evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-04--If Your Free Speech Is Threatened, Let Us Know

It ’ s September , and students are heading back to colleges and universities to start or continue their degree programs .
A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal raises the question , How far should free speech go ?
Wherever we set the bar , intelligent design clearly falls within what should be the parameters of academic freedom .
In “ Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech , “ Tony Woodlief argues paradoxically that an extreme insistence on academic freedom in the past led us to the “ cancel culture ” of today , with free speech squelched @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom itself undermined .
He asks : How can we hold anti-free-speech ideologues accountable ?
While federal courts properly protect the rights of professors to associate with unpopular organizations and disseminate radical views to the broader public , they ’ ve also made clear that the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher ’ s ideological playthings .
The judicial system typically obliges institutions to uphold their own standards , and the stated standards of universities are solidly in favor of free speech .
Woodlief argues that “ everybody @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Unfortunately that is not currently the case when it comes to criticisms of evolutionary theory and arguments for ID .
But let ’ s look beyond that .
Evolution News has shown that , in a legal context , “ [ W ] hen an idea meets scholarly standards of professional care , it ’ s acceptable to discuss even if it is controversial.
” Read more here about how intelligent design meets scholarly standards .
We ’ ve Got Resources for You The Center for Science & Culture has resources for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air their views on intelligent design .
“ The College Student ’ s Back-to-School Guide to Intelligent Design ” equips young people to understand and engage the issue on their campuses .
Our website Free Science recounts the history of academic freedom disputes over intelligent design .
And it provides practical action steps .
As the school year starts , I ’ m wondering how many students and professors will find themselves in difficult positions , their universities in the vice grip of ideology .
How many calls and emails will we receive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of life and of biological diversity are being silenced ?
If you find yourself in that situation , please get in contact through our Helpline page .

Photo credit: Ryan Jacobson, via Unsplash.
It’s September, and students are heading back to colleges and universities to start or continue their degree programs.
A recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal raises the question, How far should free speech go? Wherever we set the bar, intelligent design clearly falls within what should be the parameters of academic freedom.
The Paradox of Free Speech
In “Free Speech Absolutism Killed Free Speech,“ Tony Woodlief argues paradoxically that an extreme insistence on academic freedom in the past led us to the “cancel culture” of today, with free speech squelched in pursuit of power, with academic freedom itself undermined. He asks:
How can we hold anti-free-speech ideologues accountable? While federal courts properly protect the rights of professors to associate with unpopular organizations and disseminate radical views to the broader public, they’ve also made clear that the classroom is not a fiefdom and students are not a teacher’s ideological playthings. The judicial system typically obliges institutions to uphold their own standards, and the stated standards of universities are solidly in favor of free speech.
Woodlief argues that “everybody should be allowed to express his views.” Unfortunately that is not currently the case when it comes to criticisms of evolutionary theory and arguments for ID. But let’s look beyond that. Evolution News has shown that, in a legal context, “[W]hen an idea meets scholarly standards of professional care, it’s acceptable to discuss even if it is controversial.” Read more here about how intelligent design meets scholarly standards.
We’ve Got Resources for You
The Center for Science & Culture has resources for students and professors seeking the freedom to air their views on intelligent design. “The College Student’s Back-to-School Guide to Intelligent Design” equips young people to understand and engage the issue on their campuses. Our website Free Science recounts the history of academic freedom disputes over intelligent design. And it provides practical action steps.
As the school year starts, I’m wondering how many students and professors will find themselves in difficult positions, their universities in the vice grip of ideology. How many calls and emails will we receive from academicians whose views on the origin of life and of biological diversity are being silenced? If you find yourself in that situation, please get in contact through our Helpline page.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-04--A. R. Wallace Is Evolution’s Last Man Standing

American zoologist T. D. A. Cockerell , writing for The Dial on April 16 , 1911 , reviewed Alfred Russel Wallace ’ s then-recently released The World of Life .
He wrote cautiously but approvingly .
Being thus a work of philosophy as well as science , it necessarily covers much debatable ground .
Those of us who are not prepared to follow Dr. Wallace in all the intricacies of his personal faith , may nevertheless feel very strongly that he has done well in bringing forward his solution of the riddle of the ages , the result of more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cockerell ’ s confidence is confirmed today more than ever .
A new edition of Wallace book , Intelligent Evolution : How Wallace ’ s World of Life Challenged Darwinism , is out now , edited by science historian Michael Flannery .
In his Foreword to the new book , William A. Dembski notes how current scholarship is demolishing the neo-Darwinian paradigm and confirming Wallace at almost every turn .
Dembski says that staunch Darwinian defender “ [ Jerry ] Coyne ’ s ‘ one going theory ’ may be steadily going away.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ generation of modern evolutionists , from Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley to John Tyndall and Herbert Spencer , only Wallace ’ s postulation of an “ Overruling Intelligence ” to explain the complexities of humanity and nature has stood the test of time .
To understand his enduring presence in biology as well as natural theology , The World of Life is indispensable .
Once his thought is placed in context and illuminated by the latest research and historiography , as it is in Intelligent Evolution , you ’ ll understand why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ standing .
Order your copy today .

Image: Alfred Russel Wallace, via Wikimedia Commons.
American zoologist T. D. A. Cockerell, writing for The Dial on April 16, 1911, reviewed Alfred Russel Wallace’s then-recently released The World of Life. He wrote cautiously but approvingly.
Being thus a work of philosophy as well as science, it necessarily covers much debatable ground. Those of us who are not prepared to follow Dr. Wallace in all the intricacies of his personal faith, may nevertheless feel very strongly that he has done well in bringing forward his solution of the riddle of the ages, the result of more than fifty years of thought.
Indeed Cockerell’s confidence is confirmed today more than ever. A new edition of Wallace book, Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, is out now, edited by science historian Michael Flannery. In his Foreword to the new book, William A. Dembski notes how current scholarship is demolishing the neo-Darwinian paradigm and confirming Wallace at almost every turn. Dembski says that staunch Darwinian defender “[Jerry] Coyne’s ‘one going theory’ may be steadily going away.”
When we look at that first generation of modern evolutionists, from Charles Darwin and Thomas Henry Huxley to John Tyndall and Herbert Spencer, only Wallace’s postulation of an “Overruling Intelligence” to explain the complexities of humanity and nature has stood the test of time. To understand his enduring presence in biology as well as natural theology, The World of Life is indispensable. Once his thought is placed in context and illuminated by the latest research and historiography, as it is in Intelligent Evolution, you’ll understand why Wallace remains evolution’s last man standing. Order your copy today.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-04--Kimberella — A Checkered History

Kimberella — A Checkered History

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
For the first post in the series , see : Kimberella is represented by relatively large ovoid fossils with complex structure from late Precambrian strata .
Based on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the Ediacara Hills of the Flinders Ranges in South Australia , Kimberella quadrata was first figured more than half a century ago by Glaessner & Daily ( 1959 : pl .
47 , fig .
9 ) .
The holotype specimen ( no .
SAM P12734 ) was described by Glaessner & Wade ( 1966 ) under the already occupied and thus invalid genus name Kimberia , in commemoration of John Kimber , who collected the first fossils of this organism and died tragically at age 38 during an expedition in South @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re-described and renamed with the replacement genus name Kimberella by Wade ( 1972 ) .
These early works characterized Kimberella as a relatively large medusoid-like organisms related to modern jellyfish .
The fossiliferous sandstones ( Rawnsley Quartzite or Pound Quartzite ) of the Ediacara Member are considered to be about 560-550 million years old .
Unfortunately , though , due to a lack of suitable rocks there is no radiometric dating available yet .
In 1994 and subsequent years , Kimberella became much better known from more than thousand well-preserved specimens from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gory / Winter Coast ( Zimnie Gory and Erga / Mezen Formations ) and Solza River / Onega Peninsula ( Verkhovka Formation ) localities of the Arkhangelsk Region in the Russian White Sea area ( Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997 , Fedonkin et al .
2007b , Ivantsov et al .
2007 , Ivantsov 2009 ) .
They are often found in association with Kimberichnus rasping traces and with the more enigmatic Ediacaran organisms like Dickinsonia and Tribrachidium .
Based on the radioisotope U-Pb age of zircon crystals from volcanic ash , these layers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ epoch 4 ( Upper Vendian ) with an absolute age of 558 ± 1.0 to 555.3 ± 0.3 million years ( Martin et al .
2000 , Grazhdankin 2003 , 2004 ) .
That is at least 6 million years older than the Nama assemblage in Namibia ( 549-543 mya ) .
Based on this better-preserved White Sea material , Kimberella was re-interpreted as a benthic bilaterian mollusk-like animal ( Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997 , Waggoner 1998 ) that lived as a motile grazer .
This result has been celebrated as a major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence of well-defined animal phyla in the Ediacaran ( Seilacher 1999 ) .
Kimberella fossils have also been reported from the Ediacaran Krol Formation from the Nainital District of Uttar Pradesh in India ( Shanker & Mathur 1992 , Shukla et al .
2006 ) , but Fedonkin & Waggoner ( 1997 ) considered them to be questionable .
A new species , Kimberella persii , was recently described by Vaziri et al .
( 2018 ) based on nine poorly preserved specimens from the terminal Ediacaran of Kushk in the Chahmir basin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Kimberella should be correct , then this would be the youngest record for this genus .
However , this attribution is far from being well established , because all known specimens lack the tapered end and instead seem to have two equally broadened and rounded ends .
Also , the segmented ridge along the midline and the lack of the lateral organic frill are quite different from the type species of Kimberella .
The maverick American paleontologist Mark McMenamin ( 2018 ) , who coined the expression “ Garden of Ediacara ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but highly controversial hypotheses , recently described relatively poorly preserved alleged specimens of Kimberella cf .
quadrata from the Ediacaran Clemente Formation of the Sonoran desert in México .
He also described from this locality Zirabagtaria ovata as a new form of solzid kimberellomorph , as well as Korifogrammia clementensis , which he considered as an intermediate between the annelid-like proarticulates ( like Dickinsonia ) and the mollusk-like Kimberella .
McMenamin ( 2016 ) had already described an alleged aculiferan Clementechiton sonorensis McMenamin & Fleury from this Ediacaran locality , but his polyplacophoran @ @ @ @ @ @ @ based only on a single disarticulated body valve preserved as mold in sandstone , which in my view is much more likely just an over-interpreted ovoid imprint of uncertain origin .
Some other Ediacaran organism have been suggested as possible relatives of Kimberella .
Fedonkin et al .
( 2007a : 276 ) , Trusler et al .
( 2007 ) , and Grazhdankin ( 2014 ) suggested that Brachina delicata Wade 1972 and Solza margarita Ivantsov et al .
2004 could be taphomorphs of Kimberella quadrata and thus represent synonyms of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the problematic fossil Zolotytsia biserialis Fedonkin 1981 as a synonym .
Grazhdankin ( 2014 ) noted that Parvancorina and Temnoxa , which were sometimes considered as proto-arthropods , show similarities to parts of Kimberella .
Ivantsov ( 2010b , 2012 ) compared Solza margarita , Temnoxa molliuscula Ivantsov et al .
2004 , and Armillifera parva Fedonkin 1980 with Kimberella , which were all sympatric contemporaries from the Vendian of Russia .
However , he also found important anatomical differences , especially the glide symmetry in Armillifera , which he correctly considered as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevertheless , Solza and Armillifera look strikingly similar in shape and tuberculated surface sculpture to smaller specimens of Kimberella preserved in dorsal aspect ( Ivantsov 2010b : pl .
2 ) .
A new higher taxon Kimberellomorpha was erected as unranked clade within Metazoa by Erwin et al .
( 2011 ) to accommodate Kimberella and the problematic Ediacaran fossil Solza margarita Ivantsov et al .
2004 ( also see Fedonkin et al .
2007a : 286 ) from the Onega peninsula at the Russian White Sea region , which shares the ovoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Budd & Jensen ( 2017 ) casually remarked that the erection of a separate clade Kimberellomorpha was “ perhaps not very helpful.
” Erwin et al .
( 2011 ) characterized these Kimberellomorpha as “ centimeter-sized bilaterally symmetrical fossils with a crenulated margin interpreted as a frill surrounding a muscular foot , and a proboscis … commonly associated with radiating trace fossils that may represent feeding on microbial mats ” and Similarly , Laflamme et al .
( 2013 ) noted that “ Kimberellomorpha … is a clade of oval-shaped bilaterally-symmetrical fossils with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clear anteroposterior differentiation … .
A distal rasping radula-like appendage , combined with the close association of Kimberella with Radulichnus traces … , have resulted in this group being considered as stem group mollusks .
”

Image: Kimberella quadrata, by MUSE / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. For the first post in the series, see:
Kimberella is represented by relatively large ovoid fossils with complex structure from late Precambrian strata. Based on just a few relatively poorly preserved specimens from the Ediacara Hills of the Flinders Ranges in South Australia, Kimberella quadrata was first figured more than half a century ago by Glaessner & Daily (1959: pl. 47, fig. 9). The holotype specimen (no. SAM P12734) was described by Glaessner & Wade (1966) under the already occupied and thus invalid genus name Kimberia, in commemoration of John Kimber, who collected the first fossils of this organism and died tragically at age 38 during an expedition in South Australia in 1964. The taxon was re-described and renamed with the replacement genus name Kimberella by Wade (1972).
Radiometric Dating
These early works characterized Kimberella as a relatively large medusoid-like organisms related to modern jellyfish. The fossiliferous sandstones (Rawnsley Quartzite or Pound Quartzite) of the Ediacara Member are considered to be about 560-550 million years old. Unfortunately, though, due to a lack of suitable rocks there is no radiometric dating available yet.
In 1994 and subsequent years, Kimberella became much better known from more than thousand well-preserved specimens from the glauconitic mudstones and sandstones of the Zimnie Gory / Winter Coast (Zimnie Gory and Erga / Mezen Formations) and Solza River / Onega Peninsula (Verkhovka Formation) localities of the Arkhangelsk Region in the Russian White Sea area (Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997, Fedonkin et al. 2007b, Ivantsov et al. 2007, Ivantsov 2009). They are often found in association with Kimberichnus rasping traces and with the more enigmatic Ediacaran organisms like Dickinsonia and Tribrachidium.
Based on the radioisotope U-Pb age of zircon crystals from volcanic ash, these layers have been reliably dated to the Ediacaran epoch 4 (Upper Vendian) with an absolute age of 558 ± 1.0 to 555.3 ± 0.3 million years (Martin et al. 2000, Grazhdankin 2003, 2004). That is at least 6 million years older than the Nama assemblage in Namibia (549-543 mya). Based on this better-preserved White Sea material, Kimberella was re-interpreted as a benthic bilaterian mollusk-like animal (Fedonkin & Waggoner 1997, Waggoner 1998) that lived as a motile grazer. This result has been celebrated as a major breakthrough and as clear evidence for the presence of well-defined animal phyla in the Ediacaran (Seilacher 1999).
Kimberella fossils have also been reported from the Ediacaran Krol Formation from the Nainital District of Uttar Pradesh in India (Shanker & Mathur 1992, Shukla et al. 2006), but Fedonkin & Waggoner (1997) considered them to be questionable.
“Garden of Ediacara”
A new species, Kimberella persii, was recently described by Vaziri et al. (2018) based on nine poorly preserved specimens from the terminal Ediacaran of Kushk in the Chahmir basin of central Iran. If the attribution to Kimberella should be correct, then this would be the youngest record for this genus. However, this attribution is far from being well established, because all known specimens lack the tapered end and instead seem to have two equally broadened and rounded ends. Also, the segmented ridge along the midline and the lack of the lateral organic frill are quite different from the type species of Kimberella.
The maverick American paleontologist Mark McMenamin (2018), who coined the expression “Garden of Ediacara” and is well known for many original but highly controversial hypotheses, recently described relatively poorly preserved alleged specimens of Kimberella cf. quadrata from the Ediacaran Clemente Formation of the Sonoran desert in México. He also described from this locality Zirabagtaria ovata as a new form of solzid kimberellomorph, as well as Korifogrammia clementensis, which he considered as an intermediate between the annelid-like proarticulates (like Dickinsonia) and the mollusk-like Kimberella. McMenamin (2016) had already described an alleged aculiferan Clementechiton sonorensis McMenamin & Fleury from this Ediacaran locality, but his polyplacophoran reconstruction is highly dubious as it is based only on a single disarticulated body valve preserved as mold in sandstone, which in my view is much more likely just an over-interpreted ovoid imprint of uncertain origin.
Other Possible Relatives
Some other Ediacaran organism have been suggested as possible relatives of Kimberella. Fedonkin et al. (2007a: 276), Trusler et al. (2007), and Grazhdankin (2014) suggested that Brachina delicata Wade 1972 and Solza margarita Ivantsov et al. 2004 could be taphomorphs of Kimberella quadrata and thus represent synonyms of the same species, and Fedonkin also listed the problematic fossil Zolotytsia biserialis Fedonkin 1981 as a synonym. Grazhdankin (2014) noted that Parvancorina and Temnoxa, which were sometimes considered as proto-arthropods, show similarities to parts of Kimberella. Ivantsov (2010b, 2012) compared Solza margarita, Temnoxa molliuscula Ivantsov et al. 2004, and Armillifera parva Fedonkin 1980 with Kimberella, which were all sympatric contemporaries from the Vendian of Russia. However, he also found important anatomical differences, especially the glide symmetry in Armillifera, which he correctly considered as incompatible with a bilaterian mollusk bauplan. Nevertheless, Solza and Armillifera look strikingly similar in shape and tuberculated surface sculpture to smaller specimens of Kimberella preserved in dorsal aspect (Ivantsov 2010b: pl. 2).
A new higher taxon Kimberellomorpha was erected as unranked clade within Metazoa by Erwin et al. (2011) to accommodate Kimberella and the problematic Ediacaran fossil Solza margarita Ivantsov et al. 2004 (also see Fedonkin et al. 2007a: 286) from the Onega peninsula at the Russian White Sea region, which shares the ovoid body shape and tuberculate dorsal surface. Budd & Jensen (2017) casually remarked that the erection of a separate clade Kimberellomorpha was “perhaps not very helpful.”
Erwin et al. (2011) characterized these Kimberellomorpha as “centimeter-sized bilaterally symmetrical fossils with a crenulated margin interpreted as a frill surrounding a muscular foot, and a proboscis … commonly associated with radiating trace fossils that may represent feeding on microbial mats” and
oval-shaped, bilaterally symmetrical fossils composed of several morphologically distinct and concentrically-arranges zones. Outermost zone is typically smooth and crenulated, while innermost region is bordered by thin transverse wrinkles and contains a deep longitudinal invagination in the center. The anterior end is narrower and appears to house a retractable, arrow-shaped structure presumed to be responsible for the fan-shaped scratch marks (i.e., Radulichnus) sometimes associated with Kimberella.
Similarly, Laflamme et al. (2013) noted that “Kimberellomorpha … is a clade of oval-shaped bilaterally-symmetrical fossils with at least three concentrically arranged zones and clear anteroposterior differentiation …. A distal rasping radula-like appendage, combined with the close association of Kimberella with Radulichnus traces …, have resulted in this group being considered as stem group mollusks.”
Next, “Conflicting Views about Kimberella’s Ecology.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-05--For Labor Day Weekend: Alfred Russel Wallace, Scientist and Working Man

We hope you enjoy your Labor Day weekend .
While you are carefully putting away all your white clothing until next summer , take a moment to consider the impact of labor on the development of evolutionary theory .
That ’ s right , the two founders of evolutionary theory , Wallace and Darwin , came from very different backgrounds .
Alfred Russel Wallace , whose thought receives an accessible treatment in the new book Intelligent Evolution : How Wallace ’ s World of Life Challenged Darwinism , would later become a premature proponent of what we now call intelligent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up among the middle class and had to work for a living .
This dictated the contours of his life and research .
Charles Darwin came from family money .
Watch the video below for a brief take on the impact of this difference from our friend and colleague , the historian Michael Flannery .
Wallace did his collecting , leading to his own formulation of evolutionary thinking , because his livelihood urgently depended on it .
Darwin felt no such pressure .
So what ?
As we ’ ve explained before : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was paid for by his father ( around 600 pounds worth ) .
By custom the ship ’ s senior surgeon , Robert McCormick , should have been the expedition ’ s naturalist .
Darwin ’ s official duty was not as the ship ’ s naturalist .
From the beginning of the voyage , the notion that Darwin was the Beagle ’ s naturalist existed only in his own mind .
Disagreements between McCormick and Darwin would ultimately have the surgeon leave the expedition in a huff .
FitzRoy , after McCormick @ @ @ @ @ @ @ official collection he had ordered to take second place to Darwin ’ s .
“ Darwin , ” FitzRoy rumbled darkly in post-Beagle days , “ should not forget the generosity extended to him by captain and crew alike .
It seems only too evident , however , that he did ” ( Janet Browne , Voyaging , p. 227 ) .
Does this sound anything like an Indiana Jones ?
In contrast , Wallace , by and large , paid his own way with the specimens he collected and sent off to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
For Darwin , collecting was a fascination underwritten by his father , Dr. Robert Darwin .
For Wallace collecting was a passion and a livelihood fueled by his own hard work .
How many specimens did Wallace bring home ?
In the East alone , 310 species of mammals , 100 reptiles , 8,050 birds , 7,500 shells , 13,100 Lepidoptera ( butterflies ) , 83,200 Lepidoptera ( beetles ) , 13,400 “ other insects.
” Total : 125,660 .
This excludes species collected in South America , many of which were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nothing approaching this .
Wallace ’ s massive collecting reflects a man in need of an income — no specimens meant no sales .
Darwin ’ s comparatively smaller scale collecting reflect the interests of hobbyist with the leisure of an independent income .
Which do you think represents the more independent adventurous spirit ?
Disney , you may recall , once promised that a Darwin biopic was in the works absurdly casting young Charles in an Indiana Jones model of swashbuckling adventurer .
That role , as well as that of sympathetic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Wallace .
For the true adventure story of his life , see also Professor Flannery ’ s Alfred Russel Wallace : A Rediscovered Life .

Image: Alfred Russel Wallace, plaster relief by A. Bruce-Joy, via Wikimedia Commons.
We hope you enjoy your Labor Day weekend. While you are carefully putting away all your white clothing until next summer, take a moment to consider the impact of labor on the development of evolutionary theory.
That’s right, the two founders of evolutionary theory, Wallace and Darwin, came from very different backgrounds. Alfred Russel Wallace, whose thought receives an accessible treatment in the new book Intelligent Evolution: How Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, would later become a premature proponent of what we now call intelligent design. Unlike Darwin, Wallace grew up among the middle class and had to work for a living. This dictated the contours of his life and research. Charles Darwin came from family money.
Watch the video below for a brief take on the impact of this difference from our friend and colleague, the historian Michael Flannery. Wallace did his collecting, leading to his own formulation of evolutionary thinking, because his livelihood urgently depended on it. Darwin felt no such pressure. So what? As we’ve explained before:
Darwin’s voyage on The Beagle was paid for by his father (around 600 pounds worth). By custom the ship’s senior surgeon, Robert McCormick, should have been the expedition’s naturalist. Darwin’s official duty was not as the ship’s naturalist. From the beginning of the voyage, the notion that Darwin was the Beagle’s naturalist existed only in his own mind. Disagreements between McCormick and Darwin would ultimately have the surgeon leave the expedition in a huff. FitzRoy, after McCormick’s departure, basically allowed the official collection he had ordered to take second place to Darwin’s. “Darwin,” FitzRoy rumbled darkly in post-Beagle days, “should not forget the generosity extended to him by captain and crew alike. It seems only too evident, however, that he did” (Janet Browne, Voyaging, p. 227). Does this sound anything like an Indiana Jones? In contrast, Wallace, by and large, paid his own way with the specimens he collected and sent off to his agent Samuel Stevens back in England. For Darwin, collecting was a fascination underwritten by his father, Dr. Robert Darwin. For Wallace collecting was a passion and a livelihood fueled by his own hard work. How many specimens did Wallace bring home? In the East alone, 310 species of mammals, 100 reptiles, 8,050 birds, 7,500 shells, 13,100 Lepidoptera (butterflies), 83,200 Lepidoptera (beetles), 13,400 “other insects.” Total: 125,660. This excludes species collected in South America, many of which were lost in a shipwreck. Darwin amassed nothing approaching this. Wallace’s massive collecting reflects a man in need of an income — no specimens meant no sales. Darwin’s comparatively smaller scale collecting reflect the interests of hobbyist with the leisure of an independent income. Which do you think represents the more independent adventurous spirit?
Disney, you may recall, once promised that a Darwin biopic was in the works absurdly casting young Charles in an Indiana Jones model of swashbuckling adventurer. That role, as well as that of sympathetic working man, really belongs to Alfred Wallace. For the true adventure story of his life, see also Professor Flannery’s Alfred Russel Wallace: A Rediscovered Life.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-06--Conflicting Views about Kimberella’s Ecology

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
An earlier interpretation of Kimberella as a jellyfish was displaced by other views .
The organism was no longer “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the ecosystem.
” Instead it was recognized as “ a benthic deposit feeder or a microbial mat feeder.
” This altered “ our concepts of late Proterozoic ecology ” ( Waggoner 1998 ) .
Seilacher ( 1999 : fig .
5 ) and Seilacher ( 2007 ) .
Some have highlighted that a fossil from Ediacara shows a grazing specimen of Kimberella that “ did not bother a Dickinsonia growing nearby.
” On the other hand , Ivantsov ( 2011 ) described Kimberella specimens superimposed on one another and on Dickinsonia specimens @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were also mentioned by Coutts et al .
2016 ) .
Therefore , Ivantsov ( 2017 ) even speculated that Kimberella might have been a facultative predator .
Based on the form of the feeding traces and the absence of fecal cords or pellets , Fedonkin et al .
( 2007b ) suggested that “ Kimberella was a selective predator or grazer and not a deposit feeder ” and that it was “ adapted to feeding on the algal or bacterial mats.
” However , the authors also said that “ there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” On the other hand , they could not rule out that Kimberella was “ a micropredator feeding on the protozoans or meiofaunal metazoans living by the sediment-water interface.
” In short , based on the same fossil evidence , there is obviously much room for speculation and quite different opinions .

Photo: Kimberella, by Ghedoghedo / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
An earlier interpretation of Kimberella as a jellyfish was displaced by other views. The organism was no longer “considered one of the few definite predators in the ecosystem.” Instead it was recognized as “a benthic deposit feeder or a microbial mat feeder.” This altered “our concepts of late Proterozoic ecology” (Waggoner 1998). Seilacher (1999: fig. 5) and Seilacher (2007). Some have highlighted that a fossil from Ediacara shows a grazing specimen of Kimberella that “did not bother a Dickinsonia growing nearby.”
On the other hand, Ivantsov (2011) described Kimberella specimens superimposed on one another and on Dickinsonia specimens (two possibly overlapping specimens of Kimberella were also mentioned by Coutts et al. 2016). Therefore, Ivantsov (2017) even speculated that Kimberella might have been a facultative predator. Based on the form of the feeding traces and the absence of fecal cords or pellets, Fedonkin et al. (2007b) suggested that “Kimberella was a selective predator or grazer and not a deposit feeder” and that it was “adapted to feeding on the algal or bacterial mats.” However, the authors also said that “there is no evidence that Kimberella was a macropredator.” On the other hand, they could not rule out that Kimberella was “a micropredator feeding on the protozoans or meiofaunal metazoans living by the sediment-water interface.”
In short, based on the same fossil evidence, there is obviously much room for speculation and quite different opinions.
Next, “Kimberella — Conflicting Evidence from Taphonomy.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-07--Kimberella — Conflicting Evidence from Taphonomy

Editor ’ s note : We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella .
If identified as an animal , it would “ predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘ advance guard.
’ ” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer , among others .
Find the full series about Kimberella here .
Kimberella fossils have only been recorded from stratigraphic layers with wave-rippled storm sands that must have been deposited in tidally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bottom waters ( Fedonkin et al .
2017b , Gehling et al .
2014 , Bowyer et al .
2017 ) .
This was considered evidence for a relatively high physiological oxygen demand , suggesting motility ( Sperling et al .
2015 ) .
The fossilization of Kimberella specimens was most likely based on rapid burial with sand during storm events ( Fedonkin et al .
2017b ) .
This produced the typical Ediacaran death-masks ( Gehling 1999 ) , which are composite external molds of the ventral and dorsal surfaces , both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2003 ) , often with overprinting of superimposed structures .
Because the fossils are negative hyporeliefs , they are usually studied based on positive latex casts , which are coated with ammonium chloride for better contrast in photographic documentation ( Fedonkin et al .
2007b ) .
Seilacher ( 1999 : fig .
7 ) presented evidence from taphonomic experiments with decaying recent soft-limpets ( Polyplacophora ) buried in sand , which left similar impressions to the Kimberella fossils .
This could be seen as lending independent support to the interpretation of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trusler et al .
( 2007 ) emphasized the need for a “ detailed analysis of the influence of taphonomy ” and the “ processes that led to the preservation of the organism.
” They also cautioned that “ historically , the assignation of Kimberella and its traces … to many different phyla serves to highlight the intrinsic and problematic issue of pattern recognition in the analysis of Precambrian soft-bodied fossils.
” Budd & Jensen ( 2017 ) agreed and remarked that Kimberella “ also serves to illustrate the typical problems that are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ It is important to keep the caveats in mind , when we later see how confidently many authors have presented their sophisticated interpretations of the fossil evidence .
A bivariate analysis ( Mitchell et al .
2020 ) of Kimberella and the Kimberichnus trace fossils showed a statistically significant aggregation of Kimberella but a segregation between Kimberella and the Kimberichnus trace fossils .
The authors interpreted this segregation as evidence that “ could reflect the Kimberella organisms avoiding patches of the surface that had already been grazed.
” However , this segregation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflicting evidence for Kimberella as the tracemaker of these feeding traces .
Kimberella disappeared from the fossil record before the end of the Ediacaran ( Xiao & Laflamme 2009 , Grazdhankin 2014 ) , as abruptly as it appeared .
Budd & Jensen ( 2017 ) remarked that this represents “ a stratigraphic discontinuity that questions their supposed continuity with Cambrian bilaterians , unless a significant reduction in Ediacara-style preservation is invoked to have occurred well before the base of the Cambrian.
” However , the excellent soft-tissue preservation in Cambrian Konservat Lagerstätten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Maotianshan Shales of Chengjiang precludes such an artifact hypothesis .
Next , “ Controversial Interpretations of the Kimberella Fossils .
”

Masahiro miyasaka / CC Photo: Kimberella fossil, BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)
Editor’s note: We are delighted to present a series of posts by paleontologist Günter Bechly on the Ediacaran organism Kimberella. If identified as an animal, it would “predate the Cambrian explosion of bilaterian animal phyla as a kind of ‘advance guard.’” The question is of interest for debates about evolution and arguments about intelligent design raised by Stephen Meyer, among others. Find the full series about Kimberella here.
Kimberella fossils have only been recorded from stratigraphic layers with wave-rippled storm sands that must have been deposited in tidally influenced but shallow marine habitats beneath oxygenated bottom waters (Fedonkin et al. 2017b, Gehling et al. 2014, Bowyer et al. 2017). This was considered evidence for a relatively high physiological oxygen demand, suggesting motility (Sperling et al. 2015).
Ediacaran Death-Masks
The fossilization of Kimberella specimens was most likely based on rapid burial with sand during storm events (Fedonkin et al. 2017b). This produced the typical Ediacaran death-masks (Gehling 1999), which are composite external molds of the ventral and dorsal surfaces, both in various stages of decomposition (Dzik 2003), often with overprinting of superimposed structures. Because the fossils are negative hyporeliefs, they are usually studied based on positive latex casts, which are coated with ammonium chloride for better contrast in photographic documentation (Fedonkin et al. 2007b).
Seilacher (1999: fig. 7) presented evidence from taphonomic experiments with decaying recent soft-limpets (Polyplacophora) buried in sand, which left similar impressions to the Kimberella fossils. This could be seen as lending independent support to the interpretation of the fossils as limpet-like animals.
However, Trusler et al. (2007) emphasized the need for a “detailed analysis of the influence of taphonomy” and the “processes that led to the preservation of the organism.” They also cautioned that “historically, the assignation of Kimberella and its traces … to many different phyla serves to highlight the intrinsic and problematic issue of pattern recognition in the analysis of Precambrian soft-bodied fossils.” Budd & Jensen (2017) agreed and remarked that Kimberella “also serves to illustrate the typical problems that are encountered in the interpretation of Ediaraca-type fossils.“ It is important to keep the caveats in mind, when we later see how confidently many authors have presented their sophisticated interpretations of the fossil evidence.
A bivariate analysis (Mitchell et al. 2020) of Kimberella and the Kimberichnus trace fossils showed a statistically significant aggregation of Kimberella but a segregation between Kimberella and the Kimberichnus trace fossils. The authors interpreted this segregation as evidence that “could reflect the Kimberella organisms avoiding patches of the surface that had already been grazed.” However, this segregation could of course also be seen as conflicting evidence for Kimberella as the tracemaker of these feeding traces.
Farewell to the Fossil Record
Kimberella disappeared from the fossil record before the end of the Ediacaran (Xiao & Laflamme 2009, Grazdhankin 2014), as abruptly as it appeared. Budd & Jensen (2017) remarked that this represents “a stratigraphic discontinuity that questions their supposed continuity with Cambrian bilaterians, unless a significant reduction in Ediacara-style preservation is invoked to have occurred well before the base of the Cambrian.” However, the excellent soft-tissue preservation in Cambrian Konservat Lagerstätten such as the Burgess Shale and the Maotianshan Shales of Chengjiang precludes such an artifact hypothesis.
Next, “Controversial Interpretations of the Kimberella Fossils.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-09--Famed Biologist Jørn Dyerberg Explains His Turn to Intelligent Design

If , like me , you ’ ve got a bottle of fish oil capsules in your refrigerator as a health supplement , you can thank University of Copenhagen biologist Jørn Dyerberg , who co-discovered the role of omega-3 fatty acids in promoting a healthy heart .
This realization followed from his study in the 1970s of the Inuit people of Greenland .
He has been hailed as a “ Living Legend ” by the International Union of Nutrition Scientists .
And he ’ s a proponent of intelligent design .
On a new episode of ID the Future , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , recognizing irreducible complexity in the Krebs cycle , a process shared by the cells of all aerobic life .
Also called the citric acid cycle , it could not have sprung into being by unguided evolution , as Dyerberg reasoned .
He explains why in a conversation with podcast host Dr. Brian Miller .
Download the episode or listen to it here .
Dyerberg reached this own conclusion of design in biology before Michael Behe characterized irreducible complexity as a marker of ID in his 1996 book Darwin ’ s Black Box @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illustrating that you have to be beyond the Darwinists ’ ability to hurt you before it makes sense for a scientist to come clean as an ID proponent .

Photo: Fish oil capsules, by Marco Almbauer / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
If, like me, you’ve got a bottle of fish oil capsules in your refrigerator as a health supplement, you can thank University of Copenhagen biologist Jørn Dyerberg, who co-discovered the role of omega-3 fatty acids in promoting a healthy heart. This realization followed from his study in the 1970s of the Inuit people of Greenland. He has been hailed as a “Living Legend” by the International Union of Nutrition Scientists. And he’s a proponent of intelligent design.
On a new episode of ID the Future, Dr. Dyerberg recounts his turn toward ID, recognizing irreducible complexity in the Krebs cycle, a process shared by the cells of all aerobic life. Also called the citric acid cycle, it could not have sprung into being by unguided evolution, as Dyerberg reasoned. He explains why in a conversation with podcast host Dr. Brian Miller. Download the episode or listen to it here.
Dyerberg reached his own conclusion of design in biology before Michael Behe characterized irreducible complexity as a marker of ID in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box. He describes his thinking now, illustrating that you have to be beyond the Darwinists’ ability to hurt you before it makes sense for a scientist to come clean as an ID proponent.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-08--The “Hard” Problem of Consciousness

The “Hard” Problem of Consciousness

Above is a picture of three children in the 1950s .
One of them is me , the other two are not .
I saw the world from inside one of these children .
I saw every picture that entered through his eyes , I heard every sound that entered through his ears , and when he fell on the sidewalk , I felt his pain .
How did I end up inside one of these children ?
This is a question that rarely seems to trouble evolutionists .
They talk about human evolution as if they were outside observers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got inside one of the animals they are studying .
They consider that human brains are just complicated computers , and so the problem of human origins would be essentially solved if they could explain how these advanced mechanical brains evolved .
Well , my new video “ Why Evolution is Different ” shows that most scientists are not even going in the right direction in their attempts to explain the origin and development of life : But even if they could explain how animals with mechanical brains evolved out of the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ human origins to be a solved problem ?
Certainly not , that would still leave unsolved the most important problem of all , the one that evolutionary biologists never seem to even wonder about : How did I get inside one of those children ?

Above is a picture of three children in the 1950s. One of them is me, the other two are not. I saw the world from inside one of these children. I saw every picture that entered through his eyes, I heard every sound that entered through his ears, and when he fell on the sidewalk, I felt his pain.
How did I end up inside one of these children? This is a question that rarely seems to trouble evolutionists. They talk about human evolution as if they were outside observers and never seem to wonder how they got inside one of the animals they are studying. They consider that human brains are just complicated computers, and so the problem of human origins would be essentially solved if they could explain how these advanced mechanical brains evolved.
Well, my new video “Why Evolution is Different” shows that most scientists are not even going in the right direction in their attempts to explain the origin and development of life:
But even if they could explain how animals with mechanical brains evolved out of the “primeval slime,” would I consider human origins to be a solved problem? Certainly not, that would still leave unsolved the most important problem of all, the one that evolutionary biologists never seem to even wonder about: How did I get inside one of those children?


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-08--Theistic Darwinism’s “Fully Gifted” Creation Theology Contradicts Itself, and Science

It ’ s easy to see modern evolutionary theory and Christianity as mutually exclusive .
After all , evolutionary theory attributes the origin of all the species around us to a blind process fueled by accidental genetic mutations .
Christianity teaches that a creative intelligence , God , created all this .
Nevertheless , there are many sincere Christians who embrace some form of Darwinism and attempt to reconcile it with their Christian faith .
They would say that Darwinism and faith in the God of the Bible are completely compatible .
Are they completely compatible ?
And are there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwinism onto their Christian worldview ?
Many Christian evolutionists argue that a Darwinian evolutionary model is actually theologically superior to the traditional idea of God working directly to create various plant and animal forms .
The argument goes like this : Our all-wise , all-powerful God could and would have rigged the beginning of the universe so cleverly that he wouldn ’ t need to intervene later to create life .
Instead , it would all simply unfold from that first cosmic seed .
Only when God was ready to exalt one of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an immortal soul did he need to intervene .
In between he could just let his wonderful universe do its evolutionary thing .
On this view , there appears to be a good theological reason to expect only unbroken material causes when studying nature .
This view appears to be rooted in two tenets of orthodox Christian doctrine — God ’ s omnipotence and his unsurpassed wisdom .
Howard van Till calls this evolutionary view of creation “ fully gifted creation.
” 1 It ’ s a creation that doesn ’ t need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well , the creation is “ fully gifted.
” Notice that the phrase “ fully gifted creation ” implies that the more traditional view of God ’ s creative activity in Genesis involves a deficiently gifted creation .
There are two problems with van Till ’ s understanding : ( 1 ) the theological reasoning breaks down when pressed , and ( 2 ) the scientific evidence points in a different direction .
First , notice that this “ fully gifted creation ” has a lot in common with the old “ watchmaker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the master craftsman who created the perfect cosmic mechanism and so has been able to just let it run without additional tinkering .
This is modern deism , not Christian theism .
In the latter , the Maker of heaven and earth doesn ’ t want to wind up the world and leave it be .
He wants to stay personally involved with his creation .
He wants to get his hands dirty .
His relationship to his creation is more like that of a gardener to his garden , a loving @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lover to his beloved .
The watchmaker metaphor helpfully reminds us of the many mathematical regularities of God ’ s world .
But as with all theological metaphors , we need to remember its limitations and employ additional metaphors that reveal other aspects of God ’ s relationship to his creation .
Some who advocate “ a fully gifted creation ” would object that they see God not as a distant designer but as one “ in whom we live and move and have our being , ” 2 a divinity immanent but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into difficulties .
It assumes that a God who is simply immanent is superior to a God who is immanent but also active in ways not reducible to mathematical regularities .
This is hardly obvious .
The formulation also fails to remedy a crucial inconsistency .
The “ fully gifted ” argument makes use of an important tenet of traditional Christian theism in one part of its argument , but rejects that same tenet in another part .
According to orthodox Christian theism , God invented and transcends the time in which we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ future .
The idea of God transcending our space-time continuum is a mind-boggling one , but it ’ s biblical .
In Psalm 90 , Moses says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day .
God also describes himself as the I Am .
He somehow knows about and predicts events hundreds of years in the future .
In the book of Revelation , God the Son calls himself the Alpha and the Omega , the beginning and the end .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uses a surprising verb tense when he tells his listeners , “ Before Abraham was born , I Am !
” We can use the idea of God being over and above the time of this universe to help us begin to grasp how he could exist before the space and time of our universe came into being in the Big Bang .
So far , so good .
Many theistic evolutionists also use this idea to explain how God could know that his finely tuned new universe would one day evolve to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the first living things , and , eventually , a species suitable for an immortal soul made in the image of God .
If God is outside of time and all-knowing , he can see the past , present , and future of every possible universe he might create , all in a single heavenly glance .
Again , so far , so good .
But now here ’ s a problem : If we agree that God stands over and above time past , present , and future , why criticize the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the universe appears to have done some of his design work between the origin of the universe and the origin of humans ?
If God stands over past , present , and future , there is a sense in which all of his design work occurred in the eternal present of the “ I Am , ” whether that work occurred “ all at once ” 14 billion years ago or at different points throughout the history of the universe .
Theistic evolutionists treat God as time-bound when it suits their argument @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their argument .
That ’ s faulty reasoning all the time .
Now on to the second problem .
Humility cautions us against placing too much confidence in our judgments about how God would have done things .
In previous centuries , many people were convinced that a perfect God would construct our solar system so that the planets revolved in perfectly circular orbits .
It turned out that they follow an elliptical path instead — nearly circular but not quite .
Johannes Kepler ( 1571–1630 ) hit upon this truth in part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possibility that he couldn ’ t determine deductively how an all-wise and all-powerful God would construct the solar system .
He had to study nature , to listen with great care to what it might tell him , and from that try to discover how a free and powerful God actually did it .
Kepler ’ s approach is representative .
One way in which Christian theology helped to give birth to the scientific revolution was by insisting that God was free to create however he wished , within the guidelines of his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meant that scientists would need to carefully test their ideas about how God had designed some particular feature of nature to see if they had guessed correctly .
They couldn ’ t just work the problem out deductively .
This encouraged observation and testing .
Some theistic evolutionists insist that the Creator would not act progressively in the history of Creation , and moreover , that he wouldn ’ t leave behind powerful physical evidence of his designing work , lest it leave no room for a leap of faith .
Such a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as we find in Genesis 1 , Psalm 19 , and Romans 1 .
Genesis 1 , whether one takes it literally or more poetically , most naturally suggests a God who created progressively , not simply in a solitary burst of creative action at the beginning instant of the universe .
Psalm 19 plainly says that the heavens declare the glory of God , and indeed that nature pours forth testimony to his might and glory .
Many centuries later , the Apostle Paul seconded this in his letter to the Romans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are without excuse , even those who have never encountered inspired Scripture , because “ what can be known about God is plain to them , because God has shown it to them .
Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature , namely , his eternal power and deity , has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.
” Are we to assume that this was true for David standing under the stars , and for the early Christians to whom Paul wrote , but that it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ studying the creation with powerful microscopes and telescopes ?
If nature as observed by the naked eye points plainly to God ’ s eternal power and deity , it does so all the more when observed with the tools of science .
These tools reveal to us everything from the astonishingly fine-tuned constants of nature for life to the many astounding molecular machines we find illuminated by our most advanced microscopes , biological machines that defy evolutionary explanation .
And as we probe deeper into these “ machines , ” we find biological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Microsoft founder Bill Gates conceded that it was well beyond anything human software engineers have ever designed.3 But all this still leaves us with the objection that such evidence leaves no room for a leap of faith .
For Jews and Christians who take the miracles of the Bible seriously , the objection proves too much .
The Israelites who witnessed the ten plagues and walked through the Red Sea on dry ground — were they robbed of the ability to make a “ leap of faith ” ?
Not at all .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ there , but they remained free to trust or mistrust that divine power .
Many of them chose to mistrust it , to view God as every bit as mercurial and faithless as they themselves were .
Their faithlessness cost them entry into the Promised Land .
As James explains in his New Testament letter , believing in the existence of God isn ’ t the crucial step of faith .
“ Even the demons believe that much , ” he points out .
But they don ’ t love and trust God @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than bare intellectual assent to the proposition that God exists .
And that , in turn , means that evidence for God in nature — even powerful evidence — does not force one to have faith in the Creator .
Also , it ’ s clear that however powerful the evidence in nature for a cosmic maker may be , humans remain free to deny this evidence , and to heed instead whatever their itching ears want to hear .
God has given us rational faculties , but we remain free to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or to rationalize away the truth .
Given all of the above , surely it ’ s shakier to guess about how God would have created things , or to conjecture about what he would or wouldn ’ t have chosen to reveal through nature , than simply to go to nature and see what it actually does reveal .
The great founders of modern science , most of them Christians , and all of them believers in God , did precisely this .
Editor ’ s note : This essay originally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Our Maker , ” and is republished here with permission .
• See Howard J. van Till ’ s “ The Fully Gifted Creation , ” in Three Views of Creation and Evolution , ed .
J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds ( Zondervan , 1999 ) , 159–218 .
• The quotation , spoken by the Apostle Paul in Acts 17:28 , is from a Greek poem attributed to Epimenides the Cretan .

Image: Johannes Kepler (1571–1630), via Wikimedia Commons.
It’s easy to see modern evolutionary theory and Christianity as mutually exclusive. After all, evolutionary theory attributes the origin of all the species around us to a blind process fueled by accidental genetic mutations. Christianity teaches that a creative intelligence, God, created all this. Nevertheless, there are many sincere Christians who embrace some form of Darwinism and attempt to reconcile it with their Christian faith. They would say that Darwinism and faith in the God of the Bible are completely compatible.
Are they completely compatible? And are there good reasons for Christians to graft modern Darwinism onto their Christian worldview?
The “Fully Gifted” View
Many Christian evolutionists argue that a Darwinian evolutionary model is actually theologically superior to the traditional idea of God working directly to create various plant and animal forms. The argument goes like this: Our all-wise, all-powerful God could and would have rigged the beginning of the universe so cleverly that he wouldn’t need to intervene later to create life. Instead, it would all simply unfold from that first cosmic seed. Only when God was ready to exalt one of the ape-like species by investing it with an immortal soul did he need to intervene. In between he could just let his wonderful universe do its evolutionary thing.
On this view, there appears to be a good theological reason to expect only unbroken material causes when studying nature. This view appears to be rooted in two tenets of orthodox Christian doctrine — God’s omnipotence and his unsurpassed wisdom. Howard van Till calls this evolutionary view of creation “fully gifted creation.”1 It’s a creation that doesn’t need follow-up tinkering to generate life because, well, the creation is “fully gifted.”
Notice that the phrase “fully gifted creation” implies that the more traditional view of God’s creative activity in Genesis involves a deficiently gifted creation. There are two problems with van Till’s understanding: (1) the theological reasoning breaks down when pressed, and (2) the scientific evidence points in a different direction.
A Crucial Inconsistency
First, notice that this “fully gifted creation” has a lot in common with the old “watchmaker” view of the creator: God as the master craftsman who created the perfect cosmic mechanism and so has been able to just let it run without additional tinkering. This is modern deism, not Christian theism. In the latter, the Maker of heaven and earth doesn’t want to wind up the world and leave it be. He wants to stay personally involved with his creation. He wants to get his hands dirty. His relationship to his creation is more like that of a gardener to his garden, a loving father to his children, or a lover to his beloved.
The watchmaker metaphor helpfully reminds us of the many mathematical regularities of God’s world. But as with all theological metaphors, we need to remember its limitations and employ additional metaphors that reveal other aspects of God’s relationship to his creation.
Some who advocate “a fully gifted creation” would object that they see God not as a distant designer but as one “in whom we live and move and have our being,”2 a divinity immanent but never tinkering. This formulation also runs into difficulties. It assumes that a God who is simply immanent is superior to a God who is immanent but also active in ways not reducible to mathematical regularities. This is hardly obvious.
The formulation also fails to remedy a crucial inconsistency. The “fully gifted” argument makes use of an important tenet of traditional Christian theism in one part of its argument, but rejects that same tenet in another part.
According to orthodox Christian theism, God invented and transcends the time in which we exist — past, present, and future. The idea of God transcending our space-time continuum is a mind-boggling one, but it’s biblical. In Psalm 90, Moses says that to God a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. God also describes himself as the I Am. He somehow knows about and predicts events hundreds of years in the future. In the book of Revelation, God the Son calls himself the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. And in John’s Gospel, Jesus uses a surprising verb tense when he tells his listeners, “Before Abraham was born, I Am!”
We can use the idea of God being over and above the time of this universe to help us begin to grasp how he could exist before the space and time of our universe came into being in the Big Bang. So far, so good. Many theistic evolutionists also use this idea to explain how God could know that his finely tuned new universe would one day evolve to generate our Sun, planet Earth, the first living things, and, eventually, a species suitable for an immortal soul made in the image of God. If God is outside of time and all-knowing, he can see the past, present, and future of every possible universe he might create, all in a single heavenly glance.
Again, so far, so good. But now here’s a problem: If we agree that God stands over and above time past, present, and future, why criticize the design theorists who argue that the maker of the universe appears to have done some of his design work between the origin of the universe and the origin of humans? If God stands over past, present, and future, there is a sense in which all of his design work occurred in the eternal present of the “I Am,” whether that work occurred “all at once” 14 billion years ago or at different points throughout the history of the universe. Theistic evolutionists treat God as time-bound when it suits their argument, and beyond time when it suits their argument. That’s faulty reasoning all the time.
Kepler’s Approach
Now on to the second problem. Humility cautions us against placing too much confidence in our judgments about how God would have done things. In previous centuries, many people were convinced that a perfect God would construct our solar system so that the planets revolved in perfectly circular orbits. It turned out that they follow an elliptical path instead — nearly circular but not quite. Johannes Kepler (1571–1630) hit upon this truth in part because he was willing to entertain the possibility that he couldn’t determine deductively how an all-wise and all-powerful God would construct the solar system. He had to study nature, to listen with great care to what it might tell him, and from that try to discover how a free and powerful God actually did it.
Kepler’s approach is representative. One way in which Christian theology helped to give birth to the scientific revolution was by insisting that God was free to create however he wished, within the guidelines of his own good and reasonable nature. This meant that scientists would need to carefully test their ideas about how God had designed some particular feature of nature to see if they had guessed correctly. They couldn’t just work the problem out deductively. This encouraged observation and testing.
The Question of Progressive Creation
Some theistic evolutionists insist that the Creator would not act progressively in the history of Creation, and moreover, that he wouldn’t leave behind powerful physical evidence of his designing work, lest it leave no room for a leap of faith. Such a judgment sits uneasily with biblical passages such as we find in Genesis 1, Psalm 19, and Romans 1.
Genesis 1, whether one takes it literally or more poetically, most naturally suggests a God who created progressively, not simply in a solitary burst of creative action at the beginning instant of the universe. Psalm 19 plainly says that the heavens declare the glory of God, and indeed that nature pours forth testimony to his might and glory. Many centuries later, the Apostle Paul seconded this in his letter to the Romans, where he writes that the wicked are without excuse, even those who have never encountered inspired Scripture, because “what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.”
Are we to assume that this was true for David standing under the stars, and for the early Christians to whom Paul wrote, but that it is somehow less true for scientists carefully studying the creation with powerful microscopes and telescopes? If nature as observed by the naked eye points plainly to God’s eternal power and deity, it does so all the more when observed with the tools of science. These tools reveal to us everything from the astonishingly fine-tuned constants of nature for life to the many astounding molecular machines we find illuminated by our most advanced microscopes, biological machines that defy evolutionary explanation. And as we probe deeper into these “machines,” we find biological information and genetic coding so advanced that Microsoft founder Bill Gates conceded that it was well beyond anything human software engineers have ever designed.3
The Crucial Step of Faith
But all this still leaves us with the objection that such evidence leaves no room for a leap of faith. For Jews and Christians who take the miracles of the Bible seriously, the objection proves too much. The Israelites who witnessed the ten plagues and walked through the Red Sea on dry ground — were they robbed of the ability to make a “leap of faith”? Not at all. They knew there was supernatural power out there, but they remained free to trust or mistrust that divine power. Many of them chose to mistrust it, to view God as every bit as mercurial and faithless as they themselves were.
Their faithlessness cost them entry into the Promised Land. As James explains in his New Testament letter, believing in the existence of God isn’t the crucial step of faith. “Even the demons believe that much,” he points out. But they don’t love and trust God. Faith, then, is much more than bare intellectual assent to the proposition that God exists. And that, in turn, means that evidence for God in nature — even powerful evidence — does not force one to have faith in the Creator.
Also, it’s clear that however powerful the evidence in nature for a cosmic maker may be, humans remain free to deny this evidence, and to heed instead whatever their itching ears want to hear. God has given us rational faculties, but we remain free to use those faculties to rationally pursue truth, or to rationalize away the truth.
Given all of the above, surely it’s shakier to guess about how God would have created things, or to conjecture about what he would or wouldn’t have chosen to reveal through nature, than simply to go to nature and see what it actually does reveal. The great founders of modern science, most of them Christians, and all of them believers in God, did precisely this.
Editor’s note: This essay originally appeared in Salvo Magazine as “Watching Our Maker,” and is republished here with permission.
Notes


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-10--Ouch, Huge Sky Survey Shows No “Alien Technosignatures”

A groundbreaking survey of over 10 million star systems has failed to detect signs of extraterrestrial intelligence .
Astronomers working with the Murchison Widefield Array ( MWA ) radio telescope in Western Australia were unable to detect alien technosignatures while surveying millions of star systems in the Vela constellation , according to new research published in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia .
The authors of the new study , Chenoa Tremblay from CSIRO and Steven Tingay from the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research ( ICRAR ) , were hunting for low radio frequencies similar to those produced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a radio-quiet zone of the Australian outback , the MWA , with its 256 array tiles , has a frequency range between 80 and 300 MHz .
“ The MWA is a unique telescope , with an extraordinarily wide field-of-view that allows us to observe millions of stars simultaneously , ” explained Trembley in a Curtin University press release .
“ We observed the sky around the constellation of Vela for 17 hours , looking more than 100 times broader and deeper than ever before .
With this dataset we found no technosignatures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I say “ ouch ” on behalf of materialists , atheists , and Darwinists .
Ten million stars and not a hint of alien civilization .
You see , proponents of intelligent design are cool either way .
If there are intelligent aliens , their biology would itself have to reflect a designer ’ s purpose .
It would probably have to be much like ours .
As Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton has argued , the universe itself is designed to accommodate beings built on something similar to our own plan : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ carbon-based life and intelligent beings of our biology is an empirical discovery , no matter how many cogent arguments a skeptic might introduce to counter any claim that the fitness is the result of design.
” See his recent series here .
But materialists require a very different scenario , where life , including intelligent life , springs up like weeds , without purpose , reflecting no such design .
One famous estimate predicts “ a million civilizations in our galaxy at or beyond the earth ’ s present level of technological development.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence ought to be evident and discoverable .
As science historian Michael Keas has noted , the hope of intelligent ETs is a quasi-spiritual one , offering the possibility of future “ ET enlightenment , ” salvation from the stars .
An iconic depiction of this is the final sequence in Close Encounters of the Third Kind .
Steven Spielberg sweetly captures our native human longing for transcendence , answered emphatically when the aliens arrive .
As the Gizmodo reporter puts it , “ Finding aliens in this gigantic galactic haystack is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to keep looking.
” Notice the imperative in that last phrase .
Design theory can accommodate a unique status for human beings in the cosmos , or not .
For materialism to be true , we must not be special .
The truth , which has never pointed in that direction , hurts .

Photo: A portion of the Murchison Widefield Array, Australia, by Pete Wheeler, ICRAR, via EurekAlert!
Gizmodo reports:
A groundbreaking survey of over 10 million star systems has failed to detect signs of extraterrestrial intelligence. Astronomers working with the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA) radio telescope in Western Australia were unable to detect alien technosignatures while surveying millions of star systems in the Vela constellation, according to new research published in Publications of the Astronomical Society of Australia. The authors of the new study, Chenoa Tremblay from CSIRO and Steven Tingay from the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research (ICRAR), were hunting for low radio frequencies similar to those produced by our own civilization. Located in a radio-quiet zone of the Australian outback, the MWA, with its 256 array tiles, has a frequency range between 80 and 300 MHz. “The MWA is a unique telescope, with an extraordinarily wide field-of-view that allows us to observe millions of stars simultaneously,” explained Trembley in a Curtin University press release. “We observed the sky around the constellation of Vela for 17 hours, looking more than 100 times broader and deeper than ever before. With this dataset we found no technosignatures — no sign of intelligent life.”
I say “ouch” on behalf of materialists, atheists, and Darwinists. Ten million stars and not a hint of alien civilization.
Cool Either Way
You see, proponents of intelligent design are cool either way. If there are intelligent aliens, their biology would itself have to reflect a designer’s purpose. It would probably have to be much like ours. As Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton has argued, the universe itself is designed to accommodate beings built on something similar to our own plan: “The unique fitness of nature for carbon-based life and intelligent beings of our biology is an empirical discovery, no matter how many cogent arguments a skeptic might introduce to counter any claim that the fitness is the result of design.” See his recent series here.
But materialists require a very different scenario, where life, including intelligent life, springs up like weeds, without purpose, reflecting no such design. One famous estimate predicts “a million civilizations in our galaxy at or beyond the earth’s present level of technological development.” In an unplanned cosmos, alien intelligence ought to be evident and discoverable. As science historian Michael Keas has noted, the hope of intelligent ETs is a quasi-spiritual one, offering the possibility of future “ET enlightenment,” salvation from the stars. An iconic depiction of this is the final sequence in Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Steven Spielberg sweetly captures our native human longing for transcendence, answered emphatically when the aliens arrive. As the Gizmodo reporter puts it, “Finding aliens in this gigantic galactic haystack is a truly daunting proposition, but we have to keep looking.” Notice the imperative in that last phrase.
Design theory can accommodate a unique status for human beings in the cosmos, or not. For materialism to be true, we must not be special. The truth, which has never pointed in that direction, hurts.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-09--Free Speech and Intelligent Design’s Warning

Anyone with any sense today worries about “ cancel culture.
” That is the drive to intimidate free speech and confine communication to ideologically approved messaging .
Some commentators are squawking loudly about the phenomenon , and I ’ m glad about that .
But when proponents of intelligent design warned about what was happening to us — for the past 20 years or so — there was little interest or concern .
The censors came for us first , and no one protested .
Now they ’ re coming for you .
Indeed , they are coming for Charles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Robert Crowther and I talked about this on a new episode of the podcast .
As Rob observes , the phrase we used for anti-ID censorship , before “ cancel culture ” offered itself , was “ expelled.
” There was a documentary by that name , Expelled : No Intelligence Allowed , wrly narrated by Ben Stein , that told some of the stories of ID scientists who got canceled for speaking up , or merely for publishing scientific evidence favorable to intelligent design .
That was in 2008 , and further @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Eric Hedin , David Coppedge , Günter Bechly , and more .
Find a selection at the Free Science website .
The Backs of Their Heads Political theorist Willmoore Kendall , who taught William F. Buckley at Yale , already saw all this coming before 1960 , how the liberty to speak freely could be withdrawn “ overnight.
” He wasn ’ t paranoid .
The government doesn ’ t even have to get involved .
Actually , “ expelled ” is the more accurate term than “ canceled , ” because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and livelihood .
A mere program or event can be “ canceled.
” It ’ s the whole person who is “ expelled.
” This is how the scientific consensus now works .
It ’ s why , as I noted to Rob , we carefully protect the identity of students at our Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design .
Here at Evolution News , when we run photos of the Seminars , we are careful to crop them so that no more than the tops of students ’ head can be seen .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their heads , that could endanger their future in the scientific profession !
Can you imagine ?
Sounds crazy ?
As we ’ ve learned , things that sound crazy one day can become routine the next .
Pay attention , America .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .

Photo credit: Alem Omerovic, via Unsplash.
Anyone with any sense today worries about “cancel culture.” That is the drive to intimidate free speech and confine communication to ideologically approved messaging. Some commentators are squawking loudly about the phenomenon, and I’m glad about that. But when proponents of intelligent design warned about what was happening to us — for the past 20 years or so — there was little interest or concern.
The censors came for us first, and no one protested. Now they’re coming for you. Indeed, they are coming for Charles Darwin himself.
ID the Future host Robert Crowther and I talked about this on a new episode of the podcast. As Rob observes, the phrase we used for anti-ID censorship, before “cancel culture” offered itself, was “expelled.” There was a documentary by that name, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, wrly narrated by Ben Stein, that told some of the stories of ID scientists who got canceled for speaking up, or merely for publishing scientific evidence favorable to intelligent design. That was in 2008, and further outrageous stories have been added since then — Eric Hedin, David Coppedge, Günter Bechly, and more. Find a selection at the Free Science website.
The Backs of Their Heads
Political theorist Willmoore Kendall, who taught William F. Buckley at Yale, already saw all this coming before 1960, how the liberty to speak freely could be withdrawn “overnight.” He wasn’t paranoid. The government doesn’t even have to get involved. Actually, “expelled” is the more accurate term than “canceled,” because it captures the comprehensive threat to career and livelihood. A mere program or event can be “canceled.” It’s the whole person who is “expelled.” This is how the scientific consensus now works. It’s why, as I noted to Rob, we carefully protect the identity of students at our Summer Seminars on Intelligent Design. Here at Evolution News, when we run photos of the Seminars, we are careful to crop them so that no more than the tops of students’ head can be seen. If we showed the full back of their heads, that could endanger their future in the scientific profession!
Can you imagine? Sounds crazy? As we’ve learned, things that sound crazy one day can become routine the next. Pay attention, America. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-09--When Alfred Russel Wallace Spoke to Me

When Alfred Russel Wallace Spoke to Me

I was born forty years after Alfred Russel Wallace died .
So obviously my life never intersected with the life of the man who , with Charles Darwin , discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection .
But the beauty of reading is that figures from the past can still speak to us , and happily , by the time I was a young college student Wallace spoke to me .
Wallace went on to challenge and break with Darwin over what I ’ ve called “ intelligent evolution , ” a forerunner of modern intelligent design , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : How Alfred Russel Wallace ’ s World of Life Challenged Darwinism , will be aware .
He came to me indirectly , through William Irwin Thompson ’ s At the Edge of History .
When I was a freshman in 1972 that book was hot off the presses , and making its impression upon those of us who were avid readers and interested in thinking outside the box .
Thompson ’ s book certainly exposed me to new ideas , and Darwin ’ s reigning paradigm at the time found itself in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Thompson once did ) that only backwater hicks and assorted religious extremists seriously questioned Darwinian evolution .
But Thompson shook my presumptions and certainties : And , in fact , this kind of snobbery seems to have been one of the historical conditions which enabled the theory to triumph : the Victorian liberals were quick to champion the new theory because it helped them put the staid , port-sipping , fox-hunting , Tory clergy in its place .
Loren Eiseley has recalled how vehemently Darwin reacted to Wallace ’ s questioning of their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of its formulation Wallace wondered why , if survival of the fittest was the mechanism of natural selection , man ever evolved a brain a hundred times more complex than that needed for survival .
“ ‘ No adequate explanation , ’ they [ Eiseley quoting M. R. A .
Chance and A. P. Mead ] confess over eight years after Darwin scrawled his vigorous ‘ No ’ upon Wallace ’ s paper , ‘ has been put forward to account for so large a cerebrum in man ’ .
” Five hundred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” with an explosion of brain size and frontal development .
Since there are more primitive man-apes farther back , in the few remains of bones we have , it is tempting to connect the dots in a line that cuts across all the dimensions of plentiful space .
It is all the more tempting to connect the dots in this way if one is living in an empire that places the white race at the end of a long line of progress in which the darker races are but bestial prefigurings of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an economic system in which the market is red in tooth and claw , it is tempting to think that laissez faire and survival of the fittest are part of nature ’ s way .
I never looked at Darwinian evolution in quite the same way after that , and although Wallace receded into the deep recesses of my memory , I had what Pasteur called “ the prepared mind ” to take in what Wallace had to tell me in The World of Life when I was happily reacquainted with him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
I invite you to join me on my intellectual journey .
My carefully edited and introduced abridgment of that work will bring you into Wallace ’ s rich world of purpose and meaning .
Get Intelligent Evolution today !

Photo: Statue of Alfred Russel Wallace, by George Beccaloni / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
I was born forty years after Alfred Russel Wallace died. So obviously my life never intersected with the life of the man who, with Charles Darwin, discovered the theory of evolution by natural selection. But the beauty of reading is that figures from the past can still speak to us, and happily, by the time I was a young college student Wallace spoke to me.
The “Edge of History”
Wallace went on to challenge and break with Darwin over what I’ve called “intelligent evolution,” a forerunner of modern intelligent design, as readers of my book, Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russel Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism, will be aware. He came to me indirectly, through William Irwin Thompson’s At the Edge of History. When I was a freshman in 1972 that book was hot off the presses, and making its impression upon those of us who were avid readers and interested in thinking outside the box.
Thompson’s book certainly exposed me to new ideas, and Darwin’s reigning paradigm at the time found itself in his crosshairs. I thought (like Thompson once did) that only backwater hicks and assorted religious extremists seriously questioned Darwinian evolution. But Thompson shook my presumptions and certainties:
And, in fact, this kind of snobbery seems to have been one of the historical conditions which enabled the theory to triumph: the Victorian liberals were quick to champion the new theory because it helped them put the staid, port-sipping, fox-hunting, Tory clergy in its place. Loren Eiseley has recalled how vehemently Darwin reacted to Wallace’s questioning of their joint theory. Even at the time of its formulation Wallace wondered why, if survival of the fittest was the mechanism of natural selection, man ever evolved a brain a hundred times more complex than that needed for survival. “‘No adequate explanation,’ they [Eiseley quoting M. R. A. Chance and A. P. Mead] confess over eight years after Darwin scrawled his vigorous ‘No’ upon Wallace’s paper, ‘has been put forward to account for so large a cerebrum in man’.” Five hundred thousand years ago, Pithecanthropus “evolved” with an explosion of brain size and frontal development. Since there are more primitive man-apes farther back, in the few remains of bones we have, it is tempting to connect the dots in a line that cuts across all the dimensions of plentiful space. It is all the more tempting to connect the dots in this way if one is living in an empire that places the white race at the end of a long line of progress in which the darker races are but bestial prefigurings of the Englishman. And if one lives in an economic system in which the market is red in tooth and claw, it is tempting to think that laissez faire and survival of the fittest are part of nature’s way.
Purpose and Meaning
I never looked at Darwinian evolution in quite the same way after that, and although Wallace receded into the deep recesses of my memory, I had what Pasteur called “the prepared mind” to take in what Wallace had to tell me in The World of Life when I was happily reacquainted with him. That was some 15 years ago.
I invite you to join me on my intellectual journey. My carefully edited and introduced abridgment of that work will bring you into Wallace’s rich world of purpose and meaning. Get Intelligent Evolution today!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-09--Paul Ashby on Thermodynamics, Information, and Life’s Molecular Machines

I recently watched a very informative lecture by physical chemist Dr. Paul Ashby on thermodynamics , information , and the molecular machines in cells .
Ashby is a Staff Scientist in the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory , and he is a Director and the Treasurer of the C. S. Lewis Society of California .
His academic pedigree includes degrees from Harvard and MIT , and his publications appear in numerous top-tier journals .
His talk demonstrates the need for information to be imparted into the highly efficient molecular power generators and energy extractors found in biological systems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complement my own analyses addressing the origin of life ( see here , here , and here ) .
Ashby begins his lecture by describing the construction of steam-powered locomotive engines .
Every component is carefully engineered to ensure that the stream pressure constantly drives the wheels in one direction .
He then describes how the energy efficiency of engines has increased from half of a percent in the early 1700s to 54 percent today .
The increase resulted from greater ingenuity in the overall design , which includes greater precision in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ part of the lecture transitions into a discussion of a thought experiment known as Maxwell ’ s demon .
In the thought experiment , a demon opens and closes a small door between two chambers of gas at specific times to allow only hotter air molecules to travel to one side and only colder molecules to travel to the other .
The demon ’ s actions cause the temperature difference between the two chambers to increase , thus decreasing the entropy , and seemingly violating the second law of thermodynamics .
Ashby explains @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not in fact violate the second law since its actions expend energy .
This expenditure causes the average temperature of the entire system to rise , so the total entropy still increases .
In addition , the demon must be given information about the temperature of the molecules approaching the door to determine whether to open or close it .
The information is what allows for the separation of hot and cold gases .
Ashby then connects the discussion about locomotives with the thought experiment by explaining how information is also needed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the manufacturing instructions .
More efficient engines require greater ingenuity and precision of parts , and this improvement entails the instructions containing more information .
Thus , efficiency increases with the quantity of information supplied .
Conversely , information can be lost .
Machines invariably degrade .
For instance , components wear down .
Such deterioration corresponds to a loss of information ( or specificity ) that results in a loss in efficiency .
A car must be constantly maintained by repairing or replacing parts , tuning the engine , and aligning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would eventually cease to function , and the energy from burning the fuel would be entirely dissipated as heat .
Next , Ashby applies the relationship between information and efficiency to biological machines .
He notes that machines are more efficient if they operate reversibly , meaning that each small step for the engine frequently works counter to the desired direction .
For large machines , such as petroleum engines , reversibility increases for machines running more slowly .
But for microscopic machines at the nanoscale , energy flows more easily , so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He then details the operation of ATP synthase and explains how this molecular engine is reversible and operates at nearly 100 percent efficiency .
He also describes the series of often reversible chemical reactions in cells that extract energy from food , such as glucose molecules .
The extraction takes place in multiple steps , which increases efficiency , and each step is directed by an enzyme .
The efficiency and reversibility of the cellular machinery and enzymes entails their containing large quantities of information .
The last part of the lecture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ process ever generating the required information for any molecular machine or series of enzymes .
The challenge is that no fitness function or strategy driving a search could find highly improbable targets unless the search algorithm were supplied with information about a target .
The underlying theory for this limitation has been explained in detail by Robert J .
Marks , William Dembski , and Winston Ewert ( see here , here , and here ) .
In other words , the origination of molecular machinery or a set of complex enzymes at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ major evolutionary transformation requires information to be provided from the outside by an overseeing intelligence .
Ashby is a committed Christian , so he identifies that intelligence as the God of Jewish and Christian tradition .

Photo: Steam locomotive, by Petar Milošević / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
I recently watched a very informative lecture by physical chemist Dr. Paul Ashby on thermodynamics, information, and the molecular machines in cells. Ashby is a Staff Scientist in the Molecular Foundry at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and he is a Director and the Treasurer of the C. S. Lewis Society of California. His academic pedigree includes degrees from Harvard and MIT, and his publications appear in numerous top-tier journals. His talk demonstrates the need for information to be imparted into the highly efficient molecular power generators and energy extractors found in biological systems. I particularly appreciate how his arguments complement my own analyses addressing the origin of life (see here, here, and here).
Ashby begins his lecture by describing the construction of steam-powered locomotive engines. Every component is carefully engineered to ensure that the stream pressure constantly drives the wheels in one direction. He then describes how the energy efficiency of engines has increased from half of a percent in the early 1700s to 54 percent today. The increase resulted from greater ingenuity in the overall design, which includes greater precision in the design of the parts.
Maxwell’s Demon
The next part of the lecture transitions into a discussion of a thought experiment known as Maxwell’s demon. In the thought experiment, a demon opens and closes a small door between two chambers of gas at specific times to allow only hotter air molecules to travel to one side and only colder molecules to travel to the other. The demon’s actions cause the temperature difference between the two chambers to increase, thus decreasing the entropy, and seemingly violating the second law of thermodynamics. Ashby explains how an agent acting like the demon does not in fact violate the second law since its actions expend energy. This expenditure causes the average temperature of the entire system to rise, so the total entropy still increases. In addition, the demon must be given information about the temperature of the molecules approaching the door to determine whether to open or close it. The information is what allows for the separation of hot and cold gases.
Maxwell’s Demon thought experiment.
A Functioning Engine
Ashby then connects the discussion about locomotives with the thought experiment by explaining how information is also needed to construct a functioning engine, specifically in the manufacturing instructions. More efficient engines require greater ingenuity and precision of parts, and this improvement entails the instructions containing more information. Thus, efficiency increases with the quantity of information supplied.
Conversely, information can be lost. Machines invariably degrade. For instance, components wear down. Such deterioration corresponds to a loss of information (or specificity) that results in a loss in efficiency. A car must be constantly maintained by repairing or replacing parts, tuning the engine, and aligning the components. Without such upkeep it would eventually cease to function, and the energy from burning the fuel would be entirely dissipated as heat.
Biological Machines
Next, Ashby applies the relationship between information and efficiency to biological machines. He notes that machines are more efficient if they operate reversibly, meaning that each small step for the engine frequently works counter to the desired direction. For large machines, such as petroleum engines, reversibility increases for machines running more slowly. But for microscopic machines at the nanoscale, energy flows more easily, so they are more likely to operate reversibly. He then details the operation of ATP synthase and explains how this molecular engine is reversible and operates at nearly 100 percent efficiency. He also describes the series of often reversible chemical reactions in cells that extract energy from food, such as glucose molecules. The extraction takes place in multiple steps, which increases efficiency, and each step is directed by an enzyme. The efficiency and reversibility of the cellular machinery and enzymes entails their containing large quantities of information.
The last part of the lecture explains the implausibility of an undirected evolutionary process ever generating the required information for any molecular machine or series of enzymes. The challenge is that no fitness function or strategy driving a search could find highly improbable targets unless the search algorithm were supplied with information about a target. The underlying theory for this limitation has been explained in detail by Robert J. Marks, William Dembski, and Winston Ewert (see here, here, and here). In other words, the origination of molecular machinery or a set of complex enzymes at the origin of life or in any major evolutionary transformation requires information to be provided from the outside by an overseeing intelligence. Ashby is a committed Christian, so he identifies that intelligence as the God of Jewish and Christian tradition.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-09-10--James Tour: “Molecules Don’t Care About Life”

Friday here in Seattle we are expecting a huge cloud of wildfire smoke , blowing up from Oregon and California .
Thanks , neighbors .
Blowing smoke happens also to be what science media and even scientists themselves do a great deal of the time when they talk about the origin of life .
As synthetic organic chemist James Tour , of Rice University , forcefully reminds us , no one really has a clue how life got started .
The problems are extremely formidable , as he notes in a quick preview : That ’ s an excerpt from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University on the theme “ Scientists Are Clueless on the Origin of Life.
” It premieres on Friday , September 11 , at 10 am Pacific time/1 pm Eastern .
Tour is a dynamo and he promises to disperse the smoke of hype and misinformation about life ’ s origin from nonlife .
As he puts it , “ Molecules don ’ t care about life.
” They “ don ’ t evolve .
They don ’ t move toward life.
” This is not a presentation about God , as he warns @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design .
It ’ s a rousing reminder that science remains without real information , of any kind , about the ultimate mystery .
You can watch that Friday , right here :

Photo: Screenshot from "Molecules Don’t Care About Life."
Friday here in Seattle we are expecting a huge cloud of wildfire smoke, blowing up from Oregon and California. Thanks, neighbors. Blowing smoke happens also to be what science media and even scientists themselves do a great deal of the time when they talk about the origin of life. As synthetic organic chemist James Tour, of Rice University, forcefully reminds us, no one really has a clue how life got started. The problems are extremely formidable, as he notes in a quick preview:
That’s an excerpt from a presentation Professor Tour gave to Andrews University on the theme “Scientists Are Clueless on the Origin of Life.” It premieres on Friday, September 11, at 10 am Pacific time/1 pm Eastern. Tour is a dynamo and he promises to disperse the smoke of hype and misinformation about life’s origin from nonlife. As he puts it, “Molecules don’t care about life.” They “don’t evolve. They don’t move toward life.” This is not a presentation about God, as he warns at the outset, nor about intelligent design. It’s a rousing reminder that science remains without real information, of any kind, about the ultimate mystery. You can watch that Friday, right here: