evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-18--What Triggered a Biology Journal to Demand Government Censorship of Intelligent Design

As noted here already , the prominent science journal BioEssays has issued a remarkable editorial by biologist Dave Speijer , “ Bad Faith Reasoning , Predictable Chaos , and the Truth.
” The article is like a thermometer measuring a fever among evolutionists .
Speijer calls for intelligent design websites , including the one you ’ re reading now , to be censored by government mandate .
And he ’ s quite serious .
It would be shocking were it not for the fact that censors are already empowered at YouTube , Facebook , and on other social media , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas they don ’ t like .
This is not a drill .
The editorial proposes that search engines be required to “ have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content , masquerading as science.
” BioEssays sounds off against proponents of intelligent design , saying we use “ bad faith reasoning , ” “ misquote ” in order to “ subvert belief in Darwinian evolution , ” promote “ non‐scientific explanations , ” and engage in “ spreading misinformation.
” A crude graphic accompanies the article , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content with just a little hysterical overwriting , Speijer goes on to call us the “ infamous Discovery Institute ” that promotes “ creationism in a tuxedo.
” That ’ s not a cheap tuxedo , mind you , as the insult usually goes .
We are moving on up , in our wardrobe as in the peril that diehard Darwin defenders believe that we pose .
In Speijer ’ s telling , we are guilty of “ peddling unscientific , untenable positions , using ‘ cut and paste ’ distortions.
” We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content , masquerading as science.
” Some of these bad arguments include the claim that “ life is so complicated that it can not be the result of random processes , ” a position that he says can be refuted by citing “ many examples of unintelligent or even downright stupid designs found in living organisms.
” With unintended irony , he goes on to lament the “ deterioration of our media ecosystem ” where debates should only take place among those who are part of a “ mature complex society.
” What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bio-Liar ” websites that led the mature and complex editors of BioEssays to publish this tirade ?
It was two articles Dr. Speijer read on Evolution News that set him off .
A lot is at stake ( free speech , for one thing ) so let ’ s take a look in some detail .
One of the offending articles was published here last November , “ BioEssays Editor : “ ‘ Junk ’ DNA… Full of Information !
” Including Genome-Sized “ Genomic Code.
” Speijer says : Here is his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the nature of complexity , unpredictability , and layers of interactions ” in genomic studies .
Speijer thinks the staff-authored article at Evolution News misrepresented BioEssays editor Andrew Moore , making it appear he advocates intelligent design , whereas Moore “ so clearly dealt with the issues at hand from an evolutionary perspective.
” So did our article misrepresent Andrew Moore ?
Not in any way , shape , or form .
In fact , it explicitly stated that he is not an ID supporter , and is an evolutionist : The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not an ID proponent .
We added our own commentary about how the scientific evidence discussed by Moore is better explained by an intelligent design perspective ( which has long predicted extensive function for noncoding DNA ) than by an evolutionary perspective ( which has repeatedly predicted that non-coding DNA was junk ) .
If Speijer were interested in accurately representing our article , he should at least have recognized that it in no way portrayed Moore as being supportive of ID .
Instead , in the same paragraph , here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to one side Speijer ’ s dubious claims that non-coding genetic elements like pseudogenes , repeats , or transposons should be assumed to be useless genetic junk .
In January we reported on a new article in Nature Reviews Genetics arguing that pseudogene function is “ prematurely dismissed ” based upon “ dogma , ” because “ Where pseudogenes have been studied directly they are often found to have quantifiable biological roles.
” The very article we reviewed by Andrew Moore recognizes that vast stretches of the genome — composed largely of repeat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sequences — seem to have genome-scale functional roles .
Those issues aside , there are many misrepresentations in Spiejer ’ s passage about how ID reasoning operates .
Is it true that for ID proponents “ there is no role for chance , ” as Speijer claims ?
Anyone who has read foundational ID books like William Dembski ’ s The Design Inference , or even any of Dembski ’ s popular treatments , will know that ID proponents fully recognize that chance , law , and chance + law are all forces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s explanatory filter has appeared in numerous ID publications and is one of the key logical methods of detecting design .
Here ’ s a diagram showing how the filter works : As seen in the diagram , in this method , “ chance ” is a perfectly valid explanation for natural events .
Only when neither chance nor necessity can explain a feature , where the feature contains high levels of “ complexity ” and shows “ specification , ” then do we draw the inference that it was designed .
Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cell clearly recognizes the potential role of chance in the origin of life : Passages like that can be found in many ID works .
They show that ID proponents like Meyer are well aware of Monod ’ s ideas .
Do Meyer deny the role of chance ?
No .
Let ’ s turn to Speijer ’ s claim that ID reasons that “ life is so complicated that it can not be the result of random processes.
” Speijer calls this argument an “ old chestnut ” and indeed that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ misrepresentation of ID arguments .
We have addressed it numerous times ( for example , see here , here , here , here , or here ) .
First , ID does not merely refute “ random processes.
” As Dembski ’ s explanatory filter and the passage from Meyer ’ s book show , ID theory evaluates the ability of chance , law , and a combination of chance + law to explain elements of nature .
Second , ID does not begin by naïvely arguing that “ life is so complicated… @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quantitative analyses show that random mutation and natural selection can not produce a given feature .
This is not a simple or naïve argument .
ID proponents have implemented complex population genetics models ( which appropriately incorporate the roles of chance mutation and nonrandom selection ) to test the efficacy of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms .
For some examples from the ID research literature , see here , here , or here .
Third , ID is not just a negative argument against material causes .
Simply finding that Darwinian mechanisms are unable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ infer design .
Intelligent design is inferred only from a positive argument where we find the type of information and complexity in life that is known to derive from an intelligent agent .
This type of information is called specified complexity , as Stephen Meyer explains : This brings us to Speijer ’ s fourth mistake : the error in thinking that ID arguments are turned back by examples of supposed poor design .
This is another classic : And exactly what are the “ unintelligent or downright stupid designs ” that show @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t say .
We ’ ve tackled many such arguments over the years , responding to assertions about the “ poor design ” of the vertebrate eye , panda ’ s thumb , whale pelvic bones , appendix , coccyx , sinuses , or laryngeal nerve , among others .
Brian Miller has explained the general problem with the “ imperfection-of-the-gaps fallacy , ” which unscientifically presumes we have near-perfect knowledge of how organisms ought to operate .
Another problem with such arguments is that poor design is still design , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the nefarious misdeeds that Speijer accuses Evolution News of committing — using “ misquote [ s ] ” and “ ’ cut and paste ’ distortions ” in pursuit of “ spreading misinformation , ” to name a few ?
It ’ s because of such wrongdoing that he suggests we need to be censored by the government .
But consider : Did Speijer accurately represent our article on junk DNA , or did he falsely imply it presented Andrew Moore as a proponent of ID ?
Did Speijer use cut-and-paste common distortions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life is so complicated that it can not be the result of random processes ” ?
Did Speijer spread misinformation or use “ bad faith reasoning ” about ID by claiming that it is refuted by “ unintelligent or downright stupid designs ” ?
Oh , and is it consistent for the editorial to call us “ Bio-Liars ” who promote “ creationism in a tuxedo ” while lamenting the “ deterioration ” of public discourse with its dearth of “ mature ” participants ?
Are Speijer ’ s criticisms more applicable to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attacks on us ?
Speijer has another complaint .
It ’ s about a brief article by Paul Nelson here , back in February .
Nelson was responding to a short editorial , “ Is Popperian Falsification Useful in Biology ?
, ” that Speijer had written in BioEssays .
Here is the offending passage from Nelson : That ’ s the entirety of what Nelson said about Speijer .
Was this a misquote ?
Consider what Speijer originally wrote : Of course , overall Popper is right .
Trying to establish facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strategy , often generating further insights .
However , the example above illustrates the problems involved : these only get worse when one turns to the field of biological theory .
The complexity of biological entities ( highly complicated systems that have many layers of intra‐ and interconnectivity , themselves results of eons of prior development ) is such that “ counter‐examples ” are sometimes not what they seem to be .
Allow me to give some examples .
Eukaryotes are capable of a complicated system of procreation : full meiotic sex .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) propagation also occurs .
Most instances turn out to be relatively short‐lived , but an exception to this “ rule ” is found in the bdelloid rotifers , which lost meiotic sex millions of years ago .
Does this mean that sex is just something that eukaryotes got stuck with , and that it is lost again as soon as the opportunity arises ?
Of course not .
The exception might inform the rule .
Because they live in cyclically drying freshwater habitats , bdelloid rotifers evolved high resistance to reactive oxygen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their case coming from ionizing radiation more than from the mitochondrion ) .
This might have made the DNA repair mechanisms associated with meiotic sex superfluous.2 What of other exceptions to biological rules ?
The mitochondrial DNA is practically always inherited from the maternal germ cell .
Is that indeed because the “ active ” ( motile ) germ cell ( sperm ) has more ROS‐related damage , or do a few exceptions disprove this ?
Highly complex eukaryotic structures are almost always associated with an aerobic lifestyle .
Does an instance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just a coincidence ?
In both cases I do not think so .
Or take the mitochondrial ROS theory of aging : does the observation that an active lifestyle is conductive to longevity invalidate it ?
Careful analysis shows this not to be the case .
In biology , “ largely true ” correlations often give important insights .
Thus , at the risk of constructing our own Vulcans to prop up flawed models , evolutionary complexity invites us to tolerate exceptions .
Everyone seems to agree ( to some extent ) that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with counterexamples .
Speijer dismisses this as unimportant , simply reflecting the “ eons of prior development ” that led to great “ complexity of biological entities ” with “ highly complicated systems that have many layers of intra‐ and interconnectivity.
” Paul Nelson thinks that these failed predictions ought not to be dismissed , unless you are willing to tolerate a theory that fails to generate useful knowledge .
Nelson made a fair point , if you ask us , but feel free think otherwise .
Are the editors of BioEssays so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disagreement triggers them to call for government-backed censorship ?
To be fair , Nelson ’ s original post included a slight misquote of Speijer .
It was unintentional , of course , and didn ’ t change the meaning .
Speijer spoke of “ evolutionary complexity ” rather than “ evolutionary theory , ” as Nelson first wrote .
Naturally , we ’ ve since fixed that .
Speijer doesn ’ t mention it , so apparently it wasn ’ t a big deal to him .
What is a big deal to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gould .
Speijer responds : But did Paul Nelson say that Speijer said that under evolutionary biology “ anything is possible ” ?
No , he did not .
Rather , he quoted a different scientist commenting on Stephen Jay Gould .
Nelson wrote : When Nelson cites “ this article ” he doesn ’ t link to Speijer .
He links to an article by Tiago Rodrigues Simões , an evolutionary biologist at Harvard .
Speijer is upset that Nelson quoted another scientist talking about the views of Stephen Jay Gould in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s own views .
That ’ s what all the furor is about .
That ’ s why he was triggered into calling for censorship .
Well , actually there ’ s one other thing that Speijer is angry about — and it reduces to the mere fact that Nelson advocates intelligent design : Again , Nelson simply suggested that Popper ’ s thinking should be applied to evolutionary theory .
His post doesn ’ t say anything about ID .
But of course Nelson is an ID advocate .
For Speijer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Nelson advocates ID means he is guilty of “ peddling unscientific , untenable positions , using ‘ cut and paste ’ distortions.
” Audacious to some , indeed .
What has Speijer identified in our work that amounts to real misquotes , errors , or bad logic ?
Nothing .
Nelson too was also unable to find anything that he had done wrong .
Soon after Speijer ’ s editorial was published by BioEssays , Nelson wrote a friendly email to Speijer .
Nelson essentially asked , Did I get anything wrong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if I did I want to correct the record and make it right .
That email was sent well over a month ago .
The response to Dr. Nelson from Dr. Speijer ?
Crickets .
So there you have it .
These scientists were triggered by nothing .
They erupted in response with demands for persecution .
Does this sound to you like a sober , mature , balanced scientific outlook , one that should be dictating government policy on Internet freedom ?
These are the upholders of orthodox evolutionary theory !
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paul Nelson said it well in his post : evolutionary biology “ is not a healthy theory .
”

As noted here already, the prominent science journal BioEssays has issued a remarkable editorial by biologist Dave Speijer, “Bad Faith Reasoning, Predictable Chaos, and the Truth.” The article is like a thermometer measuring a fever among evolutionists. Speijer calls for intelligent design websites, including the one you’re reading now, to be censored by government mandate. And he’s quite serious. It would be shocking were it not for the fact that censors are already empowered at YouTube, Facebook, and on other social media, to scour the Internet and wipe out ideas they don’t like. This is not a drill.
The editorial proposes that search engines be required to “have mandatory color coded banners warning of consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.” BioEssays sounds off against proponents of intelligent design, saying we use “bad faith reasoning,” “misquote” in order to “subvert belief in Darwinian evolution,” promote “non‐scientific explanations,” and engage in “spreading misinformation.” A crude graphic accompanies the article, calling ID proponents “Bio-Liars.”
Not content with just a little hysterical overwriting, Speijer goes on to call us the “infamous Discovery Institute” that promotes “creationism in a tuxedo.” That’s not a cheap tuxedo, mind you, as the insult usually goes. We are moving on up, in our wardrobe as in the peril that diehard Darwin defenders believe that we pose. In Speijer’s telling, we are guilty of “peddling unscientific, untenable positions, using ‘cut and paste’ distortions.” We publish “consistent factual errors or unscientific content, masquerading as science.” Some of these bad arguments include the claim that “life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes,” a position that he says can be refuted by citing “many examples of unintelligent or even downright stupid designs found in living organisms.” With unintended irony, he goes on to lament the “deterioration of our media ecosystem” where debates should only take place among those who are part of a “mature complex society.”
What exactly were the falsehoods on ID “Bio-Liar” websites that led the mature and complex editors of BioEssays to publish this tirade? It was two articles Dr. Speijer read on Evolution News that set him off. A lot is at stake (free speech, for one thing) so let’s take a look in some detail.
Junk DNA and Andrew Moore
One of the offending articles was published here last November, “BioEssays Editor: “‘Junk’ DNA… Full of Information!” Including Genome-Sized “Genomic Code.” Speijer says:
A big problem with grasping the nature of complexity, unpredictability, and layers of interactions is a recurring theme in the “anti‐evolution” community. Not so long ago, Andrew Moore speculated about the extent to which the so‐called junk DNA might be performing (non‐coding) functions, taking his inspiration from a BioEssays paper by Giorgio Bernardi, claiming that (much of) it might be involved in orchestrating the nuclear chromosomal architecture. I presume he was somewhat surprised when he encountered quotes taken from his column under the heading of “intelligent design,” considering he so clearly dealt with the issues at hand from an evolutionary perspective. However, on reflection, this happening could have been predicted with high likelihood.
Here is his complaint: ID proponents fail to grasp “the nature of complexity, unpredictability, and layers of interactions” in genomic studies. Speijer thinks the staff-authored article at Evolution News misrepresented BioEssays editor Andrew Moore, making it appear he advocates intelligent design, whereas Moore “so clearly dealt with the issues at hand from an evolutionary perspective.”
So did our article misrepresent Andrew Moore? Not in any way, shape, or form. In fact, it explicitly stated that he is not an ID supporter, and is an evolutionist:
Moore is not an ID proponent; he’s clearly writing from an evolutionary perspective. Even as he describes extensive function in our genome, he frequently adds evolutionary “narrative gloss” just to remind you what side he’s on.
The article continues:
Though clearly evolution-based, Moore’s perspective stands out in an important way: it is open to seeing coordinated function across the entire genome.
And again:
Moore’s evolutionary bias is evident here as he repeatedly adds “narrative gloss,” ascribing functional aspects of our genome to evolution, rather than simply describing the functional nature of DNA and leaving evolution out of it. But the substance of what he’s saying identifies function in an aspect of the genome that evolutionists have frequently ignored as junk.
Finally:
So here’s what we have: evolutionary scientists proposing that most of our genome’s sequence has functional importance because it carries a genomic code, controlling the three-dimensional packing in the nucleus.
The article repeatedly clarified that Andrew Moore is not an ID proponent. We added our own commentary about how the scientific evidence discussed by Moore is better explained by an intelligent design perspective (which has long predicted extensive function for noncoding DNA) than by an evolutionary perspective (which has repeatedly predicted that non-coding DNA was junk).
If Speijer were interested in accurately representing our article, he should at least have recognized that it in no way portrayed Moore as being supportive of ID. Instead, in the same paragraph, here’s how Speijer describes our views:
In the famous words of Jacques Monod, biological phenomena can be explained by the interaction of chance and necessity (random occurrences and natural laws). In the eyes of anti‐evolutionists there is no role for chance, and thus they zoomed in on the aspect that (some) junk DNA actually might have important functions. Sad to say, the source of much of the junk DNA is still to be found in chance (think of pseudogenes, repeat sequences, transposons, and viral elements). The second temptation for adherents of intelligent design lies in the fact that the phenomena described can be seen as imposing multilevel constraints (for instance, a sequence has to correctly encode a protein and allow proper chromosomal organization). Logically, the chances of getting sequences that work on both levels seem slimmer. Thus, they would feel empowered to bring back their old chestnut: “life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes.”
Set to one side Speijer’s dubious claims that non-coding genetic elements like pseudogenes, repeats, or transposons should be assumed to be useless genetic junk. In January we reported on a new article in Nature Reviews Genetics arguing that pseudogene function is “prematurely dismissed” based upon “dogma,” because “Where pseudogenes have been studied directly they are often found to have quantifiable biological roles.” The very article we reviewed by Andrew Moore recognizes that vast stretches of the genome — composed largely of repeat sequences and transposable elements and supposed viral sequences — seem to have genome-scale functional roles. Those issues aside, there are many misrepresentations in Spiejer’s passage about how ID reasoning operates.
Give Chance a Chance
Is it true that for ID proponents “there is no role for chance,” as Speijer claims? Anyone who has read foundational ID books like William Dembski’s The Design Inference, or even any of Dembski’s popular treatments, will know that ID proponents fully recognize that chance, law, and chance + law are all forces at work in nature. Dembski’s explanatory filter has appeared in numerous ID publications and is one of the key logical methods of detecting design. Here’s a diagram showing how the filter works:
After William Dembski, The Design Revolution (2004, InterVarsity Press)
As seen in the diagram, in this method, “chance” is a perfectly valid explanation for natural events. Only when neither chance nor necessity can explain a feature, where the feature contains high levels of “complexity” and shows “specification,” then do we draw the inference that it was designed.
Stephen Meyer’s book Signature in the Cell clearly recognizes the potential role of chance in the origin of life:
[O]ne of Francis Crick’s colleagues was the French biologist Jacques Monod. In 1971 he wrote an influential book called Chance and Necessity, extolling the powers of chance variation and lawlike processes of necessity in the history of life. As an example of a chance process, Monod noted how random mutations in the genetic makeup of organisms can explain how variations in populations arise during the process of biological evolution. In Monod’s shorthand, “chance” referred to events or processes that produce a range of possible outcomes, each with some probability of occurring. The term “necessity,” on the other hand, referred to processes or forces that produce a specific outcome with perfect regularity, so that the outcome is “necessary” or inevitable once some prior conditions have been established. Signature in the Cell, pp. 173-174
Passages like that can be found in many ID works. They show that ID proponents like Meyer are well aware of Monod’s ideas. Do Meyer deny the role of chance? No.
Dembski notes that, as we reason about these different kinds of events, we often engage in a comparative evaluation process that he represents with a schematic he calls the “explanatory filter.” The filter outlines a method by which scientists (and others) decide among three different types of attributions or explanations-chance, necessity, and intelligent design-based upon the probabilistic features or “signatures” of various kinds of events. (See Fig. 16.1.) … In Chapter 8, I described how Dembski came to recognize that low-probability events by themselves do not necessarily indicate that something other than chance is at work. Improbable events happen all the time and don’t necessarily indicate anything other than chance in play-as Dembski had illustrated to me by pointing out that if I flipped a coin one hundred times I would necessarily participate in an extremely improbable event. In that case, any specific sequence that turned up would have a probability of 1 chance in 2100. Yet the improbability of this event did not mean that something other than chance was responsible. Signature in the Cell, pp. 354-355
Recapitulating an Old Chestnut
Let’s turn to Speijer’s claim that ID reasons that “life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes.” Speijer calls this argument an “old chestnut” and indeed that’s what it is: a hoary misrepresentation of ID arguments. We have addressed it numerous times (for example, see here, here, here, here, or here).
First, ID does not merely refute “random processes.” As Dembski’s explanatory filter and the passage from Meyer’s book show, ID theory evaluates the ability of chance, law, and a combination of chance + law to explain elements of nature.
Second, ID does not begin by naïvely arguing that “life is so complicated…” ID is inferred only after careful quantitative analyses show that random mutation and natural selection cannot produce a given feature. This is not a simple or naïve argument. ID proponents have implemented complex population genetics models (which appropriately incorporate the roles of chance mutation and nonrandom selection) to test the efficacy of Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. For some examples from the ID research literature, see here, here, or here.
Third, ID is not just a negative argument against material causes. Simply finding that Darwinian mechanisms are unable to produce a feature is not enough to infer design. Intelligent design is inferred only from a positive argument where we find the type of information and complexity in life that is known to derive from an intelligent agent. This type of information is called specified complexity, as Stephen Meyer explains:
[T]he inadequacy of proposed materialistic causes forms only part of the basis of the argument for intelligent design. We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems. To quote Quastler again, “The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity.” Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence-intelligent design-played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer-based on our knowledge of established cause-and-effect relationships-that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life. For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an “inference to the best explanation” based upon our best available knowledge. (Signature in the Cell, pp. 376-377)
Poorly Designed Objections
This brings us to Speijer’s fourth mistake: the error in thinking that ID arguments are turned back by examples of supposed poor design. This is another classic:
Here is a concept that was invoked as an “explanation” after many examples of unintelligent or even downright stupid designs found in living organisms started littering biology books. One might understand why I think it a bit rich that they advocate reasoned explanations under headers such as “truth in science,” whilst peddling unscientific, untenable positions, using “cut and paste” distortions.
And exactly what are the “unintelligent or downright stupid designs” that show life was not designed? Speijer doesn’t say. We’ve tackled many such arguments over the years, responding to assertions about the “poor design” of the vertebrate eye, panda’s thumb, whale pelvic bones, appendix, coccyx, sinuses, or laryngeal nerve, among others. Brian Miller has explained the general problem with the “imperfection-of-the-gaps fallacy,” which unscientifically presumes we have near-perfect knowledge of how organisms ought to operate. Another problem with such arguments is that poor design is still design, as we have previously explained:
As a science, ID doesn’t address theological questions about whether the design is “desirable,” “undesirable,” “perfect,” or “imperfect.” Undesirable design is still design. Gilmour just doesn’t like it because (in his own subjective view) it’s undesirable. Here’s a quick illustration of what I mean: I’m writing this on a PC using Windows; this PC has crashed probably a dozen times in the past two weeks. Right now, I hate my PC. I consider it poorly designed, full of imperfections, and very undesirable. Does that mean it wasn’t designed by intelligent agents? No. “Undesirable design” and “intelligent design” are two different things. “Undesirable,” “poor,” or “imperfect” design do not refute intelligent design.
Speijer is critiquing a straw man.
What about the nefarious misdeeds that Speijer accuses Evolution News of committing — using “misquote[s]” and “’cut and paste’ distortions” in pursuit of “spreading misinformation,” to name a few? It’s because of such wrongdoing that he suggests we need to be censored by the government. But consider: Did Speijer accurately represent our article on junk DNA, or did he falsely imply it presented Andrew Moore as a proponent of ID? Did Speijer use cut-and-paste common distortions about ID by saying it argues “life is so complicated that it cannot be the result of random processes”? Did Speijer spread misinformation or use “bad faith reasoning” about ID by claiming that it is refuted by “unintelligent or downright stupid designs”? Oh, and is it consistent for the editorial to call us “Bio-Liars” who promote “creationism in a tuxedo” while lamenting the “deterioration” of public discourse with its dearth of “mature” participants? Are Speijer’s criticisms more applicable to ID proponents, or to his own attacks on us?
Misuse of Popper?
Speijer has another complaint. It’s about a brief article by Paul Nelson here, back in February. Nelson was responding to a short editorial, “Is Popperian Falsification Useful in Biology?,” that Speijer had written in BioEssays. Here is the offending passage from Nelson:
An open access editorial (whose title I have borrowed for the headline), by the Dutch biologist Dave Speijer, is worth a look in relation to this issue. “[E]volutionary theory,” he writes, “invites us to tolerate exceptions.” I think this is exactly wrong. A theory that predicted the exceptions to its rules and generalizations would convey knowledge. A theory that “tolerates exceptions,” however, will end up in a 1:1 mapping with whatever one observes — in which event, the theory is doing no work at all, simply wandering along behind the data like a puppy on a leash.
That’s the entirety of what Nelson said about Speijer. Was this a misquote? Consider what Speijer originally wrote:
Of course, overall Popper is right. Trying to establish facts that disprove broad theories is a worthwhile strategy, often generating further insights. However, the example above illustrates the problems involved: these only get worse when one turns to the field of biological theory. The complexity of biological entities (highly complicated systems that have many layers of intra‐ and interconnectivity, themselves results of eons of prior development) is such that “counter‐examples” are sometimes not what they seem to be. Allow me to give some examples. Eukaryotes are capable of a complicated system of procreation: full meiotic sex. However, less costly clonal (non‐sexual) propagation also occurs. Most instances turn out to be relatively short‐lived, but an exception to this “rule” is found in the bdelloid rotifers, which lost meiotic sex millions of years ago. Does this mean that sex is just something that eukaryotes got stuck with, and that it is lost again as soon as the opportunity arises? Of course not. The exception might inform the rule. Because they live in cyclically drying freshwater habitats, bdelloid rotifers evolved high resistance to reactive oxygen species (ROS) resistance (in their case coming from ionizing radiation more than from the mitochondrion). This might have made the DNA repair mechanisms associated with meiotic sex superfluous.2 What of other exceptions to biological rules? The mitochondrial DNA is practically always inherited from the maternal germ cell. Is that indeed because the “active” (motile) germ cell (sperm) has more ROS‐related damage, or do a few exceptions disprove this? Highly complex eukaryotic structures are almost always associated with an aerobic lifestyle. Does an instance of anaerobic complexity tell us that this is just a coincidence? In both cases I do not think so. Or take the mitochondrial ROS theory of aging: does the observation that an active lifestyle is conductive to longevity invalidate it? Careful analysis shows this not to be the case. In biology, “largely true” correlations often give important insights. Thus, at the risk of constructing our own Vulcans to prop up flawed models, evolutionary complexity invites us to tolerate exceptions.
Everyone seems to agree (to some extent) that the predictions of evolutionary biology often meet with counterexamples. Speijer dismisses this as unimportant, simply reflecting the “eons of prior development” that led to great “complexity of biological entities” with “highly complicated systems that have many layers of intra‐ and interconnectivity.” Paul Nelson thinks that these failed predictions ought not to be dismissed, unless you are willing to tolerate a theory that fails to generate useful knowledge.
Nelson made a fair point, if you ask us, but feel free think otherwise. Are the editors of BioEssays so afraid of criticism that even very benign disagreement triggers them to call for government-backed censorship?
To be fair, Nelson’s original post included a slight misquote of Speijer. It was unintentional, of course, and didn’t change the meaning. Speijer spoke of “evolutionary complexity” rather than “evolutionary theory,” as Nelson first wrote. Naturally, we’ve since fixed that. Speijer doesn’t mention it, so apparently it wasn’t a big deal to him. What is a big deal to Speijer is that Nelson quotes Stephen Jay Gould. Speijer responds:
My concluding remark, regarding biology inviting us to tolerate exceptions, is quoted (without the crucial proviso, however) to just mean “anything is possible.” Talk about “bad faith” reasoning. But at least I was trashed together with the late Stephen Jay Gould, so that softened the blow to my ego.
But did Paul Nelson say that Speijer said that under evolutionary biology “anything is possible”? No, he did not. Rather, he quoted a different scientist commenting on Stephen Jay Gould. Nelson wrote:
Stephen Jay Gould grew very fond of the notion of “contingency,” which he would deploy to rationalize departures from prediction. If that seems a harsh judgment, consider the last sentence of this article, commenting on Gould’s position: “Organisms tend to achieve similar solutions to similar problems, but give it [i.e., evolution] enough time (or a small enough population), and anything is possible.” “Anything is possible” may be true — but then, don’t pretend you have a theory which is doing any real work. You don’t.
When Nelson cites “this article” he doesn’t link to Speijer. He links to an article by Tiago Rodrigues Simões, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard. Speijer is upset that Nelson quoted another scientist talking about the views of Stephen Jay Gould in an article that also separately critiqued Speijer’s own views. That’s what all the furor is about. That’s why he was triggered into calling for censorship.
Well, actually there’s one other thing that Speijer is angry about — and it reduces to the mere fact that Nelson advocates intelligent design:
The Discovery Institute (and its websites) has a tendency of adding insult to injury. To quote from a column which mentions Popper’s falsifiability criterion as a way of distinguishing scientific and non‐scientific explanations to advance intelligent design is audacious to say the least.
Again, Nelson simply suggested that Popper’s thinking should be applied to evolutionary theory. His post doesn’t say anything about ID. But of course Nelson is an ID advocate. For Speijer, it seems, the mere fact that Nelson advocates ID means he is guilty of “peddling unscientific, untenable positions, using ‘cut and paste’ distortions.” Audacious to some, indeed.
The Lady Doth…
What has Speijer identified in our work that amounts to real misquotes, errors, or bad logic? Nothing. Nelson too was also unable to find anything that he had done wrong. Soon after Speijer’s editorial was published by BioEssays, Nelson wrote a friendly email to Speijer. Nelson essentially asked, Did I get anything wrong? Let’s talk, because if I did I want to correct the record and make it right.
That email was sent well over a month ago. The response to Dr. Nelson from Dr. Speijer? Crickets.
So there you have it. These scientists were triggered by nothing. They erupted in response with demands for persecution. Does this sound to you like a sober, mature, balanced scientific outlook, one that should be dictating government policy on Internet freedom? These are the upholders of orthodox evolutionary theory! These are Darwin’s modern champions. Paul Nelson said it well in his post: evolutionary biology “is not a healthy theory.”
Photo credit: christian buehner via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-17--Why Neo-Darwinism Is Less than a Theory

Why Neo-Darwinism Is Less than a Theory

On a classic episode of ID the Future from Jerusalem , Ira Berkowitz interviews MIT PhD physicist Lee Spetner .
@ @ @ @ @ from Spetner ’ s books Not by Chance and The Evolution Revolution .
Download the @ @ @ @ @ here .
Spetner explains why he considers neo-Darwinism less than a theory and offers a @ @ @ @ @ .
Spetner also argues that , contrary to Darwinist propaganda , the evolution of antibiotic-resistant @ @ @ @ @ information rather than a gain .
Photo : Detail of Darwin statue , Natural History @ @ @ @ @ Rept0n1x ( Own work ) [ GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0 ] , via Wikimedia @ @

On a classic episode of ID the Future from Jerusalem, Ira Berkowitz interviews MIT PhD physicist Lee Spetner. Together they explore key arguments from Spetner’s books Not by Chance and The Evolution Revolution. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Spetner explains why he considers neo-Darwinism less than a theory and offers a surprising take on Thomas Malthus. Spetner also argues that, contrary to Darwinist propaganda, the evolution of antibiotic-resistant bacteria demonstrates a loss of information rather than a gain.
Photo: Detail of Darwin statue, Natural History Museum, London, by Rept0n1x (Own work) [GFDL or CC BY-SA 3.0], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-19--Thomas Aquinas Weighs in on the Coronavirus and Public Policy

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Andrew McDiarmid speaks with pediatric neurosurgeon and professor Michael Egnor about public policy decisions regarding the coronavirus .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
In a conversation based on a recent article for Evolution News , Egnor says scientists should have “ stayed in their lane , ” giving policymakers the information that science can provide about a potential pandemic , and left the political calculations alone .
He argues that WHO failed in one of its primary jobs , which is providing timely information and recommendations @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemics .
They sat on information about COVID-19 for weeks , long after they knew there was a serious problem in China .
Egnor also urges policymakers to apply science along with other expert information in a transparent decision-making process .
And they must apply sound ethics — for which Egnor offers Thomas Aquinas ’ s four-fold framework , including the principle of “ double effect.
” Editor ’ s note : For more on Aquinas , intelligent design , and evolution , see the website of Father Michael Chaberek , Aquinas.Design .

On a new episode of ID the Future, host Andrew McDiarmid speaks with pediatric neurosurgeon and professor Michael Egnor about public policy decisions regarding the coronavirus. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In a conversation based on a recent article for Evolution News, Egnor says scientists should have “stayed in their lane,” giving policymakers the information that science can provide about a potential pandemic, and left the political calculations alone. He argues that WHO failed in one of its primary jobs, which is providing timely information and recommendations for preventing and slowing the spread of pandemics. They sat on information about COVID-19 for weeks, long after they knew there was a serious problem in China. Egnor also urges policymakers to apply science along with other expert information in a transparent decision-making process. And they must apply sound ethics — for which Egnor offers Thomas Aquinas’s four-fold framework, including the principle of “double effect.”
Editor’s note: For more on Aquinas, intelligent design, and evolution, see the website of Father Michael Chaberek, Aquinas.Design.
Image: Thomas Aquinas, via Aquinas.Design.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-19--Book Excerpt: A Factory That Builds Factories That Build Factories That…

Editor ’ s note : The following is an excerpt from the the new book from Discovery Institute Press , Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell .
Eric H. Anderson is a lawyer , software engineering executive , and writer on intelligent design .
Nobel Prize recipient and Harvard origin-of-life researcher Jack Szostak once remarked , “ In my lab , we ’ re interested in the transition from chemistry to early biology on the early earth… .
You want something that can grow and divide and , most importantly , exhibit Darwinian evolution.
” 1 Another noted origin-of-life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much the same thing .
When asked about the idea that chemicals might have come together on the early Earth to form something that could copy itself , Joyce responded , “ That ’ s what we and others are interested in because that ’ s sort of , you know , the tipping point between chemistry before and biology after.
” 2 Self-replication , then , is not just one more in a long list of problems to be solved for the origin of life .
As far as many of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the pathway to a self-replicating entity is the central challenge , the Holy Grail .
Figure out how to get that from purely natural processes , and the hope is that everything else will take care of itself .
But it ’ s a Grail that continues to elude the research community , despite the brash claims occasionally made to the contrary .
A few years ago I happened to turn on my car radio and caught the end of a lecture segment on public radio .
Evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist Richard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the position of Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University for more than a decade , and one of the questions posed to him made me quickly reach over and turn up the volume .
“ How close are we to understanding the origin of life ?
” the moderator asked .
I half-expected Dawkins to acknowledge the many difficulties with abiogenesis , to admit that this was a huge open question , and to confess that we don ’ t yet have any good abiogenesis scenarios , while claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do , that the origin of life is a separate question from biological evolution .
That is , I thought he might concede the many widely acknowledged difficulties still facing the origin of life but try to contain the damage for the materialistic outlook by emphasizing that at least things were well in hand for evolutionary theory after the origin of the first life .
To my surprise , Dawkins responded rather glibly that we have a pretty good idea how life started .
Yes , there are some challenges , he acknowledged @ @ @ @ @ @ @ broad strokes and at this point , he implied , we are basically filling in the details .
Having studied the origin of life at length and being aware of the many and acute problems with abiogenesis theories , it struck me as more than a little irresponsible for someone wearing the title of “ Professor for the Public Understanding of Science ” to claim in a public venue to tens of thousands of listeners that we have a pretty good idea how life started .
Why would Dawkins make a statement like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the current state of the science , or was he unaware of the many problems with abiogenesis ?
Did he really believe what he was saying ?
As I analyzed the question further in the coming days , I realized that Dawkins ’ s thinking likely stems from the notion that the origin of life — at least the initial starting event — was a relatively simple event .
Not necessarily a common event or an easily repeatable event , mind you , but a relatively simple one .
In his book @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picture remarkably similar to Darwin ’ s statement in his 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker ( quoted in the previous chapter ) .
“ Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed : they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures , ” Dawkins writes .
“ But bacteria and the rest of us are late-comers , and in those days [ on the early Earth ] large organic molecules could drift unmolested3 through the thickening broth.
” 4 With this assumed backdrop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on to suggest the first key step in the origin of life : “ At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident .
We will call it the Replicator .
It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around , but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.
” 5 This hypothetical self-replicating molecule is crucial to the materialist creation story , and on two counts .
First , getting a complete organism to arise by chance is , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and never could have occurred .
So something simpler , something that had a much greater likelihood of arising by pure chance , something like a simple self-replicating molecule , had to kick-start the process .
Second , once this self-replicating molecule came on the scene , then Darwinian evolution could kick in , bringing the impressive power of random mutations and natural selection to eventually transform our simple self-replicating molecule into an actual organism .
At least that is how the story goes .
This “ particularly remarkable molecule , ” Dawkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the remainder of his description of this extraordinary entity consists of a simple , though chemically unrealistic , thought experiment about how such a fascinating molecule might work , making copies of itself , “ competing ” with other molecules in the watery environment , and so on .
Origin-of-life researchers , to their credit , haven ’ t been satisfied with thought experiments alone .
There has been a great deal of effort expended over the past couple of decades trying to create a self-replicating molecule in the lab , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the question of the origin of life .
Some good work has been done and some interesting results occasionally published , but nobody has been able to create such a molecule .
To be sure , there have been several papers published and news stories released proclaiming that researchers have created this or that self-replicating molecule , but these claims invariably turn out to be misleading .
If anyone has actually discovered or created a self-replicating molecule , they are keeping it a very good secret .
This failure to produce such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite decades of research and lavish financial expenditure .
The reason for the failure is not for lack of time , effort , and funding .
No , the reason is much more fundamental .
There was a sense in Darwin ’ s day that microorganisms were rather simple , each one little more than a tiny “ blob of protoplasm.
” 6 Darwin viewed the organism as a flexible conglomeration of these simple cells .
Through no fault of their own , he and his contemporaries of the time knew nothing of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feedbacks , nothing of cellular machinery , integrated systems , complex coordination of molecular parts , or the many other requirements for even the simplest working cell .
In The Origin of Species Darwin described organisms as “ plastic.
” 7 He wasn ’ t referring to the material used to make children ’ s toys today , but rather to the idea that organisms were flexible and could , he was convinced , be readily shaped and molded by natural selection to essentially any form .
From this viewpoint it followed that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the organism should also be a relatively simple process .
However , with the accumulating knowledge of cellular structures in the late 1800s , the discoveries of cellular systems and proteins and metabolic pathways , the unraveling of DNA ’ s structure in the 1950s , and the subsequent discoveries up to the present that continue to uncover new depths of biological complexity , it became ever clearer that cells are anything but simple , and that even the humblest organism is complex beyond anything previously imagined .
Not just complex .
Complex @ @ @ @ @ @ @ code , information storage , retrieval and translation mechanisms , error-correction algorithms , functionally integrated systems , and molecular machines — marvels of nanotechnology that put to shame anything humans have yet created .
As a result of these discoveries it became increasingly clear that no organism , even a relatively simple single-celled organism , could arise all at once on the early Earth by chance .
But if life couldn ’ t arise by chance as a single event , perhaps a series of events could do the trick .
Perhaps if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps then it might be possible ?
With that thought firmly in mind , abiogenesis proponents busily churned out hypothesis after hypothesis that might help the process along , simpler steps that could perhaps lead to something more .
• Jack Szostak , “ From Telomeres to the Origins of Life , ” interview by Claudia Dreifus , A Conversation With , New York Times , October 17 , 2011 .
• Richard Dawkins , “ In Lab , Clues to How Life Began , ” interview by Nell Greenfieldboyce , All Things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ January 8 , 2009 .
• Despite Dawkins ’ s optimistic suggestion that organic molecules would drift “ unmolested ” through the primordial soup , origin-of-life researchers now recognize that the twin problems of chemical breakdown and interfering cross-reactions pose massive difficulties for any abiogenesis scenario .
Indeed , one of the key challenges for modern origin-of-life researchers is to find a way to isolate and protect the tender early molecules from the devastating effects of breakdown and interfering cross-reactions long enough for anything else interesting to happen on the road to life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a German microscopic anatomist , described the cell as “ a blob of protoplasm , at the heart of which lies a nucleus….
” Félix Dujardin , a French biologist and early pioneer in Protozoa research , referred to a “ ubiquitous gelatinous substance ” as a key cellular substance in common between animal and plant life .
Both quoted in Mario A .
Di Gregorio , From Here to Eternity : Ernst Haeckel and Scientific Faith ( Göttingen , Germany : Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht , 2005 ) , 67–68 .
• @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by Means of Natural Selection , or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life [ 1872 ] , 6th ed .
( New York : Mentor , 1958 ) .

Editor’s note: The following is an excerpt from the the new book from Discovery Institute Press, Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell. Eric H. Anderson is a lawyer, software engineering executive, and writer on intelligent design.
Nobel Prize recipient and Harvard origin-of-life researcher Jack Szostak once remarked, “In my lab, we’re interested in the transition from chemistry to early biology on the early earth…. You want something that can grow and divide and, most importantly, exhibit Darwinian evolution.”1
Another noted origin-of-life researcher, Gerald F. Joyce, says much the same thing. When asked about the idea that chemicals might have come together on the early Earth to form something that could copy itself, Joyce responded, “That’s what we and others are interested in because that’s sort of, you know, the tipping point between chemistry before and biology after.”2
Self-replication, then, is not just one more in a long list of problems to be solved for the origin of life. As far as many of the leading origin-of-life researchers are concerned, discovering the pathway to a self-replicating entity is the central challenge, the Holy Grail. Figure out how to get that from purely natural processes, and the hope is that everything else will take care of itself.
But it’s a Grail that continues to elude the research community, despite the brash claims occasionally made to the contrary.
Dawkins’s Miracle Molecule
A few years ago I happened to turn on my car radio and caught the end of a lecture segment on public radio. Evolutionary biologist and prominent atheist Richard Dawkins was the guest. Dawkins held the position of Professor for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University for more than a decade, and one of the questions posed to him made me quickly reach over and turn up the volume.
“How close are we to understanding the origin of life?” the moderator asked.
I half-expected Dawkins to acknowledge the many difficulties with abiogenesis, to admit that this was a huge open question, and to confess that we don’t yet have any good abiogenesis scenarios, while claiming, as so many proponents of evolution do, that the origin of life is a separate question from biological evolution. That is, I thought he might concede the many widely acknowledged difficulties still facing the origin of life but try to contain the damage for the materialistic outlook by emphasizing that at least things were well in hand for evolutionary theory after the origin of the first life.
To my surprise, Dawkins responded rather glibly that we have a pretty good idea how life started. Yes, there are some challenges, he acknowledged, but we know what happened in broad strokes and at this point, he implied, we are basically filling in the details.
Having studied the origin of life at length and being aware of the many and acute problems with abiogenesis theories, it struck me as more than a little irresponsible for someone wearing the title of “Professor for the Public Understanding of Science” to claim in a public venue to tens of thousands of listeners that we have a pretty good idea how life started.
Why would Dawkins make a statement like that? Was he purposely misinforming listeners about the current state of the science, or was he unaware of the many problems with abiogenesis? Did he really believe what he was saying?
As I analyzed the question further in the coming days, I realized that Dawkins’s thinking likely stems from the notion that the origin of life — at least the initial starting event — was a relatively simple event. Not necessarily a common event or an easily repeatable event, mind you, but a relatively simple one.
In his book The Selfish Gene, Dawkins paints a picture remarkably similar to Darwin’s statement in his 1871 letter to Joseph Hooker (quoted in the previous chapter). “Nowadays large organic molecules would not last long enough to be noticed: they would be quickly absorbed and broken down by bacteria or other living creatures,” Dawkins writes. “But bacteria and the rest of us are late-comers, and in those days [on the early Earth] large organic molecules could drift unmolested3 through the thickening broth.”4
With this assumed backdrop of early Earth conditions, Dawkins goes on to suggest the first key step in the origin of life: “At some point a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident. We will call it the Replicator. It may not necessarily have been the biggest or the most complex molecule around, but it had the extraordinary property of being able to create copies of itself.”5
This hypothetical self-replicating molecule is crucial to the materialist creation story, and on two counts. First, getting a complete organism to arise by chance is, as is widely acknowledged, too unlikely and never could have occurred. So something simpler, something that had a much greater likelihood of arising by pure chance, something like a simple self-replicating molecule, had to kick-start the process. Second, once this self-replicating molecule came on the scene, then Darwinian evolution could kick in, bringing the impressive power of random mutations and natural selection to eventually transform our simple self-replicating molecule into an actual organism.
At least that is how the story goes.
This “particularly remarkable molecule,” Dawkins suggests, is easy to imagine, and the remainder of his description of this extraordinary entity consists of a simple, though chemically unrealistic, thought experiment about how such a fascinating molecule might work, making copies of itself, “competing” with other molecules in the watery environment, and so on.
Origin-of-life researchers, to their credit, haven’t been satisfied with thought experiments alone. There has been a great deal of effort expended over the past couple of decades trying to create a self-replicating molecule in the lab, and then to apply the lessons learned to the question of the origin of life. Some good work has been done and some interesting results occasionally published, but nobody has been able to create such a molecule.
To be sure, there have been several papers published and news stories released proclaiming that researchers have created this or that self-replicating molecule, but these claims invariably turn out to be misleading. If anyone has actually discovered or created a self-replicating molecule, they are keeping it a very good secret.
This failure to produce such a molecule, keep in mind, is despite decades of research and lavish financial expenditure. The reason for the failure is not for lack of time, effort, and funding. No, the reason is much more fundamental.
The Blob Has a Secret
There was a sense in Darwin’s day that microorganisms were rather simple, each one little more than a tiny “blob of protoplasm.”6 Darwin viewed the organism as a flexible conglomeration of these simple cells. Through no fault of their own, he and his contemporaries of the time knew nothing of genetic information processing, signaling, and feedbacks, nothing of cellular machinery, integrated systems, complex coordination of molecular parts, or the many other requirements for even the simplest working cell.
In The Origin of Species Darwin described organisms as “plastic.”7 He wasn’t referring to the material used to make children’s toys today, but rather to the idea that organisms were flexible and could, he was convinced, be readily shaped and molded by natural selection to essentially any form. From this viewpoint it followed that adding more cells or making changes to the organism should also be a relatively simple process.
However, with the accumulating knowledge of cellular structures in the late 1800s, the discoveries of cellular systems and proteins and metabolic pathways, the unraveling of DNA’s structure in the 1950s, and the subsequent discoveries up to the present that continue to uncover new depths of biological complexity, it became ever clearer that cells are anything but simple, and that even the humblest organism is complex beyond anything previously imagined. Not just complex. Complex and coordinated, with a 4-bit digital code, information storage, retrieval and translation mechanisms, error-correction algorithms, functionally integrated systems, and molecular machines — marvels of nanotechnology that put to shame anything humans have yet created.
As a result of these discoveries it became increasingly clear that no organism, even a relatively simple single-celled organism, could arise all at once on the early Earth by chance.
But if life couldn’t arise by chance as a single event, perhaps a series of events could do the trick. Perhaps if the problem were broken down into simpler steps then it might be possible?
With that thought firmly in mind, abiogenesis proponents busily churned out hypothesis after hypothesis that might help the process along, simpler steps that could perhaps lead to something more.
References:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-19--Here’s How to Fight Censorship — In a “Nutshell”

The editors at the prominent science journal BioEssays recently published an editorial demanding government-mandated censorship of intelligent design .
My colleagues and I had expected something like this before long .
They singled out Evolution News in particular as a being in need of prejudicial treatment from the huge tech companies that dominate electronic media .
If giants like Google or Facebook hesitate , then says biologist Dave Speijer , the government should “ Make them.
” The threat is no joke .
You were aware that censors are already at work suppressing other ideas on the Internet that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was next in line .
What can you do to make a meaningful statement in favor of free speech ?
Here ’ s an idea : Get a copy of the new book from Discovery Institute Press , Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell , the most accessible and up-to-date introduction to ID that ’ s ever been released .
It goes on sale today on Amazon , in paperback and Kindle formats .
The five authors , led by Thomas Y .
Lo , cover the range of evidence for design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the universe , the origin of life , the Cambrian explosion , and more — there ’ s no subject we cover at Evolution News that is left out , but it is all treated in a way that anyone can understand .
Why is it an effective counter to the bullies at BioEssays who want to shut down views that point to an underlying purpose in the cosmos ?
As Dr .
Lo writes in his Introduction , shuffling objective evidence of design under the rug is something that science textbooks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tells a moving story about his own journey to maturity as a scientist and as a religious believer , how his Christian faith unraveled when he was a young man , only to be regained as he realized what had been left out of his education : “ cosmological evidence of creation ex nihilo ” at the Big Bang , the “ fine-tuning of the universe , ” the “ truth about 19th-century German zoologists Ernst Haeckel ’ s classic embryo drawings , ” the puzzle of the Cambrian event that Charles Darwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over or ignored altogether.
” He recalls one scientist , University of San Francisco biologist Paul Chien , whom he heard give a lecture thirty years ago .
Dr Chien explained the challenge of the Cambrian explosion to standard Darwinian accounts of evolution .
Today , Dr. Chien contributed a chapter to the Nutshell book that includes his own “ personal stories of visiting key Cambrian fossil sites.
” The textbooks leave most or all of this out .
In the same tradition , today ’ s censors are bent on keeping minds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because of the way technology has turned social media platforms into potential bottlenecks .
So get Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell for yourself , or share it with a friend , or with a student .
The book is just in time because , under an endless lockdown in many places , there ’ s a bull market for studying at home .
You might have a high school student in your household , or a college student , who would benefit from the insights and crystal-clear presentation of Lo , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Anderson , Robert Alston , and Robert Waltzer .
Arguments for intelligent design , conveyed in weighty tomes , can be daunting for the learner seeking an introduction .
As chemist Marcos Eberlin quips , evolutionists hope you don ’ t know chemistry .
Sometimes it seems that ID proponents assume that you know not only chemistry , but biology , physics , mathematics , computer engineering , and philosophy , just for starters .
Thomas Lo has done a service by cutting through much detail to the core of intelligent design .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for suppression , see here : You are not powerless .
Stick it to the censors by ordering your copy now .

The editors at the prominent science journal BioEssays recently published an editorial demanding government-mandated censorship of intelligent design. My colleagues and I had expected something like this before long. They singled out Evolution News in particular as a being in need of prejudicial treatment from the huge tech companies that dominate electronic media. If giants like Google or Facebook hesitate, then says biologist Dave Speijer, the government should “Make them.”
The threat is no joke. You were aware that censors are already at work suppressing other ideas on the Internet that they don’t like. Intelligent design was next in line.
What can you do to make a meaningful statement in favor of free speech? Here’s an idea: Get a copy of the new book from Discovery Institute Press, Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell, the most accessible and up-to-date introduction to ID that’s ever been released. It goes on sale today on Amazon, in paperback and Kindle formats.
Nothing Left Out
The five authors, led by Thomas Y. Lo, cover the range of evidence for design in under 150 pages. The origin of the universe, the origin of life, the Cambrian explosion, and more — there’s no subject we cover at Evolution News that is left out, but it is all treated in a way that anyone can understand.
Why is it an effective counter to the bullies at BioEssays who want to shut down views that point to an underlying purpose in the cosmos?
As Dr. Lo writes in his Introduction, shuffling objective evidence of design under the rug is something that science textbooks have been doing for decades. He tells a moving story about his own journey to maturity as a scientist and as a religious believer, how his Christian faith unraveled when he was a young man, only to be regained as he realized what had been left out of his education: “cosmological evidence of creation ex nihilo” at the Big Bang, the “fine-tuning of the universe,” the “truth about 19th-century German zoologists Ernst Haeckel’s classic embryo drawings,” the puzzle of the Cambrian event that Charles Darwin acknowledged but that the textbooks “papered over or ignored altogether.”
He recalls one scientist, University of San Francisco biologist Paul Chien, whom he heard give a lecture thirty years ago. Dr Chien explained the challenge of the Cambrian explosion to standard Darwinian accounts of evolution. Today, Dr. Chien contributed a chapter to the Nutshell book that includes his own “personal stories of visiting key Cambrian fossil sites.”
Opening Minds, by Design
The textbooks leave most or all of this out. In the same tradition, today’s censors are bent on keeping minds closed. But they are more dangerous because of the way technology has turned social media platforms into potential bottlenecks.
So get Evolution & Intelligent Design in a Nutshell for yourself, or share it with a friend, or with a student. The book is just in time because, under an endless lockdown in many places, there’s a bull market for studying at home. You might have a high school student in your household, or a college student, who would benefit from the insights and crystal-clear presentation of Lo, Chien, and their co-authors, Eric Anderson, Robert Alston, and Robert Waltzer.
Arguments for intelligent design, conveyed in weighty tomes, can be daunting for the learner seeking an introduction. As chemist Marcos Eberlin quips, evolutionists hope you don’t know chemistry. Sometimes it seems that ID proponents assume that you know not only chemistry, but biology, physics, mathematics, computer engineering, and philosophy, just for starters. Thomas Lo has done a service by cutting through much detail to the core of intelligent design.
For more on BioEssays and its call for suppression, see here:
You are not powerless. Stick it to the censors by ordering your copy now.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-20--The COVID Crisis and Our Healthcare System

An essay by a pair of economists in Foreign Policy magazine pins the blame for our pandemic crisis on deficiencies in our health care system .
It recommends a variety of interventions , each of which ( predictably ) entails more government control of health care by experts like… the authors of the essay .
To see the COVID response as signifying a failure of the healthcare system is an insult to the brave and skilled people who responded so effectively to this virus , including colleagues at my own hospital on New York ’ s corona frontline .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , misunderstand the roots of the crisis and misunderstand the role the health care system has played .
More importantly , they misunderstand the role of statism in generating this pandemic .
Given the unexpected nature of the pandemic , and the large numbers of patients involved , the American health care system has responded quite well .
To my knowledge , not a single person in the U.S. has died of COVID due to lack of capacity of the healthcare system .
The system retooled almost overnight , and did the job @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this has been at risk to the lives of millions of healthcare workers .
The American healthcare system shined in the COVID pandemic .
Critics who want to improve our response to pandemics should study American healthcare for countless examples of genuine expertise and skill and not a few examples of remarkable courage .
It ’ s worth noting that the three countries hardest hit by the pandemic and in which under-capacity of the health care system was in evidence — China , Iran , and Italy — all have centrally controlled socialist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proven grossly ineffective and even complicit ( i.e.
, in China ) in the spread of COVID .
There are , however , three measures that would have made an enormous difference in the pandemic in the United States .
They are : Our borders should have been closed at least a month earlier to visitors from China , Iran , and Europe .
It was clear by late December that an epidemic was spreading in China .
Our intelligence services were aware — there was even awareness in the media — of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ months after , hundreds of thousands of travelers from COVID-infected regions continued to pour into our country .
The U.S. finally closed its borders to travelers from China on January 31 , a move widely criticized as xenophobic by many of the same people who now wish to restructure our healthcare system .
The fact is that every day sooner that borders are closed to vectors of a pandemic such as this saves thousands of lives .
We should have closed our borders much sooner .
The reluctance to do so can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ call such wise and prudent measures “ xenophobic.
” Such irresponsible rhetoric paralyzed any rational response and cost tens of thousands of American lives .
Mass transit , particularly in New York City , spread the virus .
New York City was the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. and accounted for a very large proportion of COVID deaths .
It has been pointed out that the spread of COVID in New York City was greatly facilitated by mass transit .
It is not the case that population density was the crucial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ populated borough but had a lower rate of infection than the outer boroughs ( such as Queens and Staten Island ) .
There was a correlation between infection and the length of the average daily subway commute .
The more time a commuter spent on the subway , the more likely he was to get COVID — hence the high infection rate in the distant boroughs .
Mass transit is beloved by government planners .
In a pandemic , it kills .
It is noteworthy that New York officials were aware of this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it .
Forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive residents killed thousands of elderly people .
This is perhaps the most egregious — the most incomprehensible — mistake made by our experts and government officials .
At the same time officials were emptying prisons to protect inmates from COVID , they were ordering — ordering — nursing homes to admit residents recovering from recent COVID infection to their facilities .
This staggers the mind .
I won ’ t speculate here as to the rationale that motivated New York State ( and other states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order to send COVID-infected individuals to nursing homes proved lethal to countless fragile elderly residents .
Understanding such things is beyond the imagination of even the most hardened cynic .
If all three of these issues had been better addressed — if our borders had been closed much earlier , if we had shut down mass transit during the run-up to the pandemic , and if we had not forced nursing homes to admit COVID patients — COVID mortality in the United States arguably could have been reduced by at least an order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ errors had nothing to do with the healthcare system and had nothing to do with scientific research .
They had to do , in each case , with statist mismanagement .
This is what brought the COVID-19 pandemic to America and made it as deadly as it has proven to be .
To prevent pandemics going forward , we don ’ t need a reconfiguration of our healthcare system to be run by the same people who sent COVID patients into nursing homes , or to funnel billions of dollars to the labs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who botched our response this time .
We need a recognition that statism costs lives .
Socialist models have not and will not fare well .
“ More Venezuela ” is not a remedy for pandemics , or anything else .

An essay by a pair of economists in Foreign Policy magazine pins the blame for our pandemic crisis on deficiencies in our health care system. It recommends a variety of interventions, each of which (predictably) entails more government control of health care by experts like… the authors of the essay. To see the COVID response as signifying a failure of the healthcare system is an insult to the brave and skilled people who responded so effectively to this virus, including colleagues at my own hospital on New York’s corona frontline.
The authors, and others who think similarly, misunderstand the roots of the crisis and misunderstand the role the health care system has played. More importantly, they misunderstand the role of statism in generating this pandemic.
Retooled Overnight
Given the unexpected nature of the pandemic, and the large numbers of patients involved, the American health care system has responded quite well. To my knowledge, not a single person in the U.S. has died of COVID due to lack of capacity of the healthcare system. The system retooled almost overnight, and did the job with remarkable effectiveness. Even more, this has been at risk to the lives of millions of healthcare workers. The American healthcare system shined in the COVID pandemic. Critics who want to improve our response to pandemics should study American healthcare for countless examples of genuine expertise and skill and not a few examples of remarkable courage.
It’s worth noting that the three countries hardest hit by the pandemic and in which under-capacity of the health care system was in evidence — China, Iran, and Italy — all have centrally controlled socialist health care systems. Those systems have proven grossly ineffective and even complicit (i.e., in China) in the spread of COVID.
Lessons from the Pandemic
There are, however, three measures that would have made an enormous difference in the pandemic in the United States. They are:
Our borders should have been closed at least a month earlier to visitors from China, Iran, and Europe. It was clear by late December that an epidemic was spreading in China. Our intelligence services were aware — there was even awareness in the media — of unusual goings-on in Wuhan. Yet for months after, hundreds of thousands of travelers from COVID-infected regions continued to pour into our country. The U.S. finally closed its borders to travelers from China on January 31, a move widely criticized as xenophobic by many of the same people who now wish to restructure our healthcare system. The fact is that every day sooner that borders are closed to vectors of a pandemic such as this saves thousands of lives. We should have closed our borders much sooner. The reluctance to do so can be laid at the feet of those who call such wise and prudent measures “xenophobic.” Such irresponsible rhetoric paralyzed any rational response and cost tens of thousands of American lives.
Mass transit, particularly in New York City, spread the virus. New York City was the epicenter of the pandemic in the U.S. and accounted for a very large proportion of COVID deaths. It has been pointed out that the spread of COVID in New York City was greatly facilitated by mass transit. It is not the case that population density was the crucial factor — Manhattan is the most densely populated borough but had a lower rate of infection than the outer boroughs (such as Queens and Staten Island). There was a correlation between infection and the length of the average daily subway commute. The more time a commuter spent on the subway, the more likely he was to get COVID — hence the high infection rate in the distant boroughs. Mass transit is beloved by government planners. In a pandemic, it kills. It is noteworthy that New York officials were aware of this early on and did nothing to stop it.
Forcing nursing homes to accept COVID-positive residents killed thousands of elderly people. This is perhaps the most egregious — the most incomprehensible — mistake made by our experts and government officials. At the same time officials were emptying prisons to protect inmates from COVID, they were ordering — ordering — nursing homes to admit residents recovering from recent COVID infection to their facilities. This staggers the mind. I won’t speculate here as to the rationale that motivated New York State (and other states’) officials and experts. The order to send COVID-infected individuals to nursing homes proved lethal to countless fragile elderly residents. Understanding such things is beyond the imagination of even the most hardened cynic.
An Order of Magnitude
If all three of these issues had been better addressed — if our borders had been closed much earlier, if we had shut down mass transit during the run-up to the pandemic, and if we had not forced nursing homes to admit COVID patients — COVID mortality in the United States arguably could have been reduced by at least an order of magnitude.
Notice that these three errors had nothing to do with the healthcare system and had nothing to do with scientific research. They had to do, in each case, with statist mismanagement.
This is what brought the COVID-19 pandemic to America and made it as deadly as it has proven to be. To prevent pandemics going forward, we don’t need a reconfiguration of our healthcare system to be run by the same people who sent COVID patients into nursing homes, or to funnel billions of dollars to the labs and offices of the same over-credentialed experts who botched our response this time.
We need a recognition that statism costs lives. Socialist models have not and will not fare well. “More Venezuela” is not a remedy for pandemics, or anything else.
Photo credit: US Navy Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Sara Eshleman, via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-05-20--A Hot Seller from Discovery Institute Press, New Book Offers Intelligent Design “In a Nutshell”

Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell is the new book from Discovery Institute Press .
It was just published yesterday and it ’ s already Amazon ’ s # 1 and # 2 new releases in cosmology , respectively in its paperback and Kindle editions .
On a new episode of ID the Future , host Rob Crowther interviews co-author Dr. Thomas Y .
Lo .
The genesis of the slim and accessible Nutshell book was at a Discovery Institute Summer Seminar .
Lo talked with professors and students about the idea of a concise , easy-to-understand guide to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was joined by four others , including two PhD biologists .
The resulting book covers everything from cosmology and the origin of life to irreducibly complex biological marvels .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
The final chapter focuses on the mystery of the Cambrian explosion and the extraordinary Cambrian fossils of Chengjiang , China , including a firsthand account of one of the early trips there by Western scientists .
That personal account is provided by one of Lo ’ s co-authors , University of San Francisco marine biologist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recognize from the Illustra Media documentary Darwin ’ s Dilemma and from Stephen Meyer ’ s book Darwin ’ s Doubt .
Get your copy of Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell now .
It ’ s perfect for students and adult learners alike !

Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell is the new book from Discovery Institute Press. It was just published yesterday and it’s already Amazon’s #1 and #2 new releases in cosmology, respectively in its paperback and Kindle editions.
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Rob Crowther interviews co-author Dr. Thomas Y. Lo. The genesis of the slim and accessible Nutshell book was at a Discovery Institute Summer Seminar. Lo talked with professors and students about the idea of a concise, easy-to-understand guide to evolution and design. Before long he was joined by four others, including two PhD biologists. The resulting book covers everything from cosmology and the origin of life to irreducibly complex biological marvels. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The final chapter focuses on the mystery of the Cambrian explosion and the extraordinary Cambrian fossils of Chengjiang, China, including a firsthand account of one of the early trips there by Western scientists. That personal account is provided by one of Lo’s co-authors, University of San Francisco marine biologist Paul Chien, whom you’ll recognize from the Illustra Media documentary Darwin’s Dilemma and from Stephen Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt.
Get your copy of Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell now. It’s perfect for students and adult learners alike!
Photo credit: A walnut nutshell, by NordWood Themes on Unsplash.