evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-28--Out Today, Denton “Takes the Fine-Tuning Argument to a Whole New Level”

Biologist Michael Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell , is out today !
As paleontologist Günter Bechly explains , there are levels of fine-tuning in nature — the cosmic , the planetary , the biological — but Denton takes the discussion of the phenomenon and its implications to a “ whole new level ” : In this seminal new book , distinguished biochemist Michael Denton takes the fine-tuning argument to a whole new level .
He shows that many of the chemical elements themselves and their properties are delicately fine-tuned for life , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Denton also makes a convincing case that all these instances of fine-tuning converge towards a ‘ primal blueprint ’ that existed prior to the arrival of the first living cell .
Denton is at the forefront of assembling this evidence as a cumulative case for teleology in nature .
The Miracle of the Cell greatly advances the case in favor of intelligent causes in the natural sciences .
The growing body of evidence from modern science more and more calls for a shift away from the ruling but obsolete paradigm of materialism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action of natural laws and mere matter in motion .
Michael Denton ’ s work will prove to be a milestone in this ongoing scientific revolution .
Given a “ primal blueprint ” that preceded the first life , the solution can only be intelligent design .
Get your copy of the The Miracle of the Cell now .

Image credit: Brian Gage.
Biologist Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell, is out today! As paleontologist Günter Bechly explains, there are levels of fine-tuning in nature — the cosmic, the planetary, the biological — but Denton takes the discussion of the phenomenon and its implications to a “whole new level”:
In this seminal new book, distinguished biochemist Michael Denton takes the fine-tuning argument to a whole new level. He shows that many of the chemical elements themselves and their properties are delicately fine-tuned for life, and the same holds for crucial compounds like water. Denton also makes a convincing case that all these instances of fine-tuning converge towards a ‘primal blueprint’ that existed prior to the arrival of the first living cell. Denton is at the forefront of assembling this evidence as a cumulative case for teleology in nature. The Miracle of the Cell greatly advances the case in favor of intelligent causes in the natural sciences. The growing body of evidence from modern science more and more calls for a shift away from the ruling but obsolete paradigm of materialism, which allows only for the blind action of natural laws and mere matter in motion. Michael Denton’s work will prove to be a milestone in this ongoing scientific revolution. GÜNTER BECHLY, PHD, PALEONTOLOGIST
Given a “primal blueprint” that preceded the first life, the solution can only be intelligent design. Get your copy of the The Miracle of the Cell now.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-29--Thomas Reid — Recovering Another ID Ancestor

Once you ’ ve scooped up a copy of Michael Denton ’ s The Miracle of the Cell , here is another worthwhile addition to your library to consider .
James Barham , who contributed a memorable essay to Evolution News , “ Confessions of an Atheist Darwin-Doubter , ” back in 2012 , has edited a new edition of the prominent Scottish “ common sense ” philosopher Thomas Reid ’ s Lectures on Natural Theology .
As Barham comments in an ID the Future conversation with host Jay Richards , “ There ’ s little doubt in my mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be part of the intelligent design movement.
” So , alongside Alfred Russel Wallace , for one , this is another case of a lost and then recovered ancestor of modern ID thinking .
Of course , as Barham points out , the philosophical design tradition extends far back to Plato , Cicero , and other ancient figures .
Reid , who lived from 1710 to 1796 , taught moral philosophy at University of Glasgow and was a contemporary and critic of skeptic David Hume ( 1711-1776 ) .
Though Reid himself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in book form ( they cover teleological and cosmological arguments for design , and more ) , students kept careful notes and one student in particular , George Baird , left a very close approximation of what Reid said in his teaching on these subjects .
As Dr. Barham discusses with Dr. Richards , the Reid lectures are noteworthy for how very readable they are .
Barham has also supplied notes to supplement the text and make it even more readily comprehensible .
A fascinating conversation !
Download the podcast or listen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about James Barham at this website .

Photo: Thomas Reid, by Stephencdickson / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Once you’ve scooped up a copy of Michael Denton’s The Miracle of the Cell, here is another worthwhile addition to your library to consider. James Barham, who contributed a memorable essay to Evolution News, “Confessions of an Atheist Darwin-Doubter,” back in 2012, has edited a new edition of the prominent Scottish “common sense” philosopher Thomas Reid’s Lectures on Natural Theology. As Barham comments in an ID the Future conversation with host Jay Richards, “There’s little doubt in my mind that Reid if he were alive today would be part of the intelligent design movement.”
So, alongside Alfred Russel Wallace, for one, this is another case of a lost and then recovered ancestor of modern ID thinking. Of course, as Barham points out, the philosophical design tradition extends far back to Plato, Cicero, and other ancient figures. Reid, who lived from 1710 to 1796, taught moral philosophy at University of Glasgow and was a contemporary and critic of skeptic David Hume (1711-1776). Though Reid himself did not commit his lectures to writing in book form (they cover teleological and cosmological arguments for design, and more), students kept careful notes and one student in particular, George Baird, left a very close approximation of what Reid said in his teaching on these subjects. As Dr. Barham discusses with Dr. Richards, the Reid lectures are noteworthy for how very readable they are. Barham has also supplied notes to supplement the text and make it even more readily comprehensible.
A fascinating conversation! Download the podcast or listen to it here. And find more information about James Barham at this website.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-29--New Research Finds Molecular Machines Are Even More Amazing than Behe Realized

Images of the molecular machines that Michael Behe brought to public attention 21 years ago were dim and fuzzy at the time but were convincing enough then to make a strong case for irreducible complexity .
Now , new imaging techniques such as cryo-electron microscopy allow scientists to look at individual parts of the machines at near-atomic resolution .
In 1997 , John E. Walker shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Paul Boyer and Jens Skou for discovering that ATP was synthesized in cells by a rotary engine .
He was 56 at the time ; now , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in research on the mechanism of ATP synthase ( see our animation ) .
Co-authoring a paper in PNAS,1 Walker and two others used cryo-electron microscopy to examine the motor at higher resolution than was possible 23 years ago .
The abstract of their paper introduces news about this rotating marvel : A “ Grotthus mechanism ” is a hand-off series something like a bucket brigade .
The protons that power the rotor do not just flow by themselves ; they are passed along to the inlet by a bucket brigade of water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and hand it off to the next water molecule .
Several other interesting facts came to light in the paper .
Like they say , there is a “ side-to-side rocking motion ” in the machine .
This motor really hums !
As the F portion rapidly churns out ATP molecules in a three-stage process , some rocking is inevitable .
The peripheral stalk helps damp those motions .
This helps to “ increase the efficiency of the enzyme ” by keeping the a-subunit in place — that is the subunit connected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ membrane domain ” where F is anchored .
A good designer would not want the rotor shaken apart by vibrations .
The peripheral stalk takes care of that — Since 1997 , researchers also found that ATP synthase machines come in pairs ( dimers ) .
The dimers , further , are mounted in rows on folds of the cristae ( the membranes within mitochondria ) .
The precise angle between the two dimerized motors and the spacing between them maximizes proton intake .
The new paper says that the angle between the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more , thanks to specific molecules at the pivot of the wedge that allow some flexing , but not too much : Scientists at Austria ’ s Institute of Science and Technology have also been working on ATP synthase .
They boast that they have solved the structure of the “ world ’ s smallest turbine ” which Leonid Sazanov calls “ one of the most important enzymes on earth.
” His team ’ s work focuses on the rotary portion of the enzyme ( F ) , which is hidden inside @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out a special plug that can halt the machine when the cell is dying .
Called the “ permeability transition pore , ” this plug can only be opened by a “ hook apparatus ” that is connected to the catalytic portion in F and to the bottom of the membrane .
Calcium signals trigger a large conformational change , which yanks on the hook and opens the plug .
Protons leak out , destabilizing the rotor , and halting the machine .
It sounds like an emergency stop switch .
More has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ID standby , the bacterial flagellum .
European scientists led by Vitan Blagotinsek , also publishing in PNAS,2 found that “ An ATP-dependent partner switch links flagellar C-ring assembly with gene expression.
” This relates to controlling how many flagella the cell constructs on the surface .
Some bacteria have one ; others have two or more .
How the cell regulates the number of flagella has been “ only poorly understood ” before now .
In the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life , Scott Minnich referred to feedback mechanisms that control @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction site .
The European team elucidated one such feedback .
The secret to controlling how many flagella are constructed , they found , occurs when an ATP-powered part named FlhG flips a molecular switch between two other components : New information was also obtained about the pentagon-shaped cap that controls orderly addition of monomers to the growing propeller ( see the animation “ Darwinian Evolution vs Bacterial Flagella Motor and Hook Mechanism ” here at 1:00 through 2:15 ) .
Publishing in Nature Communications,3 Al-Otaibi and six others in the UK used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the bacterial flagellum cap complex ” that “ suggests a molecular mechanism for filament elongation.
” The pentagonal cap , looking somewhat like a stool , is composed of FliD proteins .
This cap is first extruded in pieces through the central channel of the hook .
Its subunits self-assemble at the end , while forming “ an extensive set of contacts across several subunits , that contribute to FliD oligomerization.
” The cap then guides individual flagellin proteins coming up through the channel into their positions in the growing filament , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a well-controlled process , they found , dependent on the precise arrangement of amino acids in each protein , so that contacts work as intended .
As for the specificity of this operation , the scientists say that “ disrupting these interactions has a significant effect on cell motility.
” One recalls the words of Michael Behe , “ If any of these parts are missing , then either you get a flagellum that doesn ’ t work , because it ’ s missing the hook or it ’ s missing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doesn ’ t even get built within the cell.
” ID advocates should feel encouraged to see arguments for irreducible complexity standing the test of time .
After more than two decades , evolutionists still “ have failed to offer any detailed Darwinian explanation ” for a rotary motor arising by natural selection , as evidenced by the complete silence of all three papers on that key question .
• Spikes , Montgomery and Walker , “ Structure of the dimeric ATP synthase from bovine mitochondria.
” PNAS September 8 , 2020. https @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , “ The cryo-EM structure of the bacterial flagellum cap complex suggests a molecular mechanism for filament elongation.
” Nature Communications June 25 , 2020 : 11 , 3210 ( 2020 ) .
https : //doi.org/10.1038/s41467-020-16981-4 .

Image: A scene from "Molecular Machines — ATP Synthase: The Power Plant of the Cell," via Discovery Institute.
Images of the molecular machines that Michael Behe brought to public attention 21 years ago were dim and fuzzy at the time but were convincing enough then to make a strong case for irreducible complexity. Now, new imaging techniques such as cryo-electron microscopy allow scientists to look at individual parts of the machines at near-atomic resolution.
ATP Synthase
In 1997, John E. Walker shared the Nobel Prize in Chemistry with Paul Boyer and Jens Skou for discovering that ATP was synthesized in cells by a rotary engine. He was 56 at the time; now, at age 79, he is still engaged in research on the mechanism of ATP synthase (see our animation). Co-authoring a paper in PNAS,1 Walker and two others used cryo-electron microscopy to examine the motor at higher resolution than was possible 23 years ago. The abstract of their paper introduces news about this rotating marvel:
The structure of the dimeric ATP synthase from bovine mitochondria determined in three rotational states by electron cryo-microscopy provides evidence that the proton uptake from the mitochondrial matrix via the proton inlet half channel proceeds via a Grotthus mechanism, and a similar mechanism may operate in the exit half channel. The structure has given information about the architecture and mechanical constitution and properties of the peripheral stalk, part of the membrane extrinsic region of the stator, and how the action of the peripheral stalk damps the side-to-side rocking motions that occur in the enzyme complex during the catalytic cycle. [Emphasis added.]
A “Grotthus mechanism” is a hand-off series something like a bucket brigade. The protons that power the rotor do not just flow by themselves; they are passed along to the inlet by a bucket brigade of water molecules, which take in each proton and hand it off to the next water molecule.
Several other interesting facts came to light in the paper. Like they say, there is a “side-to-side rocking motion” in the machine. This motor really hums! As the F 1 portion rapidly churns out ATP molecules in a three-stage process, some rocking is inevitable. The peripheral stalk helps damp those motions. This helps to “increase the efficiency of the enzyme” by keeping the a-subunit in place — that is the subunit connected to the rotating F o carousel in the “membrane domain” where F o is anchored. A good designer would not want the rotor shaken apart by vibrations. The peripheral stalk takes care of that —
Some degree of motion of the catalytic domain must be permitted to allow efficient conversion of the rotational torque of the central stalk into conformational changes in the catalytic subunits, but without wasting energy by unneeded displacement of the extrinsic portion of the enzyme. The flexibility of the peripheral stalk effectively meters this balance, preventing free rotation of the catalytic domain, accommodating the rocking motions induced by the asymmetric central stalk, and damping displacement of the membrane domain helping to keep the a-subunit in place.
Synthase Systems
Since 1997, researchers also found that ATP synthase machines come in pairs (dimers). The dimers, further, are mounted in rows on folds of the cristae (the membranes within mitochondria). The precise angle between the two dimerized motors and the spacing between them maximizes proton intake. The new paper says that the angle between the dimers flexes a bit, damping vibrations even more, thanks to specific molecules at the pivot of the wedge that allow some flexing, but not too much:
Our structure of bovine dimers has a wedge made of small proteins and specific lipids in the membrane domain of each monomer that imposes a range of acute angles on the central axes of the monomers, and a pivot between the wedges accommodates rocking motions of the machine accompanying catalysis and other movements that happen independently. It also throws light on how the membrane rotor is made to turn.
Scientists at Austria’s Institute of Science and Technology have also been working on ATP synthase. They boast that they have solved the structure of the “world’s smallest turbine” which Leonid Sazanov calls “one of the most important enzymes on earth.” His team’s work focuses on the rotary portion of the enzyme (F o ), which is hidden inside the lipid bilayer.
To solve the structure of the Fo domain and the entire complex, the researchers studied the enzyme from sheep mitochondria using cryo-electron microscopy. And here, ATP synthase poses a special problem: because it rotates, ATP synthase can stop in three main positions, as well as in substates. “It is very difficult to distinguish between these positions, attributing a structure to each position ATP synthase can take. But we managed to solve this computationally to build the first complete structure of the enzyme”, Sazanov adds.
They also figured out a special plug that can halt the machine when the cell is dying. Called the “permeability transition pore,” this plug can only be opened by a “hook apparatus” that is connected to the catalytic portion in F 1 and to the bottom of the membrane. Calcium signals trigger a large conformational change, which yanks on the hook and opens the plug. Protons leak out, destabilizing the rotor, and halting the machine. It sounds like an emergency stop switch.
Bacterial Flagellum
More has been discovered as well about a familiar ID standby, the bacterial flagellum. European scientists led by Vitan Blagotinsek, also publishing in PNAS,2 found that “An ATP-dependent partner switch links flagellar C-ring assembly with gene expression.” This relates to controlling how many flagella the cell constructs on the surface. Some bacteria have one; others have two or more. How the cell regulates the number of flagella has been “only poorly understood” before now.
In the film Unlocking the Mystery of Life, Scott Minnich referred to feedback mechanisms that control how many parts are sent to the construction site. The European team elucidated one such feedback. The secret to controlling how many flagella are constructed, they found, occurs when an ATP-powered part named FlhG flips a molecular switch between two other components:
Depending on its ATP-dependent oligomerization state, FlhG interacts either with the C-ring protein FliM during flagellar assembly or with flagellar master regulator FlrA. This partner switch between FliM and FlrA establishes a regulatory network critical for the numerical regulation of flagella, in which the physical assembly of the flagellum transcriptionally feeds back to prevent the production of more building blocks.
New information was also obtained about the pentagon-shaped cap that controls orderly addition of monomers to the growing propeller (see the animation “Darwinian Evolution vs Bacterial Flagella Motor and Hook Mechanism” here at 1:00 through 2:15). Publishing in Nature Communications,3 Al-Otaibi and six others in the UK used cryo-electron microscopy to study the “structure of the bacterial flagellum cap complex” that “suggests a molecular mechanism for filament elongation.”
The pentagonal cap, looking somewhat like a stool, is composed of FliD proteins. This cap is first extruded in pieces through the central channel of the hook. Its subunits self-assemble at the end, while forming “an extensive set of contacts across several subunits, that contribute to FliD oligomerization.” The cap then guides individual flagellin proteins coming up through the channel into their positions in the growing filament, as shown in the animation. This is a well-controlled process, they found, dependent on the precise arrangement of amino acids in each protein, so that contacts work as intended.
Once outside of FliD, we propose that exposed hydrophobic residues act as a chaperone, and promote flagellin folding in its insertion site. In order to accommodate the next flagellin subunit, conformational changes need to occur to open an adjacent binding pocket. We propose that the folding of the new flagellin protomer leads to dislodging of the cap complex, that rotates by ~65°, thus positioning an adjacent cavity of the cap complex close to the next flagellin insertion site (Fig. 5). This hypothesis agrees with previously proposed mechanisms of flagellar elongation.
As for the specificity of this operation, the scientists say that “disrupting these interactions has a significant effect on cell motility.” One recalls the words of Michael Behe, “If any of these parts are missing, then either you get a flagellum that doesn’t work, because it’s missing the hook or it’s missing the drive shaft or whatever, or it doesn’t even get built within the cell.”
ID advocates should feel encouraged to see arguments for irreducible complexity standing the test of time. After more than two decades, evolutionists still “have failed to offer any detailed Darwinian explanation” for a rotary motor arising by natural selection, as evidenced by the complete silence of all three papers on that key question.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-30--Michael Denton Explores the “Third Infinity”

On a new episode of ID the Future , Andrew McDiarmid reads an excerpt from the new book The Miracle @ @ @ @ @ Michael Denton .
Denton , a biochemist and Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s @ @ @ @ @ , introduces the wonders of the cell as “ the universal constructor set of life.
@ @ @ @ @ listen to it here .
The diversity of cells — their variety of form , @ @ @ @ @ is beyond describing , with some cells almost seeming sentient , indeed ingenious .
As @ @ @ @ @ knowledge of the cell ’ s staggering sophistication has earned the name “ the third @ @ @ @ @ of the cell is just an excerpt from the book ’ s introductory chapter .
@ @ @ @ @ for the book ’ s deeper dive into the extraordinary fine-tuning of the chemical elements @ @ @ @ @ fitness that , according to Denton , points not only to intelligent design but to @ @ @ @ @ ”

Image credit: Brian Gage.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Andrew McDiarmid reads an excerpt from the new book The Miracle of the Cell, by Michael Denton. Denton, a biochemist and Senior Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture, introduces the wonders of the cell as “the universal constructor set of life.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The diversity of cells — their variety of form, function, and locomotion — is beyond describing, with some cells almost seeming sentient, indeed ingenious. As Denton notes, our growing knowledge of the cell’s staggering sophistication has earned the name “the third infinity.” This quick flyby of the cell is just an excerpt from the book’s introductory chapter. There Denton lays the groundwork for the book’s deeper dive into the extraordinary fine-tuning of the chemical elements of life, a prior fitness that, according to Denton, points not only to intelligent design but to “a primal blueprint.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-30--Why Something Instead of Nothing? November 19, Oxford’s John Lennox Goes “Against the Tide”

Oxford mathematician John Lennox is , in a sense , in a line succession from C. S. Lewis : both are brilliant and charming scholars of Northern Irish background , both associated with Oxford University , both popular and prolific authors as proponents of theism against the atheism of their respective days .
The grandfatherly Lennox has also been a fearless public debater , in a series of clashes with celebrity atheists .
I wanted to let readers know about a new film that very effectively highlights the strengths of Professor Lennox and his thinking .
It is Against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of current thinking from the likes of Richard Dawkins , Sam Harris , and the late Stephen Hawking .
That tide assures the public you can get something ( the universe ) from nothing .
The subtitle is straightforward , Finding God in an Age of Science .
The movie debuts in theaters for one night only on Thursday , November 19 , 2020 .
In opting for a real theater experience for audiences , instead of isolating us further in front of our private screens , it also refreshingly goes “ against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actor Kevin Sorbo , who starred as an obnoxious atheist professor in God ’ s Not Dead .
I enjoyed their interaction very much .
I don ’ t think Sorbo is acting at all in his role as an earnest , sincere searcher and interlocutor for Lennox .
You can watch the trailer here : “ Why there ’ s something rather than nothing is a huge question today , ” says Lennox , as of course it is .
Faiths representing the Judeo-Christian tradition are at the receiving end of unrelenting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ overbearing cultural elite .
That toxic tide pulls in countless ordinary people , young and old , to whom Lennox speaks eloquently in his case for “ the existence of an intelligent god behind the universe.
” Trumpeters for atheism are not being truthful when they say things like “ Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not really understanding ” ( according to Dawkins ) and “ Religion is a fiction that is just never challenged ” ( per Sam Harris ) .
If atheists could even begin to explain why there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sublime beauty exists , how human consciousness came to be from thoughtless atoms , as just three examples , the first criticism might carry a dime ’ s weight .
But the idea that traditional faiths are never challenged is simply dumbfounding .
Has Dr. Harris never switched on the Internet ?
“ I believe that the public need to hear that there is another side , ” says Lennox .
And that is , again , surely true .
The first half of the movie , set in Oxford , tackles scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a designer outside nature .
The second half , in which Lennox and Sorbo , travel to Israel , makes its case for identifying the designer with a Christian understanding of the deity .
The science here is accessible , historically interesting , and filled with cool details .
Lennox and Sorbo soak in the atmosphere at a pub where Lewis and Tolkien once enjoyed each other ’ s company .
And Lennox tells what it was like to be a student in Lewis ’ s classroom , which we have the opportunity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website is up now and has information about buying tickets .
You should consider doing that promptly because I think this will be a very popular public event , and it ’ s only one night !

Photo: John Lennox in Against the Tide.
Oxford mathematician John Lennox is, in a sense, in a line of succession from C. S. Lewis: both are brilliant and charming scholars of Northern Irish background, both associated with Oxford University, both popular and prolific authors as proponents of theism against the atheism of their respective days. The grandfatherly Lennox has also been a fearless public debater, in a series of clashes with celebrity atheists. I wanted to let readers know about a new film that very effectively highlights the strengths of Professor Lennox and his thinking.
It is Against the Tide — meaning, against the tide of current thinking from the likes of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and the late Stephen Hawking. That tide assures the public you can get something (the universe) from nothing. The subtitle is straightforward, Finding God in an Age of Science. The movie debuts in theaters for one night only on Thursday, November 19, 2020. In opting for a real theater experience for audiences, instead of isolating us further in front of our private screens, it also refreshingly goes “against the tide.”
Find the Trailer Here
Lennox is paired with actor Kevin Sorbo, who starred as an obnoxious atheist professor in God’s Not Dead. I enjoyed their interaction very much. I don’t think Sorbo is acting at all in his role as an earnest, sincere searcher and interlocutor for Lennox. You can watch the trailer here:
“Why there’s something rather than nothing is a huge question today,” says Lennox, as of course it is. Faiths representing the Judeo-Christian tradition are at the receiving end of unrelenting, ill-informed scorn from a smug, overbearing cultural elite. That toxic tide pulls in countless ordinary people, young and old, to whom Lennox speaks eloquently in his case for “the existence of an intelligent god behind the universe.”
Another Side
Trumpeters for atheism are not being truthful when they say things like “Religion teaches us to be satisfied with not really understanding” (according to Dawkins) and “Religion is a fiction that is just never challenged” (per Sam Harris). If atheists could even begin to explain why there is something rather than nothing, why sublime beauty exists, how human consciousness came to be from thoughtless atoms, as just three examples, the first criticism might carry a dime’s weight. But the idea that traditional faiths are never challenged is simply dumbfounding. Has Dr. Harris never switched on the Internet?
“I believe that the public need to hear that there is another side,” says Lennox. And that is, again, surely true. The first half of the movie, set in Oxford, tackles scientific arguments for and against the existence of a designer outside nature. The second half, in which Lennox and Sorbo, travel to Israel, makes its case for identifying the designer with a Christian understanding of the deity.
The science here is accessible, historically interesting, and filled with cool details. Lennox and Sorbo soak in the atmosphere at a pub where Lewis and Tolkien once enjoyed each other’s company. And Lennox tells what it was like to be a student in Lewis’s classroom, which we have the opportunity to visit. The film’s website is up now and has information about buying tickets. You should consider doing that promptly because I think this will be a very popular public event, and it’s only one night!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-28--Denton “Takes the Fine-Tuning Argument to a Whole New Level”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-02--Learning Wonder from Denton’s Latest

Learning Wonder from Denton’s Latest

Michael Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell , follows in a long tradition within literature of finding purpose in nature .
Aristotle and Plato both indulged in it , and around 50 BC Titus Lucretius Carus wrote a long treatise against both .
Lucretius said ( translating from the Latin ) , In these affairs we crave that thou wilt passionately flee the one offense , and anxiously wilt shun the error of presuming the clear lights of eyes were created that we might see… .
All such interpretation is aft-for-fore with inverse reasoning , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that we may use the same , but birth engenders use… all the members , so meseems , were there before they got their use : and therefore , they could not be gendered for the sake of use .
Seventeen centuries later , Voltaire wrote his own satire , casting Aristotle as a senile Dr. Pangloss : “ It has been proved , ” said he , And so began the practice , a skill Charles Darwin raised to high art , of assigning random causes for the appearance of biological form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In the spectacular satire , for example , the obviously designed object — glasses — are assumed to be eternal , and the obviously biological object — nose — is claimed to be designed .
By this type of argument , Lucretius and Voltaire and Darwin attempt to convince us that biology can not possibly be designed .
But it would appear the critique is not even skin deep .
If , Denton argues , we insist that the structure is not designed , must we also not insist that the architecture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the siting , the foundation also be undesigned ?
Can we insist that a hailstorm that haphazardly removed some shingles has rendered the entire structure randomly arranged ?
To remove the curse of “ biological design ” must we not require that randomness is not just skin-deep but down to the bone ?
Darwin was well aware of this necessity , and posited that early life was protoplasmic goo — unstructured , unexeptional , pretty much what collects in your kitchen sink trap .
Likewise , earlier time periods were less structured and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a rule demands a very boring starting point or else it would be regress .
So Denton ’ s book starts with the marvels of the carbon atom in the first chapter , and builds chemistry and biochemistry upon that base .
By Chapter 5 he is describing the carbon-based ATP turbine that powers every cell on this planet .
He shows his training as a chemist by returning to the periodic table in Chapter 6 , describing the virtues of metal ion chemistry , and water-soluble chemistry in Chapter 7 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the origin-of-life problem with reference to carbonaceous chondrites — carbon-containing meteorites — which possess complex organic molecules .
Thus Denton ’ s journey into biochemistry and chemistry demonstrates remarkable design in the building blocks of biology .
The atoms are arranged into biochemical machines , and the biochemical machines prove to be intricate designs using quantum mechanical tunneling and thermodynamics to efficiently power and protect the cell from death .
Nor are these machines inevitable , but highly optimized such that modern engineers are learning to replicate their technology to improve 21st-century machines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ways to do the task , but the cell has used the most efficient .
Nor can the “ trial-and-error ” of natural selection explain the optimization process , any more than trial-and-error will convert a Newcomb steam engine into a jet turbine .
In the last chapter I would part company with Denton and insist that meteoritic organics are not “ abiotic , ” the inevitable result of the laws of physics , but clearly biotic molecules , being both chiral and surrounded by fossilized cyanobacteria , eukaryotic diatoms , and traces @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s attraction to physicist Paul Davies ’ s “ romantic ” view , that the laws of physics contain a module for originating life , has colored his view of organics on meteorites .
Furthermore as a physicist , I would love to preface the chapters to the beginning of the book , starting with the pure energy of the Big Bang and the marvel of carbon production through the triple-alpha process , then atheist Sir Fred Hoyle ’ s confession that the resonances of carbon 12 nucleus were too precise to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of quantum mechanics and the sp3 hybridization of the electron orbitals .
By the time we get to Denton ’ s Chapter 1 , then , the miracle of carbon has already been established three times over .
Despite my physicist grouchiness , Denton ’ s book is a delight to read , full of fascinating insights into the chemistry and biochemistry of life .
Not only will you learn some science , you may even learn that most important of educational objectives , even more important than facts and dates — wonder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both Lucretius and Voltaire , which is why Dr. Pangloss could not see his own nose .

Lucretius' De Rerum Natura, in the Cambridge University Library, by LegesRomanorum via Wikimedia Commons.
Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell, follows in a long tradition within literature of finding purpose in nature. Aristotle and Plato both indulged in it, and around 50 BC Titus Lucretius Carus wrote a long treatise against both. Lucretius said (translating from the Latin),
In these affairs we crave that thou wilt passionately flee the one offense, and anxiously wilt shun the error of presuming the clear lights of eyes were created that we might see…. All such interpretation is aft-for-fore with inverse reasoning, since naught is born in body so that we may use the same, but birth engenders use… all the members, so meseems, were there before they got their use: and therefore, they could not be gendered for the sake of use.
Seventeen centuries later, Voltaire wrote his own satire, casting Aristotle as a senile Dr. Pangloss: “It has been proved,” said he,
that things cannot be otherwise than they are; for, everything being made for a certain end, the end for which everything is made is necessarily the best end. Observe how noses were made to carry spectacles, and spectacles we have accordingly.
Spectacular Satire
And so began the practice, a skill Charles Darwin raised to high art, of assigning random causes for the appearance of biological form rather than Aristotle’s purpose-driven causes. In the spectacular satire, for example, the obviously designed object — glasses — are assumed to be eternal, and the obviously biological object — nose — is claimed to be designed. By this type of argument, Lucretius and Voltaire and Darwin attempt to convince us that biology cannot possibly be designed. But it would appear the critique is not even skin deep.
If, Denton argues, we insist that the structure is not designed, must we also not insist that the architecture, the girders, the fasteners, the siting, the foundation also be undesigned? Can we insist that a hailstorm that haphazardly removed some shingles has rendered the entire structure randomly arranged? To remove the curse of “biological design” must we not require that randomness is not just skin-deep but down to the bone?
Protoplasmic Goo?
Darwin was well aware of this necessity, and posited that early life was protoplasmic goo — unstructured, unexeptional, pretty much what collects in your kitchen sink trap. Likewise, earlier time periods were less structured and less exceptional than the present. Progress as a rule demands a very boring starting point or else it would be regress.
So Denton’s book starts with the marvels of the carbon atom in the first chapter, and builds chemistry and biochemistry upon that base. By Chapter 5 he is describing the carbon-based ATP turbine that powers every cell on this planet. He shows his training as a chemist by returning to the periodic table in Chapter 6, describing the virtues of metal ion chemistry, and water-soluble chemistry in Chapter 7. In his final chapter, he considers the origin-of-life problem with reference to carbonaceous chondrites — carbon-containing meteorites — which possess complex organic molecules.
Remarkable Design
Thus Denton’s journey into biochemistry and chemistry demonstrates remarkable design in the building blocks of biology. The atoms are arranged into biochemical machines, and the biochemical machines prove to be intricate designs using quantum mechanical tunneling and thermodynamics to efficiently power and protect the cell from death. Nor are these machines inevitable, but highly optimized such that modern engineers are learning to replicate their technology to improve 21st-century machines. For there are many less efficient ways to do the task, but the cell has used the most efficient. Nor can the “trial-and-error” of natural selection explain the optimization process, any more than trial-and-error will convert a Newcomb steam engine into a jet turbine.
In the last chapter I would part company with Denton and insist that meteoritic organics are not “abiotic,” the inevitable result of the laws of physics, but clearly biotic molecules, being both chiral and surrounded by fossilized cyanobacteria, eukaryotic diatoms, and traces of metazoans. I suspect that Denton’s attraction to physicist Paul Davies’s “romantic” view, that the laws of physics contain a module for originating life, has colored his view of organics on meteorites.
Learning Science, Learning Wonder
Furthermore as a physicist, I would love to preface the chapters to the beginning of the book, starting with the pure energy of the Big Bang and the marvel of carbon production through the triple-alpha process, then atheist Sir Fred Hoyle’s confession that the resonances of carbon 12 nucleus were too precise to be accidental, followed by the surprise of quantum mechanics and the sp3 hybridization of the electron orbitals. By the time we get to Denton’s Chapter 1, then, the miracle of carbon has already been established three times over.
Despite my physicist grouchiness, Denton’s book is a delight to read, full of fascinating insights into the chemistry and biochemistry of life. Not only will you learn some science, you may even learn that most important of educational objectives, even more important than facts and dates — wonder. It is the ingredient missing from both Lucretius and Voltaire, which is why Dr. Pangloss could not see his own nose.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-01--My Failed Computer Simulation

My Failed Computer Simulation

In a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article I speculated on what would happen if we constructed a gigantic computer model that starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics ( the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear forces ) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet .
If we ran such a simulation out to the present day , I asked , would it predict that the basic forces of nature would reorganize the basic particles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , science texts , and novels , nuclear power plants , aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck , and computers connected to laser printers , CRTs , and keyboards ?
A friend read my article and said , “ Computers have advanced a lot in the last twenty years .
I think we could actually try such a simulation on my new laptop now.
” So I wrote the program — in Fortran , naturally — and we tried it .
It took several hours , and at the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all the particles into a rather large data file , then ran MATLAB to plot them .
Some interesting things had happened , a few mountains and valleys and volcanos had formed , but no computers , no encyclopedias , and no cars or trucks .
My friend said , “ Let me see your program.
” After examining it , he exclaimed , “ No wonder , you treated the Earth as a closed system .
Order can ’ t increase in a closed system .
The Earth is an open @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account the effect of the sun ’ s energy.
” So I modified the boundary conditions to simulate the effect of the entering solar radiation , and reran it .
This time some clouds and rivers had formed , but otherwise Earth still looked a lot like the other planets , and still no libraries or computers or airplanes .
My imaginary friend looked more carefully at the program , and said , “ Good grief , you are using classical physics , you can ’ t simulate the effects of the four @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that according to quantum mechanics , the exact effects of these forces on any particular particle are impossible to predict with certainty .
The new laws only provide the probabilities .
I said , “ You mean there is a supernatural force at work here ?
” He said , “ Well , technically , yes , if you define the supernatural to be that which is forever beyond the ability of science to predict or explain .
British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said quantum mechanics ‘ leaves us with no clear distinction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But there is no reason to doubt that this so-called ‘ supernatural ’ effect is completely random .
You can simulate it using a random number generator.
” So I completely re-wrote my simulator .
I used an IMSL random number generator with a user-supplied probability distribution to simulate this randomness , and computed the required probability distributions by solving the Schrödinger equations with my own partial differential equation solver , PDE2D .
Still no luck — no space ships , no TV sets , no encyclopedias , not even a cheap novel @ @ @ @ @ @ @ graphs and tried to mask his disappointment .
“ Well , ” he said , “ of course the problem is you haven ’ t taken into account the one natural force in the universe that can violate the second law of thermodynamics and create order out of disorder — natural selection.
” I said , “ You mean there is a fifth force — why didn ’ t you say so ?
Just give me the equations for this force and I will add it to my model.
” He said , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the equations , because it isn ’ t actually a physical force , it doesn ’ t actually move particles.
” “ So what does it do , ” I asked .
He explained that one day a long time ago , by pure chance , a collection of atoms formed that was able to duplicate itself , and these complex collections of atoms were able to pass their complex structures on to their descendants generation after generation , even correcting errors .
He went on to talk about how genetic accidents and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex collections of atoms , and how something called “ intelligence ” allowed some of these collections of atoms to design computers and laser printers and the Internet .
But when he had finished , I still didn ’ t know how to incorporate natural selection into my model , so I never did get the simulation to work .
I decided the model was still missing something else .
For a more complete development of the ideas in the Mathematical Intelligencer article , see my video “ Why Evolution Is Different .
@

Photo credit: John Schnobrich via Unsplash.
In a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article I speculated on what would happen if we constructed a gigantic computer model that starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet. If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, I asked, would it predict that the basic forces of nature would reorganize the basic particles of nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts, and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs, and keyboards?
A friend read my article and said, “Computers have advanced a lot in the last twenty years. I think we could actually try such a simulation on my new laptop now.” So I wrote the program — in Fortran, naturally — and we tried it. It took several hours, and at the end of the simulation we dumped the final coordinates of all the particles into a rather large data file, then ran MATLAB to plot them. Some interesting things had happened, a few mountains and valleys and volcanos had formed, but no computers, no encyclopedias, and no cars or trucks. My friend said, “Let me see your program.” After examining it, he exclaimed, “No wonder, you treated the Earth as a closed system. Order can’t increase in a closed system. The Earth is an open system, you need to take into account the effect of the sun’s energy.” So I modified the boundary conditions to simulate the effect of the entering solar radiation, and reran it. This time some clouds and rivers had formed, but otherwise Earth still looked a lot like the other planets, and still no libraries or computers or airplanes.
A Supernatural Force?
My imaginary friend looked more carefully at the program, and said, “Good grief, you are using classical physics, you can’t simulate the effects of the four forces without quantum mechanics.” He explained that according to quantum mechanics, the exact effects of these forces on any particular particle are impossible to predict with certainty. The new laws only provide the probabilities. I said, “You mean there is a supernatural force at work here?” He said, “Well, technically, yes, if you define the supernatural to be that which is forever beyond the ability of science to predict or explain. British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said quantum mechanics ‘leaves us with no clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural.’ But there is no reason to doubt that this so-called ‘supernatural’ effect is completely random. You can simulate it using a random number generator.” So I completely re-wrote my simulator. I used an IMSL random number generator with a user-supplied probability distribution to simulate this randomness, and computed the required probability distributions by solving the Schrödinger equations with my own partial differential equation solver, PDE2D. Still no luck — no space ships, no TV sets, no encyclopedias, not even a cheap novel.
And a Fifth Force
My friend looked at the new graphs and tried to mask his disappointment. “Well,” he said, “of course the problem is you haven’t taken into account the one natural force in the universe that can violate the second law of thermodynamics and create order out of disorder — natural selection.” I said, “You mean there is a fifth force — why didn’t you say so? Just give me the equations for this force and I will add it to my model.” He said, “I can’t give you the equations, because it isn’t actually a physical force, it doesn’t actually move particles.” “So what does it do,” I asked. He explained that one day a long time ago, by pure chance, a collection of atoms formed that was able to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were able to pass their complex structures on to their descendants generation after generation, even correcting errors. He went on to talk about how genetic accidents and survival of the fittest produced even more complex collections of atoms, and how something called “intelligence” allowed some of these collections of atoms to design computers and laser printers and the Internet.
But when he had finished, I still didn’t know how to incorporate natural selection into my model, so I never did get the simulation to work. I decided the model was still missing something else.
For a more complete development of the ideas in the Mathematical Intelligencer article, see my video “Why Evolution Is Different.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-02--Despite Darwinists’ Cancel Culture, Intelligent Design Has a Breakthrough in Biology Journal

In its September 21 issue , the Journal of Theoretical Biology published a major peer-reviewed article on fine-tuning in biology that favorably discusses intelligent design .
The article explicitly cites work by Discovery Institute Fellows such as Stephen Meyer , Günter Bechly , Ann Gauger , Douglas Axe , and Robert J .
Marks .
The article is co-authored by Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer .
Hössjer is a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University who is favorable to intelligent design .
This is a big deal for the mainstreaming of ID .
The Journal of Theoretical Biology is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to CiteScore , it is the 25th most cited journal in the area of general agriculture and biological sciences , and it is in the top 12 percent of all journals in that field .
The article by Thorvaldsen and Hössjer appeared online in June .
But we didn ’ t want to speak about it publicly until after its “ official ” publication date , because we knew that once Darwinists found out , they would try to have the article cancelled .
Sure enough , after Darwinists discovered the article , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” from the journal ’ s editors , who proclaimed their bias against ID .
But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant .
It meant that the article survived peer-review and was accepted for publication despite the open hostility of the journal ’ s top editors !
As you know , intelligent design isn ’ t loved by the establishment media , or elite professors , or social media giants .
In fact , we face censorship and discrimination on all fronts in getting our message out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the “ cancel culture , ” because we ’ ve faced it for a long time .
Nevertheless , we are succeeding because the evidence is so compelling — and because readers like you have been willing to go around the censorship by sharing our materials with your family , colleagues , and friends .
But if we are going to continue to make progress , we need your support now .
In November we hope to publish A Mousetrap for Darwin by biochemist Michael Behe , a book that will vindicate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ spring HarperOne will publish Steve Meyer ’ s Return of the God Hypothesis , a powerful book about scientific discoveries pointing to a personal Creator .
In a few days , we plan to release The Fitness of Nature for Mankind , a video by geneticist Michael Denton about how nature is exquisitely fine-tuned for life like us .
Will you help us make these plans a reality ?
Steve Meyer and I co-founded Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture in 1996 because we weren ’ t willing to surrender @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trying to hijack it .
We wanted everyone to know that human beings have purpose because we live in a purposeful universe .
Help us advance our mission by contributing to our work today !
The economic downturn has made it more challenging for us to raise support even as our opportunities to communicate the truth about intelligent design have grown .
A gift of any amount ( $ 250 , $ 100 , $ 50 , $ 25 ) will make a huge difference to our work .
If you are able @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or more , we will send you a FREE digital copy of Foresight by Brazilian chemist Marcos Eberlin .
This outstanding book on intelligent design in chemistry has been endorsed by three Nobel laureates !

Photo credit: Rodion Kutsaev, via Unsplash.
In its September 21 issue, the Journal of Theoretical Biology published a major peer-reviewed article on fine-tuning in biology that favorably discusses intelligent design.
The article explicitly cites work by Discovery Institute Fellows such as Stephen Meyer, Günter Bechly, Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, and Robert J. Marks. The article is co-authored by Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer. Hössjer is a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University who is favorable to intelligent design.
This is a big deal for the mainstreaming of ID.
The Journal of Theoretical Biology is a top peer-reviewed science journal. According to CiteScore, it is the 25th most cited journal in the area of general agriculture and biological sciences, and it is in the top 12 percent of all journals in that field.
The article by Thorvaldsen and Hössjer appeared online in June. But we didn’t want to speak about it publicly until after its “official” publication date, because we knew that once Darwinists found out, they would try to have the article cancelled.
Sure enough, after Darwinists discovered the article, they succeeded in obtaining a “disclaimer” from the journal’s editors, who proclaimed their bias against ID. But the disclaimer actually made publication of the article all the more significant. It meant that the article survived peer-review and was accepted for publication despite the open hostility of the journal’s top editors!
Familiar with Cancel Culture
As you know, intelligent design isn’t loved by the establishment media, or elite professors, or social media giants. In fact, we face censorship and discrimination on all fronts in getting our message out. Intelligent design supporters are well acquainted with the “cancel culture,” because we’ve faced it for a long time.
Nevertheless, we are succeeding because the evidence is so compelling — and because readers like you have been willing to go around the censorship by sharing our materials with your family, colleagues, and friends.
But if we are going to continue to make progress, we need your support now.
In November we hope to publish A Mousetrap for Darwin by biochemist Michael Behe, a book that will vindicate Behe’s revolutionary ideas. Next spring HarperOne will publish Steve Meyer’s Return of the God Hypothesis, a powerful book about scientific discoveries pointing to a personal Creator. In a few days, we plan to release The Fitness of Nature for Mankind, a video by geneticist Michael Denton about how nature is exquisitely fine-tuned for life like us.
Will you help us make these plans a reality?
A Purposeful Universe
Steve Meyer and I co-founded Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture in 1996 because we weren’t willing to surrender science to the scientific materialists who were trying to hijack it. We wanted everyone to know that human beings have purpose because we live in a purposeful universe.
Help us advance our mission by contributing to our work today!
The economic downturn has made it more challenging for us to raise support even as our opportunities to communicate the truth about intelligent design have grown. A gift of any amount ($250, $100, $50, $25) will make a huge difference to our work.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-02--Excerpt — The Infinite Complexity of Cells

Editor ’ s note : We are pleased to offer this excerpt from Dr. Denton ’ s new book , The Miracle of the Cell .
In terms of compressed complexity , cells are without peer in the material world , actualized or imagined .
And there is likely far more complexity still to uncover .
Even as recently as 1913 , when Lawrence Henderson composed his classic The Fitness of the Environment , the cell was a black box , its actual molecular complexity a mysterious unknown .
Only as the veil began to lift with the mid-century molecular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the sophistication of these extraordinary pieces of matter .
Subsequently , every decade of research has revealed further depths of complexity .
The discovery of ever more intricate structures and systems with each increase in knowledge — including vastly complex DNA topologies and a vast and growing inventory of mini-RNA regulator molecules — tells us there is probably much more to uncover .
What we glimpse now may be only a tiny fraction of what remains to be discovered .
As Erica Hayden confessed in the journal Nature , “ As sequencing and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” the complexity unearthed by cell biology “ has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude .
Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set… that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.
” There is much more to discover about the cell , but even from our current limited knowledge of its depths it is clear that this tiny unit of compact , adaptive sophistication constitutes something like a third infinity .
Where the cosmos feels infinitely large and the atomic realm infinitely small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But cells are not just complex beyond any sensible measure and beyond any other conceivable material form .
They appear in so many ways supremely fit to fulfill their role as the basic unit of biological life .
One element of this fitness is manifest in their incomparable diversity of form .
Contrast a neuron with a red blood cell , a skin cell with a liver cell , an amoeboid leucocyte with a muscle cell .
Each of these different forms is found in the human body , and many more .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
From the trumpet-like Stentor to the dashing Paramecium , the universe of ciliate form is absurdly diverse .
Or take the radiolarians .
Even within this small related group of organisms , the diversity of cell forms is stunning .
And yet every member of this fantastic zoo of radiolarian forms is built on exactly the same canonical design .
The unique fitness of the cell to serve as the fundamental unit of life is also manifest in its amazing abilities and the diversity of functions it performs .
Even the tiny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the human gut , has spectacular capabilities .
Howard Berg has marveled at the versatility and capacities of this minuscule organism , calling its talents “ legion.
” He notes that this tiny organism , less than one-millionth of a meter in diameter and two-millionths of a meter long , so small that “ 20 would fit end-to-end in a single rod cell of the human retina , ” is nevertheless “ adept at counting molecules of specific sugars , amino acids , or dipeptides ; at integration of similar or dissimilar sensory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comparing counts taken over the recent and not so recent past ; at triggering an all-or-nothing response ; at swimming in a viscous medium… even pattern formation.
” Cells also move in many diverse ways .
E. coli travel by the propeller- like action of the bacterial flagellum .
Others do so via the beating action of cilia .
Some creep and crawl .
Some put out pseudopodia and grasp small objects in their immediate vicinity .
Some cells can survive desiccation for hundreds of years .
Cells possess internal clocks and can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can sense electrical and magnetic fields , and communicate via chemical and electrical signals .
Some can encase themselves in armor-like skins .
Some may be able to see ; one species of ciliate has a lens able to focus an image on another region of the cytoplasm — in effect , an eye .
All can replicate themselves with seeming ease , an act far beyond even the most complex human artifact .
Some can even reconstruct themselves completely from tiny fractions cut surgically from the cell !
These remarkable specks of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Earth , including the human body , itself a vast collective of as many as 100 million million cells .
Cells compose the human brain , making a million connections a minute for nine months during gestation .
Cells build blue whales , butterflies , birds , and the giant sequoias of Yosemite .
Cells constituted the dinosaurs and all past life ever born on Earth .
And through the activities of some of the simplest of their kind , cells gradually terraformed the planet over the past 3,000 million years , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ energizing powers for all the higher life forms .
They are the universal constructor set of life on Earth .
In short , they can do almost anything , adopt almost any shape , and obey any order .
They appear , in every sense , perfectly adapted to their assigned task of creating a biosphere replete with multicellular organisms like ourselves .
When we observe the goings-on of protozoans in a drop of pond water or the antics of an amoeboid leucocyte in the human blood stream chasing a bacterium , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these microscopic life forms are sentient , autonomous beings .
This was the case when we had relatively primitive microscopic technology more than one hundred years ago , and it is all the more so today .
It is not just their hunting strategies ( seen in a video of a leucocyte chasing its prey , below ) that resemble the behaviors of higher organisms .
Another striking example is the courtship rituals of ciliates , rituals that include pre-conjugal mating dances , reciprocal learning , repeated touching of prospective mates , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fitness to potential mates .
One of the founders of behaviorism , Herbert Spencer Jennings , strongly suspected that protozoa were sentient .
As he confessed , “ If Amoeba were a large animal , so as to come within the everyday experience of human beings , its behavior would at once call forth the attribution to it of states of pleasure and pain , of hunger , desire , and the like , on precisely the same basis as we attribute these things to the dog.
” Jennings ’ s thoughts were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The microscopic world of the single , living cell mirrors our own in so many ways : cells are essentially autonomous , sentient and ingenious .
In the lives of single cells we can perceive the roots of our own intelligence.
” And as Ford continues , “ We regard amoebas as simple and crude .
Yet many types of amoeba construct glassy shells by picking up sand grains from the mud in which they live .
The typical Difflugia shell , for example , is shaped like a vase , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know how this single-celled organism builds its shell.
” Even if cells are not sentient beings , their accomplishments , their complexity , their diversity of structure and function , remain to astound us .
The unique powers of cells—what Jacques Monod called their “ demonic catalytic powers ” — and their extraordinary fitness to play their unique role as the building blocks of all life on Earth are a wonder apparent to anyone who gives them even a cursory consideration .
An even greater wonder is the stunning prior fitness @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the canonical carbon-based cell .
This prior fitness is manifest in the unique utility of the properties of a significant number of the atoms in the first half of the periodic table to serve highly specific ends essential for the assembly of the core macromolecular constituents and the physiological functioning of the cell .
I call this the unique fitness paradigm .
This prior fitness is manifest also in the extraordinary utility of water to serve as the matrix of the cell , and by chemical processes in the dark vastness of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ synthesis of many of the molecular monomers used by the first cells to build their macromolecular constituents .
In other words , the “ demonic ” fitness of the cell depends on a deeper fitness prefigured into the very fabric of reality .
This deeper fitness is inscribed in the laws of nature from the beginning of time , a fitness that reveals the cosmos to be , as Henderson proclaimed , a profoundly biocentric whole .

Image: Radiolarian shells, by Ernst Haeckel / Public domain.
Editor’s note: We are pleased to offer this excerpt from Dr. Denton’s new book, The Miracle of the Cell.
In terms of compressed complexity, cells are without peer in the material world, actualized or imagined. And there is likely far more complexity still to uncover. Even as recently as 1913, when Lawrence Henderson composed his classic The Fitness of the Environment, the cell was a black box, its actual molecular complexity a mysterious unknown. Only as the veil began to lift with the mid-century molecular biological revolution did science begin to glimpse the sophistication of these extraordinary pieces of matter. Subsequently, every decade of research has revealed further depths of complexity. The discovery of ever more intricate structures and systems with each increase in knowledge — including vastly complex DNA topologies and a vast and growing inventory of mini-RNA regulator molecules — tells us there is probably much more to uncover. What we glimpse now may be only a tiny fraction of what remains to be discovered.
As Erica Hayden confessed in the journal Nature, “As sequencing and other new technologies spew forth data,” the complexity unearthed by cell biology “has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Delving into it has been like zooming into a Mandelbrot set… that reveals ever more intricate patterns as one peers closer at its boundary.”
A Third Infinity
There is much more to discover about the cell, but even from our current limited knowledge of its depths it is clear that this tiny unit of compact, adaptive sophistication constitutes something like a third infinity. Where the cosmos feels infinitely large and the atomic realm infinitely small, the cell feels infinitely complex.
But cells are not just complex beyond any sensible measure and beyond any other conceivable material form. They appear in so many ways supremely fit to fulfill their role as the basic unit of biological life. One element of this fitness is manifest in their incomparable diversity of form. Contrast a neuron with a red blood cell, a skin cell with a liver cell, an amoeboid leucocyte with a muscle cell. Each of these different forms is found in the human body, and many more. Or consider the diversity of ciliate protozoans. From the trumpet-like Stentor to the dashing Paramecium, the universe of ciliate form is absurdly diverse. Or take the radiolarians. Even within this small related group of organisms, the diversity of cell forms is stunning. And yet every member of this fantastic zoo of radiolarian forms is built on exactly the same canonical design.
Unique Fitness
The unique fitness of the cell to serve as the fundamental unit of life is also manifest in its amazing abilities and the diversity of functions it performs. Even the tiny E. coli, a cylinder-shaped bacterium in the human gut, has spectacular capabilities. Howard Berg has marveled at the versatility and capacities of this minuscule organism, calling its talents “legion.” He notes that this tiny organism, less than one-millionth of a meter in diameter and two-millionths of a meter long, so small that “20 would fit end-to-end in a single rod cell of the human retina,” is nevertheless “adept at counting molecules of specific sugars, amino acids, or dipeptides; at integration of similar or dissimilar sensory inputs over space and time; at comparing counts taken over the recent and not so recent past; at triggering an all-or-nothing response; at swimming in a viscous medium… even pattern formation.”
Cells also move in many diverse ways. E. coli travel by the propeller- like action of the bacterial flagellum. Others do so via the beating action of cilia. Some creep and crawl. Some put out pseudopodia and grasp small objects in their immediate vicinity.
Some cells can survive desiccation for hundreds of years. Cells possess internal clocks and can measure the passage of time. They can sense electrical and magnetic fields, and communicate via chemical and electrical signals. Some can encase themselves in armor-like skins. Some may be able to see; one species of ciliate has a lens able to focus an image on another region of the cytoplasm — in effect, an eye. All can replicate themselves with seeming ease, an act far beyond even the most complex human artifact. Some can even reconstruct themselves completely from tiny fractions cut surgically from the cell!
Capable of…Almost Anything
These remarkable specks of organized matter have constructed every multicellular organism on Earth, including the human body, itself a vast collective of as many as 100 million million cells. Cells compose the human brain, making a million connections a minute for nine months during gestation. Cells build blue whales, butterflies, birds, and the giant sequoias of Yosemite. Cells constituted the dinosaurs and all past life ever born on Earth. And through the activities of some of the simplest of their kind, cells gradually terraformed the planet over the past 3,000 million years, generating oxygen via photosynthesis and releasing its energizing powers for all the higher life forms. They are the universal constructor set of life on Earth. In short, they can do almost anything, adopt almost any shape, and obey any order. They appear, in every sense, perfectly adapted to their assigned task of creating a biosphere replete with multicellular organisms like ourselves.
When we observe the goings-on of protozoans in a drop of pond water or the antics of an amoeboid leucocyte in the human blood stream chasing a bacterium, it is hard to resist the feeling that these microscopic life forms are sentient, autonomous beings. This was the case when we had relatively primitive microscopic technology more than one hundred years ago, and it is all the more so today.
It is not just their hunting strategies (seen in a video of a leucocyte chasing its prey, below) that resemble the behaviors of higher organisms.
Another striking example is the courtship rituals of ciliates, rituals that include pre-conjugal mating dances, reciprocal learning, repeated touching of prospective mates, and even deceit and cheating when communicating reproductive fitness to potential mates. One of the founders of behaviorism, Herbert Spencer Jennings, strongly suspected that protozoa were sentient. As he confessed, “If Amoeba were a large animal, so as to come within the everyday experience of human beings, its behavior would at once call forth the attribution to it of states of pleasure and pain, of hunger, desire, and the like, on precisely the same basis as we attribute these things to the dog.”
“Simple and Crude”?
Jennings’s thoughts were recently echoed by biologist Brian Ford: “The microscopic world of the single, living cell mirrors our own in so many ways: cells are essentially autonomous, sentient and ingenious. In the lives of single cells we can perceive the roots of our own intelligence.” And as Ford continues, “We regard amoebas as simple and crude. Yet many types of amoeba construct glassy shells by picking up sand grains from the mud in which they live. The typical Difflugia shell, for example, is shaped like a vase, and has a remarkable symmetry… We just don’t know how this single-celled organism builds its shell.”
Even if cells are not sentient beings, their accomplishments, their complexity, their diversity of structure and function, remain to astound us. The unique powers of cells—what Jacques Monod called their “demonic catalytic powers” — and their extraordinary fitness to play their unique role as the building blocks of all life on Earth are a wonder apparent to anyone who gives them even a cursory consideration.
The Unique Fitness Paradigm
An even greater wonder is the stunning prior fitness in nature that enables the material actualization of the canonical carbon-based cell. This prior fitness is manifest in the unique utility of the properties of a significant number of the atoms in the first half of the periodic table to serve highly specific ends essential for the assembly of the core macromolecular constituents and the physiological functioning of the cell. I call this the unique fitness paradigm.
This prior fitness is manifest also in the extraordinary utility of water to serve as the matrix of the cell, and by chemical processes in the dark vastness of interstellar space that result in the abiotic synthesis of many of the molecular monomers used by the first cells to build their macromolecular constituents. In other words, the “demonic” fitness of the cell depends on a deeper fitness prefigured into the very fabric of reality. This deeper fitness is inscribed in the laws of nature from the beginning of time, a fitness that reveals the cosmos to be, as Henderson proclaimed, a profoundly biocentric whole.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-03--Lennox Versus Dawkins: “Science and Religion as Alternative Explanations”?

I am alerting readers to the upcoming event in movie theaters across the country .
Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science stars Oxford University mathematician John Lennox .
There will be one night only when the film is screened — Thursday , November 19 .
You can and should get your tickets now .
Here ’ s a sample : The film highlights debates between Professor Lennox , arguing the case for theism , supported by science , against prominent atheists including Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens .
The film ’ s website @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gem — the 2008 debate between Dawkins and Lennox , filmed at Oxford ’ s Natural History Museum !
I think Lennox gets to the heart of a great question by challenging Dawkins on the assumption that science and faith can not coexist but must be understand as “ alternative explanations ” for reality .
Of course that hopelessly prejudices the question .
Find the full debate here : “ Has Science Buried God ?
” In the film , Lennox journeys with actor and interlocutor Kevin Sorbo from Oxford to Jerusalem .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ You will enjoy it .

Photo: John Lennox in Against the Tide.
I am alerting readers to the upcoming event in movie theaters across the country. Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science stars Oxford University mathematician John Lennox. There will be one night only when the film is screened — Thursday, November 19. You can and should get your tickets now. Here’s a sample:
The film highlights debates between Professor Lennox, arguing the case for theism, supported by science, against prominent atheists including Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. The film’s website includes lots of great resources including this gem — the 2008 debate between Dawkins and Lennox, filmed at Oxford’s Natural History Museum! I think Lennox gets to the heart of a great question by challenging Dawkins on the assumption that science and faith cannot coexist but must be understood as “alternative explanations” for reality. Of course that hopelessly prejudices the question. Find the full debate here: “Has Science Buried God?”
In the film, Lennox journeys with actor and interlocutor Kevin Sorbo from Oxford to Jerusalem. It’s very well done. You will enjoy it.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-04--Is Information a Naturally Occurring Phenomenon?

The question on which the evolution debate turns is whether biological information is a naturally occurring phenomenon , like lightning or salt crystals , or whether , like books or hieroglyphic inscriptions , it requires an author .
But what is information ?
Eric Holloway answers succinctly : The answer is staring us right in the face .
Let ’ s look at the word “ information ” and break it into pieces : in-form-ation .
The word is itself telling us the nature of information .
It is saying that a thing is informative when it has been formed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ formed ?
Let ’ s think about things that are formed .
We can form a lump of clay .
We can carve a piece of wood , giving it form .
We can cut a piece of paper into a form .
In each of these cases , we take raw matter and shape it according to an external pattern .
This must be what information means : a raw medium has been shaped by an external pattern .
Let us return to our original two sets of informative and uninformative things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , an information piece that appears in a medium .
The raw matter of an article is letters and punctuation .
If we distribute letters and punctuation randomly on a page , without applying an external pattern , then we get something that is without pattern and uninformative .
On the other hand , if we take our letters and punctuation , and arrange them so as to express our thoughts ( an external , specified pattern ) , suddenly the arrangement becomes informative to a reader .
It looks as though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try again .
Consider the toothpicks .
If we drop them on the ground and let them scatter randomly , they will have no shape and will thus be uninformative .
On the other hand , we can carefully place the toothpicks to spell out a message , which is an external , specified pattern , and then the toothpicks become informative .
Success again !
So we can now begin to understand what information is .
When we have some sort of raw material which is arranged according to an external pattern @ @ @ @ @ @

The question on which the evolution debate turns is whether biological information is a naturally occurring phenomenon, like lightning or salt crystals, or whether, like books or hieroglyphic inscriptions, it requires an author. But what is information? Eric Holloway answers succinctly:
The answer is staring us right in the face. Let’s look at the word “information” and break it into pieces: in-form-ation. The word is itself telling us the nature of information. It is saying that a thing is informative when it has been formed.
What does it mean to be formed? Let’s think about things that are formed. We can form a lump of clay. We can carve a piece of wood, giving it form. We can cut a piece of paper into a form. In each of these cases, we take raw matter and shape it according to an external pattern. This must be what information means: a raw medium has been shaped by an external pattern.
Let us return to our original two sets of informative and uninformative things and apply our criterion. Consider this article, an information piece that appears in a medium. The raw matter of an article is letters and punctuation. If we distribute letters and punctuation randomly on a page, without applying an external pattern, then we get something that is without pattern and uninformative. On the other hand, if we take our letters and punctuation, and arrange them so as to express our thoughts (an external, specified pattern), suddenly the arrangement becomes informative to a reader. It looks as though our criterion works.
Let’s try again. Consider the toothpicks. If we drop them on the ground and let them scatter randomly, they will have no shape and will thus be uninformative. On the other hand, we can carefully place the toothpicks to spell out a message, which is an external, specified pattern, and then the toothpicks become informative. Success again!
So we can now begin to understand what information is. When we have some sort of raw material which is arranged according to an external pattern, we can produce information.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-05--Rapper MC Hammer Embraces Intelligent Design

I hope you had a good weekend .
But I KNOW that rapper MC Hammer had a most interesting and intellectually stimulating one .
You may wonder how I know that .
It ’ s because he spent a good deal of it watching videos about intelligent design and evolution and exchanging tweets about ID with Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer , on one hand , and arch-Darwinist atheist biologist Jerry Coyne on the other .
Hammer was more persuaded by Dr. Meyer than by Dr. Coyne .
The latter , an emeritus professor at the University of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back insults , calling Hammer an “ ignoramus.
” ( Coyne later apologized and took down the insulting tweet . )
Hammer , with 3.2 million Twitter followers , was most taken , though , by our mathematician colleague David Berlinski .
He tweeted a link to Dr. Berlinski ’ s book The God Delusion , and enjoyed a video of what he called a “ Fantastic conversation !
!
!
!
” among Berlinski , Meyer , Yale ’ s David Gelernter , and host Peter Robinson of Stanford ’ s Hoover @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wonderful interaction between Berlinski and a pair of interviewers from Rational Religion .
Science writer Sheril Kirshenbaum further provoked Coyne by tweeting that “ @ MCHammer is correct .
Science & religion aren ’ t incompatible .
They both seek to understand our world.
” Now , I know that rap superstars , whether of the 1990s such as MC Hammer , or of today , aren ’ t uniquely empowered to decide the ultimate questions of science or philosophy .
But you know what ?
Neither are scientists like Jerry Coyne , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are all responsible for weighing the evidence as best we can and , where there is a controversy , as with the one over unguided evolution as the sole engine of all the wonders in biology , for deciding which position has the better arguments .
That is what David Gelernter did when he came out a Darwin skeptic , and it ’ s what MC Hammer did .
The discussion among Hammer , Coyne , and his fellow Darwinist hardliners was well timed as intelligent design enjoyed a coup over the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Vice President John West wrote here about a new peer-reviewed paper in a prominent journal , the Journal of Theoretical Biology , and Evolution News reported more details about it today .
The article supports intelligent design by name , pointing to the many signs of biological fine-tuning .
I recommend it to rappers and evolutionary biologists alike .
As Dr. West points out , Darwinists tried to cancel and silence the paper , but failed .
All they could win was a concession from the editors in the form of a Disclaimer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not , actually , pro-ID : “ We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.
” Yet this is from the three co-Chief Editors of the journal , not from the copy editor or the editorial intern .
But again , the article is completely upfront in naming and arguing , explicitly , for the science of intelligent design .
Either the scientist editors weren ’ t aware what they were publishing , hadn ’ t bothered to read it , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by outside forces to issue their Disclaimer .
The latter seems the more likely conclusion .
Intelligent design advocates seek to persuade the public and scientists equally , and in both those respects ID itself had an excellent weekend .
But as the episode with the Journal of Theoretical Biology makes clear , the struggle against Darwin ’ s censors remains far from over .

Photo: MC Hammer, by Brian Solis / CC BY (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0).
I hope you had a good weekend. But I KNOW that rapper MC Hammer had a most interesting and intellectually stimulating one. You may wonder how I know that. It’s because he spent a good deal of it watching videos about intelligent design and evolution and exchanging tweets about ID with Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer, on one hand, and arch-Darwinist atheist biologist Jerry Coyne on the other. Hammer was more persuaded by Dr. Meyer than by Dr. Coyne. The latter, an emeritus professor at the University of Chicago, was not pleased and tweeted back insults, calling Hammer an “ignoramus.” (Coyne later apologized and took down the insulting tweet.)
Hammer, with 3.2 million Twitter followers, was most taken, though, by our mathematician colleague David Berlinski. He tweeted a link to Dr. Berlinski’s book The Devil’s Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions, and enjoyed a video of what he called a “Fantastic conversation!!!!” among Berlinski, Meyer, Yale’s David Gelernter, and host Peter Robinson of Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Hammer also tweeted out a wonderful interaction between Berlinski and a pair of interviewers from Rational Religion. Science writer Sheril Kirshenbaum further provoked Coyne by tweeting that “@MCHammer is correct. Science & religion aren’t incompatible. They both seek to understand our world.”
Now, I know that rap superstars, whether of the 1990s such as MC Hammer, or of today, aren’t uniquely empowered to decide the ultimate questions of science or philosophy. But you know what? Neither are scientists like Jerry Coyne, or science philosophers like Stephen Meyer. We are all responsible for weighing the evidence as best we can and, where there is a controversy, as with the one over dumb unguided evolution as the sole engine of all the wonders in biology, for deciding which position has the better arguments. That is what David Gelernter did when he came out a Darwin skeptic, and it’s what MC Hammer did.
A Weekend Coup
The discussion among Hammer, Coyne, and his fellow Darwinist hardliners was well timed as intelligent design enjoyed a coup over the weekend. On Friday, Discovery Institute Vice President John West wrote here about a new peer-reviewed paper in a prominent journal, the Journal of Theoretical Biology, and Evolution News reported more details about it today. The article supports intelligent design by name, pointing to the many signs of biological fine-tuning. I recommend it to rappers and evolutionary biologists alike.
As Dr. West points out, Darwinists tried to cancel and silence the paper, but failed. All they could win was a concession from the editors in the form of a Disclaimer, assuring readers that the journal is not, actually, pro-ID: “We believe that intelligent design is not in any way a suitable topic for the Journal of Theoretical Biology.” Yet this is from the three co-Chief Editors of the journal, not from the copy editor or the summer intern. But again, the article is completely upfront in naming and arguing, explicitly, for the science of intelligent design. Either the scientist editors weren’t aware what they were publishing, hadn’t bothered to read it, or they were aware, and were pressured by outside forces to issue their Disclaimer. The latter seems the more likely conclusion.
Intelligent design advocates seek to persuade the public and scientists equally, and in both those respects ID itself had an excellent weekend. But as the episode with the Journal of Theoretical Biology makes clear, the struggle against Darwin’s censors remains far from over.