evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-19--Jay Richards: Warfare Thesis Ignores the Roots of Science

On a classic episode of ID the Future , Center for Science & Culture Director of Communications Rob Crowther interviews @ @ @ @ @ .
Listen in as Richards rebuts the warfare thesis — the idea that religion and @ @ @ @ @ argues that historically , Judeo-Christian culture “ was the seedbed from which science emerged.
” @ @ @ @ @ being partnered with materialism ?
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Photo @ @ @ @ @ scene from “ Why Materialism Fails , ” via Discovery Institute .

On a classic episode of ID the Future, Center for Science & Culture Director of Communications Rob Crowther interviews CSC Senior Fellow Jay Richards. Listen in as Richards rebuts the warfare thesis — the idea that religion and science are antagonists — and argues that historically, Judeo-Christian culture “was the seedbed from which science emerged.”
Has science missed out by being partnered with materialism? Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo: Jay Richards in a scene from “Why Materialism Fails,” via Discovery Institute.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-20--Tyson and Cosmos Sound the Climate Alarm Again

The new Cosmos season , “ Possible Worlds , ” will conclude this coming Monday night .
From its March 9 debut , overshadowed by other concerns in the culture and awkwardly seeking to advance the late Carl Sagan rather than host Neil deGrasse Tyson as its public face , the series has declined steadily in viewership .
That ’ s a shame because like the 2014 reboot , with its distortions of science and history , Cosmos 3.0 provides many a helpful teaching moment .
We have already documented quite a few of those .
( See links below @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this past Monday , “ Coming of Age in the Anthropocene , ” was no exception .
Tyson and company revisit a topic covered in Cosmos 2.0 .
They again chide us for failing to heed the demands of the most aggressive activists on the issue of climate change ( aka global warming aka global climate disruption ) .
For a summary of the relevant questions involved in the debate , see Jay Richards ’ s excellent review of that earlier episode .
As a cause for global alarm , the climate does @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news .
One irony here is that , beset by a virus that might obey a flu-like pattern of receding with seasonal warm weather , many Americans this year will welcome the summer heat like never before .
Dr. Tyson , in any event , aims at our hearts .
Throughout the episode he cuddles a cute baby in his arms .
The baby represents our future , our hope .
The Cosmos host and writers are trying to scare us into climate action before it ’ s too late .
Just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the implication of the foretold climageddon , they end with a scene of a desert landscape littered with empty upright baby bottles , looking like grave markers .
Tyson claims that the consequences of man-made global warming are already upon us , as evidenced by “ heightened flooding of coastal cities , mass death of ocean reefs caused by ocean warming , increase in intensity of catastrophic storms , lethal heat waves and droughts , and runaway wildfires of unprecedented magnitude.
” About all of this , however , there is reasonable cause @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here .
On tornadoes , here .
Wildfires , here , here , here , and here .
Reefs , here , here , and here .
Heat waves , here and here .
Drought , here and here .
Sea level , here and here .
We are treated to a historical piece on the Japanese climate scientist Syukuru Manabe , who with Richard T. Wetherald published an influential climate model paper in 1967 on the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO .
It was the first climate paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate in a detailed model ( something that no climate scientist involved in this debate denies ) .
It also helped to identify what telltale signs we should be looking for in the atmosphere due to CO increase .
Tyson implies that people who doubt the climate activists ’ claims doubt basic science proven fifty years ago .
That is misleading .
Although a huge step in climate modeling at the time and rightly deserving praise , the Manabe-Wetherald model should only be looked at today in a pedagogical and historical light .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ its results because it has proved an accurate prediction of climate since then ( the writers seem to be taking their cue from a Forbes article ) .
But the paper was not about predicting climate .
It was a climate sensitivity analysis .
Any resemblance of the recent climate to the Manabe-Wetherald model output is coincidental .
Their model greatly simplified or ignored physics , chemistry , oceanography , and biology that is now considered essential in climate models .
For example , the model did not include aerosols or geography ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet ) .
The atmosphere was treated as a one-dimensional column ( or latitudinally averaged for some runs ) .
They held the cloud fraction constant at the present observed level ; yet clouds remain the most uncertain aspect of modern climate models .
In a follow-up 1975 paper Manabe and Wetherald warned that “ it is not advisable to take too seriously ” their specific numbers .
Clearly , Tyson and company did not heed that warning .
Recent leading models that are designed to predict the climate are consistently overestimating global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can learn some valuable lessons about model predictions .
Case in point : the failure of a leading coronavirus model to predict the number of deaths from infections should cause us to be more circumspect about climate model predictions .
After all , there are far more physical processes ( many poorly understood ) involved with climate models than there are in modeling the spread of a virus .
It could very well be the case that we just can not make predictions in these two cases for the desired timescales and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would like .
Editor ’ s note : Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos , “ Possible Worlds , ” here : • “ Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cosmos Peddle the Myth that Copernicus Demoted Earth ” • “ Medicine , Religion , and Cosmos — Was Andrew Cuomo Wrong to Invoke God ?
” • “ Cosmos Episode 6 — That ’ s Entertainment !
( But Is It Science ? )
” • “ The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Episodes : Only Part of the Story ” • “ Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of the Past , with Familiar Historical Mythmaking ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat Dented ” Image : Screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0 , “ Possible Worlds .
”

The new Cosmos season, “Possible Worlds,” concludes tonight. From its March 9 debut, overshadowed by other concerns in the culture and awkwardly seeking to advance the late Carl Sagan rather than host Neil deGrasse Tyson as its public face, the series has declined steadily in viewership. That’s a shame because like the 2014 reboot, with its distortions of science and history, Cosmos 3.0 provides many a helpful teaching moment. We have already documented quite a few of those. (See links below.)
The Cosmos episode that aired last Monday, “Coming of Age in the Anthropocene,” was no exception. Tyson and company revisit a topic covered in Cosmos 2.0. They again chide us for failing to heed the demands of the most aggressive activists on the issue of climate change (aka global warming aka global climate disruption). For a summary of the relevant questions involved in the debate, see Jay Richards’s excellent review of that earlier episode. As a cause for global alarm, the climate does seem a bit like yesterday’s news. One irony here is that, beset by a virus that might obey a flu-like pattern of receding with seasonal warm weather, many Americans this year will welcome the summer heat like never before.
Reasonable Skepticism
Dr. Tyson, in any event, aims at our hearts. Throughout the episode he cuddles a cute baby in his arms. The baby represents our future, our hope. The Cosmos host and writers are trying to scare us into climate action before it’s too late. Just to make sure we don’t miss the implication of the foretold climageddon, they end with a scene of a desert landscape littered with empty upright baby bottles, looking like grave markers.
Tyson claims that the consequences of man-made global warming are already upon us, as evidenced by “heightened flooding of coastal cities, mass death of ocean reefs caused by ocean warming, increase in intensity of catastrophic storms, lethal heat waves and droughts, and runaway wildfires of unprecedented magnitude.” About all of this, however, there is reasonable cause for skepticism. On hurricanes, see here and here. On tornadoes, here. Wildfires, here, here, here, and here. Reefs, here, here, and here. Heat waves, here and here. Drought, here and here. Sea level, here and here.
The Manabe-Wetherald Model
We are treated to a historical piece on the Japanese climate scientist Syukuru Manabe, who with Richard T. Wetherald published an influential climate model paper in 1967 on the sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO 2 . It was the first climate paper to show that increasing CO 2 warms the climate in a detailed model (something that no climate scientist involved in this debate denies). It also helped to identify what telltale signs we should be looking for in the atmosphere due to CO 2 increase. Tyson implies that people who doubt the climate activists’ claims doubt basic science proven fifty years ago.
That is misleading. Although a huge step in climate modeling at the time and rightly deserving praise, the Manabe-Wetherald model should only be looked at today in a pedagogical and historical light. Incredibly, Tyson implies we should trust its results because it has proved an accurate prediction of climate since then (the writers seem to be taking their cue from a Forbes article). But the paper was not about predicting climate. It was a climate sensitivity analysis.
Any resemblance of the recent climate to the Manabe-Wetherald model output is coincidental. Their model greatly simplified or ignored physics, chemistry, oceanography, and biology that is now considered essential in climate models. For example, the model did not include aerosols or geography (a single damp surface for the whole planet). The atmosphere was treated as a one-dimensional column (or latitudinally averaged for some runs). They held the cloud fraction constant at the present observed level; yet clouds remain the most uncertain aspect of modern climate models. In a follow-up 1975 paper Manabe and Wetherald warned that “it is not advisable to take too seriously” their specific numbers. Clearly, Tyson and company did not heed that warning.
Climate Change and the Coronavirus
Recent leading models that are designed to predict the climate are consistently overestimating global temperatures. During the present coronavirus threat we can learn some valuable lessons about model predictions. Case in point: the failure of a leading coronavirus model to predict the number of deaths from infections should cause us to be more circumspect about climate model predictions. After all, there are far more physical processes (many poorly understood) involved with climate models than there are in modeling the spread of a virus. It could very well be the case that we just cannot make predictions in these two cases for the desired timescales and to the level of precision that we would like.
Editor’s note: Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos, “Possible Worlds,” here:
Image: Screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0, “Possible Worlds.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-20--Harvard Law Professor — Ban Homeschooling for “Question[ing] Science”

Ban it for other things as well , says Professor Elizabeth Bartholet in a stunning article for Harvard Magazine .
She warns that homeschoolers are subject to child abuse , and are poorly prepared to participate in a democracy , having been oppressed by “ essentially authoritarian control ” by parents who are potential illiterates themselves .
As depicted by Bartholet , homeschooling sounds little better than being in fundamentalist Christian prison .
In fact , the illustration that goes with the article shows a girl behind bars in a house fashioned from books , on Reading , Writing , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article , by Erin O ’ Donnell , attacks a homeschooling group , while ( as Rod Dreher points out ) getting the name wrong — it ’ s the Home School ( not “ Home Schooling ” ) Legal Defense Association — and while giving the HSLDA no opportunity to speak in its own defense .
Hey , that sounds familiar .
It ’ s how Discovery Institute is routinely treated by critics whenever the subject of evolution education comes up .
In the article , Erin O ’ Donnell cites the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt some homeschool parents , and some public school parents as well , subscribe to unwholesome ideologies .
It ’ s a big country .
Bartholet points to the author of a recent book who recounts her own experience as “ the daughter of Idaho survivalists who never sent their children to school ” and who , in this context , “ endured abuse by an older brother.
” Says Bartholet , “ That ’ s what can happen under the system in effect in most of the nation.
” Yes , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen in life .
But what goes on in public school at its worst is horrific , too : including bullying , mass shootings , sexual predation by teachers , political and other ideological indoctrination , and some pretty lousy , lackadaisical education .
I had a very positive experience of public schools myself , and we have never homeschooled our kids .
But I admit to a recurring case of homeschool envy .
The homeschooled students and graduates we know are exceptionally poised , articulate , smart , and well-educated people .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ them up for success in later life .
A family who are neighbors of ours homeschooled four kids , and sent not one , not two , but three to Princeton .
We had a guest in our home recently , a young woman about 30 years old .
My high school age daughter later asked me , “ Was she homeschooled ?
” That was a shrewd call : In fact , the woman was homeschooled , as I was aware but my daughter wasn ’ t .
More than a decade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was a certain poised , mature , and thoughtful manner .
I ’ ve found it to be almost a signature of the homeschooling demographic .
What I ’ ve seen of homeschool curricula blows me away .
Again , I had some very good public school teachers , including one whom I ’ d call life-changing .
But an in-depth exposure to a bookcase of classic texts ?
A tour of great ideas led by a dedicated parent-teacher who hasn ’ t taught the same canned curriculum for decades but , instead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I didn ’ t get that .
From what I ’ ve observed , since I was a kid the schools have not improved .
Obviously there are some parents who are not suited for a teaching role , and some students for whom it ’ s not a good fit either .
You could cite cases where homeschooling failed , as you could cite cases where conventional schooling failed .
You could find instances where homeschool students are socially “ isolated , ” though I ’ m told that homeschool parents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure their kids get to spend time with other kids .
I ’ ve personally pulled a child of public school and returned him to a small private school because he was “ isolated , ” lonely , and unhappy in the crowded setting .
So what really underlies the itch not just to criticize homeschooling but to place it under a “ presumptive ban ” ?
Or as Bartholet proposes , to place the burden of proof on parents , to make them show , to the satisfaction of the government , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ own children ?
If a “ grownup ” manner is a giveaway that someone was homeschooled , then the insistence on forbidding choices — because the choices work against homogenized thinking — is a telltale sign of authoritarianism .
Professor Bartholet is against “ question [ ing ] science.
” She feels “ it ’ s also important that children grow up exposed to community values , social values , democratic values , ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people ’ s viewpoints.
” That all sounds great , but we know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ codewords for training young people to respond to life in rigid , programmed , ideologically approved ways .
I ’ m sure Bartholet would be horrified by the approach to evolution education that urges giving teachers freedom to teach “ both sides of the controversy.
” Surely to “ question science ” should be banned , along with homeschooling .
The Harvard Magazine article links to a law review article by Bartholet where she worries that “ Many [ parents educating at home ] use alternative textbooks that teach creationism instead of evolution.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ she means by “ creationism.
” But she refers in a footnote to an article from ProPublica , similarly fretting that “ many use alternative textbooks that teach creationism instead of evolution.
” ( The language is identical but Professor Bartholet omits quotation marks . )
ProPublica itself ( a different reporter ) has mangled Discovery Institute ’ s science education policy , and refused to correct the error , equating “ teaching the controversy ” with teaching intelligent design , and equating ID with a “ more nuanced outgrowth of creationism.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s media source , educating students to exercise critical thinking about evolutionary theory basically means “ teaching creationism.
” That ’ s what they ’ re teaching at Harvard Law !
In reality , thinking critically about statements made in the name of science , comparing them with other evidence and other understandings , seeking the truth by questioning assumptions , is crucial to the practice of science .
Some Harvard scientists could probably assure Elizabeth Bartholet of that if she asked .
Bartholet says , “ I think it ’ s always @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the powerless , and to give the powerful ones total authority.
” On that , she ’ s certainly right .
I may be over-idealizing the homeschool experience , but to lose it as an option for parents would be a big win for elite cultural stereotyping and for mind control .
The comments under the Harvard Magazine article , by the way , are worth perusing .
They ’ re all critical .
The first one , from a mom in North Carolina , begins , “ This article is sad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 90 % of homeschoolers are not Conservative Christian .
I have homeschooled for 8 years and we are atheists .
”

Ban it for other reasons as well, says Professor Elizabeth Bartholet in a stunning article for Harvard Magazine. That’s right, the only form of education in the country that hasn’t been upended by the coronavirus. Well, that is a poorly timed proposal.
Bartholet warns that homeschoolers are subject to child abuse, and are poorly prepared to participate in a democracy, having been oppressed by “essentially authoritarian control” by parents who are potential illiterates themselves. As depicted by Bartholet, homeschooling sounds little better than being in fundamentalist Christian prison. In fact, the illustration that goes with the article shows a girl behind bars in a house fashioned from books, on Reading, Writing, Arithmetic, and the Bible.
The article, by Erin O’Donnell, attacks a homeschooling group, while (as Rod Dreher points out) getting the name wrong — it’s the Home School (not “Home Schooling”) Legal Defense Association — and while giving the HSLDA no opportunity to speak in its own defense. Hey, that sounds familiar. It’s how Discovery Institute is routinely treated by critics whenever the subject of evolution education comes up.
In the article, Erin O’Donnell cites the Harvard Law scholar:
Bartholet notes that some of these parents are “extreme religious ideologues” who question science and promote female subservience and white supremacy. [Emphasis added.]
No doubt some homeschool parents, and some public school parents as well, subscribe to unwholesome ideologies. It’s a big country. Bartholet points to the author of a recent book who recounts her own experience as “the daughter of Idaho survivalists who never sent their children to school” and who, in this context, “endured abuse by an older brother.” Says Bartholet, “That’s what can happen under the system in effect in most of the nation.”
The Homeschool Manner
Yes, it can happen. Lots of things can happen in life. But what goes on in public school at its worst is horrific, too: including bullying, mass shootings, sexual predation by teachers, political and other ideological indoctrination, and some pretty lousy, lackadaisical education.
I had a very positive experience of public schools myself, and we have never homeschooled our kids. But I admit to a recurring case of homeschool envy. The homeschooled students and graduates we know are exceptionally poised, articulate, smart, and well-educated people. These are all qualities that will set them up for success in later life. A family who are neighbors of ours homeschooled four kids, and sent not one, not two, but three to Princeton. We had a guest in our home recently, a young woman about 30 years old. My high school-age daughter later asked me, “Was she homeschooled?” That was a shrewd call: In fact, the woman was homeschooled, as I was aware but my daughter wasn’t. More than a decade after finishing high school, the giveaway was a certain poised, mature, and thoughtful manner. I’ve found it to be almost a signature of the homeschooling demographic.
What I’ve seen of homeschool curricula blows me away. Again, I had some very good public school teachers, including one whom I’d call life-changing. But an in-depth exposure to a bookcase of classic texts? A tour of great ideas led by a dedicated parent-teacher who hasn’t taught the same canned curriculum for decades but, instead, is exploring with you? No, I didn’t get that. From what I’ve observed, since I was a kid the schools have not improved.
The Burden of Proof
Obviously there are some parents who are not suited for a teaching role, and some students for whom it’s not a good fit either. You could cite cases where homeschooling failed, as you could cite cases where conventional schooling failed. You could find instances where homeschool students are socially “isolated,” though I’m told that homeschool parents go out of their way to make sure their kids get to spend time with other kids. I’ve personally pulled a child out of public school and returned him to a small private school because he was “isolated,” lonely, and unhappy in the crowded setting. So what really underlies the itch not just to criticize homeschooling but to place it under a “presumptive ban”? Bartholet proposes to place the burden of proof on parents, to make them show, to the satisfaction of the government, that they are fit to teach their own children.
If a “grownup” manner is a giveaway that someone was homeschooled, then the insistence on forbidding choices — because the choices work against homogenized thinking — is a telltale sign of authoritarianism. Professor Bartholet is against “question[ing] science.” She feels “it’s also important that children grow up exposed to community values, social values, democratic values, ideas about nondiscrimination and tolerance of other people’s viewpoints.” That all sounds great, but we know that in practice those can be newspeak codewords for training young people to respond to life in rigid, programmed, ideologically approved ways.
Teaching the Controversy
I’m sure Bartholet would be horrified by the approach to evolution education that urges giving teachers freedom to teach “both sides of the controversy.” Surely to “question science” should be banned, along with homeschooling.
The Harvard Magazine article links to a law review article by Bartholet where she worries that “Many [parents educating at home] use alternative textbooks that teach creationism instead of evolution.” She doesn’t say what she means by “creationism.” But she refers in a footnote to an article from ProPublica, similarly fretting that “many use alternative textbooks that teach creationism instead of evolution.” (The language is identical but Professor Bartholet omits quotation marks.) ProPublica itself (a different reporter) has mangled Discovery Institute’s science education policy, and refused to correct the error, equating “teaching the controversy” with teaching intelligent design, and equating ID with a “more nuanced outgrowth of creationism.” So in the view of Bartholet’s media source, educating students to exercise critical thinking about evolutionary theory basically means “teaching creationism.”
That’s what they’re teaching at Harvard Law! In reality, thinking critically about statements made in the name of science, comparing them with other evidence and other understandings, seeking the truth by questioning assumptions, is crucial to the practice of science. Some Harvard scientists could probably assure Elizabeth Bartholet of that if she asked.
Bartholet says, “I think it’s always dangerous to put powerful people in charge of the powerless, and to give the powerful ones total authority.” On that, she’s certainly right. I may be over-idealizing the homeschool experience, but to lose it as an option for parents would be a big win for elite cultural stereotyping and for mind control.
The comments under the Harvard Magazine article, by the way, are worth perusing. They’re all critical. The first one, from a mom in North Carolina, begins, “This article is sad in its total inaccuracy. First off 90% of homeschoolers are not Conservative Christian. I have homeschooled for 8 years and we are atheists.”
Photo: Harvard Law School, by Chensiyuan. / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-21--Clever Move — Cosmos Pushes Pantheism

Clever Move — Cosmos Pushes Pantheism

The new Cosmos season , “ Possible Worlds , ” with host Neil deGrasse Tyson is a lot cleverer than harsh , in-your-face New Atheists of the Jerry Coyne/Richard Dawkins variety .
In this it follows in the path of the original Cosmos and the 2014 re-boot .
Rather than openly mock religion in some oafish or venomous way , Cosmos advances a winsome case for pantheism , an attitude of awe before of nature , anthropomorphizing it and invites us to do the same .
At times this is expressed in Biblical cadences .
Think of Carl Sagan on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or ever was or ever will be.
” As philosopher Jay Richards and science historian Michael Keas discuss on a new episode of ID the Future , that is a much easier sell .
Easier for slipping it into the public schools !
It won ’ t alarm the parents nearly as much as an all-out siege on theism .
Very clever , Dr. Tyson .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Richards and Keas reflect on the program ’ s treatment of arch-heretic Giordano Bruno , pantheist philosopher Baruch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is co-author of The Privileged Planet : How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery , now out in paperback with a new Foreword .
Dr. Keas ’ s recent book is Unbelievable : 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion .
The Cosmos season concluded last night with an episode on the “ Seven Wonders of the New World.
” We will have more to say .
See below for previous coverage of the season from Evolution News : • “ Neil deGrasse Tyson and Cosmos @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” • “ Medicine , Religion , and Cosmos — Was Andrew Cuomo Wrong to Invoke God ?
” • “ Cosmos Episode 6 — That ’ s Entertainment !
( But Is It Science ? )
” • “ The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero ” • “ New Cosmos Episodes : Only Part of the Story ” • “ Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of the Past , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat Dented ” Image : Baruch Spinoza , shown about 1665 , by an unknown artist / Public domain via Wikimedia .

The new Cosmos season, “Possible Worlds,” with host Neil deGrasse Tyson is a lot cleverer than harsh, in-your-face New Atheists of the Jerry Coyne/Richard Dawkins variety. In this it follows in the path of the original Cosmos and the 2014 re-boot. Rather than openly mock religion in some oafish or venomous way, Cosmos advances a winsome case for pantheism, an attitude of awe before nature, anthropomorphizing it, and invites us to do the same. At times this is expressed in Biblical cadences. Think of Carl Sagan on the cosmos as “all that is or ever was or ever will be.”
As philosopher Jay Richards and science historian Michael Keas discuss on a new episode of ID the Future, that is a much easier sell. Easier for slipping it into the public schools! It won’t alarm the parents nearly as much as an all-out siege on theism. Very clever, Dr. Tyson.
Download the podcast or listen to it here. Richards and Keas reflect on the program’s treatment of arch-heretic Giordano Bruno, pantheist philosopher Baruch Spinoza, and more. Dr. Richards is co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, now out in paperback with a new Foreword. Dr. Keas’s recent book is Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion. The Cosmos season concluded last night with an episode on the “Seven Wonders of the New World.” We will have more to say. See below for previous coverage of the season from Evolution News:
Image: Baruch Spinoza, shown about 1665, by an unknown artist / Public domain via Wikimedia.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-21--Dutch Supreme Court Approves Euthanasia for Dementia

More than 20 years ago , the Dutch Supreme Court approved the assisted suicide of a woman in despair because her children had died .
So we shouldn ’ t be surprised that it has now explicitly approved the forced euthanasia of patients with dementia if they asked to be killed before becoming incompetent .
From Reuters : The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that doctors could legally carry out euthanasia on people with advanced dementia who had earlier put their wishes in writing even if they could no longer confirm them because of their illness .
The ruling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests .
This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers .
“ A doctor can carry out an ( earlier ) written request for euthanasia from people with advanced dementia , ” the Supreme Court said in a summary of its decision .
What the Reuters story fails to mention — and apparently the Supreme Court found to be irrelevant — is that the case in question involved a woman who fought against being killed .
Nor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her , and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection .
Moreover , the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide “ when ” the time for death had come — which she never did .
The termination “ choice ” was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient ’ s advance directive .
But why would the Dutch Supreme Court let inconvenient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Netherlands ’ ever-expanding national killing policy that already permits infanticide , joint geriatric euthanasia of married couples , termination of the mentally ill , conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting , and the lethal injections of people with disabilities ?

More than 20 years ago, the Dutch Supreme Court approved the assisted suicide of a woman in despair because her children had died. So we shouldn’t be surprised that it has now explicitly approved the forced euthanasia of patients with dementia if they asked to be killed before becoming incompetent. From Reuters:
The Dutch Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that doctors could legally carry out euthanasia on people with advanced dementia who had earlier put their wishes in writing even if they could no longer confirm them because of their illness. The ruling is a landmark in Dutch euthanasia legislation which up to now had required patients to confirm euthanasia requests. This had not been considered possible for mentally incapacitated patients like advanced dementia sufferers. “A doctor can carry out an (earlier) written request for euthanasia from people with advanced dementia,” the Supreme Court said in a summary of its decision.
What the Reuters story fails to mention — and apparently the Supreme Court found to be irrelevant — is that the case in question involved a woman who fought against being killed. Nor does the story mention that the doctor had drugged the woman before starting to euthanize her, and that the doctor instructed the family to hold the struggling woman down so that she could administer the lethal injection. Moreover, the patient had also stated in her instructions that she wanted to decide “when” the time for death had come — which she never did. The termination “choice” was made by the doctor and/or family in violation of the patient’s advance directive.
But why would the Dutch Supreme Court let inconvenient facts get in the way of furthering the Netherlands’ ever-expanding national killing policy that already permits infanticide, joint geriatric euthanasia of married couples, termination of the mentally ill, conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting, and the lethal injections of people with disabilities?
Photo credit: William DeHoogh via Unsplash.
Cross-posted at The Corner.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-21--Whale Evolution — Believe It or Not? Register by Thursday for Webinar with Sternberg and Wells!

Darwin thought whales possibly evolved from…bears .
Measured for implausibility , that ’ s not far off from speculations by evolutionists today .
Whales , in fact , are an evolutionary icon , tirelessly advanced by Darwin defenders as a magnificent demonstration of unguided evolution by blind , material processes alone .
Prominent atheist biologist Jerry Coyne calls whale fossils “ one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition.
” These arguments get a wonderfully entertaining sendup in the upcoming “ Long Story Short ” video , “ Whale of an Evolution Tale , ” just 10 minutes long @ @ @ @ @ @ @ online debut and live discussion on the topic , a Zoom webinar , is this Thursday , April 23 , at 4 pm Pacific time or 7 pm Eastern .
Want to join us ?
The deadline to register is the same day at 10 am Pacific or 1 pm Eastern .
Registering is easy ; you can ( and must ) do it here .
Using Zoom is easy , too , as you probably know by now .
More information is available at the Discovery website .
Unfortunately we can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t register by the deadline .
The event begins with a screening of the video , and it is followed by an in-depth discussion of the scientific evidence by two senior Discovery Institute biologists , Richard Sternberg and Jonathan Wells .
Robert Crowther of the Center for Science & Culture will host , and take your questions and challenges for Dr. Stenberg and Dr. Wells .
You can pose your queries to both , or just sit back and enjoy the conversation .
It ’ s a special live Zoom event , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ miss it .
But again , you must register in advance by Thursday to join us !

Darwin thought whales possibly evolved from…bears. Measured for implausibility, that’s not far off from speculations by evolutionists today. Whales, in fact, are an evolutionary icon, tirelessly advanced by Darwin defenders as a magnificent demonstration of unguided evolution by blind, material processes alone. Prominent atheist biologist Jerry Coyne calls whale fossils “one of our best examples of an evolutionary transition.”
These arguments get a wonderfully entertaining sendup in the upcoming “Long Story Short” video, “Whale of an Evolution Tale,” just 10 minutes long, from Discovery Institute. Our FREE online debut and live discussion on the topic, a Zoom webinar, is this Thursday, April 23, at 4 pm Pacific time or 7 pm Eastern. Want to join us? The deadline to register is the same day at 10 am Pacific or 1 pm Eastern. Registering is easy; you can (and must) do it here. Using Zoom is easy, too, as you probably know by now. More information is available at the Discovery website. Unfortunately we can’t make exceptions if you don’t register by the deadline.
The event begins with a screening of the video, and it is followed by an in-depth discussion of the scientific evidence by two senior Discovery Institute biologists, Richard Sternberg and Jonathan Wells. Robert Crowther of the Center for Science & Culture will host, and take your questions and challenges for Dr. Stenberg and Dr. Wells. You can pose your queries to both, or just sit back and enjoy the conversation. It’s a special live Zoom event, as I said, so don’t miss it. But again, you must register in advance by Thursday to join us!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-22--For Earth Day, Let’s Appreciate Our Planet’s Intelligent Design

Headline : “ Earth Day : Greta Thunberg calls for ‘ new path ’ after pandemic.
” ( The Guardian ) Indeed !
Right on , Miss Thunberg .
The original Earth Day , exactly 50 years ago today , was a downer with its anti-human themes casting Earth and mankind as being tragically at odds with each other .
An iconic poster adopted the slogan , “ We have met the enemy and he is us.
” For Earth Day 2020 , let ’ s take a new path and find inspiration in the magnificent design of our planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute geneticist Michael Denton has explored this theme in wonderful depth , but in an accessible way , too .
How to get started ?
Watch “ Privileged Species ” : And “ The Biology of the Baroque ” : You ’ ll find much more on the Privileged Species website , including other documentary shorts with Dr. Denton , plus information about his books and articles .
Also , for a complementary perspective , read The Privileged Planet : How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery , by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jay Richards .
It ’ s out now in a new paperback edition with a brand new Foreword by the authors .
That ’ s the “ new path ” I ’ d recommended , as a counter to the prevailing pessimism of our culture .
My wife and I last night happened to watch the second episode of Season 1 of the 2014 HBO series True Detective .
It ’ s quite dark , and I wouldn ’ t recommend it if you are remotely sensitive to such things .
But it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting exchanges , the “ philosophical pessimist ” Detective Rust Cohle , played by Matthew McConaughey , expresses his view that the evolution of human consciousness was a tragedy , and it would be much better if we all stopped procreating and quietly went extinct .
That sometimes seems to be the underlying message of Earth Day .
Michael Denton advances a very different view , one offering light instead of darkness .
Far from humans being the “ enemy , ” alien invaders of a planet that was never meant for us @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , to put it in a very mild way — to be our home !
Of course , that means treating our planet with respect .
But it also means understanding the meaning of its intelligent design , the profound and hopeful implications for the way we think and live .
Photo : A scene from “ Why Our Sun and Atmosphere Appear Intelligently Designed , ” with Michael Denton , via Discovery Institute .

Headline: “Earth Day: Greta Thunberg calls for ‘new path’ after pandemic.” (The Guardian)
Indeed! Right on, Miss Thunberg. The original Earth Day, exactly 50 years ago today, was a downer with its anti-human themes casting Earth and mankind as being tragically at odds with each other. An iconic poster adopted the slogan, “We have met the enemy and he is us.” For Earth Day 2020, let’s take a new path and find inspiration in the magnificent design of our planet for intelligent biological beings like ourselves. Discovery Institute geneticist Michael Denton has explored this theme in wonderful depth, but in an accessible way, too. How to get started? Watch “Privileged Species”:
And “The Biology of the Baroque”:
You’ll find much more on the Privileged Species website, including other documentary shorts with Dr. Denton, plus information about his books and articles. Also, for a complementary perspective, read The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, by Discovery Institute astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez and philosopher Jay Richards. It’s out now in a new paperback edition with a brand new Foreword by the authors.
A Counter to Pessimism
That’s the “new path” I’d recommended, as a counter to the prevailing pessimism of our culture. My wife and I last night happened to watch the second episode of Season 1 of the 2014 HBO series True Detective. It’s quite dark, and I wouldn’t recommend it if you are remotely sensitive to such things. But it is thought-provoking. In one of many interesting exchanges, the “philosophical pessimist” Detective Rust Cohle, played by Matthew McConaughey, expresses his view that the evolution of human consciousness was a tragedy, and it would be much better if we all stopped procreating and quietly went extinct. That sometimes seems to be the underlying message of Earth Day.
Michael Denton advances a very different view, one offering light instead of darkness. Far from humans being the “enemy,” alien invaders of a planet that was never meant for us, the Earth was designed — intelligently, to put it in a very mild way — to be our home! Of course, that means treating our planet with respect. But it also means understanding the meaning of its intelligent design, the profound and hopeful implications for the way we think and live.
Photo: A scene from “Why Our Sun and Atmosphere Appear Intelligently Designed,” with Michael Denton, via Discovery Institute.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-22--How to Restore Science’s Lost Luster

How to Restore Science’s Lost Luster

Scientists used to be among the most trusted individuals in society .
The white lab coat marked an individual who was highly trained , very intelligent , and ultimately credible .
Changes in the last century have cast severe doubt on that picture — and scientific organizations sometimes admit it themselves .
Some are very worried about loss of public trust in their “ expert ” opinions .
They should be worried .
In his book Science and Scientism , J.P. Moreland helps put scientists in their place , as did C.S .
Lewis before him .
Moreland loves science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
But he demonstrates that scientism is not credible , because it refutes itself .
Many important fields of inquiry , he writes , are off-limits to science , and to the extent scientists invade areas outside their domain , their opinions have no more credibility than anyone else ’ s .
These fields include history , theology , and philosophy .
Moreland shows that scientists can not explain in principle things like the origin of the universe , consciousness , and morality .
And yet invade they do .
Some scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of history , philosophy , and theology .
The major journals routinely give evolutionary scientists good press , while denying access to their critics .
The majority of scientists seem incapable of questioning the consensus on climate change or Darwinian evolution .
Many also seem to follow whatever cultural fashion is trendy , such as attempting to prove that sex and gender really are divisible .
To many laymen , the scientific establishment appears like many another pressure group , always begging for more public money for projects that seem frivolous .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ passed away last month , used to catalog the most questionable science projects paid for with government funding in his infamous annual Wastebook .
Unfazed , scientists and their less critical fans carry on today with their annual “ March for Science , ” with hats out for public funding .
Stephen Meyer remarks that it is really a “ March for Scientism.
” If there is one thing that dims the luster of science for many in the public it is the near uniform alignment to one part of the political spectrum @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mainstream media and Hollywood .
Is that just a coincidence when independent minds flock together ?
Editors of science journals don ’ t get the issue .
They are aghast at the lack of public trust in science these days .
They think they deserve trust by the nature of their job .
It ’ s always the public ’ s fault , not theirs ; and so they advocate for better science education , and lobby for politicians who “ respect science.
” Some even try psychological techniques to nudge people toward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Jay Richards discuss when it is proper to doubt a consensus ) .
The overconfidence of the science establishment comes largely from their habit of thinking that their “ method ” is more reliable than any other source of knowledge .
But is it ?
At the end of this article , look for a critical element that , when missing , collapses their credibility like a house of cards .
First , consider their “ method ” and its flaws .
The simplistic “ scientific method ” we were taught in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lewis noted , It follows logically that the methods of these particular sciences differ .
The historical sciences , for example , can not replicate how a fossil was buried .
Cosmologists can not repeat the origin of the universe or the formation of stars .
The assumptions , methods , and inferences in many sciences do not follow Francis Bacon ’ s recipe of observation , hypothesis , and testing .
Much of science today is done with models , which are simulations of reality , not reality itself .
Some can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can not .
Science has ballooned into such a big tent by now that the luster of “ I ’ m a scientist ” has faded considerably ; what does evolutionary anthropology have to do with economics or quantum chromodynamics ?
Can it be argued that practitioners in each of these fields have learned to “ think scientifically ” to the same degree ?
C.S .
Lewis also said , Peer review is supposed to be one of those distinctive aspects of science that make it special , but like the “ scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a phantom .
For one thing , some of the most epic discoveries in the history of science , from Copernicus , Newton , Kepler , and on , were not peer reviewed , but were published in books .
( Notice , too , that Darwin ’ s books were not peer reviewed . )
The modern tradition of peer review began during and after World War II .
Even now , though , many scientists continue to publish books and blogs without peer review .
Another myth is that peer review @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of scholarship , from history to theology , understands the value of review and seeks advice from peers before and after publication .
Peer review , furthermore , is not a formulaic procedure devoid of bias .
In some fields , for instance , all the scientists know each other .
In the ideal picture , review is supposed to be anonymous , but a scientist might detect that a reviewer is a rival intending to either steal a discovery or downplay a paper ’ s significance .
And peer reviewers are not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ method used , or may not catch an error .
Reviewers may not have access to the software used , and may be unable to validate the programming .
As fallible humans , reviewers are also not immune from conflicts of interest .
These realities blunt the ideals of peer review , casting doubt on the often-heard claim that “ Science is self-checking.
” Who are the peers , and why are they considered trustworthy ?
What does the review say , and is it biased ?
Why should a review be incognito @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these and other reasons , outcries have been growing against peer review as it is actually practiced , and alternatives are being explored .
These include post-review and “ open science , ” where review is done openly on the Internet .
Reviewers ’ comments are signed , and their names are made public .
The success of preprints like Cornell ’ s arXiv for the physical sciences has prompted a counterpart for biologists named bioRxiv , where review is an ongoing process .
With preprints , scientists put their findings or hypotheses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can comment freely .
Such developments prove that “ peer review ” is not a method set in stone ; it evolves by artificial selection .
An opposite problem has surfaced in recent years : the rise of so-called “ predatory journals.
” These are journals that look like scientific journals but are accused of having lax peer-review standards .
They “ prey ” on scientists who can ’ t get their work published in the well-known journals , by publishing their work for a fee .
Last year Nature posted a stern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 35 scientists , complete with cartoon of a snickering wolf wearing a journal with a sheep on the cover .
Predatory journals have “ no definition , no defense ” after “ leading scholars and publishers from 10 countries spent 12 hours of discussion to try to define what they are , ” say Agnes Grudniewicz et al .
According to the 35 writers , these non-standard journals “ sow confusion , promote shoddy scholarship and waste resources.
” And yet when these criteria are examined in more detail , major journals themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a graphic in the article shows significant overlap between “ suspected predatory journals ” and “ legitimate journals.
” Is Nature the pot calling the kettle black ?
Does Nature not have self-interest ?
Does it not present “ false or misleading information ” on subjects like the origin of life and intelligent design ?
No honest person would justify the criteria put forth for predatory journals , but it seems oddly convenient for Nature — whose origin harks back to Darwin ’ s X Club which sought to make Darwin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a “ legitimate journal.
” Biographer Janet Browne points out some interesting facts about Nature ’ s founder , Norman Lockyer .
While perhaps Nature has cleaned up its act in the intervening 150 years , who are the editors of Nature to complain about predator-prey relationships ?
They should celebrate the situation in journals these days as evidence for evolution !
In Darwinian “ game theory , ” evolutionists have this all worked out .
There are “ cooperators ” and “ cheaters ” in any biological community ( Nature and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary game theory ( here is an example ) as the Darwinian explanation for the origin of governments and religions , along with termite colonies ) .
Perhaps the “ legitimate journals ” are trying to evade the “ predatory journals , ” but the point of Darwinian game theory is not to justify moral indignation .
Indignation is just a behavior that the cooperators engage in by natural selection .
The goal of evolutionary game theory is power : the cooperators have power , and the cheaters are trying to gain power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cooperators become the new cheaters .
Nothing moral about it .
Nothing legitimate about it .
It ’ s just another amoral manifestation of survival of the fittest .
Nature ’ s appeal that “ Efforts to fight predatory publishing require collaboration and support ” take on a different color in that light .
The published letters responding to Grudniewicz et al .
are illuminating .
One letter by four authors complained that the definition of “ predatory journals ” failed to mention “ peer review quality.
” They used the occasion to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” in which reviewers must publicly sign their reviews .
But is that just another evolutionary strategy against “ cheaters ” ?
Three other authors almost saw the light in their letter , “ Predatory journals : evolution keeps them under the radar.
” These authors appear blind to the irony in this claim .
The “ cheaters ” adapt , they showcase with historical examples , but what about the cooperators ?
Don ’ t evolutionists believe in the “ evolutionary arms race ” theory ?
Surely the cooperators are adapting as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there is nothing moral about this in Darwinian interplay .
It ’ s just how individuals reach equilibrium in social relationships , whether they are bacteria , honeybees , wildebeest , or journal publishers .
Here ’ s another example of the blindness that allows the journal “ cooperators ” to imagine themselves exempt from the evolutionary forces that drive the “ cheaters.
” This month in the AAAS open journal Science Advances , Jennifer Allen et al .
engage in “ Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information ecosystem ” if not an analogy to biological ecosystems under Darwinian selection ?
Their entire focus is on “ fake news ” in the media .
For the life of them , they can not turn the microscope on themselves to consider the possibility of fake science in the journals .
How are they to demonstrate that they themselves are not subject to amoral , selection-driven forces influencing their own theorizing ?
It ’ s always the public that needs better “ science education.
” It ’ s always the other journals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But in their own worldview , there ’ s no “ ought ” about it .
On what basis can they preach , : This is absurd in the light of evolution .
Actually , sowing deceit and confusion sounds like a perfectly legitimate strategy for prey animals .
Insects do it with camouflage , don ’ t they ?
If humans are mere products of evolution , then these writers are pawns in the evolutionary game , just like every other organism in the ecosystem .
Perhaps one could even say that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a strategy of blind , unintelligent forces .
The most alarming evidence of fake science is the rise of spoofing .
Humans can be great spoofers ( see “ Is Nothing Sacred ?
Public Science 2.0 Revolutionizes Scientific Practices ” ) .
But artificial intelligence is getting so good at mimicking scientific publishing , it can churn out legitimate-looking scientific papers — graphics and all — with no empirical input .
Basically , spoofed papers are robotic packs of lies dressed up in snazzy garb .
What happens to trust in science when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to peer review when AI can mimic that , too ?
There was a scene in the original Westworld movie ( 1973 ) where the protagonist ( Richard Benjamin ) , trying to escape a robotic gunslinger ( Yul Brynner ) in the amusement park run amok , rushes to help a damsel in distress who got locked behind bars and was crying .
He pours water into her lips , only to watch in horror as her electronics short out .
She was a very realistic fake person !
When even the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be trusted , what happens to scientific credibility ?
In EMBO Reports last month , Christos A. Ouzounis preached , “ Travelling to scientific meetings is a mission , not a vacation.
” Sure , traveling to scientific conferences is hard during a pandemic .
Sure , it involves sacrifice and troublesome accounting for the scientist , even if it looks like pleasurable time off to outsiders .
Sure , it is a necessary part of getting funding .
But “ science travel should again become a mission to promote research and scholarship @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He uses the “ should ” word three times .
In “ The Future of PLOS Biology , ” the editors of that publication also use the “ should ” word three times .
The editors stress their commitment to “ Open Science , ” including open peer review , as an improvement on the traditional ways of publishing scientific findings .
And yet how “ open ” are these preachers when someone presents a paper about evidence supporting intelligent design ?
Earlier in this article , a “ critical element ” was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the credibility of science like a house of cards .
When present , it solves the problems discussed above .
When emphasized , it restores the luster of science .
Many scientists presume they have it without justification , but it is essential to the credibility of science .
It ’ s just one little word .
Tell us how that evolved , Darwinians .

Scientists used to be among the most trusted individuals in society. The white lab coat marked an individual who was highly trained, very intelligent, and ultimately credible. Changes in the last century have cast severe doubt on that picture — and scientific organizations sometimes admit it themselves. Some are very worried about loss of public trust in their “expert” opinions. They should be worried.
In his book Science and Scientism, J.P. Moreland helps put scientists in their place, as did C.S. Lewis before him. Moreland loves science. He trusts much of what scientists say. But he demonstrates that scientism is not credible, because it refutes itself. Many important fields of inquiry, he writes, are off-limits to science, and to the extent scientists invade areas outside their domain, their opinions have no more credibility than anyone else’s. These fields include history, theology, and philosophy. Moreland shows that scientists cannot explain in principle things like the origin of the universe, consciousness, and morality.
Invade They Do
And yet invade they do. Some scientists continue to attempt explaining the “evolution” of history, philosophy, and theology. The major journals routinely give evolutionary scientists good press, while denying access to their critics. The majority of scientists seem incapable of questioning the consensus on climate change or Darwinian evolution. Many also seem to follow whatever cultural fashion is trendy, such as attempting to prove that sex and gender really are divisible. To many laymen, the scientific establishment appears like many another pressure group, always begging for more public money for projects that seem frivolous. The late Representative Tom Coburn, who passed away last month, used to catalog the most questionable science projects paid for with government funding in his infamous annual Wastebook. Unfazed, scientists and their less critical fans carry on today with their annual “March for Science,” with hats out for public funding. Stephen Meyer remarks that it is really a “March for Scientism.”
If there is one thing that dims the luster of science for many in the public it is the near uniform alignment to one part of the political spectrum, which is occupied also by the mainstream media and Hollywood. Is that just a coincidence when independent minds flock together? Editors of science journals don’t get the issue. They are aghast at the lack of public trust in science these days. They think they deserve trust by the nature of their job. It’s always the public’s fault, not theirs; and so they advocate for better science education, and lobby for politicians who “respect science.” Some even try psychological techniques to nudge people toward their “consensus” views (listen to Jay Richards discuss when it is proper to doubt a consensus). The overconfidence of the science establishment comes largely from their habit of thinking that their “method” is more reliable than any other source of knowledge. But is it?
At the end of this article, look for a critical element that, when missing, collapses their credibility like a house of cards. First, consider their “method” and its flaws.
Old School Days
The simplistic “scientific method” we were taught in school is a phantom. C.S. Lewis noted,
Strictly speaking, there is, I confess, no such thing as “modern science.” There are only particular sciences, all in a stage of rapid change, and sometimes inconsistent with one another. Christian Reflections, 1945
It follows logically that the methods of these particular sciences differ. The historical sciences, for example, cannot replicate how a fossil was buried. Cosmologists cannot repeat the origin of the universe or the formation of stars. The assumptions, methods, and inferences in many sciences do not follow Francis Bacon’s recipe of observation, hypothesis, and testing. Much of science today is done with models, which are simulations of reality, not reality itself. Some can be tested and refined, but others cannot.
Science has ballooned into such a big tent by now that the luster of “I’m a scientist” has faded considerably; what does evolutionary anthropology have to do with economics or quantum chromodynamics? Can it be argued that practitioners in each of these fields have learned to “think scientifically” to the same degree? C.S. Lewis also said,
The physical sciences, then, depend on the validity of logic just as much as metaphysics or mathematics. If popular thought feels “science” to be different from all other kinds of knowledge because science is experimentally verifiable, popular thought is mistaken. Experimental verification is not a new kind of assurance coming in to supply the deficiencies of mere logic. We should therefore abandon the distinction between scientific and non-scientific thought. The proper distinction is between logical and non-logical thought. De Futilitate
Peer Review
Peer review is supposed to be one of those distinctive aspects of science that make it special, but like the “scientific method,” this idea too is a phantom. For one thing, some of the most epic discoveries in the history of science, from Copernicus, Newton, Kepler, and on, were not peer reviewed, but were published in books. (Notice, too, that Darwin’s books were not peer reviewed.) The modern tradition of peer review began during and after World War II. Even now, though, many scientists continue to publish books and blogs without peer review.
Another myth is that peer review is unique to science. Every field of scholarship, from history to theology, understands the value of review and seeks advice from peers before and after publication. Peer review, furthermore, is not a formulaic procedure devoid of bias. In some fields, for instance, all the scientists know each other. In the ideal picture, review is supposed to be anonymous, but a scientist might detect that a reviewer is a rival intending to either steal a discovery or downplay a paper’s significance. And peer reviewers are not perfect; they may not understand a method used, or may not catch an error. Reviewers may not have access to the software used, and may be unable to validate the programming. As fallible humans, reviewers are also not immune from conflicts of interest. These realities blunt the ideals of peer review, casting doubt on the often-heard claim that “Science is self-checking.” Who are the peers, and why are they considered trustworthy? What does the review say, and is it biased? Why should a review be incognito? Who reviews the reviewers?
For these and other reasons, outcries have been growing against peer review as it is actually practiced, and alternatives are being explored. These include post-review and “open science,” where review is done openly on the Internet. Reviewers’ comments are signed, and their names are made public. The success of preprints like Cornell’s arXiv for the physical sciences has prompted a counterpart for biologists named bioRxiv, where review is an ongoing process. With preprints, scientists put their findings or hypotheses out on Internet servers, where others can comment freely. Such developments prove that “peer review” is not a method set in stone; it evolves by artificial selection.
Predatory Journals
An opposite problem has surfaced in recent years: the rise of so-called “predatory journals.” These are journals that look like scientific journals but are accused of having lax peer-review standards. They “prey” on scientists who can’t get their work published in the well-known journals, by publishing their work for a fee. Last year Nature posted a stern attack on predatory journals, authored by 35 scientists, complete with cartoon of a snickering wolf wearing a journal with a sheep on the cover. Predatory journals have “no definition, no defense” after “leading scholars and publishers from 10 countries spent 12 hours of discussion to try to define what they are,” say Agnes Grudniewicz et al.
Predatory journals are a global threat. They accept articles for publication — along with authors’ fees — without performing promised quality checks for issues such as plagiarism or ethical approval. Naive readers are not the only victims. Many researchers have been duped into submitting to predatory journals, in which their work can be overlooked. One study that focused on 46,000 researchers based in Italy found that about 5% of them published in such outlets. [Emphasis added.]
According to the 35 writers, these non-standard journals “sow confusion, promote shoddy scholarship and waste resources.”
The consensus definition reached was: “Predatory journals and publishers are entities that prioritize self-interest at the expense of scholarship and are characterized by false or misleading information, deviation from best editorial and publication practices, a lack of transparency, and/or the use of aggressive and indiscriminate solicitation practices.”
And yet when these criteria are examined in more detail, major journals themselves could be so accused. Indeed, a graphic in the article shows significant overlap between “suspected predatory journals” and “legitimate journals.” Is Nature the pot calling the kettle black? Does Nature not have self-interest? Does it not present “false or misleading information” on subjects like the origin of life and intelligent design? No honest person would justify the criteria put forth for predatory journals, but it seems oddly convenient for Nature — whose origin harks back to Darwin’s X Club which sought to make Darwin’s ideas look good — to justify itself as a “legitimate journal.” Biographer Janet Browne points out some interesting facts about Nature’s founder, Norman Lockyer.
To command the periodical market was a shrewd tactic in any cultural arena but one as yet little exploited in science, and while Lockyer was never a member of the X Club he displayed similarly strong, progressive, liberal opinions. Far more than any other science journal of the period, Nature was conceived, born, and raised to serve polemic purpose. In the first year of its existence, there were six or seven articles urging Darwin’s scheme, two of which were written by Darwin himself. Janet Browne, Charles Darwin: The Power of Place, 2002, p. 248
While perhaps Nature has cleaned up its act in the intervening 150 years, who are the editors of Nature to complain about predator-prey relationships? They should celebrate the situation in journals these days as evidence for evolution! In Darwinian “game theory,” evolutionists have this all worked out. There are “cooperators” and “cheaters” in any biological community (Nature and other Darwin-friendly journals frequently publish articles about evolutionary game theory (here is an example) as the Darwinian explanation for the origin of governments and religions, along with termite colonies). Perhaps the “legitimate journals” are trying to evade the “predatory journals,” but the point of Darwinian game theory is not to justify moral indignation. Indignation is just a behavior that the cooperators engage in by natural selection. The goal of evolutionary game theory is power: the cooperators have power, and the cheaters are trying to gain power. If they win, then the cooperators become the new cheaters. Nothing moral about it. Nothing legitimate about it. It’s just another amoral manifestation of survival of the fittest. Nature’s appeal that “Efforts to fight predatory publishing require collaboration and support” take on a different color in that light.
The published letters responding to Grudniewicz et al. are illuminating. One letter by four authors complained that the definition of “predatory journals” failed to mention “peer review quality.” They used the occasion to advocate for “open peer review,” in which reviewers must publicly sign their reviews. But is that just another evolutionary strategy against “cheaters”?
Three other authors almost saw the light in their letter, “Predatory journals: evolution keeps them under the radar.”
Agnes Grudniewicz and colleagues highlight the need to define what constitutes a predatory journal (Nature 576, 210–212; 2019). History shows, however, that such journals and their publishers rapidly adapt to filters that might discredit them.
These authors appear blind to the irony in this claim. The “cheaters” adapt, they showcase with historical examples, but what about the cooperators? Don’t evolutionists believe in the “evolutionary arms race” theory? Surely the cooperators are adapting as fast as the cheaters are. Again, there is nothing moral about this in Darwinian interplay. It’s just how individuals reach equilibrium in social relationships, whether they are bacteria, honeybees, wildebeest, or journal publishers.
Fake Science
Here’s another example of the blindness that allows the journal “cooperators” to imagine themselves exempt from the evolutionary forces that drive the “cheaters.” This month in the AAAS open journal Science Advances, Jennifer Allen et al. engage in “Evaluating the fake news problem at the scale of the information ecosystem.” What is an “information ecosystem” if not an analogy to biological ecosystems under Darwinian selection? Their entire focus is on “fake news” in the media. For the life of them, they cannot turn the microscope on themselves to consider the possibility of fake science in the journals. How are they to demonstrate that they themselves are not subject to amoral, selection-driven forces influencing their own theorizing? It’s always the public that needs better “science education.” It’s always the other journals that need “quality peer review.” But in their own worldview, there’s no “ought” about it. On what basis can they preach:
Arguably the deliberate circulation of false information with the objective of creating confusion and discord is intolerable in principle and should be combatted at any prevalence greater than zero.
This is absurd in the light of evolution. Actually, sowing deceit and confusion sounds like a perfectly legitimate strategy for prey animals. Insects do it with camouflage, don’t they? If humans are mere products of evolution, then these writers are pawns in the evolutionary game, just like every other organism in the ecosystem. Perhaps one could even say that publishing an article like this is merely a strategy of blind, unintelligent forces.
The most alarming evidence of fake science is the rise of spoofing. Humans can be great spoofers (see “Is Nothing Sacred? Public Science 2.0 Revolutionizes Scientific Practices”). But artificial intelligence is getting so good at mimicking scientific publishing, it can churn out legitimate-looking scientific papers — graphics and all — with no empirical input. Basically, spoofed papers are robotic packs of lies dressed up in snazzy garb. What happens to trust in science when spoofing becomes widespread? And what happens to peer review when AI can mimic that, too? There was a scene in the original Westworld movie (1973) where the protagonist (Richard Benjamin), trying to escape a robotic gunslinger (Yul Brynner) in the amusement park run amok, rushes to help a damsel in distress who got locked behind bars and was crying. He pours water into her lips, only to watch in horror as her electronics short out. She was a very realistic fake person! When even the reviewers in peer review can no longer be trusted, what happens to scientific credibility?
The Missing Ingredient
In EMBO Reports last month, Christos A. Ouzounis preached, “Travelling to scientific meetings is a mission, not a vacation.” Sure, traveling to scientific conferences is hard during a pandemic. Sure, it involves sacrifice and troublesome accounting for the scientist, even if it looks like pleasurable time off to outsiders. Sure, it is a necessary part of getting funding. But “science travel should again become a mission to promote research and scholarship and not another burden to endure.” He uses the “should” word three times.
In “The Future of PLOS Biology,” the editors of that publication also use the “should” word three times. The editors stress their commitment to “Open Science,” including open peer review, as an improvement on the traditional ways of publishing scientific findings. And yet how “open” are these preachers when someone presents a paper about evidence supporting intelligent design?
Earlier in this article, a “critical element” was mentioned that, when absent, collapses the credibility of science like a house of cards. When present, it solves the problems discussed above. When emphasized, it restores the luster of science. Many scientists presume they have it without justification, but it is essential to the credibility of science. It’s just one little word.
Integrity.
Tell us how that evolved, Darwinians.
Photo credit: Beatrice Murch, via Flickr (cropped).


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-23--Stephen Meyer on Physics and Cosmology: Online Course Opens New Frontier for Intelligent Design

Actually , the new course from DiscoveryU — “ Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design ” — opens a number of frontiers .
For one , it ’ s the first course that this charismatic philosopher of science and New York Times bestselling author has taught since he was a college professor .
But the really important new frontier for Dr. Meyer is a substantive one : from chemical and biological evolution , he now turns his attention to physics and cosmology .
As an introductory courtesy , we are currently offering a coupon worth 25 percent off @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Just enter the code mgen25 when you check out .
More information is here .
Dr. Meyer introduces the course in a new episode of ID the Future .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
In the course , he covers what he calls the “ three discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe.
” The discoveries have to do with the origin of life , the development of complex life , and the origin of the cosmos .
The last of these represents an area that until now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It ’ s a focus of his next book , The Return of the God Hypothesis .
The book is written , and this week we got news of the finalized publication date , April 30 , 2021 .
That ’ s right , about a year away .
Publishers don ’ t rush things .
If you ’ re impatient to hear the evidence for intelligent design in the structure of the universe and its laws , then Meyer ’ s online course is the place to go to hear it @ @ @

Actually, the new course from DiscoveryU — “Stephen Meyer Investigates Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design” — opens a number of frontiers. For one, it’s the first online course that this charismatic philosopher of science and New York Times bestselling author has offered at DiscoveryU.org. But the really important new frontier for Dr. Meyer is a substantive one: from chemical and biological evolution, he now turns his attention to physics and cosmology.
As an introductory courtesy, we are currently offering a coupon worth 25 percent off the full cost of the course. Just enter the code mgen25 when you check out. More information is here. Dr. Meyer introduces the course in a new episode of ID the Future. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
In the course, he covers what he calls the “three discoveries that reveal the mind behind the universe.” The discoveries have to do with the origin of life, the development of complex life, and the origin of the cosmos. The last of these represents an area that until now Dr. Meyer hasn’t publicly explored. It’s a focus of his next book, The Return of the God Hypothesis. The book is written, and this week we got news of the finalized publication date, March 30, 2021. That’s right, about a year away. Publishers don’t rush things. If you’re impatient to hear the evidence for intelligent design in the structure of the universe and its laws, then Meyer’s online course is the place to go to hear it right now.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-23--An Astronomer Considers the Origin of Life, with Sobering Results

Is life a gamble ?
Scientist models universe to find out Scientists suspect that the complex life that slithers and crawls through every nook and cranny on Earth emerged from a random shuffling of non-living matter that ultimately spit out the building blocks of life .
Even so , the details to support the idea are lacking .
But researchers recently got creative in figuring out the probability of life actually emerging spontaneously from such inorganic matter — a process called abiogenesis .
In the study , Tomonori Totani , a professor of astrophysics at the University of Tokyo , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the epic scale of the entire universe to see if abiogenesis is a likely candidate for the origin of life .
He was essentially looking at whether there were enough stars with habitable planets in the universe at the time to allow complexity to arise .
His results , published Feb. 3 in the journal Nature , show the betting odds for life emerging are not good , at least for the observable universe .
The article is sobering , because biologists are generally bad with big numbers , and astronomers love big @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This is a cross-over attempt by a Japanese astronomer to do RNA-world origin-of-life calculations .
His paper can be found here .
He decides that the RNA-world “ origin-of-life ” game can be won if he can accidentally make a self-replicating RNA strand .
As per the rules of the game , assume an ocean full of RNA monomers ( nucleotides ) just waiting to be hitched up .
Yes , this is like saying “ assume the answer minus the last step.
” And no , it is even more unlikely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are the rules .
He ’ s pseudo-realistic enough to know that it takes 40-100 nucleotides to make a catalytic RNA strand .
Given that there are 4 possible nucleotides for each position , that is 4^ ( 40 ) up to 4^ ( 100 ) , or 1.2×10^ ( 24 ) up to 1.6×10^60 permutations for that magic sequence .
But the probability is worse than this , because ( a ) we need two strands to replicate — one to be the template , the other to be the enzyme , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is done in the lab , we never get more than about 10 nucleotides long , because the shorter ones outnumber the longer ones .
This is precisely what you would expect from “ diffusion-limited growth , ” where big snowflakes grow more slowly than small ones , so all the snowflakes come out the same size .
( b ) means that it isn ’ t just the number of permutations that slow down the synthesis , it ’ s the competition with all the shorter RNA strands .
For diffusion-limited growth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ active ” end of the RNA becomes a decreasing percentage of the surface of the RNA .
Once the RNA coils or bunches or clumps , the active ends aren ’ t even available to add more nucleotides .
So you have a probability that goes as P = 1/N !
* exp^ ( -kN ) .
Alas , already the esteemed astronomer has ignored the physics .
He assumes that monomers add by a Poisson process , which means the rate of polymerization is independent of length .
It makes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thousand orders of magnitude from the probability , but it totally ignores both the biology and the chemistry .
For the record , that ’ s the second tooth fairy .
Just to make things worse , he assumes clay will catalyze the reaction , seemingly unaware that clay is a bio-mineral that doesn ’ t form on its own .
But out of mercy , we ’ ll let that tooth fairy pass .
Then he adds an “ evolution ” probability to his calculation .
I assume that this is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only produce offspring , but twin mutated offspring .
Now evolution is one of the requirements for living things , and he wants living things to be created by evolution !
There are numerous quotes by the great minds of Darwinism saying that abiotic chemistry does not possess evolution .
It really feels like this step is buying the farm .
So this seems to be a third tooth fairy .
He ends up with a quasi-Drake equation of five unknown probabilities for the probability of OOL .
One of them is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He plugs in a number like 10^ ( 25 ) by assuming they are delivered by carbonaceous chondrite meteorites .
Now since these same CI meteorites have fossilized cyanobacteria on them , the whole calculation should be finished — life spontaneously appears .
But instead , he assumes the fossils don ’ t exist , but the nucleotides do , being made in the Great Cosmic Abiotic Nucleotide Factory in Outer Space .
Just for the record , that GCANFOS also makes only chiral amino acids and chiral nucleotides using the same deep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ give that a fourth tooth fairy .
He goes back to the lover ’ s paradox of twins finding each other in the vast ocean , and decides that it is equivalent to making an RNA strand twice as long .
I didn ’ t follow the logic , but then he ’ s not paying any attention to the chemistry either .
So he raises his minimum RNA length from 80-200 bases long .
That ’ s now 10^48 — 10^120 permutations , but at least it no longer penalizes the quasi-Drake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ penalizes the diffusion-limited growth length .
Once again , I find this a somewhat dishonorable way to solve the lover ’ s paradox , but I ’ ll let this one be a part of tooth fairy number two .
After grinding through this calculation with these most favorable of odds for the final step of RNA-world , he still is short some 78 orders of magnitude .
Putting that into perspective , the visible universe has 10^80 equivalent H-atoms , so this is like finding a single silver atom in the entire @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only reasonable sentence in the whole paper : Which he follows with what is perhaps the least reasonable sentence in the paper : In other words , since we are here , evolution is true and so is OOL .
How ’ s that for crushing logic ?
In my opinion , only one tooth fairy is allowed per theory , and this one has at least four , making its irrelevance nearly guaranteed .
But what he does next , gives away the entire game : He says , in effect @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of magnitude to our calculation by invoking an inflationary universe , so the real universe has whatever probabilistic resources needed , since inflation could add 36 orders of magnitude , 150 orders of magnitude , or even 1,000 orders of magnitude , being entirely unconstrained by observations and therefore entirely metaphysical .
Being metaphysical , we can call inflation whatever we want , so let ’ s just call it “ god ” consistent with what it is called in most of the historically important literature .
Why do I find this sobering @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not progressing , but regressing — adding bad physics to already bad chemistry and bad biology — even after restricting itself to the most trivial of steps .
Image : Kepler-1649c ( artist ’ s imagining ) , an “ Earth-size exoplanet orbiting in its star ’ s habitable zone , ” by NASA/Ames Research Center/Daniel Rutte .

Live Science reports:
Is life a gamble? Scientist models universe to find out Scientists suspect that the complex life that slithers and crawls through every nook and cranny on Earth emerged from a random shuffling of non-living matter that ultimately spit out the building blocks of life. Even so, the details to support the idea are lacking. But researchers recently got creative in figuring out the probability of life actually emerging spontaneously from such inorganic matter — a process called abiogenesis. In the study, Tomonori Totani, a professor of astrophysics at the University of Tokyo, modeled the microscopic world of molecules across the epic scale of the entire universe to see if abiogenesis is a likely candidate for the origin of life. He was essentially looking at whether there were enough stars with habitable planets in the universe at the time to allow complexity to arise. His results, published Feb. 3 in the journal Nature, show the betting odds for life emerging are not good, at least for the observable universe.
A Cross-Over Attempt
The article is sobering, because biologists are generally bad with big numbers, and astronomers love big numbers but are bad with cellular biology. This is a cross-over attempt by a Japanese astronomer to do RNA-world origin-of-life calculations. His paper can be found here.
He decides that the RNA-world “origin-of-life” game can be won if he can accidentally make a self-replicating RNA strand. As per the rules of the game, assume an ocean full of RNA monomers (nucleotides) just waiting to be hitched up. Yes, this is like saying “assume the answer minus the last step.” And no, it is even more unlikely than the last step, but those are the rules.
He’s pseudo-realistic enough to know that it takes 40-100 nucleotides to make a catalytic RNA strand. Given that there are 4 possible nucleotides for each position, that is 4^(40) up to 4^(100), or 1.2×10^(24) up to 1.6×10^60 permutations for that magic sequence. But the probability is worse than this, because (a) we need two strands to replicate — one to be the template, the other to be the enzyme, and (b) when this experiment is done in the lab, we never get more than about 10 nucleotides long, because the shorter ones outnumber the longer ones. This is precisely what you would expect from “diffusion-limited growth,” where big snowflakes grow more slowly than small ones, so all the snowflakes come out the same size.
(a) means that you have to have twin RNA molecules meet each other in the ocean. Making the ocean bigger to get the first one makes it harder for the second one to meet it. You just can’t win this game by dumping the entire jar of Fischer Scientific reagents into the Erlenmeyer flask. (They tried.)
(b) means that it isn’t just the number of permutations that slow down the synthesis, it’s the competition with all the shorter RNA strands. For diffusion-limited growth, you can think of it as the “active” end of the RNA becomes a decreasing percentage of the surface of the RNA. Once the RNA coils or bunches or clumps, the active ends aren’t even available to add more nucleotides. So you have a probability that goes as P = 1/N! * exp^(-kN).
Ignoring Biology and Chemistry
Alas, already the esteemed astronomer has ignored the physics. He assumes that monomers add by a Poisson process, which means the rate of polymerization is independent of length. It makes for pretty math and drops a few thousand orders of magnitude from the probability, but it totally ignores both the biology and the chemistry. For the record, that’s the second tooth fairy.
Just to make things worse, he assumes clay will catalyze the reaction, seemingly unaware that clay is a bio-mineral that doesn’t form on its own. But out of mercy, we’ll let that tooth fairy pass.
Then he adds an “evolution” probability to his calculation. I assume that this is the probability that the twin monomers will not only produce offspring, but twin mutated offspring. Now evolution is one of the requirements for living things, and he wants living things to be created by evolution! There are numerous quotes by the great minds of Darwinism saying that abiotic chemistry does not possess evolution. It really feels like this step is buying the farm. So this seems to be a third tooth fairy.
A Quasi-Drake Equation
He ends up with a quasi-Drake equation of five unknown probabilities for the probability of OOL. One of them is the number of nucleotides in his ocean. He plugs in a number like 10^(25) by assuming they are delivered by carbonaceous chondrite meteorites. Now since these same CI meteorites have fossilized cyanobacteria on them, the whole calculation should be finished — life spontaneously appears. But instead, he assumes the fossils don’t exist, but the nucleotides do, being made in the Great Cosmic Abiotic Nucleotide Factory in Outer Space. Just for the record, that GCANFOS also makes only chiral amino acids and chiral nucleotides using the same deep magic. I’m going to give that a fourth tooth fairy.
He goes back to the lover’s paradox of twins finding each other in the vast ocean, and decides that it is equivalent to making an RNA strand twice as long. I didn’t follow the logic, but then he’s not paying any attention to the chemistry either. So he raises his minimum RNA length from 80-200 bases long. That’s now 10^48 — 10^120 permutations, but at least it no longer penalizes the quasi-Drake equation for adding more volume, or penalizes the diffusion-limited growth length. Once again, I find this a somewhat dishonorable way to solve the lover’s paradox, but I’ll let this one be a part of tooth fairy number two.
After grinding through this calculation with these most favorable of odds for the final step of RNA-world, he still is short some 78 orders of magnitude. Putting that into perspective, the visible universe has 10^80 equivalent H-atoms, so this is like finding a single silver atom in the entire universe. This causes him to write the only reasonable sentence in the whole paper:
If we consider only the conservative abiotic polymerization, i.e., statistically adding monomers, the probability of abiogenesis may be extremely low on a terrestrial planet.
Which he follows with what is perhaps the least reasonable sentence in the paper:
This case is not in contradiction with our existence on Earth, because we would find ourselves on a planet where abiogenesis happened.
One Tooth Fairy Per Theory
In other words, since we are here, evolution is true and so is OOL. How’s that for crushing logic?
In my opinion, only one tooth fairy is allowed per theory, and this one has at least four, making its irrelevance nearly guaranteed. But what he does next, gives away the entire game:
The observable universe is just a tiny part, whose volume is likely smaller than 1/10^(78) of the whole universe created by an inflation, and there is no strong reason to expect more than one abiogenesis event in such a small region.
He says, in effect, we can just add 78 orders of magnitude to our calculation by invoking an inflationary universe, so the real universe has whatever probabilistic resources needed, since inflation could add 36 orders of magnitude, 150 orders of magnitude, or even 1,000 orders of magnitude, being entirely unconstrained by observations and therefore entirely metaphysical. Being metaphysical, we can call inflation whatever we want, so let’s just call it “god” consistent with what it is called in most of the historically important literature.
Why do I find this sobering? Because it shows that OOL is not progressing, but regressing — adding bad physics to already bad chemistry and bad biology — even after restricting itself to the most trivial of steps.
Image: Kepler-1649c (artist’s imagining), an “Earth-size exoplanet orbiting in its star’s habitable zone,” by NASA/Ames Research Center/Daniel Rutte.