Darwin’s Desperation?

They used to just ignore us .
That worked for many years .
Rare appearances of the loathsome words “ intelligent design ” in scientific journals were quickly squashed , as Richard Sternberg can attest .
Occasional payouts to avoid lawsuits , like at the California Science Center , could be dismissed as inconvenient hush money , quickly settled and ignored by the press .
Meanwhile , Darwinism marched on , confident and triumphant .
Largely unimpeded by any need for debate , evolutionary biologists and psychologists , safe in the accepted custom of methodological naturalism , could spin their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The media were willing accomplices , keeping the public submissive and quiet , satisfied with the daily illusions pouring forth from the ministry of truth .
See how wonderful , elegant , and powerful Darwin ’ s theory is at explaining everything — from human speech evolving from chimpanzee lip-smacking to beards evolving to cushion men ’ s chins from punches by rivals .
Just a few bloggers , like Jerry Coyne , seemed adequate to shout down the heretics .
Now there are rumblings of change .
Why else would direct attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ media ?
Is there fear in the regime behind the scenes ?
In 1991 , radical reformer Boris Yeltsin was standing on a tank outside Moscow after an attempted coup by Soviet hardliners against moderate reformer Gorbachev .
Yeltsin rallied the “ peasants ” to throw off the dictatorial regime that had failed the Soviet people so miserably .
Meanwhile , in the Kremlin , the Communist coup leaders read from a printed statement on live TV , stating confidently that the Communist Party was still in control .
Those who watched on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their hands were shaking .
Change was in the air .
Back in the day , Yeltsin would have been exiled or shot for such crimes , but now , even some of the officers were defecting to him .
74 years of ruthless Soviet domination collapsed almost overnight .
It may be too early to tell whether the current uptick in pro-Darwin rhetoric in the media represents trembling hands by leaders of the Darwinian regime .
But given the steady stream of impressive books by scholars at Discovery Institute , the success @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ID message back to their home countries , and views of enthusiastic crowds at ID conferences , there is reason to evaluate these news items in a similar context .
One example comes from the University of Oslo , in Norway .
It ’ s been rare to see direct attacks against intelligent design , but this one said in bold headlines , “ Evolutionary flaws disprove the theory of intelligent design ” ( emphasis added ) .
Strong words , but they were echoed across the pro-Darwin media networks as usual @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because mentioning ID might cause some people to inquire more about it .
Nevertheless , Professor Glenn-Peter Sætre , shown with the stern , confident gaze of a prize fighter , launched into his blows against the straw man , using his right hook : dysteleology “ disproves ” intelligent design , because the human body is rife with bad designs .
As is customary with Darwin partisans , he didn ’ t have to face a real opponent .
With the collapsed straw man at his feet , Sætre performed the Darwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Evolution Is Amazing !
” Professor Sætre by no means believes that evolution is a miserable process .
For example , it has given the world wonderful and varied creatures such as the tiger , the blue whale , and the finches on the Galapagos Islands .
His point is instead that evolution has no foresight or intelligence ; there is no plan that can guide the direction of evolution .
Charles Darwin ’ s theory of evolution was presented in the book The Origin of Species in 1859 and is considered one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all time .
According to Darwin ‘ s theory , all life on earth has arisen through a process of change from pre-existing forms .
This very process of change is called evolution .
To sweep the floor of the remaining straw , Sætre dismisses ID as unscientific , using the straw man definition of intelligent design .
“ In science , we make hypotheses and test them , and then we reject the hypotheses that can not be confirmed .
In this way we are getting closer and closer to the truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is completely absent from the followers of ID .
Instead , they “ cherry-pick ” natural phenomena that they think are a bit strange , and then they claim that these phenomena can not be explained by evolution .
Ergo , there must be a designer ” , says Sætre .
“ But unfortunately , the ID supporters do not care if their arguments are refuted time and time again .
All the “ unexplainable ” examples they cite can be explained by the theory of evolution ” , he adds .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Haldane , and Gould , he congratulates himself and envisions his readers cheering his performance .
With a last kick to the straw man , he sneers at ID as a “ marginal phenomenon ” that only rises up in America .
“ My impression is that the leading representatives of the major faiths in the world accept modern science .
They realize that it is unreasonable to believe that the Bible should function as a textbook that trumps everything we have developed in knowledge and technology over the last 2000 years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ stories and parables of religious works literally , thus becoming a science denier ” , says Sætre .
“ I am an atheist myself , but I know that there are also evolutionists – especially in the United States — who are devout Christians .
That combination is not as common in Norway , but then we are also a more secular society ” , he adds .
Wouldn ’ t it be better to see a real fight between Sætre and the Scandinavian Heretic , Matti Leisola ?
Such a contest would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peasants might like it .
Space doesn ’ t permit a full rebuttal to each of his examples of poor design .
Good grief , he even includes the appendix ; where has he been ?
But let ’ s take a brief look at one : the epiglottis .
“ Even eating can be dangerous , ” he says .
That is , if a piece of food gets into the windpipe , “ where it can cause fatal choking.
” OK , it can ; granted .
Sometimes it does .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Not having Sætre ’ s age , let ’ s guess he is about 30 .
He hasn ’ t choked to death yet , obviously .
Maybe a few times he had close calls , but some of them might have been due to his own carelessness , not following Mom ’ s advice , “ Don ’ t speak while eating.
” Parts must be used correctly , after all ; we ’ re not supposed to text while driving , too .
Assuming he has swallowed 2,000 times per @ @ @ @ @ @ @ per year , or some 22 million swallows in his life so far .
If he has experienced a thousand inadvertent close calls ( probably an excessive number ) , then the epiglottis has performed flawlessly at least 99.99 percent of the time ( probably more ) , usually without his conscious thought .
How many mechanical systems can he name with a record like that over 30 years ?
Many people live into their 90s without choking to death ( and choking is most common among the elderly , who are often @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The epiglottis , furthermore , is a living organ with constant upkeep and repair .
On top of that , Sætre has undoubtedly enjoyed many pleasurable moments eating his favorite foods and consuming his favorite beverages .
Bad design ?
How ungrateful can a person be ?
Dysteleology is a straw man argument anyway , because ID theory does not require perfect design .
Even poor designs can pass through the design filter and eliminate chance .
In another show of force , Current Biology dedicated its entire May 18 issue to “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ articles , editorials , papers and essays play the strategy of overwhelming force , sucking all the oxygen out of the room with massive amounts of pro-Darwin propaganda .
Those without the time to read all this material , though some of it may involve good experimental work , must come away with the feeling that Darwinism is so powerful and useful , no serious scientist could ever dispute it .
The tactic is like what the lawyers in the Dover trial did to Michael Behe , stacking a pile of papers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his contention that no peer-reviewed papers explained the evolution of complex biological systems by random mutations and natural selection .
It didn ’ t matter that the papers were irrelevant to the question .
Judge Jones was impressed !
Nevertheless , the Editorial in the series contained some remarkable admissions .
Trembling hands ?
Uncommon Descent quoted Florian Maderspacher worrying over a conundrum about the need for a high level of minimum complexity in the first eukaryote .
She says , “ this time , somewhat of a deus ex machina came to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ entirely new lineage of archaea.
” Calling on a deus ex machina is a bit like inserting into a math derivation , “ Then a miracle happens.
” For more on the issue of Current Biology , see here for “ Harvard Molecular Geneticist Vindicates Michael Behe ’ s Main Argument in Darwin Devolves.
” When All Else Fails , Censor Another response to the peasant revolt against the Darwinian regime is to outlaw it .
As reported here already , an article by Dave Speijer in BioEssays called on the government to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this seriously .
Given that social media giants are already censoring ideas they don ’ t like , “ This is not a drill.
” Yet on the flip side , what is the regime afraid of ?
If ID is really no scientific threat , because of the clear superiority of evolutionary theory , and if intelligent design is easily refuted , why not face it in public debates ?
Censorship is a sign of weakness .
It too recalls the trembling hands of the Soviet hardliners .
The Darwin hardliners have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a dramatic irony , gradualism is working in ID ’ s favor .
One by one , through books , conferences , websites , conversations , and better ideas , ID is winning the race for survival of the fittest science .

They used to just ignore us. That worked for many years. Rare appearances of the loathsome words “intelligent design” in scientific journals were quickly squashed, as Richard Sternberg can attest. Occasional payouts to avoid lawsuits, like at the California Science Center, could be dismissed as inconvenient hush money, quickly settled and ignored by the press.
Meanwhile, Darwinism marched on, confident and triumphant. Largely unimpeded by any need for debate, evolutionary biologists and psychologists, safe in the accepted custom of methodological naturalism, could spin their just-so stories without fear of contradiction. The media were willing accomplices, keeping the public submissive and quiet, satisfied with the daily illusions pouring forth from the ministry of truth. See how wonderful, elegant, and powerful Darwin’s theory is at explaining everything — from human speech evolving from chimpanzee lip-smacking to beards evolving to cushion men’s chins from punches by rivals. Just a few bloggers, like Jerry Coyne, seemed adequate to shout down the heretics.
Now there are rumblings of change. Why else would direct attacks on ID reverberate through the science news media? Is there fear in the regime behind the scenes?
Trembling Hands
In 1991, radical reformer Boris Yeltsin was standing on a tank outside Moscow after an attempted coup by Soviet hardliners against moderate reformer Gorbachev. Yeltsin rallied the “peasants” to throw off the dictatorial regime that had failed the Soviet people so miserably. Meanwhile, in the Kremlin, the Communist coup leaders read from a printed statement on live TV, stating confidently that the Communist Party was still in control. Those who watched on TV that day might have noticed that their hands were shaking. Change was in the air. Back in the day, Yeltsin would have been exiled or shot for such crimes, but now, even some of the officers were defecting to him. 74 years of ruthless Soviet domination collapsed almost overnight.
It may be too early to tell whether the current uptick in pro-Darwin rhetoric in the media represents trembling hands by leaders of the Darwinian regime. But given the steady stream of impressive books by scholars at Discovery Institute, the success of Summer Seminars leading graduates to take the ID message back to their home countries, and views of enthusiastic crowds at ID conferences, there is reason to evaluate these news items in a similar context.
Take That, Straw Man!
One example comes from the University of Oslo, in Norway. It’s been rare to see direct attacks against intelligent design, but this one said in bold headlines, “Evolutionary flaws disprove the theory of intelligent design” (emphasis added). Strong words, but they were echoed across the pro-Darwin media networks as usual. It was a risky strategy, because mentioning ID might cause some people to inquire more about it. Nevertheless, Professor Glenn-Peter Sætre, shown with the stern, confident gaze of a prize fighter, launched into his blows against the straw man, using his right hook: dysteleology “disproves” intelligent design, because the human body is rife with bad designs. As is customary with Darwin partisans, he didn’t have to face a real opponent. With the collapsed straw man at his feet, Sætre performed the Darwin victory dance under the banner, “Evolution Is Amazing!”
Professor Sætre by no means believes that evolution is a miserable process. For example, it has given the world wonderful and varied creatures such as the tiger, the blue whale, and the finches on the Galapagos Islands. His point is instead that evolution has no foresight or intelligence; there is no plan that can guide the direction of evolution. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was presented in the book The Origin of Species in 1859 and is considered one of the greatest advances in science of all time. According to Darwin‘s theory, all life on earth has arisen through a process of change from pre-existing forms. This very process of change is called evolution.
To sweep the floor of the remaining straw, Sætre dismisses ID as unscientific, using the straw man definition of intelligent design.
“In science, we make hypotheses and test them, and then we reject the hypotheses that cannot be confirmed. In this way we are getting closer and closer to the truth, but such a way of thinking is completely absent from the followers of ID. Instead, they “cherry-pick” natural phenomena that they think are a bit strange, and then they claim that these phenomena cannot be explained by evolution. Ergo, there must be a designer”, says Sætre. “But unfortunately, the ID supporters do not care if their arguments are refuted time and time again. All the “unexplainable” examples they cite can be explained by the theory of evolution”, he adds.
With a few more handshakes from Dawkins, Haldane, and Gould, he congratulates himself and envisions his readers cheering his performance. With a last kick to the straw man, he sneers at ID as a “marginal phenomenon” that only rises up in America.
“My impression is that the leading representatives of the major faiths in the world accept modern science. They realize that it is unreasonable to believe that the Bible should function as a textbook that trumps everything we have developed in knowledge and technology over the last 2000 years. It is not necessary to take the stories and parables of religious works literally, thus becoming a science denier”, says Sætre. “I am an atheist myself, but I know that there are also evolutionists – especially in the United States — who are devout Christians. That combination is not as common in Norway, but then we are also a more secular society”, he adds.
Wouldn’t it be better to see a real fight between Sætre and the Scandinavian Heretic, Matti Leisola? Such a contest would violate Darwinian regime rules, but the peasants might like it.
Space doesn’t permit a full rebuttal to each of his examples of poor design. Good grief, he even includes the appendix; where has he been? But let’s take a brief look at one: the epiglottis. “Even eating can be dangerous,” he says. That is, if a piece of food gets into the windpipe, “where it can cause fatal choking.” OK, it can; granted. Sometimes it does. But let’s run the numbers. Not having Sætre’s age, let’s guess he is about 30. He hasn’t choked to death yet, obviously. Maybe a few times he had close calls, but some of them might have been due to his own carelessness, not following Mom’s advice, “Don’t speak while eating.” Parts must be used correctly, after all; we’re not supposed to text while driving, too.
Assuming he has swallowed 2,000 times per day, that’s 730,000 swallows per year, or some 22 million swallows in his life so far. If he has experienced a thousand inadvertent close calls (probably an excessive number), then the epiglottis has performed flawlessly at least 99.99 percent of the time (probably more), usually without his conscious thought. How many mechanical systems can he name with a record like that over 30 years? Many people live into their 90s without choking to death (and choking is most common among the elderly, who are often losing muscle control in general). The epiglottis, furthermore, is a living organ with constant upkeep and repair. On top of that, Sætre has undoubtedly enjoyed many pleasurable moments eating his favorite foods and consuming his favorite beverages. Bad design? How ungrateful can a person be?
Dysteleology is a straw man argument anyway, because ID theory does not require perfect design. Even poor designs can pass through the design filter and eliminate chance.
Guns A-Blazing
In another show of force, Current Biology dedicated its entire May 18 issue to “The Cell in Evolution.” Over 40 articles, editorials, papers and essays play the strategy of overwhelming force, sucking all the oxygen out of the room with massive amounts of pro-Darwin propaganda. Those without the time to read all this material, though some of it may involve good experimental work, must come away with the feeling that Darwinism is so powerful and useful, no serious scientist could ever dispute it. The tactic is like what the lawyers in the Dover trial did to Michael Behe, stacking a pile of papers and books on his desk that allegedly disputed his contention that no peer-reviewed papers explained the evolution of complex biological systems by random mutations and natural selection. It didn’t matter that the papers were irrelevant to the question. Judge Jones was impressed!
Nevertheless, the Editorial in the series contained some remarkable admissions. Trembling hands? Uncommon Descent quoted Florian Maderspacher worrying over a conundrum about the need for a high level of minimum complexity in the first eukaryote. She says, “this time, somewhat of a deus ex machina came to the rescue — the discovery of an entirely new lineage of archaea.” Calling on a deus ex machina is a bit like inserting into a math derivation, “Then a miracle happens.”
For more on the issue of Current Biology, see here for “Harvard Molecular Geneticist Vindicates Michael Behe’s Main Argument in Darwin Devolves.”
When All Else Fails, Censor
Another response to the peasant revolt against the Darwinian regime is to outlaw it. As reported here already, an article by Dave Speijer in BioEssays called on the government to censor ID websites. Discovery Institute takes this seriously. Given that social media giants are already censoring ideas they don’t like, “This is not a drill.”
Yet on the flip side, what is the regime afraid of? If ID is really no scientific threat, because of the clear superiority of evolutionary theory, and if intelligent design is easily refuted, why not face it in public debates? Censorship is a sign of weakness. It too recalls the trembling hands of the Soviet hardliners.
The Darwin hardliners have shown themselves to be intransigent. But in a dramatic irony, gradualism is working in ID’s favor. One by one, through books, conferences, websites, conversations, and better ideas, ID is winning the race for survival of the fittest science.
Photo: Mural portrait of Charles Darwin, Sidney Street, Sheffield cc-by-sa/2.0 © Neil Theasby via Geograph.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-03--Join Michael Behe for an Online Conversation about Viruses and Evolution

In a free online Zoom webinar on Saturday , June 13 , biochemist Behe will review the biochemistry of viruses @ @ @ @ @ particular .
He will use these topical examples to illustrate a fundamental principle : Darwinian @ @ @ @ @ can change life marginally , in ways that are medically important , yet they can @ @ @ @ @ complex structure .
Rather , the elegant molecular structures of life required purposeful intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ pm to 7:30 pm .
Registration is required !
Find more information and a link @ @ @ @ @ event is graciously sponsored by the Colorado , Houston , and Southern California Chapters of @ @ @ @ @ & Culture Network .

In a free online Zoom webinar on Saturday, June 13, biochemist Behe will review the biochemistry of viruses in general and COVID-19 in particular. He will use these topical examples to illustrate a fundamental principle: Darwinian and other unintelligent evolutionary mechanisms can change life marginally, in ways that are medically important, yet they cannot explain life’s complex structure. Rather, the elegant molecular structures of life required purposeful intelligent design.
Join us from 6 pm to 7:30 pm. Registration is required! Find more information and a link to register here. The event is graciously sponsored by the Colorado, Houston, and Southern California Chapters of Discovery Institute’s Science & Culture Network.
Photo credit: Michael Behe, by Chris Morgan.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-03--Physicist: Gravity Refutes Free Will

Physicist: Gravity Refutes Free Will

Atheists share an attraction to using gravity in strange ways to support their doctrines .
Evolutionists are fond of saying that evolution is certain as gravity , though as others have pointed out , physicists rarely say that gravity is as certain as evolution .
Or as Stephen Hawking explained in his book The Grand Design , “ Because there is a law such as gravity , the universe can and will create itself from nothing , ” meanwhile neglecting to indicate where gravity was supposed to have come from .
Now consider the madness of the following idea : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from a tall building , and falls , thanks to gravity , to his death or injury , then this refutes the man ’ s free will .
At Mind Matters , neuroscientist Michael Egnor has a fascinating post answering a claim to this effect from brainy Caltech physicist Sean Carroll .
Carroll : If you jump out of a window , the laws of physics say that you are going to hit the ground .
You can use all of the free will you want , but it ’ s not going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
So why would you think that it works any differently when you go to decide what shirt you ’ re going to wear in the morning ?
It ’ s the same laws of physics .
It ’ s just that one case is a more crude prediction and the other case is a more detailed prediction .
So if the suicide could change his mind in mid-fall , flap his arms , and take flight , this would blunt the argument against his having taken an initial free choice to kill @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s case encompasses its own refutation : Carroll presupposes his conclusion and then uses his presupposition to reach his conclusion .
No defender of libertarian free will believes that men can fly at will — no defender of free will denies that we have material bodies that are subject to physical laws .
Defenders of libertarian free will argue that men are ensouled creatures — that we are composites of matter and spirit , and that we have powers pertaining to both that take effect in their specific realms .
We have physical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rational souls and are capable of free will .
This dualism is obvious even in science .
Physical laws themselves are not determined by physics .
That is , laws of physics — the laws of electromagnetism or the equations of general relativity etc .
— are not themselves physical things or physical processes .
The laws are mathematical constructs — that is , immaterial constructs — that describe physical processes .
The mathematics by which physical laws are expressed is itself not a deterministic physical process .
Thus dualism is embedded in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to apply the dualist nature of reality to man himself .
In fact , it is necessary to apply a dualist understanding of nature to man in order to discuss man ’ s nature at all .
Let me explain : In order to make the argument that man is determined by physics and lacks free will , Carroll must use logic .
All propositions in the form of arguments are predicated on logic , deductive or inductive .
Logic entails many different rules , analogous to ( but not identical with ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Logic is , of course , a massive discipline in itself and it has one striking characteristic : Logic shares no commonality with physics .
That is , the Venn diagram of logic and the Venn diagram of physics don ’ t overlap in any way .
Mathematical logic is entirely separate from mathematical physics .
You can ’ t derive modus ponens from Newton ’ s law of gravitation , and you can ’ t derive Gödel ’ s Incompleteness Theorem from the equations of general relativity .
If Carroll is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the laws of physics , without remainder , then where do the laws of logic come from ?
Carroll is by far smart enough to realize all this .
Yet atheists are driven to such conclusions by their pursuit of what Egnor perceptively identifies as materialism ’ s Great White Whale — that is , an obsession to track and finally destroy the common sense perception that we are beings exercising free choice .
This perception can ’ t be allowed to stand .
If man is all matter , without a soul @ @ @ @ @ @ @ atheist perspective , then there can be nothing left to him with which to exercise such a choice .
Gravity and the rest of physics must disprove free will .
At some level , most atheist scientists understand this and it haunts them , absurd as it is , as Moby Dick did Captain Ahab .

Atheists share an attraction to using gravity in strange ways to support their doctrines. Evolutionists are fond of saying that evolution is certain as gravity, though as others have pointed out, physicists rarely say that gravity is as certain as evolution. Or as Stephen Hawking explained in his book The Grand Design, “Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing,” meanwhile neglecting to indicate where gravity was supposed to have come from.
Now consider the madness of the following idea: If a man wills suicide, jumps from a tall building, and falls, thanks to gravity, to his death or injury, then this refutes the man’s free will. At Mind Matters, neuroscientist Michael Egnor has a fascinating post answering a claim to this effect from brainy Caltech physicist Sean Carroll. Carroll:
If you jump out of a window, the laws of physics say that you are going to hit the ground. You can use all of the free will you want, but it’s not going to stop you from hitting the ground. So why would you think that it works any differently when you go to decide what shirt you’re going to wear in the morning? It’s the same laws of physics. It’s just that one case is a more crude prediction and the other case is a more detailed prediction.
So if the suicide could change his mind in mid-fall, flap his arms, and take flight, this would blunt the argument against his having taken an initial free choice to kill himself?
Haunted by a White Whale
Egnor explains why Carroll’s case encompasses its own refutation:
Carroll presupposes his conclusion and then uses his presupposition to reach his conclusion. No defender of libertarian free will believes that men can fly at will — no defender of free will denies that we have material bodies that are subject to physical laws. Defenders of libertarian free will argue that men are ensouled creatures — that we are composites of matter and spirit, and that we have powers pertaining to both that take effect in their specific realms. We have physical bodies subject to gravity and we have rational souls and are capable of free will. This dualism is obvious even in science. Physical laws themselves are not determined by physics. That is, laws of physics — the laws of electromagnetism or the equations of general relativity etc. — are not themselves physical things or physical processes. The laws are mathematical constructs — that is, immaterial constructs — that describe physical processes. The mathematics by which physical laws are expressed is itself not a deterministic physical process. Thus dualism is embedded in nature, and it is not irrational to apply the dualist nature of reality to man himself. In fact, it is necessary to apply a dualist understanding of nature to man in order to discuss man’s nature at all. Let me explain: In order to make the argument that man is determined by physics and lacks free will, Carroll must use logic. All propositions in the form of arguments are predicated on logic, deductive or inductive. Logic entails many different rules, analogous to (but not identical with) the mathematical laws that describe physical processes…. Logic is, of course, a massive discipline in itself and it has one striking characteristic: Logic shares no commonality with physics. That is, the Venn diagram of logic and the Venn diagram of physics don’t overlap in any way. Mathematical logic is entirely separate from mathematical physics. You can’t derive modus ponens from Newton’s law of gravitation, and you can’t derive Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem from the equations of general relativity. If Carroll is right that man is governed entirely by the laws of physics, without remainder, then where do the laws of logic come from?
Read the rest at Mind Matters.
Carroll is by far smart enough to realize all this. Yet atheists are driven to such conclusions by their pursuit of what Egnor perceptively identifies as materialism’s Great White Whale — that is, an obsession to track and finally destroy the common sense perception that we are beings exercising free choice. This perception can’t be allowed to stand. If man is all matter, without a soul, as he must be under an atheist perspective, then there can be nothing left to him with which to exercise such a choice.
Gravity and the rest of physics must disprove free will. At some level, most atheist scientists understand this and it haunts them, absurd as it is, as Moby Dick did Captain Ahab.
Photo credit: Shane Rounce via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-03--Confessions of a Liberal Darwinian Skeptic

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah , Iowa .
He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism , The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms .
A deeply entrenched stereotype holds that intelligent design is nothing more than an attempt to smuggle conservative Christian ideology into the science classroom in the guise of a scientific alternative to Darwinism .
In a recent discussion with some ID supporters , I emphasized how important it is for those who advance ID arguments to make sure those arguments are based firmly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this stereotype .
I am especially sensitive to this issue because I come to ID from a decidedly more liberal perspective .
My liberal colleagues frequently wonder how I can align myself with a community so seemingly out of step with my own political , social , and religious views .
This raises a further question asked of me by an ID supporter : Is there a connection between my liberal views and my support for ID ?
This is a great question that I will answer here in the affirmative .
First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of what I mean when I call myself a liberal .
As a resident of Iowa , I get to participate in the Iowa Caucuses .
In the last two election cycles , I caucused for Bernie Sanders .
This will give some indication of where I fall on the political spectrum .
As a professor at a liberal arts college , I ’ m sure I am viewed as being a part of the liberal academy , and I can not deny my support for academic movements like feminist theory , critical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies .
As a professor of religion specifically ( and a biblical scholar by training ) , I do not uphold the unique truth of any particular religious tradition ( including the Protestant Christianity in which I was raised ) .
Instead I find value in aspects of many traditions ( even polytheistic and pagan ones ) .
But this does not mean I am a materialist or an atheist .
I have a strong sense that religious traditions point to a transcendent reality , even if that reality can not be fully @ @ @ @ @ @ @ All this would seem to make me an unlikely candidate to support ID .
But the seeds of my support for ID were in fact planted in my liberal education .
In seminary , one of my systematic theology professors was J. Deotis Roberts , a pioneer of the black theology movement of the 1970s .
Dr. Roberts introduced me to the phrase “ epistemological humility , ” the need in his view for more people to become comfortable with uncertainty in what they think they know .
This idea stuck with me @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studies as I was introduced to the concept of the grand narrative , the tendency for a group of people to exercise authority over other groups through the power of overarching stories that seek to naturalize and normalize unequal power relationships .
For example , in the 19th century , everyone “ knew ” that Africans were an inferior race destined to live in a subordinate relationship to white Europeans .
Today , most people know that this was an artificially constructed narrative designed to serve the interests of the economic institution of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ liberal academy ” sensitized me to the pervasive use of grand narratives and their political and social effects , and this positioned me to sniff out a grand narrative hiding in the literature of evolutionary biology as I began to take up the science/religion relationship as an area of research .
Because of the common stereotype , I expected ID literature to be filled with tendentious religious arguments and biblical quotations .
Instead I was confronted with sophisticated scientific arguments .
So I realized right away that what I “ knew ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stereotype about it had to exist for a reason .
Then , as I began to read the literature of evolutionary biology , I noticed how empirically flimsy many of the arguments are .
But more importantly , I noticed the ideological work the concept of natural selection was doing in this literature .
For example , in 1909 August Weismann openly noted how his support for natural selection was based not on evidence , but on the necessity of having a naturalistic explanation for evolution .
Later , Ronald Fisher accepted natural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ alternative explanations were too close to vitalism .
More recently , Douglas Futuyma hailed the importance of natural selection for its role in making biology a naturalistic science on a par with physics and chemistry .
These are just a few of the many examples I cite in my book The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms .
I came to realize that Darwinism developed in order to function as a scientific grand narrative designed to secure the foundation of biology as a naturalistic science , but in more recent times has grown into a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normalize a fully materialist worldview .
Harkening back to Dr. Roberts , a little ( or maybe a lot ) of epistemological humility is in order here .
No one can prove the truth of either a materialist or a transcendent reality .
So the reigning Darwinian grand narrative must be de-naturalized and de-normalized , allowing alternative ideas like ID to take their rightful place within the ongoing pursuit of as yet unanswered questions about the origin and development of life .
And this is important , for as I said above , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lives , and no less so the grand narrative of philosophical Darwinism and its scientific foundation .
The naturalization and normalization of a materialist worldview has helped among other things to authorize a materialistic framework for life that enshrines material acquisition as the be all and end all of life and reduces all values to utilitarian economic values .
If something ( or someone ) can be turned into a profit center , it is by definition good .
This has led to a yawning gap of wealth inequality whose ugly side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic , as those who have been systematically denied a living wage and access to health care have suffered the most , not to mention the disproportionately negative effects of the pandemic on people of color due to a history of systemic racism .
Recognizing the likelihood that the universe is more than material stuff , that it might well be infused with creative intelligence , is crucial to dismantling the Darwinian grand narrative and its many deleterious social , political , and economic effects .
If life is designed , it has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and this has enormous implications for the kind of society we build .
Though I am somewhat critical of Charles Darwin as a scientist , I do admire one aspect of his life .
He doggedly pursued answers to big questions even in the face of great personal suffering .
He lost his mother when he was eight and then buried three of his own children and nearly a fourth .
But these regular appointments with grief did not derail his fascination with life and its mysteries .
Darwin , like many of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sorely lacking in many people today due to our hubristic belief in a materialist science that can insulate us from death and paper over our existential angst .
But the paper is thin , so thin in fact that a minuscule virus has been able to poke holes in it , humbling us against our will , and revealing to us our true vulnerability and our dependence on forces larger than ourselves .
Never has it been more important to look beyond a superficial materialist worldview and see our lives again in a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has served its time .
Epistemological humility needs to be the order of the day .
So in a nutshell , the answer to the question put to me by the ID supporter is simple .
My desire to participate with those dedicated to dismantling the Darwinian grand narrative is based on the same dynamic inherent in my “ liberal ” suspicions of the grand narratives of white supremacy , patriarchy , heteronormativity , and religious exclusivism , along with my belief in the inherent value of all people whatever their particular views @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to lie on the side of ID .
Photo : Campus of Luther College , by Jonathunder [ CC BY-SA 3.0 ] , Â via Wikimedia Commons .

Editor’s note: Dr. Shedinger is a Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. He is the author of a recent book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms.
A deeply entrenched stereotype holds that intelligent design is nothing more than an attempt to smuggle conservative Christian ideology into the science classroom in the guise of a scientific alternative to Darwinism. In a recent discussion with some ID supporters, I emphasized how important it is for those who advance ID arguments to make sure those arguments are based firmly on scientific principles in order to undercut this stereotype. I am especially sensitive to this issue because I come to ID from a decidedly more liberal perspective. My liberal colleagues frequently wonder how I can align myself with a community so seemingly out of step with my own political, social, and religious views. This raises a further question asked of me by an ID supporter: Is there a connection between my liberal views and my support for ID? This is a great question that I will answer here in the affirmative.
First, I should spell out a little of what I mean when I call myself a liberal. As a resident of Iowa, I get to participate in the Iowa Caucuses. In the last two election cycles, I caucused for Bernie Sanders. This will give some indication of where I fall on the political spectrum. As a professor at a liberal arts college, I’m sure I am viewed as being a part of the liberal academy, and I cannot deny my support for academic movements like feminist theory, critical race theory, and post-colonial and LGBTQ studies. As a professor of religion specifically (and a biblical scholar by training), I do not uphold the unique truth of any particular religious tradition (including the Protestant Christianity in which I was raised). Instead I find value in aspects of many traditions (even polytheistic and pagan ones). But this does not mean I am a materialist or an atheist. I have a strong sense that religious traditions point to a transcendent reality, even if that reality cannot be fully grasped by any one human-mediated tradition. All this would seem to make me an unlikely candidate to support ID. But the seeds of my support for ID were in fact planted in my liberal education.
Epistemological Humility
In seminary, one of my systematic theology professors was J. Deotis Roberts, a pioneer of the black theology movement of the 1970s. Dr. Roberts introduced me to the phrase “epistemological humility,” the need in his view for more people to become comfortable with uncertainty in what they think they know. This idea stuck with me and gained greater clarity during my PhD studies as I was introduced to the concept of the grand narrative, the tendency for a group of people to exercise authority over other groups through the power of overarching stories that seek to naturalize and normalize unequal power relationships.
For example, in the 19th century, everyone “knew” that Africans were an inferior race destined to live in a subordinate relationship to white Europeans. Today, most people know that this was an artificially constructed narrative designed to serve the interests of the economic institution of slavery. My doctoral training in the “liberal academy” sensitized me to the pervasive use of grand narratives and their political and social effects, and this positioned me to sniff out a grand narrative hiding in the literature of evolutionary biology as I began to take up the science/religion relationship as an area of research.
Because of the common stereotype, I expected ID literature to be filled with tendentious religious arguments and biblical quotations. Instead I was confronted with sophisticated scientific arguments. So I realized right away that what I “knew” about ID was wrong and that the stereotype about it had to exist for a reason. Then, as I began to read the literature of evolutionary biology, I noticed how empirically flimsy many of the arguments are. But more importantly, I noticed the ideological work the concept of natural selection was doing in this literature.
For example, in 1909 August Weismann openly noted how his support for natural selection was based not on evidence, but on the necessity of having a naturalistic explanation for evolution. Later, Ronald Fisher accepted natural selection by default on the grounds that alternative explanations were too close to vitalism. More recently, Douglas Futuyma hailed the importance of natural selection for its role in making biology a naturalistic science on a par with physics and chemistry. These are just a few of the many examples I cite in my book The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms. I came to realize that Darwinism developed in order to function as a scientific grand narrative designed to secure the foundation of biology as a naturalistic science, but in more recent times has grown into a philosophical grand narrative designed to naturalize and normalize a fully materialist worldview.
A Reigning Narrative
Harkening back to Dr. Roberts, a little (or maybe a lot) of epistemological humility is in order here. No one can prove the truth of either a materialist or a transcendent reality. So the reigning Darwinian grand narrative must be de-naturalized and de-normalized, allowing alternative ideas like ID to take their rightful place within the ongoing pursuit of as yet unanswered questions about the origin and development of life.
And this is important, for as I said above, grand narratives have effects on people’s lives, and no less so the grand narrative of philosophical Darwinism and its scientific foundation. The naturalization and normalization of a materialist worldview has helped among other things to authorize a materialistic framework for life that enshrines material acquisition as the be all and end all of life and reduces all values to utilitarian economic values. If something (or someone) can be turned into a profit center, it is by definition good. This has led to a yawning gap of wealth inequality whose ugly side has been laid bare by the coronavirus pandemic, as those who have been systematically denied a living wage and access to health care have suffered the most, not to mention the disproportionately negative effects of the pandemic on people of color due to a history of systemic racism.
Recognizing the likelihood that the universe is more than material stuff, that it might well be infused with creative intelligence, is crucial to dismantling the Darwinian grand narrative and its many deleterious social, political, and economic effects. If life is designed, it has inherent value that transcends utilitarian concerns, and this has enormous implications for the kind of society we build.
Why Admire Darwin
Though I am somewhat critical of Charles Darwin as a scientist, I do admire one aspect of his life. He doggedly pursued answers to big questions even in the face of great personal suffering. He lost his mother when he was eight and then buried three of his own children and nearly a fourth. But these regular appointments with grief did not derail his fascination with life and its mysteries. Darwin, like many of his contemporaries, possessed an emotional resilience sorely lacking in many people today due to our hubristic belief in a materialist science that can insulate us from death and paper over our existential angst. But the paper is thin, so thin in fact that a minuscule virus has been able to poke holes in it, humbling us against our will, and revealing to us our true vulnerability and our dependence on forces larger than ourselves.
Never has it been more important to look beyond a superficial materialist worldview and see our lives again in a transcendent framework. The Darwinian grand narrative has served its time. Epistemological humility needs to be the order of the day. So in a nutshell, the answer to the question put to me by the ID supporter is simple. My desire to participate with those dedicated to dismantling the Darwinian grand narrative is based on the same dynamic inherent in my “liberal” suspicions of the grand narratives of white supremacy, patriarchy, heteronormativity, and religious exclusivism, along with my belief in the inherent value of all people whatever their particular views. Fortunately, the scientific evidence seems to lie on the side of ID.
Photo: Campus of Luther College, by Jonathunder [CC BY-SA 3.0],Â via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-04--Reeves: Getting Intelligent Design Wrong, and Getting It Right

On a new episode of ID the Future , Discovery Institute education outreach associate Daniel Reeves illustrates how ID opponents @ @ @ @ @ versions of the theory of intelligent design , as if by refuting a false version @ @ @ @ @ damage to the real thing .
Then , in this middle portion of a talk @ @ @ @ @ the 2020 Dallas Science and Faith Conference , he explains what ID really is — @ @ @ @ @ detective work — and the central question ID seeks to answer .
Download the podcast @ @ @ @ @ .

On a new episode of ID the Future, Discovery Institute education outreach associate Daniel Reeves illustrates how ID opponents commonly erect mindless straw men versions of the theory of intelligent design, as if by refuting a false version they’ve done any damage to the real thing. Then, in this middle portion of a talk he gave to students at the 2020 Dallas Science and Faith Conference, he explains what ID really is — it’s not unlike detective work — and the central question ID seeks to answer. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Photo credit: BikerNormand from Morsan, France [CC BY-SA 2.0], via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-04--Lancet Hydroxychloroquine Paper Scandal Illustrates Scientific Bias, Not Only in Medicine

If you ’ ve ever wondered how much of high-stakes science is politicized , reflecting the ideological views of the scientists involved despite all their insistences to the contrary , look no further than this .
A blockbuster paper in the leading British medical journal , The Lancet , reported increased mortality associated with the “ controversial ” malaria drug hydroxychloroquine , being tested for use against COVID-19 .
Why would a malaria drug , of a value that has yet to be determined , be controversial ?
You already know the answer : it ’ s because of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cheerleader .
He Looked Them Up on LinkedIn In briefest terms , scientists drew on shady data from a previously obscure company , Surgisphere , operated by a skeleton crew with a questionable Internet profile .
Having won the approval of the journal ’ s expert peer reviewers , they published in The Lancet .
Out of concern about the results , the World Health Organization slammed on a stop to trials of the drug .
No one noticed anything amiss until a private medical sleuth with a blog , Dr. James Todaro @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the paper ’ s authors and peer reviewers had neglected to ask .
Even a bit of quick googling should have raised eyebrows .
Some of Todaro ’ s research included looking up Surgisphere on LinkedIn .
Today the paper was retracted .
The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company , also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world ’ s most prestigious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reveal the US-based company Surgisphere , whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model , has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive , but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology .
Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries .
It was also behind a decision by the WHO and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine .
On Wednesday , the WHO announced those trials would now resume .
Two of the world ’ s leading medical journals — the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine — published studies based on Surgisphere data .
The studies were co-authored by the firm ’ s chief executive , Sapan Desai .
Did something like this , a transparent sham claim about a gadget for “ ris [ ing ] to the peak of human evolution , ” not set off anyone ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time Desai has launched projects with ambitious claims .
In 2008 , he launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website indiegogo promoting a “ next generation human augmentation device ” called Neurodynamics Flow , which he said “ can help you achieve what you never thought was possible ” .
“ With its sophisticated programming , optimal neural induction points , and tried and true results , Neurodynamics Flow allows you to rise to the peak of human evolution , ” the description said .
The device raised a few hundred dollars @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authors of the Lancet paper have withdrawn it and the WHO has reversed itself .
Problem solved ?
Not at all .
The myth of the objective scientist remains as entrenched as ever in the public and media imagination .
Consider : The lives of millions of people are at stake here .
Against COVID-19 , hydroxychloroquine might be effective or it might not be .
The purpose of clinical trials is to find out .
Because the drug is associated with Donald Trump , these highly esteemed scientists — authors , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data to impugn a medicine that might , or might not , help sick people .
It ’ s a particularly crude example of how confirmation bias works — how else would you explain this story ?
— not only among lay people but among top researchers .
There ’ s a health risk to biased science , but at least , when it comes to the coronavirus , we can be predict that in the end the truth will come out about the claims or perils of proposed treatments .
The world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ When it comes to bias in other fields , there ’ s no such assurance .
In considering the origins of life , of biological complexity , or of our own human species , there are no similar tests to perform .
We can ’ t watch large-scale evolution ( as distinct from trivial microevolution ) taking place in the laboratory , or in the wild .
Views about biological origins , what most people mean when they talk about “ evolution , ” are all a matter of inference to the best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bias , woven into scientific culture , there is no safeguard .
Or rather , there is only one safeguard , and it is skepticism , of the kind demonstrated by scientists and scholars in the intelligent design community .
For being skeptical , though , they are branded as “ anti-science , ” and the science journals denounce them , even calling for government censorship of ID sites like Evolution News .
Can you think of a situation more prone to misleading public opinion ?
I can ’ t .
If you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the culture of science as it manifests in both evolutionary biology and the response to COVID-19 , we have organized a free Zoom webinar on Saturday , June 13 , with biochemist Michael Behe .
Find more information here .
To reserve your place and not miss out , registration is a must .

If you’ve ever wondered how much of high-stakes science is politicized, reflecting the ideological views of the scientists involved despite all their insistences to the contrary, look no further than this.
A blockbuster paper in the leading British medical journal, The Lancet, reported increased mortality associated with the “controversial” malaria drug hydroxychloroquine, being tested for use against COVID-19. Why would a malaria drug, of a value that has yet to be determined, be controversial? You already know the answer: it’s because of the identity of the medicine’s biggest cheerleader.
He Looked Them Up on LinkedIn
In briefest terms, scientists drew on shady data from a previously obscure company, Surgisphere, operated by a skeleton crew with a questionable Internet profile. Having won the approval of the journal’s expert peer reviewers, they published in The Lancet. Out of concern about the results, the World Health Organization slammed on a stop to trials of the drug. No one noticed anything amiss until a private medical sleuth with a blog, Dr. James Todaro, asked questions about Surgisphere that evidently the paper’s authors and peer reviewers had neglected to ask. Even a bit of quick googling should have raised eyebrows. Some of Todaro’s research included looking up Surgisphere on LinkedIn. Today the paper was retracted.
From The Guardian:
The World Health Organization and a number of national governments have changed their Covid-19 policies and treatments on the basis of flawed data from a little-known US healthcare analytics company, also calling into question the integrity of key studies published in some of the world’s most prestigious medical journals. A Guardian investigation can reveal the US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model, has provided data for multiple studies on Covid-19 co-authored by its chief executive, but has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology. Data it claims to have legitimately obtained from more than a thousand hospitals worldwide formed the basis of scientific articles that have led to changes in Covid-19 treatment policies in Latin American countries. It was also behind a decision by the WHO and research institutes around the world to halt trials of the controversial drug hydroxychloroquine. On Wednesday, the WHO announced those trials would now resume. Two of the world’s leading medical journals — the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine — published studies based on Surgisphere data. The studies were co-authored by the firm’s chief executive, Sapan Desai.
Obvious Sham Claim
Did something like this, a transparent sham claim about a gadget for “ris[ing] to the peak of human evolution,” not set off anyone’s baloney meter?
It is not the first time Desai has launched projects with ambitious claims. In 2008, he launched a crowdfunding campaign on the website indiegogo promoting a “next generation human augmentation device” called Neurodynamics Flow, which he said “can help you achieve what you never thought was possible”. “With its sophisticated programming, optimal neural induction points, and tried and true results, Neurodynamics Flow allows you to rise to the peak of human evolution,” the description said. The device raised a few hundred dollars, and never eventuated.
So, the authors of the Lancet paper have withdrawn it and the WHO has reversed itself. Problem solved?
Not at all. The myth of the objective scientist remains as entrenched as ever in the public and media imagination. Consider: The lives of millions of people are at stake here. Against COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine might be effective or it might not be. The purpose of clinical trials is to find out. Because the drug is associated with Donald Trump, these highly esteemed scientists — authors, editors, reviewers — all embraced dubious data to impugn a medicine that might, or might not, help sick people.
How Confirmation Bias Works
It’s a particularly crude example of how confirmation bias works — how else would you explain this story? — not only among lay people but among top researchers. There’s a health risk to biased science, but at least, when it comes to the coronavirus, we can be predict that in the end the truth will come out about the claims or perils of proposed treatments. The world itself is a giant drug trial.
When it comes to bias in other fields, there’s no such assurance. In considering the origins of life, of biological complexity, or of our own human species, there are no similar tests to perform. We can’t watch large-scale evolution (as distinct from trivial microevolution) taking place in the laboratory, or in the wild. Views about biological origins, what most people mean when they talk about “evolution,” are all a matter of inference to the best explanation. Against the materialist or atheist bias, woven into scientific culture, there is no safeguard. Or rather, there is only one safeguard, and it is skepticism, of the kind demonstrated by scientists and scholars in the intelligent design community.
For being skeptical, though, they are branded as “anti-science,” and the science journals denounce them, even calling for government censorship of ID sites like Evolution News. Can you think of a situation more prone to misleading public opinion? I can’t.
If you’re interested in learning more about the culture of science as it manifests in both evolutionary biology and the response to COVID-19, we have organized a free Zoom webinar on Saturday, June 13, with biochemist Michael Behe. Find more information here. To reserve your place and not miss out, registration is a must.
Illustration credit: United Nations COVID-19 Response, via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-04--Neuroscientist: Neuroscience “Is a Failure”

Despite cries of “ Follow the science !
” and “ Listen to the science !
” it ’ s healthy to be reminded of the limits to what science can tell us .
Often , those limits come into play in their starkest form when the focus is on the issues that matter to us most .
The topics in science that are best understood tend to be of more modest significance for our lives .
As an example , public health science has flailed in its response to the coronavirus , the subject on everyone ’ s mind @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( even as it denies doing so ) in answering the ultimate question anyone can ask : How did we , as complex biological beings , come to be here ?
The pattern holds when it comes to another profound concern : What lies on the other side of dying ?
Neuroscience has sought to beat back the reality of reports pointing to an existence beyond death .
Near death experiences ( NDE ) violate the mandate of naturalism : everything must be explained in material terms , which is impossible to do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the body .
At Mind Matters , however , neurosurgeon and neuroscientist Michael Egnor explains that accounts of NDEs can ’ t be explained in any strict materialist fashion .
Individuals in NDEs may return with perceptions of what was going on around them when they were “ dead ” or near-dead that their own physical senses could not have captured .
Nor are the experiences like states of intoxication , where weird things are also reported .
With NDEs , memory is enhanced not blunted .
There are other reasons for thinking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journey .
As Dr. Egnor notes , NDEs have been reported across cultures and down through history , and are not more common among people whose faith tradition prompts them to expect a life after death .
So this can ’ t be mere confirmation bias .
Egnor notes the remarkable failure of neuroscience to explain not just NDEs but the entire relationship between the brain and mind : It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe ; or medical science failed to tell us anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ failed to tell us anything about rocks .
Neuroscience has told us nothing — nothing — about how the brain gives rise to the mind .
The Hard Problem , after two centuries of neuroscience and a vast trove of data , remains utterly unsolved .
Philosopher Roger Scruton ( 1944–2020 ) famously described neuroscience as “ a vast collection of answers with no memory of the questions.
” It seems reasonable to attribute this abject failure of neuroscience — and neuroscience is a failure ( how many other scientific disciplines have utterly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the system they study ? )
— to the rigid materialist bias of its practitioners .
If you ’ ve been digging in the same spot for centuries and haven ’ t found the treasure , maybe you ’ ve been digging in the wrong spot .
The scientific challenge is to explain NDE ’ s , not to explain them away .
Materialism has the same problem with other profound questions we wonder about .
Egnor asks , “ How many other scientific disciplines have utterly failed to explain the salient phenomenon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I can think of one .
In the context of evolution , you could reformulate his final sentence this way : “ The scientific challenge is to explain the infusions of information in life ’ s history , the marvelous jumps and discontinues in the fossil record , the ultimate biological discontinues in the origin of life and in the origin of our species , not to explain these things away.
” Evolutionary science , like neuroscience , will take a great step forward when everyone can agree that its mission is to @ @ @ @ @ @

Despite cries of “Follow the science!” and “Listen to the science!” it’s healthy to be reminded of the limits to what science can tell us. Often, those limits come into play in their starkest form when the focus is on the issues that matter to us most. The topics in science that are best understood tend to be of more modest significance for our lives.
As an example, public health science has flailed in its response to the coronavirus, the subject on everyone’s mind at the moment. Evolutionary science flails (even as it denies doing so) in answering the ultimate question anyone can ask: How did we, as complex biological beings, come to be here?
The Mandate of Naturalism
The pattern holds when it comes to another profound concern: What lies on the other side of dying? Neuroscience has sought to beat back the reality of reports pointing to an existence beyond death. Near death experiences (NDE) violate the mandate of naturalism: everything must be explained in material terms, which is impossible to do if an immaterial soul can separate from the body.
At Mind Matters, however, neurosurgeon and neuroscientist Michael Egnor explains that accounts of NDEs can’t be explained in any strict materialist fashion. Individuals in NDEs may return with perceptions of what was going on around them when they were “dead” or near-dead that their own physical senses could not have captured. Nor are the experiences like states of intoxication, where weird things are also reported. With NDEs, memory is enhanced not blunted.
There are other reasons for thinking that these experiences involve a genuine out-of-body journey. As Dr. Egnor notes, NDEs have been reported across cultures and down through history, and are not more common among people whose faith tradition prompts them to expect a life after death. So this can’t be mere confirmation bias.
“Digging in the Wrong Spot”
Egnor notes the remarkable failure of neuroscience to explain not just NDEs but the entire relationship between the brain and mind:
It is as if cosmology had failed to tell us anything meaningful about the universe; or medical science failed to tell us anything about health and disease; or geology failed to tell us anything about rocks. Neuroscience has told us nothing — nothing — about how the brain gives rise to the mind. The Hard Problem, after two centuries of neuroscience and a vast trove of data, remains utterly unsolved. Philosopher Roger Scruton (1944–2020) famously described neuroscience as “a vast collection of answers with no memory of the questions.” It seems reasonable to attribute this abject failure of neuroscience — and neuroscience is a failure (how many other scientific disciplines have utterly failed to explain the salient phenomenon of the system they study?) — to the rigid materialist bias of its practitioners. If you’ve been digging in the same spot for centuries and haven’t found the treasure, maybe you’ve been digging in the wrong spot. The scientific challenge is to explain NDE’s, not to explain them away.
Read the rest of Mind Matters.
Materialism has the same problem with other profound questions we wonder about. Egnor asks, “How many other scientific disciplines have utterly failed to explain the salient phenomenon of the system they study?” I can think of one. In the context of evolution, you could reformulate his final sentence this way: “The scientific challenge is to explain the infusions of information in life’s history, the marvelous jumps and discontinues in the fossil record, the ultimate biological discontinues in the origin of life and in the origin of our species, not to explain these things away.” Evolutionary science, like neuroscience, will take a great step forward when everyone can agree that its mission is to explain, not explain away.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-04--Racism, Evolution, and Human Exceptionalism

Some , like our friend and colleague Michael Medved , have seen a complex “ design ” at work in history .
Certainly , the knotting in the present situation in the United States is so complex — the pandemic , the lockdown , the economic catastrophe , the death of George Floyd , the protests , the riots and looting , now the curfews , what next ?
— as to be nearly impossible to untangle .
Certain threads in the events of recent months suggest the hand of a skilled novelist .
Think of the role played by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We ’ ve seen a virus that terrifies because it robs victims of breath , masks to protect us from the virus that themselves impede breathing , a lockdown that suffocates enterprise even as it brings fresh breathable air to cities because people stop driving their cars , a brutal death in which the victim pleads , “ I can ’ t breathe , ” pepper spray to disperse unruly protests that , again , works because it makes it takes one ’ s breath away .
The tapestry of the moment extends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported the death of a woman who was the last recipient of a veteran ’ s pension from the Union Army .
The veteran was her father .
The reminder that the Civil War was not so long ago struck me , too , as a storyteller ’ s touch .
Slavery , racism , sectional division — these forces that drove America ’ s greatest conflict remain powerful and raw .
Who Can Analyze It All ?
From this tangle of motifs , Wesley Smith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one lesson relevant to our mission here : that the exceptional place of man in nature is a rebuke to racism .
From “ Racism Violates Human Exceptionalism , ” at the Humanize blog : From a human exceptionalist perspective , racism is evil because it treats inherent equals as if they are unequal .
And in the fiction , the racist justifies discriminating against , denigrating , and/or objectifying the targeted victim based on the fallacy that “ the other ’ s ” life is somehow less important or worth valuing .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ rejects the victim as being equally made in the likeness and image of God .
Talk about hubris !
Racism also violates our duties to love and respect each other simply and merely because we are human .
Discriminatory behavior violates our duty as human beings to treat each other as we would want to be treated ourselves .
Bigotry is an unacceptable form of withholding .
It denies the mutual love we each owe to — and are entitled to receive from — all .
George Floyd is dead because the police @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ground wanted to dominate his prisoner , perhaps because of Floyd ’ s race — or maybe , simply because the officer , drunk with his own power , simply thought he could .
Domination — when not temporarily engaged to prevent danger or thwart harmful actions — is a gross abuse of authority .
It denies the respect we are each owed , and in a non-proper policing context , impedes human freedom .
The Themes of the Hour Discrimination versus dignity , respect versus domination , freedom and creativity versus suffocation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — these are all the motifs of the hour .
And looked at from a height , they are the themes of Discovery Institute ’ s programs .
Recognizing the intelligent design in life is an antidote to the most negative ideas circulating in our culture .
By contrast , seeing human beings as natural flotsam , tossed up by a random , unplanned material process without purpose or meaning , can contribute nothing positive .
It only degrades and impoverishes .
The scientific debate about evolution can be set alongside the cultural @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute documentaries like Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich .
A direct line connects Charles Darwin himself with these downstream effects .
In The Descent of Man , Darwin emphasized that humans are only animals in the end : “ Man is constructed on the same general type or model with other mammals.
” “ There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.
” There is nothing special about our origins : “ I have at least , ” he wrote , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.
” From his observations , Darwin drew the conclusion of a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom .
He predicted that “ The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.
” Darwinian racism , with its denial of mankind ’ s exceptional status , flowed like a river into the textbooks that American high school biology students learned from for decades .
Only the civil rights movement began to turn that river backward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ influence of scientific materialism on scientific racism and , as Discovery Institute ’ s John West has noted here , he “ spoke forcefully against the idea that humans are the products of a blind material process.
” The design in U.S. history , which we ’ re living through right now , can ’ t be understood without due regard for this crucial background .

Some, like our friend and colleague Michael Medved, have seen a complex “design” at work in history. Certainly, the knotting in the present situation in the United States is so complex — the pandemic, the lockdown, the economic catastrophe, the death of George Floyd, the protests, the riots and looting, now the curfews, what next? — as to be nearly impossible to untangle.
Certain threads in the events of recent months suggest the hand of a skilled novelist. Think of the role played by an elementary physiological process, breathing. We’ve seen a virus that terrifies because it robs victims of breath, masks to protect us from the virus that themselves impede breathing, a lockdown that suffocates enterprise even as it brings fresh breathable air to cities because people stop driving their cars, a brutal death in which the victim pleads, “I can’t breathe,” pepper spray to disperse unruly protests that, again, works because it makes it takes one’s breath away.
The tapestry of the moment extends further back in time. An article in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday reported the death of a woman who was the last recipient of a veteran’s pension from the Union Army. The veteran was her father. The reminder that the Civil War was not so long ago struck me, too, as a storyteller’s touch. Slavery, racism, sectional division — these forces that drove America’s greatest conflict remain powerful and raw.
Who Can Analyze It All?
From this tangle of motifs, Wesley Smith of the Center on Human Exceptionalism extracts one lesson relevant to our mission here: that the exceptional place of man in nature is a rebuke to racism.
From “Racism Violates Human Exceptionalism,” at the Humanize blog:
From a human exceptionalist perspective, racism is evil because it treats inherent equals as if they are unequal. And in the fiction, the racist justifies discriminating against, denigrating, and/or objectifying the targeted victim based on the fallacy that “the other’s” life is somehow less important or worth valuing. For people of faith, racism also rejects the victim as being equally made in the likeness and image of God. Talk about hubris! Racism also violates our duties to love and respect each other simply and merely because we are human. Discriminatory behavior violates our duty as human beings to treat each other as we would want to be treated ourselves. Bigotry is an unacceptable form of withholding. It denies the mutual love we each owe to — and are entitled to receive from — all. George Floyd is dead because the police officer who pinned his neck to the ground wanted to dominate his prisoner, perhaps because of Floyd’s race — or maybe, simply because the officer, drunk with his own power, simply thought he could. Domination — when not temporarily engaged to prevent danger or thwart harmful actions — is a gross abuse of authority. It denies the respect we are each owed, and in a non-proper policing context, impedes human freedom.
The Themes of the Hour
Discrimination versus dignity, respect versus domination, freedom and creativity versus suffocation, ordered liberty versus the human zoo — these are all the motifs of the hour. And looked at from a height, they are the themes of Discovery Institute’s programs.
Recognizing the intelligent design in life is an antidote to the most negative ideas circulating in our culture. By contrast, seeing human beings as natural flotsam, tossed up by a random, unplanned material process without purpose or meaning, can contribute nothing positive. It only degrades and impoverishes.
The scientific debate about evolution can be set alongside the cultural impact of evolutionary thinking, uncovered in Discovery Institute documentaries like Human Zoos and The Biology of the Second Reich. A direct line connects Charles Darwin himself with these downstream effects.
In The Descent of Man, Darwin emphasized that humans are only animals in the end: “Man is constructed on the same general type or model with other mammals.” “There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties.” There is nothing special about our origins: “I have at least,” he wrote, “as I hope, done good service in aiding to overthrow the dogma of separate creations.” From his observations, Darwin drew the conclusion of a racial hierarchy with Africans at the bottom. He predicted that “The civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races through the world.”
Darwinian racism, with its denial of mankind’s exceptional status, flowed like a river into the textbooks that American high school biology students learned from for decades. Only the civil rights movement began to turn that river backward. Martin Luther King Jr. understood the influence of scientific materialism on scientific racism and, as Discovery Institute’s John West has noted here, he “spoke forcefully against the idea that humans are the products of a blind material process.” The design in U.S. history, which we’re living through right now, can’t be understood without due regard for this crucial background.
Photo: A tribute to George Floyd, Minneapolis, by Lorie Shaull / CC BY-SA.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-05--Suicide by Zoom — Technology and Dehumanization

Some have seen a silver lining in the pandemic and welcomed its encouragement of medicine practiced online , potentially freeing doctors to work across state borders , and widening access to care ( or virtual care ) generally .
I ’ m not sure that ’ s to be celebrated in its entirety .
The trend toward “ telehealth ” undercuts the crucial personal relationship between doctor and patient , which had already been in retreat before the virus came along .
There are other downsides , too , including lethal ones .
As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ achieve a long-standing goal : Make it easier for women to use pills to end pregnancies up to 10 weeks.
” Get your abortion pills online — what could be more convenient ?
“ I had a patient the other day who is an emergency responder who was sitting in her ambulance and accessed abortion care via telemedicine and then drove her ambulance to our health center to pick up the meds , ” Shah said .
“ And she was so grateful that she was able to do that and only take @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from her work.
” Wesley Smith at the Humanize blog notes another outcome : suicide by Zoom : We are always told that “ strict guidelines will protect against abuse.
” It ’ s always been baloney .
As sold , assisted suicide was supposed to only be engaged between doctors of long-standing and patients well known to the prescriber .
That was violated in the very first legal assisted suicide in Oregon .
The doctor in that case — referred by an assisted-suicide advocacy organization — only met the patient two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Very quickly , death doctors began to assist the suicides of patients they have never treated .
In California , a part-time ER doctor — who spent most recent years as a photojournalist — quickly set up a suicide practice after assisted suicide was legalized .
There have also been many cases of oncologists assisting the suicides of ALS patients , and other similar out-of-specialty death facilitations .
Now , death doctors are assisting suicides of patients they may never have met via Zoom and other telehealth — talk about an oxymoron @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communication .
Wesley points out about suicide doctors , “ Some ‘ consult ’ the patient ’ s primary physician .
That also means some don ’ t .
And that means some people are assisted in suicide by doctors they have never met in the flesh and who have never examined them.
” Adding more technology , whatever the area in life might be , almost invariably has such a dehumanizing effect , one way or another .

Some have seen a silver lining in the pandemic and welcomed its encouragement of medicine practiced online, potentially freeing doctors to work across state borders, and widening access to care (or virtual care) generally. I’m not sure that’s to be celebrated in its entirety. The trend toward “telehealth” undercuts the crucial personal relationship between doctor and patient, which had already been in retreat before the virus came along.
There are other downsides, too, including lethal ones. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reports, “The pandemic is helping U.S. abortion-rights advocates achieve a long-standing goal: Make it easier for women to use pills to end pregnancies up to 10 weeks.” Get your abortion pills online — what could be more convenient?
NPR approves, quoting New York physician Meera Shah with Planned Parenthood:
“I had a patient the other day who is an emergency responder who was sitting in her ambulance and accessed abortion care via telemedicine and then drove her ambulance to our health center to pick up the meds,” Shah said. “And she was so grateful that she was able to do that and only take, you know, max 15 minutes away from her work.”
Dial “S” for Self-Murder
Wesley Smith at the Humanize blog notes another outcome: suicide by Zoom:
We are always told that “strict guidelines will protect against abuse.” It’s always been baloney. As sold, assisted suicide was supposed to only be engaged between doctors of long-standing and patients well known to the prescriber. That was violated in the very first legal assisted suicide in Oregon. The doctor in that case — referred by an assisted-suicide advocacy organization — only met the patient two weeks before she received her poison pills. Very quickly, death doctors began to assist the suicides of patients they have never treated. In California, a part-time ER doctor — who spent most recent years as a photojournalist — quickly set up a suicide practice after assisted suicide was legalized. There have also been many cases of oncologists assisting the suicides of ALS patients, and other similar out-of-specialty death facilitations. Now, death doctors are assisting suicides of patients they may never have met via Zoom and other telehealth — talk about an oxymoron in this circumstance! — means of communication.
Wesley points out about suicide doctors, “Some ‘consult’ the patient’s primary physician. That also means some don’t. And that means some people are assisted in suicide by doctors they have never met in the flesh and who have never examined them.” Adding more technology, whatever the area in life might be, almost invariably has such a dehumanizing effect, one way or another.
Photo credit: Varun Gaba via Unsplash.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-05--Mathematics, Biology, and Awesome Wonder

If a picture is worth a thousand words , a well-done film is worth ten thousand or more .
Several new short films effectively combine mathematics , biology , and awesome wonder with high production quality .
Five years ago , Ann Gauger writing at Evolution News recommended a “ must-see ” film film by Cristóbal Vila , a gifted animator from Spain with a penchant for geometry .
The film , “ Nature by Numbers ” ( 2010 ) , has become a YouTube classic with over 5 million views and three thousand comments .
Still a must-see , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of biological objects to the Fibonacci Series and Golden Ratio .
In 2013 , Vila added another masterful work to his YouTube site called “ Lux Aeterna.
” This film focuses on light — particularly sunlight — connecting the emissions of the sun and stars to the beauty and functional requirements of life on earth .
This film would make a good companion to Michael Denton ’ s book Children of Light , and to Denton ’ s ID the Future podcasts about the specific properties of the solar spectrum that provide exactly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requirements — for photosynthesis .
Vila ’ s film does not explain the “ coincidental ” connections between biology and light in the way Denton does , but the film certainly makes for pleasurable viewing and for appreciating sunlight in its various manifestations during our most memorable moments of awe .
Now , Vila has outdone himself .
He has released a new film that tops “ Nature by Numbers ” for emotional power .
Connecting mathematics , biology and architecture , his film “ Infinite Patterns ” starts with a simple triangle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of human and nature ’ s designs , from the honeybee in a flower to soaring spires of magnificent religious buildings .
The biomimetic connections between nature ’ s designs and artificial designs is clearly shown in a seamless and powerful way .
Notice and enjoy the tie-in to the structure of the double helix in DNA , and the bases that comprise it .
Nobody around here knows Vila ’ s position on intelligent design , but his short film makes ID look awesome !
In both films , the geometric formulas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the screen too quickly to comprehend , other than to know they exist .
They could be explained in more detail in a viewer ’ s guide to the film , should a mathematician like to take that up as a project .
For math teachers or biology teachers , these films should be required viewing .
They could easily inspire students to enter biology or mathematics as a career , hopefully with the attitude that such magnificent wonders could not happen by chance .
The producers of The Privileged Planet , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are reaching new audiences with short films free online .
In their new series “ 2-Minute Wonders , ” they take single subjects and pack awesome design stories into just a few minutes .
These are easy to share , and satisfy the short attention spans of modern viewers who are inundated with things to watch .
Parents cast into the role of home school teachers will appreciate these films that take simple , everyday living things and make them showcases of design science .
The latest release , “ An Uplifting Story @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far .
There ’ s more to the story than it might seem at first sight , including mathematical optimization ( see also , “ Flight : The Genius of Seeds ” ) .
This self-explanatory film , beautifully rendered , is better viewed than described in words : Other episodes in the 2-Minute Wonders series take stories from the feature-length “ Design of Life ” films and condense them into short featurettes : • “ Living Machine , ” the hummingbird story from Flight : The Genius of Birds • “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ migration , from Living Waters “ Packages of Life ” is another release in the 2-Minute Wonders series that may be new to Illustra fans : It tells the story of a simple pine cone — an unusual one with a very important role to play in forest ecology .
For the math angle , be sure to notice the perfect spiral spin of its seeds , shown near the end .
They look like miniature helicopters , by design .
Again , watching may be even more effective than reading about it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ An Uplifting Story , ” courtesy of Illustra Media .

If a picture is worth a thousand words, a well-done film is worth ten thousand or more. Several new short films effectively combine mathematics, biology, and awesome wonder with high production quality.
Cristóbal Vila’s Mathematical Artistry
Five years ago, Ann Gauger writing at Evolution News recommended a “must-see” film film by Cristóbal Vila, a gifted animator from Spain with a penchant for geometry. The film, “Nature by Numbers” (2010), has become a YouTube classic with over 5 million views and three thousand comments. Still a must-see, it shows in stunning beauty the connection of biological objects to the Fibonacci Series and Golden Ratio.
In 2013, Vila added another masterful work to his YouTube site called “Lux Aeterna.” This film focuses on light — particularly sunlight — connecting the emissions of the sun and stars to the beauty and functional requirements of life on earth. This film would make a good companion to Michael Denton’s book Children of Light, and to Denton’s ID the Future podcasts about the specific properties of the solar spectrum that provide exactly the right energy — within very narrow requirements — for photosynthesis. Vila’s film does not explain the “coincidental” connections between biology and light in the way Denton does, but the film certainly makes for pleasurable viewing and for appreciating sunlight in its various manifestations during our most memorable moments of awe.
Now, Vila has outdone himself. He has released a new film that tops “Nature by Numbers” for emotional power. Connecting mathematics, biology and architecture, his film “Infinite Patterns” starts with a simple triangle and builds to the most magnificent representations of human and nature’s designs, from the honeybee in a flower to soaring spires of magnificent religious buildings.
The biomimetic connections between nature’s designs and artificial designs is clearly shown in a seamless and powerful way. Notice and enjoy the tie-in to the structure of the double helix in DNA, and the bases that comprise it. Nobody around here knows Vila’s position on intelligent design, but his short film makes ID look awesome!
In both films, the geometric formulas that Vila includes in passing fly by on the screen too quickly to comprehend, other than to know they exist. They could be explained in more detail in a viewer’s guide to the film, should a mathematician like to take that up as a project. For math teachers or biology teachers, these films should be required viewing. They could easily inspire students to enter biology or mathematics as a career, hopefully with the attitude that such magnificent wonders could not happen by chance.
Illustra Media’s 2-Minute Wonders
The producers of The Privileged Planet, Metamorphosis, and Darwin’s Dilemma are reaching new audiences with short films free online. In their new series “2-Minute Wonders,” they take single subjects and pack awesome design stories into just a few minutes. These are easy to share, and satisfy the short attention spans of modern viewers who are inundated with things to watch. Parents cast into the role of home school teachers will appreciate these films that take simple, everyday living things and make them showcases of design science.
The latest release, “An Uplifting Story,” explains why dandelion seeds fly so far. There’s more to the story than it might seem at first sight, including mathematical optimization (see also, “Flight: The Genius of Seeds”). This self-explanatory film, beautifully rendered, is better viewed than described in words:
Other episodes in the 2-Minute Wonders series take stories from the feature-length “Design of Life” films and condense them into short featurettes:
“A Monarch’s Journey,” the monarch butterfly story from Metamorphosis
“Living Machine,” the hummingbird story from Flight: The Genius of Birds
“Perseverance,” the story of salmon migration, from Living Waters
“Packages of Life” is another release in the 2-Minute Wonders series that may be new to Illustra fans:
It tells the story of a simple pine cone — an unusual one with a very important role to play in forest ecology. For the math angle, be sure to notice the perfect spiral spin of its seeds, shown near the end. They look like miniature helicopters, by design. Again, watching may be even more effective than reading about it.
Photo: An image from “An Uplifting Story,” courtesy of Illustra Media.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-06--Whose Lives Matter? Darwinism as Soil for Scientific Racism

On a classic but timely episode of ID the Future , Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer discusses the move by National Review editor Rich Lowry in 2012 to sever ties with two regular contributors , John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg , after discovering their connections to racialist groups promoting race superiority , eugenics , and other morally repugnant ideas .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Klinghoffer explains how Darwinian evolution has informed proponents of these ideas , and how important it is to identify and root out such thinking before it has a chance to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ideas are hardly the only possible source of racist thinking , and of course racism long predates Charles Darwin .
But Darwinism has proved fertile soil for scientific racism in the modern period .
That ’ s one more reason among many to take a hard , honest look at the growing scientific evidence against Darwinian theory .
For more on how Darwinism has contributed to the tragedy of scientific racism in America , watch the award-winning Discovery Institute documentary Human Zoos : America ’ s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism , now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Photo : A demonstration against racism , GoToVan from Vancouver , Canada / CC BY .

On a classic but timely episode of ID the Future, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow David Klinghoffer discusses the move by National Review editor Rich Lowry in 2012 to sever ties with two regular contributors, John Derbyshire and Robert Weissberg, after discovering their connections to racialist groups promoting race superiority, eugenics, and other morally repugnant ideas. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Klinghoffer explains how Darwinian evolution has informed proponents of these ideas, and how important it is to identify and root out such thinking before it has a chance to pollute respectable institutions and publications. Darwinian ideas are hardly the only possible source of racist thinking, and of course racism long predates Charles Darwin. But Darwinism has proved fertile soil for scientific racism in the modern period. That’s one more reason among many to take a hard, honest look at the growing scientific evidence against Darwinian theory.
For more on how Darwinism has contributed to the tragedy of scientific racism in America, watch the award-winning Discovery Institute documentary Human Zoos: America’s Forgotten History of Scientific Racism, now with more than a million views:
Photo: A demonstration against racism, GoToVan from Vancouver, Canada / CC BY.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-06-07--Reader’s Question: Planets in the Early Universe

A reader , Mike , writes to ask me about the possible formation of planets in the early universe : Quite a long time ago , I read an argument that stated life would not likely have been able to evolve much earlier in time than the birth of our Solar System ( about 9 billion years after the Big Bang ) .
The reason given was that after the Big Bang , considerable time would have been required to synthesize and accumulate enough heavy elements in a single location to provide the ingredients for life .
This argument implies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candidate for explaining the origin of life on Earth .
The reason is there wouldn ’ t be sufficient heavy elements at an earlier time for life to evolve somewhere else which could thereafter seed life on Earth .
However , I ’ ve also seen a few articles like this one from Space.com that indicates the element abundances required for life were around much earlier in the universe ’ s history than previously thought and therefore life could indeed get a much earlier start after the Big Bang .
I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this topic .
Is it now widely held that enough “ metals ” were available for life as early as , say , 1-2 billion years after the Big Bang ?
Hi Mike , you say that you heard that life would not have been possible much before the Solar System formed because there weren ’ t enough heavy elements to form planets .
You also note that studies have shown that some regions of the early universe had heavy element abundances close to the Sun ’ s .
This is true .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ were able to build up heavy elements relatively quickly , even though most galaxies only made them more slowly .
The problem with the early universe is that it was a much more dangerous place .
The rate of supernovae and active galactic nuclei was much higher then .
In our Milky Way , heavy elements would have built up more rapidly in the inner regions of the galaxy , but it was also more dangerous there .
Interstellar panspermia is more likely now than at any time in the past , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very unlikely .
These questions are active topics for research .
I hope to write on them in the near future .
Thanks for your question .
Photo : The Milky Way as it appears today , by ESO/Y .
Beletsky / CC BY .

A reader, Mike, writes to ask me about the possible formation of planets in the early universe:
Quite a long time ago, I read an argument that stated life would not likely have been able to evolve much earlier in time than the birth of our Solar System (about 9 billion years after the Big Bang). The reason given was that after the Big Bang, considerable time would have been required to synthesize and accumulate enough heavy elements in a single location to provide the ingredients for life.
This argument implies that panspermia would not be a strong candidate for explaining the origin of life on Earth. The reason is there wouldn’t be sufficient heavy elements at an earlier time for life to evolve somewhere else which could thereafter seed life on Earth.
However, I’ve also seen a few articles like this one from Space.com that indicates the element abundances required for life were around much earlier in the universe’s history than previously thought and therefore life could indeed get a much earlier start after the Big Bang.
I’m wondering what the latest research is on this topic. Is it now widely held that enough “metals” were available for life as early as, say, 1-2 billion years after the Big Bang?
Hi Mike, you say that you heard that life would not have been possible much before the Solar System formed because there weren’t enough heavy elements to form planets. You also note that studies have shown that some regions of the early universe had heavy element abundances close to the Sun’s.
This is true. Some of the early more massive galaxies were able to build up heavy elements relatively quickly, even though most galaxies only made them more slowly. The problem with the early universe is that it was a much more dangerous place. The rate of supernovae and active galactic nuclei was much higher then. In our Milky Way, heavy elements would have built up more rapidly in the inner regions of the galaxy, but it was also more dangerous there.
Interstellar panspermia is more likely now than at any time in the past, but I think it’s still overall very unlikely. These questions are active topics for research. I hope to write on them in the near future. Thanks for your question.
Photo: The Milky Way as it appears today, by ESO/Y. Beletsky / CC BY.