evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-21--Fine-Tuning, Free Will — Now We’ve Got Two Challenges for Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder

Last week at Evolution News , Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer addressed a critique from physicist Sabine Hossenfelder about arguments for fine-tuning .
She was commenting on the recent article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology , explicitly supportive of intelligent design .
Hossenfelder remarked , “ Yep , fine-tuning in physics is as scientific as intelligent design.
” She meant , of course , not scientific at all .
I ’ ve looked to her website , Backreaction , for a response but have not found one .
Now here ’ s another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hossenfelder was echoed by fellow atheist Jerry Coyne on free will , which they both thoroughly deny .
Our neuroscientist colleague Michael Egnor makes a careful distinction between different philosophical meanings of will — one is indeed physically determined , the other is not .
He challenges Coyne at the end to respond but frankly , I ’ d be more interested to hear from Dr. Hossenfelder .
She says in a video : Last week , I explained what differential equations are , and that all laws of nature which we currently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time , for example the exact details of the particles in your brain and all your brain ’ s inputs , then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions .
This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang .
We are just watching it play out .
You can watch the whole video @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interesting and lucid , here : She acknowledges that she is speaking from outside one relevant field : Dr. Egnor is concerned , though , about “ literally…billions of data points ” from his field that contradict the free-will deniers .
He cites the research of Wilder Penfield : He also noted a remarkable fact : there are no intellectual seizures , and by implication , no seizures that invoke free will .
There are no calculus seizures , no logic seizures , no seizures that make the patients think abstractly or will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no seizures that make you choose to be a Republican or a Democrat , no seizures that make you Christian or Jewish , no seizures that make you apply certain kinds of logic to a problem rather than another kind of logic .
This is remarkable : if the will is merely the product of brain activity , at least some seizures should evoke will .
They never do .
Many seizures do feature complex manifestations ( they ’ re called complex partial seizures ) , but these complex seizures always involve concrete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and stereotypic movements .
There are no seizures that invoke abstract thought or abstract decisions — there are no free will seizures .
This remains true to this day .
There are no reports in the medical literature — despite literally billons of seizures suffered by patients in the modern era — of any seizure that replicates free will .
This remarkable fact — literally based on billions of data points — clearly shows that the will is not determined by the material state of the brain .
If the will were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — abstract choice based on reason — would at least occasionally be replicated by seizures .
It never is .
Coyne , Hossenfelder and other free will deniers are ignorant of the mountain of neuroscience evidence confirming free will .
They are also ignorant of the philosophical reasoning supporting free will and of the evidence in physics that refutes determinism ( but these are both subjects for another post ) .
Can you really use physics to deny free will while ignoring neuroscience ?
Egnor winds up to a challenge to Coyne : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ brain states , show us the medical or neuroscience evidence that free will is ever evoked by seizure or by neurosurgical stimulation of the brain.
” But as I said , I ’ d be just as or more fascinated to hear from Hossenfelder .
So I am “ elevating ” the challenge to her .
She can read the rest of Egnor ’ s comments here , from the Mind Matters site .
She feels confident enough about ID to dismiss it with a tweet .
Is she as confident about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to tweet this to her and she if she ’ ll respond .

Photo credit: Alexis Fauvet via Unsplash.
Last week at Evolution News, Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer addressed a critique from physicist Sabine Hossenfelder about arguments for fine-tuning. She was commenting on the recent article in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, explicitly supportive of intelligent design. Hossenfelder remarked, “Yep, fine-tuning in physics is as scientific as intelligent design.” She meant, of course, not scientific at all. I’ve looked to her website, Backreaction, for a response but have not found one.
Distinct Philosophical Meanings of Will
Now here’s another challenge from the intelligent design community. Hossenfelder was echoed by fellow atheist Jerry Coyne on free will, which they both thoroughly deny. Our neuroscientist colleague Michael Egnor makes a careful distinction between different philosophical meanings of will — one is indeed physically determined, the other is not. He challenges Coyne at the end to respond but frankly, I’d be more interested to hear from Dr. Hossenfelder. She says in a video:
Last week, I explained what differential equations are, and that all laws of nature which we currently know work with those differential equations. These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time, for example the exact details of the particles in your brain and all your brain’s inputs, then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions. This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We are just watching it play out.
You can watch the whole video, only 11 minutes long and very interesting and lucid, here:
She acknowledges that she is speaking from outside one relevant field:
I want to say ahead that there is much discussion about free will in neurology, where the question is whether we subconsciously make decisions before we become consciously aware of having made one. I am not a neurologist, so this is not what I am concerned with here.
“Billions of Data Points”
Dr. Egnor is concerned, though, about “literally…billions of data points” from his field that contradict the free-will deniers. He cites the research of Wilder Penfield:
He also noted a remarkable fact: there are no intellectual seizures, and by implication, no seizures that invoke free will. There are no calculus seizures, no logic seizures, no seizures that make the patients think abstractly or will (apparently) freely. There are no seizures that make you choose to be a Republican or a Democrat, no seizures that make you Christian or Jewish, no seizures that make you apply certain kinds of logic to a problem rather than another kind of logic. This is remarkable: if the will is merely the product of brain activity, at least some seizures should evoke will. They never do. Many seizures do feature complex manifestations (they’re called complex partial seizures), but these complex seizures always involve concrete thoughts and actions — perceptions, emotions, and stereotypic movements. There are no seizures that invoke abstract thought or abstract decisions — there are no free will seizures. This remains true to this day. There are no reports in the medical literature — despite literally billons of seizures suffered by patients in the modern era — of any seizure that replicates free will. This remarkable fact — literally based on billions of data points — clearly shows that the will is not determined by the material state of the brain. If the will were determined by neural activity, the will — abstract choice based on reason — would at least occasionally be replicated by seizures. It never is. Coyne, Hossenfelder and other free will deniers are ignorant of the mountain of neuroscience evidence confirming free will. They are also ignorant of the philosophical reasoning supporting free will and of the evidence in physics that refutes determinism (but these are both subjects for another post).
Can you really use physics to deny free will while ignoring neuroscience? Egnor winds up to a challenge to Coyne: “If free will is determined by brain states, show us the medical or neuroscience evidence that free will is ever evoked by seizure or by neurosurgical stimulation of the brain.” But as I said, I’d be just as or more fascinated to hear from Hossenfelder. So I am “elevating” the challenge to her.
She can read the rest of Egnor’s comments here, from the Mind Matters site. She feels confident enough about ID to dismiss it with a tweet. Is she as confident about the relevant neuroscience here? I am going to tweet this to her and she if she’ll respond.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-21--Scientific Paper Reaffirms New Genes Required for Cambrian Explosion

In 2018 we covered a paper in the journal Nature Communications which found that thousands of new genes would have been required to build the diverse animal body plans that appear abruptly in the Cambrian period .
The notion that many genes would be required for the Cambrian explosion may seem unsurprising — what probably is surprising is that anyone would challenge the idea that the Cambrian animals required new genes !
If that ’ s how you feel , welcome to the debate over intelligent design and evolution .
Stephen Meyer argued in his 2013 book Darwin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ explosion of new genetic information that outstripped the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism .
It wasn ’ t until then that ID-critics doubled-down on their claims that the Cambrian animals didn ’ t require new genes !
This allowed them , they thought , to sidestep this mathematical challenge to their viewpoint .
No need to explain the origin of new genetic information if no new genetic information is needed , right ?
Someday we may get tired of being vindicated .
But not yet !
Günter Bechly recently discussed a new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claims in Darwin ’ s Doubt that arthropods appeared abruptly in the Cambrian explosion , without evolutionary precursors in the Precambrian .
Another recent groundbreaking paper in Nature Communications has also provided massive confirmation of Meyer ’ s arguments in the book that new genes were required at the origin of animals .
Well , additional vindication has now come , as a new paper in eLife , “ The genetic factors of bilaterian evolution , ” has found that 157 new genes were required during the Cambrian explosion to account for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ symmetry ) : The Cambrian explosion was a unique animal radiation ~540 million years ago that produced the full range of body plans across bilaterians .
The genetic mechanisms underlying these events are unknown , leaving a fundamental question in evolutionary biology unanswered .
Using large-scale comparative genomics and advanced orthology evaluation techniques , we identified 157 bilaterian-specific genes .
They include the entire Nodal pathway , a key regulator of mesoderm development and left-right axis specification ; components for nervous system development , including a suite of G-protein-coupled receptors that control physiology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ system , and the neurotrophin signalling system ; a high number of zinc finger transcription factors ; and novel factors that previously escaped attention .
Contradicting the current view , our study reveals that genes with bilaterian origin are robustly associated with key features in extant bilaterians , suggesting a causal relationship .
The paper also disagrees with claims of unambiguous Precambrian bilaterian fossils — a point that paleontologist Günter Bechly made here recently at Evolution News — while making striking statements acknowledging the “ abrupt appearance of most bilaterian body plans ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Cambrian sediments with an age of ∼540 million years ( Marshall , 2006 ; Erwin and Valentine , 2013 ) .
By the end of Cambrian stage 3 ( 499 Mya ) , stem groups of all major bilaterian phyla inhabited Earth .
This abrupt appearance of most bilaterian body plans , the sets of morphological features common to a phylum , already puzzled Darwin ( Darwin , 2009 ) .
It is considered one of the most important evolutionary events after the origin of life ( Conway Morris , 2006 ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an explanation today .
Importantly , no new body plans evolved in the 500 My since the initial radiation .
More importantly , the article hints a key point that we ’ ve made repeatedly here — that global changes such as increased ocean oxygenation or other ecological factors are not sufficient to explain the origin of new genetic information needed in the Cambrian explosion : The paper reports finding “ 157 high-confidence bilaterian-specific genes , with many functions connected to key bilaterian features.
” It now seems well-established that new genetic information @ @ @ @ @ @ @ arose abruptly in the Cambrian explosion .
This prompts the crucial next question : Where did that new information come from ?
We have an idea .

Photo: Fossil of Opabinia regalis, a Cambrian animal, by Jstuby at English Wikipedia, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
In 2018 we covered a paper in the journal Nature Communications which found that thousands of new genes would have been required to build the diverse animal body plans that appear abruptly in the Cambrian period. The notion that many genes would be required for the Cambrian explosion may seem unsurprising — what probably is surprising is that anyone would challenge the idea that the Cambrian animals required new genes!
Darwin’s Doubt
If that’s how you feel, welcome to the debate over intelligent design and evolution. Stephen Meyer argued in his 2013 book Darwin’s Doubt that the Cambrian animals represented an explosion of new genetic information that outstripped the creative powers of the Darwinian mechanism. It wasn’t until then that ID-critics doubled-down on their claims that the Cambrian animals didn’t require new genes! This allowed them, they thought, to sidestep this mathematical challenge to their viewpoint. No need to explain the origin of new genetic information if no new genetic information is needed, right?
Wrong. In 2018 we reported:
Someday we may get tired of being vindicated. But not yet! Günter Bechly recently discussed a new paper that confirmed Stephen Meyer’s claims in Darwin’s Doubt that arthropods appeared abruptly in the Cambrian explosion, without evolutionary precursors in the Precambrian. Another recent groundbreaking paper in Nature Communications has also provided massive confirmation of Meyer’s arguments in the book that new genes were required at the origin of animals.
Additional Vindication
Well, additional vindication has now come, as a new paper in eLife, “The genetic factors of bilaterian evolution,” has found that 157 new genes were required during the Cambrian explosion to account for the origin of bilaterians (animals with bilateral symmetry):
The Cambrian explosion was a unique animal radiation ~540 million years ago that produced the full range of body plans across bilaterians. The genetic mechanisms underlying these events are unknown, leaving a fundamental question in evolutionary biology unanswered. Using large-scale comparative genomics and advanced orthology evaluation techniques, we identified 157 bilaterian-specific genes. They include the entire Nodal pathway, a key regulator of mesoderm development and left-right axis specification; components for nervous system development, including a suite of G-protein-coupled receptors that control physiology and behaviour, the Robo-Slit midline repulsion system, and the neurotrophin signalling system; a high number of zinc finger transcription factors; and novel factors that previously escaped attention. Contradicting the current view, our study reveals that genes with bilaterian origin are robustly associated with key features in extant bilaterians, suggesting a causal relationship.
The paper also disagrees with claims of unambiguous Precambrian bilaterian fossils — a point that paleontologist Günter Bechly made here recently at Evolution News — while making striking statements acknowledging the “abrupt appearance of most bilaterian body plans”:
The first unambiguously bilaterian fossils appear in Cambrian sediments with an age of ∼540 million years (Marshall, 2006; Erwin and Valentine, 2013). By the end of Cambrian stage 3 (499 Mya), stem groups of all major bilaterian phyla inhabited Earth. This abrupt appearance of most bilaterian body plans, the sets of morphological features common to a phylum, already puzzled Darwin (Darwin, 2009). It is considered one of the most important evolutionary events after the origin of life (Conway Morris, 2006; Budd, 2008) and still awaits an explanation today. Importantly, no new body plans evolved in the 500 My since the initial radiation.
Explaining New Genetic Information
More importantly, the article hints a key point that we’ve made repeatedly here — that global changes such as increased ocean oxygenation or other ecological factors are not sufficient to explain the origin of new genetic information needed in the Cambrian explosion:
Abiotic, ecological, and genetic factors have been proposed to explain the Cambrian radiation. While deep-ocean oxygenation (Canfield et al., 2007), the availability of calcium (Jackson et al., 2010), or ecological interactions (Budd and Jensen, 2017) likely played a role, genetic changes in the bilaterian ancestor must ultimately have constituted its molecular basis.
The paper reports finding “157 high-confidence bilaterian-specific genes, with many functions connected to key bilaterian features.” It now seems well-established that new genetic information was required for the body plans that arose abruptly in the Cambrian explosion. This prompts the crucial next question: Where did that new information come from? We have an idea.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-22--Science as Oracle — “Where It Gets Weird”

Our biophysicist colleague Cornelius Hunter joined in today in responding to denials of free will , and insistences on the absolute truth of determinism , from atheists Sabine Hossenfelder and Jerry Coyne .
In a video here , Dr. Hunter makes an incisive point : Coyne , like Hossenfelder , takes as the premise of his views that “ physics is in command of everything , ” as Hunter summarizes , “ and that ’ s just a given for them .
And this is where it gets weird.
” Why weird ?
Because Coyne “ doesn ’ t seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement .
He doesn ’ t get that.
” As Hunter points out , this a classic illustration of scientism .
“ When you are going around , making claims that science ‘ says this , ’ ‘ proves that , ’ ‘ requires this , ’ without giving any explanation or any justification , just making claims in the name of science , that ’ s scientism.
” He adds , “ If it were just one person or a couple of people , you could write it off .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is , a lot of scientists practicing a kind of scientific divination .
The ancients had their oracles , people claiming to speak in the name of the gods — this , by divination .
There was no evidence backing up the statements of the oracles .
It is indeed weird that smart people like Hossenfelder and Coyne , and many others , who are themselves scientists , would treat science in this oracular fashion .

Image: Consulting the Oracle, by John William Waterhouse, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Our biophysicist colleague Cornelius Hunter joined in today in responding to denials of free will, and insistences on the absolute truth of determinism, from atheists Sabine Hossenfelder and Jerry Coyne. In a video here, Dr. Hunter makes an incisive point:
Coyne, like Hossenfelder, takes as the premise of his views that “physics is in command of everything,” as Hunter summarizes, “and that’s just a given for them. And this is where it gets weird.” Why weird? Because Coyne “doesn’t seem to understand he needs to defend that statement. He doesn’t get that.” As Hunter points out, this is a classic illustration of scientism. “When you are going around, making claims that science ‘says this,’ ‘proves that,’ ‘requires this,’ without giving any explanation or any justification, just making claims in the name of science, that’s scientism.” He adds, “If it were just one person or a couple of people, you could write it off. It’s a lot of people.” That is, a lot of scientists practicing a kind of scientific divination.
The ancients had their oracles, people claiming to speak in the name of the gods — that is, by divination. There was no evidence backing up the statements of the oracles. It is indeed weird that smart people like Hossenfelder and Coyne, and many others, who are themselves scientists, would treat science in this oracular fashion.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-22--Design Filter Is Best Bet for Finding Liars

Accusations of lying are being bandied about recklessly in these days of hyper-partisan political contests , giving self-appointed fact-checkers job security .
But who fact-checks the fact-checkers ?
Even they are accused of lying .
An infinite regress threatens .
At some level , one must believe that objective truth exists , otherwise such exercises are hopeless .
Indeed , science itself — and every other kind of scholarly activity — depends on the prior assumption of objective truth .
To test this , ask if a postmodernist is telling the truth about the subjectivity of truth !
That is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ For present purposes , assuming the existence of objective truth , what can we say about lie detection , a subtopic of forensic science ?
Even though its subject matter often involves crime , forensics is a category of intelligent design science in action ( see here ) .
In this article on the ARN website , William Dembski gives an illustration of lie detection in an incident concerning biased election ballots ( a timely subject ) that led to the conviction of a county clerk named Nicholas Caputo who swore he was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ order .
There were far too many times his party ’ s candidates appeared higher on the ballot than could be expected by chance ( 40 out of 41 ) , so the court ruled he was guilty of intentionally rigging the election .
Because liars are ubiquitous , courtrooms around the world are tasked with separating the wheat of truth from the chaff in the evidence and testimony in order to reach a verdict .
Witnesses are instructed to tell “ The truth , the whole truth , and nothing but the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ challenging task trusting witnesses who have taken that oath because liars are so ingenious .
On top of deliberate lying , witnesses may be innocently mistaken .
What “ really ” happened in the objectively real world ?
Adding to the difficulty , the forensic scientist must be able to trust the tools used to sift the true from the false .
Are the ones telling them to trust the tools liars , too ?
In medieval times , courts used “ trial by ordeal ” to get the witness to confess or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie detection frowned on today , that were trusted then .
What brings the subject of forensics to attention this time is a recent study from the University of Portsmouth that calls into question a popular lie-detection technique .
It makes you wonder if progress has been made since medieval times .
The intent of what follows is not to fact-check the authors ’ conclusions , but to point out the challenge of trusting tools that purport to identify lies .
They ask , “ Lie detection — Have the experts got it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alarming thought : the tool intended to identify a liar makes him a better liar !
The researchers analyzed an interviewing technique for teasing out a liar ’ s deception called the “ Model Statement.
” The problem , they found , is that liars can adjust the length of their statements to match those of truth-tellers .
So much for trust in the Model Statement tool .
How would a Darwinist approach the problem of lie detection ?
The advice would likely be a non-starter .
Darwinism is about fitness , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deception if it increases the organism ’ s fitness ( check this Royal Society paper arguing that “ Cooperation creates selection for tactical deception ” ) .
The liar who gets away with the crime by lying in court is a hero on the fitness scale .
He is just as clever as the mantid imitating a leaf or a flower to avoid being eaten .
If this argument seems unfair to some respectable evolutionary professor voicing an objection , let him or her consider the voluminous literature on “ evolutionary game theory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ cheaters ” co-exist in all evolutionary social groups from bacteria to humans .
The cooperators obey the conventional social order , and the cheaters take advantage of weaknesses in it .
But the distinctions are academic ; if the cheaters increase in fitness and gain a majority , the old cooperators are now the new cheaters .
Truth has nothing to do with it .
Might makes right .
The situation gets worse when pondered more deeply .
If truth has nothing to do with it , then truth has nothing to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ including the naked ape , does in the material world .
Otherwise one would have to postulate the introduction from outside of the notion that “ truth exists and is objectively good ” into a world of purposeless and aimless material processes .
Consequently , one could assert that the authors of a paper on evolutionary game theory are only trying to increase their fitness ; they are not describing “ truth ” with a capital T. Even worse , if the notion that “ truth is good ” were blended into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ too would be subject to natural selection as a strategy for increasing fitness , which would be self-defeating .
Truth that evolves can not be true , because something claimed to be true today could be false tomorrow .
Unless “ truth ” is objective , timeless , and universal , no claim can ever be argued to be true — including the arguments in Jerry Coyne ’ s blog , Why Evolution Is True .
On what non-question-begging basis can Coyne respond to the argument that he is just trying to increase @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say it requires the Return of the God Hypothesis ( Stephen Meyer ’ s upcoming book ) to argue that anything at all is true .
Since Darwinism is a non-starter for successful lie detection , the only possible approach to separate truth-tellers from liars is to start with the assumption of objective , non-evolving truth .
As fallible humans , we may strive for truth without reaching it many times , but one must believe it is “ out there ” in the world .
Moreover , that assumption must be grounded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account for it .
That ’ s the philosophical groundwork for forensics .
ID advocates , however — like everyone — must have a practical answer .
Liars exist .
They plague our courtrooms and frustrate police investigators trying to find out what happened .
How can the investigator get at the truth ?
This is urgent , because bad design inferences can land a person in jail .
ID theory ’ s Design Filter applies here as well , but with slight modifications .
In forensic lie detection , all the players @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design is already present as a potential cause .
The investigator is not expecting natural law ( like gravity or electromagnetics ) to figure into the filter when interviewing a witness .
The challenge is to distinguish truthful design from deceitful design .
Each piece of physical evidence can be run through the traditional Design Filter ( natural law , chance , specification ) , but in an interview with a potential liar , the investigator must consider whether the interviewer had motivation to commit the crime and the means to do it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clerk who was cheating , the “ law ” step concerns whether the suspect ’ s actions were normal and natural for clerks in that line of work .
The “ chance ” step concerns whether the suspect ’ s actions were improbable unless he had foresight and intention to favor a particular outcome .
The “ specification ” step concerns whether the outcome matched a motivation he could be reasonably expected to have .
In the case of Caputo , a clerk knowing the “ law ” of listing candidates randomly should @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The actual listings on the ballots should have been explainable by “ chance ” using mathematical probability calculations .
And the “ specification ” showed that a Democrat or a Republican would tend to be motivated to favor his own party .
Dealing with intelligent minds capable of lying adds extra challenges to ID investigators .
It ’ s not as easy as inferring whether Mount Rushmore was designed , or a megalith was built by an ancient civilization , or whether a signal in space represents beings wishing to make contact .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ an evil mind is trying to trick the investigator , though , the methods to deceive can seem endless .
Fortunately , experience with enough liars can reveal patterns that most of them will tend to use .
There will always be some “ perfect crimes ” that end up in the cold case file .
The Design Filter is the best bet for finding most of the clever deceivers in our world .

Photo: Mantid may imitate a leaf or a flower to avoid being eaten, by Luc Viatour, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Accusations of lying are being bandied about recklessly in these days of hyper-partisan political contests, giving self-appointed fact-checkers job security. But who fact-checks the fact-checkers? Even they are accused of lying. An infinite regress threatens. At some level, one must believe that objective truth exists, otherwise such exercises are hopeless. Indeed, science itself — and every other kind of scholarly activity — depends on the prior assumption of objective truth. To test this, ask if a postmodernist is telling the truth about the subjectivity of truth!
That is a problem for philosophers to debate. For present purposes, assuming the existence of objective truth, what can we say about lie detection, a subtopic of forensic science? Even though its subject matter often involves crime, forensics is a category of intelligent design science in action (see here). In this article on the ARN website, William Dembski gives an illustration of lie detection in an incident concerning biased election ballots (a timely subject) that led to the conviction of a county clerk named Nicholas Caputo who swore he was listing candidates’ names in a random order. There were far too many times his party’s candidates appeared higher on the ballot than could be expected by chance (40 out of 41), so the court ruled he was guilty of intentionally rigging the election.
Liars in the Courtroom
Because liars are ubiquitous, courtrooms around the world are tasked with separating the wheat of truth from the chaff in the evidence and testimony in order to reach a verdict. Witnesses are instructed to tell “The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.” But it’s a challenging task trusting witnesses who have taken that oath because liars are so ingenious. On top of deliberate lying, witnesses may be innocently mistaken. What “really” happened in the objectively real world?
Adding to the difficulty, the forensic scientist must be able to trust the tools used to sift the true from the false. Are the ones telling them to trust the tools liars, too? In medieval times, courts used “trial by ordeal” to get the witness to confess or used torture or drugs — tools for lie detection frowned on today, that were trusted then.
What brings the subject of forensics to attention this time is a recent study from the University of Portsmouth that calls into question a popular lie-detection technique. It makes you wonder if progress has been made since medieval times. The intent of what follows is not to fact-check the authors’ conclusions, but to point out the challenge of trusting tools that purport to identify lies. They ask, “Lie detection — Have the experts got it wrong?” The article proposes an alarming thought: the tool intended to identify a liar makes him a better liar!
A widely adopted police interview technique, used by both the FBI and British police, to spot if a suspect is lying, is not fit for use, a report out today concludes. In fact, there is evidence that the technique helps liars become even better liars. [Emphasis added.]
The researchers analyzed an interviewing technique for teasing out a liar’s deception called the “Model Statement.”
The Model Statement technique has been built on the insight that longer, more detailed statements typically contain more clues to deception that shorter statements. Although there are many different techniques used — Model Statement is becoming increasingly popular.
The problem, they found, is that liars can adjust the length of their statements to match those of truth-tellers.
Lead researcher, Cody Porter, Senior Teaching Fellow in Psychology and Offending Behaviour, University of Portsmouth says, “In my opinion it is dangerous for Model Statement to be used in practice now because there are many sources that show that while the Model Statement technique supports truth tellers to say more it also supports liars to do the same. The outcome is that it becomes impossible to tell the difference between someone telling the truth and someone who is lying.”
Can Darwinism Help?
So much for trust in the Model Statement tool. How would a Darwinist approach the problem of lie detection? The advice would likely be a non-starter. Darwinism is about fitness, not truth. In fact, Darwinism rewards deception if it increases the organism’s fitness (check this Royal Society paper arguing that “Cooperation creates selection for tactical deception”). The liar who gets away with the crime by lying in court is a hero on the fitness scale. He is just as clever as the mantid imitating a leaf or a flower to avoid being eaten. If this argument seems unfair to some respectable evolutionary professor voicing an objection, let him or her consider the voluminous literature on “evolutionary game theory,” where “cooperators” and “cheaters” co-exist in all evolutionary social groups from bacteria to humans. The cooperators obey the conventional social order, and the cheaters take advantage of weaknesses in it. But the distinctions are academic; if the cheaters increase in fitness and gain a majority, the old cooperators are now the new cheaters. Truth has nothing to do with it. Might makes right.
The situation gets worse when pondered more deeply. If truth has nothing to do with it, then truth has nothing to do with anything that any organism, including the naked ape, does in the material world. Otherwise one would have to postulate the introduction from outside of the notion that “truth exists and is objectively good” into a world of purposeless and aimless material processes. Consequently, one could assert that the authors of a paper on evolutionary game theory are only trying to increase their fitness; they are not describing “truth” with a capital T. Even worse, if the notion that “truth is good” were blended into a society’s social order, it too would be subject to natural selection as a strategy for increasing fitness, which would be self-defeating. Truth that evolves cannot be true, because something claimed to be true today could be false tomorrow. Unless “truth” is objective, timeless, and universal, no claim can ever be argued to be true — including the arguments in Jerry Coyne’s blog, Why Evolution Is True. On what non-question-begging basis can Coyne respond to the argument that he is just trying to increase his reproductive fitness? One could almost say it requires the Return of the God Hypothesis (Stephen Meyer’s upcoming book) to argue that anything at all is true.
Can Intelligent Design Help?
Since Darwinism is a non-starter for successful lie detection, the only possible approach to separate truth-tellers from liars is to start with the assumption of objective, non-evolving truth. As fallible humans, we may strive for truth without reaching it many times, but one must believe it is “out there” in the world. Moreover, that assumption must be grounded in a necessary and sufficient cause to account for it. That’s the philosophical groundwork for forensics.
ID advocates, however — like everyone — must have a practical answer. Liars exist. They plague our courtrooms and frustrate police investigators trying to find out what happened. How can the investigator get at the truth? This is urgent, because bad design inferences can land a person in jail.
ID theory’s Design Filter applies here as well, but with slight modifications. In forensic lie detection, all the players have minds and intentions, so intelligent design is already present as a potential cause. The investigator is not expecting natural law (like gravity or electromagnetics) to figure into the filter when interviewing a witness. The challenge is to distinguish truthful design from deceitful design.
Each piece of physical evidence can be run through the traditional Design Filter (natural law, chance, specification), but in an interview with a potential liar, the investigator must consider whether the interviewer had motivation to commit the crime and the means to do it. In the case of the city clerk who was cheating, the “law” step concerns whether the suspect’s actions were normal and natural for clerks in that line of work. The “chance” step concerns whether the suspect’s actions were improbable unless he had foresight and intention to favor a particular outcome. The “specification” step concerns whether the outcome matched a motivation he could be reasonably expected to have. In the case of Caputo, a clerk knowing the “law” of listing candidates randomly should have known how to achieve that. The actual listings on the ballots should have been explainable by “chance” using mathematical probability calculations. And the “specification” showed that a Democrat or a Republican would tend to be motivated to favor his own party.
It’s Still a Tough Job
Dealing with intelligent minds capable of lying adds extra challenges to ID investigators. It’s not as easy as inferring whether Mount Rushmore was designed, or a megalith was built by an ancient civilization, or whether a signal in space represents beings wishing to make contact. Those come from well-intentioned minds. When an evil mind is trying to trick the investigator, though, the methods to deceive can seem endless. Fortunately, experience with enough liars can reveal patterns that most of them will tend to use. There will always be some “perfect crimes” that end up in the cold case file. The Design Filter is the best bet for finding most of the clever deceivers in our world.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-22--Determinism: Smart People and an Absurd Claim

As noted here yesterday , theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has become the latest in a long line of smart people to make the absurd claim of determinism ( see her blog or video ) , and that therefore there is no such thing as free will .
This silliness traces at least as far back as Laplace and is based on the idea that any system evolves from time point 1 to time point 2 according to the laws of nature .
As Hossenfelder puts it : These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ example the exact details of the particles in your brain and all your brain ’ s inputs , then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions .
This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang .
We are just watching it play out .
The first problem with Hossenfelder ’ s sophism is that it is non-empirical .
We experience free will continually in our personal experience .
Hossenfelder ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ untold mountains of evidence .
Hossenfelder ’ s predictable solution is anti-realism .
The problem , according to determinists such as Hossenfelder , is that our experience is uniformly false .
We may think we have free will , but that is nothing more than an illusion .
But why is that true ?
Hossenfelder makes the Humean appeal to the laws of nature .
They show how systems evolve deterministically , so therefore the data from our personal experience must be false .
Hossenfelder fails to see the unjustified leap she has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of nature to be authoritative without justification .
Hossenfelder has identified a conflict : our experience says one thing , and the laws of nature say the opposite .
Something must give , and Hossenfelder unilaterally and without justification concludes that the laws of nature win out .
The fallacy is reminiscent of Hume ’ s argument against miracles that John Earman demolished twenty years ago .
As if sensing a problem Hossenfelder attempts to justify her leap .
She explains that “ These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” and that “ we know that brains are made of particles.
” Furthermore , “ the laws of nature that we know describe humans on the fundamental level.
” But rather than saving the theory , Hossenfelder is merely digging deeper into the fallacy , as she simply begs the question .
These are all non-empirical truth claims that are beholden to the assumption of determinism .
She simply asserts these claims , but why should we believe any of them are true ?
Yet Hossenfelder is supremely confident in her @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she warns , or “ you will never understand how the universe really works.
” This is the classic intellectual necessity argument , so common in the evolution literature .
In this case it is determinism that is required for scientific progress and truth .
This brings us to the second problem with Hossenfelder ’ s determinism , which is her many truth claims .
As she explains above , “ the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the Big Bang.
” But if that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything .
Everything she has typed out was , well , pre-determined by some initial conditions and some blind natural laws .
Why should Hossenfelder think for a moment that anything that occurs to her has any correspondence to truth ?
Above she made the classic intellectual necessity argument but , in fact , it is precisely the opposite .
Her determinism undercuts her many truth claims , and knowledge in general .
There would be no reason to think anything we ever generate has any particular truth value .
For instance , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , there I did it .
But of course , Hossenfelder would say that sentence was all preordained .
She also would say it is not true .
So certainly preordained sentences are not necessarily true .
In fact , for Hossenfelder our notions , thoughts , commitments , and conclusions are merely a consequence of the arrangement of particles in our heads .
Why should we think they would be true , if there even is such a thing ?
Hossenfelder ’ s conclusion , that “ the whole story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was determined already at the Big Bang .
We are just watching it play out ” is fitting .
For it is the ultimate in meaningless , trivialization of the profound .
She is mired in the absurd .
Hossenfelder is the best and the brightest — a cutting-edge theoretical physicist .
The wisest that the world has to offer and look where she has landed .
As Paul informed the Corinthians in the introduction of his first letter to them , God made foolish the wisdom of this world .

Photo: Sabine Hossenfelder, by HossenfelderS, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
As noted here yesterday, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has become the latest in a long line of smart people to make the absurd claim of determinism (see her blog or video), and that therefore there is no such thing as free will. This silliness traces at least as far back as Laplace and is based on the idea that any system evolves from time point 1 to time point 2 according to the laws of nature. As Hossenfelder puts it:
These laws have the common property that if you have an initial condition at one moment in time, for example the exact details of the particles in your brain and all your brain’s inputs, then you can calculate what happens at any other moment in time from those initial conditions. This means in a nutshell that the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the big bang. We are just watching it play out.
The first problem with Hossenfelder’s sophism is that it is non-empirical. We experience free will continually in our personal experience. Hossenfelder’s claim amounts to a denial of untold mountains of evidence. Hossenfelder’s predictable solution is anti-realism. The problem, according to determinists such as Hossenfelder, is that our experience is uniformly false. We may think we have free will, but that is nothing more than an illusion.
An Unjustified Leap
But why is that true? Hossenfelder makes the Humean appeal to the laws of nature. They show how systems evolve deterministically, so therefore the data from our personal experience must be false. Hossenfelder fails to see the unjustified leap she has made. She has declared the laws of nature to be authoritative without justification.
Hossenfelder has identified a conflict: our experience says one thing, and the laws of nature say the opposite. Something must give, and Hossenfelder unilaterally and without justification concludes that the laws of nature win out. The fallacy is reminiscent of Hume’s argument against miracles that John Earman demolished twenty years ago.
As if sensing a problem Hossenfelder attempts to justify her leap. She explains that “These deterministic laws of nature apply to you and your brain because you are made of particles,” and that “we know that brains are made of particles.” Furthermore, “the laws of nature that we know describe humans on the fundamental level.” But rather than saving the theory, Hossenfelder is merely digging deeper into the fallacy, as she simply begs the question. These are all non-empirical truth claims that are beholden to the assumption of determinism. She simply asserts these claims, but why should we believe any of them are true?
The Intellectual Necessity Argument
Yet Hossenfelder is supremely confident in her finding. Drop this free will nonsense, she warns, or “you will never understand how the universe really works.” This is the classic intellectual necessity argument, so common in the evolution literature. In this case it is determinism that is required for scientific progress and truth.
This brings us to the second problem with Hossenfelder’s determinism, which is her many truth claims. As she explains above, “the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the Big Bang.” But if that is true then Hossenfelder cannot know anything. Everything she has typed out was, well, pre-determined by some initial conditions and some blind natural laws.
Why should Hossenfelder think for a moment that anything that occurs to her has any correspondence to truth? Above she made the classic intellectual necessity argument but, in fact, it is precisely the opposite. Her determinism undercuts her many truth claims, and knowledge in general.
The End of Knowledge
There would be no reason to think anything we ever generate has any particular truth value. For instance, I could decide to type 2+2=5. In fact, there I did it. But of course, Hossenfelder would say that sentence was all preordained. She also would say it is not true. So certainly preordained sentences are not necessarily true. In fact, for Hossenfelder our notions, thoughts, commitments, and conclusions are merely a consequence of the arrangement of particles in our heads. Why should we think they would be true, if there even is such a thing?
Hossenfelder’s conclusion, that “the whole story of the universe in every single detail was determined already at the Big Bang. We are just watching it play out” is fitting. For it is the ultimate in meaningless, trivialization of the profound. She is mired in the absurd. Hossenfelder is the best and the brightest — a cutting-edge theoretical physicist. The wisest that the world has to offer and look where she has landed. As Paul informed the Corinthians in the introduction of his first letter to them, God made foolish the wisdom of this world.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-23--Against the Tide: Oxford’s John Lennox Describes Kinship with C. S. Lewis

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
We ’ ll present those in upcoming days , starting today .
The film highlights your connection with C. S. Lewis and how you took a class from him .
Your story about his lecturing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any kinship to Lewis ?
Yes , I do .
A great deal .
Lewis was from the same part of the world as I am , from Northern Ireland .
And he went off to school in England and then he went to Oxford first , and then to Cambridge , although he lived his whole life in Oxford .
I went to school in Ireland , unlike Lewis , then I went to Cambridge and I ’ ve ended up in Oxford .
My kinship with him is that of a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family background is Christian and my parents were wonderful because they didn ’ t push anything down my throat .
They gave me space to think and encouraged me to think .
It was my father who introduced me to C. S. Lewis ’ s writings and they immediately appealed to me because although Lewis was not a mathematician , he was an English don .
He was superb as a logical thinker and reasoner .
And it was that which immensely appealed to me when I first came across his books .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ he was an atheist up until middle life , that enabled him to be a kind of mentor to me , if you see what I mean .
Therefore , since I don ’ t know what it ’ s like to be an adult and an atheist , he showed me what atheism is like from the inside .
In my intellectual development at school , I read most of his stuff before I went to Cambridge at all .
And it was a phenomenal preparation for the kind of intellectual defense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ straight away at university .
But in detail , I owe him an immense amount because although he wasn ’ t a scientist , he understood science .
He understood the implications and the philosophy of science .
And currently , one of the very important areas of argument , which I mention in the film but in no real detail , is that it ’ s Lewis who pointed out that “ No argument that says reason is not valid can make any sense at all.
” And that was a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up in relatively recent times by Alvin Plantinga .
But also by the brilliant philosopher Thomas Nagel , who is an atheist .
Plantinga is a Christian , as you know .
This is a very important argument to my mind , at least , that atheism is not intellectually defensible because it undermines rationality .
And I owe that to Lewis .
Along with a great deal more , because being Irish , he is an imaginative man and being Irish , I ’ m an imaginative person .
And therefore , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , particularly the last of the three , That Hideous Strength , was very important to me earlier on in thinking about the future .
When I came to write my latest book , 2084 , I found myself referring to it and quoting it quite a bit as you ’ ll see if you dip into the book .
But there are many other things , many other details in his books .
The way he , for example , used mathematics to illustrate Christianity .
That was quite remarkable because he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something of it .
And I find that enormously helpful .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News. We’ll present those in upcoming days, starting today.
The film highlights your connection with C. S. Lewis and how you took a class from him. Your story about his lecturing style is wonderful. Do you feel any kinship to Lewis?
Yes, I do. A great deal. Lewis was from the same part of the world as I am, from Northern Ireland. And he went off to school in England and then he went to Oxford first, and then to Cambridge, although he lived his whole life in Oxford. I went to school in Ireland, unlike Lewis, then I went to Cambridge and I’ve ended up in Oxford.
My kinship with him is that of a kind of intellectual mentor. My own family background is Christian and my parents were wonderful because they didn’t push anything down my throat. They gave me space to think and encouraged me to think. It was my father who introduced me to C. S. Lewis’s writings and they immediately appealed to me because although Lewis was not a mathematician, he was an English don. He was superb as a logical thinker and reasoner. And it was that which immensely appealed to me when I first came across his books. It was his logical thinking and because he was an atheist up until middle life, that enabled him to be a kind of mentor to me, if you see what I mean.
Therefore, since I don’t know what it’s like to be an adult and an atheist, he showed me what atheism is like from the inside. In my intellectual development at school, I read most of his stuff before I went to Cambridge at all. And it was a phenomenal preparation for the kind of intellectual defense of Christianity that I got involved in straight away at university.
But in detail, I owe him an immense amount because although he wasn’t a scientist, he understood science. He understood the implications and the philosophy of science. And currently, one of the very important areas of argument, which I mention in the film but in no real detail, is that it’s Lewis who pointed out that “No argument that says reason is not valid can make any sense at all.” And that was a strong defeater for naturalist philosophy that was taken up in relatively recent times by Alvin Plantinga. But also by the brilliant philosopher Thomas Nagel, who is an atheist. Plantinga is a Christian, as you know.
This is a very important argument to my mind, at least, that atheism is not intellectually defensible because it undermines rationality. And I owe that to Lewis. Along with a great deal more, because being Irish, he is an imaginative man and being Irish, I’m an imaginative person. And therefore, his books, his science fiction books, particularly the last of the three, That Hideous Strength, was very important to me earlier on in thinking about the future. When I came to write my latest book, 2084, I found myself referring to it and quoting it quite a bit as you’ll see if you dip into the book.
But there are many other things, many other details in his books. The way he, for example, used mathematics to illustrate Christianity. That was quite remarkable because he seemed to understand enough to really make something of it. And I find that enormously helpful.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-23--November: In a New Book, Michael Behe Springs a Trap for Darwin

In 1996 Darwin ’ s Black Box thrust Michael Behe to the forefront of the budding intelligent design movement .
The Lehigh University biochemist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow has haunted the dreams of Darwinists ever since .
Each of his three books sparked a firestorm of criticism , in everything from the New York Times and the journal Science to the private blogs of professional atheists .
Behe says he has had fun rebutting each attack .
And now the bulk of his responses are collected in a A Mousetrap for Darwin , scheduled for release next month from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the book with a live webinar , November 21 .
Register here now because space is limited !
The book includes more than a hundred of his essays along with several original pieces , including a new introduction , epilogue , and behind-the-scenes details about some of his battles with well-known scientists and , in one case , a federal judge .
Behe ’ s razor-sharp logic , wry sense of humor , and accessible style are on display throughout .
The volume ’ s title alludes to Behe ’ s homey illustration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , a common mousetrap with a missing part doesn ’ t work just a little worse .
It doesn ’ t work at all .
It ’ s irreducibly complex .
The same goes for the bacterial flagellum motor pictured on the book ’ s cover .
Ditto for an array of other ingenious molecular machines .
But the Darwinian process can ’ t select a non-functional stage that ’ s on the path to some future function .
So how could blind evolution arrange biochemical parts into these complex functional wholes one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin and his followers envision ?
Behe says a raft of recent evidence—from the study of evolving microbes to the mutations in dogs and polar bears — suggests that it can ’ t .
Rather , evolution works principally by breaking things for short-term benefit .
It can ’ t build anything fundamentally new .
Behe says one of the best indicators that he ’ s on the right track is the sheer vacuousness of the attacks leveled against him , many offered by undeniably brilliant scientists .
His critics routinely mischaracterize his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he actually said .
The new volume makes this abundantly clear .
Some of Behe ’ s critics also like to claim he has ignored this or that salient criticism .
But Behe did respond , typically in quite prominent venues — clearly , cogently , and in most cases , with his inimitable good humor .
The proof is in A Mousetrap for Darwin .
The volume is divided into eight sections and covers the debates stirred up by Darwin ’ s Black Box ( 1996 ) , the Dover intelligent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2007 ) , and most recently , Darwin Devolves ( 2019 ) .
Help us celebrate Mike Behe and his longstanding and valiant fight for scientific truth !
Join us on November 21 .

Image source: Discovery Institute.
In 1996 Darwin’s Black Box thrust Michael Behe to the forefront of the budding intelligent design movement. The Lehigh University biochemist and Discovery Institute Senior Fellow has haunted the dreams of Darwinists ever since. Each of his three books sparked a firestorm of criticism, in everything from the New York Times and the journal Science to the private blogs of professional atheists. Behe says he has had fun rebutting each attack. And now the bulk of his responses are collected in a A Mousetrap for Darwin, scheduled for release next month from Discovery Institute Press.
We will celebrate the book with a live webinar, November 21. Register here now because space is limited!
The book includes more than a hundred of his essays along with several original pieces, including a new introduction, epilogue, and behind-the-scenes details about some of his battles with well-known scientists and, in one case, a federal judge. Behe’s razor-sharp logic, wry sense of humor, and accessible style are on display throughout.
The volume’s title alludes to Behe’s homey illustration of irreducible complexity. As Behe explains, a common mousetrap with a missing part doesn’t work just a little worse. It doesn’t work at all. It’s irreducibly complex. The same goes for the bacterial flagellum motor pictured on the book’s cover. Ditto for an array of other ingenious molecular machines. But the Darwinian process can’t select a non-functional stage that’s on the path to some future function. So how could blind evolution arrange biochemical parts into these complex functional wholes one small step at a time, as Darwin and his followers envision? Behe says a raft of recent evidence—from the study of evolving microbes to the mutations in dogs and polar bears — suggests that it can’t. Rather, evolution works principally by breaking things for short-term benefit. It can’t build anything fundamentally new.
What can? Intelligent design.
Behe says one of the best indicators that he’s on the right track is the sheer vacuousness of the attacks leveled against him, many offered by undeniably brilliant scientists. His critics routinely mischaracterize his arguments, attacking straw men instead of what he actually said. The new volume makes this abundantly clear.
Some of Behe’s critics also like to claim he has ignored this or that salient criticism. But Behe did respond, typically in quite prominent venues — clearly, cogently, and in most cases, with his inimitable good humor. The proof is in A Mousetrap for Darwin.
The volume is divided into eight sections and covers the debates stirred up by Darwin’s Black Box (1996), the Dover intelligent design trial, The Edge of Evolution (2007), and most recently, Darwin Devolves (2019).
Help us celebrate Mike Behe and his longstanding and valiant fight for scientific truth! Join us on November 21.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-23--Magnetic Navigation May Be a Gift from Bacteria

Homing pigeons return home from unfamiliar release points .
Sea turtles and salmon cross oceans unerringly to feeding grounds and back home again through murky sea water .
Butterflies cross thousands of miles to specific trees they have never seen before for overwintering .
Even cows generally align north and south .
One thing that unites these disparate creatures from different phyla and families : the ability to sense and align with the earth ’ s geomagnetic field .
Where did they get this ability ?
How does it work ?
Hearing has ears ; seeing has eyes , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been a mystery for half a century .
Now , some scientists think bacteria may have shared their technology with animals , but testing that possibility is a work in progress .
Robert Wells has the news from the University of South Florida with a photo of a sea turtle laying eggs on a beach .
“ Animals ’ Magnetic ‘ Sixth ’ Sense May Come from Bacteria , New Paper Suggests.
” It ’ s a question “ that has been unresolved despite 50 years of research.
” A look at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little more than a hunch , requiring much more research .
Nonetheless , the idea could be a breakthrough , uniting the disparate groups of navigating animals around the common theme of bacterial symbiosis .
The research paper published by the Royal Society ( open access ) , of which Fitak is a co-author with three other scientists , introduces the tiny protagonists of the hypothesis : magnetotactic ( magnetism-sensing ) bacteria ( MTB ) : The incorporation of inorganic mineral particles inside organisms not unique to bacteria .
We humans have rocks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particles of calcium carbonate , called otoconia , in the ear ’ s balance organs .
In fish they are called otoliths ( “ ear rocks ” ) but they have the same basic function ( see 2015 paper in Developmental Dynamics for description ) .
These minerals , surrounded by proteins and neurons in the utricle and saccule of the inner ear , respond to gravity and acceleration and transmit that information to the brain .
That ’ s how we know which way is up when we bend over or stand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these minerals , vertigo becomes a serious problem .
A similar response to a physical force takes place in MT bacteria , except with magnetism instead of gravity .
The magnetosomes , usually arranged in single file , are attracted to magnetic fields , including the earth ’ s magnetic field .
They align with the field and feel the pull .
The whole bacterium responds by aligning with the resultant magnetic moment and travels in that direction .
The mere presence of magnetite inside a bacterium , however , does not guarantee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ functional entity in life , bacteria have genes and proteins that construct these biominerals and arrange them in magnetosomes with tight controls .
It ’ s not a simple process .
The authors believe that unrelated MTB shared these genes , located on “ Magnetosome Islands ” ( MAI ) , by horizontal gene transfer .
Even so , the coupling of magnetic-sensitive organelles to cellular motion in the bacteria is not well understood .
Research into the puzzle of animal magnetic navigation has led to two leading theories .
One theory , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ invokes quantum mechanical effects in specific proteins called cryptochromes .
Excitation of unpaired electrons in response to UV light might act as a sensor of the earth ’ s magnetic field .
The other theory involves magnetic materials in the membranes of cells .
Both theories have produced contradictory results .
Now , the USF team is suggesting that navigating animals have developed symbiotic relationships with magnetotactic bacteria .
One of the team ’ s findings was that magnetotactic bacteria are not rare .
They are far more widespread than thought : They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for MTB of known species in various animal products and ecological environments .
While tentative , the results strongly suggested that MTB genes are associated with animal material in about 53 percent of cases .
This answered criticism ( ii ) .
A deeper question is whether MTB form symbiotic relationships with other organisms .
They related a discovery of a deep-sea microbe covered with MTB that was able to move in the direction of the magnetosomes ; this was the “ first empirical evidence supporting a symbiotic interaction between MTB and a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding that reed warblers given antibiotics lost their magnetic sense .
This suggested that the birds relied on symbiotic MTB to navigate .
This answered criticism ( i ) .
In the final section of the paper , the four scientists responded to criticism ( iii ) .
They gave tentative mechanisms by which MTBs , if present in the bodies of navigating animals , might help the animals orient .
A tool is of no use if a being doesn ’ t know how to use it .
How does a magnetically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for instance , cause the bird to fly in line with the geomagnetic field ?
In the case of one-celled eukaryotes , they suggest that multiple MTB might cluster along one axis , prompting movement in that direction .
For multicellular cases , MTB might bunch together at one end of cells , aiding cell-to-cell communication if the host has receptors to interpret MTB secretions .
For animals with sensory cilia in their cells , MTB within the cilium might trigger alignment of the cilium with the magnetic moment , “ facilitating a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ like birds , movement of MTB across the eye might allow the bird to perceive the magnetic orientation in real time and make flight adjustments accordingly .
How the bird would perceive that as useful information instead of noise was not explained .
These suggestions for how animals could use MT bacteria for navigation are crude at best .
The authors admit the study is in its infancy .
It will take much more observation and experimentation to even locate the MT bacteria in these animals , let alone see whether they establish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the bacteria ’ s magnetic moments with actual responses in the animals .
Fifty years of study and scientists are still at the level of hypothesis !
“ All in all , ” they say in conclusion , “ the symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypothesis is a hypothesis worth considering.
” In Illustra ’ s documentary Living Waters , the exquisite navigation equipment of sea turtles was showcased .
The turtles can determine both the strength and angle of a magnetic field line and move precisely at the angle needed to reach their feeding grounds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vicinity of a target , they can incorporate other cues , like smell and vision , to get there .
Years or decades later they can remember how to get back , often arriving within meters of the beach where they were hatched .
The feat implies the existence of far more than symbiosis with bacterial partners aligned with compass points .
They must have the ability to build a magnetic map in their brains and store it in memory , then run the route forwards and backwards .
Other magnetic navigators , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , eels and even fruit flies , possess similarly precise navigation equipment .
Last year , The Scientist noted that while humans began to use compasses in the 12th century , If these authors are correct , tiny bacteria had magnetic navigation first .
If they passed it along to other bacteria by horizontal gene transfer , that is not Darwinian evolution ; it is sharing of existing technology .
And if higher animals incorporated the technology , they still had to establish permanent symbiotic relationships with the bacteria , and then couple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and integration with other senses .
Was that a result of chance ?
Nowhere do these scientists explain how bacteria invented magnetotaxis and encoded it into their genes .
They also don ’ t explain how higher animals took this technology and built precision systems onto it .
Evolution has failed to explain this exquisite sense .
Design science deserves a turn at bat .
( Incidentally , some bats can also navigate with magnetism . )
If MTB are found to be our symbiotic partners , too , wouldn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could restore the ability to navigate by training a sense that we may have lost through devolution ?
Instead of carrying a compass in our pockets , we could use one that ’ s built in .

Photo: Sea turtles, by Claudio Giovenzana, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Homing pigeons return home from unfamiliar release points. Sea turtles and salmon cross oceans unerringly to feeding grounds and back home again through murky sea water. Butterflies cross thousands of miles to specific trees they have never seen before for overwintering. Even cows generally align north and south. One thing that unites these disparate creatures from different phyla and families: the ability to sense and align with the earth’s geomagnetic field. Where did they get this ability? How does it work? Hearing has ears; seeing has eyes, but this “sense without a receptor” has been a mystery for half a century. Now, some scientists think bacteria may have shared their technology with animals, but testing that possibility is a work in progress.
Robert Wells has the news from the University of South Florida with a photo of a sea turtle laying eggs on a beach. “Animals’ Magnetic ‘Sixth’ Sense May Come from Bacteria, New Paper Suggests.” It’s a question “that has been unresolved despite 50 years of research.”
“The search for a mechanism has been proposed as one of the last major frontiers in sensory biology and described as if we are ‘searching for a needle in a needle stack,’” says Robert Fitak, an assistant professor in UCF’s Department of Biology, part of UCF’s College of Sciences. Fitak and researchers in the United Kingdom and Israel recently authored an article in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B that proposes a hypothesis that the magnetic sense comes from a symbiotic relationship with magnetotactic bacteria. [Emphasis added.]
A look at the paper shows that this hypothesis is little more than a hunch, requiring much more research. Nonetheless, the idea could be a breakthrough, uniting the disparate groups of navigating animals around the common theme of bacterial symbiosis.
Magnetotactic Bacteria Lug Rocks Around
The research paper published by the Royal Society (open access), of which Fitak is a co-author with three other scientists, introduces the tiny protagonists of the hypothesis: magnetotactic (magnetism-sensing) bacteria (MTB):
MTB are a diverse group of prokaryotes which are characterized by having their direction of motility influenced with a magnetic field. Unlike animals, the mechanism behind their magnetotaxis is well understood, using specialized intracellular organelles called magnetosome[s] (magnetic mineral crystals, each enveloped by a phospholipid bilayer membrane).
The incorporation of inorganic mineral particles inside organisms not unique to bacteria. We humans have rocks in our heads, too: tiny particles of calcium carbonate, called otoconia, in the ear’s balance organs. In fish they are called otoliths (“ear rocks”) but they have the same basic function (see 2015 paper in Developmental Dynamics for description). These minerals, surrounded by proteins and neurons in the utricle and saccule of the inner ear, respond to gravity and acceleration and transmit that information to the brain. That’s how we know which way is up when we bend over or stand, even with eyes closed. Without these minerals, vertigo becomes a serious problem.
A similar response to a physical force takes place in MT bacteria, except with magnetism instead of gravity. The magnetosomes, usually arranged in single file, are attracted to magnetic fields, including the earth’s magnetic field. They align with the field and feel the pull. The whole bacterium responds by aligning with the resultant magnetic moment and travels in that direction. The mere presence of magnetite inside a bacterium, however, does not guarantee a response. As with every other functional entity in life, bacteria have genes and proteins that construct these biominerals and arrange them in magnetosomes with tight controls. It’s not a simple process. The authors believe that unrelated MTB shared these genes, located on “Magnetosome Islands” (MAI), by horizontal gene transfer. Even so, the coupling of magnetic-sensitive organelles to cellular motion in the bacteria is not well understood.
Score Points for the MTB Theory
Research into the puzzle of animal magnetic navigation has led to two leading theories. One theory, the “radical pair” theory, invokes quantum mechanical effects in specific proteins called cryptochromes. Excitation of unpaired electrons in response to UV light might act as a sensor of the earth’s magnetic field. The other theory involves magnetic materials in the membranes of cells. Both theories have produced contradictory results. Now, the USF team is suggesting that navigating animals have developed symbiotic relationships with magnetotactic bacteria.
The symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypothesis is particularly plausible given the growing recognition of the varied roles symbiotic bacteria play in their hosts’ physiology (e.g., as evidenced by this special issue). However, three major criticisms of the hypothesis have thus far emerged: (i) the lack of empirical evidence for the existence of such a symbiosis, (ii) the likelihood of having symbiotic MTB, given that their prevalence in potential host species remains rarely reported, and (iii) the absence of a known mechanism that would allow eukaryotes to sense or communicate with symbiotic MTB. Here, we review and discuss recent evidence of the hypothesis, demonstrate that such a symbiosis is probable, show that MTB DNA is routinely found within animal tissue, and discuss possible host-MTB sensing mechanisms, show that MTB DNA is routinely found within animal tissue, and discuss possible host-MTB sensing mechanisms.
MTB Are Everywhere
One of the team’s findings was that magnetotactic bacteria are not rare. They are far more widespread than thought:
Thus, it is important to emphasize that MTB are not an anecdote of nature, but in fact, MTB are ubiquitous across aquatic and anaerobic environments and have a global distribution, occupying aquatic and sedimentary environments, deep-sea sediments and hemi-pelagic environments: inhabiting environments of both neutral pH values to inhabiting extreme environments such as saline-alkaline lakes and even thermals.
They ran over 55,000 metagenomic surveys, looking for MTB of known species in various animal products and ecological environments. While tentative, the results strongly suggested that MTB genes are associated with animal material in about 53 percent of cases. This answered criticism (ii).
Do MTB Relate?
A deeper question is whether MTB form symbiotic relationships with other organisms. They related a discovery of a deep-sea microbe covered with MTB that was able to move in the direction of the magnetosomes; this was the “first empirical evidence supporting a symbiotic interaction between MTB and a eukaryote.” Then, they reported a finding that reed warblers given antibiotics lost their magnetic sense. This suggested that the birds relied on symbiotic MTB to navigate. This answered criticism (i).
The Coupling Question
In the final section of the paper, the four scientists responded to criticism (iii). They gave tentative mechanisms by which MTBs, if present in the bodies of navigating animals, might help the animals orient. A tool is of no use if a being doesn’t know how to use it. How does a magnetically aligned microbe inside of a bird, for instance, cause the bird to fly in line with the geomagnetic field?
In the case of one-celled eukaryotes, they suggest that multiple MTB might cluster along one axis, prompting movement in that direction. For multicellular cases, MTB might bunch together at one end of cells, aiding cell-to-cell communication if the host has receptors to interpret MTB secretions. For animals with sensory cilia in their cells, MTB within the cilium might trigger alignment of the cilium with the magnetic moment, “facilitating a neural response.” And for complex organisms like birds, movement of MTB across the eye might allow the bird to perceive the magnetic orientation in real time and make flight adjustments accordingly. How the bird would perceive that as useful information instead of noise was not explained.
Further Questions
These suggestions for how animals could use MT bacteria for navigation are crude at best. The authors admit the study is in its infancy. It will take much more observation and experimentation to even locate the MT bacteria in these animals, let alone see whether they establish symbiotic relationships with them, and couple the bacteria’s magnetic moments with actual responses in the animals. Fifty years of study and scientists are still at the level of hypothesis! “All in all,” they say in conclusion, “the symbiotic magnetic-sensing hypothesis is a hypothesis worth considering.”
In Illustra’s documentary Living Waters, the exquisite navigation equipment of sea turtles was showcased. The turtles can determine both the strength and angle of a magnetic field line and move precisely at the angle needed to reach their feeding grounds without visual cues. When in the vicinity of a target, they can incorporate other cues, like smell and vision, to get there. Years or decades later they can remember how to get back, often arriving within meters of the beach where they were hatched. The feat implies the existence of far more than symbiosis with bacterial partners aligned with compass points. They must have the ability to build a magnetic map in their brains and store it in memory, then run the route forwards and backwards.
Other magnetic navigators, like migratory birds, trout, butterflies, eels and even fruit flies, possess similarly precise navigation equipment. Last year, The Scientist noted that while humans began to use compasses in the 12th century,
Other animals have been magnetic navigators for much, much longer. Many different species — ranging from newts and insects to sea turtles, fish, and birds — are able to orient themselves relative to the Earth’s magnetic field. Among mammals, naked mole rats, deer, and even dogs also seem to have this gift. Researchers have recently shown that the brainwaves of human beings respond to changes in magnetic fields, though it’s far from clear whether or not we can make any navigational use of this effect.
Not Darwinian Evolution
If these authors are correct, tiny bacteria had magnetic navigation first. If they passed it along to other bacteria by horizontal gene transfer, that is not Darwinian evolution; it is sharing of existing technology. And if higher animals incorporated the technology, they still had to establish permanent symbiotic relationships with the bacteria, and then couple it with capabilities like mapping, memory, and integration with other senses. Was that a result of chance? Nowhere do these scientists explain how bacteria invented magnetotaxis and encoded it into their genes. They also don’t explain how higher animals took this technology and built precision systems onto it. Evolution has failed to explain this exquisite sense. Design science deserves a turn at bat. (Incidentally, some bats can also navigate with magnetism.)
If MTB are found to be our symbiotic partners, too, wouldn’t it be cool to see if we could restore the ability to navigate by training a sense that we may have lost through devolution? Instead of carrying a compass in our pockets, we could use one that’s built in.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-24--In Biological Origins, Bottom-Up or Top-Down Causation?

On a classic episode of ID the Future , we continue to celebrate geneticist Michael Denton ’ s work in @ @ @ @ @ books .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Denton extends his reflections @ @ @ @ @ versus top-down causation .
Which is the better explanation for the world we live in @ @ @ @ @ evidence has been growing for top-down causation , which poses a challenge to reductionist and @ @ @ @ @ more of this growing body of evidence , see his new book , The Miracle @ @ @ @

Photo credit: Chastagner Thierry, via Unsplash.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, we continue to celebrate geneticist Michael Denton’s work in his Privileged Species series of books. Download the podcast or listen to it here. Denton extends his reflections on the concept of bottom-up versus top-down causation. Which is the better explanation for the world we live in? Denton says that the evidence has been growing for top-down causation, which poses a challenge to reductionist and materialistic origins science. For more of this growing body of evidence, see his new book, The Miracle of the Cell.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-25--Against the Tide: The Classroom Where C. S. Lewis Taught

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
We noted on Friday that C. S. Lewis was a special influence on Dr. Lennox .
Does the film show the actual classroom where you saw C. S. Lewis lecture ?
So far as I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have a vague feeling there was a parallel classroom that had windows out on to the street .
And my feeling is that it might have been that one but they refurbished it .
So the furnishing in that is virtually identical to the one that I sat in in those lectures of Lewis .
I went to three or four , and I ’ m very glad I did because none of us knew he was dying , of course , at that time .
They were the last lectures he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pleased to have been at them , just for that point of contact because I never met him personally , although subsequently I got to know quite a few people who knew him well .
But he ’ s had such an impact on me , and from many points of view , not only philosophy of science but the communication of Christianity and the imaginative style .
So there ’ s a great debt there .
I owe debts to others of course , but he was one of the earliest and @ @ @ @

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News. We noted on Friday that C. S. Lewis was a special influence on Dr. Lennox.
Does the film show the actual classroom where you saw C. S. Lewis lecture?
So far as I remember, it was that classroom except I have a vague feeling there was a parallel classroom that had windows out on to the street. And my feeling is that it might have been that one but they refurbished it. So the furnishing in that is virtually identical to the one that I sat in in those lectures of Lewis. I went to three or four, and I’m very glad I did because none of us knew he was dying, of course, at that time.
They were the last lectures he ever gave. I’m very pleased to have been at them, just for that point of contact because I never met him personally, although subsequently I got to know quite a few people who knew him well. But he’s had such an impact on me, and from many points of view, not only philosophy of science but the communication of Christianity and the imaginative style. So there’s a great debt there. I owe debts to others of course, but he was one of the earliest and most important ones.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-26--Is Fine-Tuning “More Extreme” in Biology or Cosmology?

In a BreakPoint commentary , John Stonestreet takes note of the recent Journal of Theoretical Biology article — “ Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems ” — that caused much consternation among the journal ’ s own editors .
They were panicked enough by what they had done that they issued a disclaimer along with a limp rebuttal seeking to counter the argument they themselves had published .
Those are unusual moves by a biology journal !
We have guessed that together they were an anxious CYA gesture , prompted by implicit threats from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be tarred as disloyal to the gods of materialism , a career-endangering reputation to have .
Something in biology can be described as “ fine-tuned , ” [ authors Thorvaldsen and Hössjer ] say , if it is “ unlikely to have occurred by chance ” and if it conforms to “ an independent or detached specification.
” As an article over at Evolution News points out , this is nothing other than what ID theorist William Dembski has called “ specified complexity.
” In fact , the authors of the paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even cite Dembski by name .
As if that weren ’ t risky enough , they also invoke biochemist Michael Behe ’ s concept of “ irreducible complexity ” as a measure of the fine-tuning in life , credit him by name , and mention other Intelligent Design notables Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer .
These Scandinavian scientists offer , for the first time , a statistical framework for determining whether certain features in living things are fine-tuned or were “ evolve-able.
” Using this method , they demonstrate how functional proteins , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ found in cells exhibit evidence of “ design.
” “ Fine-tuning , ” the authors say , “ is a clear feature of biological systems .
Indeed , fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.
” And , in a shot over establishment ’ s bow , they say bluntly : “ It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology.
” It ’ s actually the authors of the journal article who say this , but I had not really thought about it until I read Stonestreet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” they write , “ fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.
” They justify this by saying , “ Biology is inherently more complicated than the large-scale universe and so fine-tuning is even more a feature.
” Does that really follow ?
Comparing fine-tuning — in biology versus cosmology , in physics and chemistry — is not something that I can recall having seen an intelligent design scientist do before .
It ’ s provocative on the part of these authors , Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impressive in biology .
Michael Denton , including his new book The Miracle of the Cell , explores intricately tuned and coordinated aspects of nature that allow biology — the properties of water , for example — but that are not themselves biological .
I wonder how he would answer .
Stephen Meyer writes about biology and cosmology in his upcoming book , Return of the God Hypothesis .
He concludes that the former points to intelligent design but only the latter goes beyond that , driving an inference to a transcendent creator @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a kind , but it ’ s not exactly the question I ’ m asking .
I throw it out there for your consideration .
For more on the article from the Journal of Theoretical Biology , see also , “ Intelligent Design ’ s Yellow Star : Journal ’ s Disclaimer Refutes a Common Criticism of ID .
”

Photo credit: Akin Cakiner, via Unsplash.
In a BreakPoint commentary, John Stonestreet takes note of the recent Journal of Theoretical Biology article — “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems” — that caused much consternation among the journal’s own editors. They were panicked enough by what they had done that they issued a disclaimer along with a limp rebuttal seeking to counter the argument they themselves had published. Those are unusual moves by a biology journal! We have guessed that together they were an anxious CYA gesture, prompted by implicit threats from Darwinist censors that the trio of editors would be tarred as disloyal to the gods of materialism, a career-endangering reputation to have.
Stonestreet raises an interesting question. From “Intelligent Design Passes Peer Review”:
Something in biology can be described as “fine-tuned,” [authors Thorvaldsen and Hössjer] say, if it is “unlikely to have occurred by chance” and if it conforms to “an independent or detached specification.” As an article over at Evolution News points out, this is nothing other than what ID theorist William Dembski has called “specified complexity.” In fact, the authors of the paper published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology even cite Dembski by name. As if that weren’t risky enough, they also invoke biochemist Michael Behe’s concept of “irreducible complexity” as a measure of the fine-tuning in life, credit him by name, and mention other Intelligent Design notables Douglas Axe and Stephen Meyer. These Scandinavian scientists offer, for the first time, a statistical framework for determining whether certain features in living things are fine-tuned or were “evolve-able.” Using this method, they demonstrate how functional proteins, cellular networks, and the biochemical machines found in cells exhibit evidence of “design.” “Fine-tuning,” the authors say, “is a clear feature of biological systems. Indeed, fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.” And, in a shot over establishment’s bow, they say bluntly: “It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology.”
“Inherently More Complicated”
It’s actually the authors of the journal article who say this, but I had not really thought about it until I read Stonestreet’s comments: “Indeed,” they write, “fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems.” They justify this by saying, “Biology is inherently more complicated than the large-scale universe and so fine-tuning is even more a feature.” Does that really follow? Comparing fine-tuning — in biology versus cosmology, in physics and chemistry — is not something that I can recall having seen an intelligent design scientist do before.
It’s provocative on the part of these authors, Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer, to say that fine-tuning is more impressive in biology. Michael Denton, including his new book The Miracle of the Cell, explores intricately tuned and coordinated aspects of nature that allow biology — the properties of water, for example — but that are not themselves biological. I wonder how he would answer.
Stephen Meyer writes about biology and cosmology in his upcoming book, Return of the God Hypothesis. He concludes that the former points to intelligent design but only the latter goes beyond that, driving an inference to a transcendent creator. That’s a comparison of a kind, but it’s not exactly the question I’m asking. I throw it out there for your consideration.
For more on the article from the Journal of Theoretical Biology, see also, “Intelligent Design’s Yellow Star: Journal’s Disclaimer Refutes a Common Criticism of ID.”