evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-07--Elk Goes Down; Darwin Breathes a Sigh of Relief

Those Darwin statues can draw a sigh of relief .
I worried that “ protesters ” in the U.S. and U.K. might pick up a copy of The Descent of Man and realize that Charles Darwin supplied a pseudoscientific basis for hair-raising racism and even genocide .
I warned against the prospect of their pulling down or mutilating historic statues of Darwin .
More recently , events have suggested that the vandals are interested more in mindless destruction than in making a statement about racial equality .
Now they ’ ve attacked a statue of an elk in Portland , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
A symbol of a city , representing an artist ’ s effort and creativity , that had seen 120 years of Portland ’ s history , and that can ’ t remotely be connected to race or racism , is now gone .
Julie Borg at World Magazine summarizes some of the historical background on Darwin and race , citing our colleagues John West , Wesley Smith , and me .
Race-based discrimination has multiple sources , many of which preceded Darwin , but evolutionary theory gave “ a powerful push to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impacts us today , ” said John West , vice president and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute .
In his 1871 book The Descent of Man , Darwin depicted Africans as less evolved than white people .
The mainstream scientific community in Europe and the United States accepted that characterization and used it to promote racial discrimination .
“ For generations , American public school children learned from their biology textbooks the pseudoscience that Caucasians are more advanced on the evolutionary ladder than Africans , ” David Klinghoffer , another senior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Evolution News and Science Today .
The academic institutions ’ racism seeped into popular society , as West traces in his documentary Human Zoos : America ’ s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism .
Former Association for the Advancement of Science President William McGee transported thousands of indigenous people from around the world to display in a “ human zoo ” at the 1904 World ’ s Fair in St. Louis .
The exhibits described them as a kind of missing link between apes and humans to demonstrate the truth of evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by McGee making a similar argument .
Organizers set up such human exhibits in places like New York City and Seattle to educate the public on Darwin ’ s theory .
Four decades after the United States outlawed slavery , Samuel Phillips Verner purchased a young Mbuti pygmy man named Ota Benga from slave traders in the Congo for the World ’ s Fair exhibit .
In 1906 , officials at the Bronx Zoo in New York City put Benga in a cage with an orangutan .
When two African American clergymen raised @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York Times responded with an article assuring people that “ the pygmies … are very low in the human scale , ” Klinghoffer noted .
The fact that , given all this , the vandals are not likely to turn their fury on Darwin statues is another indication that their violence isn ’ t really about black lives .
They desecrate an elk , but hold the prime modern fountain of anti-black scientific racism as blameless .
What more do you need to know ?
Speaking of which , here ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ friends .
In light of any serious consideration of Judeo-Christian tradition , denigrating any human by reference to his race is intolerable .
If religious believers are consistent with Scripture , we must hold every man and woman , of whatever skin tone , as equal in reflecting God ’ s image .
Obviously , not every believer has been consistent .
But it ’ s no coincidence that the abolitionist and civil rights movements both arose not among atheists but among passionate Christians .
It ’ s why pastors and priests protested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Bronx Zoo in 1906 , while a sneering New York Times defended it : By contrast , from the viewpoint of unguided evolution , why would you expect that human populations ( “ races ” ) would be equal ?
Why would that thought even cross an evolutionist ’ s mind ?
Think about other species that no one regards as being stamped with a divine image .
We have no problem agreeing that different breeds of dogs are unequal .
Of course they ’ re unequal !
Here ’ s a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with Border Collie at the top and Afghan Hound , poor dear , at the bottom .
Nor do we have a problem with ranking dogs by their dollar value .
Here ’ s a list of the 45 most expensive breeds .
Are you offended ?
I didn ’ t think so .
Given a Darwinian starting point to your reasoning , that humans would exhibit a racial hierarchy is what you ’ d expect .
Ask your Darwinist friends why purposeless nature gives us instead , against all reason , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hierarchies of dominance .
Why not humans ?
What is the evolutionary argument against unapologetic racism and the supremacy of whatever race can climb to the top ?
If you ’ re honest with yourself , that question has no answer .
Photo : Portland ’ s elk statue in better days , by Cacophony ( photograph ) / Public domain .

Those Darwin statues can draw a sigh of relief. I worried that “protesters” in the U.S. and U.K. might pick up a copy of The Descent of Man and realize that Charles Darwin supplied a pseudoscientific basis for hair-raising racism and even genocide. I warned against the prospect of their pulling down or mutilating historic statues of Darwin.
More recently, events have suggested that the vandals are interested more in mindless destruction than in making a statement about racial equality. Now they’ve attacked a statue of an elk in Portland, Oregon. An elk, mind you. A symbol of a city, representing an artist’s effort and creativity, that had seen 120 years of Portland’s history, and that can’t remotely be connected to race or racism, is now gone.
“A Powerful Push” to Racism
Julie Borg at World Magazine summarizes some of the historical background on Darwin and race, citing our colleagues John West, Wesley Smith, and me.
Race-based discrimination has multiple sources, many of which preceded Darwin, but evolutionary theory gave “a powerful push to a scientific version of racism that still impacts us today,” said John West, vice president and a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute. In his 1871 book The Descent of Man, Darwin depicted Africans as less evolved than white people. The mainstream scientific community in Europe and the United States accepted that characterization and used it to promote racial discrimination. “For generations, American public school children learned from their biology textbooks the pseudoscience that Caucasians are more advanced on the evolutionary ladder than Africans,” David Klinghoffer, another senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, wrote for Evolution News and Science Today. The academic institutions’ racism seeped into popular society, as West traces in his documentary Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism. Former Association for the Advancement of Science President William McGee transported thousands of indigenous people from around the world to display in a “human zoo” at the 1904 World’s Fair in St. Louis. The exhibits described them as a kind of missing link between apes and humans to demonstrate the truth of evolution. The journal Science published an article by McGee making a similar argument. Organizers set up such human exhibits in places like New York City and Seattle to educate the public on Darwin’s theory. Four decades after the United States outlawed slavery, Samuel Phillips Verner purchased a young Mbuti pygmy man named Ota Benga from slave traders in the Congo for the World’s Fair exhibit. In 1906, officials at the Bronx Zoo in New York City put Benga in a cage with an orangutan. When two African American clergymen raised objections to his inhumane treatment, The New York Times responded with an article assuring people that “the pygmies … are very low in the human scale,” Klinghoffer noted.
The fact that, given all this, the vandals are not likely to turn their fury on Darwin statues is another indication that their violence isn’t really about black lives. They desecrate an elk, but hold the prime modern fountain of anti-black scientific racism as blameless. What more do you need to know?
A Question for Your Friends
Speaking of which, here’s a question to pose to your evolutionist friends. In light of any serious consideration of Judeo-Christian tradition, denigrating any human by reference to his race is intolerable. If religious believers are consistent with Scripture, we must hold every man and woman, of whatever skin tone, as equal in reflecting God’s image. Obviously, not every believer has been consistent. But it’s no coincidence that the abolitionist and civil rights movements both arose not among atheists but among passionate Christians. It’s why pastors and priests protested the caging of an African pygmy at the Bronx Zoo in 1906, while a sneering New York Times defended it:
By contrast, from the viewpoint of unguided evolution, why would you expect that human populations (“races”) would be equal? Why would that thought even cross an evolutionist’s mind?
A Hierarchy of Species
Think about other species that no one regards as being stamped with a divine image. We have no problem agreeing that different breeds of dogs are unequal. Of course they’re unequal! Here’s a list of 79 breeds ranked by intelligence, with Border Collie at the top and Afghan Hound, poor dear, at the bottom.
Nor do we have a problem with ranking dogs by their dollar value. Here’s a list of the 45 most expensive breeds. Are you offended? I didn’t think so.
Given a Darwinian starting point to your reasoning, that humans would exhibit a racial hierarchy is what you’d expect. Ask your Darwinist friends why purposeless nature gives us instead, against all reason, human equality.
Animals arrange themselves into hierarchies of dominance. Why not humans? What is the evolutionary argument against unapologetic racism and the supremacy of whatever race can climb to the top? If you’re honest with yourself, that question has no answer.
Photo: Portland’s elk statue in better days, by Cacophony (photograph) / Public domain.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-06--In a Nutshell: Three Problems for Evolution

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Andrew McDiarmid continues his conversation with Robert Waltzer , chairman of the Department of Biology at Belhaven University and co-author of the new book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell .
Dr. Waltzer discusses three big problems faced by naturalistic evolutionary theory .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
First , it appears that science has turned up several instances of what is known as irreducible complexity , something that Darwin himself said would falsify his theory if ever discovered .
In this context , Waltzer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oxygen to be carried by the blood .
Second , various proposed “ trees of life ” conflict with each other , a problem that has grown worse as additional evidence and methods have arisen , a trend that makes theories of common descent difficult to sustain .
And third , we know of no case where information is generated or improved without intelligent action behind it .
Evolutionists still hold fast to their theories , but why are they not more open at least to debate and criticism ?
Professor Waltzer suggests @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the top : Vector8DIY , via Pixabay .

Image credit: Vector8DIY, via Pixabay.
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Andrew McDiarmid continues his conversation with Robert Waltzer, chairman of the Department of Biology at Belhaven University and co-author of the new book Evolution and Intelligent Design in a Nutshell. Dr. Waltzer discusses three big problems faced by naturalistic evolutionary theory. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
First, it appears that science has turned up several instances of what is known as irreducible complexity, something that Darwin himself said would falsify his theory if ever discovered. In this context, Waltzer briefly details the engineering wonder that permits oxygen to be carried by the blood. Second, various proposed “trees of life” conflict with each other, a problem that has grown worse as additional evidence and methods have arisen, a trend that makes theories of common descent difficult to sustain. And third, we know of no case where information is generated or improved without intelligent action behind it.
Evolutionists still hold fast to their theories, but why are they not more open at least to debate and criticism? Professor Waltzer suggests multiple possible reasons for that.
Image at the top: Vector8DIY, via Pixabay.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-06--NCSE Underreports Teachers Who Support Intelligent Design

The National Center for Science Education ( NCSE ) is a non-profit group that has one primary mission : to censor minority scientific viewpoints on hot-button issues like evolution ( and more recently , climate change ) .
One might think that such a mission would render them NGO non grata within the scientific community , which is supposed to oppose dogmatism and welcome scientific questioning .
Unfortunately , the opposite is the case .
In the 1980s , the NCSE was conceived and birthed out of a direct alliance between some of the world ’ s most powerful science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Academy of Sciences , the National Association of Biology Teachers , and the American Association for the Advancement of Science .
For decades , NCSE staff have had seemingly open doors to publish opinion articles — “ calls to action ” for scientists to rise up as activists against any dissent they label “ creationism ” — in virtually any kind of scientific journal and at any time they wish .
Those who answer the call are lauded as heroes .
Thus , it was no surprise that last month the NCSE ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ article in the world ’ s top scientific journal , Nature , reporting on apparent successes they have had in preventing teachers from teaching “ creationism ” in public schools .
This was accompanied by the customary calls for scientists to “ help by letting their societies and local leaders know that science education is important to them , and that they are willing to volunteer.
” It ’ s important to appreciate that when they say “ creationism , ” that essentially entails any form of scientific dissent from the view that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ correct with no scientific flaws .
That may sound too dogmatic to believe , but consider that Reid ’ s predecessor at the NCSE , Eugenie Scott , once famously declared , “ There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
” Sarah Chaffee has already explained that Reid ’ s article left out some important details about science policies around the United States that support critical analysis of evolution .
But there ’ s more important evidence that Reid omitted .
Reid states in her first paragraph that the proportion of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by 14 percent from 2007 to 2019 : Bearing in mind that their methodology typically conflates “ intelligent design ” and “ creationism , ” we looked up the Plutzer et al .
( 2020 ) referenced article in Evolution Education and Outreach , of which Reid is a coauthor .
After digging into their dataset , we find a somewhat different story .
Table 4 of the paper compares the results of the 2007 and 2019 surveys .
It shows the proportion of teachers that either “ agree ” or “ strongly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ I emphasize that intelligent design is a valid , scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.
” As seen in the first question below , the percentage of teachers that affirm this statement is actually precisely unchanged from between 2007 and 2019 — 14 percent vs. 14 percent : And look at the second question — teachers who apparently “ agree ” or “ strongly agree ” with the following statement : “ I emphasize that many reputable scientists view creationism or intelligent design as valid alternatives to Darwinian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of teachers agreed with this statement , but in 2019 this percentage went up to 19 percent .
Of course , a 1 percent increase is not statistically significant , but this is very different from the huge decline in teachers who teach “ creationism ” that Reid touted in her Nature article .
Instead , in her Nature article Reid focuses on the percent of teachers who are “ exclusively emphasizing creationism ” and those who promote what she calls “ mixed messages.
” Unfortunately , “ mixed messages ” is an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ define in their paper .
So it ’ s difficult to know how Reid supports her claims .
As Sarah Chaffee details , Discovery Institute does not support public schools pushing intelligent design into the curriculum and instead supports teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution .
As we ’ ll explain soon their study doesn ’ t report how many teachers actually follow Discovery Institute ’ s recommended approach .
But the point here is that there are key metrics in the study ’ s dataset that show that overall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ roughly the same since 2007 .
Ignoring this evidence , Ann Reid ’ s Nature report paints a rosy picture for ID-opponents .
She ignores the evidence , and instead cites an ambiguously defined statistic to claim a major drop .
Perhaps this should come as no surprise .
What else would you expect from a group whose approach is to never admit weaknesses ?

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a non-profit group that has one primary mission: to censor minority scientific viewpoints on hot-button issues like evolution (and more recently, climate change). One might think that such a mission would render them NGO non grata within the scientific community, which is supposed to oppose dogmatism and welcome scientific questioning. Unfortunately, the opposite is the case.
In the 1980s, the NCSE was conceived and birthed out of a direct alliance between some of the world’s most powerful science and teaching organizations: the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. For decades, NCSE staff have had seemingly open doors to publish opinion articles — “calls to action” for scientists to rise up as activists against any dissent they label “creationism” — in virtually any kind of scientific journal and at any time they wish. Those who answer the call are lauded as heroes.
No Surprise
Thus, it was no surprise that last month the NCSE’s executive director Ann Reid published an article in the world’s top scientific journal, Nature, reporting on apparent successes they have had in preventing teachers from teaching “creationism” in public schools. This was accompanied by the customary calls for scientists to “help by letting their societies and local leaders know that science education is important to them, and that they are willing to volunteer.”
It’s important to appreciate that when they say “creationism,” that essentially entails any form of scientific dissent from the view that the neo-Darwinian paradigm of evolution is fully correct with no scientific flaws. That may sound too dogmatic to believe, but consider that Reid’s predecessor at the NCSE, Eugenie Scott, once famously declared, “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.”
Admit No Weaknesses
Sarah Chaffee has already explained that Reid’s article left out some important details about science policies around the United States that support critical analysis of evolution. But there’s more important evidence that Reid omitted.
Reid states in her first paragraph that the proportion of teachers who teach “creationism” dropped by 14 percent from 2007 to 2019:
Results published on 10 June show that the proportion of US secondary-school biology teachers who present creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution fell from 32% in 2007 to 18% in 2019 (E. Plutzer et al. Evo. Edu. Outreach 13, 14; 2020).
Bearing in mind that their methodology typically conflates “intelligent design” and “creationism,” we looked up the Plutzer et al. (2020) referenced article in Evolution Education and Outreach, of which Reid is a coauthor. After digging into their dataset, we find a somewhat different story.
Table 4 of the paper compares the results of the 2007 and 2019 surveys. It shows the proportion of teachers that either “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statement: “I emphasize that intelligent design is a valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations for the origin of species.” As seen in the first question below, the percentage of teachers that affirm this statement is actually precisely unchanged from between 2007 and 2019 — 14 percent vs. 14 percent:
Table 4 (partial), reprinted under creative commons license from Plutzer, E., Branch, G. & Reid, A. Teaching evolution in U.S. public schools: a continuing challenge. Evo Edu Outreach 13, 14 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12052-020-00126-8
And look at the second question — teachers who apparently “agree” or “strongly agree” with the following statement: “I emphasize that many reputable scientists view creationism or intelligent design as valid alternatives to Darwinian theory.” In 2007, 18 percent of teachers agreed with this statement, but in 2019 this percentage went up to 19 percent. Of course, a 1 percent increase is not statistically significant, but this is very different from the huge decline in teachers who teach “creationism” that Reid touted in her Nature article.
“Mixed Messages”
Instead, in her Nature article Reid focuses on the percent of teachers who are “exclusively emphasizing creationism” and those who promote what she calls “mixed messages.” Unfortunately, “mixed messages” is an ambiguous category they construct but never clearly define in their paper. So it’s difficult to know how Reid supports her claims.
As Sarah Chaffee details, Discovery Institute does not support public schools pushing intelligent design into the curriculum and instead supports teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of Darwinian evolution. As we’ll explain soon their study doesn’t report how many teachers actually follow Discovery Institute’s recommended approach.
But the point here is that there are key metrics in the study’s dataset that show that overall teacher instruction about intelligent design has stayed roughly the same since 2007. Ignoring this evidence, Ann Reid’s Nature report paints a rosy picture for ID-opponents. She ignores the evidence, and instead cites an ambiguously defined statistic to claim a major drop.
Perhaps this should come as no surprise. What else would you expect from a group whose approach is to never admit weaknesses?
Photo credit: Felicia Buitenwerf via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-06--The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis

The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis

In a recent series of Evolution News articles ( Bechly 2018b , 2019 , 2020a , 2020b , 2020c ) , to be continued soon , I have presented evidence and arguments that refute several alleged fossil animals from the Ediacaran period , which had been proposed as potential precursors of Cambrian animal phyla .
Of course , the general absence of fossil bilaterian animals from the Ediacaran era is hardly a secret among paleontologists , but certainly an inconvenient truth , because it leaves the appearance of complex animal phyla during the Cambrian explosion disturbingly unexplained .
It also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of complex body plans from the bottom up , starting with simple unicellular organisms and the subsequent stepwise addition of many small changes .
Where are the proposed thousands of intermediate forms that led to Cambrian animals like trilobites ?
Evolutionists were dumbfounded by the silence in the fossil record and had to come up with a ready explanation for this conflicting evidence .
The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “ artifact hypothesis , ” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors , but that those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have not yet been found ( Meyer et al .
2007 : 144 ) , because of the incompleteness of the fossil record .
This ad hoc hypothesis was originally proposed by Charles Walcott , the discoverer of the famous Burges Shale fossils .
More recently it was for example championed by paleontologist Donald Prothero in his critical review of Stephen C. Meyer ’ s book Darwin ’ s Doubt ( Prothero 2013 ) .
In his seminal work Darwin ’ s Doubt , Stephen Meyer ( 2013 ) had thoroughly discussed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the available scientific evidence .
As a paleontologist , I can hardly agree more with this conclusion .
My only point of difference would be that I would no longer consider the phosphatized “ embryo-like ” fossils of the Wen ’ an Biota from the Doushantuo Formation in China as best argument , because of their highly controversial and very dubious attribution ( Bechly 2020c ) .
Nevertheless , the fact that most specialists reject any affinity of these fossils with crown-group animals ( Zhang et al .
1998 , Xue et al @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2006 , Bailey et al .
2007 , Huldtgren et al .
2011 , 2012 , Butterfield 2011 , Kaplan 2011 , Bengtson et al .
2012 , Chen et al .
2014 , Cunningham et al .
2017 ) strongly suggests that there is no convincing evidence for any animals from this 560-million-year-old locality .
Of course , the argument from the Doushantou fossils is somewhat weak , because it is a very specific type of fossilization that implies taphonomic filters to what can be preserved and what not .
But we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artifact hypothesis .
According to Gaines et al .
( 2012 ) , “ Burgess Shale−type biotas occur globally in the Cambrian record and offer unparalleled insight into the Cambrian explosion , the initial Phanerozoic radiation of the Metazoa .
Deposits bearing exceptionally preserved soft-bodied fossils are unusually common in Cambrian strata ; more than 40 are now known.
” Thus , we definitely should expect to find the postulated ancestors of the Cambrian animal phyla in Burgess Shale-type localities of the preceding Ediacaran era .
The artifact hypothesis suggested that there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past years several fossiliferous Burgess Shale-type ( BST ) biota from the Ediacaran have been discovered : • Miaohe biota of southern China ( Xiao et al .
2002 , Tang et al .
2008 , Ye et al .
2017 ) • Zuun-Arts biota of western Mongolia ( Dornbos et al .
2016 , Hassell et al .
2017 ) None of these Ediacaran biotas yielded any uncontroversial fossil record of animals !
Especially important are the vast deposits of the Miaohe and Lantian biotas in China and the Zuun-arts biota @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bilaterian animals and only yielded fossil algae and problematic organisms .
A proposed cnidarian affinity of some Lantian fossils ( Van Iten et al .
2013 , Wan et al .
2016 ) remains equivocal ( Bowyer et al .
2017 ) and they could rather represent macroalgae as well ( Yuan et al .
2011 ) .
Even the most recent study by Daley et al .
( 2018 ) , which very unsuccessfully ( Bechly 2018a ) tried to downplay the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion , acknowledged that these new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not just unknown from the Ediacaran because of preservation issues but because they definitely did not yet exist .
Daley et al .
discussed all the above-mentioned Burgess Shale-type localities from the Ediacaran and concluded that the “ modes of fossil preservation are comparable in the Cambrian and Precambrian.
” In their abstract they affirmed that : “ BSTs from the latest Ediacaran Period ( e.g.
, Miaohe biota , 550 Ma ) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals , which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows , such @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 560 Ma ) .
” Now , a new study by Anderson et al .
( 2020 ) , published in a Royal Society journal , analyzed microfossils from a 1-billion-year-old and two 800-million-year-old localities in Russia , Svalbard , and Canada , which also belong to the Burgess Shale type and thus could preserve early soft-bodied animals .
The authors conclude in their abstract : “ These deposits lack metazoan fossils even though they share fossilization conditions with younger BST deposits that are capable of preserving non-mineralizing metazoans .
Thus metazoans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BST deposits , were probably absent from sedimentary environments before approximately 800 Ma.
” Here is what Demming ( 2020 ) commented about this new study : “ The results suggest the same processes preserved pre-Cambrian microbes as later larger animals .
‘ So the fact that there are no animals in the 800-million-year-old rocks , even though they ’ ve got the same type of preservation — all you find there are bacteria or the algae analyzed — that would suggest that animals really haven ’ t evolved at that time , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no animal biota existed 1 billion , 800 million , 560 million , and even 550 million years ago ( the only remotely plausible candidates are the late Ediacaran jellyfish Haootia , the mollusk-like Kimberella , the worm-like Yilingia , and the possible lophophorate Namacalathus , which I will discuss in future articles ) .
But in the lowermost Cambrian , 537 million years ago , there were already complex arthropod body plans with exoskeleton , articulated legs , and compound eyes ( Daley et al .
2018 ) , as well as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deny that this is a major problem for Darwinian evolution is absurd .
We can conclude that the artifact hypothesis , which was nothing but an ad hoc strategy to get rid of conflicting evidence , can finally be put to rest for good .
The absence of Ediacaran fossils of putative precursors of the Cambrian animal phyla is not an artifact of undersampling or an artifact of taphonomy , but simply reflecting the fact that there were no such organisms living in this period .
With increasing paleontological research and better knowledge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cambrian explosion has turned out to be even more abrupt than was previously thought ( Bechly 2018a ) .
If a problem does not dissolve with increasing knowledge but only gets worse over time , it is a good indicator that this problem is very real .
Darwinists have to face the fact that a core prediction of their theory miserably failed an important empirical test .
Intelligent design theory much better agrees with the empirical evidence and can elegantly explain the abrupt origins we find throughout the fossil record .
• Bailey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Flood BE & Corsetti FA 2007 .
Evidence of giant sulfur bacteria in Neoproterozoic phosphorites .
Nature 445 , 198–201 .
DOI : 10.1038/nature05457 .
• Bechly G 2018a .
Alleged Refutation of the Cambrian Explosion Confirms Abruptness , Vindicates Meyer .
Evolution News May 29 , 2018 .
• Bechly G 2018b .
Why Dickinsonia Was Most Probably Not an Ediacaran Animal .
Evolution News Sep. 27 , 2018 .
• Bechly G 2020a .
Did Cloudinids Have the Guts to be Worms .
Evolution News Jan. 17 , 2020 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ All Animals in 555-Million-Year-Old Ediacaran Sediments ?
Evolution NewsMar .
26 , 2020 .
• Bechly G 2020c .
The Myth of Precambrian Sponges .
Evolution News May 12 , 2020 .
• Bengtson S , Cunningham JA , Yin C & Donoghue PCJ 2012 .
A merciful death for the “ earliest bilaterian , ” Vernanimalcula .
Evolution & Development 14 ( 5 ) , 421–427 .
DOI : 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2012.00562.x .
• Bowyer F , Wood RA , Poulton SW 2017 .
Controls on the evolution of Ediacaran metazoan ecosystems : A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) , 516–551 .
DOI : 10.1111/gbi.12232 .
• Brasier MD , Perejon A , De San Jose MA 1979 .
Discovery of an important fossiliferous Precambrian – Cambrian sequence in Spain .
Estudios Geológicos 35 ( 1-2 ) , 379–383 .
• Chen L , Xiao S , Pang K , Zhou C & Yuan X 2014 .
Cell differentiation and germ–soma separation in Ediacaran animal embryo-like fossils .
Nature 516 , 238–241 .
DOI : 10.1038/nature13766 .
• Cunningham JA , Vargas K , Yin Z , Bengtson S & Donoghue @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biota ( Doushantuo Formation ) : an Ediacaran window on soft-bodied and multicellular microorganisms .
Journal of the Geological Society 174 , 793–802 .
DOI : 10.1144/jgs2016-142 .
• Daley AC , Antcliffe JB , Drage HB , Pates S 2018 .
Early fossil record of Euarthropoda and the Cambrian Explosion .
PNAS 115 ( 21 ) , 5323–5331 .
DOI : 10.1073/pnas.1719962115 .
• Dornbos SO , Oji T , Kanayama A , Gonchigdorj S 2016 .
A new Burgess Shale-type deposit from the Ediacaran of western Mongolia .
Scientific Reports 6:23438 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Tang F , Yin C , Liu P , Duan D , Qao L 2008 .
Morphological comparison of the Ediacaran Miaohe biota from South China : implications for their affinities and ecology .
Acta Geologica Sinica 82 , 601–611 .
• Gaines RG , Droser ML , Orr PJ , Garson D , Hammarlund E , Qi C , Canfield DE 2012 .
Burgess shale−type biotas were not entirely burrowed away .
Geology 40 ( 3 ) , 283-286 .
DOI : 10.1130/G32555.1 .
• Hagadorn JW et al .
2006 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Animal Embryos .
Science 314 ( 5797 ) , 291–294 .
DOI : 10.1126/science.1133129 .
• Hassell K , Dornbos SQ , Oji T , Sersmaa G 2017 .
Paleobiology and taphonomy of exceptionally preserved putative macroalgae from the Ediacaran Zuun-Arts biota , western Mongolia .
GSA Annual Meeting in Seattle , Washington , USA – 2017 .
DOI : 10.1130/abs/2017AM-303354 .
• Huldtgren T , Cunnigham JA , Yin C , Stampanoni M , Marone F , Donoghue PCJ & Bengtson S 2011 .
Fossilized Nuclei and Germination Structures Identify Ediacaran “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Science 334 ( 6063 ) , 1696–1699 .
DOI : 10.1126/science.1209537 .
• Huldtgren T , Cunnigham JA , Yin C , Stampanoni M , Marone F , Donoghue PCJ & Bengtson S 2012 .
Response to Comment on “ Fossilized Nuclei and Germination Structures Identify Ediacaran ‘ Animal Embryos ’ as Encysting Protists ” .
Science 335 ( 6073 ) , 1169d ( plus 3 pages Addendum ) .
DOI : 10.1126/science.1219076 .
• Jensen S , Palacios T 2016 .
The Ediacaran-Cambrian trace fossil record in the Central Iberian Zone , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Especial I ) , 83–92 .
[ PDF ] • Kaplan M 2011 .
Enigmatic fossils are neither animals nor bacteria .
Nature .
DOI : 10.1038/nature.2011.9714 .
• Klinghoffer D 2015 .
Debating Darwin ’ s Doubt : A Scientific Controversy That Can No Longer Be Denied .
Discovery Institute Press , 350 pp .
• Luo C , Zhu M , Reitner J 2016 .
The Jinxian biota revisited : Taphonomy and body plan of the Neoproterozoic discoid fossils from the southern Liaodong Peninsula , North China .
Paläontologische Zeitschrift 90 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • Meyer SC , Minnich S , Moneymaker J , Nelson PA , Seelke R 2007 .
Explore Evolution : The Arguments for and Against Neo-Darwinism .
Hillhouse Publishers , 159 pp .
• Meyer SC 2013 .
Darwin ’ s Doubt : The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design .
HarperOne , viii+498 pp .
• Prothero DR 2013 .
Stephen Meyer ’ s fumbling bumbling amateur Cambrian follies : a review of Darwin ’ s Doubt : The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Skeptic 18 ( 4 ) , 50–53 .
• Van Iten H , Leme JdM , Marques AC , Simões MG 2013 .
Alternative interpretations of some earliest Ediacaran fossils from China .
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 58 ( 1 ) , 111–113 .
DOI : 10.4202/app.2011.0096 .
• Wan B , Yuan X , Chen Z , Guan C , Pang K , Tang Q , Xiao S , McIlroy D 2016 .
Systematic description of putative animal fossils from the early Ediacaran Lantian Formation of South China .
Palaeontology 59 ( 4 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
• Ye Q , Tong J , An Z , Hu J , Tian L , Guan K , Xiao S 2017 .
A systematic description of new macrofossil material from the upper Ediacaran Miaohe Member in South China .
Journal of Systematic Palaeontology 17 ( 3 ) , 56 pp .
DOI : 10.1080/14772019.2017.1404499 .
• Yuan X , Chen Z , Xiao S , Zhou C , Hua H 2011 .
An early Ediacaran assemblage of macroscopic and morphologically differentiated eukaryotes .
Nature 470 , 390–393 .
DOI : 10.1038/nature09810 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Xiao S , Wan B , Guan C , Wang W , Zhou C , Hua H 2013 .
The Lantian biota : A new window onto the origin and early evolution of multicellular organisms .
Chinese Science Bulletin 58 , 701–707 .
DOI : 10.1007/s11434-012-5483-6 .
• Xiao S , Yuan X , Steiner M , Knoll AH 2002 .
Macroscopic carbonaceous compressions in a terminal Proterozoic shale : A systematic reassessment of the Miaohe Biota , South China .
Journal of Paleontology 76 ( 2 ) , 347–376 .
DOI @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Garden ” of Ediacara , via Wikimedia .

In a recent series of Evolution News articles (Bechly 2018b, 2019, 2020a, 2020b, 2020c), to be continued soon, I have presented evidence and arguments that refute several alleged fossil animals from the Ediacaran period, which had been proposed as potential precursors of Cambrian animal phyla. Of course, the general absence of fossil bilaterian animals from the Ediacaran era is hardly a secret among paleontologists, but certainly an inconvenient truth, because it leaves the appearance of complex animal phyla during the Cambrian explosion disturbingly unexplained.
It also contradicts Darwinian expectations of a gradual development of complex body plans from the bottom up, starting with simple unicellular organisms and the subsequent stepwise addition of many small changes. Where are the proposed thousands of intermediate forms that led to Cambrian animals like trilobites? Evolutionists were dumbfounded by the silence in the fossil record and had to come up with a ready explanation for this conflicting evidence. The most popular attempt to resolve this discrepancy is the so-called “artifact hypothesis,” which proposes that the Cambrian animal phyla had ancestors, but that those ancestors either left no fossil record or have not yet been found (Meyer et al. 2007: 144), because of the incompleteness of the fossil record. This ad hoc hypothesis was originally proposed by Charles Walcott, the discoverer of the famous Burges Shale fossils. More recently it was for example championed by paleontologist Donald Prothero in his critical review of Stephen C. Meyer’s book Darwin’s Doubt (Prothero 2013).
The Artifact Hypothesis
In his seminal work Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer (2013) had thoroughly discussed the artifact hypothesis and dismissed it based on the available scientific evidence. As a paleontologist, I can hardly agree more with this conclusion. My only point of difference would be that I would no longer consider the phosphatized “embryo-like” fossils of the Wen’an Biota from the Doushantuo Formation in China as best argument, because of their highly controversial and very dubious attribution (Bechly 2020c). Nevertheless, the fact that most specialists reject any affinity of these fossils with crown-group animals (Zhang et al. 1998, Xue et al. 1999, Hagadorn et al. 2006, Bailey et al. 2007, Huldtgren et al. 2011, 2012, Butterfield 2011, Kaplan 2011, Bengtson et al. 2012, Chen et al. 2014, Cunningham et al. 2017) strongly suggests that there is no convincing evidence for any animals from this 560-million-year-old locality.
Of course, the argument from the Doushantou fossils is somewhat weak, because it is a very specific type of fossilization that implies taphonomic filters to what can be preserved and what not. But we meanwhile have much better evidence against the artifact hypothesis. According to Gaines et al. (2012), “Burgess Shale−type biotas occur globally in the Cambrian record and offer unparalleled insight into the Cambrian explosion, the initial Phanerozoic radiation of the Metazoa. Deposits bearing exceptionally preserved soft-bodied fossils are unusually common in Cambrian strata; more than 40 are now known.” Thus, we definitely should expect to find the postulated ancestors of the Cambrian animal phyla in Burgess Shale-type localities of the preceding Ediacaran era. The artifact hypothesis suggested that there are no such localities. However, in the past years several fossiliferous Burgess Shale-type (BST) biota from the Ediacaran have been discovered:
Guess What?
None of these Ediacaran biotas yielded any uncontroversial fossil record of animals! Especially important are the vast deposits of the Miaohe and Lantian biotas in China and the Zuun-arts biota in Mongolia, which both lack any bilaterian animals and only yielded fossil algae and problematic organisms. A proposed cnidarian affinity of some Lantian fossils (Van Iten et al. 2013, Wan et al. 2016) remains equivocal (Bowyer et al. 2017) and they could rather represent macroalgae as well (Yuan et al. 2011). Even the most recent study by Daley et al. (2018), which very unsuccessfully (Bechly 2018a) tried to downplay the abruptness of the Cambrian explosion, acknowledged that these new localities have proven that fossil animals are not just unknown from the Ediacaran because of preservation issues but because they definitely did not yet exist. Daley et al. discussed all the above-mentioned Burgess Shale-type localities from the Ediacaran and concluded that the “modes of fossil preservation are comparable in the Cambrian and Precambrian.” In their abstract they affirmed that: “BSTs from the latest Ediacaran Period (e.g., Miaohe biota, 550 Ma) are abundantly fossiliferous with algae but completely lack animals, which are also missing from other Ediacaran windows, such as phosphate deposits (e.g., Doushantuo, 560 Ma).”
From the Royal Society
Now, a new study by Anderson et al. (2020), published in a Royal Society journal, analyzed microfossils from a 1-billion-year-old and two 800-million-year-old localities in Russia, Svalbard, and Canada, which also belong to the Burgess Shale type and thus could preserve early soft-bodied animals. The authors conclude in their abstract: “These deposits lack metazoan fossils even though they share fossilization conditions with younger BST deposits that are capable of preserving non-mineralizing metazoans. Thus metazoans, at least those typically preserved in BST deposits, were probably absent from sedimentary environments before approximately 800 Ma.” Here is what Demming (2020) commented about this new study: “The results suggest the same processes preserved pre-Cambrian microbes as later larger animals. ‘So the fact that there are no animals in the 800-million-year-old rocks, even though they’ve got the same type of preservation — all you find there are bacteria or the algae analyzed — that would suggest that animals really haven’t evolved at that time,’ says Anderson.”
So, demonstrably no animal biota existed 1 billion, 800 million, 560 million, and even 550 million years ago (the only remotely plausible candidates are the late Ediacaran jellyfish Haootia, the mollusk-like Kimberella, the worm-like Yilingia, and the possible lophophorate Namacalathus, which I will discuss in future articles). But in the lowermost Cambrian, 537 million years ago, there were already complex arthropod body plans with exoskeleton, articulated legs, and compound eyes (Daley et al. 2018), as well as many other bilaterian animal phyla. To deny that this is a major problem for Darwinian evolution is absurd.
Finally Put to Rest
We can conclude that the artifact hypothesis, which was nothing but an ad hoc strategy to get rid of conflicting evidence, can finally be put to rest for good. The absence of Ediacaran fossils of putative precursors of the Cambrian animal phyla is not an artifact of undersampling or an artifact of taphonomy, but simply reflecting the fact that there were no such organisms living in this period. With increasing paleontological research and better knowledge of the Proterozoic fossil record, the Cambrian explosion has turned out to be even more abrupt than was previously thought (Bechly 2018a). If a problem does not dissolve with increasing knowledge but only gets worse over time, it is a good indicator that this problem is very real. Darwinists have to face the fact that a core prediction of their theory miserably failed an important empirical test. Intelligent design theory much better agrees with the empirical evidence and can elegantly explain the abrupt origins we find throughout the fossil record.
References:
Image: The “Garden” of Ediacara, via Wikimedia.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-07--White Fragility — A Free Pass for Scientists?

My colleague Chris Rufo reports in a series of tweets that Seattle is training white employees to “ Interrupt Internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness.
” Employees are tutored to “ practice self-talk that affirms [ their ] complicity in racism.
” He concludes , “ I ’ m going to keep pushing — because this is exactly the kind of thought-policing they want to implement everywhere.
” That ’ s one idea .
Here ’ s another .
Why stop with city employees and other powerless white people ?
( The powerlessness of big city employees is shown by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) How about a look up the chain of power ?
“ White Fragility ” is the phrase of the moment .
It ’ s taken from a book by University of Washington education professor Robin DiAngelo .
It refers to an unwillingness on the part of white people to admit “ complicity ” with racism .
Amid the current fury about America ’ s past and present , one powerful group is getting a free pass : scientists .
Especially evolutionary biologists .
On race , their profession has a shameful record @ @ @ @ @ @ @ self-talk ” by Darwinists on the role their theory has played in promoting racial injustice ?
And worse .
Professor DiAngelo explains , “ White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress.
” There ’ s something to this .
No one is more “ protected ” or “ insulated ” than scientists .
I was struck by a remark by political scientist John West : Such an acknowledgment would be healthy .
Scientists should start with scientific racism in the 19th century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thinking .
I ’ ve shown that recently , examining the notorious Cornerstone Speech that Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens gave in 1861 .
The Southern states joined in rebellion as , so they saw it , the first republic based on science .
That was the year after Darwin ’ s Origin of Species came out in the United States .
Darwin theorized about the races in the The Descent of Man ( 1871 ) .
His vision included a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom and predicted racial genocide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wrote , “ The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.
” Eugenists , seeking to breed a “ New Man , ” drew on Darwin ’ s work .
Evolutionists labored to educate the public about human evolution by exhibiting Africans in zoos .
See Dr. West ’ s award-winning documentary Human Zoos : America ’ s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism .
Germany ’ s Second Reich , animated by the scientific consensus of the time , practiced genocide against Africans .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ white Europe is the subject of a newly updated documentary , Darwin , Africa , and Genocide : The Horror of Scientific Racism : U.S. high school student learned about the new racial science in their biology textbooks .
One of those , Hunter ’ s popular Civic Biology , was at the center of the 1925 Scopes “ Monkey ” Trial .
It ’ s the biology text from which John Scopes taught .
So did many instructors at the time .
Countless young Americans absorbed its message of an evolutionary racial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom , per Darwin .
The Hunter textbook taught , “ At the present time there exist upon the earth five races of man , each very different from the other in instincts , social customs , and , to an extent , in structure.
” The races started with the “ Ethiopian or negro type.
” They attained their summit with “ the highest type of all , the Caucasians , represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.
” The textbook covers “ Charles Darwin and Natural Selection , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Animal Breeding.
” Turning to eugenics , “ the science of being well born , ” it says of the poorly born : This was mainstream science .
If there ’ s an inherited sin of racism among white Americans , a taint of “ internalized racial superiority , ” it can not be “ interrupted ” without a hard look at the place of evolution in scientific thinking and teaching .
It ’ s not only evolutionists who need to “ do the work , ” as we now say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been complicit in covering up Darwinism ’ s past .
Dr. DiAngelo ’ s University of Washington colleague Carl Bergstrom , an evolutionary biologist , admits that “ science is an inherently political activity.
” True , scientists act as a political group .
They protect their interests .
Sometimes that ’ s by denying the past and its impact on the present .
That has to stop .
Photo : An image from Darwin , Africa , and Genocide : The Horror of Scientific Racism , by John West .

My colleague Chris Rufo reports in a series of tweets that Seattle is training white employees to “Interrupt Internalized Racial Superiority and Whiteness.” Employees are tutored to “practice self-talk that affirms [their] complicity in racism.” He concludes, “I’m going to keep pushing — because this is exactly the kind of thought-policing they want to implement everywhere.”
That’s one idea. Here’s another. Why stop with city employees and other powerless white people? (The powerlessness of big city employees is shown by the daily mounting urban chaos they permit.) How about a look up the chain of power?
“White Fragility” is the phrase of the moment. It’s taken from a book by University of Washington education professor Robin DiAngelo. It refers to an unwillingness on the part of white people to admit “complicity” with racism. Amid the current fury about America’s past and present, one powerful group is getting a free pass: scientists. Especially evolutionary biologists. On race, their profession has a shameful record. How about a dose of “self-talk” by Darwinists on the role their theory has played in promoting racial injustice? And worse.
African Genocide
Professor DiAngelo explains, “White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress.” There’s something to this. No one is more “protected” or “insulated” than scientists. I was struck by a remark by political scientist John West:
In my experience, scientists tend to blame racism on everyone else — politicians, preachers, the unwashed masses, pop culture. They don’t want to acknowledge the scientific community’s own culpability in spreading racist ideas.
Such an acknowledgment would be healthy. Scientists should start with scientific racism in the 19th century. The Confederacy was founded on such thinking. I’ve shown that recently, examining the notorious Cornerstone Speech that Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens gave in 1861. The Southern states joined in rebellion as, so they saw it, the first republic based on science.
That was the year after Darwin’s Origin of Species came out in the United States. Darwin theorized about the races in the The Descent of Man (1871). His vision included a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom and predicted racial genocide against “savage” humans. He wrote, “The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
Eugenists, seeking to breed a “New Man,” drew on Darwin’s work. Evolutionists labored to educate the public about human evolution by exhibiting Africans in zoos. See Dr. West’s award-winning documentary Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism.
Follow the Science
Germany’s Second Reich, animated by the scientific consensus of the time, practiced genocide against Africans. That forgotten chapter in the history of white Europe is the subject of a newly updated documentary, Darwin, Africa, and Genocide: The Horror of Scientific Racism:
U.S. high school student learned about the new racial science in their biology textbooks. One of those, Hunter’s popular Civic Biology, was at the center of the 1925 Scopes “Monkey” Trial. It’s the biology text from which John Scopes taught. So did many instructors at the time.
Countless young Americans absorbed its message of an evolutionary racial hierarchy. Blacks again were at the bottom, per Darwin. The Hunter textbook taught, “At the present time there exist upon the earth five races of man, each very different from the other in instincts, social customs, and, to an extent, in structure.” The races started with the “Ethiopian or negro type.” They attained their summit with “the highest type of all, the Caucasians, represented by the civilized white inhabitants of Europe and America.”
Well Born and Poorly Born
The textbook covers “Charles Darwin and Natural Selection,” “Artificial Selection,“ and “Animal Breeding.” Turning to eugenics, “the science of being well born,” it says of the poorly born:
If such people were lower animals, we would probably kill them off to prevent them from spreading. Humanity will not allow this, but we do have the remedy of separating the sexes in asylums or other places and in various ways prevent intermarriage and the possibilities of perpetuating such a low and degenerate race.
This was mainstream science. If there’s an inherited sin of racism among white Americans, a taint of “internalized racial superiority,” it cannot be “interrupted” without a hard look at the place of evolution in scientific thinking and teaching.
It’s not only evolutionists who need to “do the work,” as we now say, in recognizing this. The academic establishment has been complicit in covering up Darwinism’s past. Dr. DiAngelo’s University of Washington colleague Carl Bergstrom, an evolutionary biologist, admits that “science is an inherently political activity.” True, scientists act as a political group. They protect their interests. Sometimes that’s by denying the past and its impact on the present. That has to stop.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-07--Transhumanism’s Challenge to Humanity

Transhumanism’s Challenge to Humanity

Editor ’ s notes : This article is an excerpt from John Lennox ’ s new book , 2084 : Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity .
Dr. Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford .
The transhumanist project is summed up by Mark O ’ Connell in his book To Be a Machine , which won the Wellcome Book Prize in 2018 : It is their belief that we can and should eradicate aging as a cause of death ; that we can and should use technology to augment our bodies and our minds ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ machines , remaking ourselves , finally , in the image of our own higher ideals .
John Gray reminds us that the attempt to use science and technology to upgrade humanity is far from new .
He cites both the medieval Jewish myth of a human-like being made of dust or mud called the Golem and Mary Shelley ’ s Frankenstein , published in 1818 .
In Gray ’ s view , “ the attempt to create an artificial human being risked making a monster.
” The history of the 20th century gives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ horrific examples come to mind .
Firstly , in Germany , where the Nazis imagined they could create an Aryan superhuman by what they called “ scientific breeding , ” a cynical euphemism that involved the killing of people regarded as disposable because they were regarded as mentally or physically below standard or “ unfit ” or “ racially impure.
” Hitler essentially took over the idea of “ the survival of the fittest ” and applied it to human beings in his quest for the Übermensch .
That led to the extermination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and other “ undesirables ” in the most depraved violence the world has ever seen .
In the former Soviet Union , attempts were made to use science to create a “ New Man.
” In 1924 , Leon Trotsky wrote : “ Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings , to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness , to make them transparent , to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses , and thereby to raise himself to a new plane , to create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you please , a superman.
” What that program of eugenics involved is explained by historian Andrey Zubov as cited by Sergei Gogin : “ The Soviet man ” evolved as a result of a deeply negative selection process , whereby “ the best , most honest and most cultured people were either killed or prevented from having a family and raising children by exile or imprisonment , whilst the worst sort of people , namely those who took part in the creation of this new form of man or silently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be fruitful and multiply.
’ ” Such horrific examples support John Gray ’ s prediction that the likely outcome of all such attempts to re-engineer humanity will be the extinction of humanity .
He comes to a wry conclusion : “ For myself , unregenerate humanity is preferable — the flawed and conflicted creatures we are in fact are much more interesting than the transformed creatures we ’ d like to be .
But I ’ m sure we ’ re not done with trying .
For if anything is peculiarly human , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what we are .
”

Editor’s note: This article is an excerpt from John Lennox’s new book, 2084: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Humanity. Dr. Lennox is Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford.
The transhumanist project is summed up by Mark O’Connell in his book To Be a Machine, which won the Wellcome Book Prize in 2018:
It is their belief that we can and should eradicate aging as a cause of death; that we can and should use technology to augment our bodies and our minds; that we can and should merge with machines, remaking ourselves, finally, in the image of our own higher ideals.
John Gray reminds us that the attempt to use science and technology to upgrade humanity is far from new. He cites both the medieval Jewish myth of a human-like being made of dust or mud called the Golem and Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, published in 1818. In Gray’s view, “the attempt to create an artificial human being risked making a monster.”
The history of the 20th century gives strong support to this view. Two horrific examples come to mind. Firstly, in Germany, where the Nazis imagined they could create an Aryan superhuman by what they called “scientific breeding,” a cynical euphemism that involved the killing of people regarded as disposable because they were regarded as mentally or physically below standard or “unfit” or “racially impure.” Hitler essentially took over the idea of “the survival of the fittest” and applied it to human beings in his quest for the Übermensch. That led to the extermination of millions of Jews, Poles, and other “undesirables” in the most depraved violence the world has ever seen.
The Soviet “New Man”
In the former Soviet Union, attempts were made to use science to create a “New Man.” In 1924, Leon Trotsky wrote: “Man will make it his purpose to master his own feelings, to raise his instincts to the heights of consciousness, to make them transparent, to extend the wires of his will into hidden recesses, and thereby to raise himself to a new plane, to create a higher social biologic type, or, if you please, a superman.” What that program of eugenics involved is explained by historian Andrey Zubov as cited by Sergei Gogin: “The Soviet man” evolved as a result of a deeply negative selection process, whereby “the best, most honest and most cultured people were either killed or prevented from having a family and raising children by exile or imprisonment, whilst the worst sort of people, namely those who took part in the creation of this new form of man or silently supported the new authorities, could ‘be fruitful and multiply.’ ”
Such horrific examples support John Gray’s prediction that the likely outcome of all such attempts to re-engineer humanity will be the extinction of humanity. He comes to a wry conclusion: “For myself, unregenerate humanity is preferable — the flawed and conflicted creatures we are in fact are much more interesting than the transformed creatures we’d like to be. But I’m sure we’re not done with trying. For if anything is peculiarly human, it’s the refusal to be what we are.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-07--African Genocide: The Horror of Scientific Racism

As Americans and Europeans continue to grapple with the legacies of racism , they might want to explore the key role played by scientific racism in the justification of Western imperialism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries .
One especially horrific example is the genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples in German Southwest Africa ( modern Namibia ) .
From 1904-08 , Germany ’ s “ Second Reich ” exterminated the Herero in particular in the name of Darwinian “ survival of the fittest.
” In 2013 , I included the story of the Namibian genocide as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Second Reich , which examined the impact of Darwinism on German ideology leading up to the First World War .
After receiving nearly 90,000 views on YouTube , the documentary was effectively shut down by YouTube through the imposition of an “ age restriction.
” This meant that after late 2018 , only adults logging into YouTube were allowed to see it .
I appealed the age restriction , but YouTube is the land of faceless decisions by algorithms , and the repeal was summarily rejected without any personal interaction .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were disturbing , especially some of the photos from World War I .
But a quick search of YouTube at the time turned up many videos that employed far more graphic historical visuals without being “ age restricted.
” I considered trying to protest YouTube ’ s double standard , especially since YouTube was effectively censoring a story about scientific racism and African genocide , but I decided that YouTube probably would be impervious to further complaints , and so I dropped the matter .
A few days ago , I decided it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Given current discussions over the history of racism , my documentary seems especially relevant right now .
Scientific racism is certainly not the only form of racism in history .
For example , many Christians in history used a distorted reading of the Bible to promote racism , despite the Bible ’ s clear teaching that all humans are created in the image of God and are ultimately part of the same human family .
Nevertheless , in my encounters over the years with scientists and students and others , far more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than scientific racism .
In fact , the grim history of scientific racism — especially scientific racism fueled by Darwinian ideology — seems to be largely forgotten , at least in the white community .
In my experience , scientists tend to blame racism on everyone else — politicians , preachers , the unwashed masses , pop culture .
They don ’ t want to acknowledge the scientific community ’ s own culpability in spreading racist ideas .
But in our current cultural moment , it may finally be time to tell the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ve removed some ( but not all ) of the disturbing imagery from the original film , and I ’ ve made it shorter .
I hope it now passes YouTube ’ s censorship and more people will be able to see it for the first time .
My documentary only tells one part of the story of racism , and it also only tells a part of the story of the influence of Social Darwinism on Western imperialism , which certainly extended to other nations besides Germany .
Yet I hope my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ current conversation .

Image source: Discovery Institute.
As Americans and Europeans continue to grapple with the legacies of racism, they might want to explore the key role played by scientific racism in the justification of Western imperialism during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
One especially horrific example is the genocide of the Herero and Nama peoples in German Southwest Africa (modern Namibia). From 1904-08, Germany’s “Second Reich” exterminated the Herero in particular in the name of Darwinian “survival of the fittest.”
Decisions by Algorithm
In 2013, I included the story of the Namibian genocide as part of my award-winning documentary The Biology of the Second Reich, which examined the impact of Darwinism on German ideology leading up to the First World War. After receiving nearly 90,000 views on YouTube, the documentary was effectively shut down by YouTube through the imposition of an “age restriction.” This meant that after late 2018, only adults logging into YouTube were allowed to see it. I appealed the age restriction, but YouTube is the land of faceless decisions by algorithms, and the repeal was summarily rejected without any personal interaction.
My documentary did include historical photos that were disturbing, especially some of the photos from World War I. But a quick search of YouTube at the time turned up many videos that employed far more graphic historical visuals without being “age restricted.”
I considered trying to protest YouTube’s double standard, especially since YouTube was effectively censoring a story about scientific racism and African genocide, but I decided that YouTube probably would be impervious to further complaints, and so I dropped the matter.
A few days ago, I decided it might be time to re-edit my video:
Given current discussions over the history of racism, my documentary seems especially relevant right now. Scientific racism is certainly not the only form of racism in history. For example, many Christians in history used a distorted reading of the Bible to promote racism, despite the Bible’s clear teaching that all humans are created in the image of God and are ultimately part of the same human family. Nevertheless, in my encounters over the years with scientists and students and others, far more people seem to know about religious racism than scientific racism.
Forgotten History
In fact, the grim history of scientific racism — especially scientific racism fueled by Darwinian ideology — seems to be largely forgotten, at least in the white community.
In my experience, scientists tend to blame racism on everyone else — politicians, preachers, the unwashed masses, pop culture. They don’t want to acknowledge the scientific community’s own culpability in spreading racist ideas.
But in our current cultural moment, it may finally be time to tell the story of Darwinian racism. I’ve removed some (but not all) of the disturbing imagery from the original film, and I’ve made it shorter. I hope it now passes YouTube’s censorship and more people will be able to see it for the first time. My documentary only tells one part of the story of racism, and it also only tells a part of the story of the influence of Social Darwinism on Western imperialism, which certainly extended to other nations besides Germany. Yet I hope my revised film will add something to the current conversation.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-07--Whale Song: Learning from Our Critics

Whale Song: Learning from Our Critics

I think of intelligent design critics as a forming a hierarchy , with some of more interest than others .
There are really high level ones ( Charles Marshall , for example , or Jeremy England ) , formidable scholars who have put serious thought into their critiques .
And those are the best .
From some critics , of course , there ’ s nothing to be learned .
They substitute rude insults for arguments , and there ’ s little more to it than that .
In between , others at least provide a solid chance for conversation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t the best .
Biologist P.Z .
Myers falls into this category .
He critiqued our recent video about whale evolution , an entry in the brief , accessible , and humorous Long Story Short series .
He was joined by another critic I ’ d never heard of before , Jackson Wheat .
Both released videos of their own .
This in turn provided an occasion for the filmmaker , whom I ’ ve called Long Story , to create a response .
A substantive argument is a lovely thing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to , even if punctuated ( in Myers ’ s case ) by the usual grumpy insults .
I think Myers and Wheat , in their way , and Long Story make what turns out to be beautiful music together .
Call it whale song .
You can watch the first video , the videos from the critics , and finally the reply from Long Story , and learn a lot about an icon of evolution that has been vastly oversold by evolutionists .
What could be even better than that ?
Here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the videos by reading the chapter “ Walking Whales ” from biologist Jonathan Wells ’ s book , Zombie Science : More Icons of Evolution .
It ’ s a definitive and very solidly referenced treatment of the question .
Thanks to the Center for Science & Culture , you can dive deep into the subject right now thanks to a FREE offer of the whole chapter , which you can download here .
You ’ ll also get a free subscription to Nota Bene , our newsletter that collects the best of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ News .
Together with the videos , the chapter from Dr. Wells forms a virtual symphony .
Watch the first whale video from Long Story , “ Whale Evolution : Good Evidence for Darwin ?
” , here : And the second one , “ Whale Evolution : Responding to Critics , ” here : In between , watch Myers and Wheat , here and here .
If you get a chance , let me know who you think comes out on top .

Photo credit: Bryan Thompson via Unsplash.
I think of intelligent design critics as forming a hierarchy, with some of more interest than others. There are really high level ones (Charles Marshall, for example, or Jeremy England), formidable scholars who have put serious thought into their critiques. And those are the best.
From some critics, of course, there’s nothing to be learned. They substitute rude insults for arguments, and there’s little more to it than that.
In between, others at least provide a solid chance for conversation, even if their table manners aren’t the best. Biologist P.Z. Myers falls into this category. He critiqued our recent video about whale evolution, an entry in the brief, accessible, and humorous Long Story Short series. He was joined by another critic I’d never heard of before, Jackson Wheat. Both released videos of their own. This in turn provided an occasion for the filmmaker, whom I’ve called Long Story, to create a response.
A Lovely Thing
A substantive argument is a lovely thing to behold, to watch or to listen to, even if punctuated (in Myers’s case) by the usual grumpy insults. I think Myers and Wheat, in their way, and Long Story make what turns out to be beautiful music together. Call it whale song. You can watch the first video, the videos from the critics, and finally the reply from Long Story, and learn a lot about an icon of evolution that has been vastly oversold by evolutionists.
What could be even better than that? Here’s what. Follow up on the videos by reading the chapter “Walking Whales” from biologist Jonathan Wells’s book, Zombie Science: More Icons of Evolution. It’s a definitive and very solidly referenced treatment of the question. Thanks to the Center for Science & Culture, you can dive deep into the subject right now thanks to a FREE offer of the whole chapter, which you can download here.
You’ll also get a free subscription to Nota Bene, our newsletter that collects the best of each week’s offerings from Evolution News. Together with the videos, the chapter from Dr. Wells forms a virtual symphony. Watch the first whale video from Long Story, “Whale Evolution: Good Evidence for Darwin?”, here:
And the second one, “Whale Evolution: Responding to Critics,” here:
In between, watch Myers and Wheat, here and here. If you get a chance, let me know who you think comes out on top.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-07--The Triumphalism of  Strickberger’s Evolution

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah , Iowa .
He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism , The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms .
Recently I acquired a copy of the fourth edition of Strickberger ’ s Evolution ( 2008 ) from a retiring biology colleague .
Edited and updated by Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson , Strickberger ’ s Evolution bills itself as “ the most broadly based textbook on evolution ” and “ a staple in undergraduate education in evolutionary biology.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this textbook ?
On my reading , this textbook functions more as staple in indoctrination in Darwinian triumphalism than it does a staple in undergraduate education .
In a series of posts , I hope to provide a critical review of many of the ways this textbook misleads students and fails to provide a foundation for real education , which must always present an accurate and nuanced picture of our current state of knowledge .
Here , I will point out several basic errors of fact to be found in Strickberger ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact-checked , lest the existence of clear errors undermine the credibility of all the information presented .
Such a process seems not to have happened here .
As one small example , Francis Galton is called Darwin ’ s first cousin in a discussion about eugenics .
Of course , Galton was only Darwin ’ s half-cousin , having been born to a daughter of Erasmus Darwin who was a half-sister to Robert Darwin , Charles ’ s father .
Unlike many textbooks on evolution , Strickberger ’ s Evolution includes a section @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evolution.
” In it we read : Here we see the often-repeated error viewing the Darwinian revolution as the fulfillment of the Copernican revolution , in which humans were systematically removed from the center of concern .
But left out of the discussion is the inconvenient fact that Copernicus ’ primary motivation for placing the sun at the center of the cosmos was religious .
Copernicus had no empirical evidence compelling this move .
The Ptolemaic system still worked and accounted for observations , though it had become aesthetically messy due to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Copernicus reasoned that the God he worshiped as the great Artisan would never have created such an aesthetically displeasing monstrosity .
Placing the sun at the center created a simpler cosmos more in keeping with Copernicus ’ theologically motivated aesthetic sensibilities , and this was his primary argument for why a heliocentric model must be correct .
A few pages later , this error is repeated : But , of course , the idea of divine intervention did not end with Copernicus , Galileo , and Kepler , for Isaac Newton would come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 17th century to an advocate of intelligent design !
Hall and Hallgrimsson are biologists , not historians of science , so perhaps these errors can be excused .
But what should we make of their statement , “ Natural selection acts because of the differential survival of individual organisms with particular features ” ?
Even a novice would know that natural selection is a term to describe differential reproduction , not survival .
Survival means nothing if organisms with particular features fail to out-reproduce organisms lacking these features .
But Hall and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ error when they write , “ Biological evolution tracks opportunistic pathways , and is blind to destinations other than survival.
” But natural selection can not track anything , and even if it could , it would track reproduction , not survival .
Darwin may have focused on survival , but the focus on differential reproduction has been at the center of evolutionary theory at least since the advent of population genetics in the 1930s .
As Thomas Kuhn once pointed out , scientists are often woefully ignorant of the historical development of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the only instance of faulty understanding of basic aspects of evolutionary theory and its history .
In a section titled “ Randomness of Mutation , ” Hall and Hallgrimsson write : Actually , the randomness of mutation had already become an article of faith by 1943 due to the famous fluctuation test of Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück , whose seminal Genetics paper ( “ Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance ” ) doesn ’ t make it into the textbook ’ s bibliography .
The randomness of mutation was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biological establishment long before the 1950s .
Eventually , this idea was challenged in 1988 when John Cairns and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health reworked Luria and Delbrück ’ s fluctuation test and claimed to find evidence for directed mutation .
This was followed in the early 1990s by two papers by Barry Hall purporting to demonstrate anticipatory mutagenesis .
But these complicating challenges to the randomness of mutation , published in such respected journals as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences , Nature , and Genetics , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Finally , in one grand statement of Darwinian triumphalism , Hall and Hallgrimsson write : The oversimplification here is staggering ( Darwin and women ’ s rights ?
! )
and would take an entire book to unpack .
At the very least , the late 19th and early 20th century eclipse of Darwinism ( to borrow Peter Bowler ’ s term ) is ignored here .
Lamarckian and vitalistic theories continued to be popular until the development of the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s .
George Bernard Shaw was a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coining the term élan vital , Henri Bergson was certainly no friend of Darwinism .
I suppose such historical inaccuracies are a small price to pay in service to Darwinian indoctrination .
But this makes a mockery of the educational process .
Students deserve better .
In upcoming posts , I intend to discuss Strickberger ’ s Evolution on issues such as its portrayal of Darwin , its presentation of some of what Jonathan Wells calls the icons of evolution , its discussion of coevolution and the initial stages of variation , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few additional items like eye evolution and selection in pre-biotic chemistry .
If Thomas Kuhn was correct that science textbooks constitute initiations into currently reigning scientific paradigms that bleach the blemishes of complicated histories , then Strickberger ’ s Evolution could stand as Kuhn ’ s paradigmatic example .

Editor’s note: Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms.
Recently I acquired a copy of the fourth edition of Strickberger’s Evolution (2008) from a retiring biology colleague. Edited and updated by Brian K. Hall and Benedikt Hallgrimsson, Strickberger’s Evolution bills itself as “the most broadly based textbook on evolution” and “a staple in undergraduate education in evolutionary biology.”
But what will biology students actually learn from this textbook? On my reading, this textbook functions more as staple in indoctrination in Darwinian triumphalism than it does a staple in undergraduate education. In a series of posts, I hope to provide a critical review of many of the ways this textbook misleads students and fails to provide a foundation for real education, which must always present an accurate and nuanced picture of our current state of knowledge.
Here, I will point out several basic errors of fact to be found in Strickberger’s Evolution. Any textbook must be rigorously fact-checked, lest the existence of clear errors undermine the credibility of all the information presented. Such a process seems not to have happened here. As one small example, Francis Galton is called Darwin’s first cousin in a discussion about eugenics. Of course, Galton was only Darwin’s half-cousin, having been born to a daughter of Erasmus Darwin who was a half-sister to Robert Darwin, Charles’s father.
More Errors Follow
Unlike many textbooks on evolution, Strickberger’s Evolution includes a section called “Belief, Religion, and Evolution.” In it we read:
Until Copernicus and Galileo in the sixteenth century, no one had seriously challenged the idea of a powerful deity controlling the physical universe. In the new worldview they and others ushered in, however, God appeared as an initial creator rather than as an incessant manipulator of the universe. The advent of Darwinism posed further threats to Western religion by suggesting that biological relationships, including the origin of humans and of all species, could be explained by natural selection without the intervention of a god.
Here we see the often-repeated error viewing the Darwinian revolution as the fulfillment of the Copernican revolution, in which humans were systematically removed from the center of concern. But left out of the discussion is the inconvenient fact that Copernicus’ primary motivation for placing the sun at the center of the cosmos was religious. Copernicus had no empirical evidence compelling this move. The Ptolemaic system still worked and accounted for observations, though it had become aesthetically messy due to the addition of many ad hoc features.
Copernicus reasoned that the God he worshiped as the great Artisan would never have created such an aesthetically displeasing monstrosity. Placing the sun at the center created a simpler cosmos more in keeping with Copernicus’ theologically motivated aesthetic sensibilities, and this was his primary argument for why a heliocentric model must be correct.
“Divine Intervention”
A few pages later, this error is repeated:
The first significant cracks in the theological armor of continued divine intervention in nature were made in the discoveries of natural laws regulating the motion of the solar system, by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler.
But, of course, the idea of divine intervention did not end with Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, for Isaac Newton would come along and become the closest thing in the 17th century to an advocate of intelligent design!
Hall and Hallgrimsson are biologists, not historians of science, so perhaps these errors can be excused. But what should we make of their statement, “Natural selection acts because of the differential survival of individual organisms with particular features”? Even a novice would know that natural selection is a term to describe differential reproduction, not survival. Survival means nothing if organisms with particular features fail to out-reproduce organisms lacking these features. But Hall and Hallgrimsson seem to double down on this error when they write, “Biological evolution tracks opportunistic pathways, and is blind to destinations other than survival.” But natural selection cannot track anything, and even if it could, it would track reproduction, not survival. Darwin may have focused on survival, but the focus on differential reproduction has been at the center of evolutionary theory at least since the advent of population genetics in the 1930s. As Thomas Kuhn once pointed out, scientists are often woefully ignorant of the historical development of their own subjects.
The Randomness of Mutation
This is not the only instance of faulty understanding of basic aspects of evolutionary theory and its history. In a section titled “Randomness of Mutation,” Hall and Hallgrimsson write:
Until the 1950s, the accepted view among bacteriologists was that bacteria had a unique “plastic heredity” in which appropriate mutations arise as an immediate response to the needs of the environment.
Actually, the randomness of mutation had already become an article of faith by 1943 due to the famous fluctuation test of Salvador Luria and Max Delbrück, whose seminal Genetics paper (“Mutations of Bacteria from Virus Sensitivity to Virus Resistance”) doesn’t make it into the textbook’s bibliography. The randomness of mutation was very much an accepted fact within the biological establishment long before the 1950s.
Eventually, this idea was challenged in 1988 when John Cairns and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health reworked Luria and Delbrück’s fluctuation test and claimed to find evidence for directed mutation. This was followed in the early 1990s by two papers by Barry Hall purporting to demonstrate anticipatory mutagenesis. But these complicating challenges to the randomness of mutation, published in such respected journals as Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Nature, and Genetics, are entirely ignored in the textbook.
A Grand Statement
Finally, in one grand statement of Darwinian triumphalism, Hall and Hallgrimsson write:
Darwin’s theory made it clear that species fixity was not natural. These radical ideas, which revolutionized biology, also affected sociology, anthropology, economics, politics, women’s rights, fiction, poetry, linguistics, philosophy, and psychology. Herbert Spencer, Karl Marx, Joseph Conrad, Thomas Hardy, Alfred Tennyson, George Eliot, George Bernard Shaw, Henri Bergson, and Sigmund Freud are just a few of those who incorporated evolution into their studies, writings, politics, and world views.
The oversimplification here is staggering (Darwin and women’s rights?!) and would take an entire book to unpack. At the very least, the late 19th and early 20th century eclipse of Darwinism (to borrow Peter Bowler’s term) is ignored here. Lamarckian and vitalistic theories continued to be popular until the development of the evolutionary synthesis of the 1930s and 1940s. George Bernard Shaw was a harsh critic of Darwin, and in coining the term élan vital, Henri Bergson was certainly no friend of Darwinism. I suppose such historical inaccuracies are a small price to pay in service to Darwinian indoctrination. But this makes a mockery of the educational process. Students deserve better.
In upcoming posts, I intend to discuss Strickberger’s Evolution on issues such as its portrayal of Darwin, its presentation of some of what Jonathan Wells calls the icons of evolution, its discussion of coevolution and the initial stages of variation, the meaning of convergent evolution, and a few additional items like eye evolution and selection in pre-biotic chemistry. If Thomas Kuhn was correct that science textbooks constitute initiations into currently reigning scientific paradigms that bleach the blemishes of complicated histories, then Strickberger’s Evolution could stand as Kuhn’s paradigmatic example.
Image: Charles Darwin, by Francis Darwin (Ed.) / Public domain, 1891.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-08--New York Museum Benefited from African Genocide

As I discussed in a recent article and video , Germany committed genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples in southwest Africa in the early 1900s .
German authorities also conducted medical experiments on their victims in the name of racial “ science.
” The extermination efforts and medical experiments were a product of Western imperialism and fueled in part by a virulent strain of Darwinian ideology .
It turns out that one of America ’ s most prominent museums benefited from the atrocities .
The American Museum of Natural History ( AMNH ) in New York City purchased a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from German concentration camps in southwest Africa .
The sorry story is told in this 2018 article in The New Yorker : In 1906 , Felix von Luschan , an Austrian-born anthropologist , sent letters to [ German ] colonial officers asking that they gather bones and ship them to him in Berlin , for research .
In a letter discovered by the historian Andrew Zimmerman , one of the officers replied , “ In the concentration camps taking and preserving the skulls of Herero prisoners of war will be more readily possible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is always a danger of offending the ritual feelings of the natives.
” In response to one anthropologist ’ s request , the German overseers of a concentration camp gave Herero women shards of glass and told them to scrape the flesh from the corpses of Herero men .
Luschan eventually sold his entire personal collection , including the skulls of thousands of people from across the world , to the American Museum of Natural History .
The purchase doubled the museum ’ s physical anthropology holdings and helped establish the AMNH as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of 2018 , the skulls were still housed in the AMNH ’ s collections , although the museum allowed a delegation of a dozen Hereros to view the remains .
Are they still housed there ?
Earlier this week , I contacted the museum ’ s press office in an effort to find out , and to ask if the Museum was considering sending them back to modern Namibia for burial .
The AMNH failed to respond .
It ’ s not the first time the museum has avoided addressing its uncomfortable history @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , I encountered a similar wall of silence .
My documentary deals in part with the museum ’ s history of promoting eugenics .
But AMNH officials declined a request to be interviewed on-screen for the documentary .
Their stated reason ?
I wasn ’ t able to purchase $ 2 million in insurance .
Yet the museum also turned down repeated requests to answer questions about its history in writing for the documentary .
It remains to be seen whether the AMNH will continue to get a pass in 2020 about its @ @ @ @ @ @

Photo: Statue of Theodore Roosevelt outside AMNH, by Mike Steele, via Flickr (cropped).
As I discussed in a recent article and video, Germany committed genocide against the Herero and Nama peoples in southwest Africa in the early 1900s. German authorities also conducted medical experiments on their victims in the name of racial “science.” The extermination efforts and medical experiments were a product of Western imperialism and fueled in part by a virulent strain of Darwinian ideology.
A Sorry Story
It turns out that one of America’s most prominent museums benefited from the atrocities. The American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City purchased a collection of skulls that included pieces gathered from German concentration camps in southwest Africa. The sorry story is told in this 2018 article in The New Yorker:
In 1906, Felix von Luschan, an Austrian-born anthropologist, sent letters to [German] colonial officers asking that they gather bones and ship them to him in Berlin, for research. In a letter discovered by the historian Andrew Zimmerman, one of the officers replied, “In the concentration camps taking and preserving the skulls of Herero prisoners of war will be more readily possible than in the country, where there is always a danger of offending the ritual feelings of the natives.” In response to one anthropologist’s request, the German overseers of a concentration camp gave Herero women shards of glass and told them to scrape the flesh from the corpses of Herero men. Luschan eventually sold his entire personal collection, including the skulls of thousands of people from across the world, to the American Museum of Natural History. The purchase doubled the museum’s physical anthropology holdings and helped establish the AMNH as a leader in the field.
As of 2018, the skulls were still housed in the AMNH’s collections, although the museum allowed a delegation of a dozen Hereros to view the remains.
No Response
Are they still housed there? Earlier this week, I contacted the museum’s press office in an effort to find out, and to ask if the Museum was considering sending them back to modern Namibia for burial. The AMNH failed to respond.
It’s not the first time the museum has avoided addressing its uncomfortable history. While preparing my documentary Human Zoos, I encountered a similar wall of silence. My documentary deals in part with the museum’s history of promoting eugenics. But AMNH officials declined a request to be interviewed on-screen for the documentary. Their stated reason? I wasn’t able to purchase $2 million in insurance. Yet the museum also turned down repeated requests to answer questions about its history in writing for the documentary.
It remains to be seen whether the AMNH will continue to get a pass in 2020 about its avoidance of its problematic past.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-08--Listen to Nature for Her Answers

Listen to Nature for Her Answers

On a new episode of ID the Future , philosopher of science Paul Nelson concludes his discussion with host Andrew @ @ @ @ @ to converse effectively with scientists who are trapped in a naturalistic parabola — that is @ @ @ @ @ conclusions from naturalism ’ s authority rather than following the evidence wherever it leads .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
Nelson urges us to keep a third party in the conversation @ @ @ @ @ listen to nature through experiment , Paul says , and he warns against the message @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Sean Carroll who have suggested that testing is “ overrated.
” If we @ @ @ @ @ can keep revealing herself in surprising ways , which is what makes science so fun @

Photo: "Parabola Mountain," by Pavel Polyanov, via Flickr.
On a new episode of ID the Future, philosopher of science Paul Nelson concludes his discussion with host Andrew McDiarmid on what it takes to converse effectively with scientists who are trapped in a naturalistic parabola — that is, researchers who draw their conclusions from naturalism’s authority rather than following the evidence wherever it leads. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Nelson urges us to keep a third party in the conversation: nature herself. We listen to nature through experiment, Paul says, and he warns against the message from scientists such as Caltech’s Sean Carroll who have suggested that testing is “overrated.” If we listen and test, nature can keep revealing herself in surprising ways, which is what makes science so fun.