evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-26--Ethicist Protests Politicized Science — Alas, That Horse Left the Barn Long Ago

University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist Genevieve P. Kanter worries about science journals and their increasingly political stances .
As she notes , Scientific American even went so far as to endorse a candidate for President .
Pointing to Science , Nature , and The New England Journal of Medicine as other illustrations , she writes : The risks of science journals advocating for or against candidates are obvious .
Editors could be perceived as being politically biased , favoring topics that are of interest to a particular party or leader or conclusions that are sympathetic to him or her .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ certain policies , theories , or scientific events would be rejected or muzzled .
Even if authors ’ perceptions are wrong about editorial leanings , scientists might preemptively edit their manuscripts to fit their assumptions about editors ’ views .
The result ?
A chilling of authentic scientific debate .
Editors ’ ultimate allegiance should be to a process — the scientific method — not to a person or a party .
Candidates are humans and therefore fallible , and party positions are an unruly collection of aspiration , pragmatism , and expediency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For this reason , it is more sensible for science editors to focus on policies , not politics .
Science is , of course , immersed in the world of politics — from its funding to its research priorities — but it need not , indeed can not , be of this world .
Why did these editors take this unprecedented step ?
Here ’ s a conjecture : Editors are people too .
They have opinions and they want to express them .
Better Late than Never Professor Kanter is entirely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little late .
As we ’ ve said here before , proponents of intelligent design were the canary in this coal mine of viewpoint suppression .
A “ chilling of authentic scientific debate ” is just what ID advocates have been protesting for years .
Now a prominent biology journal has made clear that “ creationists ” — that familiar sloppy smear typically intended to include non-creationists who recognize scientific evidence of design in life — should be obliged to alert editors to their design sympathies , their ties to “ creationist ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ independent of their mainstream academic affiliations .
That way , when they submit articles for peer-review , it will be easier for editors to know that these scientists are to be dismissed , just because of the company that they keep .
Evolution News today offers a comparison to the way Nazi Germany required Jews under their rule to wear identifying yellow badges .
Is that an overheated analogy ?
I don ’ t think so .
The purpose of the yellow star was to identify disfavored members of society so that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people .
In keeping with this was the 1933 German law compelling “ non-Aryans , ” including scientists , to vacate government jobs .
In the United States and elsewhere , we have witnessed purges aimed at scientists who voiced supports for intelligent design arguments .
Or who merely provided a forum for discussion of ID evidence .
The 2004 case of biologist Richard Sternberg and his harassment by the Smithsonian Institution , where he worked , was my own point of entry to the design debate .
Dr. Sternberg ’ s offense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article by an ID proponent , Stephen Meyer .
See the website Free Science for other stories .
It is all about the costs of getting on the wrong side of the power structure .
To say that this “ chills ” debate about scientific issues is an understatement .
It has long created an atmosphere of dread and self-censorship on the part of independent-minded scientists .
Politicized journals are a logical extension of this .
It ’ s good to see that some in academia perceive at least part of the problem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that many who rightly protest the “ soft totalitarianism ” of our time remain blind as ever to the treatment of ID scientists .
See also our colleague Wesley Smith article at the Humanize blog , “ Ideology in Science is Destroying Trust .
”

Photo credit: Sheri Hooley, via Unsplash.
University of Pennsylvania medical ethicist Genevieve P. Kanter worries about science journals and their increasingly political stances. As she notes, Scientific American even went so far as to endorse a candidate for President. Pointing to Science, Nature, and The New England Journal of Medicine as other illustrations, she writes:
The risks of science journals advocating for or against candidates are obvious. Editors could be perceived as being politically biased, favoring topics that are of interest to a particular party or leader or conclusions that are sympathetic to him or her. Authors might believe that critical analyses of certain policies, theories, or scientific events would be rejected or muzzled. Even if authors’ perceptions are wrong about editorial leanings, scientists might preemptively edit their manuscripts to fit their assumptions about editors’ views. The result? A chilling of authentic scientific debate. Editors’ ultimate allegiance should be to a process — the scientific method — not to a person or a party. Candidates are humans and therefore fallible, and party positions are an unruly collection of aspiration, pragmatism, and expediency that can cut inconveniently across scientific programs. For this reason, it is more sensible for science editors to focus on policies, not politics. Science is, of course, immersed in the world of politics — from its funding to its research priorities — but it need not, indeed cannot, be of this world. Why did these editors take this unprecedented step? Here’s a conjecture: Editors are people too. They have opinions and they want to express them.
Better Late than Never
Professor Kanter is entirely right, but her concern comes a little late. As we’ve said here before, proponents of intelligent design were the canary in this coal mine of viewpoint suppression. A “chilling of authentic scientific debate” is just what ID advocates have been protesting for years. Now a prominent biology journal has made clear that “creationists” — that familiar sloppy smear typically intended to include non-creationists who recognize scientific evidence of design in life — should be obliged to alert editors to their design sympathies, their ties to “creationist” groups, even if those are wholly independent of their mainstream academic affiliations. That way, when they submit articles for peer-review, it will be easier for editors to know that these scientists are to be dismissed, just because of the company that they keep.
Evolution News today offers a comparison to the way Nazi Germany required Jews under their rule to wear identifying yellow badges. Is that an overheated analogy? I don’t think so. The purpose of the yellow star was to identify disfavored members of society so that they could be isolated from contact with respectable people. In keeping with this was the 1933 German law compelling “non-Aryans,” including scientists, to vacate government jobs.
In the United States and elsewhere, we have witnessed purges aimed at scientists who voiced supports for intelligent design arguments. Or who merely provided a forum for discussion of ID evidence. The 2004 case of biologist Richard Sternberg and his harassment by the Smithsonian Institution, where he worked, was my own point of entry to the design debate. Dr. Sternberg’s offense was to edit a technical scientific journal article by an ID proponent, Stephen Meyer. See the website Free Science for other stories. It is all about the costs of getting on the wrong side of the power structure.
Dread and Self-Censorship
To say that this “chills” debate about scientific issues is an understatement. It has long created an atmosphere of dread and self-censorship on the part of independent-minded scientists. Politicized journals are a logical extension of this. It’s good to see that some in academia perceive at least part of the problem. Unfortunately, it remains the case that many who rightly protest the “soft totalitarianism” of our time remain blind as ever to the treatment of ID scientists.
See also our colleague Wesley Smith article at the Humanize blog, “Ideology in Science is Destroying Trust.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-26--Intelligent Design’s Yellow Star: Journal’s Disclaimer Refutes a Common Criticism of ID

Critics of intelligent design ( ID ) often lecture ID proponents that they are free to submit their work to any scientific journal and it will receive a fair consideration , 100 percent free from prejudice .
Of course ID researchers frequently do just that and have indeed published over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID .
But the point is to intimate that , since there is supposedly no prejudice in the scientific community , it follows that ID science must be of scant validity .
If it were really worth its salt , then we would regularly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Science and Nature .
Does this critique of ID hold up ?
No , not by a long shot .
Here ’ s the latest illustration of how the system really works , and how it is almost guaranteed to shut down objective investigation of design .
Censors Came After Them Just read the disclaimer that the editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology ( JTB ) appended to the recent peer-reviewed paper they published .
This important paper , as we have noted here already , argues for intelligent design in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems that the censors got hold of the editors , who backed down and repented , claiming they were quite surprised to discover what they themselves had approved and published .
Here ’ s the relevant language from the disclaimer : Of course the paper isn ’ t about Biblical “ creationism , ” which is mentioned nowhere .
It is about intelligent design , a very different thing , which is mentioned repeatedly .
The editors conflate ID with creationism , a familiar move intended to discredit design arguments before they can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the troubling implications for academic freedom from this statement .
The authors of the JTB article have strong academic credentials .
One is a professor of mathematics at Stockholm University ( Sweden ) .
The other is a professor of information science at the University of Tromsø ( Norway ) .
Even according to the disclaimer , the “ bona fide ” academic affiliations of the authors are not in question .
What ’ s problematic to the JTB editors is their belief that “ the authors are connected to a creationist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream academic affiliations submit a paper to this prominent journal , but those scientists are “ connected to a creationist group , ” whatever that means , then that should strongly count against the paper they submit .
Otherwise , why require that the fact , if it is a fact , be disclosed ?
Much as Jews in lands occupied by Nazi Germany were required to wear a yellow star identifying themselves , JTB ’ s editors apparently feel that scientists with “ creationist ” connections should be required to reveal this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who lived under the Soviet Union had similar experiences .
Under Communism , members of disfavored groups were theoretically free to work and live as they wished .
Yet to have “ Jew , ” for example , stamped on your passport was a guarantee of punishing discrimination .
Such practices have roots going back to Medieval Europe .
JTB ’ s stance — that scientists with disfavored connections should be required to display what amounts to a yellow star — is unjust and preposterous .
The disclaimer ’ s implication is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t matter .
Aside from the fact that this is close-minded and intolerant , it represents the very definition of the genetic fallacy or the ad hominem fallacy .
And it is an obvious science-stopper .
Let ’ s say that someday , someone that JTB thinks is a “ creationist ” were to submit a paper advocating a major scientific breakthrough .
Should that work be rejected simply because the scientist has the wrong type of friends ?
What if this very paper represents exactly such a case ?
The Supreme Court @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Theoretical Biology is a private entity .
So if they want to discriminate against “ creationists , ” they can legally do so .
But if they were government-affiliated , the situation would be very different .
When the University of Kentucky ( UK ) refused to hire physicist Martin Gaskell because they believed he was a “ creationist ” ( in fact , Gaskell wasn ’ t a creationist ! )
, the public university had to pay $ 125,000 to the scientist for their discriminatory actions .
UK had no chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were patently illegal .
The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that it is illegal for the government to discriminate against a person due to his or her private affiliations .
When the State of Alabama sought to compel the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ) to disclose its membership lists , the Supreme Court ruled strongly in favor of freedom of association : Under the law , private membership in a “ creationist group ” should be no grounds for discrimination .
But the laudable protections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actions of the U.S. government .
They won ’ t protect European scientists from the actions of an intolerant journal published by a private company .
Nonetheless , the Supreme Court ’ s ruling speaks to us : freedom of speech and freedom of association are foundational to a just and equitable society where science can prosper .
JTB ’ s disclaimer offends important values including freedom of scientific inquiry and academic freedom .
Since the authors of the JTB paper are both from Europe , and since the journal ’ s publisher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entity , let ’ s take a look at what three European science organizations — All European Academies ( ALLEA ) , the European University Association ( EUA ) , and Science Europe — have said about protecting academic freedom .
According to a statement they issued in 2019 , academic freedom is vital to the advancement of scientific knowledge : The three European science groups go on to call upon “ universities , funding agencies , academies and other research organisations to ensure that all researchers , teachers and students are guaranteed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in which free expression and the open exchange of opinion are valued and by shielding the research and teaching community from sanctions for exercising academic freedom.
” Even though these leading European groups say that academic freedom “ must apply to the whole community engaged in research ” and must be granted to “ all researchers , ” according to the JTB editors , authors who are “ connected to a creationist group ” don ’ t deserve academic freedom .
In JTB ’ s view , scientists who are thought to belong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ badges and be turned away at the door .
JTBs actions go directly against definitions of academic freedom adopted within the scientific community .
The Moral of the Story One moral of this story is that if you ’ re a scientist thinking of submitting an article to JTB , be careful about your connections .
Of course , the JTB disclaimer doesn ’ t give you much guidance on that score .
It never defines what a “ creationist group ” is .
Presumably , actual creationist groups like Answers in Genesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But again , we know that ID critics incessantly and indefatigably conflate ID with creationism .
Despite the fact that Discovery Institute does not promote creationism , would JTB consider a scientist at Discovery Institute as being “ connected to a creationist group ” ?
Evidently so , and they would discriminate accordingly .
The authors of the paper aren ’ t affiliated with Discovery Institute .
But it wouldn ’ t be surprising if they have links to other groups that doubt Darwin or support intelligent design .
The editors of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of work favorable to ID should have no private links to other scientists who are favorable to ID .
The paper openly challenges neo-Darwinism and is sympathetic to ID .
Likeminded people naturally join together , formally or informally .
The authors did nothing wrong .
Whether in light of U.S. or European standards , they simply used their freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry to advance scientific knowledge , and then used that freedom to communicate the results of their work and educate the next generation of critical thinkers .
JTB @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of it , and instead adopted intolerant policies grounded in logical fallacies .
JTB has the legal right to engage in this distasteful behavior .
But that doesn ’ t mean we have to stay silent about it .
This is a fascinating episode , and one with important implications for the evolution debate .
Critics of intelligent design need to drop the claim that ID gets a fair evaluation from science journals .
It certainly does not .
That ID scientists have come as far they have , overcoming a wall of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the strength of the design evidence .

Photo: Yellow star, Belgium, 1942, by DRG-fan, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Critics of intelligent design (ID) often lecture ID proponents that they are free to submit their work to any scientific journal and it will receive a fair consideration, 100 percent free from prejudice. Of course ID researchers frequently do just that and have indeed published over a hundred peer-reviewed scientific papers supporting ID. But the point is to intimate that, since there is supposedly no prejudice in the scientific community, it follows that ID science must be of scant validity. If it were really worth its salt, then we would regularly see ID papers in top journals such as Science and Nature.
Does this critique of ID hold up? No, not by a long shot. Here’s the latest illustration of how the system really works, and how it is almost guaranteed to shut down objective investigation of design.
Censors Came After Them
Just read the disclaimer that the editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology (JTB) appended to the recent peer-reviewed paper they published. This important paper, as we have noted here already, argues for intelligent design in the context of biological fine-tuning. It seems that the censors got hold of the editors, who backed down and repented, claiming they were quite surprised to discover what they themselves had approved and published. Here’s the relevant language from the disclaimer:
Since the publication of the paper it has now become evident that the authors are connected to a creationist group (although their addresses are given on the paper as departments in bona fide universities). We were unaware of this fact while the paper was being reviewed.
Of course the paper isn’t about Biblical “creationism,” which is mentioned nowhere. It is about intelligent design, a very different thing, which is mentioned repeatedly. The editors conflate ID with creationism, a familiar move intended to discredit design arguments before they can get a hearing. Regardless, think about the troubling implications for academic freedom from this statement.
The authors of the JTB article have strong academic credentials. One is a professor of mathematics at Stockholm University (Sweden). The other is a professor of information science at the University of Tromsø (Norway). Even according to the disclaimer, the “bona fide” academic affiliations of the authors are not in question. What’s problematic to the JTB editors is their belief that “the authors are connected to a creationist group.”
So, if scientists with mainstream academic affiliations submit a paper to this prominent journal, but those scientists are “connected to a creationist group,” whatever that means, then that should strongly count against the paper they submit. Otherwise, why require that the fact, if it is a fact, be disclosed? Much as Jews in lands occupied by Nazi Germany were required to wear a yellow star identifying themselves, JTB’s editors apparently feel that scientists with “creationist” connections should be required to reveal this whenever they submit a paper. People who lived under the Soviet Union had similar experiences. Under Communism, members of disfavored groups were theoretically free to work and live as they wished. Yet to have “Jew,” for example, stamped on your passport was a guarantee of punishing discrimination. Such practices have roots going back to Medieval Europe.
JTB’s stance — that scientists with disfavored connections should be required to display what amounts to a yellow star — is unjust and preposterous. The disclaimer’s implication is that the quality of the science doesn’t matter. Aside from the fact that this is close-minded and intolerant, it represents the very definition of the genetic fallacy or the ad hominem fallacy. And it is an obvious science-stopper. Let’s say that someday, someone that JTB thinks is a “creationist” were to submit a paper advocating a major scientific breakthrough. Should that work be rejected simply because the scientist has the wrong type of friends? What if this very paper represents exactly such a case?
The Supreme Court and Freedom of Association
The Journal of Theoretical Biology is a private entity. So if they want to discriminate against “creationists,” they can legally do so. But if they were government-affiliated, the situation would be very different. When the University of Kentucky (UK) refused to hire physicist Martin Gaskell because they believed he was a “creationist” (in fact, Gaskell wasn’t a creationist!), the public university had to pay $125,000 to the scientist for their discriminatory actions. UK had no chance to win in court. Their actions were patently illegal. The U.S. Supreme Court has been very clear that it is illegal for the government to discriminate against a person due to his or her private affiliations.
When the State of Alabama sought to compel the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) to disclose its membership lists, the Supreme Court ruled strongly in favor of freedom of association:
It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the “liberty” assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. … Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460–61 (1958)
Under the law, private membership in a “creationist group” should be no grounds for discrimination. But the laudable protections cited here only shield a person from actions of the U.S. government. They won’t protect European scientists from the actions of an intolerant journal published by a private company. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court’s ruling speaks to us: freedom of speech and freedom of association are foundational to a just and equitable society where science can prosper. JTB’s disclaimer offends important values including freedom of scientific inquiry and academic freedom.
A Look Toward Europe
Since the authors of the JTB paper are both from Europe, and since the journal’s publisher (Elsevier) is also a European entity, let’s take a look at what three European science organizations — All European Academies (ALLEA), the European University Association (EUA), and Science Europe — have said about protecting academic freedom. According to a statement they issued in 2019, academic freedom is vital to the advancement of scientific knowledge:
[R]esearch can only contribute to a prosperous and sustainable future if it is conducted according to certain fundamental principles. Scholars need freedom of thought and inquiry to advance knowledge, as well as the freedom to communicate the results of their work and educate the next generation of critical thinkers. These principles converge in a central tenet — academic freedom — which must apply to the whole community engaged in research, learning and teaching.
The three European science groups go on to call upon “universities, funding agencies, academies and other research organisations to ensure that all researchers, teachers and students are guaranteed academic freedom, by fostering a culture in which free expression and the open exchange of opinion are valued and by shielding the research and teaching community from sanctions for exercising academic freedom.”
Even though these leading European groups say that academic freedom “must apply to the whole community engaged in research” and must be granted to “all researchers,” according to the JTB editors, authors who are “connected to a creationist group” don’t deserve academic freedom. In JTB’s view, scientists who are thought to belong to a disfavored group must display their badges and be turned away at the door. JTBs actions go directly against definitions of academic freedom adopted within the scientific community.
The Moral of the Story
One moral of this story is that if you’re a scientist thinking of submitting an article to JTB, be careful about your connections. Of course, the JTB disclaimer doesn’t give you much guidance on that score. It never defines what a “creationist group” is. Presumably, actual creationist groups like Answers in Genesis or Institute for Creation Research would count. But again, we know that ID critics incessantly and indefatigably conflate ID with creationism. Despite the fact that Discovery Institute does not promote creationism, would JTB consider a scientist at Discovery Institute as being “connected to a creationist group”? Evidently so, and they would discriminate accordingly.
The authors of the paper aren’t affiliated with Discovery Institute. But it wouldn’t be surprising if they have links to other groups that doubt Darwin or support intelligent design. The editors of JTB advance an absurd expectation: authors of work favorable to ID should have no private links to other scientists who are favorable to ID.
The paper openly challenges neo-Darwinism and is sympathetic to ID. Likeminded people naturally join together, formally or informally. The authors did nothing wrong. Whether in light of U.S. or European standards, they simply used their freedom of thought and freedom of inquiry to advance scientific knowledge, and then used that freedom to communicate the results of their work and educate the next generation of critical thinkers. JTB didn’t want to hear any of it, and instead adopted intolerant policies grounded in logical fallacies. JTB has the legal right to engage in this distasteful behavior. But that doesn’t mean we have to stay silent about it.
This is a fascinating episode, and one with important implications for the evolution debate. Critics of intelligent design need to drop the claim that ID gets a fair evaluation from science journals. It certainly does not. That ID scientists have come as far they have, overcoming a wall of discrimination, is a remarkable tribute to the strength of the design evidence.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-27--When Scientists Make Truth Claims Outside Science

Every once in a while evolutionists distill their thoughts into pithy statements that profoundly summarize what it ’ s all about for them .
Carl Sagan ’ s 1980 Cosmos series is chock full of such statements , but as John Lennox notes , none is better than his classic opening line : “ The Cosmos is all that is , or ever was , or ever will be.
” Find the video here : Obviously that is a truth claim , but it does not come from science .
Truth claims that do not come from science are nothing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is the presentation of such truth as science .
And so while there is nothing wrong with evolutionists proclaiming what they believe , there is everything wrong with their insistence that it is what everyone else must believe as well : that their personal religious beliefs , not open to scientific scrutiny , are scientific facts .
Evolutionists may be correct about origins , but they are not scientific .
Here is a small , representative sampling of similar claims over the past three centuries .
• “ We think him a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work , than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike.
” Thomas Burnet , 1681 • “ Newton and his followers also have a very odd opinion regarding God ’ s workmanship .
According to them , God ’ s watch — the universe — would stop working if he didn ’ t re-wind it from time to time !
He didn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ motion .
This machine that he has made is so imperfect that from time to time he has to clean it by a miraculous intervention , and even has to mend it , as a clockmaker mends his work .
The oftener a clockmaker has to adjust his machine and set it right , the clumsier he must be as a clockmaker !
” Gottfried Leibniz , 1715 • God would not “ set his own hand as it were to every work , and immediately do all the meanest and trifling ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use of any inferior or subordinate Minister.
” John Ray , 1717 • It is most appropriate to the wisdom of God that the cosmic structures “ develop themselves in an unforced succession out of the universal laws.
” Immanuel Kant , 1755 • “ A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures , ” and nature is so arranged so as “ to embitter the life of every living being.
” David Hume , 1779 • “ The world itself might have been generated , rather than created ; that is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from very small beginnings , increasing by the activity of its inherent principles , rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat .
What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect !
The Cause of Causes !
Parent of Parents !
Ens Entium !
For if we may compare infinities , it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects , than to cause the effects themselves.
” Erasmus Darwin , 1794 • “ How can we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ power at one time to produce the zoophytes , another time to add a few marine mollusks , another to bring in one or two crustacea , again to crustaceous fishes , again perfect fishes , and so on to the end .
This would surely be to take a very mean view of the Creative Power.
” Robert Chambers , 1844 • “ No inductive inquirer can bring himself to believe in the existence of any real hiatus in the continuity of physical laws in past eras more than in the existing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that changes , however seemingly abrupt , can have been brought about except by the gradual agency of some regular causes .
On such principles the whole superstructure of rational geology entirely reposes ; to deny them in any instance would be to endanger all science .
… The event [ the introduction of new species ] is part of a regularly ordained mechanism of the evolution of the existing world out of former conditions , and as much subject to regular laws as any changes now taking place.
” Baden Powell , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ inexplicable if species are independent creations.
” Charles Darwin , 1859 • “ The strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids can not be necessary per se , since exactly the same end is gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them .
Is it not then an extraordinary idea to imagine the Creator of the Universe contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers as a mechanic might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle ?
Is it not a more worthy conception @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of those general laws which were so co-ordinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied forms ?
” Alfred Wallace , 1870 • “ If whales were made at once out of hand as we now see them , is it conceivable that these useless teeth would have been given them ?
” Joseph Le Conte , 1891 • “ What we do not know today we shall know tomorrow.
” Alexander Oparin , 1924 • “ Odd arrangements and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process , constrained by history.
” Stephen Jay Gould , 1980 • “ The Cosmos is all that is , or ever was , or ever will be.
” Carl Sagan , 1980 • Would God “ really want to take credit for the mosquito ?
” Kenneth Miller , 1999 • “ There are too many deficiencies , too much cruelty in the world of life .
To assume that they have been explicitly created by God amounts to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ omniscient and benevolent .
The ‘ design ’ of organisms is not compatible with such beliefs.
” Francisco Ayala , 2002 These claims are not from science , but they drive science .
They determine what is acceptable and not acceptable .
They inform science and constrain its “ right ” answers .
As was said so long ago , theology is the queen of the sciences .
Imagine for a moment that you believed these things .
Then you would be an evolutionist .

Image: Carl Sagan lectures to school kids, in a scene from Cosmos (screen shot).
Every once in a while evolutionists distill their thoughts into pithy statements that profoundly summarize what it’s all about for them. Carl Sagan’s 1980 Cosmos series is chock full of such statements, but as John Lennox notes, none is better than his classic opening line: “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Find the video here:
Obviously that is a truth claim, but it does not come from science. Truth claims that do not come from science are nothing new. What is new, however, is the presentation of such truth as science. And so while there is nothing wrong with evolutionists proclaiming what they believe, there is everything wrong with their insistence that it is what everyone else must believe as well: that their personal religious beliefs, not open to scientific scrutiny, are scientific facts. Evolutionists may be correct about origins, but they are not scientific.
Here is a small, representative sampling of similar claims over the past three centuries.
“We think him a better Artist that makes a Clock that strikes regularly at every hour from the Springs and Wheels which he puts in the work, than he that hath so made his Clock that he must put his finger to it every hour to make it strike.” Thomas Burnet, 1681
“Newton and his followers also have a very odd opinion regarding God’s workmanship. According to them, God’s watch — the universe — would stop working if he didn’t re-wind it from time to time! He didn’t have enough foresight to give it perpetual motion. This machine that he has made is so imperfect that from time to time he has to clean it by a miraculous intervention, and even has to mend it, as a clockmaker mends his work. The oftener a clockmaker has to adjust his machine and set it right, the clumsier he must be as a clockmaker!” Gottfried Leibniz, 1715
God would not “set his own hand as it were to every work, and immediately do all the meanest and trifling’st things himself drudgingly, without making use of any inferior or subordinate Minister.” John Ray, 1717
It is most appropriate to the wisdom of God that the cosmic structures “develop themselves in an unforced succession out of the universal laws.” Immanuel Kant, 1755
“A perpetual war is kindled amongst all living creatures,” and nature is so arranged so as “to embitter the life of every living being.” David Hume, 1779
“The world itself might have been generated, rather than created; that is, it might have been gradually produced from very small beginnings, increasing by the activity of its inherent principles, rather than by a sudden evolution by the whole by the Almighty fiat. What a magnificent idea of the infinite power of the great architect! The Cause of Causes! Parent of Parents! Ens Entium! For if we may compare infinities, it would seem to require a greater infinity of power to cause the causes of effects, than to cause the effects themselves.” Erasmus Darwin, 1794
“How can we suppose an immediate exertion of this creative power at one time to produce the zoophytes, another time to add a few marine mollusks, another to bring in one or two crustacea, again to crustaceous fishes, again perfect fishes, and so on to the end. This would surely be to take a very mean view of the Creative Power.” Robert Chambers, 1844
“No inductive inquirer can bring himself to believe in the existence of any real hiatus in the continuity of physical laws in past eras more than in the existing order of things; or to imagine that changes, however seemingly abrupt, can have been brought about except by the gradual agency of some regular causes. On such principles the whole superstructure of rational geology entirely reposes; to deny them in any instance would be to endanger all science. … The event [the introduction of new species] is part of a regularly ordained mechanism of the evolution of the existing world out of former conditions, and as much subject to regular laws as any changes now taking place.” Baden Powell, 1855
“These analogies are utterly inexplicable if species are independent creations.” Charles Darwin, 1859
“The strange springs and traps and pitfalls found in the flowers of Orchids cannot be necessary per se, since exactly the same end is gained in ten thousand other flowers which do not possess them. Is it not then an extraordinary idea to imagine the Creator of the Universe contriving the various complicated parts of these flowers as a mechanic might contrive an ingenious toy or a difficult puzzle? Is it not a more worthy conception that they are some of the results of those general laws which were so co-ordinated at the first introduction of life upon the earth as to result necessarily in the utmost possible development of varied forms?” Alfred Wallace, 1870
“If whales were made at once out of hand as we now see them, is it conceivable that these useless teeth would have been given them?” Joseph Le Conte, 1891
“What we do not know today we shall know tomorrow.” Alexander Oparin, 1924
“Odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution — paths that a sensible God would never tread but that a natural process, constrained by history.” Stephen Jay Gould, 1980
“The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” Carl Sagan, 1980
Would God “really want to take credit for the mosquito?” Kenneth Miller, 1999
“There are too many deficiencies, too much cruelty in the world of life. To assume that they have been explicitly created by God amounts to blasphemy. I believe God to be omniscient and benevolent. The ‘design’ of organisms is not compatible with such beliefs.” Francisco Ayala, 2002
These claims are not from science, but they drive science. They determine what is acceptable and not acceptable. They inform science and constrain its “right” answers. As was said so long ago, theology is the queen of the sciences. Imagine for a moment that you believed these things. Then you would be an evolutionist.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-27--Against the Tide: When Scientists Stray from Science

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
As noted here already , C. S. Lewis was a major influence on Dr. Lennox , and is a focus of the first half of Against the Tide .
The film stresses C. S. Lewis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University .
Of course , many atheist professors are associated with Oxford , Cambridge , and ( in the United States ) Harvard and Yale .
In debates over science and faith , do you think people are sometimes influenced more by the prestige of such academic institutions than by the actual quality of their arguments ?
If this is a problem , how do we get beyond it ?
Well that ’ s perfectly possible .
And why that happens of course is that people can be very brilliant in their own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside their field , that ’ s a different matter .
For example , Stephen Hawking was a brilliant mathematician .
I remember him in Cambridge .
He was there just before I was .
An absolutely brilliant mathematician and a genius .
But he had no idea about philosophy .
And Albert Einstein , who was a genius , said long ago that a “ scientist is a poor philosopher.
” That is really what happens , that people have immense prestige in their own field , like Richard Dawkins , for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make all kinds of wild statements in other fields and these are accepted as authoritative because he ’ s a professor at Oxford .
But it ’ s very important , because I ’ m a professor at Oxford as well , it ’ s very important to realize how to behave when you go outside your own field .
Because we all do it , we have to do it .
But we need to consult the experts in that field outside our own , and that ’ s what they often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when Richard Dawkins talked about the historicity of Jesus , which he now does accept , he quoted not an ancient historian but a retired professor of German .
But that ’ s just an absurdity .
And the same is true with many other things that were said [ by Dawkins and others ] .
So , the lesson is we need , as you say , to probe whoever uses the arguments .
We need to examine them .
There ’ s a very famous television series that started in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , that was called Cosmos .
And in the beginning , the very first line was “ The Cosmos is all that is , or ever was , or ever will be.
” And because he was a scientist , people believed it .
But it ’ s not science .
It was his own personal belief flowing from his atheism .
And he had no scientific warrant for it whatsoever .
But because of his authority and because he worked at a famous institution [ Cornell University ] , people accepted it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ me is : examine the arguments .
Don ’ t be over-awed by the people .
Of course , give them respect .
And I respect people like Hawking and so on as being brilliant in their own field .
But , when it comes to the implications of their own field , sometimes they can be very weak .
And it just fulfills what Einstein said .
Hawking seemed to know very little about philosophy .
And indeed , our Astronomer Royal , [ Martin Rees , ] who is a very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hawking well and that he knows very little about theology and philosophy and we shouldn ’ t listen to him on anything he says about those two subjects .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News. As noted here already, C. S. Lewis was a major influence on Dr. Lennox, and is a focus of the first half of Against the Tide.
The film stresses C. S. Lewis’s and your association with Oxford University. Of course, many atheist professors are associated with Oxford, Cambridge, and (in the United States) Harvard and Yale. In debates over science and faith, do you think people are sometimes influenced more by the prestige of such academic institutions than by the actual quality of their arguments? If this is a problem, how do we get beyond it?
Well that’s perfectly possible. And why that happens of course is that people can be very brilliant in their own field but when it comes to going outside their field, that’s a different matter. For example, Stephen Hawking was a brilliant mathematician. I remember him in Cambridge. He was there just before I was. An absolutely brilliant mathematician and a genius. But he had no idea about philosophy. And Albert Einstein, who was a genius, said long ago that a “scientist is a poor philosopher.”
That is really what happens, that people have immense prestige in their own field, like Richard Dawkins, for example, and then they start to make all kinds of wild statements in other fields and these are accepted as authoritative because he’s a professor at Oxford.
But it’s very important, because I’m a professor at Oxford as well, it’s very important to realize how to behave when you go outside your own field. Because we all do it, we have to do it. But we need to consult the experts in that field outside our own, and that’s what they often don’t do. So, when Richard Dawkins talked about the historicity of Jesus, which he now does accept, he quoted not an ancient historian but a retired professor of German. But that’s just an absurdity. And the same is true with many other things that were said [by Dawkins and others].
So, the lesson is we need, as you say, to probe whoever uses the arguments. We need to examine them. There’s a very famous television series that started in the U.S. years ago, with Carl Sagan, that was called Cosmos. And in the beginning, the very first line was “The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be.” And because he was a scientist, people believed it. But it’s not science. It was his own personal belief flowing from his atheism. And he had no scientific warrant for it whatsoever. But because of his authority and because he worked at a famous institution [Cornell University], people accepted it.
So, the lesson is for me is: examine the arguments. Don’t be over-awed by the people. Of course, give them respect. And I respect people like Hawking and so on as being brilliant in their own field. But, when it comes to the implications of their own field, sometimes they can be very weak. And it just fulfills what Einstein said. Hawking seemed to know very little about philosophy. And indeed, our Astronomer Royal, [Martin Rees,] who is a very eminent person, said that he knew Hawking well and that he knows very little about theology and philosophy and we shouldn’t listen to him on anything he says about those two subjects.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-27--The Glorious, Intentional Gift of Autumn Beauty

Fall colors are such a gift .
And I am convinced it must have been intentional .
Think of what they do for us in these days , when we know that winter is coming with its cold , icy biting days .
We know the trees will soon be bare .
And yet these hard days are heralded with such a glorious display !
How can we be gloomy ?
Who could do anything but exult in it ?
Fall isn ’ t a transition , it ’ s a celebration .
Imagine how it might be if fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like if , once the chlorophyll was cut off , what remained behind in every leaf were gray , or even black .
The chemistry did not make it so .
That is the gift .
I know skeptics will say that ’ s just the way the chemistry is .
We ’ re lucky , that ’ s all .
I say , then , we have been lucky in so many ways .
It only adds to the growing list of our privileges as a species , the growing case that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mind , all the way down to its molecular constituents .
Or the skeptic may say , there ’ s no luck involved ; we ’ ve just evolved to enjoy it .
They can say that all they want ; I say it ’ s silly .
Evolutionary theory tells us that organisms evolve according to what ’ s adaptive for them and the populations of which they are a part .
But “ adaptive ” strictly means , that which supports successful reproduction .
With some exceptions — spandrels , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have you , all essentially unrelated to what we ’ re interested in here — what that means is that evolution “ looks for ” what facilitates our having babies who will grow up and have babies will grow up and have babies .
So is there something adaptive — adaptive in that sense , mind you — to the enjoyment of colors in such a wild mix of scarlets , oranges , greens , browns , and tans ; and in our enjoying it at one particular time of the year ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I have real trouble seeing what that advantage might be .
Does anyone really think it helps mates find each other in some way ?
Does anyone think that effect would be so powerful , it would spread throughout an entire population ?
But that view has a further implication : The glory isn ’ t in the trees .
It isn ’ t out there , it ’ s inside .
There is no beauty in the world ; instead it ’ s only a matter of our internal , subjective @ @ @ @ @ @ @ help us have babies who will have babies .
That ’ s all our experience of beauty is , if it ’ s merely an evolutionary adaptation .
So both the evolutionist and the proponent of intelligent design can look at the colors and say , “ I am having an experience of beauty and I enjoy it.
” The evolutionist can not honestly and coherently say , however , “ It ’ s glorious out there !
The trees are beautiful !
” But here as I am write this by dictation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ walk that goes mostly through woods near my home .
These snapshots came from that walk .
And the trees ?
They are indeed beautiful .
We all say that , don ’ t we ?
It ’ s because we all know it ’ s true .
The beauty is in the trees , where it belongs , where we all know it to be .
It ’ s not just in some evolutionary adaptive subjective experience .
This is a gift , a most wonderful way to transition into winter .
@ @ @ @ @ @

Photo credit: Tom Gilson.
Fall colors are such a gift. And I am convinced it must have been intentional. Think of what they do for us in these days, when we know that winter is coming with its cold, icy biting days. We know the trees will soon be bare. And yet these hard days are heralded with such a glorious display! How can we be gloomy? Who could do anything but exult in it? Fall isn’t a transition, it’s a celebration.
Imagine how it might be if fall were different. What would it be like if, once the chlorophyll was cut off, what remained behind in every leaf were gray, or even black.
The chemistry did not make it so. That is the gift. I know skeptics will say that’s just the way the chemistry is. We’re lucky, that’s all. I say, then, we have been lucky in so many ways. It only adds to the growing list of our privileges as a species, the growing case that this world has been designed with us in mind, all the way down to its molecular constituents.
Or the skeptic may say, there’s no luck involved; we’ve just evolved to enjoy it. They can say that all they want; I say it’s silly. Evolutionary theory tells us that organisms evolve according to what’s adaptive for them and the populations of which they are a part. But “adaptive” strictly means, that which supports successful reproduction. With some exceptions — spandrels, drift, and evolutionary ride-alongs or what have you, all essentially unrelated to what we’re interested in here — what that means is that evolution “looks for” what facilitates our having babies who will grow up and have babies will grow up and have babies.
So is there something adaptive — adaptive in that sense, mind you — to the enjoyment of colors in such a wild mix of scarlets, oranges, greens, browns, and tans; and in our enjoying it at one particular time of the year? You can count me skeptical on that. I have real trouble seeing what that advantage might be.
Does anyone really think it helps mates find each other in some way? Does anyone think that effect would be so powerful, it would spread throughout an entire population?
But that view has a further implication: The glory isn’t in the trees. It isn’t out there, it’s inside. There is no beauty in the world; instead it’s only a matter of our internal, subjective impression — whose ultimate purpose is to help us have babies who will have babies. That’s all our experience of beauty is, if it’s merely an evolutionary adaptation.
So both the evolutionist and the proponent of intelligent design can look at the colors and say, “I am having an experience of beauty and I enjoy it.” The evolutionist cannot honestly and coherently say, however, “It’s glorious out there! The trees are beautiful!”
But here as I am write this by dictation, I’m on a two-mile walk that goes mostly through woods near my home. These snapshots came from that walk. And the trees? They are indeed beautiful. We all say that, don’t we? It’s because we all know it’s true. The beauty is in the trees, where it belongs, where we all know it to be. It’s not just in some evolutionary adaptive subjective experience.
This is a gift, a most wonderful way to transition into winter. It could only be intentional.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-28--Top Six Evidences for Intelligent Design

The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “ simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes .
So where it sees complexity , it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity .
This is not science.
” Oh really ?
Is that all there is to it ?
Not exactly .
Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world , for those who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exist .
1 .
The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth It is well known , and well accepted in scientific circles , that the conditions on our planet are extremely fine-tuned for life : the Earth is just the right size , it is just the right distance from its sun , our sun is the right type of star , our atmosphere has many rare and lucky features — the list goes on and on .
A few of these fine-tuned features of Earth are documented in Episode 4 of the Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( those who believe there is nothing more to life than matter in motion ) have a plausible explanation for this : there are many planets in the universe but only a very few are suitable for life , and we are here because our Earth is one of these rare planets .
At least it would be a plausible explanation if the materialists ’ assumptions were plausible , that once you have a planet where conditions are just right there is a reasonable chance that life would spontaneously arise and intelligent beings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these assumptions are not plausible is shown in points 3 and 4 below .
2 .
The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of Our Universe It is also widely accepted , as also documented in the same Science Uprising episode , that not only is our Earth an ideal planet for life to thrive , but our whole universe is fine-tuned for life .
The smallest changes in most of the basic constants of physics ( the gravitational constant , Planck ’ s constant , the charge and mass of the electron , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditions at the Big Bang , would have led to a universe where life , and therefore humans , could not have arisen .
As Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time ( 1988 ) , “ The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.
” How do materialists explain this ?
There must be many universes , with many different laws and constants and initial conditions , and we are here because our universe @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the conditions are just right for us to be here .
A. J. Leggett lists some of the fine-tuned properties of our universe in The Problems of Physics ( 1987 ) , and concludes , This time there is no evidence — there can never be any evidence — that there are other universes out there , with the same laws of physics but random values for the basic constants ( or perhaps random laws of physics also ? )
.
So the explanation that our universe is just right because otherwise we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is completely unscientific .
It is interesting that those who for many years have ridiculed religious believers for imagining there is another universe , or reality , out there with better conditions awaiting us have now been reduced , by the evidence for fine-tuning , to inventing not one but “ countless ” other universes with different conditions .
By the way , a number of scientists , for example biochemist Michael Denton ( see his 2016 book Fire-Maker and a related video ) , and physicist Robin Collins ( see “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now showing us that the conditions on Earth , and the laws of physics are not only fine-tuned for the survival of intelligent beings , they are also fine-tuned for the development of technology and for scientific discovery .
Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards have shown that the Earth is not only well designed for human survival , it is also ideally situated for viewing the rest of the universe .
These fine-tunings are interesting because they can not be explained by asserting that “ the conditions were just right because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonder about it.
” We would still be here to wonder if the conditions on Earth , and the properties of fire , water , and metals , were not so fine-tuned to make possible the development of technology and scientific discovery .
The only explanation for these fine-tunings is that they are gifts from our designer , to challenge and entertain us .
It is often claimed that science is close to understanding how the first simple life form arose though entirely natural processes .
To see how baseless this claim is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with all our advanced technology we are still not close to designing any type of self-replicating machine .
That is still pure science fiction .
So how can we imagine that such a machine could have arisen by pure chance , even given a universe with fine-tuned laws and a planet with fine-tuned conditions ?
When we add technology to such a machine , to move toward the goal of reproduction , we only move the goal posts , as now we have a more complicated machine to reproduce .
Maybe some day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like those we see everywhere in the living world , but it will not happen in my lifetime , and it will not be simple .
It will certainly not show that such a machine could have arisen without design .
Materialists believe they already understand how the first living things evolved into intelligent beings , but they really do not have a clue .
To appreciate this , you only have to realize that what they are forced to believe is that the four fundamental , unintelligent , forces of physics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of physics on Earth into computers , encyclopedias , airplanes , and the Internet , as my new video “ Why Evolution Is Different ” argues .
The laws of physics are very cleverly designed , and probably can explain everything that has happened on other planets , but they are obviously not clever enough to explain , by themselves , the development of computers and cars and Apple iPhones .
This video also points out how similar the fossil record is to the development of human technology , with large gaps where @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same reasons : gradual development of the new organs that gave rise to new orders , classes and phyla would require the development of new but not yet useful features .
So Darwinism could not explain the development of these new features even if they did occur gradually — and they don ’ t .
Below is a picture of three children in the 1950s .
One of them is me , the other two are not .
I saw the world from inside one of these children .
I saw every picture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heard every sound that entered through his ears , and when he fell on the sidewalk , I felt his pain .
How did I end up inside one of these children ?
This is a question that rarely seems to trouble evolutionists .
They talk about human evolution as if they were outside observers and never seem to wonder how they got inside one of the animals they are studying .
They consider that human brains are just complicated computers , and so to explain how we got here they just have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But even if they could explain how animals with mechanical brains evolved out of the primeval slime , that would leave the most important question — the one evolutionists never seem to even wonder about — still unsolved : How did I get inside one of those children ?
For thousands of years , nearly everyone in every corner of the world looked at plants and animals and said , these things are obviously designed , I wonder who designed them ?
Only the modern scientist , over-confident from so much success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these things sure look like they were designed , and the deeper we dig the more obvious the design is , but “ Who designed the designer ?
” Nothing can possibly be beyond the reach of our science , so if we can ’ t understand where the designer came from , he can ’ t exist .
( This over-confidence is understandable , but my video shows “ Why Evolution Is Different ” and much more difficult than other problems solved by science . )
For many years materialists avoided the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and energy ?
” by saying they have always existed .
But in the last century it was discovered that matter and energy and space and time did begin suddenly , with a “ Big Bang , ” about 14 billion years ago .
What came before the Big Bang ?
Even if to speak of “ before ” the beginning of time as we know it is not meaningful in a temporal sense , it is still meaningful in a causal sense , because out of nothing comes nothing : there has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Whether this first cause is intelligent or unintelligent , there is by definition no hope of ever explaining it in terms of “ earlier ” causes .
Materialists can say that matter and energy — or whatever universe-generating mechanism they now prefer — needs no explanation because it is eternal , but we can equally well say our designer needs no explanation because he is eternal .
So why not assume a first cause that can explain what was caused : a universe with magnificently designed physical laws that are extremely fine-tuned for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and intelligent , conscious humans , that arose on our magnificently designed Earth ?

Image: "Cyclones of Color at Jupiter’s North Pole," by NASA/JPL-Caltech/SwRI/MSSS, Gerald Eichstädt.
The ACLU speaks for much of the media and of academia when it says the theory of intelligent design “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity. This is not science.” Oh really? Is that all there is to it? Not exactly. Below is a modest attempt to provide a summary of the main scientific evidences for design in our world, for those who have been told that such evidence does not exist.
1. The Fine-Tuning of Conditions on Earth
It is well known, and well accepted in scientific circles, that the conditions on our planet are extremely fine-tuned for life: the Earth is just the right size, it is just the right distance from its sun, our sun is the right type of star, our atmosphere has many rare and lucky features — the list goes on and on. A few of these fine-tuned features of Earth are documented in Episode 4 of the Science Uprising series.
Of course, materialists (those who believe there is nothing more to life than matter in motion) have a plausible explanation for this: there are many planets in the universe but only a very few are suitable for life, and we are here because our Earth is one of these rare planets. At least it would be a plausible explanation if the materialists’ assumptions were plausible, that once you have a planet where conditions are just right there is a reasonable chance that life would spontaneously arise and intelligent beings would spontaneously evolve over time. That these assumptions are not plausible is shown in points 3 and 4 below.
2. The Fine-Tuning of the Physical Laws of Our Universe
It is also widely accepted, as also documented in the same Science Uprising episode, that not only is our Earth an ideal planet for life to thrive, but our whole universe is fine-tuned for life. The smallest changes in most of the basic constants of physics (the gravitational constant, Planck’s constant, the charge and mass of the electron, etc.) or in the initial conditions at the Big Bang, would have led to a universe where life, and therefore humans, could not have arisen. As Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time (1988), “The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.”
How do materialists explain this? There must be many universes, with many different laws and constants and initial conditions, and we are here because our universe is one of those rare universes where the conditions are just right for us to be here. A. J. Leggett lists some of the fine-tuned properties of our universe in The Problems of Physics (1987), and concludes,
The list could be multiplied endlessly, and it is easy to draw the conclusion that for any kind of conscious beings to exist at all, the basic constants of Nature have to be exactly what they are, or at least extremely close to it. The anthropic principle then turns this statement around and says, in effect, that the reason the fundamental constants have the values that they do is because otherwise we would not be here to wonder about them.
Paul Davies, in Other Worlds (1980), wrote
If we believe there are countless other universes, either in space or time, or in superspace, there is no longer anything astounding about the enormous degree of cosmic organization that we observe. We have selected it by our very existence…. The many universes theory does provide an explanation for why many things around us are the way they are. Just as we can explain why we are living on a planet near a stable star by pointing out that only in such locations can life form, so we can perhaps explain many of the more general features of the universe by this anthropic selection process.
This time there is no evidence — there can never be any evidence — that there are other universes out there, with the same laws of physics but random values for the basic constants (or perhaps random laws of physics also?). So the explanation that our universe is just right because otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it is completely unscientific. It is interesting that those who for many years have ridiculed religious believers for imagining there is another universe, or reality, out there with better conditions awaiting us have now been reduced, by the evidence for fine-tuning, to inventing not one but “countless” other universes with different conditions.
By the way, a number of scientists, for example biochemist Michael Denton (see his 2016 book Fire-Maker and a related video), and physicist Robin Collins (see “The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability“) are now showing us that the conditions on Earth, and the laws of physics are not only fine-tuned for the survival of intelligent beings, they are also fine-tuned for the development of technology and for scientific discovery. Astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards have shown that the Earth is not only well designed for human survival, it is also ideally situated for viewing the rest of the universe. These fine-tunings are interesting because they cannot be explained by asserting that “the conditions were just right because otherwise we would not be here to wonder about it.” We would still be here to wonder if the conditions on Earth, and the properties of fire, water, and metals, were not so fine-tuned to make possible the development of technology and scientific discovery. The only explanation for these fine-tunings is that they are gifts from our designer, to challenge and entertain us.
3. The Origin of Life
It is often claimed that science is close to understanding how the first simple life form arose though entirely natural processes. To see how baseless this claim is, you only have to realize that with all our advanced technology we are still not close to designing any type of self-replicating machine. That is still pure science fiction. So how can we imagine that such a machine could have arisen by pure chance, even given a universe with fine-tuned laws and a planet with fine-tuned conditions? When we add technology to such a machine, to move toward the goal of reproduction, we only move the goal posts, as now we have a more complicated machine to reproduce.
Maybe some day human engineers will design a self-replicating machine, like those we see everywhere in the living world, but it will not happen in my lifetime, and it will not be simple. It will certainly not show that such a machine could have arisen without design.
4. The Evolution of Humans
Materialists believe they already understand how the first living things evolved into intelligent beings, but they really do not have a clue. To appreciate this, you only have to realize that what they are forced to believe is that the four fundamental, unintelligent, forces of physics alone could have rearranged the basic particles of physics on Earth into computers, encyclopedias, airplanes, and the Internet, as my new video “Why Evolution Is Different” argues. The laws of physics are very cleverly designed, and probably can explain everything that has happened on other planets, but they are obviously not clever enough to explain, by themselves, the development of computers and cars and Apple iPhones.
This video also points out how similar the fossil record is to the development of human technology, with large gaps where major new features appeared, for the same reasons: gradual development of the new organs that gave rise to new orders, classes and phyla would require the development of new but not yet useful features. So Darwinism could not explain the development of these new features even if they did occur gradually — and they don’t.
5. The Origin of Human Consciousness
Below is a picture of three children in the 1950s. One of them is me, the other two are not. I saw the world from inside one of these children. I saw every picture that entered through his eyes, I heard every sound that entered through his ears, and when he fell on the sidewalk, I felt his pain.
How did I end up inside one of these children? This is a question that rarely seems to trouble evolutionists. They talk about human evolution as if they were outside observers and never seem to wonder how they got inside one of the animals they are studying. They consider that human brains are just complicated computers, and so to explain how we got here they just have to explain how those mechanical brains evolved. But even if they could explain how animals with mechanical brains evolved out of the primeval slime, that would leave the most important question — the one evolutionists never seem to even wonder about — still unsolved: How did I get inside one of those children?
6. The Beginning of Time
For thousands of years, nearly everyone in every corner of the world looked at plants and animals and said, these things are obviously designed, I wonder who designed them? Only the modern scientist, over-confident from so much success in unraveling other mysteries, says, these things sure look like they were designed, and the deeper we dig the more obvious the design is, but “Who designed the designer?” Nothing can possibly be beyond the reach of our science, so if we can’t understand where the designer came from, he can’t exist. (This over-confidence is understandable, but my video shows “Why Evolution Is Different” and much more difficult than other problems solved by science.)
For many years materialists avoided the parallel question of “Who designed matter and energy?” by saying they have always existed. But in the last century it was discovered that matter and energy and space and time did begin suddenly, with a “Big Bang,” about 14 billion years ago.
What came before the Big Bang? Even if to speak of “before” the beginning of time as we know it is not meaningful in a temporal sense, it is still meaningful in a causal sense, because out of nothing comes nothing: there has to be some “first cause.” Whether this first cause is intelligent or unintelligent, there is by definition no hope of ever explaining it in terms of “earlier” causes. Materialists can say that matter and energy — or whatever universe-generating mechanism they now prefer — needs no explanation because it is eternal, but we can equally well say our designer needs no explanation because he is eternal.
So why not assume a first cause that can explain what was caused: a universe with magnificently designed physical laws that are extremely fine-tuned for the magnificently designed plants and animals, and intelligent, conscious humans, that arose on our magnificently designed Earth?


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-28--Message in Matter: Intelligent Design in the Atoms

Michael Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell , considers the evidence for intelligent design from a new perspective and at a new level .
As with his previous books , it ’ s a more fundamental view than that of all other ID literature .
Before there can be the “ Signature in the Cell ” ( the information in DNA , needed for the first life ) or “ Darwin ’ s Doubt ” ( the eruption of new life forms , animal body plans and the biological information to build them , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been the finely tuned — the intelligently designed — atoms that make cellular life possible .
We talked with Dr. Denton about the release of his book on a live international Zoom meeting with hosts Eric Anderson and Daniel Reeves .
If you missed it , you can watch that now on YouTube : In the conversation , Denton summarized this and the other monograph-length books in his Privileged Species series : [ There is ] a series of major innovations that were absolutely essential on the route to man .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ innovations , including the cell , is preceded by an extraordinary fitness in nature which permitted that innovation to be actualized in the history of life .
You have a teleological sequence and you have teleology in the very essence of things to allow that sequence to progress .
It ’ s very consistent with the notion that humans like us , beings with our physiology , were in the mind of God at the moment of creation .
Because this order we are talking about is in the very ground of being @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That ’ s the finger of God in creation .
In other words , this directionality to the evolution of the universe was foreseen — intended — from the Big Bang .
Or rather , from before it , because the design was actualized right away .
Since there was no nature and no time before the universe came into being , it follows that the design must be of that a transcendent mind , representing the “ finger of God , ” as Denton puts it .
It goes without saying that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fit ” for life .
If they weren ’ t , we wouldn ’ t be here to notice it .
So evolutionists will quickly tell you .
What atheists and materialists can ’ t explain is why that fitness is so special , so unforgivingly precise and intricate , at every stage on the journey to us .
Everything , starting with the first elements of the periodic table , must have been just so .
There was no room for error .
This fact , detailed in countless mainstream science textbooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Talking with Eric Anderson , Dr. Denton recalls his introduction to the 1913 classic by Harvard physiologist Lawrence Joseph Henderson , The Fitness of the Environment , which Henderson described as “ an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter.
” Interestingly , it was the foremost French Darwin skeptic , Marcel-Paul Schützenberger — mathematician and physician , a mentor to and major influence on evolution critic David Berlinski — who provided Denton a photocopy of the book on a visit to Paris .
This revolutionized Denton ’ s thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ engine of biological innovation .
As he recounts , though , it wasn ’ t till he completed The Miracle of the Cell that any last wisps of hesitation he had about evolutionary theory and its demise were at last swept away .
Yours will be too .
Get a copy of this powerful little book now .

Image credit: Elchinator, via Pixabay.
Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell, considers the evidence for intelligent design from a new perspective and at a new level. As with his previous books, it’s a more fundamental view than that of all other ID literature. Before there can be the “Signature in the Cell” (the information in DNA, needed for the first life) or “Darwin’s Doubt” (the eruption of new life forms, animal body plans and the biological information to build them, in the Cambrian explosion), there must have been the finely tuned — the intelligently designed — atoms that make cellular life possible.
We talked with Dr. Denton about the release of his book on a live international Zoom meeting with hosts Eric Anderson and Daniel Reeves. If you missed it, you can watch that now on YouTube:
In the conversation, Denton summarized this and the other monograph-length books in his Privileged Species series:
[There is] a series of major innovations that were absolutely essential on the route to man. And amazingly, each one of these great innovations, including the cell, is preceded by an extraordinary fitness in nature which permitted that innovation to be actualized in the history of life. You have a teleological sequence and you have teleology in the very essence of things to allow that sequence to progress. It’s very consistent with the notion that humans like us, beings with our physiology, were in the mind of God at the moment of creation. Because this order we are talking about is in the very ground of being from the moment of creation itself. That’s the finger of God in creation.
A Very Special Fitness
In other words, this directionality to the evolution of the universe was foreseen — intended — from the Big Bang. Or rather, from before it, because the design was actualized right away. Since there was no nature and no time before the universe came into being, it follows that the design must be of that a transcendent mind, representing the “finger of God,” as Denton puts it.
It goes without saying that the universe and our planet are “fit” for life. If they weren’t, we wouldn’t be here to notice it. So evolutionists will quickly tell you. What atheists and materialists can’t explain is why that fitness is so special, so unforgivingly precise and intricate, at every stage on the journey to us. Everything, starting with the first elements of the periodic table, must have been just so. There was no room for error. This fact, detailed in countless mainstream science textbooks, has a message for us.
A Message in Matter
Talking with Eric Anderson, Dr. Denton recalls his introduction to the 1913 classic by Harvard physiologist Lawrence Joseph Henderson, The Fitness of the Environment, which Henderson described as “an inquiry into the biological significance of the properties of matter.” Interestingly, it was the foremost French Darwin skeptic, Marcel-Paul Schützenberger — mathematician and physician, a mentor to and major influence on evolution critic David Berlinski — who provided Denton a photocopy of the book on a visit to Paris. This revolutionized Denton’s thinking on the viability of evolution as an engine of biological innovation.
As he recounts, though, it wasn’t till he completed The Miracle of the Cell that any last wisps of hesitation he had about evolutionary theory and its demise were at last swept away. Yours will be too. Get a copy of this powerful little book now.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-28--Finely Tuned Chemistry and ATP Synthase

Finely Tuned Chemistry and ATP Synthase

On a new episode ID the Future , biochemist Michael Denton delves further into his revelatory new book , The @ @ @ @ @ Here he discusses finely tuned chemical bonds .
Download the podcast or listen to it @ @ @ @ @ be impossible if strong bonds weren ’ t just so for some cellular functions , @ @ @ @ @ ’ t just so for others .
Each type of bond exists in a Goldilocks @ @ @ @ @ nor too weak for its purposes .
They ’ re tailored to fit .
Denton @ @ @ @ @ known as ATP synthase and some of the fine-tuning particulars of this life-essential molecular complex @ @ @ @ @ way to say fine-tuning would be fine-tailoring .
“ Tailoring ” suggests a tailor .

Photo credit: Henry Dick via Unsplash.
On a new episode ID the Future, biochemist Michael Denton delves further into his revelatory new book, The Miracle of the Cell. Here he discusses finely tuned chemical bonds. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Cellular life would be impossible if strong bonds weren’t just so for some cellular functions, and if weak bonds weren’t just so for others. Each type of bond exists in a Goldilocks zone, neither too strong nor too weak for its purposes. They’re tailored to fit. Denton also explores the miracle enzyme known as ATP synthase and some of the fine-tuning particulars of this life-essential molecular complex. In fact, another way to say fine-tuning would be fine-tailoring. “Tailoring” suggests a tailor.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-29--If Materialists Are Right About the Brain, Why No “Morality Seizures”?

Neuroscientist Michael Egnor explains , “ Why , as a Neurosurgeon , I Believe in Free Will.
” In his classic book , Mystery of the Mind , ( 1975 ) epilepsy surgery pioneer Dr. Wilder Penfield , asked a significant question : “ Why are there no intellectual seizures ?
” Epileptic seizures can be experienced in a variety of ways — convulsions of the whole body , slight twitching of a muscle , compulsive memories , emotions , perceptions of smells or flashes of light , complex motor behaviors such as chewing or laughing or even walking , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seizures never have intellectual content .
There are no intellectual seizures , which is odd , given that large regions of the brain are presumed by neuroscientists to serve intellectual thought .
It is all the more remarkable when we consider that seizures commonly originate in these “ intellectual ” areas of the brain .
Yet the outcome is never intellectual seizures .
An intellectual seizure would be a seizure that caused abstract thought , such as logic , or reasoning , or mathematics .
People never have , for example , mathematics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do calculus or arithmetic .
This observation , which is as true today as it was in Penfield ’ s time nearly a century ago , begs for explanation .
Penfield concluded , quite reasonably , that this was because intellectual thought didn ’ t come from the brain .
Intellectual thought ( Penfield called it “ mind ” ) is an immaterial human power .
There is more to the mind than matter .
Penfield began his career as a materialist .
He ended it as a convinced dualist .
There was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mental function that wasn ’ t a material product of brain chemistry .
Higher intellectual functions don ’ t have wholly material causes .
There is an immaterial aspect — a spiritual aspect — to the human soul that can be demonstrated by science , and it leaves its signature , sadly , in this peculiar aspect of epilepsy .
My own experience is the same as Penfield ’ s .
I ’ m a neurosurgeon , and I ’ ve treated thousands of patients with seizures .
I ’ ve never seen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , patients experience all sorts of things , from total loss of consciousness and shaking of the whole body to the most subtle muscle twitch or a moment of inattention .
But patients never think abstractly as a part of the seizure .
There has never been a report in the medical literature of an intellectual seizure… .
Why don ’ t we have morality seizures ?
Why don ’ t people with epilepsy occasionally have seizures in which they repeatedly keep the Sabbath or involuntarily honor their father and mother or compulsively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happens .

Neuroscientist Michael Egnor explains, “Why, as a Neurosurgeon, I Believe in Free Will.”
In his classic book, Mystery of the Mind, (1975) epilepsy surgery pioneer Dr. Wilder Penfield, asked a significant question: “Why are there no intellectual seizures?”
Epileptic seizures can be experienced in a variety of ways — convulsions of the whole body, slight twitching of a muscle, compulsive memories, emotions, perceptions of smells or flashes of light, complex motor behaviors such as chewing or laughing or even walking, or subtle moments of inattention.
But seizures never have intellectual content. There are no intellectual seizures, which is odd, given that large regions of the brain are presumed by neuroscientists to serve intellectual thought. It is all the more remarkable when we consider that seizures commonly originate in these “intellectual” areas of the brain. Yet the outcome is never intellectual seizures.
An intellectual seizure would be a seizure that caused abstract thought, such as logic, or reasoning, or mathematics. People never have, for example, mathematics seizures — seizures in which they involuntarily do calculus or arithmetic. This observation, which is as true today as it was in Penfield’s time nearly a century ago, begs for explanation.
Penfield concluded, quite reasonably, that this was because intellectual thought didn’t come from the brain. Intellectual thought (Penfield called it “mind”) is an immaterial human power. There is more to the mind than matter. Penfield began his career as a materialist. He ended it as a convinced dualist. There was, he noted, an aspect of mental function that wasn’t a material product of brain chemistry.
Higher intellectual functions don’t have wholly material causes. There is an immaterial aspect — a spiritual aspect — to the human soul that can be demonstrated by science, and it leaves its signature, sadly, in this peculiar aspect of epilepsy.
My own experience is the same as Penfield’s. I’m a neurosurgeon, and I’ve treated thousands of patients with seizures. I’ve never seen an intellectual seizure. During a seizure, patients experience all sorts of things, from total loss of consciousness and shaking of the whole body to the most subtle muscle twitch or a moment of inattention. But patients never think abstractly as a part of the seizure. There has never been a report in the medical literature of an intellectual seizure….
Why don’t we have morality seizures? Why don’t people with epilepsy occasionally have seizures in which they repeatedly keep the Sabbath or involuntarily honor their father and mother or compulsively don’t covet? This never happens.