evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-18--Excerpt: An Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to celebrate the publication of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics .
What follows is an excerpt , drawn from “ Irreducible Complexity : Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution , ” in Debating Design : From Darwin to DNA , eds .
William Dembski and Michael Ruse ( New York : Cambridge University Press , 2004 ) .
Author ’ s note : Whenever professors get together to talk , somebody eventually says , “ Hey , let ’ s write a book on this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to our CVs . )
For Debating Design , the philosopher of biology Michael Ruse and design theorist William Dembski gathered contributions in 2004 from some true academic luminaries : geneticist Francisco Ayala , philosopher of science Elliott Sober , complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman , physicist Paul Davies , theologians John Polkinghorne and Richard Swinburne , and more .
Also included were Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller and myself , taking shots at each other .
Rather than showing how their theory could handle the obstacle , some Darwinists are hoping to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dancing .
At a debate between proponents and opponents of intelligent design sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History in April 2002 , Kenneth Miller actually claimed ( the transcript is available at the website of the National Center for Science Education1 ) that a mousetrap isn ’ t irreducibly complex because subsets of a mousetrap , and even each individual part , could still “ function ” on their own .
The holding bar of a mousetrap , Miller observed , could be used as a toothpick , so it still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mousetrap .
Any of the parts of the trap could be used as a paperweight , he continued , so they all had “ functions.
” And since any object that has mass can be a paperweight , then any part of anything has a function of its own .
Presto !
— there is no such thing as irreducible complexity !
Thus the acute problem for gradualism that any child can see in systems like the mousetrap is smoothly explained away .
Of course the facile explanation rests on a transparent fallacy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the word “ function ” in two different senses .
Recall that the definition of irreducible complexity notes that removal of a part “ causes the system to effectively cease functioning.
” Without saying so , in his exposition Miller shifts the focus from the separate function of the intact system itself to the question of whether we can find a different use ( or “ function ” ) for some of the parts .
However , if one removes a part from the mousetrap I pictured , it can no longer catch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ceased functioning , so the system is irreducibly complex , just as I had written .
What ’ s more , the functions that Miller glibly assigns to the parts — paperweight , toothpick , key chain , etc .
— have little or nothing to do with the function of the system of catching mice ( unlike the mousetrap series proposed by John McDonald ) , so they give us no clue as to how the system ’ s function could arise gradually .
Miller explained precisely nothing .
With the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ moved on to the bacterial flagellum — and again resorted to the same fallacy .
If nothing else , one has to admire the breathtaking audacity of verbally trying to turn another severe problem for Darwinism into an advantage .
In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought .
Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device ; it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cell to the outside.2 Without blinking , Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins , perhaps independently .
( Proteins similar — but not identical — to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria.3 ) Again he was equivocating , switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine , as I have argued .
Thus , contra Miller , the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex .
What ’ s more , the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap .
So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ Intelligent Design ’ Held at the American Museum of Natural History ( April 23 , 2002 ) .
” • Christoph J. Hueck , “ Type III Protein Secretion Systems in Bacterial Pathogens of Animals and Plants , ” Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews 62 ( 1998 ) : 379–433 .

Photo: Tap dancing, Iowa State College, 1942, by Jack Delano, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Editor’s note: We are delighted to celebrate the publication of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics. What follows is an excerpt, drawn from “Irreducible Complexity: Obstacle to Darwinian Evolution,” in Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA, eds. William Dembski and Michael Ruse (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
Author’s note: Whenever professors get together to talk, somebody eventually says, “Hey, let’s write a book on this!” (We get to add it to our CVs.) For Debating Design, the philosopher of biology Michael Ruse and design theorist William Dembski gathered contributions in 2004 from some true academic luminaries: geneticist Francisco Ayala, philosopher of science Elliott Sober, complexity theorist Stuart Kauffman, physicist Paul Davies, theologians John Polkinghorne and Richard Swinburne, and more. Also included were Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller and myself, taking shots at each other.
Rather than showing how their theory could handle the obstacle, some Darwinists are hoping to get around irreducible complexity by verbal tap dancing. At a debate between proponents and opponents of intelligent design sponsored by the American Museum of Natural History in April 2002, Kenneth Miller actually claimed (the transcript is available at the website of the National Center for Science Education1) that a mousetrap isn’t irreducibly complex because subsets of a mousetrap, and even each individual part, could still “function” on their own. The holding bar of a mousetrap, Miller observed, could be used as a toothpick, so it still had a “function” outside the mousetrap. Any of the parts of the trap could be used as a paperweight, he continued, so they all had “functions.” And since any object that has mass can be a paperweight, then any part of anything has a function of its own. Presto! — there is no such thing as irreducible complexity! Thus the acute problem for gradualism that any child can see in systems like the mousetrap is smoothly explained away.
A Brazen Equivocation
Of course the facile explanation rests on a transparent fallacy, a brazen equivocation. Miller uses the word “function” in two different senses. Recall that the definition of irreducible complexity notes that removal of a part “causes the system to effectively cease functioning.” Without saying so, in his exposition Miller shifts the focus from the separate function of the intact system itself to the question of whether we can find a different use (or “function”) for some of the parts. However, if one removes a part from the mousetrap I pictured, it can no longer catch mice. The system has indeed effectively ceased functioning, so the system is irreducibly complex, just as I had written. What’s more, the functions that Miller glibly assigns to the parts — paperweight, toothpick, key chain, etc. — have little or nothing to do with the function of the system of catching mice (unlike the mousetrap series proposed by John McDonald), so they give us no clue as to how the system’s function could arise gradually. Miller explained precisely nothing.
With the problem of the mousetrap behind him, Miller moved on to the bacterial flagellum — and again resorted to the same fallacy. If nothing else, one has to admire the breathtaking audacity of verbally trying to turn another severe problem for Darwinism into an advantage. In recent years it has been shown that the bacterial flagellum is an even more sophisticated system than had been thought. Not only does it act as a rotary propulsion device; it also contains within itself an elegant mechanism to transport the proteins that make up the outer portion of the machine, from the inside of the cell to the outside.2 Without blinking, Miller asserted that the flagellum is not irreducibly complex because some proteins of the flagellum could be missing and the remainder could still transport proteins, perhaps independently. (Proteins similar — but not identical — to some found in the flagellum occur in the type III secretory system of some bacteria.3) Again he was equivocating, switching the focus from the function of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine to the ability of a subset of the system to transport proteins across a membrane. However, taking away the parts of the flagellum certainly destroys the ability of the system to act as a rotary propulsion machine, as I have argued. Thus, contra Miller, the flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex. What’s more, the function of transporting proteins has as little directly to do with the function of rotary propulsion as a toothpick has to do with a mousetrap. So discovering the supportive function of transporting proteins tells us precisely nothing about how Darwinian processes might have put together a rotary propulsion machine.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-19--Michael Behe: Evolution by Devolution

Michael Behe: Evolution by Devolution

On a classic ID the Future episode , Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe discusses a peer-reviewed scientific paper he contributed @ @ @ @ @ Biology .
Behe explains why most examples of evolution in bacteria and viruses entail loss @ @ @ @ @ than gain of a new function at the molecular level .
In his view , @ @ @ @ @ Darwinian explanations of molecular evolution .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
@ @ @ @ @ explain how new forms and functions arose in the history of life , but when @ @ @ @ @ the molecular level , we find evolution creating niche advantages not by building anything fundamentally @ @ @ @ @ one or more things overboard .
An example of this devolutionary process on a showier @ @ @ @ @ , devolved from birds that could fly .
For more on Behe ’ s scientific @ @ @ @ @ , see his newest book , A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers @ @ @

Photo: A flightless cormorant, endemic to the Galápagos Islands, by putneymark / CC BY-SA.
On a classic ID the Future episode, Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe discusses a peer-reviewed scientific paper he contributed to The Quarterly Review of Biology. Behe explains why most examples of evolution in bacteria and viruses entail loss or modification of function rather than gain of a new function at the molecular level. In his view, this poses a challenge to Darwinian explanations of molecular evolution. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Darwinian evolution is supposed to explain how new forms and functions arose in the history of life, but when we study the process at the molecular level, we find evolution creating niche advantages not by building anything fundamentally new, but by throwing one or more things overboard. An example of this devolutionary process on a showier scale? Flightless island birds, devolved from birds that could fly. For more on Behe’s scientific criticisms of modern evolutionary theory, see his newest book, A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-21--Austrian Court Creates Right to Assisted Suicide

A bit ago , Germany ’ s high court created an absolute right to commit suicide and the concomitant right to have help in making oneself dead .
Now , an Austrian court has said that committing suicide is a right of “ self determination ” and that obtaining help is part of that right .
From the Tribune story : The court said that the right to self-determination includes the right to a “ dignified death , ” and also the right of a person who has decided of their own free will to kill himself or herself to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ person .
But it remains unclear what exactly will be allowed in Austria starting in 2022 .
I don ’ t think this was the highest court , so there may be an appeal .
Also , notice the court ruled that the state can attempt to ensure no undo influence .
The court said legislators will have to take measures to prevent abuse and ensure that “ the person affected does not take the decision to kill themselves under the influence of third parties.
” Yeah .
Right .
Good luck with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abuse .
More as I know more .
Cross-posted at The Corner and at the Humanize blog , published by Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Human Exceptionalism .

Photo credit: Christina Victoria Craft, via Unsplash.
A bit ago, Germany’s high court created an absolute right to commit suicide and the concomitant right to have help in making oneself dead.
Now, an Austrian court has said that committing suicide is a right of “self determination” and that obtaining help is part of that right. From the Tribune story:
The court said that the right to self-determination includes the right to a “dignified death,” and also the right of a person who has decided of their own free will to kill himself or herself to get help in doing so from another person. But it remains unclear what exactly will be allowed in Austria starting in 2022.
I don’t think this was the highest court, so there may be an appeal. Also, notice the court ruled that the state can attempt to ensure no undo influence.
The court said legislators will have to take measures to prevent abuse and ensure that “the person affected does not take the decision to kill themselves under the influence of third parties.”
Yeah. Right. Good luck with that. Guidelines do not protect against abuse. More as I know more.
Cross-posted at The Corner and at the Humanize blog, published by Discovery Institute’s Center for Human Exceptionalism.


Grandeur in Extinctions?

A new “ study ” from the Tokyo Institute of Technology applied artificial intelligence ( AI ) to the history of life on earth .
According to the GIGO law ( garbage in , garbage out ) , one can not get more out of a model than what one puts in .
Perhaps this one could be a corollary of that law , DIDO : put Darwinian assumptions in , and you will get Darwinian models out .
Phys.org introduces the project with some Darwin praise : Charles Darwin ’ s landmark opus “ On the Origin of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of his theory of evolution : “ There is a grandeur in this view of life , with its several powers , having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one ; and that , whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity , from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been , and are being , evolved.
” In fact , scientists now know that most species that have ever existed are extinct .
[ Emphasis added .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
It ’ s one of those subjective , indefinite terms that could mean something good , bad , or indifferent , depending on how hard the people studied , and how objective they tried to be .
One should glide over anything called a “ study ” and consider it sloppy till proven rigorous .
This new study ’ s model is pictured in a color graph , with the following caption : History was what it was , not what a machine says it must have been .
Machines don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligent human minds to do so — and humans have biases .
The Tokyo group mixed together some inputs but got something surprising : two Darwinian inputs appeared to clash with each other .
This should be rather sad for Darwinians .
They thought that a mass extinction creates new organisms ( “ productive periods of species evolution ” ) .
They had believed that “ creative destruction ” was sufficient to bring forth new organisms in rapid speciation events called radiations .
But whenever clashing Darwin inputs lead to a contradiction in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for worry .
New scenarios can always be imagined in order to keep evolutionary theory intact .
In Quinian terms , their web of belief is robust against perturbations .
They can have their Creative Destruction , and Grandeur , too !
A New Narrative and the Cambrian Explosion Here ’ s how they applied this new narrative to the Cambrian Explosion .
Creative destruction is central to classic concepts of evolution .
It seems clear that there are periods in which many species suddenly disappear , and many new species suddenly appear @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale to the mass extinctions , which this study , therefore , calls the mass radiations , have received far less analysis than extinction events .
This study compared the impacts of both extinction and radiation across the period for which fossils are available , the so-called Phanerozoic Eon .
The Phanerozoic ( from the Greek meaning “ apparent life ” ) , represents the most recent ~ 550-million-year period of Earth ’ s total ~4.5 billion-year history , and is significant to palaeontologists : Before this period , most of the organisms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t easily form fossils , so the prior evolutionary record is hard to observe .
The new study suggests creative destruction isn ’ t a good description of how species originated or went extinct during the Phanerozoic , and suggests that many of the most remarkable periods of evolutionary radiation occurred when life entered new evolutionary and ecological arenas , such as during the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity and the Carboniferous expansion of forest biomes .
No harm was done to Darwinism in their “ study , ” because the web of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ takes place in the arena of ecology instead of extinction .
“ Creative destruction ” no longer needs to be the cause for sudden appearance of many new species .
Changing ecology can be re-routed to become the cause for it .
Maybe it was climate change .
The team discussed how to rearrange the inputs while chatting at lunch .
If extinctions don ’ t cause radiations , they pondered , that means the classic K-T extinction/radiation narrative needs rewiring .
With billions of data points available to crunch in their models @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the model to get the desired Darwin output .
How this differs from interpreting tea leaves was not explained .
It would seem that the more leaves , the more opportunities to give the customers what they want to hear .
Customers in academia want to hear it in jargon , so the authors obliged by publishing their lunchtime chat , translated into appropriate stultiloquence , in Nature .
They scored extra points by getting noted Cambrian paleontologist Graham Budd to sign on .
… and so on and so forth .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ simple : extinctions and radiations are not necessarily correlated , as previously thought .
Phys.org shares the reaction : Once Again , No Problemo In one co-author ’ s colloquial translation , “ you don ’ t necessarily have to chip an existing piece off to allow something new to appear.
” Why , organisms can suddenly emerge without a prior extinction to push them into colonizing vacant ecospace .
There is grandeur in this view of life !
With that aspect of their “ study ” complete , they concocted another scenario @ @ @ @ @ @ @ creation.
” This narrative had an advantage .
It gave them an opportunity to blame our modern technological society .
This has become almost a requirement for any paper about extinction .
And what is that normal process of new species origination , class ?
It ’ s Creative Destruction .
Or was that Destructive Creation ?
Whatever .
The details don ’ t matter in this “ study ” because the web of belief is robust to perturbations .
Input Darwin assumptions ; stir the billions of tea leaves ; output Darwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ view of life , Darwin taught us .
With its several powers , including new ones like Creative Destruction and Destructive Creation , endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been , and are being , evolved — and destroyed .

Image: A scene from The Information Enigma, via Discovery Institute.
A new “study” from the Tokyo Institute of Technology applied artificial intelligence (AI) to the history of life on earth. According to the GIGO law (garbage in, garbage out), one cannot get more out of a model than what one puts in. Perhaps this one could be a corollary of that law, DIDO: put Darwinian assumptions in, and you will get Darwinian models out. Phys.org introduces the project with some Darwin praise:
Charles Darwin’s landmark opus “On the Origin of the Species” ends with a beautiful summary of his theory of evolution: “There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.” In fact, scientists now know that most species that have ever existed are extinct. [Emphasis added.]
What is a “study”? It’s one of those subjective, indefinite terms that could mean something good, bad, or indifferent, depending on how hard the people studied, and how objective they tried to be. One should glide over anything called a “study” and consider it sloppy till proven rigorous. This new study’s model is pictured in a color graph, with the following caption:
A new study applies machine learning to the fossil record to visualise life’s history, showing the impacts of major evolutionary events. This shows the long-term evolutionary and ecological impacts of major events of extinction and speciation.
History was what it was, not what a machine says it must have been. Machines don’t learn unless they are instructed by intelligent human minds to do so — and humans have biases.
Something Surprising
The Tokyo group mixed together some inputs but got something surprising: two Darwinian inputs appeared to clash with each other.
This extinction of species has, on the whole, been roughly balanced by the origination of new ones over Earth’s history, with a few major temporary imbalances scientists call mass extinction events. Scientists have long believed that mass extinctions create productive periods of species evolution, or “radiations,” a model called “creative destruction.” A new study led by scientists affiliated with the Earth-Life Science Institute (ELSI) at Tokyo Institute of Technology used machine learning to examine the co-occurrence of fossil species and found that radiations and extinctions are rarely connected, and thus mass extinctions likely rarely cause radiations of a comparable scale.
This should be rather sad for Darwinians. They thought that a mass extinction creates new organisms (“productive periods of species evolution”). They had believed that “creative destruction” was sufficient to bring forth new organisms in rapid speciation events called radiations. But whenever clashing Darwin inputs lead to a contradiction in expectations, there’s never cause for worry. New scenarios can always be imagined in order to keep evolutionary theory intact. In Quinian terms, their web of belief is robust against perturbations. They can have their Creative Destruction, and Grandeur, too!
A New Narrative and the Cambrian Explosion
Here’s how they applied this new narrative to the Cambrian Explosion.
Creative destruction is central to classic concepts of evolution. It seems clear that there are periods in which many species suddenly disappear, and many new species suddenly appear. However, radiations of a comparable scale to the mass extinctions, which this study, therefore, calls the mass radiations, have received far less analysis than extinction events. This study compared the impacts of both extinction and radiation across the period for which fossils are available, the so-called Phanerozoic Eon. The Phanerozoic (from the Greek meaning “apparent life”), represents the most recent ~ 550-million-year period of Earth’s total ~4.5 billion-year history, and is significant to palaeontologists: Before this period, most of the organisms that existed were microbes that didn’t easily form fossils, so the prior evolutionary record is hard to observe. The new study suggests creative destruction isn’t a good description of how species originated or went extinct during the Phanerozoic, and suggests that many of the most remarkable periods of evolutionary radiation occurred when life entered new evolutionary and ecological arenas, such as during the Cambrian explosion of animal diversity and the Carboniferous expansion of forest biomes.
No harm was done to Darwinism in their “study,” because the web of belief can be rearranged so that radiation takes place in the arena of ecology instead of extinction. “Creative destruction” no longer needs to be the cause for sudden appearance of many new species. Changing ecology can be re-routed to become the cause for it. Maybe it was climate change.
Chatting at Lunch
The team discussed how to rearrange the inputs while chatting at lunch. If extinctions don’t cause radiations, they pondered, that means the classic K-T extinction/radiation narrative needs rewiring. With billions of data points available to crunch in their models, there was plenty of wiggle room for the model to get the desired Darwin output.
Lead author Dr. Hoyal Cuthill said, “Some of the most challenging aspects of understanding the history of life are the enormous timescales and numbers of species involved. New applications of machine learning can help by allowing us to visualise this information in a human-readable form. This means we can, so to speak, hold a half-billion years of evolution in the palms of our hands and gain new insights from what we see.”
How this differs from interpreting tea leaves was not explained. It would seem that the more leaves, the more opportunities to give the customers what they want to hear. Customers in academia want to hear it in jargon, so the authors obliged by publishing their lunchtime chat, translated into appropriate stultiloquence, in Nature. They scored extra points by getting noted Cambrian paleontologist Graham Budd to sign on.
Here we apply machine learning to generate a spatial embedding (multidimensional ordination) of the temporal co-occurrence structure of the Phanerozoic fossil record, covering 1,273,254 occurrences in the Paleobiology Database for 171,231 embedded species. This facilitates the simultaneous comparison of macroevolutionary disruptions, using measures independent of secular diversity trends….
… and so on and so forth. Their take-home finding, though, was simple: extinctions and radiations are not necessarily correlated, as previously thought. Phys.org shares the reaction:
Surprisingly, in contrast to previous narratives emphasising the importance of post-extinction radiations, this work found that the most comparable mass radiations and extinctions were only rarely coupled in time, refuting the idea of a causal relationship between them.
Once Again, No Problemo
In one co-author’s colloquial translation, “you don’t necessarily have to chip an existing piece off to allow something new to appear.” Why, organisms can suddenly emerge without a prior extinction to push them into colonizing vacant ecospace. There is grandeur in this view of life!
With that aspect of their “study” complete, they concocted another scenario by flipping the phrase into “destructive creation.”
The team further found that radiations may, in fact, cause major changes to existing ecosystems, an idea the authors call “destructive creation.” They found that, during the Phanerozoic Eon, on average, the species that made up an ecosystem at any one time are almost all gone by 19 million years later. But when mass extinctions or radiations occur, this rate of turnover is much higher.
This narrative had an advantage. It gave them an opportunity to blame our modern technological society. This has become almost a requirement for any paper about extinction.
Dr. Hoyal Cuthill says, “Each extinction that happens on our watch erases a species that may have existed for millions of years up to now, making it harder for the normal process of new species origination to replace what is being lost.”
And what is that normal process of new species origination, class? It’s Creative Destruction. Or was that Destructive Creation? Whatever. The details don’t matter in this “study” because the web of belief is robust to perturbations. Input Darwin assumptions; stir the billions of tea leaves; output Darwin conclusions. There is grandeur in this view of life, Darwin taught us. With its several powers, including new ones like Creative Destruction and Destructive Creation, endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved — and destroyed.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-22--The Heavens Declare: Looking Forward to 2021

I ’ d be grateful for a fact-check on this from readers who are more scholarly than I am with their ancient literature .
However , as to evidence for intelligent design , my impression has long been that the ancients gave more weight to the stars than to their own bodies .
Most emphatically , “ The heavens declare the glory of God ; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.
” It ’ s curious , then , that the modern theory of ID has focused far more on biology than on cosmology .
That will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ release of Stephen Meyer ’ s book , Return of the God Hypothesis .
You can pre-order it now here .
It is one reason we are looking forward to 2021 , among others .
What does the statement in Psalm 31 tell us ?
Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik wrote , “ This revelation to which cosmic man is receptive is attained only in the rapturous experience of Being in all its glory and grandeur .
Creation , abounding in orderliness , architectural magnificence , and overpowering beauty , is the medium which is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” There are , I would say , other ways that God discloses himself , but this is surely one .
With that in mind ( I am thinking wishfully ) , NASA has released 30 images for the 30th anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope .
They add that , “ there ’ s something extra special about these 30 celestial gems : All of them can be seen through backyard telescopes .
Some of them can also be spotted with binoculars or even the naked eye.
” Above is one spectacular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Caldwell 78 ( or NGC 6541 ) , a globular star cluster roughly 22,000 light-years from Earth.
” You can find the rest here .
Enjoy !
Tomorrow , Evolution News will begin releasing its own gems from the past year : Our favorite ten stories of 2020 .
I hope you will enjoy those , too .

Photo: Caldwell 78, by NASA, ESA, and G. Piotto (Università degli Studi di Padova); Processing: Gladys Kober (NASA/Catholic University of America).
I’d be grateful for a fact-check on this from readers who are more scholarly than I am with their ancient literature. However, as to evidence for intelligent design, my impression has long been that the ancients gave more weight to the stars than to their own bodies. Most emphatically, “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands.” It’s curious, then, that the modern theory of ID has focused far more on biology than on cosmology. That will be corrected next year in March with the release of Stephen Meyer’s book, Return of the God Hypothesis. You can pre-order it now here. It is one reason we are looking forward to 2021, among others.
What does the statement in Psalm 31 tell us? Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik wrote, “This revelation to which cosmic man is receptive is attained only in the rapturous experience of Being in all its glory and grandeur. Creation, abounding in orderliness, architectural magnificence, and overpowering beauty, is the medium which is employed by God for disclosing himself man.” There are, I would say, other ways that God discloses himself, but this is surely one.
Our Favorite Ten Stories of 2020
With that in mind (I am thinking wishfully), NASA has released 30 images for the 30th anniversary of the Hubble Space Telescope. They add that, “there’s something extra special about these 30 celestial gems: All of them can be seen through backyard telescopes. Some of them can also be spotted with binoculars or even the naked eye.” Above is one spectacular example, captioned by NASA: “Caldwell 78 (or NGC 6541), a globular star cluster roughly 22,000 light-years from Earth.” You can find the rest here.
Enjoy! Tomorrow, Evolution News will begin releasing its own gems from the past year: Our favorite ten stories of 2020. I hope you will enjoy those, too.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-22--Günter Bechly: Welcome to the Underground

As a colleague pointed out yesterday , American life is taking on new aspects with an increasingly “ underground ” feel .
It ’ s become suffocating on the surface , so truth seeks shelter .
People monitor what they permit themselves to say in public , and often in private , too .
Social media are watching what you post .
A lot of people have learned what it feels like to have your Facebook or Twitter account suspended as a punishment for saying something politically disfavored .
As Discovery Institute ’ s Chris Rufo has extensively reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ private sphere , may decide it ’ s time for you to be reprogrammed in line with woke racial ideology .
The experience of being canceled or expelled is no longer limited to controversial speakers on college campuses , who make students feel “ unsafe.
” It ’ s not limited to intelligent design advocates either .
German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly was canceled by his employer , the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart where he was a curator .
A distinguished scientist and brilliant writer , his crime was to give @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fair hearing .
In 2015 he ended up going underground — and finding us here at Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture , where he is now a Senior Fellow , and at Evolution News , where he is a contributing writer and where I have the privilege of being the editor .
Dr. Bechly recently penned a blockbuster 14-part series debunking Kimberella as a solution to the Cambrian Explosion .
In case you missed it , it is a monumental , and morally important , piece of scholarship .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ , remains an unsolvable mystery for Darwinists , with all that implies about the evidence for purpose and design .
Thank You for Your Support It ’ s because of your support that we are able to provide an institutional home for Dr. Bechly , allowing him to come up from underground and broadcast his writing , his research , his advocacy of the theory of ID and his skepticism about neo-Darwinism .
He discusses his work for Evolution News in a new video that I urge you to watch : ID scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ write for Evolution News — are the part of the intelligent design underground that has been able to come up into the light .
Bechly appeals here for your pledge of assistance before the end of the year .
Please , if you can , support the Center for Science & Culture so we can do two things : Keep sharing the dissident scientists ’ creative scholarship with the world , and bring more scientists up into freedom and provide a new venue where they can ’ t get expelled for telling the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of any size can make an impact and about our incentives for giving .

Photo: Günter Bechly.
As a colleague pointed out yesterday, American life is taking on new aspects with an increasingly “underground” feel. It’s become suffocating on the surface, so truth seeks shelter. People monitor what they permit themselves to say in public, and often in private, too. Social media are watching what you post. A lot of people have learned what it feels like to have your Facebook or Twitter account suspended as a punishment for saying something politically disfavored. As Discovery Institute’s Chris Rufo has extensively reported, your employer, in the public or private sphere, may decide it’s time for you to be reprogrammed in line with woke racial ideology.
The experience of being canceled or expelled is no longer limited to controversial speakers on college campuses, who make students feel “unsafe.” It’s not limited to intelligent design advocates either.
A Fair Hearing for ID
German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly was canceled by his employer, the State Museum of Natural History in Stuttgart where he was a curator. A distinguished scientist and brilliant writer, his crime was to give the scientific case for intelligent design a fair hearing. In 2015 he ended up going underground — and finding us here at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, where he is now a Senior Fellow, and at Evolution News, where he is a contributing writer and where I have the privilege of being the editor. Dr. Bechly recently penned a blockbuster 14-part series debunking Kimberella as a solution to the Cambrian Explosion. In case you missed it, it is a monumental, and morally important, piece of scholarship. The Cambrian event, a massive saltation, remains an unsolvable mystery for Darwinists, with all that implies about the evidence for purpose and design.
Thank You for Your Support
It’s because of your support that we are able to provide an institutional home for Dr. Bechly, allowing him to come up from underground and broadcast his writing, his research, his advocacy of the theory of ID and his skepticism about neo-Darwinism. He discusses his work for Evolution News in a new video that I urge you to watch:
ID scientists like Günter Bechly — and others who write for Evolution News — are the part of the intelligent design underground that has been able to come up into the light. Bechly appeals here for your pledge of assistance before the end of the year. Please, if you can, support the Center for Science & Culture so we can do two things: Keep sharing the dissident scientists’ creative scholarship with the world, and bring more scientists up into freedom and provide a new venue where they can’t get expelled for telling the truth. Read about how your gift of any size can make an impact and about our incentives for giving.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-22--Blood Clotting Remains a Mousetrap for Darwin

On a new episode of ID the Future , Michael Behe continues discussing his new book , A Mousetrap for Darwin , with host Eric Anderson .
Here the focus is the blood clotting cascade .
Behe has argued it ’ s irreducibly complex , like a mousetrap , and that blind evolution couldn ’ t build it one small functional step at a time .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Behe says a better explanation is that blood clotting was intelligently designed .
His critics have responded to his argument over the years .
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ prominent interlocutor on the matter is the recently deceased Russell Doolittle .
Behe shows that Doolittle misread the paper he relied on to refute Behe .
Professor Behe also responds to Kenneth Miller and Keith Robison .
According to Behe , his critics have managed to provide little more than hand-waving , smoke screens , and the sweeping of crucial problems under the rug .
Tune in to catch some of the back and forth , and for a deeper look at this challenge to modern evolutionary theory , pick up a copy @ @ @ @ @ @ @

Image credit: Vector8DIY, via Pixabay.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Michael Behe continues discussing his new book, A Mousetrap for Darwin, with host Eric Anderson. Here the focus is the blood clotting cascade. Behe has argued it’s irreducibly complex, like a mousetrap, and that blind evolution couldn’t build it one small functional step at a time. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Behe says a better explanation is that blood clotting was intelligently designed. His critics have responded to his argument over the years. Here Behe returns the favor. His most prominent interlocutor on the matter is the recently deceased Russell Doolittle. Behe shows that Doolittle misread the paper he relied on to refute Behe. Professor Behe also responds to Kenneth Miller and Keith Robison. According to Behe, his critics have managed to provide little more than hand-waving, smoke screens, and the sweeping of crucial problems under the rug. Tune in to catch some of the back and forth, and for a deeper look at this challenge to modern evolutionary theory, pick up a copy of Behe’s new book.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-24--#9 Story of 2020: An Antidote to Despair

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff will be enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you will , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on June 9 , 2020 .
I am a biologist , a worker in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ categorizing human beings by race , arranging them in a false hierarchy to dismiss some as less human than others .
That history seems very of the moment now , as anguish about interracial friendship and understanding has emerged as the dominant note in our culture .
The following story is true , though , and perhaps it is an antidote to despair .
I have a friend .
Let me call her Kia .
I met her when she was homeless and had just had a baby .
She needed a place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ want to take her baby back to a homeless shelter where smoke and foul language and worse were everywhere .
We had a spare room and had asked at church if there was anyone who needed a place to stay .
Kia was the answer .
She was an African immigrant , with no family , who had been working in adult home care .
One night she was raped .
When she got pregnant , abortion was not an option as far as she was concerned , despite the stigma of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some cost to her , even among members of her church .
Yet there was no question of her giving up the baby for she had been told she would never be able to have a child .
When her pregnancy was far advanced she could no longer do the work .
That left her homeless , living in a shelter .
We all agreed that she should move in .
It was a gesture of trust for both parties .
To share a home is an act of intimacy and of vulnerability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friend along to evaluate the situation .
No one in her community could believe that anything like this could happen .
White people don ’ t open their homes to poor black people with no status , they all thought , and perhaps some said .
But move in she did .
There was soon a parade of visitors from her community .
They would stare as they walked by us on their way downstairs to the spare bedroom .
They did not approach that “ strange ” white couple , out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I learned about all the ways of government subsidy — food stamps , WIC , subsidized housing , DSHS , Medicaid .
I was both impressed and horrified by what I saw .
On the one hand , the government gave food , medical care , childcare , cash , and even housing to the lucky indigent .
But they gave barely enough to live on , and reduced the benefits given according to the amount earned .
It was an incentive to earn just enough , but not enough to remove you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ abounded .
Everything needed documented proof , and petitioners were made to paddle the chartless bureaucratic ocean by themselves , drifting from window to window , unless they had a good social worker to help them navigate the waters .
As time passed , Kia and I became family .
The little baby girl became like a granddaughter .
We shared faith , and stories .
We learned from one another — she learned to eat our bread and we learned to eat flat bread , she learned about knives and forks , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a delicate means to pick up a morsel of food and eat it .
But it was mostly I who was learning from Kia : what it was to grow up poor — indeed , what it was to be poor in a way most Americans have never experienced .
Kia told of sleeping four or more to a bed in one small bedroom , cooking over a fire outside , no indoor plumbing , walking everywhere , leaving school in eighth grade to care for family when her mother grew sick and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ safety net either .
Eventually the social interventionist U.S. government persuaded Kia to take a Section 8 apartment with her daughter .
Perhaps they had as much understanding as the Africans did of the arrangement between Kia and my family .
It seemed something that must be disrupted somehow .
Perhaps they were afraid we would grow tired of the experiment and deposit mother and child back on the street .
So Kia moved out .
Still , she would return for holidays and we would go to her daughter ’ s birthday @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sick .
It got worse and worse .
She was in and out of the hospital for seven months — she could not keep down food .
The doctors thought it was first one thing , then another .
She was afraid it might be cancer .
She had no one to take care of her , she thought .
And in her culture , people with cancer just went back to their country to die .
But when I found out what she was afraid of , I said , “ We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what.
” From that time , I stayed by her side in the hospital .
Kia found she was treated better when I was with her .
The orderlies would say , “ Why is she doing this ?
” , meaning me .
The nurses and doctors would ask , “ How are you related ?
” And I would say , “ What , don ’ t we look alike ?
” Finally , the doctors determined that Kia did have cancer , stage 4 cancer .
It was spread throughout @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move in with us again .
I couldn ’ t do otherwise , I couldn ’ t let her go through this alone .
This time Kia moved in with a four-year old daughter , full of energy and life .
Our children had recently all moved out , so we were glad to have the house full of life again .
With the support of the local church , we were able to enroll the little one in pre-k. A local oncologist with an excellent reputation agreed to take Kia ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s offices took the government food stamps and Medicaid .
There still were barriers , though .
People in the mainly white suburban town couldn ’ t figure out why we were together .
So we sometimes got strange looks .
One time at the surgery suite the whole staff came to see Kia get an IV .
She was so sick and yet so beautiful and exotic to them .
This kind of treatment was revelatory for me , who was used to being invisible .
As we settled in , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a sense we really were family , truly committed to one another .
We would talk and talk and talk .
We would sing , and laugh .
I found a peaceful spirit in Kia , one full of trust in God .
Her whole life long Kia had practice saying , “ I am in your hands , ” so saying it now wasn ’ t hard .
We recognized a kindred spirit in each other , though our lives had taken different paths .
It was different with the African @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I made a point to sit and talk to these visitors , because I considered them my friends too .
I wanted to show them they were welcome , and that my intentions were good .
Kia began chemotherapy in September .
She was scheduled to go every other week .
The chemo seemed easy to bear the first time , aside from having to delay for low blood counts .
They removed one of her medications for the second round and pushed it back a week .
I knew that everything Kia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
To enter into our house , to go through difficult medical treatment , to worry about her daughter — all of this was very hard .
But Kia never complained , and only sometimes hinted that this was a struggle .
Sometimes Kia and I would sit around the table and talk after dinner .
One night I asked , “ What has this been like for you ?
” Kia smiled and answered , “ Before I was lonely .
Now I am not .
I have peace.
” The thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was how we had become family .
Others recognized it too .
Kia ’ s pastor said to us one day , “ Do you realize what you have done ?
You have broken racial barriers , social barriers , economic barriers , cultural barriers , all barriers.
” I was embarrassed and thought , “ Anyone can do this.
” After the third round of chemo Kia developed a tremendous headache .
It proved to be an old subdural hematoma , perhaps from a past fall .
That meant she had to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to remove the old blood , and another stay in the hospital .
She went home after a few days , then had to go back for a new hematoma .
All of this delayed her chemotherapy .
She had another round of chemotherapy and another hematoma .
No one knew why .
Kia cried out , “ What do you want of me ?
” and then had her third brain surgery .
When she was out of the hospital , it was time for her scan to see how the cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appointment to hear the results .
Both were worried that all the complications and delays might have made the treatment ineffective .
“ Your scan is clear.
” The doctor said it calmly .
Kia first shouted , then wept .
First the doctor , then I silently held her .
She praised God for his mercy .
Suddenly the future I had feared was gone .
It was December .
What happened next ?
The treatment continued to make sure all the cancer was gone .
Kia passed her final scan after @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear .
Her daughter is now seven .
We continue as a black and white family .
We are knit together by trials and circumstances and grace .
When I said that anyone can do this , I meant it .
What is required is a leap of trust , from both directions .
The past errors of my scientific field notwithstanding , experience gives evidence of a healing truth .
We are all human together .

Photo credit: JOHN TOWNER via Unsplash.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff will be enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you will, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on June 9, 2020.
I am a biologist, a worker in a field with a sorrowful history of categorizing human beings by race, arranging them in a false hierarchy to dismiss some as less human than others. That history seems very of the moment now, as anguish about interracial friendship and understanding has emerged as the dominant note in our culture. The following story is true, though, and perhaps it is an antidote to despair.
I have a friend. Let me call her Kia. I met her when she was homeless and had just had a baby. She needed a place to stay — she didn’t want to take her baby back to a homeless shelter where smoke and foul language and worse were everywhere. We had a spare room and had asked at church if there was anyone who needed a place to stay. Kia was the answer.
She was an African immigrant, with no family, who had been working in adult home care. One night she was raped. When she got pregnant, abortion was not an option as far as she was concerned, despite the stigma of being a single mother. This came at some cost to her, even among members of her church. Yet there was no question of her giving up the baby for she had been told she would never be able to have a child.
When her pregnancy was far advanced she could no longer do the work. That left her homeless, living in a shelter.
An Act of Trust
We all agreed that she should move in. It was a gesture of trust for both parties. To share a home is an act of intimacy and of vulnerability. She came cautiously, bringing a friend along to evaluate the situation. No one in her community could believe that anything like this could happen. White people don’t open their homes to poor black people with no status, they all thought, and perhaps some said.
But move in she did. There was soon a parade of visitors from her community. They would stare as they walked by us on their way downstairs to the spare bedroom. They did not approach that “strange” white couple, out of awkwardness and language barriers.
Over time I learned about all the ways of government subsidy — food stamps, WIC, subsidized housing, DSHS, Medicaid. I was both impressed and horrified by what I saw. On the one hand, the government gave food, medical care, childcare, cash, and even housing to the lucky indigent. But they gave barely enough to live on, and reduced the benefits given according to the amount earned. It was an incentive to earn just enough, but not enough to remove you from the welfare rolls. And humiliations abounded. Everything needed documented proof, and petitioners were made to paddle the chartless bureaucratic ocean by themselves, drifting from window to window, unless they had a good social worker to help them navigate the waters.
As time passed, Kia and I became family. The little baby girl became like a granddaughter. We shared faith, and stories. We learned from one another — she learned to eat our bread and we learned to eat flat bread, she learned about knives and forks, and we about using the bread as a delicate means to pick up a morsel of food and eat it.
But it was mostly I who was learning from Kia: what it was to grow up poor — indeed, what it was to be poor in a way most Americans have never experienced. Kia told of sleeping four or more to a bed in one small bedroom, cooking over a fire outside, no indoor plumbing, walking everywhere, leaving school in eighth grade to care for family when her mother grew sick and died. No bureaucracy, but no safety net either.
“No Matter What”
Eventually the social interventionist U.S. government persuaded Kia to take a Section 8 apartment with her daughter. Perhaps they had as much understanding as the Africans did of the arrangement between Kia and my family. It seemed something that must be disrupted somehow. Perhaps they were afraid we would grow tired of the experiment and deposit mother and child back on the street. So Kia moved out. Still, she would return for holidays and we would go to her daughter’s birthday parties.
Then one day Kia became sick. It got worse and worse. She was in and out of the hospital for seven months — she could not keep down food. The doctors thought it was first one thing, then another. She was afraid it might be cancer. She had no one to take care of her, she thought. And in her culture, people with cancer just went back to their country to die. But when I found out what she was afraid of, I said, “We will take care of you no matter what.”
From that time, I stayed by her side in the hospital. Kia found she was treated better when I was with her. The orderlies would say, “Why is she doing this?”, meaning me. The nurses and doctors would ask, “How are you related?” And I would say, “What, don’t we look alike?”
Finally, the doctors determined that Kia did have cancer, stage 4 cancer. It was spread throughout her body. I said she should move in with us again. I couldn’t do otherwise, I couldn’t let her go through this alone.
This time Kia moved in with a four-year old daughter, full of energy and life. Our children had recently all moved out, so we were glad to have the house full of life again. With the support of the local church, we were able to enroll the little one in pre-k. A local oncologist with an excellent reputation agreed to take Kia’s case. And most stores and doctor’s offices took the government food stamps and Medicaid.
There still were barriers, though. People in the mainly white suburban town couldn’t figure out why we were together. So we sometimes got strange looks. One time at the surgery suite the whole staff came to see Kia get an IV. She was so sick and yet so beautiful and exotic to them. This kind of treatment was revelatory for me, who was used to being invisible.
A Peaceful Spirit
As we settled in, this time it was different. There was a sense we really were family, truly committed to one another. We would talk and talk and talk. We would sing, and laugh. I found a peaceful spirit in Kia, one full of trust in God. Her whole life long Kia had practice saying, “I am in your hands,” so saying it now wasn’t hard. We recognized a kindred spirit in each other, though our lives had taken different paths.
It was different with the African people who came to visit also. I made a point to sit and talk to these visitors, because I considered them my friends too. I wanted to show them they were welcome, and that my intentions were good.
Kia began chemotherapy in September. She was scheduled to go every other week.
The chemo seemed easy to bear the first time, aside from having to delay for low blood counts. They removed one of her medications for the second round and pushed it back a week.
I knew that everything Kia was going through must be incredibly hard. To enter into our house, to go through difficult medical treatment, to worry about her daughter — all of this was very hard. But Kia never complained, and only sometimes hinted that this was a struggle.
Sometimes Kia and I would sit around the table and talk after dinner. One night I asked, “What has this been like for you?” Kia smiled and answered, “Before I was lonely. Now I am not. I have peace.”
The thing that stood out most in my mind was how we had become family. Others recognized it too. Kia’s pastor said to us one day, “Do you realize what you have done? You have broken racial barriers, social barriers, economic barriers, cultural barriers, all barriers.” I was embarrassed and thought, “Anyone can do this.”
Humans Together
After the third round of chemo Kia developed a tremendous headache. It proved to be an old subdural hematoma, perhaps from a past fall. That meant she had to have a hole drilled in her head to remove the old blood, and another stay in the hospital. She went home after a few days, then had to go back for a new hematoma. All of this delayed her chemotherapy.
She had another round of chemotherapy and another hematoma. No one knew why. Kia cried out, “What do you want of me?” and then had her third brain surgery.
When she was out of the hospital, it was time for her scan to see how the cancer was. Together we went to the appointment to hear the results. Both were worried that all the complications and delays might have made the treatment ineffective.
“Your scan is clear.” The doctor said it calmly. Kia first shouted, then wept. First the doctor, then I silently held her. She praised God for his mercy. Suddenly the future I had feared was gone. It was December.
What happened next? The treatment continued to make sure all the cancer was gone. Kia passed her final scan after treatment finished and has continued to be clear. Her daughter is now seven. We continue as a black and white family. We are knit together by trials and circumstances and grace.
When I said that anyone can do this, I meant it. What is required is a leap of trust, from both directions. The past errors of my scientific field notwithstanding, experience gives evidence of a healing truth. We are all human together.
Photo by JOHN TOWNER on Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-25--Reuben’s Story — A Light in Troubled Times

So began the email sent to us at cscinfo @ discovery.org .
The 18-year old writer named Reuben , from a small town in the United Kingdom , went on to describe how he had found us during his search for organizations that dealt with origin-of-life research .
His thoughtful and insightful email revealed much about his journey .
Methodological naturalism ( and its associated atheism ) is a very depressing thing to be told is the truth .
This is what I was essentially told when introduced to the “ scientific fact ” of Darwinian evolution at sixth form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ school ” in the U.S .
I think ) .
No one else in my class seemed to care that this “ brilliant science ” told them that the universe is completely meaningless , life a complete accident , and their sense of “ self ” in fact a worthless illusion .
I felt very small .
Then Reuben came across Michael Behe ’ s Darwin ’ s Black Box and the idea of irreducible complexity .
It made sense to him and provided scientific evidence for design .
Now he has watched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ YouTube and is reading Foresight by Marcos Eberlin .
More than that , he discovered Discovery Institute and expressed his sincere gratitude for the work made possible by people like YOU .
Thank goodness I live in a time where fields such as biochemistry are actually ( to my great delight ) revealing intelligence and planning .
But I want to thank you all so so much .
Because it is not easy to stand up against the paradigm .
To be branded as “ religious heretics ” by proud , often arrogant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to question them , and the vast majority of young scientists are brainwashed into joining them .
But not me , and I can thank you for that .
As I read Reuben ’ s email , it warmed my heart to know the impact our donors have made on this young man ’ s life through their support of the Center for Science & Culture .
Would you consider joining them ?
Without our supporters there would be no books by Michael Behe , Marcos Eberlin , Stephen Meyer , Michael Denton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t be a wide-array of YouTube videos critiquing Darwinian evolution and providing scientific evidence for intelligent design .
There would most certainly not be an educational and research network circling the globe that will be a resource to him now and in the future .
In 2020 , our Education and Outreach Initiative reached over 32,000 people through 53 events ( live and virtual ) , with 360,000+ more views of the videos on YouTube after the events .
Our Summer Seminar program engaged 57 participants from 11 countries , 100 percent of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Generous donors made all this possible and your support today will continue those programs in 2021 .
Reuben is now connected to a welcoming and vibrant community of like-minded people who will stay in touch with him and mentor him throughout his education .
He ’ s the lucky one .
There are many more out there like him .
We need you beside us to provide the hope and encouragement and purpose that they need to survive and thrive in their educational and career endeavors .
Reuben and I hope you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ today .

Photo: Lime Kiln Lighthouse, San Juan Island, via Wikimedia Commons.
I was just about to type out my life story when I realised that whoever is reading this really wouldn’t be interested. Instead I’ll cut to the chase: your work at Discovery Institute may have saved my life.
So began the email sent to us at cscinfo@discovery.org. The 18-year old writer named Reuben, from a small town in the United Kingdom, went on to describe how he had found us during his search for organizations that dealt with origin-of-life research. His thoughtful and insightful email revealed much about his journey.
Methodological naturalism (and its associated atheism) is a very depressing thing to be told is the truth. This is what I was essentially told when introduced to the “scientific fact” of Darwinian evolution at sixth form A-level biology (kinda like “high school” in the U.S. I think). No one else in my class seemed to care that this “brilliant science” told them that the universe is completely meaningless, life a complete accident, and their sense of “self” in fact a worthless illusion. I felt very small.
Gratitude to You
Then Reuben came across Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box and the idea of irreducible complexity. It made sense to him and provided scientific evidence for design. Now he has watched nearly every one of our videos on YouTube and is reading Foresight by Marcos Eberlin.
More than that, he discovered Discovery Institute and expressed his sincere gratitude for the work made possible by people like YOU.
Thank goodness I live in a time where fields such as biochemistry are actually (to my great delight) revealing intelligence and planning. But I want to thank you all so so much. Because it is not easy to stand up against the paradigm. To be branded as “religious heretics” by proud, often arrogant people. The layman is never going to question them, and the vast majority of young scientists are brainwashed into joining them. But not me, and I can thank you for that.
As I read Reuben’s email, it warmed my heart to know the impact our donors have made on this young man’s life through their support of the Center for Science & Culture. Would you consider joining them?
Without our supporters there would be no books by Michael Behe, Marcos Eberlin, Stephen Meyer, Michael Denton, and others. There wouldn’t be a wide-array of YouTube videos critiquing Darwinian evolution and providing scientific evidence for intelligent design. There would most certainly not be an educational and research network circling the globe that will be a resource to him now and in the future.
In 2020, our Education and Outreach Initiative reached over 32,000 people through 53 events (live and virtual), with 360,000+ more views of the videos on YouTube after the events. Our Summer Seminar program engaged 57 participants from 11 countries, 100 percent of whom would recommend the program to others. Generous donors made all this possible and your support today will continue those programs in 2021.
The Lucky One
Reuben is now connected to a welcoming and vibrant community of like-minded people who will stay in touch with him and mentor him throughout his education. He’s the lucky one.
There are many more out there like him. We need you beside us to provide the hope and encouragement and purpose that they need to survive and thrive in their educational and career endeavors. Reuben and I hope you will consider a “life-saving” gift today.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-25--Merry Christmas! #8 Story of 2020: Upstairs into the Plague

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff will be enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you will , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on March 18 , 2020 .
I was driving into work this morning and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ morning at about 6:30 am the traffic begins to back up on the highway leading into my medical center .
It ’ s the morning shift — hundreds of nurses and clerks and aides and orderlies and housekeepers bleary-eyed and guzzling Starbucks and they wait to enter the parking garage and begin their ( usually 12 hour ) shift .
I avoid the crush and go in the back way .
It ’ s a bit of a walk but I need the exercise .
When I got into the office , our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Several of them were on call overnight — they spent the night in the ER , seeing neurosurgery patients , amidst the crush of humanity with fevers and coughs .
I ’ m lucky — I ’ m the professor , and I mostly go to the operating room — where it ’ s sterile and everyone wears masks .
My team in the ER doesn ’ t have that luxury .
They don ’ t complain .
I worry about them .
For their health , of course , but also because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the neurosurgery emergency care for our very large county is provided by our department , and if our people get sick , a couple of million people will have difficulty getting care .
We ’ re trying very hard to stay healthy in this COVID-19 pandemic , and to keep working and keep informed .
The media is full of talking heads and experts .
They ’ re mostly doing their best , but the ideologues and grifters are all too plentiful .
To wit , we get lots of “ reminders ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin in the management of the coronavirus pandemic .
• “ Geneticist Spencer Wells on COVID-19 as ‘ Evolution in Action ’ ” • “ Coronavirus — we need to learn from Darwin ” There ’ s no doubt that COVID-19 evolved : populations of viruses change with time .
Of course , we know that from epidemiology and virology and simple observation .
Darwin ’ s theory has little to do with epidemiology .
Darwin proposed that all biological adaptation and speciation arose from wholly unintelligent processes .
Given the ubiquitous evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biology was a tough sell without a mechanism by which the stunning tapestry of information-bearing life came about .
In an epiphany , Darwin hit upon the explanation for life — survivors survived !
Atheists at last were intellectually satisfied .
Darwin ’ s actual impact on epidemiology is minimal — his theory ( published in 1859 ) mainly served to distract scientists and doctors from the real science on infectious disease that emerged from the work of Girolamo Fracastoro ( 16th-century physician who proposed that infections were caused by microorganisms ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discovered microorganisms ) , Thomas Sydenham ( studied London epidemics in the 17th century ) , Edward Jenner ( first smallpox vaccine — 1757 ) ) , Ignaz Semmelweis ( discovered in 1847 that antisepsis prevented post-partum infections ) , John Snow ( stopped cholera epidemic in London , 1854 ) , Louis Pasteur ( germ theory of disease ) , Joseph Lister ( antiseptic surgery ) , Robert Koch ( modern bacteriology ) , Paul Ehrlich ( Nobel laureate who cured syphilis ) , Alexander Flemming ( penicillin ) , Jonas Salk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a few .
Darwin , who was mathematically illiterate and fascinated by barnacles , flunked out of medical school , married his ( wealthy ) first cousin , wrote a book on the origin of species by natural selection in which he provided no evidence for the origin of species by natural selection , and worked sporadically , mostly from bed .
He would have required remedial training to get a job cleaning Pasteur ’ s test tubes .
Yet his contribution to atheism , unlike his contribution to science , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a “ narrative gloss , ” is an old and vigorous science .
But there ’ s more to the amelioration of epidemics than superb science .
The most important advance in preventing epidemics — probably more important than vaccinations and the gamut of 21st-century high-tech science — is low-tech public sanitation .
There is probably nothing ( except for food and water and blankets ) that has saved more lives from epidemics than enforcement of the principle that drinking water and sewage water must not be the same water .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Historian Rodney Stark points out that survival in epidemics is often more the consequence of ordinary courageous people who stick around and do their jobs than it is of sophisticated medical technology .
This was the reason that Christian communities in antiquity had much higher survival rates than pagan communities during epidemics .
Christians would stick around — at risk to themselves — and would not flee and abandon plague victims to die of starvation or exposure .
The most effective medical care in a plague is someone who gives a damn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doing good vital work in this pandemic .
Kudos to the virologists and epidemiologists and critical care specialists who are working hard to save lives .
We need to understand virology and develop anti-viral medications and develop strategies to “ flatten the curve ” of the pandemic .
But to those politicians and science grifters who would use this catastrophe for partisanship or ideology , give it a break .
Spin and evolutionary tautologies are just a pandemic of an intellectual sort .
What we need right now is captured in an image @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me of that time .
It ’ s a picture of a fireman in Tower 1 running up stairs , when everybody was running down .
You could see in his face that he knew what he was facing .
He had no illusions .
There are people who run towards things like that .
Every night , when most of us have put away our favorite novel and switched off our remote classroom link on our university-bought computer and done our last wipe with Purell before bed , the midnight-shift stock boys @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shelves with toilet paper and food , working through the night in aisles trodden by thousands of panicked ( and a few febrile ) shoppers .
In the hospital the housekeepers on the 11-7 shift will clean patients ’ rooms , scrubbing walls and toilets that the rest of us wouldn ’ t touch without a hazmat suit .
And the nurses on the night shift will wipe the mucous and hold the hand of someone ’ s grandmother who is gasping for breath in the ICU .
Every stock boy or housekeeper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this pandemic than all the politicians and talking-head science grifters and tenure-track professors in the department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard .
And more than all the neurosurgery professors , too .
So say a prayer , whether evolutionary biologists like it or not .
Pray for the stock boys and the housekeepers and the nurses .
Pray for the people on the front line — the people waiting in line at the hospital parking garage at 6:30 am .
Pray for the people running into this plague when everyone else @ @ @ @

Photo credit: David Mark via Pixabay.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff will be enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you will, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on March 18, 2020.
I was driving into work this morning and I hit the traffic jam. Every morning at about 6:30 am the traffic begins to back up on the highway leading into my medical center. It’s the morning shift — hundreds of nurses and clerks and aides and orderlies and housekeepers bleary-eyed and guzzling Starbucks and they wait to enter the parking garage and begin their (usually 12 hour) shift. I avoid the crush and go in the back way. It’s a bit of a walk but I need the exercise.
When I got into the office, our team was waiting to make rounds. Several of them were on call overnight — they spent the night in the ER, seeing neurosurgery patients, amidst the crush of humanity with fevers and coughs. I’m lucky — I’m the professor, and I mostly go to the operating room — where it’s sterile and everyone wears masks. My team in the ER doesn’t have that luxury. They don’t complain.
I worry about them. For their health, of course, but also because we really need them. Most of the neurosurgery emergency care for our very large county is provided by our department, and if our people get sick, a couple of million people will have difficulty getting care. We’re trying very hard to stay healthy in this COVID-19 pandemic, and to keep working and keep informed.
Treat Coronavirus with Darwinian Theory?
The media is full of talking heads and experts. They’re mostly doing their best, but the ideologues and grifters are all too plentiful. To wit, we get lots of “reminders” about the importance of evolutionary science and Darwin in the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
There’s no doubt that COVID-19 evolved: populations of viruses change with time. Of course, we know that from epidemiology and virology and simple observation. Darwin’s theory has little to do with epidemiology. Darwin proposed that all biological adaptation and speciation arose from wholly unintelligent processes. Given the ubiquitous evidence for intelligence in nature, this atheist biology was a tough sell without a mechanism by which the stunning tapestry of information-bearing life came about. In an epiphany, Darwin hit upon the explanation for life — survivors survived! Atheists at last were intellectually satisfied.
Darwin’s actual impact on epidemiology is minimal — his theory (published in 1859) mainly served to distract scientists and doctors from the real science on infectious disease that emerged from the work of Girolamo Fracastoro (16th-century physician who proposed that infections were caused by microorganisms), Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (17th century — discovered microorganisms), Thomas Sydenham (studied London epidemics in the 17th century), Edward Jenner (first smallpox vaccine — 1757)), Ignaz Semmelweis (discovered in 1847 that antisepsis prevented post-partum infections), John Snow (stopped cholera epidemic in London, 1854), Louis Pasteur (germ theory of disease), Joseph Lister (antiseptic surgery), Robert Koch (modern bacteriology), Paul Ehrlich (Nobel laureate who cured syphilis), Alexander Flemming (penicillin), Jonas Salk (polio vaccine), to name just a few.
Fascinated by Barnacles
Darwin, who was mathematically illiterate and fascinated by barnacles, flunked out of medical school, married his (wealthy) first cousin, wrote a book on the origin of species by natural selection in which he provided no evidence for the origin of species by natural selection, and worked sporadically, mostly from bed. He would have required remedial training to get a job cleaning Pasteur’s test tubes. Yet his contribution to atheism, unlike his contribution to science, was epochal.
A “Narrative Gloss”
Epidemiology, to which Darwinism is a “narrative gloss,” is an old and vigorous science. But there’s more to the amelioration of epidemics than superb science. The most important advance in preventing epidemics — probably more important than vaccinations and the gamut of 21st-century high-tech science — is low-tech public sanitation. There is probably nothing (except for food and water and blankets) that has saved more lives from epidemics than enforcement of the principle that drinking water and sewage water must not be the same water. And low-tech medical care is indispensable as well. Historian Rodney Stark points out that survival in epidemics is often more the consequence of ordinary courageous people who stick around and do their jobs than it is of sophisticated medical technology. This was the reason that Christian communities in antiquity had much higher survival rates than pagan communities during epidemics. Christians would stick around — at risk to themselves — and would not flee and abandon plague victims to die of starvation or exposure. The most effective medical care in a plague is someone who gives a damn.
Of course many modern scientists are doing good vital work in this pandemic. Kudos to the virologists and epidemiologists and critical care specialists who are working hard to save lives. We need to understand virology and develop anti-viral medications and develop strategies to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic. But to those politicians and science grifters who would use this catastrophe for partisanship or ideology, give it a break. Spin and evolutionary tautologies are just a pandemic of an intellectual sort.
Running Toward Danger
What we need right now is captured in an image from 9-11 — this coronavirus pandemic reminds me of that time. It’s a picture of a fireman in Tower 1 running up stairs, when everybody was running down. You could see in his face that he knew what he was facing. He had no illusions. There are people who run towards things like that.
Every night, when most of us have put away our favorite novel and switched off our remote classroom link on our university-bought computer and done our last wipe with Purell before bed, the midnight-shift stock boys at Shop Rite will begin restocking the shelves with toilet paper and food, working through the night in aisles trodden by thousands of panicked (and a few febrile) shoppers. In the hospital the housekeepers on the 11-7 shift will clean patients’ rooms, scrubbing walls and toilets that the rest of us wouldn’t touch without a hazmat suit. And the nurses on the night shift will wipe the mucous and hold the hand of someone’s grandmother who is gasping for breath in the ICU.
Every stock boy or housekeeper or nurse is doing more to fight this pandemic than all the politicians and talking-head science grifters and tenure-track professors in the department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard. And more than all the neurosurgery professors, too.
So say a prayer, whether evolutionary biologists like it or not. Pray for the stock boys and the housekeepers and the nurses. Pray for the people on the front line — the people waiting in line at the hospital parking garage at 6:30 am.
Pray for the people running into this plague when everyone else is running away.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-12-26--#7 Story of 2020: Darwin Is on the Roof

#7 Story of 2020: Darwin Is on the Roof

Editor ’ s note : Welcome to an Evolution News tradition : a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year , concluding on New Year ’ s Day .
Our staff will be enjoying the holidays , as we hope that you will , too !
Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong .
Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year !
The following was originally published on March 18 , 2020 .
There is a joke about a cat on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cat with his brother while he went on vacation for a week .
When he came back , he called his brother to see when he could pick the cat up .
The brother hesitated , then said , “ I ’ m so sorry , but while you were away , the cat died.
” The man was very upset and yelled , “ You know , you could have broken the news to me better than that .
When I called today , you could have said he was on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Then when I called the next day , you could have said that he had fallen off and the vet was working on patching him up .
Then when I called the third day , you could have said he had passed away.
” The brother thought about it and apologized .
“ She ’ s on the roof and won ’ t come down.
” Jokes when analyzed lose their humor .
At the risking of my bludgeoning this particular joke , the premise here is that people more readily accept @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to them in partial steps .
Not , “ The cat is dead , ” but first , “ The cat is on the roof.
” Something like that is going on in the debate about evolution .
As biochemist Michael Behe explains in the Introduction to his new book , out today — A Mousetrap for Darwin : Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics — the public is being prepared very slowly for the demise of Darwinian evolutionary theory .
It wasn ’ t planned that way , but it is how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Still Well ?
As popular media and biology textbooks present the matter , all is still well with Darwin .
He is on the roof , but safe .
ID scientists , such as that scoundrel Michael Behe , may pose their “ anti-science ” challenges .
However , it is merely a gentle breeze on a cat ’ s fur .
But wait… Actually , the cat ’ s fate has advanced a step beyond that .
Behe writes : Since the turn of the millennium a raft of distinguished biologists have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None of them think that Darwin ’ s mechanism is the main driver of life .
It may surprise people who get their information about the state of science from gee-whiz puff pieces in the mainstream media , but , although strong partisans still hold out , the eclipse of Darwinism in the scientific community is well-advanced .
A few years ago the journal Nature published an exchange between two groups of scientists , one defending Darwin and the other saying it ’ s time to move on .
It ’ s nice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ idea has been around for 150 years — wished well by all right-thinking people , investigated to death by the scientific community — and a piece appears in the world ’ s leading science journal saying it ’ s time to move on , then it ’ s time to move on .
The question of course is , move on to what ?
Those books by scientists dissing Darwin offer their own clever ideas , but so far the scientific community isn ’ t buying any of them .
All the new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symbiosis , complexity theory , and more — are quickly concluded to be nonstarters , to have the same problems as Darwin ’ s theory , or both .
In the absence of an acceptable replacement — and because of its usefulness as a defensive talking point in fending off skepticism from the public — intellectual inertia maintains Darwinism as textbook orthodoxy .
Actually , for Darwinism , the situation is even worse than that .
Books by Behe , and other ID theorists doing an independent of audit of evolutionary thinking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But hold on , the critics have their responses to the ID proponents .
They say Behe never answers their rebuttals !
As a trio of prominent scientist authors , Nathan Lents , Joshua Swamidass , and Richard Lenski , wrote in the journal Science last year in reply Dr. Behe ’ s book Darwin Devolves ( emphasis added ) : • “ Behe…ignores the fact that some of his prior arguments have been dismantled.
” • “ Behe doubles down on his claim that the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least two mutations are required , neither of which is beneficial without the other .
His calculations have already been refuted.
” • “ Ultimately , Darwin Devolves fails to challenge modern evolutionary science because , once again , Behe does not fully engage with it.
” That sounds pretty bad .
He “ ignores ” critics .
He “ double down on his claims ” that “ have already been refuted.
” He fails to “ engage.
” Behe ’ s purported unresponsiveness was one of the main themes of the attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cat is safe after all .
It is on the operating table .
It may be under veterinary anesthesia but is expected to recover just fine .
Right ?
Unfortunately for Darwin ’ s partisans , no .
Dear Sir or Madam , we regret to inform you of the passing of your pet theory .
Claims that Mike Behe doesn ’ t answer critics are massively refuted now with the publication of his new book .
It is 556 pages of answers to critics , all written with Behe ’ s customary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the range of criticisms that have been aimed at his books .
Some , including devastating answers to Lents , Swamidass , and Lenski , were published first by us here at Evolution News .
This giant book is among the strongest indicators yet that the cat is dead .
The public hasn ’ t been informed yet and evolution theory ’ s loyal defenders are in denial .
It ’ s just a matter of time , though .
Michael Behe demonstrates as much in A Mousetrap for Darwin .
Order your @ @ @

Photo credit: Bruce Gendler via Unsplash.
Editor’s note: Welcome to an Evolution News tradition: a countdown of our Top 10 favorite stories of the past year, concluding on New Year’s Day. Our staff will be enjoying the holidays, as we hope that you will, too! Help keep the daily voice of intelligent design going strong. Please give whatever you can to support the Center for Science & Culture before the end of the year!
The following was originally published on March 18, 2020.
There is a joke about a cat on a roof:
A man left his cat with his brother while he went on vacation for a week. When he came back, he called his brother to see when he could pick the cat up. The brother hesitated, then said, “I’m so sorry, but while you were away, the cat died.” The man was very upset and yelled, “You know, you could have broken the news to me better than that. When I called today, you could have said he was on the roof and wouldn’t come down. Then when I called the next day, you could have said that he had fallen off and the vet was working on patching him up. Then when I called the third day, you could have said he had passed away.” The brother thought about it and apologized. “So how’s Mom?” asked the man. “She’s on the roof and won’t come down.”
Jokes when analyzed lose their humor. At the risking of my bludgeoning this particular joke, the premise here is that people more readily accept shocking news when it’s given to them in partial steps. Not, “The cat is dead,” but first, “The cat is on the roof.” Something like that is going on in the debate about evolution. As biochemist Michael Behe explains in the Introduction to his new book, out today — A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics — the public is being prepared very slowly for the demise of Darwinian evolutionary theory. It wasn’t planned that way, but it is how things are playing out.
All Is Still Well?
As popular media and biology textbooks present the matter, all is still well with Darwin. He is on the roof, but safe. ID scientists, such as that scoundrel Michael Behe, may pose their “anti-science” challenges. However, it is merely a gentle breeze on a cat’s fur.
But wait… Actually, the cat’s fate has advanced a step beyond that. Behe writes:
Since the turn of the millennium a raft of distinguished biologists have written books critically evaluating evolutionary theory. None of them think that Darwin’s mechanism is the main driver of life. It may surprise people who get their information about the state of science from gee-whiz puff pieces in the mainstream media, but, although strong partisans still hold out, the eclipse of Darwinism in the scientific community is well-advanced. A few years ago the journal Nature published an exchange between two groups of scientists, one defending Darwin and the other saying it’s time to move on. It’s nice to have defenders, but when an idea has been around for 150 years — wished well by all right-thinking people, investigated to death by the scientific community — and a piece appears in the world’s leading science journal saying it’s time to move on, then it’s time to move on. The question of course is, move on to what? Those books by scientists dissing Darwin offer their own clever ideas, but so far the scientific community isn’t buying any of them. All the new ideas — self-organization, facilitated variation, symbiosis, complexity theory, and more — are quickly concluded to be nonstarters, to have the same problems as Darwin’s theory, or both. In the absence of an acceptable replacement — and because of its usefulness as a defensive talking point in fending off skepticism from the public — intellectual inertia maintains Darwinism as textbook orthodoxy.
An Independent Audit
Actually, for Darwinism, the situation is even worse than that. Books by Behe, and other ID theorists doing an independent of audit of evolutionary thinking, find devastating faults in the theory.
But hold on, the critics have their responses to the ID proponents. They say Behe never answers their rebuttals! As a trio of prominent scientist authors, Nathan Lents, Joshua Swamidass, and Richard Lenski, wrote in the journal Science last year in reply Dr. Behe’s book Darwin Devolves (emphasis added):
“Behe… ignores the fact that some of his prior arguments have been dismantled .”
the fact that some of his prior arguments have been .” “Behe doubles down on his claim that the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria by random mutations is exceedingly unlikely because at least two mutations are required, neither of which is beneficial without the other. His calculations have already been refuted .”
on his claim that the evolution of chloroquine resistance in malaria by random mutations is exceedingly unlikely because at least two mutations are required, neither of which is beneficial without the other. His calculations have .” “Ultimately, Darwin Devolves fails to challenge modern evolutionary science because, once again, Behe does not fully engage with it.”
That sounds pretty bad. He “ignores” critics. He “double down on his claims” that “have already been refuted.” He fails to “engage.” Behe’s purported unresponsiveness was one of the main themes of the attack by Lents et al. Surely the cat is safe after all. It is on the operating table. It may be under veterinary anesthesia but is expected to recover just fine. Right?
Unfortunately for Darwin’s partisans, no. Dear Sir or Madam, we regret to inform you of the passing of your pet theory. Claims that Mike Behe doesn’t answer critics are massively refuted now with the publication of his new book. It is 556 pages of answers to critics, all written with Behe’s customary wit and rigor. The chapters cover the range of criticisms that have been aimed at his books. Some, including devastating answers to Lents, Swamidass, and Lenski, were published first by us here at Evolution News.
This giant book is among the strongest indicators yet that the cat is dead. The public hasn’t been informed yet and evolution theory’s loyal defenders are in denial. It’s just a matter of time, though. Michael Behe demonstrates as much in A Mousetrap for Darwin. Order your copy now!