evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-24--Cosmos Episode 6 — That’s Entertainment! (But Is It Science?)

Evolution News writers have been reviewing the new , third season of the Cosmos series on the Fox and National Geographic channels .
See links at the bottom for coverage of previous episodes .
Episode 6 of Cosmos : Possible Worlds released last night , and almost half was devoted to covering the life and work of Carl Sagan , who originated the franchise .
Given that his widow , Ann Druyan , is the executive producer , writer , and director of Cosmos 3.0 , it should come as no surprise that Sagan is presented as a kind of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with his mentors , Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and Gerard Kuiper at McDonald Observatory .
His work on the Mars Viking mission and the original Cosmos series on PBS catapulted him into stardom .
Indeed , Sagan was a gifted communicator and rightly loved for that , but the importance of his scientific research is a bit exaggerated here .
There ’ s no shame in being among the second or third quartile of scientists who ’ ve managed to work for NASA .
On the contrary , that ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But Sagan was not a once-in-a-generation Nobel-level titan .
Look at All Those Equations The show covered one of his more speculative ideas , life in the atmosphere of Jupiter .
“ Floaters ” are giant jelly fish-like creatures filled with hydrogen , like blimps .
He also imagined “ sinkers , ” “ hunters , ” and “ scavengers ” and their evolutionary relationships .
These creatures interact , forming an entire ecosystem .
How this got past the journal reviewers is beyond us .
Perhaps all the equations convinced them it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ speculations , other scientists have proposed life in the clouds of Venus and of brown dwarfs .
There are at least a couple problems with these ideas ( we won ’ t call them theories ) .
First , there are no stable solid surfaces on which to concentrate and construct the delicate and information-rich molecules of life ( DNA and RNA , in the context of our own planet ) .
Everything mixes with everything else in the chaotic environment of a convective atmosphere .
Second , it is unlikely that all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sufficient abundances .
Examples include phosphorus and molybdenum .
Finally , of all the millions of species of life on Earth , there are none that have a complete life cycle in Earth ’ s atmosphere .
Have you ever seen a hydrogen-filled bladder creature floating by your house ?
These examples illustrate one of the problems with the approach taken in each Cosmos series .
Whenever Carl Sagan or host Neil deGrasse Tyson speculates about life on a nearby or distant world , keep in mind that all it takes is one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole structure tumbling down .
Are all the needed chemical ingredients present in the right abundances and chemical forms in the alien environment ?
Are interfering chemical reactions accounted for ?
How is the required biological novelty brought about ?
That ’ s the problem with speculative thinking about extraterrestrial life as well as about the origin of life .
( For more on the latter , see The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy . )
Another let ’ s-imagine-life-on-another-world scenario in this episode concerns the planets in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a triple star system with two K-type dwarfs ( 667A and B ) orbiting each other every 42 years with a distant red dwarf star , 667C , orbiting around them with a much longer period .
Tyson says that there are six worlds orbiting the red dwarf .
Indeed , this is consistent with findings from 2013 .
But , only a year later most of the planets were instead shown to be spurious signals related to the star ’ s rotation .
Only two planets survived the new observations .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ writers of Cosmos for several years ( even assuming they completed work in early 2019 ) .
One of the planets , 667Cc , is thought to be within the habitable zone of the red dwarf .
Of course , for the Cosmos writers , being within the habitable zone is enough to trigger their next speculative scenario .
Never mind that the planet is a super-earth orbiting a flaring red dwarf in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance like Mercury and that the two planets ’ eccentricities periodically increase to high values .
These @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , hey , it makes for good entertainment !
Look here for commentary on previous episodes of Cosmos 3.0 : • The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero • New Cosmos Episodes : Only Part of the Story • Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas • Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of the Past , with Familiar Historical Mythmaking • Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat Dented

Evolution News writers have been reviewing the new, third season of the Cosmos series on the Fox and National Geographic channels. See links at the bottom for coverage of previous episodes. Episode 6 of Cosmos: Possible Worlds released last night, and almost half was devoted to covering the life and work of Carl Sagan, who originated the franchise.
Given that his widow, Ann Druyan, is the executive producer, writer, and director of Cosmos 3.0, it should come as no surprise that Sagan is presented as a kind of free-thinking super-scientist. He is shown working with his mentors, Harold Urey at the University of Chicago and Gerard Kuiper at McDonald Observatory. His work on the Mars Viking mission and the original Cosmos series on PBS catapulted him into stardom. Indeed, Sagan was a gifted communicator and rightly loved for that, but the importance of his scientific research is a bit exaggerated here. There’s no shame in being among the second or third quartile of scientists who’ve managed to work for NASA. On the contrary, that’s an impressive achievement in itself. But Sagan was not a once-in-a-generation Nobel-level titan.
Look at All Those Equations
The show covered one of his more speculative ideas, life in the atmosphere of Jupiter. “Floaters” are giant jelly fish-like creatures filled with hydrogen, like blimps. He also imagined “sinkers,” “hunters,” and “scavengers” and their evolutionary relationships. These creatures interact, forming an entire ecosystem. How this got past the journal reviewers is beyond us. Perhaps all the equations convinced them it was legit science.
Inspired by these speculations, other scientists have proposed life in the clouds of Venus and of brown dwarfs. There are at least a couple problems with these ideas (we won’t call them theories). First, there are no stable solid surfaces on which to concentrate and construct the delicate and information-rich molecules of life (DNA and RNA, in the context of our own planet). Everything mixes with everything else in the chaotic environment of a convective atmosphere. Second, it is unlikely that all the required chemical elements are present in sufficient abundances. Examples include phosphorus and molybdenum. Finally, of all the millions of species of life on Earth, there are none that have a complete life cycle in Earth’s atmosphere. Have you ever seen a hydrogen-filled bladder creature floating by your house?
Let’s Imagine Life on Another World
These examples illustrate one of the problems with the approach taken in each Cosmos series. Whenever Carl Sagan or host Neil deGrasse Tyson speculates about life on a nearby or distant world, keep in mind that all it takes is one assumption to be wrong to bring the whole structure tumbling down. Are all the needed chemical ingredients present in the right abundances and chemical forms in the alien environment? Are interfering chemical reactions accounted for? How is the required biological novelty brought about? That’s the problem with speculative thinking about extraterrestrial life as well as about the origin of life. (For more on the latter, see The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy.)
Another let’s-imagine-life-on-another-world scenario in this episode concerns the planets in the Gliese 667 system. It is a triple star system with two K-type dwarfs (667A and B) orbiting each other every 42 years with a distant red dwarf star, 667C, orbiting around them with a much longer period. Tyson says that there are six worlds orbiting the red dwarf. Indeed, this is consistent with findings from 2013. But, only a year later most of the planets were instead shown to be spurious signals related to the star’s rotation. Only two planets survived the new observations. This information has been publicly available to the writers of Cosmos for several years (even assuming they completed work in early 2019). One of the planets, 667Cc, is thought to be within the habitable zone of the red dwarf.
Of course, for the Cosmos writers, being within the habitable zone is enough to trigger their next speculative scenario. Never mind that the planet is a super-earth orbiting a flaring red dwarf in a 3:2 spin-orbit resonance like Mercury and that the two planets’ eccentricities periodically increase to high values. These pose serious challenges to habitability. But, hey, it makes for good entertainment!
Look here for commentary on previous episodes of Cosmos 3.0:
Image: Carl Sagan, by NASA/Cosmos Studies.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-24--Crisis in the Chemistry of Origins

Crisis in the Chemistry of Origins

Editor ’ s note : As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment , Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration , pointing to purpose and meaning in life .
The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt from the original introduction by Charles Thaxton , Walter Bradley , and Roger Olsen .
Two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both of which have subsequently received wide acceptance in the scientific community .
One was the proposal by James Watson and Francis Crick of their double helical model for deoxyribonucleic acid , or DNA .
According to their now-famous model , hereditary information is transmitted from one generation to the next by means of a simple code resident in the specific sequence of certain constituents of the DNA molecule .
It had previously been held that the spectacular diversity of life was due in part to some corresponding diversity of nuclear material .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ their discovery of the specific key to life ’ s diversity .
It was the extraordinarily complex yet orderly architecture of the DNA molecule .
They had discovered that there is in fact a code inscribed in this “ coil of life , ” bringing a major advance in our understanding of life ’ s remarkable structure .
Almost as if synchronized for the sake of irony , the other report in 1953 , by Stanley Miller , offered experimental support for what has become an increasingly apparent contradiction .
Miller offered his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of prebiotic evolution .
This notion suggested that the fantastic complexity in the molecular organization of living cells might somehow have resulted from nothing more than simple chemicals interacting at random in a primordial ocean .
In 1953 , few if any were troubled by the tension between the new insights of Crick and Watson on the one hand and Miller ’ s results on the other .
Crick and Watson were concerned with life ’ s structure and Miller was concerned with life ’ s origin .
Most observers had an unshakable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eventually converge .
After all , young Miller ’ s announcement of experimental success was just what was anticipated according to the general theory of evolution .
Regardless of whether the particular theory of evolution is Darwinian , neo-Darwinian , or something else , an evolutionary preamble to the biological phase of evolution is clearly required .
Chemical evolution , then , is the pre-biological phase of evolution in which the very earliest living things came into being .
This monumental dawning of life occurred through the variation of natural forces acting on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ up to a thousand million years , or maybe longer .
In the decades since Miller ’ s and Crick and Watson ’ s reports , however , there have been indications that all is not well in the halls of biology .
We have gained a far deeper appreciation of the extremely complex macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids .
The enlarged understanding of these complexities has precipitated new suggestions that the DNA mechanism may be more complex and the molecular organization more intricate and information-filled than was previously thought .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ acids , and other biological molecules are presently developed in nature only in living things .
Unless it is assumed such complexity has always been present in an infinitely old universe , there must have been a time in the past when life appeared de novo out of lifeless , inert matter .
How can the mere interaction of simple chemicals in the primordial ocean have produced life as it is presently understood ?
That is the question .
The signs do not bode well for the standard answers given , and some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will not converge .
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .
Photo : ( l. to r. ) Roger Olsen , Charles Thaxton , and Walter Bradley signing books at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith , by Chris Morgan .

Charles B. Thaxton, Walter L. Bradley, Roger L. Olsen

Editor’s note: As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt from the original introduction by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen.
Two monumental scientific reports appeared in 1953, both of which have subsequently received wide acceptance in the scientific community. One was the proposal by James Watson and Francis Crick of their double helical model for deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA. According to their now-famous model, hereditary information is transmitted from one generation to the next by means of a simple code resident in the specific sequence of certain constituents of the DNA molecule. It had previously been held that the spectacular diversity of life was due in part to some corresponding diversity of nuclear material. The breakthrough by Crick and Watson was their discovery of the specific key to life’s diversity. It was the extraordinarily complex yet orderly architecture of the DNA molecule. They had discovered that there is in fact a code inscribed in this “coil of life,” bringing a major advance in our understanding of life’s remarkable structure.
For Irony’s Sake
Almost as if synchronized for the sake of irony, the other report in 1953, by Stanley Miller, offered experimental support for what has become an increasingly apparent contradiction. Miller offered his work in support of the neo-Darwinian theory of prebiotic evolution. This notion suggested that the fantastic complexity in the molecular organization of living cells might somehow have resulted from nothing more than simple chemicals interacting at random in a primordial ocean.
In 1953, few if any were troubled by the tension between the new insights of Crick and Watson on the one hand and Miller’s results on the other. Crick and Watson were concerned with life’s structure and Miller was concerned with life’s origin. Most observers had an unshakable confidence that these two investigative approaches would eventually converge. After all, young Miller’s announcement of experimental success was just what was anticipated according to the general theory of evolution. Regardless of whether the particular theory of evolution is Darwinian, neo-Darwinian, or something else, an evolutionary preamble to the biological phase of evolution is clearly required. Chemical evolution, then, is the pre-biological phase of evolution in which the very earliest living things came into being. This monumental dawning of life occurred through the variation of natural forces acting on matter over long time spans, perhaps up to a thousand million years, or maybe longer.
The Halls of Biology
In the decades since Miller’s and Crick and Watson’s reports, however, there have been indications that all is not well in the halls of biology. We have gained a far deeper appreciation of the extremely complex macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids. The enlarged understanding of these complexities has precipitated new suggestions that the DNA mechanism may be more complex and the molecular organization more intricate and information-filled than was previously thought.
The impressive complexities of proteins, nucleic acids, and other biological molecules are presently developed in nature only in living things. Unless it is assumed such complexity has always been present in an infinitely old universe, there must have been a time in the past when life appeared de novo out of lifeless, inert matter. How can the mere interaction of simple chemicals in the primordial ocean have produced life as it is presently understood? That is the question. The signs do not bode well for the standard answers given, and some investigators are suggesting that our two approaches will not converge.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Photo: (l. to r.) Roger Olsen, Charles Thaxton, and Walter Bradley signing books at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, by Chris Morgan.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-24--Charles Thaxton on a “Controversial” Epilogue

On a new episode of ID the Future , Robert J .
Marks interviews chemist Charles Thaxton about a seminal @ @ @ @ @ The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin , foundational to the intelligent design movement , @ @ @ @ @ Of Pandas and People .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
The @ @ @ @ @ generally praised , Thaxton explains .
It was the epilogue that proved controversial .
( @ @ @ @ @ News tomorrow . )
There the three authors reviewed five proposed explanations for life ’ @ @ @ @ @ the best explanation was that the first life originated through an act of creative intelligence @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Origin has now been re-released in an updated and greatly expanded version , @ @ @ @ @ Meyer , James Tour , and others .
Photo : Stephen Meyer discuss the work @ @ @ @ @ at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith , by Chris Morgan .

On a new episode of ID the Future, Robert J. Marks interviews chemist Charles Thaxton about a seminal 1984 book he co-authored, The Mystery of Life’s Origin, foundational to the intelligent design movement, and a later project, Of Pandas and People. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The main body of Mystery was generally praised, Thaxton explains. It was the epilogue that proved controversial. (Look for except at Evolution News tomorrow.) There the three authors reviewed five proposed explanations for life’s origins and suggested that the best explanation was that the first life originated through an act of creative intelligence. The Mystery of Life’s Origin has now been re-released in an updated and greatly expanded version, with new contributions by Stephen Meyer, James Tour, and others.
Photo: Stephen Meyer discuss the work and impact of Charles Thaxton at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith, by Chris Morgan.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-25--Medicine, Religion, and Cosmos  — Was Andrew Cuomo Wrong to Invoke God?

In a press conference yesterday about the coronavirus , New York Governor Andrew Cuomo used notably religious language .
He observed ( at 33 minutes ) that healthcare workers are “ doing God ’ s work ” of caring for people .
Was he mistaken in saying so ?
You might well think so from watching the Cosmos series on Fox and the National Geographic channels .
Episodes 5 and 6 of this new season of the program , with Neil deGrasse Tyson , aired on Monday .
See here for commentary from Evolution News on episode 6 .
Going @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are my thoughts on episode 5 , entitled “ The Cosmic Connectome.
” This episode gives the impression that ancient medicine , with few exceptions such as the Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers , consisted merely of “ ritualistic appeasement of the gods.
” Reliable medicine triumphed only as science conquered religion .
Wrong impression !
Let ’ s get this right .
In their introduction to the history of medicine , Essential Readings in Medicine and Religion ( Johns Hopkins University Press , 2017 ) , Gary Ferngren and Ekaterina Lomperis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world took a variety of forms , some secular and some religious or magical.
” Here is their summary of the causal repertoire of ancient medicine ( both before and after Hippocrates ) in Mesopotamian , Egyptian , Hebrew , Greek , Roman , and early Christian texts : Disease was generally attributed to four kinds of causation .
In the first , it was said to be caused by gods or divinities and was often considered to be retributive , that is , inflicted in response to an act that had aroused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force .
In the second type , disease was attributed to demons ( minor deities or malevolent spirits ) .
In the third , it was said to be caused by the magic of magicians or sorcerers .
Finally , disease was seen to be the result of natural causes that could be observed , for example , in wounds and broken bones .
While in some societies one or another model of disease causation was dominant , in most ancient cultures all four were seen as potential causes , and a proper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was the cause and what kind of treatment would be effective in each instance .
Religion and science-based medicine have continued to interact in modern times , up through the current COVID-19 pandemic .
Like Governor Cuomo , many people today still see religion and medicine as operating in harmony .
They practice social distancing ( echoing Old Testament leprosy protocol ) , accept medical ventilator assistance ( if available ) , and pray .
See neurosurgeon Michael Egnor ’ s comments , “ Why Prayer Is Wise During a Pandemic , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ public hospitals created by ancient Christians , very few ancient people had access to physicians .
Early Christians proclaimed and practiced the harmony of faith ( prayer , not pagan magic ) and medical technology .
Much of the subsequent humanitarian expansion of medicine , especially for the poor , was inspired and funded by Christianity .
Many hospital names still reflect this religious heritage .
Although few medical practices prior to about two hundred years ago significantly resulted in healing , this was not due to religious hindrances to medical progress .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ dramatically improve medical practice , took a long time for humanity to discover .
This largely occurred in the modern Western world .
The Judeo-Christian tradition proved to be a supportive context for such discoveries .
See my video that deals with this subject , “ Three Big Ways Christianity Supported the Rise of Modern Science.
” So Cosmos host Neil Tyson is wrong to say that the hallmark of modern science and enlightened medicine is the belief that “ nothing happens without a natural cause.
” That is a narrow philosophical belief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cultural roots of modern science .
Discovery of the cause-and-effect structure of the natural world has been best fostered in cultures committed to a belief in a supernatural creator who made a world with discoverable natural laws and discernible natural histories .
Despite Tyson ’ s many misguided criticisms of theistic religion , his own materialistic faith is granted a privileged , but undeserved , authority in Cosmos 3.0 .
Much of the rest of episode 5 is devoted to celebrating the emergence of consciousness from material processes , even though there is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have happened by a series of unguided physical events .
Echoing Carl Sagan , Tyson defines the universe as “ everything that ever was , is , or will be.
” This is a statement of faith .
Science , in principle , could not derive such a conclusion .
Finally , Tyson conveys religious awe when he concludes the episode with the hopeful anticipation that , after sharing our digitized brain contents with alien superintelligence , humanity will experience the “ ultimate realization of emergence , a cosmos interconnected by thoughts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is an oblique expression of the extraterrestrial enlightenment myth that I debunk in my book Unbelievable .
See also , “ Unbelievable : The Myth of Alien Enlightenment.
” Be on the lookout for more of this muddled naturalistic Nirvana in the remaining episodes of Cosmos .
Editor ’ s note : Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos , “ Possible Worlds , ” here : • “ Cosmos Episode 6 — That ’ s Entertainment !
( But Is It Science ? )
” • “ The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero ” • “ New Cosmos Episodes : Only Part of the Story ” • “ Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of the Past , with Familiar Historical Mythmaking ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat Dented ” Image credit : Galen and Hippocrates , two ancient physicians , depicted in a fresco from Anagni Cathedral in Italy , by Nina Aldin Thune via @ @ @

In a press conference yesterday about the coronavirus, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo used notably religious language. He observed (at 33 minutes) that healthcare workers are “doing God’s work” of caring for people. Was he mistaken in saying so? You might well think so from watching the Cosmos series on Fox and the National Geographic channels.
Episodes 5 and 6 of this new season of the program, with Neil deGrasse Tyson, aired on Monday. See here for commentary from Evolution News on episode 6. Going a little out of order, here are my thoughts on episode 5, entitled “The Cosmic Connectome.” This episode gives the impression that ancient medicine, with few exceptions such as the Greek physician Hippocrates and his followers, consisted merely of “ritualistic appeasement of the gods.” Reliable medicine triumphed only as science conquered religion. Wrong impression! Let’s get this right.
Ancient Medicine
In their introduction to the history of medicine, Essential Readings in Medicine and Religion (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2017), Gary Ferngren and Ekaterina Lomperis write: “Healing in the ancient world took a variety of forms, some secular and some religious or magical.” Here is their summary of the causal repertoire of ancient medicine (both before and after Hippocrates) in Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Hebrew, Greek, Roman, and early Christian texts:
Disease was generally attributed to four kinds of causation. In the first, it was said to be caused by gods or divinities and was often considered to be retributive, that is, inflicted in response to an act that had aroused the displeasure of a god or divine force. In the second type, disease was attributed to demons (minor deities or malevolent spirits). In the third, it was said to be caused by the magic of magicians or sorcerers. Finally, disease was seen to be the result of natural causes that could be observed, for example, in wounds and broken bones. While in some societies one or another model of disease causation was dominant, in most ancient cultures all four were seen as potential causes, and a proper diagnosis was necessary to determine which type was the cause and what kind of treatment would be effective in each instance.
Religion and science-based medicine have continued to interact in modern times, up through the current COVID-19 pandemic. Like Governor Cuomo, many people today still see religion and medicine as operating in harmony. They practice social distancing (echoing Old Testament leprosy protocol), accept medical ventilator assistance (if available), and pray. See neurosurgeon Michael Egnor’s comments, “Why Prayer Is Wise During a Pandemic,” at Mind Matters.
Medicine and Christianity
Prior to the public hospitals created by ancient Christians, very few ancient people had access to physicians. Early Christians proclaimed and practiced the harmony of faith (prayer, not pagan magic) and medical technology. Much of the subsequent humanitarian expansion of medicine, especially for the poor, was inspired and funded by Christianity. Many hospital names still reflect this religious heritage.
Although few medical practices prior to about two hundred years ago significantly resulted in healing, this was not due to religious hindrances to medical progress. Rather, biomedical science, needed to dramatically improve medical practice, took a long time for humanity to discover. This largely occurred in the modern Western world. The Judeo-Christian tradition proved to be a supportive context for such discoveries. See my video that deals with this subject, “Three Big Ways Christianity Supported the Rise of Modern Science.”
Tyson’s Cosmic Religion
So Cosmos host Neil Tyson is wrong to say that the hallmark of modern science and enlightened medicine is the belief that “nothing happens without a natural cause.” That is a narrow philosophical belief that is out of touch with the cultural roots of modern science. Discovery of the cause-and-effect structure of the natural world has been best fostered in cultures committed to a belief in a supernatural creator who made a world with discoverable natural laws and discernible natural histories.
Despite Tyson’s many misguided criticisms of theistic religion, his own materialistic faith is granted a privileged, but undeserved, authority in Cosmos 3.0. Much of the rest of episode 5 is devoted to celebrating the emergence of consciousness from material processes, even though there is no good explanation for how this could have happened by a series of unguided physical events. Echoing Carl Sagan, Tyson defines the universe as “everything that ever was, is, or will be.” This is a statement of faith. Science, in principle, could not derive such a conclusion.
Finally, Tyson conveys religious awe when he concludes the episode with the hopeful anticipation that, after sharing our digitized brain contents with alien superintelligence, humanity will experience the “ultimate realization of emergence, a cosmos interconnected by thoughts and dreams.” Salvation by technology! This is an oblique expression of the extraterrestrial enlightenment myth that I debunk in my book Unbelievable. See also, “Unbelievable: The Myth of Alien Enlightenment.” Be on the lookout for more of this muddled naturalistic Nirvana in the remaining episodes of Cosmos.
Editor’s note: Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos, “Possible Worlds,” here:
Image credit: Galen and Hippocrates, two ancient physicians, depicted in a fresco from Anagni Cathedral in Italy, by Nina Aldin Thune via Wikimedia Commons.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-25--Are Humans “A Plague on the Earth”?

Are Humans “A Plague on the Earth”?

Back in January in Dallas , Discovery Institute organized its major conference on science and faith , before a huge and appreciative audience .
We are releasing videos of presentations from the Dallas conference , including today , John West , Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture , on “ Darwin ’ s Corrosive Idea.
” This is well timed .
I can ’ t help but think that how we respond to the present health crisis has a lot to do with how we , as individuals , saw reality before we gave a moment ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dr. West summarizes here , “ Ideas really do have consequence.
” In the case of Darwin ’ s idea of unguided evolution and of a planet of life formed from blind , merciless material processes alone , West notes a range of consequences and impacts , on how we see the sanctity of human , how we understand morality and spirituality , and much more .
One observation caught my attention : an interview with Sir David Attenborough , in 2013 , in which the famed evolutionist called humans “ a plague @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to that is a perspective that recognizes design in the cosmos .
As biologist Michael Denton has put it , “ The human form is something significant in the cosmic order , and that is a scientific finding.
” We are releasing videos from the Dallas Conference on Science & Faith each Wednesday here at Evolution News .
Check back next week and see Douglas Axe on “ Undeniable : How Biology Confirms Design .
”

Back in January in Dallas, Discovery Institute organized its major conference on science and faith, before a huge and appreciative audience. We are releasing videos of presentations from the Dallas conference, including today, John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science & Culture, on “Darwin’s Corrosive Idea.”
This is well timed. I can’t help but think that how we respond to the present health crisis has a lot to do with how we, as individuals, saw reality before we gave a moment’s thought to the coronavirus. As Dr. West summarizes here, “Ideas really do have consequence.”
In the case of Darwin’s idea of unguided evolution and of a planet of life formed from blind, merciless material processes alone, West notes a range of consequences and impacts, on how we see the sanctity of human, how we understand morality and spirituality, and much more. One observation caught my attention: an interview with Sir David Attenborough, in 2013, in which the famed evolutionist called humans “a plague on the Earth.”
According to Attenborough, in the past, natural selection kept humans in check by killing them off. But modern society undermines natural selection by saving the sick and finding ways to feed more and more people.
In remarkable contrast to that is a perspective that recognizes design in the cosmos. As biologist Michael Denton has put it, “The human form is something significant in the cosmic order, and that is a scientific finding.”
We are releasing videos from the Dallas Conference on Science & Faith each Wednesday here at Evolution News. Check back next week and see Douglas Axe on “Undeniable: How Biology Confirms Design.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-03-25--Metaphysical Tolerance: A Discipline for Progress

Editor ’ s note : As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment , Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration , pointing to purpose and meaning in life .
The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself .
Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature , The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
Below is an excerpt adapted from the “ controversial ” Epilogue .
Listen to a conversation with co-author Charles Thaxton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sensitive issues involved when we begin to explore the metaphysical questions surrounding the origin of life .
However , there is no easy way to resolve these issues .
The only sure path is difficult .
It demands the discipline required to temporarily table our personal tastes and preferences and humble ourselves in order to give serious consideration to how the data can be viewed from the other metaphysical position .
We must do so recognizing that the truth of origins surely remains the truth regardless of which metaphysical position we individually adopt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ The true student will seek evidence to establish fact rather than confirm his own concept of truth , for truth exists whether it is discovered or not.
” The difficulty in pursuing these metaphysical matters is that scientists on the whole have seen so little value in this pursuit .
After the birth of modern science in the 17th century it became increasingly common , and by the end of the 19th century the accepted procedure , to separate science and metaphysics into isolated , thought-tight compartments .
This seemed to work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ got started the practitioners of science could function without even being aware of the metaphysical basis on which they operated .
The modern scientific tradition has largely developed within the area we have called operation science , with its emphasis on recurring phenomena and testable hypotheses .
Because of the inertia of heritage , the practice of science continued with only a few practicing scientists apparently aware of its metaphysical basis .
As a result , now that we need to negotiate metaphysical terrain for proper understanding of origin science , few in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We believe this is a major reason creation in the area of origin science is viewed with such deep suspicion by many and frequently simply dismissed .
When we are asked to consider “ far out ” or “ strange ” ideas such as Special Creation , as were the authors just a few years ago , typically the response is exactly that mentioned by David Bohm as cited earlier : “ His first reaction is often of violent disturbance.
” This was our reaction , too .
However , as Bohm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is willing to “ stick with the inquiry rather than escape into anger or unjustified rejection of contrary ideas… he becomes aware of the assumptive character of a great many previously unquestioned features of his own thinking.
” The process as Bohm described it can sometimes be painful ( it was to one of the present authors ) but the quest for truth has never been easy , and has on more than a few occasions been known to make one unpopular .
To be sure , not everyone who goes into the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have .
Even so , in the words of Davis and Solomon , as expressed in their book World of Biology : We believe both sides of the origins issue ( i.e.
, representatives of both metaphysical positions ) must be considered , precisely because there is no way to test origins ideas in origin science against recurring phenomena ( origins by definition do not recur ) .
The issue will be decided on the basis of plausibility , not falsifiability .
There is good historical precedent for this approach .
Charles Darwin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Species said : Presenting origin science ideas from both metaphysical positions — theism and naturalism — in addition to giving an opportunity to choose the most plausible view from the total theoretical spectrum , will also help us become aware of : • Our own position and why we hold it ; • The weaknesses and disadvantages of our position ; • The need for tolerance of others ’ positions ; Our purpose in this epilogue has been to shed light on the issues and to avoid heat as much as possible .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have been .
If there is but one thing our acquaintance with the history of science has taught us , it is that unless some progress is made in recognizing the role of metaphysical thinking and properly using it , the origins debate will simply rage on , much as it has in the past , with representatives of each side of the dispute failing to hear or understand the other .
Consequently , such scientists who go along blithely oblivious to the role of metaphysical thinking will simply act as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neutral fact .
Hopefully the lion of positivism has made its last roar and we can learn from advances in philosophy and science since the time of Darwin .
If we can learn from our mistakes , we may expect more productive interchanges in the future .
Toward that end we reach .
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin : The Continuing Controversy , from Discovery Institute Press .
Image : Heart of the Milky Way , by X-Ray : NASA/CXC/UMass/D .
Wang et al .
; Radio @ @ @

Editor’s note: As an alternative to what you are getting pretty much everywhere else in the media at the moment, Evolution News is proud to offer inspiration, pointing to purpose and meaning in life. The profoundest mystery and thus the deepest inspiration is life itself. Discovery Institute Press has just published a greatly expanded edition of the 1984 classic of intelligent design science literature, The Mystery of Life’s Origin. Below is an excerpt adapted from the “controversial” Epilogue. Listen to a conversation with co-author Charles Thaxton about the chapter here.
There are sensitive issues involved when we begin to explore the metaphysical questions surrounding the origin of life. However, there is no easy way to resolve these issues. The only sure path is difficult. It demands the discipline required to temporarily table our personal tastes and preferences and humble ourselves in order to give serious consideration to how the data can be viewed from the other metaphysical position. We must do so recognizing that the truth of origins surely remains the truth regardless of which metaphysical position we individually adopt. As Melvin Calvin has observed, “The true student will seek evidence to establish fact rather than confirm his own concept of truth, for truth exists whether it is discovered or not.”
The Modern Scientific Tradition
The difficulty in pursuing these metaphysical matters is that scientists on the whole have seen so little value in this pursuit. After the birth of modern science in the 17th century it became increasingly common, and by the end of the 19th century the accepted procedure, to separate science and metaphysics into isolated, thought-tight compartments. This seemed to work well in practice, for after science got started the practitioners of science could function without even being aware of the metaphysical basis on which they operated. The modern scientific tradition has largely developed within the area we have called operation science, with its emphasis on recurring phenomena and testable hypotheses. Because of the inertia of heritage, the practice of science continued with only a few practicing scientists apparently aware of its metaphysical basis. As a result, now that we need to negotiate metaphysical terrain for proper understanding of origin science, few in science are equipped with the requisite skills. We believe this is a major reason creation in the area of origin science is viewed with such deep suspicion by many and frequently simply dismissed.
When we are asked to consider “far out” or “strange” ideas such as Special Creation, as were the authors just a few years ago, typically the response is exactly that mentioned by David Bohm as cited earlier: “His first reaction is often of violent disturbance.” This was our reaction, too. However, as Bohm goes on to say, if one is willing to “stick with the inquiry rather than escape into anger or unjustified rejection of contrary ideas… he becomes aware of the assumptive character of a great many previously unquestioned features of his own thinking.”
The Quest for Truth
The process as Bohm described it can sometimes be painful (it was to one of the present authors) but the quest for truth has never been easy, and has on more than a few occasions been known to make one unpopular.
To be sure, not everyone who goes into the matter will reach the conclusion that we have. Even so, in the words of Davis and Solomon, as expressed in their book World of Biology:
We cannot imagine that the cause of truth is served by keeping unpopular or minority ideas under wraps… Specious arguments can be exposed only by examining them. Nothing is so unscientific as the inquisition mentality that served, as it thought, the truth, by seeking to suppress or conceal dissent rather than by grappling with it.
We believe both sides of the origins issue (i.e., representatives of both metaphysical positions) must be considered, precisely because there is no way to test origins ideas in origin science against recurring phenomena (origins by definition do not recur). The issue will be decided on the basis of plausibility, not falsifiability. There is good historical precedent for this approach. Charles Darwin in his introduction to The Origin of Species said:
For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question, and this is here impossible. [Emphasis added.]
Theism and Naturalism
Presenting origin science ideas from both metaphysical positions — theism and naturalism — in addition to giving an opportunity to choose the most plausible view from the total theoretical spectrum, will also help us become aware of:
Our own position and why we hold it; The weaknesses and disadvantages of our position; The need for tolerance of others’ positions; The limitations of science.
Our purpose in this epilogue has been to shed light on the issues and to avoid heat as much as possible. Only the reader can judge how successful we have been. If there is but one thing our acquaintance with the history of science has taught us, it is that unless some progress is made in recognizing the role of metaphysical thinking and properly using it, the origins debate will simply rage on, much as it has in the past, with representatives of each side of the dispute failing to hear or understand the other. Consequently, such scientists who go along blithely oblivious to the role of metaphysical thinking will simply act as if data really are observed and comprehended as neutral fact. Hopefully the lion of positivism has made its last roar and we can learn from advances in philosophy and science since the time of Darwin. If we can learn from our mistakes, we may expect more productive interchanges in the future. Toward that end we reach.
Read the rest in The Mystery of Life’s Origin: The Continuing Controversy, from Discovery Institute Press.
Image: Heart of the Milky Way, by X-Ray:NASA/CXC/UMass/D. Wang et al.; Radio:NRF/SARAO/MeerKAT.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-16--Is Space Travel Our Destiny?

Is Space Travel Our Destiny?

A few days ago I published the paper “ The Solar System : Favored for Space Travel ” in the journal BIO-Complexity .
I thought it would be helpful for me to give a short summary of the paper to Evolution News readers .
I was motivated to do the study after two papers were published in 2018 on the difficulty of launching rockets from super-earths .
Super-earths are the most common type of planet that are being discovered around exoplanets .
They are somewhat loosely defined as being larger and more massive than Earth but smaller and less massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , super-earths seem to transition from rocky to gas-dominated composition above 1.5 times the size of Earth .
Together , the two studies not only showed that it is more difficult to launch rockets from super-earths , but it is also more difficult to launch interstellar missions from stars less massive than ours .
One of the authors , astronomer Mike Hippke , wrote : Notice their choice of words : “ surprised , ” “ lucky , ” and “ fortunate coincidence.
” The authors of the papers made use of simple @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from planets and their host stars to arrive at their conclusions .
The starting point is the Tsiolkovsky equation .
The inescapable conclusion is that as you increase a planet ’ s surface gravity , an increasingly larger fraction of the rocket ’ s mass is propellant .
In fact , the propellant mass fraction rises exponentially with the planet ’ s mass .
But , it ’ s even worse than Hippke and Loeb concluded .
The atmosphere makes it harder to launch rockets in two ways .
First , it creates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Second , the higher pressure at the surface of a super-earth reduces the effective thrust of a rocket .
It gets still worse , since super-earths should have thicker atmospheres than Earth .
And , if you expect to return astronauts to the planet , you ’ ll have to deal with the greater heat generated on reentry .
Those super-earths with substantial hydrogen in their atmospheres ( probably a substantial fraction ) will make it even harder on our wannabe space explorers .
Since hydrogen is a lightweight molecule , the atmosphere @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it has a larger scale-height ) .
This would require a rocket to travel much farther from the planet before the air drag became negligible ; the overall air drag would be greater .
We shouldn ’ t overlook the basic raw materials for building rockets .
Earth is well-endowed with abundant minable metal ores and fossil fuels .
What ’ s more one of the best rocket propellants , hydrogen , is easily extracted from water , as is one of the best oxidizers , oxygen ( which can also be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that next time you take a drink of water .
Once you leave a planet , you can begin to consider further adventures .
As Loeb noted , launching an interstellar probe from the habitable zone of a low mass star , a red dwarf , is more difficult .
“ Gravity assists ” from massive planets in a system help , but red dwarfs rarely have giant planets like Jupiter .
What ’ s more , if you ’ re going to build a large interstellar ship , the raw materials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ essential ingredient .
An asteroid belt is not a given in a planetary system .
Once you depart your home system , there are two main challenges to interstellar travel : distance and dust .
The typical spacing between stars in the solar neighborhood is several light-years .
The nearest star other than the Sun is Proxima Centauri , at 4.22 light-years .
This means it would take us 4.22 years to travel to Proxima Centauri if we were traveling at the speed of light .
But , when you are traveling to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ material .
Most of it is in the form of tiny dust grains smaller than 0.1 micron .
Dust impacting a spaceship traveling at high speed can cause a lot of damage .
You can compensate for it by taking into account some amount of eroded spaceship mass in its design , but that increases the required initial mass .
Best to minimize the interstellar dust encountered on the voyage .
The density of stars and the abundance of interstellar dust vary greatly depending on your home address in the Milky Way Galaxy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low dust region of the Milky Way , but we are in a “ dust hole.
” As the Solar System bobs up and down relative to the flat disk as it orbits about the center of the Milky Way .
Sometimes we are a little closer to the center .
Right now we are closest to the center in our ~220 million year orbit , and we are also close to the mid-plane of the disk .
This means the Sun is currently passing through the densest region of stars in its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ There is no better time to set off on our first interstellar mission !
What should we make of this ?
Should we be surprised that the Earth and the Solar System seem to be better than most other locations for space travel ?
We certainly don ’ t need to do space travel to survive .
Our ancestors weren ’ t space-faring folk .
Why didn ’ t we find ourselves living on one of the much more common planetary systems where space exploration is more difficult ?
If you subscribe to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ makes perfect sense .
It follows the same pattern — the cosmos is designed for discovery .
We were meant to do science and explore the cosmos .
Image : Proxima Centauri and Proxima Centauri b ( artist ’ s imagining ) , by ESO/M .
Kornmesser / CC BY .

A few days ago I published the paper “The Solar System: Favored for Space Travel” in the journal BIO-Complexity. I thought it would be helpful for me to give a short summary of the paper to Evolution News readers.
I was motivated to do the study after two papers were published in 2018 on the difficulty of launching rockets from super-earths. Super-earths are the most common type of planet that are being discovered around exoplanets. They are somewhat loosely defined as being larger and more massive than Earth but smaller and less massive than Uranus or Neptune. From observations, super-earths seem to transition from rocky to gas-dominated composition above 1.5 times the size of Earth.
Two Studies
Together, the two studies not only showed that it is more difficult to launch rockets from super-earths, but it is also more difficult to launch interstellar missions from stars less massive than ours. One of the authors, astronomer Mike Hippke, wrote:
I am surprised to see how close we as humans are to end up on a planet which is still reasonably lightweight to conduct space flight. Other civilizations, if they exist, might not be as lucky. On more massive planets, space flight would be exponentially more expensive. Such civilizations would not have satellite TV, a moon mission, or a Hubble Space Telescope.
Another author, Harvard astronomer Abraham Loeb, noted:
Chemical propulsion requires a fuel mass that grows exponentially with terminal speed. By a fortunate coincidence the escape speed from the orbit of the Earth around the Sun is at the limit of attainable speed by chemical rockets. But the habitable zone around fainter stars is closer in, making it much more challenging for chemical rockets to escape from the deeper gravitational pit there.
A Choice of Words
Notice their choice of words: “surprised,” “lucky,” and “fortunate coincidence.” The authors of the papers made use of simple equations relating rocket propulsion and gravitational forces from planets and their host stars to arrive at their conclusions. The starting point is the Tsiolkovsky equation. The inescapable conclusion is that as you increase a planet’s surface gravity, an increasingly larger fraction of the rocket’s mass is propellant. In fact, the propellant mass fraction rises exponentially with the planet’s mass.
But, it’s even worse than Hippke and Loeb concluded. The atmosphere makes it harder to launch rockets in two ways. First, it creates a drag force on the rocket. Second, the higher pressure at the surface of a super-earth reduces the effective thrust of a rocket. It gets still worse, since super-earths should have thicker atmospheres than Earth. And, if you expect to return astronauts to the planet, you’ll have to deal with the greater heat generated on reentry.
Those super-earths with substantial hydrogen in their atmospheres (probably a substantial fraction) will make it even harder on our wannabe space explorers. Since hydrogen is a lightweight molecule, the atmosphere will be much more puffy (technically, it has a larger scale-height). This would require a rocket to travel much farther from the planet before the air drag became negligible; the overall air drag would be greater.
Basic Raw Materials
We shouldn’t overlook the basic raw materials for building rockets. Earth is well-endowed with abundant minable metal ores and fossil fuels. What’s more one of the best rocket propellants, hydrogen, is easily extracted from water, as is one of the best oxidizers, oxygen (which can also be obtained from the atmosphere). Think of that next time you take a drink of water.
Once you leave a planet, you can begin to consider further adventures. As Loeb noted, launching an interstellar probe from the habitable zone of a low mass star, a red dwarf, is more difficult. “Gravity assists” from massive planets in a system help, but red dwarfs rarely have giant planets like Jupiter. What’s more, if you’re going to build a large interstellar ship, the raw materials available in an asteroid belt are an essential ingredient. An asteroid belt is not a given in a planetary system.
Distance and Dust
Once you depart your home system, there are two main challenges to interstellar travel: distance and dust. The typical spacing between stars in the solar neighborhood is several light-years. The nearest star other than the Sun is Proxima Centauri, at 4.22 light-years. This means it would take us 4.22 years to travel to Proxima Centauri if we were traveling at the speed of light.
But, when you are traveling to other stars you invariably run into solid material. Most of it is in the form of tiny dust grains smaller than 0.1 micron. Dust impacting a spaceship traveling at high speed can cause a lot of damage. You can compensate for it by taking into account some amount of eroded spaceship mass in its design, but that increases the required initial mass. Best to minimize the interstellar dust encountered on the voyage.
The density of stars and the abundance of interstellar dust vary greatly depending on your home address in the Milky Way Galaxy. We not only reside in a low dust region of the Milky Way, but we are in a “dust hole.” As the Solar System bobs up and down relative to the flat disk as it orbits about the center of the Milky Way, sometimes we are a little closer to the center. Right now we are closest to the center in our ~220 million year orbit, and we are also close to the mid-plane of the disk. This means the Sun is currently passing through the densest region of stars in its entire orbit through the Milky Way. There is no better time to set off on our first interstellar mission!
What should we make of this? Should we be surprised that the Earth and the Solar System seem to be better than most other locations for space travel? We certainly don’t need to do space travel to survive. Our ancestors weren’t space-faring folk. Why didn’t we find ourselves living on one of the much more common planetary systems where space exploration is more difficult? If you subscribe to The Privileged Planet thesis, then it makes perfect sense. It follows the same pattern — the cosmos is designed for discovery. We were meant to do science and explore the cosmos.
Image: Proxima Centauri and Proxima Centauri b (artist’s imagining), by ESO/M. Kornmesser / CC BY.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-17--Cosmos Franchise Loses Viewers, While Pumping for Materialism

On a new episode of ID the Future , philosopher Jay Richards talks with science historian Michael Keas about the new Cosmos series on Fox and the National Geographic Channel .
They note that the importance of this season and its predecessors ( 2014 and , the original with Carl Sagan , in 1980 ) lay not only in the viewers who saw it at home but in the school kids who watched because their teachers brought the program into the classroom .
As Jay recalls , he and others at Discovery Institute can trace their interest in astronomy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sagan in their youth .
Dr. Richards and Dr. Keas note that teachers justify the program ’ s classroom use by pointing out what an “ event ” it was on TV .
The 2014 iteration was seen , each night it aired , by 3 to 4 million people in the U.S. , or more .
Well , very possibly you could count the current season , Cosmos 3.0 ( “ Possible Worlds ” ) , as a victim of the coronavirus .
Perhaps partly because the world is preoccupied by COVID-19 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have seen the new Cosmos .
Rather than in the several millions , each of these episodes has been seen by more like a half a million or fewer .
There are likely other reasons , too , having to do with host Neil deGrasse Tyson , that the series didn ’ t get the major push its immediate predecessor did .
These speculations aside , as Mike Keas discusses , the series itself is marked by a great deal of…well , speculation in the service of materialist mythmaking .
“ Imaginative storytelling @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In seeking to explain the origin of life or the origin of mind , “ It ’ s very impressionistic storytelling that Tyson is engaged in and it leaves all the important details out of an actual pathway through which mindless matter could bring about life and eventually intelligence.
” The nature of this “ science ” would almost certainly go unrecognized , in any critical way , by school-age viewers , or by most adults , for that matter .
Keas and Richards review some of the details that Tyson leaves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Unbelievable : 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion , and Richards is the co-author of The Privileged Planet : How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery , now out in paperback with a new Foreword , among other books .
They are terrific together in conversation .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
Editor ’ s note : Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos , “ Possible Worlds , ” here : • “ Neil deGrasse Tyson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Demoted Earth ” • “ Medicine , Religion , and Cosmos — Was Andrew Cuomo Wrong to Invoke God ?
” • “ Cosmos Episode 6 — That ’ s Entertainment !
( But Is It Science ? )
” • “ The Biggest Myth So Far in Cosmos 3.0 — Baruch Spinoza as Science Hero ” • “ New Cosmos Episodes : Only Part of the Story ” • “ Counterprogramming for Cosmos 3.0 : Two New Videos from Science Historian Mike Keas ” • “ Cosmos 3.0 Revisits Themes of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ • “ Cosmos 3.0 with Neil deGrasse Tyson Arrives Tonight at 8 PM , Somewhat Dented ” Image : Screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0 , “ Possible Worlds .
”

On a new episode of ID the Future, philosopher Jay Richards talks with science historian Michael Keas about the new Cosmos series on Fox and the National Geographic Channel. They note that the importance of this season and its predecessors (2014 and, the original with Carl Sagan, in 1980) lay not only in the viewers who saw it at home but in the school kids who watched because their teachers brought the program into the classroom. As Jay recalls, he and others at Discovery Institute can trace their interest in astronomy and related sciences to the spell cast by Sagan in their youth.
A Victim of Coronavirus
Dr. Richards and Dr. Keas note that teachers justify the program’s classroom use by pointing out what an “event” it was on TV. The 2014 iteration was seen, each night it aired, by 3 to 4 million people in the U.S., or more. Well, very possibly you could count the current season, Cosmos 3.0 (“Possible Worlds”), as a victim of the coronavirus. Perhaps partly because the world is preoccupied by COVID-19, a lot fewer people so far have seen the new Cosmos. Rather than in the several millions, each of these episodes has been seen by more like a half a million or fewer. There are likely other reasons, too, having to do with host Neil deGrasse Tyson, that the series didn’t get the major push its immediate predecessor did.
Materialist Mythmaking
These speculations aside, as Mike Keas discusses, the series itself is marked by a great deal of…well, speculation in the service of materialist mythmaking. “Imaginative storytelling,” as Professor Keas puts it. In seeking to explain the origin of life or the origin of mind, “It’s very impressionistic storytelling that Tyson is engaged in and it leaves all the important details out of an actual pathway through which mindless matter could bring about life and eventually intelligence.”
The nature of this “science” would almost certainly go unrecognized, in any critical way, by school-age viewers, or by most adults, for that matter. Keas and Richards review some of the details that Tyson leaves out. Keas is the author of Unbelievable: 7 Myths About the History and Future of Science and Religion, and Richards is the co-author of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery, now out in paperback with a new Foreword, among other books. They are terrific together in conversation. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Editor’s note: Find further reviews and commentary on the third season of Cosmos, “Possible Worlds,” here:
Image: Screenshot from the trailer for Cosmos 3.0, “Possible Worlds.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-17--Squid’s Got Talent — Super-Powers Astonish Scientists

They swim .
They shine .
They camouflage themselves .
The humble squid astonishes scientists with its super-powers .
Are these marine champions really the products of random mutations and natural selection ?
Just saying so is not convincing when you look at the facts .
Ranging in size from fingerlings to sea monsters , squid look like visitors from an alien planet .
So do the other main groups within cephalopods ( “ head-foot ” ) , the octopuses and cuttlefish .
Those cousins are no less extraordinary , but recent news and research showcase the talent of these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ squid ” can be both singular and plural ; as with fish , it ’ s “ one squid , two squid , red squid , blue squid.
” But “ squids ” is acceptable , especially if talking about different species .
The size range of squids is enormous , from 10 centimeters to 24 meters ! )
A researcher used a remotely operated vehicle to peer deep into the blackness of Monterey Submarine Canyon .
He wished to study a strange visual code of the Humboldt squid , Dosidicus gigas , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frigid waters 1,500 feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean , hundreds of human-sized Humboldt squid feed on a patch of finger-length lantern fish .
Zipping past each other , the predators move with exceptional precision , never colliding or competing for prey .
How do they establish such order in the near-darkness of the ocean ’ s twilight zone ?
[ Emphasis added . ]
Benjamin Burford , a grad student and lead author of a paper with a ROV ( remotely-operated vehicle ) specialist from the Monterey Bay Aquarium , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organs in its muscles .
These organs allow the squid to signal each other with light .
Like a Kindle e-reader , the animal “ can create a backlight for shifting pigmentation patterns on their skin.
” And thus , a flashing signal is born .
Evolution is sure to provide whatever innovation is needed , don ’ t you think ?
It exists ; therefore , it evolved .
Little to Say About Evolution The actual paper in PNAS , “ Bioluminescent backlighting illuminates the complex visual signals of a social squid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very little to say about natural selection , other than noting some possible “ selective pressures ” and concluding , “ The evolution of complex visual signals in these squids may therefore have been driven by content- and efficacy-based selection.
” More interesting than “ the evolution of ” the squid is the nature of the light-producing organs themselves .
They look positively designed : A single squid may have hundreds of these organs .
The photophores are oriented not to shine outward but to illuminate pigment patterns on the skin , making @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the others .
Compare this to how bats communicate in the dark with sound clicks , each distinct enough to avoid collisions .
Nature comments on the light show , saying that the squid flash each other when approaching their own kind .
It ’ s the last freaky thing the prey would ever see under the sea .
The “ design features ” of the Humboldt squid appear unique to this species .
A Hawaiian species that lives in shallow water also glows , but doesn ’ t combine its bioluminescence with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ judges for an imaginary Ocean ’ s Got Talent program would surely be impressed with this species and its “ synchronized swimming with light ” show .
Meanwhile , over on the East Coast , researchers at the University of Chicago ’ s Marine Biology Laboratory at Woods Hole , Massachusetts , found another talent in the amazing squid .
The implications of this discovery give bad karma to dogma .
The discovery provides another jolt to the central dogma of molecular biology , which states that genetic information is passed faithfully from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of proteins .
In 2015 , Rosenthal and colleagues discovered that squid “ edit ” their messenger RNA instructions to an extraordinary degree – orders of magnitude more than humans do — allowing them to fine-tune the type of proteins that will be produced in the nervous system .
“ But we thought all the RNA editing happened in in the nucleus , and then the modified messenger RNAs are exported out to the cell , ” says Rosenthal , senior author on the present study .
“ Now we are showing that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the periphery of the cell .
That means , theoretically , they can modify protein function to meet the localized demands of the cell .
That gives them a lot of latitude to tailor the genetic information , as needed.
” The team also showed that messenger RNAs are edited in the nerve cell ’ s axon at much higher rates than in the nucleus .
This discovery hints at more revelations to come .
What signals the peripheral RNAs to change ?
What pathway decides , and what environmental clues trigger the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the transcripts is there ?
The team knows there is much more to learn , and perhaps the gene editing tricks of the squid will help humans with disabilities someday .
The vertebrate-like camera eyes of cephalopods are additional wonders to challenge our colleagues who trust in chance to create “ design features , ” but no need for overkill .
Want to know more about squid ?
Read about the giant squid here at Evolution News .
See also Cornelius Hunter ’ s post about massive RNA editing in the octopus .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ eyes here .
And Walter Myers added to the discussion about “ bad design ” arguments comparing human eyes and cephalopod eyes .
Finally , Doug Axe called attention to another skill in cuttlefish that challenges evolution .

They swim. They shine. They camouflage themselves. The humble squid astonishes scientists with its super-powers. Are these marine champions really the products of random mutations and natural selection? Just saying so is not convincing when you look at the facts.
Ranging in size from fingerlings to sea monsters, squid look like visitors from an alien planet. So do the other main groups within cephalopods (“head-foot”), the octopuses and cuttlefish. Those cousins are no less extraordinary, but recent news and research showcase the talent of these amazing creatures. (Note: “squid” can be both singular and plural; as with fish, it’s “one squid, two squid, red squid, blue squid.” But “squids” is acceptable, especially if talking about different species. The size range of squids is enormous, from 10 centimeters to 24 meters!)
Communicating with Light
A researcher used a remotely operated vehicle to peer deep into the blackness of Monterey Submarine Canyon. He wished to study a strange visual code of the Humboldt squid, Dosidicus gigas, reports Stanford News Service.
In the frigid waters 1,500 feet below the surface of the Pacific Ocean, hundreds of human-sized Humboldt squid feed on a patch of finger-length lantern fish. Zipping past each other, the predators move with exceptional precision, never colliding or competing for prey. How do they establish such order in the near-darkness of the ocean’s twilight zone? [Emphasis added.]
Benjamin Burford, a grad student and lead author of a paper with a ROV (remotely-operated vehicle) specialist from the Monterey Bay Aquarium, found that this difficult-to-observe species has light-producing organs in its muscles. These organs allow the squid to signal each other with light. Like a Kindle e-reader, the animal “can create a backlight for shifting pigmentation patterns on their skin.” And thus, a flashing signal is born.
“Many squid live in fairly shallow water and don’t have these light-producing organs, so it’s possible this is a key evolutionary innovation for being able to inhabit the open ocean,” said Benjamin Burford, a graduate student in biology in the School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford and lead author of the paper. “Maybe they need this ability to glow and display these pigmentation patterns to facilitate group behaviors in order to survive out there.”
Evolution is sure to provide whatever innovation is needed, don’t you think? It exists; therefore, it evolved.
Little to Say About Evolution
The actual paper in PNAS, “Bioluminescent backlighting illuminates the complex visual signals of a social squid in the deep sea,” has very little to say about natural selection, other than noting some possible “selective pressures” and concluding, “The evolution of complex visual signals in these squids may therefore have been driven by content- and efficacy-based selection.”
More interesting than “the evolution of” the squid is the nature of the light-producing organs themselves. They look positively designed:
Numerous small subcutaneous (s.c.) photophores (bioluminescent organs) embedded throughout the muscle tissue make the entire body glow, thereby backlighting the pigmentation patterns. Equipped with a mechanism by which complex information can be rapidly relayed through a visual pathway under low-light conditions, our data suggest that the visual signals displayed by D. gigas could share design features with advanced forms of animal communication.
A single squid may have hundreds of these organs. The photophores are oriented not to shine outward but to illuminate pigment patterns on the skin, making the whole creature cast its pattern to the others. Compare this to how bats communicate in the dark with sound clicks, each distinct enough to avoid collisions. Nature comments on the light show, saying that the squid flash each other when approaching their own kind.
But when squids pursued prey, they dimmed themselves. Then, just before striking, they suddenly flashed a splotchy pattern by lighting up organs beneath intermittently pigmented parts of their body.
It’s the last freaky thing the prey would ever see under the sea.
The “design features” of the Humboldt squid appear unique to this species. A Hawaiian species that lives in shallow water also glows, but doesn’t combine its bioluminescence with this “complex chromatophore patterning.” The judges for an imaginary Ocean’s Got Talent program would surely be impressed with this species and its “synchronized swimming with light” show.
Master Gene Editors
Meanwhile, over on the East Coast, researchers at the University of Chicago’s Marine Biology Laboratory at Woods Hole, Massachusetts, found another talent in the amazing squid.
Revealing yet another super-power in the skillful squid, scientists have discovered that squid massively edit their own genetic instructions not only within the nucleus of their neurons, but also within the axon — the long, slender neural projections that transmit electrical impulses to other neurons. This is the first time that edits to genetic information have been observed outside of the nucleus of an animal cell.
The implications of this discovery give bad karma to dogma.
The discovery provides another jolt to the central dogma of molecular biology, which states that genetic information is passed faithfully from DNA to messenger RNA to the synthesis of proteins. In 2015, Rosenthal and colleagues discovered that squid “edit” their messenger RNA instructions to an extraordinary degree – orders of magnitude more than humans do — allowing them to fine-tune the type of proteins that will be produced in the nervous system. “But we thought all the RNA editing happened in in the nucleus, and then the modified messenger RNAs are exported out to the cell,” says Rosenthal, senior author on the present study. “Now we are showing that squid can modify the RNAs out in the periphery of the cell. That means, theoretically, they can modify protein function to meet the localized demands of the cell. That gives them a lot of latitude to tailor the genetic information, as needed.” The team also showed that messenger RNAs are edited in the nerve cell’s axon at much higher rates than in the nucleus.
Revelations to Come
This discovery hints at more revelations to come. What signals the peripheral RNAs to change? What pathway decides, and what environmental clues trigger the change? How much latitude for tailoring the transcripts is there? The team knows there is much more to learn, and perhaps the gene editing tricks of the squid will help humans with disabilities someday.
Previously, Rosenthal and colleagues showed that octopus and cuttlefish also rely heavily on mRNA editing to diversify the proteins they can produce in the nervous system. Together with squid, these animals are known for strikingly sophisticated behaviors, relative to other invertebrates.
The vertebrate-like camera eyes of cephalopods are additional wonders to challenge our colleagues who trust in chance to create “design features,” but no need for overkill.
Want to know more about squid? Read about the giant squid here at Evolution News. See also Cornelius Hunter’s post about massive RNA editing in the octopus. Jonathan Wells discussed the design of cephalopod eyes here. And Walter Myers added to the discussion about “bad design” arguments comparing human eyes and cephalopod eyes. Finally, Doug Axe called attention to another skill in cuttlefish that challenges evolution.
Photo credit: Humboldt squid (Dosidicus gigas), © 2010 MBARI via EurekAlert!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-17--The Jack Kevorkian Plague

The Jack Kevorkian Plague

Death is in the air .
No , I am not referring to the coronavirus .
The pathogen I mean is a cultural pandemic , the embrace of doctor-prescribed suicide and of administered homicide as acceptable responses to human suffering .
Let ’ s call it the “ Jack Kevorkian Plague , ” after the late pathologist who in the 1990s became world-famous by assisting the suicides of some 130 people .
Before Kevorkian , the euthanasia movement was mostly a fringe phenomenon .
After Kevorkian , although certainly not because of him alone , assisted suicide had been made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the American public accepted the practice .
Now , a mere 20 years later , lethal-injection euthanasia is legal and popular in Belgium , Canada , Colombia , Luxembourg , and the Netherlands .
Doctor-assisted suicide is legal in Germany , Switzerland , the Australian states of Victoria and Western Australia , and nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia .
Pressure to legalize euthanasia is increasing in Australia , France , India , Italy , New Zealand , Portugal , Spain , and the United Kingdom .
The media report @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the limited prism of “ compassion.
” Kevorkian attempted to justify his campaign likewise .
But compassion was never his true motive .
As he wrote in his book Prescription Medicide : The Goodness of a Planned Death , “ Helping suffering or doomed persons kill themselves ” was “ merely the first step , an early distasteful obligation…that nobody in his right mind would savor.
” So , if it wasn ’ t about compassion , what was the real point ?
Kevorkian saw euthanasia as the perfect means to steer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Indeed , his great insight was that once society embraced that “ distasteful first step , ” the sanctity-of-life ethic — which he disdained , seeing it as an irrational religious belief — would be obliterated , and the door would be opened to using the bodies of people who commit suicide as natural resources available for utilitarian purposes .
Kevorkian gave several examples of what he meant .
He thought that euthanasia clinics should be established that “ make the quantum leap of supplementing merciful killing with the enormously positive benefit of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , he argued , if we are going to help people die , we might as well derive benefit from their deaths .
In 1998 he assisted the suicide of Joseph Tushkowski , a former police officer with quadriplegia .
After Tushkowski died , Kevorkian ripped out the man ’ s kidneys — the medical examiner called it “ a bizarre mutilation ” — and then at a press conference offered them to the public , “ first come , first served.
” Today , three countries —Belgium , Canada , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s idea to join euthanasia to organ harvesting , although they don ’ t do it in such a crude fashion .
Rather , suicidal persons go to the hospital to be killed , and immediately afterward their bodies are moved to a surgical suite for organ procurement .
Canada has gone so far down the road that organ-donation organizations are advised in advance so that suicidal persons can be solicited for their organs .
Kevorkian also advocated child euthanasia .
In 1988 , in an article in Medicine and Law , he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ such as severe spina bifida , paraplegia , and hydrocephalus ” should be candidates for euthanasia ( and experimentation ) , provided that proper consent were given .
Today , under a bureaucratic euthanasia checklist known as the Groningen Protocol , the Netherlands permits , although it has not explicitly legalized , infanticide for conditions of the kind that Kevorkian referenced .
Netherlands law permits euthanasia more broadly for children twelve years of age and older .
In Belgium , there is no lower age limit for euthanasia .
According to official euthanasia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at least three children in Belgium have been euthanized , including a nine-year-old .
Children in Canada can not be euthanized , but that restriction may soon be repealed .
Some pediatricians there have volunteered to euthanize minors once it becomes legal , perhaps even without parental consent , if the children are “ mature.
” Kevorkian believed that access to assisted suicide and euthanasia is a fundamental human right that should be available to any competent person wanting to die .
Canada ’ s Supreme Court has partially agreed .
In 2015 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ assistance in dying ( MAiD ) , ” as it is euphemistically called , for all competent patients with a medically diagnosed condition that causes “ irremediable suffering , ” including “ psychological pain.
” An Ontario court has ruled that this right to be killed is fundamental and that it trumps Canada ’ s Charter right of “ freedom of religion and conscience.
” Under the province ’ s rules of medical ethics , physicians who by religion or conscience are opposed to lethally injecting a sick patient must do so anyway @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they know is willing to kill .
If they don ’ t want to be complicit in such deaths , the court sniffed , they should get out of medicine .
Canada ’ s broad euthanasia license still requires an underlying medical diagnosis .
Kevorkian opposed any such restriction .
In Prescription Medicide he wrote that “ optional assisted suicide ” should be “ available for individuals , sometimes in good physical and mental health who choose to be killed , ” for whatever reason , including “ physical ( the end stage @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or severe trauma ) , mental ( intense anxiety or psychic torture inflicted by self or others ) , or doxastic ( religious or philosophical tenets or inflexible personal convictions ) .
” In Germany , Death as a Right The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany recently ruled that such death on demand is a right .
From the decision : Kevorkian , too , thought that individuals should have a right to assisted suicide and that the decision should not belong only to medical professionals who would assist in the act .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ court has ruled that not only do citizens have a fundamental right to commit suicide or to be assisted in their suicide but that others have a concomitant right to assist .
Kevorkian advocated the establishment of regional euthanasia centers where people could go to be killed .
Switzerland allows the operation of suicide clinics that people from around the world attend — that , indeed , they pay to attend .
The Netherlands permits a “ mobile ” euthanasia service that makes house calls when a suicidal person ’ s own doctor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thought that mental illness should be no impediment to assisted suicide .
In practice , that boundary has been crossed repeatedly , with the hastening of death made legal .
For example , as reported in The American Journal of Psychiatry , Michael Freeland , an Oregonian , obtained a lethal prescription after being diagnosed with cancer .
Subsequently he became psychotic and was committed to a hospital for depression with suicidal and possibly homicidal thoughts .
He was hospitalized for a week .
The discharging psychiatrist noted with approval that , while @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from his house , the lethal prescription remained “ safely at home.
” In a further slap at true compassion , Freeland was permitted to keep the prescribed overdose even though the psychiatrist reported that he would “ remain vulnerable to periods of delirium.
” ( Freeland died of natural causes more than two years after receiving the initial prescription . )
Meanwhile , in Belgium , a transsexual was euthanized legally after becoming distraught by a botched sex-change surgery .
In another case there , a psychiatric patient , taken advantage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by his replacement because she was so distressed over the victimization .
Elderly couples who don ’ t want to be widowed have received joint euthanasia killings .
The list of the mentally ill and distraught people who are not otherwise sick but who have died by euthanasia or assisted suicide goes on and on , not just in Belgium but across the Western world .
What Is “ Obitiatry , ” You Ask ?
About the only policy that Kevorkian advocated that has not yet been implemented somewhere in the world is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that , you ask ?
it is human vivisection on living patients before euthanasia .
He wrote in Prescription Medicide : Will we ever conduct experiments on patients before they are euthanized ?
I hope not .
But the question must be asked : How can it be forbidden logically , once we embrace Kevorkian values ?
In his day , Kevorkian believed that human life was expendable .
Increasingly , so do we .
He advocated a radical definition of personal autonomy , countenancing suicide as a right .
Increasingly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ naked utilitarianism according to which human body parts could be deemed more important than the principle that the life of a suicidal person should be preserved .
His view on this matter now prevails in three major Western countries : Belgium , Canada , and the Netherlands .
In that light , why not allow lethal experiments on people who want to die and to benefit society in the process , by becoming research subjects ?
Let me conclude this depressing essay with a few simple questions .
Did it shock you ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ which Kevorkian ’ s twisted vision is being implemented ?
Did it at least make you queasy ?
If not , that fact alone demonstrates how thoroughly the Jack Kevorkian Plague permeates our culture .
Kevorkian was convinced that he was leading society into what he considered a more rational future , one in which the value of life would be relative and the bodies of the suicidal commodified .
At the time , most observers rolled their eyes and assured us that it could never happen .
But it has happened and @ @ @

Death is in the air. No, I am not referring to the coronavirus. The pathogen I mean is a cultural pandemic, the embrace of doctor-prescribed suicide and of administered homicide as acceptable responses to human suffering.
Let’s call it the “Jack Kevorkian Plague,” after the late pathologist who in the 1990s became world-famous by assisting the suicides of some 130 people. Before Kevorkian, the euthanasia movement was mostly a fringe phenomenon. After Kevorkian, although certainly not because of him alone, assisted suicide had been made legal in Oregon, and large swaths of the American public accepted the practice.
Now, a mere 20 years later, lethal-injection euthanasia is legal and popular in Belgium, Canada, Colombia, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Doctor-assisted suicide is legal in Germany, Switzerland, the Australian states of Victoria and Western Australia, and nine U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Pressure to legalize euthanasia is increasing in Australia, France, India, Italy, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
The media report stories about euthanasia and assisted suicide generally through the limited prism of “compassion.” Kevorkian attempted to justify his campaign likewise. But compassion was never his true motive. As he wrote in his book Prescription Medicide: The Goodness of a Planned Death, “Helping suffering or doomed persons kill themselves” was “merely the first step, an early distasteful obligation…that nobody in his right mind would savor.”
Not About Compassion
So, if it wasn’t about compassion, what was the real point? Kevorkian saw euthanasia as the perfect means to steer culture in a sharply utilitarian direction. Indeed, his great insight was that once society embraced that “distasteful first step,” the sanctity-of-life ethic — which he disdained, seeing it as an irrational religious belief — would be obliterated, and the door would be opened to using the bodies of people who commit suicide as natural resources available for utilitarian purposes.
Kevorkian gave several examples of what he meant. He thought that euthanasia clinics should be established that “make the quantum leap of supplementing merciful killing with the enormously positive benefit of experimentation and organ donation.” After all, he argued, if we are going to help people die, we might as well derive benefit from their deaths.
In 1998 he assisted the suicide of Joseph Tushkowski, a former police officer with quadriplegia. After Tushkowski died, Kevorkian ripped out the man’s kidneys — the medical examiner called it “a bizarre mutilation” — and then at a press conference offered them to the public, “first come, first served.”
Three Countries
Today, three countries —Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands — have legally effectuated Kevorkian’s idea to join euthanasia to organ harvesting, although they don’t do it in such a crude fashion. Rather, suicidal persons go to the hospital to be killed, and immediately afterward their bodies are moved to a surgical suite for organ procurement. Canada has gone so far down the road that organ-donation organizations are advised in advance so that suicidal persons can be solicited for their organs.
Kevorkian also advocated child euthanasia. In 1988, in an article in Medicine and Law, he argued that babies born with disabilities “such as severe spina bifida, paraplegia, and hydrocephalus” should be candidates for euthanasia (and experimentation), provided that proper consent were given. Today, under a bureaucratic euthanasia checklist known as the Groningen Protocol, the Netherlands permits, although it has not explicitly legalized, infanticide for conditions of the kind that Kevorkian referenced. Netherlands law permits euthanasia more broadly for children twelve years of age and older.
In Belgium, there is no lower age limit for euthanasia. According to official euthanasia reports, in the past few years at least three children in Belgium have been euthanized, including a nine-year-old. Children in Canada cannot be euthanized, but that restriction may soon be repealed. Some pediatricians there have volunteered to euthanize minors once it becomes legal, perhaps even without parental consent, if the children are “mature.”
A Fundamental Right
Kevorkian believed that access to assisted suicide and euthanasia is a fundamental human right that should be available to any competent person wanting to die. Canada’s Supreme Court has partially agreed. In 2015 it established a right to “medical assistance in dying (MAiD),” as it is euphemistically called, for all competent patients with a medically diagnosed condition that causes “irremediable suffering,” including “psychological pain.” An Ontario court has ruled that this right to be killed is fundamental and that it trumps Canada’s Charter right of “freedom of religion and conscience.” Under the province’s rules of medical ethics, physicians who by religion or conscience are opposed to lethally injecting a sick patient must do so anyway or refer the patient to a doctor they know is willing to kill. If they don’t want to be complicit in such deaths, the court sniffed, they should get out of medicine.
Canada’s broad euthanasia license still requires an underlying medical diagnosis. Kevorkian opposed any such restriction. In Prescription Medicide he wrote that “optional assisted suicide” should be “available for individuals, sometimes in good physical and mental health who choose to be killed,” for whatever reason, including “physical (the end stage of incurable disease, crippling deformity, or severe trauma), mental (intense anxiety or psychic torture inflicted by self or others), or doxastic (religious or philosophical tenets or inflexible personal convictions).”
In Germany, Death as a Right
The Federal Constitutional Court in Germany recently ruled that such death on demand is a right. From the decision:
The right to a self-determined death is not limited to situations defined by external causes like serious or incurable illnesses, nor does it apply only in certain stages of life or illness. Rather, this right is guaranteed in all stages of a person’s existence. . . . The individual’s decision to end their own life, based on how they personally define quality of life and a meaningful existence, eludes any evaluation on the basis of general values, religious dogmas, societal norms for dealing with life and death, or consideration of objective rationality.
Kevorkian, too, thought that individuals should have a right to assisted suicide and that the decision should not belong only to medical professionals who would assist in the act. True to his vision, the German court has ruled that not only do citizens have a fundamental right to commit suicide or to be assisted in their suicide but that others have a concomitant right to assist.
Kevorkian advocated the establishment of regional euthanasia centers where people could go to be killed. Switzerland allows the operation of suicide clinics that people from around the world attend — that, indeed, they pay to attend. The Netherlands permits a “mobile” euthanasia service that makes house calls when a suicidal person’s own doctor refuses to participate in euthanasia.
No Impediment to Suicide
Kevorkian thought that mental illness should be no impediment to assisted suicide. In practice, that boundary has been crossed repeatedly, with the hastening of death made legal. For example, as reported in The American Journal of Psychiatry, Michael Freeland, an Oregonian, obtained a lethal prescription after being diagnosed with cancer. Subsequently he became psychotic and was committed to a hospital for depression with suicidal and possibly homicidal thoughts.
He was hospitalized for a week. The discharging psychiatrist noted with approval that, while Freeland’s guns had been removed from his house, the lethal prescription remained “safely at home.” In a further slap at true compassion, Freeland was permitted to keep the prescribed overdose even though the psychiatrist reported that he would “remain vulnerable to periods of delirium.” (Freeland died of natural causes more than two years after receiving the initial prescription.)
Meanwhile, in Belgium, a transsexual was euthanized legally after becoming distraught by a botched sex-change surgery. In another case there, a psychiatric patient, taken advantage of sexually by her psychiatrist, was euthanized by his replacement because she was so distressed over the victimization. Elderly couples who don’t want to be widowed have received joint euthanasia killings. The list of the mentally ill and distraught people who are not otherwise sick but who have died by euthanasia or assisted suicide goes on and on, not just in Belgium but across the Western world.
What Is “Obitiatry,” You Ask?
About the only policy that Kevorkian advocated that has not yet been implemented somewhere in the world is what he called “obitiatry.” What is that, you ask? it is human vivisection on living patients before euthanasia. He wrote in Prescription Medicide:
If we are ever to penetrate the mystery of death — even superficially — it will have to be through obitiatry. Research using cultured cells and tissues and live animals may yield objective biological data, and eventually perhaps even some clues about the essence of mere vitality or existence. But knowledge about the essence of human death will of necessity require insight into the nature of the unique awareness or consciousness that characterizes cognitive human life. That is only possible through obitiatric research on living human bodies, and most likely concentrating on the central nervous system.
Will we ever conduct experiments on patients before they are euthanized? I hope not. But the question must be asked: How can it be forbidden logically, once we embrace Kevorkian values?
A More Rational Future
In his day, Kevorkian believed that human life was expendable. Increasingly, so do we. He advocated a radical definition of personal autonomy, countenancing suicide as a right. Increasingly, we do too. He promoted a naked utilitarianism according to which human body parts could be deemed more important than the principle that the life of a suicidal person should be preserved. His view on this matter now prevails in three major Western countries: Belgium, Canada, and the Netherlands. In that light, why not allow lethal experiments on people who want to die and to benefit society in the process, by becoming research subjects?
Let me conclude this depressing essay with a few simple questions. Did it shock you? Were you outraged by the extent to which Kevorkian’s twisted vision is being implemented? Did it at least make you queasy? If not, that fact alone demonstrates how thoroughly the Jack Kevorkian Plague permeates our culture.
Kevorkian was convinced that he was leading society into what he considered a more rational future, one in which the value of life would be relative and the bodies of the suicidal commodified. At the time, most observers rolled their eyes and assured us that it could never happen. But it has happened and is happening.
Photo: Jack Kevorkian, speaking at UCLA, by RaffiJackMayer.JPG: Halebtsiderivative work: Francesco 13 / Public domain.
Cross-posted at National Review.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-04-18--We Need to Worry About Suicide Contagion, Too

The National Center for Health Statistics has published an alarming report about the increasing suicide rate — which has been @ @ @ @ @ year since 2006 .
From the report ( my emphasis ) : This report highlights @ @ @ @ @ 1999 through 2018 .
During this period , the age-adjusted suicide rate increased 35 % @ @ @ @ @ U.S. standard population in 1999 to 14.2 in 2018 .
The average annual percentage increase @ @ @ @ @ increased from approximately 1 % per year from 1999 to 2006 to 2 % per @ @ @ @ @ .
Our ongoing suicide crisis is a reminder .
Economic hardship breeds suicide , which @ @ @ @ @ the past , can also be a contagion .

The National Center for Health Statistics has published an alarming report about the increasing suicide rate — which has been increasing at 2 percent per year since 2006. From the report (my emphasis):
This report highlights trends in suicide rates from 1999 through 2018. During this period, the age-adjusted suicide rate increased 35%, from 10.5 per 100,000 U.S. standard population in 1999 to 14.2 in 2018. The average annual percentage increase in the national suicide rate increased from approximately 1% per year from 1999 to 2006 to 2% per year from 2006 through 2018.
Our ongoing suicide crisis is a reminder. Economic hardship breeds suicide, which as I have argued in the past, can also be a contagion.
Photo credit: Road Trip with Raj via Unsplash.
Cross-posted at The Corner.