ” that Behe ignores challenges , as the reviewers of Behe ’ s recent book Darwin Devolves insinuated in a prominent article in the journal Science .
West was surprised to realize just how voluminous Behe ’ s record of answering critics actually is .
He first thought he could fit the replies in a volume of just 300 pages or so .
It turned out that Behe had more than 700 pages available to use .
These were culled @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead , A Mousetrap for Darwin demonstrates that “ Darwinism is much more fragile ” than many people realize , as Behe puts it here .
That is the big takeaway .
What ’ s assumed to be an unmovable , unbreakable monument to objective science should at this point , if we were all honest with ourselves , be steps away from shattering .

Photo credit: Justus Menke, via Unsplash.
Darwinism is “sustained mostly by sociology.” Meaning, career pressures, groupthink, media hypnotism, and the like. So says biochemist Michael Behe, author of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics, in a webinar conversation with Discovery Institute’s John West. The webinar was held over the past weekend and you can see it now.
The video recording of the event is quite entertaining, covering topics both weighty and whimsical — like Behe’s comparison of life, with its molecular machines, to The Borg from Star Trek. And what is the Lehigh University biochemist’s favorite Star Trek episode, anyway? Dr. Behe and Dr. West discuss the purpose of gathering Behe’s replies to the stronger and the weaker critiques of his earlier books. They take on a diverse range of live questions from viewers around the world. Why this book and why now? The idea of the volume is not merely to dunk on the critics. Behe, to be frank, doesn’t find of any their criticisms very meaningful.
Nor is it just to shoot down what West calls the fake news-like “fake criticism” that Behe ignores challenges, as the reviewers of Behe’s recent book Darwin Devolves insinuated in a prominent article in the journal Science. West was surprised to realize just how voluminous Behe’s record of answering critics actually is. He first thought he could fit the replies in a volume of just 300 pages or so. It turned out that Behe had more than 700 pages available to use. These were culled down in the end to 556 pages.
Instead, A Mousetrap for Darwin demonstrates that “Darwinism is much more fragile” than many people realize, as Behe puts it here. That is the big takeaway. What’s assumed to be an unmovable, unbreakable monument to objective science should at this point, if we were all honest with ourselves, be steps away from shattering.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-24--Listen: Median Artery and Evolution Hype

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Eric Anderson and physician Howard Glicksman further discuss a recent @ @ @ @ @ possible evolutionary changes in humans : a persistent , prominent median artery in some people @ @ @ @ @ the podcast or listen to it here .
Journalists have hyped this as evolution in @ @ @ @ @ Glicksman say there ’ s little reason to treat this as an evolutionary change , @ @ @ @ @ real .
And they say it ’ s far from clear how natural selection could @ @ @ @ @ “ adaptation ” when its most obvious effect is to contribute to carpal tunnel syndrome @ @ @ @ @

Photo credit: Kaizen Nguyễn via Unsplash.
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson and physician Howard Glicksman further discuss a recent Journal of Anatomy article suggesting possible evolutionary changes in humans: a persistent, prominent median artery in some people’s arms. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Journalists have hyped this as evolution in action, but Anderson and Glicksman say there’s little reason to treat this as an evolutionary change, even if it’s real. And they say it’s far from clear how natural selection could select for this as an “adaptation” when its most obvious effect is to contribute to carpal tunnel syndrome and other health problems.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-24--Galápagos Finches — An “Exceptionally Strong Natural-Selection Event”?

Author ’ s note : Are Darwin ’ s finches “ a particularly compelling example of speciation ” as well as “ evolution in action ” ?
In a series of posts , I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands .
Please find the full series here .
From a Princeton University press release , “ Gene behind ‘ evolution in action ’ in Darwin ’ s finches identified ” 1 : An “ exceptionally strong natural-selection event ” was not expected by Darwin or the neo-Darwinians .
Rather , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my book The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe : Darwin imagined the origin of species ( and , in fact , of all life forms ) by selection of “ infinitesimally small changes ” , “ infinitesimally slight variations ” and “ slow degrees ” and hence imagined “ steps not greater than those separating fine varieties ” , ” insensibly fine steps ” and “ insensibly fine gradations ” , “ for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations ; she can never take a leap , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slowest steps ” or “ the transition [ between species ] could , according to my theory , be effected only by numberless small gradations ” ( emphasis added ) .
Virtually the same answer is presented by neo-Darwinism today .
From , “ Galápagos Finch-Beak Size Locus Identified by Resequencing , ” 2 via GenomeWeb : As for this “ exceptionally strong natural-selection event , ” this is by no means an all-or-nothing selection ( as the impression is sometimes given ) .
Rather , the alleles are retained .
So , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by “ infinitesimally small changes , ” “ infinitesimally slight variations ” and “ slow degrees ” and “ steps not greater than those separating fine varieties , ” “ insensibly fine steps ” and “ insensibly fine gradations , ” but ( to rephrase Darwin ) it “ takes a leap , instead of advancing by the shortest and slowest steps.
” From an Uppsala University press release , “ Evolution in action detected in Darwin ’ s finches ” 3 : Variation in beak morphology among these species is determined by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two genes with particularly important effects have now been identified , HMGA2 that affects beak size and ALX1 that controls beak shape .
HMGA2*L and HMGA2*S promote the development of large and small beaks , respectively , while ALX1*P and ALX1*B are associated with the development of pointed and blunt beaks , respectively .
[ Emphasis added . ]
From a report in the Christian Science Monitor , “ Darwin ’ s finches are pecking their way through evolution ” 4 : But that [ selection ] doesn ’ t mean that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medium ground finches has gone extinct , [ Leif ] Andersson says .
There are still individuals with that version of the gene and larger beaks .
And , as natural selection dictates , different ecological pressures may lead to a resurgence of that variant , too .
“ As long as both variants are present in the medium ground finch , they may to respond to what is available , so to speak , ” Andersson says .
It will depend on which birds can forage for food and reproduce most effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morphological/anatomical effects of the alleles on beak formation are thus briefly yet clearly outlined .
For ( other ) pleiotropic effects please see the original papers .
This “ Sisyphean evolution of Darwin ’ s finches , ” which can — for the reasons given above — be extrapolated to all the so-called genera and species of these birds , is definitely not an example of “ a particularly compelling example of speciation , ” of “ evolution in action , ” of “ an iconic model for studies of speciation and adaptive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Nature 201526 ) .

Photo: Galápagos finch, by kuhnmi, via Flickr.
Author’s note: Are Darwin’s finches “a particularly compelling example of speciation” as well as “evolution in action”? In a series of posts, I offer some notes on the question of whether macroevolution is happening on the Galápagos Islands. Please find the full series here.
From a Princeton University press release, “Gene behind ‘evolution in action’ in Darwin’s finches identified”1:
“It was an exceptionally strong natural-selection event,” said Peter Grant, adding that because Daphne Major is in an entirely natural state the occurrence was completely unaffected by humans. [Emphasis added.]
An “exceptionally strong natural-selection event” was not expected by Darwin or the neo-Darwinians. Rather, the following, as I have written in my book The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe:
Darwin imagined the origin of species (and, in fact, of all life forms) by selection of “infinitesimally small changes”, “infinitesimally slight variations” and “slow degrees” and hence imagined “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties”, ”insensibly fine steps” and “insensibly fine gradations”, “for natural selection can act only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a leap, but must advance by the shortest and slowest steps” or “the transition [between species] could, according to my theory, be effected only by numberless small gradations” (emphasis added). Virtually the same answer is presented by neo-Darwinism today.
From, “Galápagos Finch-Beak Size Locus Identified by Resequencing,”2 via GenomeWeb:
The smaller beak-associated haplotype dominated amongst medium ground finches that survived the drought, turning up in some 61 percent of 37 surviving birds. But it is less common in a set of 34 medium ground finches that perished in the period of lower food availability, turning up in just one-third of those birds. [Emphasis added.]
As for this “exceptionally strong natural-selection event,” this is by no means an all-or-nothing selection (as the impression is sometimes given). Rather, the alleles are retained.
Life “Takes a Leap”
So, this “evolution” does not proceed by “infinitesimally small changes,” “infinitesimally slight variations” and “slow degrees” and “steps not greater than those separating fine varieties,” “insensibly fine steps” and “insensibly fine gradations,” but (to rephrase Darwin) it “takes a leap, instead of advancing by the shortest and slowest steps.”
From an Uppsala University press release, “Evolution in action detected in Darwin’s finches”3:
Variation in beak morphology among these species is determined by the action of many gene variants but two genes with particularly important effects have now been identified, HMGA2 that affects beak size and ALX1 that controls beak shape. HMGA2*L and HMGA2*S promote the development of large and small beaks, respectively, while ALX1*P and ALX1*B are associated with the development of pointed and blunt beaks, respectively. [Emphasis added.]
From a report in the Christian Science Monitor, “Darwin’s finches are pecking their way through evolution”4:
But that [selection] doesn’t mean that the HMGA2 variation for larger beaks in the medium ground finches has gone extinct, [Leif] Andersson says. There are still individuals with that version of the gene and larger beaks. And, as natural selection dictates, different ecological pressures may lead to a resurgence of that variant, too. “As long as both variants are present in the medium ground finch, they may to respond to what is available, so to speak,” Andersson says. It will depend on which birds can forage for food and reproduce most effectively. [Emphasis added.]
“Sisyphean Evolution”
The morphological/anatomical effects of the alleles on beak formation are thus briefly yet clearly outlined. For (other) pleiotropic effects please see the original papers.
This “Sisyphean evolution of Darwin’s finches,” which can — for the reasons given above — be extrapolated to all the so-called genera and species of these birds, is definitely not an example of “a particularly compelling example of speciation,” of “evolution in action,” of “an iconic model for studies of speciation and adaptive evolution” (Lamichhaney et al. in Nature 201526).
Next, “Galápagos Finches — Some Contradictions Solved.”
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-26--Look: On Thanksgiving, Be Grateful for the Intelligent Design of Your Eyes

Happy Thanksgiving !
COVID restrictions may have put a damper on the traditional Thanksgiving celebration .
But even lockdowns can ’ t stop us from giving thanks .
If you ’ re looking for one more thing to express gratitude for , look no further than…eyes .
They were quite the sudden , unanticipated gift in the history of life .
Charles Darwin expected that eyes must have developed from simple forerunners through the usual ( hypothesized ) series of gradual steps .
But at the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years ago , we find clear evidence of both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ above ) and camera eyes already in use by creatures among the first animals in the fossil record .
BOOM : There they are .
We take our own eyes for granted .
However , our ability to interact with the world through vision — its beauty , its marvels , the information all around us — is beyond remarkable .
At the same time , the eyes are an evolutionary icon , in two senses .
In a powerful short video written and directed by Rachel Adams , we consider the scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : To deal with and demote the exquisite sensitivity of our vision — the ability to detect a single photon — Darwinists claim that vertebrate eyes are built backwards in testimony to the haphazard ways of evolution .
But as Discovery Institute biologist Jonathan Wells explains , evolutionists are working with outdated science .
It ’ s not ID proponents , but entirely mainstream research , that increasingly reveals the optimal design of our eyes .
Don ’ t let the truth about life and its origins get locked down .
If , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the courageous voices of Dr. Wells and other scientists with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture , please take a moment now to donate to keep Evolution News — the daily voice of the intelligent design movement — going strong in 2021 !

Photo credit: James St. John, CC BY 2.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Happy Thanksgiving! COVID restrictions may have put a damper on the traditional Thanksgiving celebration. But even lockdowns can’t stop us from giving thanks. If you’re looking for one more thing to express gratitude for, look no further than…eyes.
They were quite the sudden, unanticipated gift in the history of life. Charles Darwin expected that eyes must have developed from simple forerunners through the usual (hypothesized) series of gradual steps. But at the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years ago, we find clear evidence of both compound (as in the trilobite pictured above) and camera eyes already in use by creatures among the first animals in the fossil record. BOOM: There they are.
We take our own eyes for granted. However, our ability to interact with the world through vision — its beauty, its marvels, the information all around us — is beyond remarkable. At the same time, the eyes are an evolutionary icon, in two senses. In a powerful short video written and directed by Rachel Adams, we consider the scientific evidence around the question of eye evolution:
To deal with and demote the exquisite sensitivity of our vision — the ability to detect a single photon — Darwinists claim that vertebrate eyes are built backwards in testimony to the haphazard ways of evolution. But as Discovery Institute biologist Jonathan Wells explains, evolutionists are working with outdated science. It’s not ID proponents, but entirely mainstream research, that increasingly reveals the optimal design of our eyes.
Don’t let the truth about life and its origins get locked down. If, like me, you are grateful for the courageous voices of Dr. Wells and other scientists with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, please take a moment now to donate to keep Evolution News — the daily voice of the intelligent design movement — going strong in 2021!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-27--It’s Black Friday — What to Buy? Perhaps These ID-Themed Puzzles

Welcome to Black Friday , the first day of the Christmas shopping season .
Looking for gift ideas ?
With @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 further limiting activities , people need entertaining things to do at home with family @ @ @ @ @ store has some beautiful puzzles featuring images of galaxies , nebulae , and planets taken @ @ @ @ @ Space Telescopes .
One nice thing about Zazzle ’ s platform is that for each @ @ @ @ @ choose a size and difficulty level .
So you can opt for an easy 30-piece @ @ @ @ @ same design on a challenging 520-piece puzzle , or a difficult 1,014-piece puzzle .
Some @ @ @ @ @ about the image , and some are simply the beautiful image .
We hope you @ @ @

Welcome to Black Friday, the first day of the Christmas shopping season. Looking for gift ideas? With the weather getting colder and COVID-19 further limiting activities, people need entertaining things to do at home with family. Our Discovery Institute-CSC Zazzle store has some beautiful puzzles featuring images of galaxies, nebulae, and planets taken by the Hubble and Spitzer Space Telescopes.
One nice thing about Zazzle’s platform is that for each design, the customer can choose a size and difficulty level. So you can opt for an easy 30-piece puzzle, or choose the same design on a challenging 520-piece puzzle, or a difficult 1,014-piece puzzle.
Some of the puzzles feature information about the image, and some are simply the beautiful image. We hope you enjoy them.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-28--Podcast with Michael Behe: “You Can’t Deny the Data Forever”

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Eric Anderson interviews Michael Behe about Behe ’ s new book , A Mousetrap for Darwin .
Behe explains that he was spurred to build this collection of essays by a review in the journal Science claiming he had never answered his critics on key points .
That annoyed Behe , because he had answered them , multiple times .
A Mousetrap for Darwin compiles more than a hundred of his responses , some of them from difficult-to-access places .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Behe , including some lively behind-the-scenes details about his interactions with colleagues and critics .
The Lehigh University biochemist addresses misconceptions about irreducible complexity , responds to the claim that “ molecular machines ” is a misnomer , relates the surprising confessions some of his fellow biologists have made outside the spotlight about evolutionary theory , and offers his appraisal of why scientists in general don ’ t know what ’ s going on with studies in evolution or intelligent design .
Behe remains optimistic , though .
“ You can ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ says .

On a new episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson interviews Michael Behe about Behe’s new book, A Mousetrap for Darwin. Behe explains that he was spurred to build this collection of essays by a review in the journal Science claiming he had never answered his critics on key points. That annoyed Behe, because he had answered them, multiple times. A Mousetrap for Darwin compiles more than a hundred of his responses, some of them from difficult-to-access places. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The book also contains fresh material from Dr. Behe, including some lively behind-the-scenes details about his interactions with colleagues and critics. The Lehigh University biochemist addresses misconceptions about irreducible complexity, responds to the claim that “molecular machines” is a misnomer, relates the surprising confessions some of his fellow biologists have made outside the spotlight about evolutionary theory, and offers his appraisal of why scientists in general don’t know what’s going on with studies in evolution or intelligent design. Behe remains optimistic, though. “You can’t deny the data forever,” he says.


Pushing Elephant “Personhood”

Animal rights must always be distinguished from animal welfare .
The former is an ideology that creates moral equality between us and fauna .
In this view , human beings have no more right to own animals than we do people .
Animal welfare arises out of human exceptionalism .
It accepts the unique value of human beings and the moral propriety of owning animals .
But it also comprehends our duty to treat animals humanely , the definition of which will depend on the capacities and characteristics of each animal , and which is always subject to improvement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ animal-rights movement poses to society is known as “ animal standing , ” that is , allowing animals to go to court to bring lawsuits .
Of course , the animal litigants would be oblivious .
Animal standing is designed to unleash the very well-funded animal-rights legal community to sue and sue and sue .
Think cattle herds suing ranchers or lab animals suing universities — not to improve care but to liberate from all human use .
It could bring many activities that involve the instrumental use of animals to a halt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this charge .
Currently , it is seeking a writ of habeas corpus to release an elephant kept at the Bronx Zoo .
The argument isn ’ t based on the pachyderm ’ s welfare but rather its supposed “ personhood.
” The case was argued in an appeals court recently .
Note the circular argument .
From the Times Union story : Appellate Justice Peter Moulton told Wise his argument “ doesn ’ t answer the question of why a paradigm that was created for one species could possibly apply to another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person ” appears in the statute for a habeas corpus writ , a legal demand for a prisoner to be produced so a court can determine if imprisonment is lawful .
[ Stephen ] Wise said the issue is not whether Happy is a person but if she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus .
If so , he said , she is automatically a person , legally speaking .
The story reports that the judges were skeptical .
Let us hope so .
But don ’ t say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In a previous unsuccessful lawsuit involving chimps , a judge in New York ’ s highest court indicated he would declare chimpanzees to be legal persons and grant them habeas-corpus relief in their own name .
Moreover , a court in Argentina ruled that an orangutan was a “ nonhuman person , ” granted a writ of habeas corpus , and ordered the animal released from a zoo and placed in a Florida sanctuary .
It only takes one judge wanting to make history to put animal standing on the map .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are actively searching for that one judge .
Cross-posted at The Corner and at the Humanize blog , published by Discovery Institute ’ s Bradley Center .

Photo credit: Geran de Klerk via Unsplash.
Animal rights must always be distinguished from animal welfare. The former is an ideology that creates moral equality between us and fauna. In this view, human beings have no more right to own animals than we do people.
Animal welfare arises out of human exceptionalism. It accepts the unique value of human beings and the moral propriety of owning animals. But it also comprehends our duty to treat animals humanely, the definition of which will depend on the capacities and characteristics of each animal, and which is always subject to improvement and change.
The Greatest Threat
The greatest immediate threat the animal-rights movement poses to society is known as “animal standing,” that is, allowing animals to go to court to bring lawsuits. Of course, the animal litigants would be oblivious. Animal standing is designed to unleash the very well-funded animal-rights legal community to sue and sue and sue.
Think cattle herds suing ranchers or lab animals suing universities — not to improve care but to liberate from all human use. It could bring many activities that involve the instrumental use of animals to a halt.
The Nonhuman Rights Project is leading this charge. Currently, it is seeking a writ of habeas corpus to release an elephant kept at the Bronx Zoo. The argument isn’t based on the pachyderm’s welfare but rather its supposed “personhood.”
A Circular Argument
The case was argued in an appeals court recently. Note the circular argument. From the Times Union story:
Appellate Justice Peter Moulton told Wise his argument “doesn’t answer the question of why a paradigm that was created for one species could possibly apply to another one.” Moulton noted the word “person” appears in the statute for a habeas corpus writ, a legal demand for a prisoner to be produced so a court can determine if imprisonment is lawful. [Stephen] Wise said the issue is not whether Happy is a person but if she has the right to liberty protected by habeas corpus. If so, he said, she is automatically a person, legally speaking.
The story reports that the judges were skeptical. Let us hope so.
But don’t say, “It can never happen here.” In a previous unsuccessful lawsuit involving chimps, a judge in New York’s highest court indicated he would declare chimpanzees to be legal persons and grant them habeas-corpus relief in their own name.
Moreover, a court in Argentina ruled that an orangutan was a “nonhuman person,” granted a writ of habeas corpus, and ordered the animal released from a zoo and placed in a Florida sanctuary.
It only takes one judge wanting to make history to put animal standing on the map. The Nonhuman Rights Project and other animal-rights groups are actively searching for that one judge.
Cross-posted at The Corner and at the Humanize blog, published by Discovery Institute’s Bradley Center.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-30--Matti Leisola: Michael Behe “Opened My Eyes”

Bioscientist Matti Leisola , author of Heretic : One Scientist ’ s Journey from Darwin to Design , has high praise for biochemist Michael Behe ’ s latest , A Mousetrap for Darwin .
The humorous Mosquito Bite Scratcher illustration in Michael Behe ’ s 1996 book Darwin ’ s Black Box opened my eyes to the irreducibility of biological systems .
Ever since , I have followed Behe ’ s tireless defense of his position in numerous well-argued articles and responses .
His style is respectful ; he carefully studies the arguments of his critics and explains why they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bacterial flagellum motor , and other irreducibly complex biological systems , the mounting laboratory evidence of the strict limits of evolution , and his devolution argument should drive the message home : the idea that life ’ s diversity emerged through the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism is a dead idea .
This book is a welcome and valuable collection of these brilliantly argued articles .
To say that a writer “ opened your eyes , ” and to something as profound as the design of life , is a fantastic tribute .
Dr. Leisola @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finland ’ s Aalto University .
Get your copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics now .

Bioscientist Matti Leisola, author of Heretic: One Scientist’s Journey from Darwin to Design, has high praise for biochemist Michael Behe’s latest, A Mousetrap for Darwin.
The humorous Mosquito Bite Scratcher illustration in Michael Behe’s 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box opened my eyes to the irreducibility of biological systems. Ever since, I have followed Behe’s tireless defense of his position in numerous well-argued articles and responses. His style is respectful; he carefully studies the arguments of his critics and explains why they err. His mousetrap example, the bacterial flagellum motor, and other irreducibly complex biological systems, the mounting laboratory evidence of the strict limits of evolution, and his devolution argument should drive the message home: the idea that life’s diversity emerged through the Darwinian evolutionary mechanism is a dead idea. This book is a welcome and valuable collection of these brilliantly argued articles.
To say that a writer “opened your eyes,” and to something as profound as the design of life, is a fantastic tribute. Dr. Leisola is Professor Emeritus of Bioprocess Engineering at Finland’s Aalto University. Get your copy of A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics now.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-30--“Our 20th- and 21st-Century Ptolemaic Epicycles”?

Here is some refreshing philosophical candor from Alex Filippenko , professor of astronomy at UC Berkeley , as he describes @ @ @ @ @ the middle of the night screaming ” worries that dark energy and dark matter might @ @ @ @ @ the data .
“ Band-Aids to explain the data , ” he wonders , “ @ @ @ @ @ completely wrong.
” He remarks , “ Maybe these are our 20th- and 21st-century Ptolemaic @ @ @ @ @ position on the physics and astronomy questions raised ( because I can ’ t ) @ @ @ @ @ the philosophy of science parallels to similar moves in molecular phylogenetics and systematics .
Go @ @ @ @ @ minutes into his interview with Lex Fridman : Fridman is a first-rate interviewer .
I @ @ @ @ @ a recent drive to and from Pittsburgh , I listened to his four-hour+ long interview @ @ @ @ @ .

Photo: Alex Filippenko (screenshot).
Here is some refreshing philosophical candor from Alex Filippenko, professor of astronomy at UC Berkeley, as he describes his “wake up in the middle of the night screaming” worries that dark energy and dark matter might be theory-driven devices to accommodate the data. “Band-Aids to explain the data,” he wonders, “but they’re just completely wrong.”
He remarks, “Maybe these are our 20th- and 21st-century Ptolemaic epicycles…“ I take no position on the physics and astronomy questions raised (because I can’t), but am fascinated by the philosophy of science parallels to similar moves in molecular phylogenetics and systematics.
Go here, at about 9 minutes into his interview with Lex Fridman:
Fridman is a first-rate interviewer. I love his stuff. On a recent drive to and from Pittsburgh, I listened to his four-hour+ long interview with Stephen Wolfram. Compelling.