evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-29--On Fall Foliage, Nathan Lents Comes Up Short

Editor ’ s note : Tom Gilson is a Senior Editor for The Stream and the author most recently of Too Good to Be False : How Jesus ’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality .
The exchange with Dr. Lents continues at Gilson ’ s blog , Thinking Christian , from which this is republished with permission .
He ’ s a writer , he ’ s a professor of biology , and Nathan Lents thinks my Evolution News essay on the gift of fall colors this week is “ silly.
” It ’ s “ what passes for serious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s pretty bad , he wants us to know .
He stated as much in a series of tweets starting here , which he gave me permission to reproduce .
I ’ m afraid he ’ s not going to like my answer .
I ’ m not going to re-visit my article ’ s thesis .
As stated , I wrote it by dictation while walking through the woods .
It ’ s obviously incomplete and intentionally not rigorous , and I think most readers would recognize its intent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to focus on what Lents has to say .
He says my article doesn ’ t represent serious thought .
Does his response ?
The evidence , unfortunately , says no .
There are far too many errors in such a small amount of space , too many fallacies in such a short series of tweets .
Let ’ s take it a step at a time .
( I ’ ve compiled his entire series of tweets into block quotes here . )
Another strange claim from # IntelligentDesign : the lovely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for humans to enjoy .
Because I love autumn foliage & nature walks , I wanted to like this essay by @ TomGilsonAuthor .
But this is just plain silly .
This essay perfectly exemplifies the kind of bizarre reasoning that ID folks claim is open-mindedness about evidence for supernatural forces in nature .
Let ’ s consider the ridiculous things that this claim requires ( and add more to my list , please ! )
First of all , leaf senescence is an intricately programmed process involving hundreds of genes .
While @ @ @ @ @ @ @ plants ( angiosperms ) , the genes and pathways for this process evolved in even older lineages of plant , before plants had colonized dry land , over 500 million years before Homo sapiens appeared .
So… plants were engaging this process for 500 million years so that some humans could be treated to nice colors during their nature walks for a few weeks out of the year .
Um , okay .
Sarcasm — “ Um , okay ” — is obviously no argument .
Or if it is , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not his only one .
I suppose it might seem to work if you already agree with him ; if you beg the question , that is .
If all this process of development went on over half a billion years with no planning , no foresight , no teleology involved , then “ Um , okay , ” would be quite an adequate refutation , and my point that fall colors are an intentional gift would be ridiculous .
But that ’ s no better than saying , “ If Gilson ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s wrong.
” True enough , except it assumes the conclusion ; it begs the “ if.
” Because there is nothing in the word “ gift ” that entails its having been given identically to all persons at all times .
That ’ s not hard , actually .
Same answer .
Again , not difficult .
Here we have an argument from incredulity .
It amounts to , “ I can ’ t believe God would design something good for some people , and not give it to all people.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ bland world would it be where everyone got all the same good things ?
What kind of impossible , contradictory world would it be where everyone got mountains , forests , oceanfront views , acres and acres of fertile fields , warm sun all year round , skiing and ice skating whenever you like , four seasons , no seasons … ?
Different places have different advantages .
You don ’ t get much by way of fall colors in coastal Orange County , California , where I once lived , but you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .
Is that a design flaw ?
Nathan seems to assume that design means homogeneity .
I have no idea where he gets that from .
His objection is just thoughtless incredulity , as far as I can see .
No , that ’ s not “ in the view of Intelligent Design.
” Sorry .
It ’ s not even essential to my perspective on leaf coloration being a gift , for those who get to enjoy it .
He ’ s set up a false dichotomy : Either living things @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own purposes ( his view ) or nature is “ designed specifically for the pleasure and comfort of human beings.
” That ’ s a strange forced choice , and a fallacious one .
In a theistic intelligent design viewpoint , things can have multiple ends or purposes .
To deny that possibility is to beg the question again .
It ’ s fallacious reasoning .
If that ’ s supposed to count against the truth of my argument , it ’ s an argument from consequences , and fallacious on that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ d object if I said evolution is false because “ this particular kind of thinking , that humans have no purpose , has some pretty harmful consequences and corollaries.
” I believe it does , but that ’ s not what makes it false .
Maybe he ’ s just raising a warning , though , as in , “ Not only is this wrong , it ’ s also harmful.
” That avoids the consequences fallacy .
It ’ s still in error , though , because it depends on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one ’ s ever suggested , as far as I ’ m aware : That “ humans are the center of everything and everything was designed with us in mind.
” I don ’ t believe that for a moment , and neither does any other theist I know .
( Intelligent design theory doesn ’ t entail theism , but a majority of ID supporters including myself are theists , and it ’ s the version of design theory I know best how to discuss . )
Rebutting What No One Believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , is to believe that God is the center of everything , and that some things he created with humans in mind .
Christian theism in particular places humans in stewardship of the environment , giving us responsibility to care for it .
If he ’ s rebutting anything in this paragraph , he ’ s rebutting something no one believes .
Why not ?
I ’ ll rebut it right along with him !
I think it ’ s wrong , too , which is the same as saying I don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ m not going to waste time doing it , though .
Sure , I could go around knocking down beliefs no one holds , but if I ’ m going to while away the time with mind games that have no connection to the real world , I ’ d rather do it playing Sudoku instead .
Why They “ Can ’ t Say the Trees Are Beautiful ” In a side conversation on Twitter , someone asked why I said , “ The evolutionist can not honestly and coherently say , ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The trees are beautiful.
’ ” He wondered what I meant by “ evolutionist.
” I think that ’ s plain in context .
In case it isn ’ t , I was talking about the person who believes in undirected , naturalistic evolution .
Nathan Lents answered him , “ Maybe @ TomGilsonAuthor can enlighten us as to why we can ’ t say the trees are beautiful.
” I didn ’ t .
I said they can ’ t say it honestly and coherently .
If he wants to know why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ back and read the reasoning in what I wrote there in the first place .
If he thinks I ’ m wrong about it , he can probe with questions or objections .
Where Not to Find Serious Thought There was no refutation here .
It was all fallacious .
Some of it was misdirected at things I didn ’ t say , some of it was question-begging .
Some of it was making easy things hard , some was built on a false dichotomy .
The rest ?
He was arguing from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ what passes for serious thought , ” but he does so by means of an extended series of logical fallacies .
It doesn ’ t speak well of his standing as a critic of serious thought .
Does this by itself mean my essay is sound , rational , well-argued ?
No , actually , it doesn ’ t .
I wasn ’ t even talking about it , really , but about Lents ’ s short Twitter article instead .
It does mean , though , that to the extent that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lents ’ s critique , it still stands solid .
Sure , maybe someone will show that there ’ s a whole lot wrong with what I wrote .
That ’ s an open question anyone can pursue .
But not for Lents ’ s reasons , because they fail the test of valid reasoning .

Editor’s note: Tom Gilson is a Senior Editor for The Stream and the author most recently of Too Good to Be False: How Jesus’ Incomparable Character Reveals His Reality. The exchange with Dr. Lents continues at Gilson’s blog, Thinking Christian, from which this is republished with permission.
He’s a writer, he’s a professor of biology, and Nathan Lents thinks my Evolution News essay on the gift of fall colors this week is “silly.” It’s “what passes for serious thought at the Discovery Institute,” and it’s pretty bad, he wants us to know. He stated as much in a series of tweets starting here, which he gave me permission to reproduce.
I’m afraid he’s not going to like my answer. I’m not going to re-visit my article’s thesis. As stated, I wrote it by dictation while walking through the woods. It’s obviously incomplete and intentionally not rigorous, and I think most readers would recognize its intent. Instead, I’m going to focus on what Lents has to say. He says my article doesn’t represent serious thought. Does his response? The evidence, unfortunately, says no. There are far too many errors in such a small amount of space, too many fallacies in such a short series of tweets.
Sarcasm Isn’t an Argument
Let’s take it a step at a time. (I’ve compiled his entire series of tweets into block quotes here.)
Another strange claim from #IntelligentDesign: the lovely colors of #autumn were purposely designed for humans to enjoy. Because I love autumn foliage & nature walks, I wanted to like this essay by @TomGilsonAuthor. But this is just plain silly. This essay perfectly exemplifies the kind of bizarre reasoning that ID folks claim is open-mindedness about evidence for supernatural forces in nature. Let’s consider the ridiculous things that this claim requires (and add more to my list, please!) First of all, leaf senescence is an intricately programmed process involving hundreds of genes. While it is most commonly associated with flowering plants (angiosperms), the genes and pathways for this process evolved in even older lineages of plant, before plants had colonized dry land, over 500 million years before Homo sapiens appeared. So… plants were engaging this process for 500 million years so that some humans could be treated to nice colors during their nature walks for a few weeks out of the year. Um, okay.
Sarcasm — “Um, okay” — is obviously no argument. Or if it is, it’s an argument from incredulity, and not his only one. I suppose it might seem to work if you already agree with him; if you beg the question, that is. If all this process of development went on over half a billion years with no planning, no foresight, no teleology involved, then “Um, okay,” would be quite an adequate refutation, and my point that fall colors are an intentional gift would be ridiculous. But that’s no better than saying, “If Gilson’s point is wrong, then it’s wrong.” True enough, except it assumes the conclusion; it begs the “if.”
Making Things Hard That Aren’t
Secondly, humans and their ancestors evolved almost exclusively in Africa for basically all of the last 20 million years. (Yes, waves of other hominids periodically left Africa but these were not our ancestors and probably had little appreciation for foliage.) Even our recent ancestry was almost exclusively in tropical and subtropical areas in which leaf senescence is not a thing. So… the design for fall colors could have been placed where humans were actually living for most of our history, but it wasn’t because… ?
Because there is nothing in the word “gift” that entails its having been given identically to all persons at all times. That’s not hard, actually.
And thirdly, even in modern times, the vast majority of humanity does not live in regions that exhibit anything like the autumn foliage that we see in parts of Europe, North America, and some parts of Central and East Asia. Brilliant and conspicuous leaf senescence occurs in a particular slice of where human beings live. So… this gift was not for all of humanity, but exclusively for those living in specific places. Lucky us!
Same answer. Again, not difficult.
Arguing from Incredulity
To believe this story (for which there is no evidence), you have to also believe that a supernatural power designed this little gift 500 millions years ahead of time, specifically for a minority of modern humans that would eventually live in a small slice of the world.
Here we have an argument from incredulity. It amounts to, “I can’t believe God would design something good for some people, and not give it to all people.” Why not? What kind of bland world would it be where everyone got all the same good things? What kind of impossible, contradictory world would it be where everyone got mountains, forests, oceanfront views, acres and acres of fertile fields, warm sun all year round, skiing and ice skating whenever you like, four seasons, no seasons …?
Different places have different advantages. You don’t get much by way of fall colors in coastal Orange County, California, where I once lived, but you do have near-ideal weather most of the year. Is that a design flaw? Nathan seems to assume that design means homogeneity. I have no idea where he gets that from. His objection is just thoughtless incredulity, as far as I can see.
False Dichotomy and Question-Begging
And fourthly, what about the actual function of leaf senescence for the plant? Was this just a side effect? In the view of Intelligent Design, everything else in nature was designed specifically for the pleasure and comfort of human beings. But here in the real world, we understand that living things have their own physiology that functions for their own purposes. Not everything is about us.
No, that’s not “in the view of Intelligent Design.” Sorry. It’s not even essential to my perspective on leaf coloration being a gift, for those who get to enjoy it. He’s set up a false dichotomy: Either living things have their own physiology and functions for their own purposes (his view) or nature is “designed specifically for the pleasure and comfort of human beings.” That’s a strange forced choice, and a fallacious one. In a theistic intelligent design viewpoint, things can have multiple ends or purposes. To deny that possibility is to beg the question again. It’s fallacious reasoning.
Besides just being comically unscientific, this particular kind of thinking, that humans are the center of everything and everything was designed with us in mind, has some pretty harmful consequences and corollaries.
If that’s supposed to count against the truth of my argument, it’s an argument from consequences, and fallacious on that count. I’m sure he’d object if I said evolution is false because “this particular kind of thinking, that humans have no purpose, has some pretty harmful consequences and corollaries.” I believe it does, but that’s not what makes it false.
Maybe he’s just raising a warning, though, as in, “Not only is this wrong, it’s also harmful.” That avoids the consequences fallacy. It’s still in error, though, because it depends on his jumping wildly to a conclusion that no one’s ever suggested, as far as I’m aware: That “humans are the center of everything and everything was designed with us in mind.” I don’t believe that for a moment, and neither does any other theist I know. (Intelligent design theory doesn’t entail theism, but a majority of ID supporters including myself are theists, and it’s the version of design theory I know best how to discuss.)
Rebutting What No One Believes
To be a theist, in fact, is to believe that God is the center of everything, and that some things he created with humans in mind. Christian theism in particular places humans in stewardship of the environment, giving us responsibility to care for it.
If he’s rebutting anything in this paragraph, he’s rebutting something no one believes. Why not? I’ll rebut it right along with him! I think it’s wrong, too, which is the same as saying I don’t believe it either. I’m not going to waste time doing it, though. Sure, I could go around knocking down beliefs no one holds, but if I’m going to while away the time with mind games that have no connection to the real world, I’d rather do it playing Sudoku instead.
And before you says this is just poetic, read the essay. He’s quite serious. And before you say this doesn’t represent ID, this is a featured article at “the intellectual home of Intelligent Design.” This is what passes for serious thought at the Discovery Institute. The silliness of Intelligent Design is why no one takes their ideas seriously. But the harmful consequences is why we do take the movement seriously and why we take time from our other work to refute them at every turn.
Why They “Can’t Say the Trees Are Beautiful”
In a side conversation on Twitter, someone asked why I said, “The evolutionist cannot honestly and coherently say, ‘It’s glorious out there! The trees are beautiful.’” He wondered what I meant by “evolutionist.” I think that’s plain in context. In case it isn’t, I was talking about the person who believes in undirected, naturalistic evolution.
Nathan Lents answered him, “Maybe @TomGilsonAuthor can enlighten us as to why we can’t say the trees are beautiful.” I didn’t. I said they can’t say it honestly and coherently. If he wants to know why I said it, he can go back and read the reasoning in what I wrote there in the first place. If he thinks I’m wrong about it, he can probe with questions or objections.
Where Not to Find Serious Thought
There was no refutation here. It was all fallacious. Some of it was misdirected at things I didn’t say, some of it was question-begging. Some of it was making easy things hard, some was built on a false dichotomy. The rest? He was arguing from incredulity.
He mocks my essay as “what passes for serious thought,” but he does so by means of an extended series of logical fallacies. It doesn’t speak well of his standing as a critic of serious thought.
Does this by itself mean my essay is sound, rational, well-argued? No, actually, it doesn’t. I wasn’t even talking about it, really, but about Lents’s short Twitter article instead. It does mean, though, that to the extent that any problem with it may depend on Lents’s critique, it still stands solid. Sure, maybe someone will show that there’s a whole lot wrong with what I wrote. That’s an open question anyone can pursue. But not for Lents’s reasons, because they fail the test of valid reasoning.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-29--Against the Tide: The Darkening Intellectual Scene

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Looking forward to the release , Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
The film includes a fascinating section where it covers how you were invited to lecture at universities in Communist countries .
Communist intellectuals were known for explicitly embracing materialist explanations for the origin and development @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that went beyond materialism .
Are you worried that universities in the UK and America are embracing the same sort of intolerance you saw in Communist countries ?
Well , of course .
Although , I wouldn ’ t call myself an expert on exactly what ’ s going on .
But culturally , one can see it .
I experienced it in the former Soviet Union all over the place , where their commitment to materialism had actually in my view left them intellectually weak .
It was very dogmatic .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that was learning by rote .
You learned what the professor said , and you reproduced that .
There was no learning how to think .
Universities are supposed to be places where people are taught to think .
The difficulty today is that there are certain cultural movements , some of them coming from Marxism , some of them coming from elsewhere , that are reversing the idea of a university .
They are forbidding free speech and de-platforming people and saying that the students mustn ’ t be exposed to this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the very definition of a university .
The idea of tolerance has changed its meaning in a tragic and very dangerous way .
The Latin verb “ tolerāre ” means , If I tolerate you , I disagree with you but I will defend your right publicly to say what you believe .
We need to get back to that but we ’ re losing it .
This is a complex story , and I ’ m not an expert on culture , but at least from what I observe there is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ glasses that see everything in terms of power , oppression , and oppressors .
There ’ s an element of what ’ s often called critical theory , pejoratively called cultural Marxism , that is sweeping around on the left side of political academic thinking .
It ’ s been very influential in the university world .
And to my mind , anything that stops freedom of speech is the exact opposite of a university .
One of the things that I never tire of saying is : Look to the origin of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ founded on Christian thinking .
That is extremely important .
Now what we ’ ve got is the dominance of naturalism , with universities going against their very foundation .
In the really ancient world , the Christians fought the pagans .
They got involved in the debate , but now we ’ re afraid to debate in case we upset somebody .
It is very important because it is damaging .
This looking at things in terms of oppressor-oppressed , the victim culture , is blinding people to real issues .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of stabilizing influence of rational thought and respect , then you can end up with violence , as we have seen .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the one-night-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Looking forward to the release, Professor Lennox took time to answer some questions from Evolution News.
The film includes a fascinating section where it covers how you were invited to lecture at universities in Communist countries. Communist intellectuals were known for explicitly embracing materialist explanations for the origin and development of life and being intolerant of anything that went beyond materialism. Are you worried that universities in the UK and America are embracing the same sort of intolerance you saw in Communist countries?
Well, of course. Although, I wouldn’t call myself an expert on exactly what’s going on. But culturally, one can see it. I experienced it in the former Soviet Union all over the place, where their commitment to materialism had actually in my view left them intellectually weak. It was very dogmatic.
It was associated with an attitude to education that was learning by rote. You learned what the professor said, and you reproduced that. There was no learning how to think. Universities are supposed to be places where people are taught to think. The difficulty today is that there are certain cultural movements, some of them coming from Marxism, some of them coming from elsewhere, that are reversing the idea of a university. They are forbidding free speech and de-platforming people and saying that the students mustn’t be exposed to this idea or that idea. That contradicts the very definition of a university.
The idea of tolerance has changed its meaning in a tragic and very dangerous way. The Latin verb “tolerāre” means, If I tolerate you, I disagree with you but I will defend your right publicly to say what you believe. We need to get back to that but we’re losing it. This is a complex story, and I’m not an expert on culture, but at least from what I observe there is a huge danger today in putting on colored glasses that see everything in terms of power, oppression, and oppressors. There’s an element of what’s often called critical theory, pejoratively called cultural Marxism, that is sweeping around on the left side of political academic thinking. It’s been very influential in the university world. And to my mind, anything that stops freedom of speech is the exact opposite of a university.
One of the things that I never tire of saying is: Look to the origin of the great universities. They were mostly founded on Christian thinking. That is extremely important. Now what we’ve got is the dominance of naturalism, with universities going against their very foundation.
In the really ancient world, the Christians fought the pagans. They got involved in the debate, but now we’re afraid to debate in case we upset somebody. It is very important because it is damaging. This looking at things in terms of oppressor-oppressed, the victim culture, is blinding people to real issues. The trouble is once you lose the kind of stabilizing influence of rational thought and respect, then you can end up with violence, as we have seen.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-29--Inside the Evolution Silo — Darwinism as a Cult

I know that sounds harsh but think about it .
I was listening to podcaster Scott Adams who discusses the phenomenon of a “ news silo ” where members of the public are sheltered from news that violates their preferred political or other narrative .
A major news story can break outside of the silo but , because it goes against the narrative , those in the silo will never hear about it .
The media they watch won ’ t let them .
I understand that in a sense we all live in a silo , following our preferred @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out that some communities , built around rigid narratives , are far more isolated than others .
They function in a cult-like manner .
All competing information is excluded .
Debate is avoided .
Contact with outsiders is discouraged .
Anyone who leaves the cult and goes over to the other side is demonized .
To admit doubts even in private is to invite censure .
The other side is demonized and distorted .
Thus a consensus in favor of the ruling narrative is maintained .
Sure , those in the cult are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outside , but rarely if ever converse with them .
Why anyone would wish to live outside , unless they are stupid , deluded , or wicked , is a subject of distressed bewilderment .
Does all this sound familiar at all ?
The defense of Darwinian theory has definite cultish aspects .
Our mathematician colleague Granville Sewell observes that if you listen to ID ’ s critics , you get a wildly simple-minded and ignorant distortion .
He quotes an ACLU statement that ID “ simply says that some things that seem @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on natural causes .
So where it sees complexity , it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity.
” But that is an absurd , hopeless caricature .
Dr. Sewell lists what he calls the “ Top Six Evidences for Intelligent Design.
” How many among the staunch defenders of Darwinism are even aware of the major areas of evidence for design that ID proponents offer ?
My experience is that very few could even name those areas .
How many could tell you , for example , what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Doubt or what Michael Denton says in his new book , The Miracle of the Cell ?
Vanishingly few .
Why is that ?
Darwin defenders practice a curious kind of apologetics where they steer clear of familiarity with the competing scientific view .
Debate is avoided .
They campaign to prevent high school students from hearing that evolution may have scientific weaknesses .
Atheist biologist Jerry Coyne , an emeritus professor at the University of Chicago , writes a voluminous blog , Why Evolution Is True , where you would expect some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ expectation would be disappointed .
In their community , the favored narrative is protected by the mother of all news silos .
How many evolutionary scientists have even met a proponent of intelligent design ?
If they do meet them , they avoid them .
When ID scientists and scholars participated in the important Royal Society conference “ New trends in evolutionary biology : biological , philosophical and social science perspectives , ” they were shunned .
Darwinists can ’ t understand why anyone would wish to be outside the silo .
Atheit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ rather not consider ” the possibility that the outsiders are “ wicked , ” but neither does he rule it out .
Perhaps the most cult-like aspect of Darwinism is the way it threatens and punishes those in the community who would consider speaking up about their doubts or would leave altogether .
As Yale computer scientist David Gelernter has said , in the context of his own coming out as Darwin skeptic , “ You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually .
They will destroy you if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ website tells the stories of scientists who nearly were destroyed for challenging Darwin from within the silo .
The editors of a prominent journal , the Journal of Theoretical Biology , published a peer-reviewed pro-ID paper recently only to , it seems , be reminded by the community that they had broken the community rule : no serous interaction with design arguments .
They promptly published a disclaimer , rejecting their own article , and offered up instead another article seeking to rebut the first .
You can understand why they panicked : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their own careers ruined for letting in a little light .
That Darwinism functions much as a cult doesn ’ t by itself rule out the possibility of its being a true picture of biological origins .
To judge that question you would have weigh the competing arguments .
But that is what most evolution defenders have steadfastly refused to do .

Photo credit: Intricate Explorer via Unsplash.
I know that sounds harsh but think about it. I was listening to podcaster Scott Adams who discusses the phenomenon of a “news silo” where members of the public are sheltered from news that violates their preferred political or other narrative. A major news story can break outside of the silo but, because it goes against the narrative, those in the silo will never hear about it. The media they watch won’t let them.
I understand that in a sense we all live in a silo, following our preferred sources of information. But Adams points out that some communities, built around rigid narratives, are far more isolated than others. They function in a cult-like manner. All competing information is excluded. Debate is avoided. Contact with outsiders is discouraged. Anyone who leaves the cult and goes over to the other side is demonized. To admit doubts even in private is to invite censure. The other side is demonized and distorted. Thus a consensus in favor of the ruling narrative is maintained. Sure, those in the cult are well aware of the existence of people outside, but rarely if ever converse with them. Why anyone would wish to live outside, unless they are stupid, deluded, or wicked, is a subject of distressed bewilderment.
“Top Six Evidences”
Does all this sound familiar at all? The defense of Darwinian theory has definite cultish aspects. Our mathematician colleague Granville Sewell observes that if you listen to ID’s critics, you get a wildly simple-minded and ignorant distortion. He quotes an ACLU statement that ID “simply says that some things that seem very complex could not have happened based on natural causes. So where it sees complexity, it declares that it must have been created by a supernatural entity.” But that is an absurd, hopeless caricature. Dr. Sewell lists what he calls the “Top Six Evidences for Intelligent Design.” How many among the staunch defenders of Darwinism are even aware of the major areas of evidence for design that ID proponents offer? My experience is that very few could even name those areas. How many could tell you, for example, what Stephen Meyer says in Darwin’s Doubt or what Michael Denton says in his new book, The Miracle of the Cell? Vanishingly few.
A Curious Apologetics
Why is that? Darwin defenders practice a curious kind of apologetics where they steer clear of familiarity with the competing scientific view. Debate is avoided. They campaign to prevent high school students from hearing that evolution may have scientific weaknesses. Atheist biologist Jerry Coyne, an emeritus professor at the University of Chicago, writes a voluminous blog, Why Evolution Is True, where you would expect some engagement with the competition. But your expectation would be disappointed. In their community, the favored narrative is protected by the mother of all news silos. How many evolutionary scientists have even met a proponent of intelligent design? If they do meet them, they avoid them. When ID scientists and scholars participated in the important Royal Society conference “New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives,” they were shunned.
Darwinists can’t understand why anyone would wish to be outside the silo. Atheist biologist Richard Dawkins has said he would “rather not consider” the possibility that the outsiders are “wicked,” but neither does he rule it out.
Perhaps the most cult-like aspect of Darwinism is the way it threatens and punishes those in the community who would consider speaking up about their doubts or would leave altogether. As Yale computer scientist David Gelernter has said, in the context of his own coming out as a Darwin skeptic, “You take your life in your hands to challenge it intellectually. They will destroy you if you challenge it.” The Free Science website tells the stories of scientists who nearly were destroyed for challenging Darwin from within the silo.
The Community Rule
The editors of a prominent journal, the Journal of Theoretical Biology, published a peer-reviewed pro-ID paper recently only to, it seems, be reminded by the community that they had broken the community rule: no serous interaction with design arguments. They promptly published a disclaimer, rejecting their own article, and offered up instead another article seeking to rebut the first. You can understand why they panicked: they don’t want to have their own careers ruined for letting in a little light.
That Darwinism functions much as a cult doesn’t by itself rule out the possibility of its being a true picture of biological origins. To judge that question you would to have weigh the competing arguments. But that is what most evolution defenders have steadfastly refused to do.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-30--Don’t Be Frightened! It’s Just a Spider

Don’t Be Frightened! It’s Just a Spider

It ’ s going to be a different kind of Halloween tomorrow .
Socially distant trick-or-treating ?
And somehow wearing @ @ @ @ @ 2020 .
Still , some things never change .
Spiders are part of the scary @ @ @ @ @ remain so even in Covid times .
Take a moment to appreciate the awesome natural @ @ @ @ @ and more :

It’s going to be a different kind of Halloween tomorrow. Socially distant trick-or-treating? And somehow wearing masks seems less festive in 2020. Still, some things never change. Spiders are part of the scary iconography of Halloween, are remain so even in Covid times. Take a moment to appreciate the awesome natural design of their webs, and more:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-30--Stifle Your Nausea: Ready for a Dish-Grown Brain?

As society roils with COVID and the election , the biotechnological revolution rushes forward with scientists bound by few enforceable ethical boundaries .
As a consequence , we have already seen babies born who were genetically engineered , the march toward three- ( or more ) parent human embryos , and increasingly radical proposals for creating novel family forms .
Now , the prospect of growing human brain “ organoids ” from stem cells in a dish that could become conscious .
Brain electrical activity has already been observed in the experiments .
And now , some scientists are contemplating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ story : “ The studies have set the stage for a debate between those who want to avoid the creation of consciousness and those who see complex organoids as a means to study devastating human diseases .
[ UC San Diego scientist Alysson ] Muotri and many other neuroscientists think that human brain organoids could be the key to understanding uniquely human conditions such as autism and schizophrenia , which are impossible to study in detail in mouse models .
To achieve this goal , Muotri says , he and others might need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ He is talking about developing a human brain structure in a dish that could attain disembodied consciousness .
Once the nausea abates , isn ’ t that prospect something we should grapple with on an international basis ( with alacrity ) to determine what , if any , regulations and legalities should be constructed around research with human brain cells ?

Ethicist Wesley Smith asks, “Will Scientists Create a Conscious Human Brain in a Dish?“
As society roils with COVID and the election, the biotechnological revolution rushes forward with scientists bound by few enforceable ethical boundaries. As a consequence, we have already seen babies born who were genetically engineered, the march toward three- (or more) parent human embryos, and increasingly radical proposals for creating novel family forms.
Now, the prospect of growing human brain “organoids” from stem cells in a dish that could become conscious. Brain electrical activity has already been observed in the experiments. And now, some scientists are contemplating the next step. From the Nature story:
“The studies have set the stage for a debate between those who want to avoid the creation of consciousness and those who see complex organoids as a means to study devastating human diseases. [UC San Diego scientist Alysson] Muotri and many other neuroscientists think that human brain organoids could be the key to understanding uniquely human conditions such as autism and schizophrenia, which are impossible to study in detail in mouse models. To achieve this goal, Muotri says, he and others might need to deliberately create consciousness.”
Yes. He is talking about developing a human brain structure in a dish that could attain disembodied consciousness.
Once the nausea abates, isn’t that prospect something we should grapple with on an international basis (with alacrity) to determine what, if any, regulations and legalities should be constructed around research with human brain cells?


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-30--Against the Tide: Now Three Nights in November!

The “ God Delusion ” debate between dueling Oxford scholars — biologist Richard Dawkins and mathematician John Lennox was a Sold Out show , and no wonder .
While occupying opposite philosophical positions — theist and atheist — Lennox and Dawkins are both highly memorable , outsized personalities and brilliant debaters .
The upcoming national movie event with Lennox and actor Kevin Sorbo , Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , is going to be great .
And here ’ s some great news about it that I couldn ’ t share before today : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three , November 19 , 20 , and 23 !
That ’ s a Thursday night , a Friday , and a Monday .
There are lots of theaters to choose from .
I see here in the Seattle area alone they will be showing it in three theaters .
It ’ s somewhat of a countercultural gesture to attend , certainly in Seattle , but in many other parts of the country , too .
Find locations and times and reserve your tickets here .
You should act now — remember what @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debate .
Please join us , and bring your friends and family .
You can watch Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer interviewing Professor Lennox about the film here :

The “God Delusion” debate between dueling Oxford scholars — biologist Richard Dawkins and mathematician John Lennox was a Sold Out show, and no wonder. While occupying opposite philosophical positions — theist and atheist — Lennox and Dawkins are both highly memorable, outsized personalities and brilliant debaters. The upcoming national movie event with Lennox and actor Kevin Sorbo, Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, is going to be great. And here’s some great news about it that I couldn’t share before today: They have expanded from one night to three, November 19, 20, and 23! That’s a Thursday night, a Friday, and a Monday.
There are lots of theaters to choose from. I see here in the Seattle area alone they will be showing it in three theaters. It’s somewhat of a countercultural gesture to attend, certainly in Seattle, but in many other parts of the country, too. Find locations and times and reserve your tickets here. You should act now — remember what happened with the “God Delusion” debate. Please join us, and bring your friends and family. You can watch Discovery Institute philosopher of science Stephen Meyer interviewing Professor Lennox about the film here:


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-30--Whitewashing Evolution with Borrowed Paint

“ Get your own dirt ” is the punchline of an oft-told joke about a team of scientists dismissing God , saying they can now create a man without his help .
When they reach for a handful of dirt as their starting material , God gives the punch line .
The point is that materialists can not utilize what they don ’ t have .
Their dilemma recalls the opening line in one of Carl Sagan ’ s first Cosmos episodes : “ To bake an apple pie from scratch , one must begin by inventing the universe.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a Darwin pie can not be baked with intelligently designed ingredients .
Perceptive readers of materialistic writings must be watchful of the starting assumptions .
Look in the toolkit : do the materialists own all the explanatory tools they try to employ ?
If not , they are invoking miracles or plagiarizing from others .
C. S. Lewis amused himself with those who proved there are no proofs or thought about thinking that the mind is an illusion .
Similarly , Michael Egnor unmasked a self-contradictory notion in an article that claimed free @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Nancy Pearcey has also unmasked this logical fallacy among Darwinians .
No Paint in the Barn To the public , Darwinism has the ruthless look of “ nature red in tooth and claw ” and “ survival of the fittest.
” The old Darwin fence has been tottering of late with attacks from inside the guild , too , from those complaining that natural selection has fundamental flaws .
Some Darwinists occasionally try to improve the look of their rotting fence with a new coat of whitewash , making it look bright @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the punch line ?
Right : “ Get your own paint.
” A dozen prominent scientific materialists borrowed some whitewash recently .
To make Darwinism look useful in a time of crisis , they wrote in PNAS , “ The pandemic exposes human nature : 10 evolutionary insights.
” A theory with ten insights can ’ t be that bad , can it ?
The authors , who include evolution popularizer David Sloan Wilson , atheist Sam Harris , materialist ethicist Steven Pinker and others , tag on a Scientific Agenda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ researchers and COVID response teams can use for public health .
It ’ s a very clever sales pitch for Darwin , launched with their flagship Dobzhansky quote , “ Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.
” Humans and viruses have been coevolving for millennia .
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ( SARS-CoV-2 , the virus that causes COVID-19 ) has been particularly successful in evading our evolved defenses .
The outcome has been tragic — across the globe , millions have been sickened and hundreds of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarantine has radically changed the structure of our lives , with devastating social and economic consequences that are likely to unfold for years .
An evolutionary perspective can help us understand the progression and consequences of the pandemic .
Here , a diverse group of scientists , with expertise from evolutionary medicine to cultural evolution , provide insights about the pandemic and its aftermath .
At the most granular level , we consider how viruses might affect social behavior , and how quarantine , ironically , could make us susceptible to other maladies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exposure .
At the psychological level , we describe the ways in which the pandemic can affect mating behavior , cooperation ( or the lack thereof ) , and gender norms , and how we can use disgust to better activate native “ behavioral immunity ” to combat disease spread .
At the cultural level , we describe shifting cultural norms and how we might harness them to better combat disease and the negative social consequences of the pandemic .
These insights can be used to craft solutions to problems produced by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a scientific agenda to capture and understand what has become , in effect , a worldwide social experiment .
Never let a good crisis go to waste .
But are they pilfering others ’ white paint ?
They speak about understanding the disease , fighting the disease , and crafting solutions .
They speak of a “ scientific agenda ” for taking control of the disease .
How did those things evolve ?
If this is a “ worldwide social experiment ” in co-evolution , then let “ natural ” selection do its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the help of thoughtful minds intentionally exercising knowledge , foresight , planning , intelligent design , and — least of all — compassion .
Let the combatants have at it .
May the fittest win .
Space does not allow analysis of all the alleged insights , but a sample or two will suffice to illustrate the flawed logic .
To make any assertion of what human beings “ should ” do , they must reach outside their own toolkit for resources only non-materialists can provide .
Here are the ten insights in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is Changing , and There Will Be Economic Consequences from a Decrease in Birth Rates • Gender Norms Are Backsliding , and Gender Inequality Is Increasing • An Increase in Empathy and Compassion Is Not Guaranteed • We Have Not Evolved to Seek the Truth .
• Combating the Pandemic Requires Its Own Evolutionary Process Wait !
So , in Insight # 7 they admit they have not evolved to seek the truth !
That blows their credibility totally .
Where did they get that value ?
Answer : they plagiarized it from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good .
Caught in the act !
The Darwin fence looks nice and white now , standing straight and gleaming in the sun .
But the paint was stolen .
Insight # 3 is interesting , “ Activating Disgust Can Help Combat Disease Spread.
” They argue that the disgust response is an evolved reflex that keeps us from approaching things that will make us sick .
It may be an instinctual response ; perhaps it was designed for our good .
But if it is an evolved response , why do we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
That ’ s like holding a sign up to a ball , reminding it to roll downhill .
Look at their “ Scientific Agenda ” for this insight : With this advice , they have stepped out of their evolved skin and become thinking , rational beings pretending to have compassion .
Those items are not found in Darwin ’ s toolkit .
Surprising that all these recommendations came from health professionals months ago without the help of evolutionists .
What do they say about Human Progress in Insight # 10 ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ conception of progress as “ a mystical evolutionary force that propels us ever upward.
” What is it , then ?
On the contrary , the forces of nature tend to grind us down , including the inexorable increase in physical disorder and the evolutionary conflicts between parasites and hosts , predators and prey , and conspecifics and one another .
It ’ s only the application of hard-won knowledge that allows us to eke out local and provisional advances against the constant challenges to our well-being .
Among these challenges are outbreaks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over millennia were the selective pressure that led to the evolution of our innate , adaptive , and behavioral immune systems .
Yet it was our cognitive adaptations that led to the recent conquest of the infectious diseases that felled our ancestors in great numbers .
They allowed us to discover vaccination , sanitation , antisepsis , antibiotics , antivirals , and other advances in public health and medicine that have dramatically extended life expectancy .
So it should come as no surprise , and is no refutation of the fact or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathogen has launched an offensive against us ; that is in the very nature of life .
Yet the biology of Homo sapiens gives us good reasons to expect that the disease will be subdued in its turn — not as an inevitable step in some march of progress , but if ( and only if ) we redouble the commitment , which human evolution enables but does not guarantee , to the development and application of scientific knowledge to improve human well-being .
By now , readers have identified several stolen goods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin fence .
If they were consistent , they would let nature take its course .
Humans are stuck in “ human nature ” that has evolved .
From what toolkit of resources would they “ redouble the commitment ” to develop and apply scientific knowledge ?
From what realm of values would they wish to improve human well-being ?
Who cares ?
Who is even watching this “ global social experiment ” from the grandstands ?
Peppered through their article are noticeable appeals to politically correct values ( increasing gender equality , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) .
They can not get out of their skin , let alone their minds .
It ’ s quite amazing that so few scientific materialists recognize the logical flaw that refutes their own propositions .

Photo credit: Herrmann Stamm, via Unsplash.
“Get your own dirt” is the punchline of an oft-told joke about a team of scientists dismissing God, saying they can now create a man without his help. When they reach for a handful of dirt as their starting material, God gives the punch line. The point is that materialists cannot utilize what they don’t have. Their dilemma recalls the opening line in one of Carl Sagan’s first Cosmos episodes: “To bake an apple pie from scratch, one must begin by inventing the universe.” If nature is all there is, a Darwin pie cannot be baked with intelligently designed ingredients.
Perceptive readers of materialistic writings must be watchful of the starting assumptions. Look in the toolkit: do the materialists own all the explanatory tools they try to employ? If not, they are invoking miracles or plagiarizing from others. C. S. Lewis amused himself with those who proved there are no proofs or thought about thinking that the mind is an illusion. Similarly, Michael Egnor unmasked a self-contradictory notion in an article that claimed free will is “your brain tricking itself.”
Perhaps most egregiously, denial of free will is self-refuting. If our decisions are wholly determined by neurochemistry, then our decisions have no claim to truth, because chemical reactions have no truth-value. One chemical reaction is no “truer” than another. The declaration that opinions are mere chemical reactions is really the denial of the relevance of the opinion expressed. To deny free will is to deny the relevance of one’s own assertion. [Emphasis added.]
Nancy Pearcey has also unmasked this logical fallacy among Darwinians.
No Paint in the Barn
To the public, Darwinism has the ruthless look of “nature red in tooth and claw” and “survival of the fittest.” The old Darwin fence has been tottering of late with attacks from inside the guild, too, from those complaining that natural selection has fundamental flaws. Some Darwinists occasionally try to improve the look of their rotting fence with a new coat of whitewash, making it look bright, fresh, and solid. What’s the punch line? Right: “Get your own paint.”
A dozen prominent scientific materialists borrowed some whitewash recently. To make Darwinism look useful in a time of crisis, they wrote in PNAS, “The pandemic exposes human nature: 10 evolutionary insights.” A theory with ten insights can’t be that bad, can it? The authors, who include evolution popularizer David Sloan Wilson, atheist Sam Harris, materialist ethicist Steven Pinker and others, tag on a Scientific Agenda to each Insight: practical steps that researchers and COVID response teams can use for public health. It’s a very clever sales pitch for Darwin, launched with their flagship Dobzhansky quote, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Humans and viruses have been coevolving for millennia. Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19) has been particularly successful in evading our evolved defenses. The outcome has been tragic — across the globe, millions have been sickened and hundreds of thousands have died. Moreover, the quarantine has radically changed the structure of our lives, with devastating social and economic consequences that are likely to unfold for years. An evolutionary perspective can help us understand the progression and consequences of the pandemic. Here, a diverse group of scientists, with expertise from evolutionary medicine to cultural evolution, provide insights about the pandemic and its aftermath. At the most granular level, we consider how viruses might affect social behavior, and how quarantine, ironically, could make us susceptible to other maladies, due to a lack of microbial exposure. At the psychological level, we describe the ways in which the pandemic can affect mating behavior, cooperation (or the lack thereof), and gender norms, and how we can use disgust to better activate native “behavioral immunity” to combat disease spread. At the cultural level, we describe shifting cultural norms and how we might harness them to better combat disease and the negative social consequences of the pandemic. These insights can be used to craft solutions to problems produced by the pandemic and to lay the groundwork for a scientific agenda to capture and understand what has become, in effect, a worldwide social experiment.
Never let a good crisis go to waste. But are they pilfering others’ white paint? They speak about understanding the disease, fighting the disease, and crafting solutions. They speak of a “scientific agenda” for taking control of the disease. How did those things evolve? If this is a “worldwide social experiment” in co-evolution, then let “natural” selection do its thing. It won’t need the help of thoughtful minds intentionally exercising knowledge, foresight, planning, intelligent design, and — least of all — compassion. Let the combatants have at it. May the fittest win.
Sampling the Insights
Space does not allow analysis of all the alleged insights, but a sample or two will suffice to illustrate the flawed logic. To make any assertion of what human beings “should” do, they must reach outside their own toolkit for resources only non-materialists can provide. Here are the ten insights in their list:
The Virus Might Alter Host Sociability “Generation Quarantine” May Lack Critical Microbial Exposures Activating Disgust Can Help Combat Disease Spread The Mating Landscape Is Changing, and There Will Be Economic Consequences from a Decrease in Birth Rates Gender Norms Are Backsliding, and Gender Inequality Is Increasing An Increase in Empathy and Compassion Is Not Guaranteed We Have Not Evolved to Seek the Truth. Combating the Pandemic Requires Its Own Evolutionary Process Cultural Evolutionary Forces Impact COVID-19 Severity Human Progress Continues
Wait! So, in Insight #7 they admit they have not evolved to seek the truth! That blows their credibility totally. Where did they get that value? Answer: they plagiarized it from worldviews that value truth as a moral good. Caught in the act!
The Darwin fence looks nice and white now, standing straight and gleaming in the sun. But the paint was stolen.
“Activating Disgust”
Insight #3 is interesting, “Activating Disgust Can Help Combat Disease Spread.” They argue that the disgust response is an evolved reflex that keeps us from approaching things that will make us sick. It may be an instinctual response; perhaps it was designed for our good. But if it is an evolved response, why do we need “messaging” to activate it? That’s like holding a sign up to a ball, reminding it to roll downhill. Look at their “Scientific Agenda” for this insight:
Compare efficacy of disgust-eliciting messaging versus non−disgust-eliciting messaging on public health behaviors, such as handwashing, wearing masks, and maintaining safe distances. Gauge public opinion on the acceptability of using disgust-eliciting messaging directed at children versus adults.
With this advice, they have stepped out of their evolved skin and become thinking, rational beings pretending to have compassion. Those items are not found in Darwin’s toolkit. Surprising that all these recommendations came from health professionals months ago without the help of evolutionists.
What do they say about Human Progress in Insight #10? They first repudiate Herbert Spencer’s conception of progress as “a mystical evolutionary force that propels us ever upward.” What is it, then?
On the contrary, the forces of nature tend to grind us down, including the inexorable increase in physical disorder and the evolutionary conflicts between parasites and hosts, predators and prey, and conspecifics and one another. It’s only the application of hard-won knowledge that allows us to eke out local and provisional advances against the constant challenges to our well-being. Among these challenges are outbreaks of infectious disease. Bouts of outbreak over millennia were the selective pressure that led to the evolution of our innate, adaptive, and behavioral immune systems. Yet it was our cognitive adaptations that led to the recent conquest of the infectious diseases that felled our ancestors in great numbers. They allowed us to discover vaccination, sanitation, antisepsis, antibiotics, antivirals, and other advances in public health and medicine that have dramatically extended life expectancy. So it should come as no surprise, and is no refutation of the fact or the possibility of progress, that another infectious pathogen has launched an offensive against us; that is in the very nature of life. Yet the biology of Homo sapiens gives us good reasons to expect that the disease will be subdued in its turn — not as an inevitable step in some march of progress, but if (and only if) we redouble the commitment, which human evolution enables but does not guarantee, to the development and application of scientific knowledge to improve human well-being.
Several Stolen Goods
By now, readers have identified several stolen goods these materialists have employed to whitewash the Darwin fence. If they were consistent, they would let nature take its course. Humans are stuck in “human nature” that has evolved. From what toolkit of resources would they “redouble the commitment” to develop and apply scientific knowledge? From what realm of values would they wish to improve human well-being? Who cares? Who is even watching this “global social experiment” from the grandstands?
Peppered through their article are noticeable appeals to politically correct values (increasing gender equality, overcoming stereotypes, income redistribution, etc.). They cannot get out of their skin, let alone their minds. It’s quite amazing that so few scientific materialists recognize the logical flaw that refutes their own propositions.
A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe that our thinking was valid would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid that theory would, of course, be demolished. It would have destroyed its own credentials. It would be an argument which proved that no argument was sound — a proof that there are no such things as proofs. C. S. Lewis, Miracles
Materialism is a parasite on theism.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-31--Science Uprising — In the Year of the Mask

My family knows that I ’ ve always been a fan of Halloween , with its pumpkins , spiders , and masks .
That 2020 has been the Year of the Mask only slightly cools my affection for the day .
I ’ m stunned , though , to think about the irony that 2019 was , in such a very different sense , a Year of the Mask for us at the Center for Science & Culture , as we debuted the extremely popular Science Uprising season .
An icon of the series , from episode to episode , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mask ?
And why that particular design ?
I explained the meaning in a post , “ What ’ s Up with the Science Uprising Mask ?
“ : The mask is a reference to the 2005 film V for Vendetta , inspired in turn by the historical English rebel Guy Fawkes , and a comic by David Lloyd , who is right when he says it has become “ an icon of popular culture , ” “ a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny.
” The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolutionary schemes that insist on human beings as no more than clever apes .
Is “ tyranny ” too strong a word here ?
No , it ’ s not .
That was in June 2019 .
The trailer is here : If you haven ’ t seen all six episodes , you should do so by going to the program ’ s website now .
It is of course free .
The series is aimed at reaching Generation Z .
And wow , not least in this year of isolation , worry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ need it !
The hunger for meaning has never been greater , and the intersection between science and culture has never seemed more vital .
I surely did not realize in 2019 how timely Science Uprising would turn out to be .

My family knows that I’ve always been a fan of Halloween, with its pumpkins, spiders, and masks. That 2020 has been the Year of the Mask only slightly cools my affection for the day. I’m stunned, though, to think about the irony that 2019 was, in such a very different sense, a Year of the Mask for us at the Center for Science & Culture, as we debuted the extremely popular Science Uprising season. An icon of the series, from episode to episode, is a masked character. Why a mask? And why that particular design? I explained the meaning in a post, “What’s Up with the Science Uprising Mask?“:
The mask is a reference to the 2005 film V for Vendetta, inspired in turn by the historical English rebel Guy Fawkes, and a comic by David Lloyd, who is right when he says it has become “an icon of popular culture,” “a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny.” The ape is of course a reference to evolutionary schemes that insist on human beings as no more than clever apes. Is “tyranny” too strong a word here? No, it’s not.
That was in June 2019. The trailer is here:
If you haven’t seen all six episodes, you should do so by going to the program’s website now. It is of course free. The series is aimed at reaching Generation Z. And wow, not least in this year of isolation, worry, and conflict, do young people need it! The hunger for meaning has never been greater, and the intersection between science and culture has never seemed more vital. I surely did not realize in 2019 how timely Science Uprising would turn out to be.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-01--Against the Tide: John Lennox on the New Atheism

On a new episode of ID the Future , Discovery Institute ’ s Stephen Meyer hosts Oxford University mathematician and thinker John Lennox for the first part of a three-part conversation about Lennox ’ s upcoming documentary , Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science .
The movie will be in theaters for three nights only in November , and will feature a conversation between Lennox and Meyer following the screening .
Get your tickets here !
It ’ s exciting that they felt the need to expand from one night to three , but also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ until tickets are sold out .
As Lennox explains here , he grew up in a highly unusual situation : the child of a non-sectarian Christian family in Northern Ireland , with parents who encouraged him to question broadly , read widely , and respect every person as a creature made in the image of God .
He tells of his encounters with C. S. Lewis at Cambridge University , relates a humorous story in which atheist Peter Atkins gave him the title of one of his books , and describes his front-row @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the 1960s transform into the aggressive and contemptuous New Atheism of more recent years — a story that includes Lennox ’ s own debates with Richard Dawkins , one of which is pictured above .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .

On a new episode of ID the Future, Discovery Institute’s Stephen Meyer hosts Oxford University mathematician and thinker John Lennox for the first part of a three-part conversation about Lennox’s upcoming documentary, Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science. The movie will be in theaters for three nights only in November, and will feature a conversation between Lennox and Meyer following the screening. Get your tickets here! It’s exciting that they felt the need to expand from one night to three, but also a reminder not to wait to act until tickets are sold out.
As Lennox explains here, he grew up in a highly unusual situation: the child of a non-sectarian Christian family in Northern Ireland, with parents who encouraged him to question broadly, read widely, and respect every person as a creature made in the image of God. He tells of his encounters with C. S. Lewis at Cambridge University, relates a humorous story in which atheist Peter Atkins gave him the title of one of his books, and describes his front-row seat as he watched the scientific atheism of the 1960s transform into the aggressive and contemptuous New Atheism of more recent years — a story that includes Lennox’s own debates with Richard Dawkins, one of which is pictured above. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-02--Douglas Axe: The Sway of Self-Image in Evolutionary Debates

Protein chemist Douglas Axe spoke a few days ago — yes , scandalously , to a live audience , as he was delighted to confirm with the organizers — in Tucson .
He defended the thesis that , “ Four-Year-Olds Grasp Design Better Than Most Biology Professors.
” You can see it here : Dr. Axe isn ’ t denigrating expertise .
“ The problem , ” he says , “ is not expertise .
The problem is tyranny.
” Of course that ’ s true of more areas of thought than just evolutionary biology , as he goes on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is exerted not only by bullies and through self-censorship — but equally so by what may be the most irresistible tyrant : the picture of ourselves that each one of us carries around in our head .
How we are .
How we wish to be .
And how we wish to be seen .
Always , you need to keep in mind the sway of self-image , the hunger to be associated with the smart people .
It ’ s the drive , says Axe , to look good .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something like that is happening in the academy .
Once you become aware of the fact that the smart people think a certain way and you want to be thought of as smart , that applies a certain peer pressure to you .
You need to think that way as well .
And that is very much going on in the academy .
You really can not understand debates about evolution , and other things , without appreciating the ego — the male ego in particular , you could argue — that is @ @

Photo: Douglas Axe at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, by Chris Morgan.
Protein chemist Douglas Axe spoke a few days ago — yes, scandalously, to a live audience, as he was delighted to confirm with the organizers — in Tucson. He defended the thesis that, “Four-Year-Olds Grasp Design Better Than Most Biology Professors.” You can see it here:
Dr. Axe isn’t denigrating expertise. “The problem,” he says, “is not expertise. The problem is tyranny.” Of course that’s true of more areas of thought than just evolutionary biology, as he goes on to explain. Also, the tyranny is exerted not only by bullies and through self-censorship — but equally so by what may be the most irresistible tyrant: the picture of ourselves that each one of us carries around in our head. How we are. How we wish to be. And how we wish to be seen. Always, you need to keep in mind the sway of self-image, the hunger to be associated with the smart people. It’s the drive, says Axe,
to look good. It’s to look smart and I think something like that is happening in the academy. Once you become aware of the fact that the smart people think a certain way and you want to be thought of as smart, that applies a certain peer pressure to you. You need to think that way as well. And that is very much going on in the academy.
You really cannot understand debates about evolution, and other things, without appreciating the ego — the male ego in particular, you could argue — that is involved.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-02--John Lennox: What Atheist Made Me Sweat? Plus Advice for Debaters

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide : Finding God in an Age of Science , in theaters across the country on November 19 , 20 , 23 .
Get your tickets here , and don ’ t forget to bring family and friends !
Professor Lennox has debated a number of very prominent atheists .
Looking forward to the documentary ’ s release , he took time to answer some questions from Evolution News .
In your debates with Richard Dawkins , Christopher Hitchens , Michael Shermer , and others , did the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Michael Shermer certainly not .
But people sweat because they ’ re afraid .
And there are two kinds of nervous reaction to public engagement .
One is healthy , the other is not very healthy .
Let me take the unhealthy one first .
That ’ s where people are so concerned with their own reputation , what people will think of them , are they going to win the argument , are they going to get the most votes , and all that kind of thing .
That I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very risky .
But then there ’ s the other kind , and that comes from the sense of responsibility .
When I did that first debate with Richard Dawkins , there was a huge concern that I ’ m stepping out into the arena , into the lion ’ s den .
I knew that thousands of Christians were praying [ for me ] , but I had a huge sense of responsibility because these big formal debates were in a way putting Christianity on trial .
And I was witness for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ course gets adrenaline flowing and all the rest of it .
We can ’ t judge our own motives , and there ’ s probably a mixture of pride and everything else .
But I think what was very important to me was the advice I got from a senior journalist , not a Christian , before I did any of these debates .
And he said , “ Look , don ’ t try and outwit them .
But make sure when you ’ re finished that you have said what you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , don ’ t just react to them .
You ’ ve got something to present .
And that was enormously helpful to me .
So , I did those debates without going in and saying “ I ’ ve got to win the argument.
” My attitude is to try and win the person and be friendly with the person even if they get very hostile , as you can see in some of those debates , they did .
Be friendly , because when people get angry , they ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same time , be truthful .
Don ’ t be friendly in the sense that you fudge the truth .
And I think it ’ s perfectly possible to speak the truth , and that ’ s what I tried as best I could to do .
But some of the people were lightweight .
And I won ’ t go into details there .
But certainly , there ’ s huge pressure especially when things go wrong and you ’ re not given the right timings , as happened in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nevertheless , what encourages me is the number of people over the years who have come to faith in Christ through watching them and that ’ s very considerable .

Oxford University mathematician John Lennox stars in the three-nights-only film Against the Tide: Finding God in an Age of Science, in theaters across the country on November 19, 20, 23. Get your tickets here, and don’t forget to bring family and friends! Professor Lennox has debated a number of very prominent atheists. Looking forward to the documentary’s release, he took time to answer some questions from Evolution News.
In your debates with Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Michael Shermer, and others, did the atheists ever make you sweat?
Well, Michael Shermer certainly not. But people sweat because they’re afraid. And there are two kinds of nervous reaction to public engagement. One is healthy, the other is not very healthy. Let me take the unhealthy one first. That’s where people are so concerned with their own reputation, what people will think of them, are they going to win the argument, are they going to get the most votes, and all that kind of thing. That I think, particularly for a Christian, is very risky.
But then there’s the other kind, and that comes from the sense of responsibility. When I did that first debate with Richard Dawkins, there was a huge concern that I’m stepping out into the arena, into the lion’s den. I knew that thousands of Christians were praying [for me], but I had a huge sense of responsibility because these big formal debates were in a way putting Christianity on trial. And I was witness for the defense. And so that of course gets adrenaline flowing and all the rest of it.
We can’t judge our own motives, and there’s probably a mixture of pride and everything else. But I think what was very important to me was the advice I got from a senior journalist, not a Christian, before I did any of these debates. And he said, “Look, don’t try and outwit them. But make sure when you’re finished that you have said what you wanted to say.” In other words, don’t just react to them. You’ve got something to present. And that was enormously helpful to me.
So, I did those debates without going in and saying “I’ve got to win the argument.” My attitude is to try and win the person and be friendly with the person even if they get very hostile, as you can see in some of those debates, they did. Be friendly, because when people get angry, they’ve completely lost the plot.
But at the same time, be truthful. Don’t be friendly in the sense that you fudge the truth. And I think it’s perfectly possible to speak the truth, and that’s what I tried as best I could to do. But some of the people were lightweight. And I won’t go into details there. But certainly, there’s huge pressure especially when things go wrong and you’re not given the right timings, as happened in the Dawkins debate and so on. But nevertheless, what encourages me is the number of people over the years who have come to faith in Christ through watching them and that’s very considerable.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-02--Barriers to an Unguided Origin of Life: Biophysicist Helen Hansma Enters the Debate

I previously interacted with physicist Jeremy England in the journal Inference on the thermodynamics of the origin of life ( here , here , here ) .
I argued that life ’ s genesis required the sudden appearance of a fully functional cell with highly efficient molecular engines that generated chemical energy to power cellular processes .
In addition , the cell required a significant quantity of information instantiated in such structures as proteins and DNA .
I then described how researchers have attempted to identify “ natural engines ” on the early earth that could have provided the required @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hydrothermal vents converting the energy from proton gradients into chemical energy .
Yet , this scenario is crippled by two fatal flaws .
First , the amount of power generated could not drive even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario .
And , information is still required to direct the energy and matter toward constructing specific molecular structures and driving specific reactions .
Without such preexistent information , no amount of supplied chemical energy could enable any but the simplest of biologically relevant processes .
In the most recent issue of Inference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Department of Physics at UC Santa Barbara , responded to our exchange , and I counter-responded in the same issue ( see here ) .
I was very grateful to have such a distinguished scientist engage my article .
I was also grateful for the opportunity to further illustrate the insurmountable barriers faced by all theories of an undirected origin of life .
Professor Hansma pioneered the origins model postulating that the motion of mica sheets along the ocean floor could have driven chemical reactions energetically uphill , resulting in higher-energy molecules @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my evaluation of the power limitations on “ natural engines ” by asserting that the mechanical energy of the mica sheets could have provided sufficient energy to sustain some pathway to the first cell .
In my response , I demonstrate that mica sheets , like all other proposals , could never provide even the tiniest fraction of the energy that would have been required .
Hansma also maintains that sets of integrated reactions could have been directed by natural selection to gradually evolve into an autonomous cell .
The problem is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ either energetically unfavorable ( i.e.
, they move in the wrong direction ) , or they are too slow , without assistance , to ever compete with the countless other reactions that could have occurred .
Moreover , before high-accuracy self-replication emerged , all natural processes would have driven a mixture of chemicals toward lower free energy .
Consequently , they would have always moved away from life , never toward it .
In the same vein , Hansma appeals to self-replicating sets of RNAs evolving into forms that could have supported life-relevant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the likelihood of even a single RNA of substantial length ever forming is beyond remote .
Even if some local environment hosted an evolving assembly of RNAs , evolution would have favored those chains that specialized in efficient self-replication and thus performed no other life-relevant function .
The thermodynamic and information barriers place the belief that solely natural processes could explain the origin of the first cell very nearly into the same category as belief in alchemy or the possibility of a perpetual motion machine .
Editor ’ s note : For more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ origin of life and other background on the OOL debate , see the recent book , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy ( Discovery Institute Press ) .

Photo: Hydrothermal vents, by NOAA, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
I previously interacted with physicist Jeremy England in the journal Inference on the thermodynamics of the origin of life (here, here, here). I argued that life’s genesis required the sudden appearance of a fully functional cell with highly efficient molecular engines that generated chemical energy to power cellular processes. In addition, the cell required a significant quantity of information instantiated in such structures as proteins and DNA.
I then described how researchers have attempted to identify “natural engines” on the early earth that could have provided the required energy. The most plausible scenario is hydrothermal vents converting the energy from proton gradients into chemical energy. Yet, this scenario is crippled by two fatal flaws. First, the amount of power generated could not drive even the earliest stages of any origin-of-life scenario. And, information is still required to direct the energy and matter toward constructing specific molecular structures and driving specific reactions. Without such preexistent information, no amount of supplied chemical energy could enable any but the simplest of biologically relevant processes.
A Distinguished Scientist
In the most recent issue of Inference, Helen Hansma, Research Biophysicist Emeritus, Department of Physics at UC Santa Barbara, responded to our exchange, and I counter-responded in the same issue (see here). I was very grateful to have such a distinguished scientist engage my article. I was also grateful for the opportunity to further illustrate the insurmountable barriers faced by all theories of an undirected origin of life.
Professor Hansma pioneered the origins model postulating that the motion of mica sheets along the ocean floor could have driven chemical reactions energetically uphill, resulting in higher-energy molecules. In her letter, she challenges my evaluation of the power limitations on “natural engines” by asserting that the mechanical energy of the mica sheets could have provided sufficient energy to sustain some pathway to the first cell. In my response, I demonstrate that mica sheets, like all other proposals, could never provide even the tiniest fraction of the energy that would have been required.
A Role for Natural Selection?
Hansma also maintains that sets of integrated reactions could have been directed by natural selection to gradually evolve into an autonomous cell. The problem is that nearly all chemical reactions in cells are either energetically unfavorable (i.e., they move in the wrong direction), or they are too slow, without assistance, to ever compete with the countless other reactions that could have occurred. Moreover, before high-accuracy self-replication emerged, all natural processes would have driven a mixture of chemicals toward lower free energy. Consequently, they would have always moved away from life, never toward it.
In the same vein, Hansma appeals to self-replicating sets of RNAs evolving into forms that could have supported life-relevant chemical reactions. The challenge is that the likelihood of even a single RNA of substantial length ever forming is beyond remote. Even if some local environment hosted an evolving assembly of RNAs, evolution would have favored those chains that specialized in efficient self-replication and thus performed no other life-relevant function. The thermodynamic and information barriers place the belief that solely natural processes could explain the origin of the first cell very nearly into the same category as belief in alchemy or the possibility of a perpetual motion machine.
Update: Helen Hansma contacted me to make the correction that she did not state that the mica sheets had to be at the bottom of the ocean.
Editor’s note: For more on the role of information in the origin of life and other background on the OOL debate, see the recent book, The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy (Discovery Institute Press).


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-04--George Gilder: Can a Computer Model a Brain?

Our colleague George Gilder is out with a new book on the potential and the “ apocalyptic ” hype of artificial intelligence , Gaming AI : Why AI Can ’ t Think but Can Transform Jobs .
You can get it free here .
From Mind Matters , “ The Brain Is Not a Computer and Big Data Is Not a Big Answer ” : In Gaming AI , George Gilder sets out six assumptions generally shared by those who believe that , in a Singularity sometime soon , we will merge with our machines .
Some of these assumptions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discussable .
So let ’ s look at the first [ one ] : That would be quite difficult because brains don ’ t function like computers : “ As neuroscientist Yuri Danilov said last year , ‘ Right now people are saying , each synoptical connection is a microprocessor .
So if it ’ s a microprocessor , you have 1012 neurons , each neuron has 105 synapses , so you have… you can compute how many parallel processing units you have in the brain if each synapse is a microprocessor .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that each neuron is a microprocessor , you assume that there is a programmer .
There is no programmer in the brain ; there are no algorithms in the brain.
’ ” If there is a programmer , it ’ s your mind , which works through your brain , often in unexpected ways .
But all proposals to give computers minds have failed .
The comparisons offered by experts are not useless .
Often , they use ideas from computer science in order to explain how some aspect of the brain works @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these ideas are only partial .
For example , the brain is not billions of little computers .
Nor is it a meat computer .
It vastly exceeds the most powerful computers in efficiency but it is not directed to calculation as such .
That ’ s why computers can so easily beat us at calculations , not because they are smarter than us .

Our colleague George Gilder is out with a new book on the potential and the “apocalyptic” hype of artificial intelligence, Gaming AI: Why AI Can’t Think but Can Transform Jobs. You can get it free here. From Mind Matters, “The Brain Is Not a Computer and Big Data Is Not a Big Answer”:
In Gaming AI, George Gilder sets out six assumptions generally shared by those who believe that, in a Singularity sometime soon, we will merge with our machines.
Some of these assumptions seem incorrect and they are certainly all discussable. So let’s look at the first [one]:
• “The Modeling Assumption: A computer can deterministically model a brain.” (p. 50)
That would be quite difficult because brains don’t function like computers:
“As neuroscientist Yuri Danilov said last year, ‘Right now people are saying, each synoptical connection is a microprocessor. So if it’s a microprocessor, you have 10 12 neurons, each neuron has 10 5 synapses, so you have… you can compute how many parallel processing units you have in the brain if each synapse is a microprocessor.
‘But as soon as you assume that each neuron is a microprocessor, you assume that there is a programmer. There is no programmer in the brain; there are no algorithms in the brain.’”
If there is a programmer, it’s your mind, which works through your brain, often in unexpected ways. But all proposals to give computers minds have failed.
The comparisons offered by experts are not useless. Often, they use ideas from computer science in order to explain how some aspect of the brain works. But it helps to see that these ideas are only partial. For example, the brain is not billions of little computers. Nor is it a meat computer. It vastly exceeds the most powerful computers in efficiency but it is not directed to calculation as such. That’s why computers can so easily beat us at calculations, not because they are smarter than us.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-11-04--The Elements — An Independent Line of Evidence for Intelligent Design

On a new episode of ID the Future , biochemist Michael Denton draws from his groundbreaking new book , The @ @ @ @ @ to explore a fine-tuning design argument centered on the periodic elements essential for life .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
Twenty elements — and water , too — appear to have @ @ @ @ @ for highly specific biochemical roles .
Without their precise properties , cellular and animal life @ @ @ @ @ Words fail , ” says Denton , to describe the “ almost eerie sense ” @ @ @ @ @ in advance the roles and capacities required of various elements to carry out the astonishingly @ @ @ @ @ life possible .
Denton says that this fine-tuning provides an independent line of evidence that @ @ @ @ @ intelligent design .

Image credit: Henrika Šantel, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
On a new episode of ID the Future, biochemist Michael Denton draws from his groundbreaking new book, The Miracle of the Cell, to explore a fine-tuning design argument centered on the periodic elements essential for life. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Twenty elements — and water, too — appear to have been precisely fine-tuned in advance for highly specific biochemical roles. Without their precise properties, cellular and animal life would be impossible. “Words fail,” says Denton, to describe the “almost eerie sense” that someone very powerful knew in advance the roles and capacities required of various elements to carry out the astonishingly sophisticated activities that make cellular life possible. Denton says that this fine-tuning provides an independent line of evidence that life is the result of intelligent design.