evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-15--Does Gold Have a Purpose? Science Hints at Answers

Was there ever a time when gold did not fascinate human beings ?
It seems not .
The Bible itself alludes to this primordial fascination , enigmatically locating the Garden of Eden by reference to gold deposits that are said to be of a particularly high quality .
But here is a mystery .
It arises from the observation that there is too much gold on Earth to fit current theories of nucleosynthesis .
Gold is also too heavy to be found in quantity on Earth ’ s surface .
Adding to the puzzle , biochemists are finding surprising interactions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using gold nanoparticles for diagnosing and treating diseases such as cancer .
A question suggests itself : Does gold have a function beyond exhibiting one ’ s wealth ?
The answer may be no .
It may just be that people are generally attracted to gold for its shiny looks , and because it is relatively rare and hard to find , it tends to be valued more than iron , copper , and other metals .
A gold rush makes sense .
But a copper rush ?
Not so much .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gold than aesthetics .
A report at Live Science observes , “ There ’ s too much gold in the universe .
No one knows where it came from.
” Rafi Letzter begins straightforwardly : Here ’ s the problem : Gold is an element , which means you can ’ t make it through ordinary chemical reactions — though alchemists tried for centuries .
To make the sparkly metal , you have to bind 79 protons and 118 neutrons together to form a single atomic nucleus .
That ’ s an intense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fusion doesn ’ t happen frequently enough , at least not nearby , to make the giant trove of gold we find on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system .
And a new study has found the most commonly-theorized origin of gold — collisions between neutron stars — can ’ t explain gold ’ s abundance either .
So where ’ s the gold coming from ?
There are some other possibilities , including supernovas so intense they turn a star inside out .
Unfortunately , even such strange phenomena can ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ universe is , the new study finds .
[ Emphasis added . ]
Science Daily also highlights a paper from the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3D ( ASTRO 3D ) that claims , How Does Gold Make It to Earth ’ s Surface ?
Five years ago , in April 2015 , a team of scientists writing in PNAS reported that gold can get to the surface of the earth from great depths by a very efficient process .
It can arrive at rates millions of times higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) scientists have noted the uncanny availability of many essential elements at the surface of the earth , including metals like iron , zinc , copper , magnesium , and unexpected ones like manganese , molybdenum , and cobalt .
In his new book The Miracle of the Cell , Michael Denton points out the “ extraordinary fitness of transition metals ” in biological processes .
He specifically mentioned iron , copper , zinc , magnesium , and manganese .
Is gold next in line ?
Recall that the non-metal element bromine was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ indirect way ( see the article on molybdenum linked above ) .
Denton has produced a series of videos and books highlighting amazing coincidences among chemistry , biology , and physics that work to the benefit of not just life , but human life .
They reinforce the feelings of the late Freeman Dyson , For years now , medical scientists have been using gold nanoparticles ( GNP ) as therapeutic agents in cancer treatment .
One method , described in Nature Communications last month , is to inject these tiny packages of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tumor and be heated by lasers , killing the cancer cells but leaving other tissues unaffected .
Recently , however , hints have arisen that gold has always interacted with cells in unexpected ways .
Scientists have long thought that gold ( Au , atomic element 79 , a rather heavy element ) was either inert in the body or possibly toxic .
Last December , the French National Centre for Scientific Research ( CNRS ) asked the question , “ What happens to gold nanoparticles in cells ?
” The paper in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ biodegradation and recrystallization of gold nanoparticles.
” Balfourier et al .
know that fifty years ago “ gold salts ” were used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis , and that gold ions from these treatments , and gold from cosmetics , could form “ aurosomes ” that persisted for some time .
It was thought that these packages formed in lysosomes , the cell ’ s garbage cans , to protect the body from gold toxicity .
The CNRS hints that more must be going on , because thousands of genes are involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and work to recrystallize it .
The scientists tracked the evolution of gold nanoparticles for 6 months in a cellular environment , and showed that they underwent significant transformations after a few weeks .
By measuring the expression of over 18,000 genes over time , they revealed a biological process that includes mechanisms of detoxification and cell protection , which are also involved in the degradation of other nanomaterials .
They also observed both the presence of non-degraded nanoparticles and degradation products in the form of nanoleaves… .
This unexpected result , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ organisms , could help in the future to better evaluate the toxicity of gold nanoparticles and their capacity to be eliminated from the organism .
This interdisciplinary work also highlights that gold , whatever its initial form , can be metabolized by mammals despite not being essential to their survival .
Intelligent design theory does not require a biological or physical item to be essential .
After all , the gall bladder , appendix , and tonsils can be removed without life-threatening consequences .
Art is not essential but is ( usually ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have a function essential for life at this time .
Admittedly , existing cellular pathways for dealing with generic contraband could explain the observations .
But the finding that many genes are involved in handling it , and that it persists in tissues for at least six months , is suggestive that life ’ s coding had the foresight to incorporate gold and perhaps utilize it for purposes other than vanity .
One analogy is how our ears incorporate silicate “ rocks ” ( otoconia ) into the balance organs to help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how some bacteria incorporate magnetite particles for navigation .
Are cells packaging gold atoms into aurosomes for a function ?
The sources mentioned above suggest this is an interesting question deserving more research .
The mystery of biological gold combines hints from independent directions : • Gold ’ s abundance can not ( yet ) be explained by astrophysics ; • Gold is found at the surface of the Earth by a rapid transport process , despite being a heavy element that should have sunk to the core of a molten planet ; @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to “ metabolize ” gold ; • Gold nanoparticles are recrystallized by cells into nanoleaves ; • Gold nanoleaves can persist in the body for lengthy periods of time ; and • Medical science is now finding gold useful for therapeutics .
These findings do not yet convincingly answer the question of whether gold has a purpose .
Since ID advocates are better equipped to think outside the box than are the paradigm-locked materialist scientists , they are more free to consider a positive answer — showing once again that intelligent design is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a fruitful way to pursue interesting questions .
If the answer is “ Yes , gold has a purpose , ” the applications could be profound .

Photo: A scene from the Klondike Gold Rush, by Hegg, E.A (1867-1948) / Public domain.
Was there ever a time when gold did not fascinate human beings? It seems not. The Bible itself alludes to this primordial fascination, enigmatically locating the Garden of Eden by reference to gold deposits that are said to be of a particularly high quality. But here is a mystery. It arises from the observation that there is too much gold on Earth to fit current theories of nucleosynthesis. Gold is also too heavy to be found in quantity on Earth’s surface. Adding to the puzzle, biochemists are finding surprising interactions of cells with gold, and are using gold nanoparticles for diagnosing and treating diseases such as cancer.
A question suggests itself: Does gold have a function beyond exhibiting one’s wealth? The answer may be no. It may just be that people are generally attracted to gold for its shiny looks, and because it is relatively rare and hard to find, it tends to be valued more than iron, copper, and other metals. A gold rush makes sense. But a copper rush? Not so much. And yet, perhaps there is more to gold than aesthetics.
“Too Much Gold”
A report at Live Science observes, “There’s too much gold in the universe. No one knows where it came from.” Rafi Letzter begins straightforwardly:
Here’s the problem: Gold is an element, which means you can’t make it through ordinary chemical reactions — though alchemists tried for centuries. To make the sparkly metal, you have to bind 79 protons and 118 neutrons together to form a single atomic nucleus. That’s an intense nuclear fusion reaction. But such intense fusion doesn’t happen frequently enough, at least not nearby, to make the giant trove of gold we find on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system. And a new study has found the most commonly-theorized origin of gold — collisions between neutron stars — can’t explain gold’s abundance either. So where’s the gold coming from? There are some other possibilities, including supernovas so intense they turn a star inside out. Unfortunately, even such strange phenomena can’t explain how blinged out the local universe is, the new study finds. [Emphasis added.]
Science Daily also highlights a paper from the ARC Centre of Excellence for All Sky Astrophysics in 3D (ASTRO 3D) that claims,
Neutron star collisions do not create the quantity of chemical elements previously assumed, a new analysis of galaxy evolution finds. The research also reveals that current models can’t explain the amount of gold in the cosmos — creating an astronomical mystery.
How Does Gold Make It to Earth’s Surface?
Five years ago, in April 2015, a team of scientists writing in PNAS reported that gold can get to the surface of the earth from great depths by a very efficient process. It can arrive at rates millions of times higher than expected!
Gold resources on Earth result from an exceptional concentration phenomenon yielding metal contents in ore a thousand to a million times higher than those in common rocks. We show that this process is controlled by sulfur radical ions (S 3 –), which strongly bind Au in aqueous solution at elevated temperatures and pressures and allow very efficient extraction, transport, and deposition of gold by geological fluids. Thus, the most inert metal of the periodic table may be very mobile, which explains key features of known gold deposits and offers new possibilities for resource prospecting. Furthermore, the high capacity of the radical ions to solubilize gold may be used for its selective extraction from ores and hydrothermal synthesis of Au-based nanomaterials.
ID (intelligent design) scientists have noted the uncanny availability of many essential elements at the surface of the earth, including metals like iron, zinc, copper, magnesium, and unexpected ones like manganese, molybdenum, and cobalt. In his new book The Miracle of the Cell, Michael Denton points out the “extraordinary fitness of transition metals” in biological processes. He specifically mentioned iron, copper, zinc, magnesium, and manganese. Is gold next in line?
Recall that the non-metal element bromine was recently found to be essential in an indirect way (see the article on molybdenum linked above). Denton has produced a series of videos and books highlighting amazing coincidences among chemistry, biology, and physics that work to the benefit of not just life, but human life. They reinforce the feelings of the late Freeman Dyson,
As we look out into the Universe and identify the many accidents of physics and astronomy that have worked together to our benefit, it almost seems as if the Universe must in some sense have known that we were coming.
Biological Clues
For years now, medical scientists have been using gold nanoparticles (GNP) as therapeutic agents in cancer treatment. One method, described in Nature Communications last month, is to inject these tiny packages of gold atoms that can travel to a tumor and be heated by lasers, killing the cancer cells but leaving other tissues unaffected. Recently, however, hints have arisen that gold has always interacted with cells in unexpected ways.
Scientists have long thought that gold (Au, atomic element 79, a rather heavy element) was either inert in the body or possibly toxic. Last December, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) asked the question, “What happens to gold nanoparticles in cells?”
Gold nanoparticles, which are supposed to be stable in biological environments, can be degraded inside cells. This research conducted by teams from the CNRS, l’Université de Paris, Sorbonne Université, and l’Université de Strasbourg will be published in PNAS on December 16 2019, and reveals the ability of cells to metabolize gold, which is nevertheless not essential for their functioning. This study opens the way for a better understanding of the life cycle of gold nanoparticles in organisms.
The paper in PNAS is titled, “Unexpected intracellular biodegradation and recrystallization of gold nanoparticles.” Balfourier et al. know that fifty years ago “gold salts” were used in treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, and that gold ions from these treatments, and gold from cosmetics, could form “aurosomes” that persisted for some time. It was thought that these packages formed in lysosomes, the cell’s garbage cans, to protect the body from gold toxicity. The CNRS hints that more must be going on, because thousands of genes are involved in the “metabolism” of gold and work to recrystallize it. The scientists
tracked the evolution of gold nanoparticles for 6 months in a cellular environment, and showed that they underwent significant transformations after a few weeks. By measuring the expression of over 18,000 genes over time, they revealed a biological process that includes mechanisms of detoxification and cell protection, which are also involved in the degradation of other nanomaterials. They also observed both the presence of non-degraded nanoparticles and degradation products in the form of nanoleaves…. This unexpected result, which generalises the fate of gold nanoparticles in organisms, could help in the future to better evaluate the toxicity of gold nanoparticles and their capacity to be eliminated from the organism. This interdisciplinary work also highlights that gold, whatever its initial form, can be metabolized by mammals despite not being essential to their survival.
Intelligent design theory does not require a biological or physical item to be essential. After all, the gall bladder, appendix, and tonsils can be removed without life-threatening consequences. Art is not essential but is (usually) intelligently designed. Gold does not appear to have a function essential for life at this time. Admittedly, existing cellular pathways for dealing with generic contraband could explain the observations. But the finding that many genes are involved in handling it, and that it persists in tissues for at least six months, is suggestive that life’s coding had the foresight to incorporate gold and perhaps utilize it for purposes other than vanity. One analogy is how our ears incorporate silicate “rocks” (otoconia) into the balance organs to help us sense gravity. Another analogy is how some bacteria incorporate magnetite particles for navigation. Are cells packaging gold atoms into aurosomes for a function? The sources mentioned above suggest this is an interesting question deserving more research.
Converging Hints
The mystery of biological gold combines hints from independent directions:
Gold’s abundance cannot (yet) be explained by astrophysics;
Gold is found at the surface of the Earth by a rapid transport process, despite being a heavy element that should have sunk to the core of a molten planet;
Cells appear to be well designed to “metabolize” gold;
Gold nanoparticles are recrystallized by cells into nanoleaves;
Gold nanoleaves can persist in the body for lengthy periods of time; and
Medical science is now finding gold useful for therapeutics.
These findings do not yet convincingly answer the question of whether gold has a purpose. Since ID advocates are better equipped to think outside the box than are the paradigm-locked materialist scientists, they are more free to consider a positive answer — showing once again that intelligent design is not a “science stopper” but a fruitful way to pursue interesting questions. If the answer is “Yes, gold has a purpose,” the applications could be profound.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-15--How Darwin’s Worldview Shaped Darwin’s Theory

On a new episode of ID the Future , host and science historian Michael Keas talks with fellow science historian @ @ @ @ @ updated book Intelligent Evolution : How Alfred Russell Wallace ’ s World of Life Challenged @ @ @ @ @ Darwin ’ s involvement in the Plinian Society , a “ freethinkers ” group at @ @ @ @ @ medicine as a teenager .
It was there that he first encountered radical philosophical materialism @ @ @ @ @ the philosophical foundation for his work in evolution .
Flannery also speaks of Alfred Russel @ @ @ @ @ evolution ” and how it differs from Darwinism and from today ’ s theistic evolution @ @ @ @ @ call “ Darwinian theism.
” Download the podcast or listen to it here .

Photo: Charles Darwin in 1855, by Maull and Polyblank, Literary and Scientific Portrait Club, via Wikimedia Commons.
On a new episode of ID the Future, host and science historian Michael Keas talks with fellow science historian Michael Flannery about the newly updated book Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russell Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwin. Flannery tells of Darwin’s involvement in the Plinian Society, a “freethinkers” group at Edinburgh University where he studied medicine as a teenager. It was there that he first encountered radical philosophical materialism, the worldview that laid the philosophical foundation for his work in evolution. Flannery also speaks of Alfred Russel Wallace’s “intelligent evolution” and how it differs from Darwinism and from today’s theistic evolution — what Flannery prefers to call “Darwinian theism.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-16--A Darwinist Recognizes (Some of) the Stakes in the Intelligent Design Debate

Here is a Darwinist with a fair and clear-headed understanding of the intellectual and spiritual stakes in the evolution debate .
Or rather , some of the stakes .
Jamie Milton Freestone is a postdoc at the University of Queensland ’ s Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities .
Writing at Areo , he asks bluntly , “ Does Darwinism Conflict with Religion ?
” He ’ s probably right that many people , including otherwise thoughtful ones , don ’ t give the question any serious thought .
And he ’ s right that it all depends on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ means .
His comments on intelligent design are remarkably civil , and I was amused by his designation of our colleague Michael Behe as “ the intelligent design equivalent of [ Richard ] Dawkins.
” That might not be too far off .
Freestone concludes that evolution , if you do think about it seriously , probably can ’ t be reconciled with religious belief .
He cites the thought of Stephen Jay Gould , Dawkins , Alex Rosenberg , and proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis as “ options , ” along @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ So what should be said about Darwinism ’ s implications ?
” His answers : 1 .
It can only describe the natural world , so keep it separate from human concerns , which you learn about in civics class or Sunday school .
( Gould ’ s view . )
2 .
It explains everything in nature and rules out God , but we can make our own purposes because we evolved to do so .
Phew .
( Dawkins ’ view . )
3 .
If Darwinism were true it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ meaning , and we ’ d be left with nihilism .
Luckily it isn ’ t true and the irreducible complexity of living things is evidence of a designer .
Phew .
( Intelligent design . )
4 .
The neo-Darwinian orthodoxy is too harsh .
We need to promote a non-supernatural but still more expansive version of Darwinism that allows for life ’ s creativity and agency .
( Some advocates of a scientifically respectable version of vitalism and some people ’ s take on the extended evolutionary synthesis . )
5 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is .
Its baleful implications for politics and morality are an important part of the theory and the sooner we take the bitter pill the better .
( Rosenberg ’ s view . )
Stephen Jay Gould , a more irenic Darwinian , tried to separate science and religion into “ non-overlapping magisteria , ” arguing that they simply answer different questions , so they needn ’ t be in conflict .
This is wildly wrong for multiple reasons .
First of all , religions clearly pronounce on factual questions all the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on ought questions .
Third , what about all the other domains , like the arts , humanities and social sciences , where do they fit in ?
Fourth , is it even possible to separate is and ought ?
Once Gould is eliminated , it comes down to evolution that indeed forces us to decide between atheism — one that is thoroughly nihilistic or cautiously allows for ( the illustion of ) purpose — or intelligent design .
I don ’ t see any evidence of Freestone ’ s wrestling in detail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ candor and , as I said , civility of his writing deserves commendation .
One might add , though , that there are additional stakes in the origins debate .
Yes , the coherence of a religious viewpoint is one point balanced on the knife ’ s edge .
But there ’ s more .
The “ God hypothesis , ” as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer calls it in his book that comes out in March ( Return of the God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image imprinted universally upon the human race .
As the Bible ’ s language puts it , God ’ s image is reflected in man much as a man ’ s image is imprinted in his children .
What that means exactly is enigmatic , but it demands a recognition of equal human dignity regardless of skin color or ethnicity .
What is a human being ?
That may be a still more profound consequence of the intelligent design controversy than the one that is the focus of Freestone ’ s article .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerfully summarizes some of the baleful history of how Darwinism has encouraged racial and eugenic horrors from the 19th to the 20th to the 21st century : Take away the idea of a transcendent image shared by all humans equally , and you are left with a nightmare in which grading humans by race , condemning some and exalting others because of their pigmentation , becomes a definite option .
Darwin ’ s theory gave a powerful boost to pseudo-scientific racism , as various neo-Nazis and white nationalists down to our day recognize @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ ve never heard a good answer to the question : Given the premise of Darwinism , why would you expect humans to be equal ?
I would be curious to hear how Darwinists like Dr. Freestone reconcile their evolutionism not just with religion but with their commitment , assuming they are committed , to human equality and human dignity .
That would make a fine topic for a further essay at Areo .

Photo: Darwin statute at the Natural History Museum, by Alan Perestrello, via Flickr (cropped).
Here is a Darwinist with a fair and clear-headed understanding of the intellectual and spiritual stakes in the evolution debate. Or rather, some of the stakes. Jamie Milton Freestone is a postdoc at the University of Queensland’s Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities. Writing at Areo, he asks bluntly, “Does Darwinism Conflict with Religion?”
He’s probably right that many people, including otherwise thoughtful ones, don’t give the question any serious thought. And he’s right that it all depends on how you understand what “evolution” means. His comments on intelligent design are remarkably civil, and I was amused by his designation of our colleague Michael Behe as “the intelligent design equivalent of [Richard] Dawkins.” That might not be too far off.
Gould, Dawkins, Rosenberg
Freestone concludes that evolution, if you do think about it seriously, probably can’t be reconciled with religious belief. He cites the thought of Stephen Jay Gould, Dawkins, Alex Rosenberg, and proponents of the extended evolutionary synthesis as “options,” along with intelligent design, and asks, “So what should be said about Darwinism’s implications?” His answers:
1. It can only describe the natural world, so keep it separate from human concerns, which you learn about in civics class or Sunday school. (Gould’s view.) 2. It explains everything in nature and rules out God, but we can make our own purposes because we evolved to do so. Phew. (Dawkins’ view.) 3. If Darwinism were true it certainly would destroy all human purpose and meaning, and we’d be left with nihilism. Luckily it isn’t true and the irreducible complexity of living things is evidence of a designer. Phew. (Intelligent design.) 4. The neo-Darwinian orthodoxy is too harsh. We need to promote a non-supernatural but still more expansive version of Darwinism that allows for life’s creativity and agency. (Some advocates of a scientifically respectable version of vitalism and some people’s take on the extended evolutionary synthesis.) 5. Darwinism appears to be nihilistic because it is. Its baleful implications for politics and morality are an important part of the theory and the sooner we take the bitter pill the better. (Rosenberg’s view.)
Gould as “Wildly Wrong”
He rightly dismisses Gould’s strategy of reconciliation:
Stephen Jay Gould, a more irenic Darwinian, tried to separate science and religion into “non-overlapping magisteria,” arguing that they simply answer different questions, so they needn’t be in conflict. This is wildly wrong for multiple reasons. First of all, religions clearly pronounce on factual questions all the time. Second, science often pronounces on ought questions. Third, what about all the other domains, like the arts, humanities and social sciences, where do they fit in? Fourth, is it even possible to separate is and ought?
Once Gould is eliminated, it comes down to evolution that indeed forces us to decide between atheism — one that is thoroughly nihilistic or cautiously allows for (the illustion of) purpose — or intelligent design. I don’t see any evidence of Freestone’s wrestling in detail with arguments for ID. But the candor and, as I said, civility of his writing deserves commendation.
A Universal Image
One might add, though, that there are additional stakes in the origins debate. Yes, the coherence of a religious viewpoint is one point balanced on the knife’s edge. But there’s more. The “God hypothesis,” as philosopher of science Stephen Meyer calls it in his book that comes out in March (Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe), allows for a divine image imprinted universally upon the human race. As the Bible’s language puts it, God’s image is reflected in man much as a man’s image is imprinted in his children. What that means exactly is enigmatic, but it demands a recognition of equal human dignity regardless of skin color or ethnicity. What is a human being? That may be a still more profound consequence of the intelligent design controversy than the one that is the focus of Freestone’s article.
John West’s documentary Human Zoos powerfully summarizes some of the baleful history of how Darwinism has encouraged racial and eugenic horrors from the 19th to the 20th to the 21st century:
Take away the idea of a transcendent image shared by all humans equally, and you are left with a nightmare in which grading humans by race, condemning some and exalting others because of their pigmentation, becomes a definite option. Darwin’s theory gave a powerful boost to pseudo-scientific racism, as various neo-Nazis and white nationalists down to our day recognize and celebrate. In fact, I’ve never heard a good answer to the question: Given the premise of Darwinism, why would you expect humans to be equal?
I would be curious to hear how Darwinists like Dr. Freestone reconcile their evolutionism not just with religion but with their commitment, assuming they are committed, to human equality and human dignity. That would make a fine topic for a further essay at Areo.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-16--Physicist Sabine Hossenfelder Challenges the Evidence for Cosmological Fine-Tuning

Many have argued that some of the most compelling evidence for design in nature is the required fine-tuning of the universe to support life ( see here , here , here ) .
Namely , a life-permitting universe requires that the values of various parameters be set within a narrow range of possible values .
Examples include the strength of the fundamental forces of nature ( e.g.
, gravity ) , the masses of particles ( e.g.
, electrons ) , and the universe ’ s initial conditions ( e.g.
, initial energy density ) .
The conclusion of fine-tuning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s who of leading physicists including John Barrow , Bernard Carr , Paul Davies , and George Ellis .
Yet some scientists have strongly opposed this conclusion , due less to the scientific evidence than to its philosophical implications , specifically how it points to the universe having a creator .
One of the leading proponents of fine-tuning is theoretical physicist Luke Barnes , and he has responded in detail to critics such as Victor Stenger and Sean Carroll ( see here , here , here ) .
More recently , theoretical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a series of tweets , blog posts , and a journal article ( see here , here , here ) where she reiterates the assertion that any claims of the universe being fine-tuned for life are unscientific and fruitless .
Hossenfelder ’ s arguments represent common errors committed by critics , so they deserve special attention .
Her weakest argument is that the assumption of fine-tuning has led to inaccurate predictions related to the discovery of new fundamental particles .
This assertion is without merit since a few inaccurate predictions related to one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the generally accepted evidence of fine-tuning for a completely different set .
Another weak argument is that the analyses of individual parameters , such as the mass of an electron , “ don ’ t take into account simultaneous changes in several parameters and are therefore inconclusive.
” This criticism completely overlooks Luke Barnes ’ s careful studies of the effect of altering multiple parameters at the same time .
His results only reinforce the fine-tuning conclusion .
A more substantive argument is that some details of the universe might be less restrictive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper by Harnik , Kribs , and Perez that asserts that a universe without a weak force could still support life .
Yet such claims have not withstood careful scrutiny .
For instance , a paper by Louis Clavelli and Raymond White demonstrates that the authors of the initial paper only considered some of the consequences of removing the weak force .
They ignored other consequences that would likely have precluded any possibility of the universe hosting complex life : • Core collapse supernovae would not occur , which are essential for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a life-permitting universe .
• The time required for galaxy and star formation would delay their genesis until a time dangerously close to the age when the universe started to expand rapidly due to the cosmological constant/dark energy .
After that point , planets would never form , thus precluding the possibility of life .
• Radioactive decay of heavy elements would not occur , so planets ’ cores would cool more quickly .
The rapid cooling would result in a lack of volcanic activity .
This activity is essential for maintaining a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so habitable temperatures would be far less probable .
Hossenfelder ’ s strongest argument is that many fine-tuning parameters can not in fact be quantified .
On this basis , she contests the reality of fine-tuning as a feature of nature that has to be explained .
To support her claim , she points out that many physicists calculate the degree of fine-tuning associated with different parameters by assuming that all possible values of different physical constants , for example , within a given range are equally probable .
She then argues that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or not this assumption is true .
Perhaps , she suggests , some universe-generating mechanism exists that produces universes with , for example , certain gravitational force constants more frequently than universes with other gravitational force constants .
Taking such biasing into account would clearly change the calculated degree of fine-tuning ( or the probability ) associated with any given range of values that correspond to a life-permitting universe .
Thus she argues that the possibility of such biasing in the generation of universes implies that we can not make accurate assessments of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we can not be sure that the universe actually is fine-tuned for life .
Nevertheless , Hossenfelder ’ s objection has an obvious problem .
The allowable ranges of many physical constants and other parameters are incredibly narrow within the vast array of other possible values .
For instance , the ratio of the strengths of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be accurate to 1 part in 1040 ( a number greater than a trillion trillion trillion ) .
Consequently , any universe-generating mechanism capable of favoring the production of those specific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be finely tuned in order to produce life with high probability .
In other words , her universe-generating mechanism would require fine-tuning to ensure the biasing that would allow her to explain away fine-tuning in our universe .
In summary , Hossenfelder ’ s criticisms represent no serious challenge to the fine-tuning argument .

Photo: Ghost Nebula, by NASA, ESA, and STScI/Acknowledgment: H. Arab (University of Strasbourg).
Many have argued that some of the most compelling evidence for design in nature is the required fine-tuning of the universe to support life (see here, here, here). Namely, a life-permitting universe requires that the values of various parameters be set within a narrow range of possible values. Examples include the strength of the fundamental forces of nature (e.g., gravity), the masses of particles (e.g., electrons), and the universe’s initial conditions (e.g., initial energy density). The conclusion of fine-tuning has been accepted by a veritable who’s who of leading physicists including John Barrow, Bernard Carr, Paul Davies, and George Ellis.
Yet some scientists have strongly opposed this conclusion, due less to the scientific evidence than to its philosophical implications, specifically how it points to the universe having a creator. One of the leading proponents of fine-tuning is theoretical physicist Luke Barnes, and he has responded in detail to critics such as Victor Stenger and Sean Carroll (see here, here, here). More recently, theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder entered the debate with a series of tweets, blog posts, and a journal article (see here, here, here) where she reiterates the assertion that any claims of the universe being fine-tuned for life are unscientific and fruitless.
Common Errors
Hossenfelder’s arguments represent common errors committed by critics, so they deserve special attention. Her weakest argument is that the assumption of fine-tuning has led to inaccurate predictions related to the discovery of new fundamental particles. This assertion is without merit since a few inaccurate predictions related to one set of parameters in no way challenge the generally accepted evidence of fine-tuning for a completely different set. Another weak argument is that the analyses of individual parameters, such as the mass of an electron, “don’t take into account simultaneous changes in several parameters and are therefore inconclusive.” This criticism completely overlooks Luke Barnes’s careful studies of the effect of altering multiple parameters at the same time. His results only reinforce the fine-tuning conclusion.
A more substantive argument is that some details of the universe might be less restrictive than originally assumed. Hossenfelder cites a paper by Harnik, Kribs, and Perez that asserts that a universe without a weak force could still support life. Yet such claims have not withstood careful scrutiny. For instance, a paper by Louis Clavelli and Raymond White demonstrates that the authors of the initial paper only considered some of the consequences of removing the weak force. They ignored other consequences that would likely have precluded any possibility of the universe hosting complex life:
Core collapse supernovae would not occur, which are essential for the production and distribution of sufficient oxygen for a life-permitting universe.
The time required for galaxy and star formation would delay their genesis until a time dangerously close to the age when the universe started to expand rapidly due to the cosmological constant/dark energy. After that point, planets would never form, thus precluding the possibility of life.
Radioactive decay of heavy elements would not occur, so planets’ cores would cool more quickly. The rapid cooling would result in a lack of volcanic activity. This activity is essential for maintaining a stable greenhouse effect on Earth-like planets, so habitable temperatures would be far less probable.
Her Strongest Objection
Hossenfelder’s strongest argument is that many fine-tuning parameters cannot in fact be quantified. On this basis, she contests the reality of fine-tuning as a feature of nature that has to be explained. To support her claim, she points out that many physicists calculate the degree of fine-tuning associated with different parameters by assuming that all possible values of different physical constants, for example, within a given range are equally probable. She then argues that physicists have no way of knowing whether or not this assumption is true.
Perhaps, she suggests, some universe-generating mechanism exists that produces universes with, for example, certain gravitational force constants more frequently than universes with other gravitational force constants. Taking such biasing into account would clearly change the calculated degree of fine-tuning (or the probability) associated with any given range of values that correspond to a life-permitting universe. Thus she argues that the possibility of such biasing in the generation of universes implies that we cannot make accurate assessments of fine-tuning — and, therefore, that we cannot be sure that the universe actually is fine-tuned for life.
Nevertheless, Hossenfelder’s objection has an obvious problem. The allowable ranges of many physical constants and other parameters are incredibly narrow within the vast array of other possible values. For instance, the ratio of the strengths of the electromagnetic force to gravity must be accurate to 1 part in 1040 ( a number greater than a trillion trillion trillion). Consequently, any universe-generating mechanism capable of favoring the production of those specific and tiny ranges would itself need to be finely tuned in order to produce life with high probability. In other words, her universe-generating mechanism would require fine-tuning to ensure the biasing that would allow her to explain away fine-tuning in our universe. In summary, Hossenfelder’s criticisms represent no serious challenge to the fine-tuning argument.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-17--ID by Another Name? Astronomer Says 50 Percent Chance We’re Living in Computer Simulation

Back in July , biologist Jonathan McLatchie contributed a three-part series on applying Bayesian analysis to the question of intelligent design in life : Now Scientific American reports on a Bayesian approach to a very similar question : whether we live in “ base reality ” or a computer simulation .
They give it odds of about fifty-fifty either way .
Columbia University astronomer David Kipping weighed the various factors and did the math .
From , “ Do We Live in a Simulation ?
Chances Are about 50–50 ” : Plug all these into a Bayesian formula , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ probability that we are living in base reality is almost the same as the posterior probability that we are a simulation — with the odds tilting in favor of base reality by just a smidgen .
Protein chemist Douglas Axe tweets , “ Someone please explain to the people at @ sciam that they ’ re saying there ’ s a 50 % chance that reality — and therefore science — is a hoax !
” Indeed .
Also please someone tell them they are saying there is a 50 percent chance that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s what a computer simulation is , obviously , intelligent design .
This reminds me of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson .
An interviewer asked him “ What is your confidence level , on a scale of 0 to 100 , that the design of the process of evolution is by some kind of transcendent intelligence ?
” To this Josephson , an emeritus professor at the Cavendish Laboratory , Cambridge University , replied , “ Well , about 80 percent perhaps.
” Of course , an 80 percent chance that we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favorably with only a 50 percent chance .
On the other hand , both odds are pretty good .
If you were headed out the door and the weather app on your phone forecast a 50 percent chance of rain , instead of an 80 percent chance , you ’ d still take along an umbrella , wouldn ’ t you ?
See also Dr. Michael Egnor , “ Of Course You Aren ’ t Living in a Computer Simulation .
Here ’ s Why .
”

Photo credit: Ryoji Iwata via Unsplash.
Back in July, biologist Jonathan McLatchie contributed a three-part series on applying Bayesian analysis to the question of intelligent design in life:
Doing the Math
Now Scientific American reports on a Bayesian approach to a very similar question: whether we live in “base reality” or a computer simulation. They give it odds of about fifty-fifty either way. Columbia University astronomer David Kipping weighed the various factors and did the math. From, “Do We Live in a Simulation? Chances Are about 50–50”:
Plug all these into a Bayesian formula, and out comes the answer: the posterior probability that we are living in base reality is almost the same as the posterior probability that we are a simulation — with the odds tilting in favor of base reality by just a smidgen.
Protein chemist Douglas Axe tweets, “Someone please explain to the people at @sciam that they’re saying there’s a 50% chance that reality — and therefore science — is a hoax!”
Indeed. Also please someone tell them they are saying there is a 50 percent chance that our universe is intelligently designed. That’s what a computer simulation is, obviously, intelligent design.
Don’t Forget Your Umbrella
This reminds me of Nobel Prize-winning physicist Brian Josephson. An interviewer asked him “What is your confidence level, on a scale of 0 to 100, that the design of the process of evolution is by some kind of transcendent intelligence?” To this Josephson, an emeritus professor at the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge University, replied, “Well, about 80 percent perhaps.”
Of course, an 80 percent chance that we live in an intelligently designed world compares favorably with only a 50 percent chance. On the other hand, both odds are pretty good. If you were headed out the door and the weather app on your phone forecast a 50 percent chance of rain, instead of an 80 percent chance, you’d still take along an umbrella, wouldn’t you?
See also Dr. Michael Egnor, “Of Course You Aren’t Living in a Computer Simulation. Here’s Why.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-18--Origin of Life: Put Your Questions LIVE to Stephen Meyer, James Tour

Our friends at the UK ’ s Centre for Intelligent Design are doing a service on Monday , October 19 @ @ @ @ @ webinar on the origin of life with synthetic organic chemist James Tour and philosopher of @ @ @ @ @ it here : These two have met in the past and they have a great @ @ @ @ @ the opportunity to ask your questions and put your challenges to them in real time @ @ @ @ @ at 11:30 am Pacific or 2:30 pm Eastern time .
Professor Tour , who teaches @ @ @ @ @ been a scorching critic of current theories of abiogenesis .
Dr. Meyer ’ s next @ @ @ @ @ God Hypothesis : Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe , out @ @ @ @ @ Meyer also has a brand new website that you can also find here .
The @ @ @ @ @ you miss the live webinar you can also watch here at Evolution News later .

Photo: James Tour interviewing Stephen Meyer.
Our friends at the UK’s Centre for Intelligent Design are doing a service on Monday, October 19, by hosting a live webinar on the origin of life with synthetic organic chemist James Tour and philosopher of science Stephen Meyer. Find it here:
These two have met in the past and they have a great rapport — now you have the opportunity to ask your questions and put your challenges to them in real time. The online event starts at 11:30 am Pacific or 2:30 pm Eastern time. Professor Tour, who teaches at Rice University, has been a scorching critic of current theories of abiogenesis. Dr. Meyer’s next book is Return of the God Hypothesis: Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe, out on March 30. Dr. Meyer also has a brand new website that you can also find here.
The event is free. If you miss the live webinar you can also watch here at Evolution News later.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-18--Michael Denton: When Paradigms Shifts

Michael Denton: When Paradigms Shifts

On a classic episode of ID the Future , biochemist and geneticist Michael Denton discusses paradigm shifts in science .
@ @ @ @ @ to it here .
Dr. Denton reflects on paradigm shifts that he ’ s witnessed @ @ @ @ @ his own thinking has changed over the years , and how these shifts challenge Darwinian @ @ @ @ @ Denton is the author of the new book The Miracle of the Cell .

Photo credit: Michael Fousert via Unsplash.
On a classic episode of ID the Future, biochemist and geneticist Michael Denton discusses paradigm shifts in science. Download the podcast or listen to it here. Dr. Denton reflects on paradigm shifts that he’s witnessed in his lifetime, how his own thinking has changed over the years, and how these shifts challenge Darwinian evolution in new ways. Denton is the author of the new book The Miracle of the Cell.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-19--“Castro Consensus”: Scientific Paper Takes a Fresh Look at Scientific Agreement

How many times have we heard this or some variation on it : “ I ’ m no scientist so I follow the scientific consensus against intelligent design .
Or , “ I am a scientist so I follow the scientific consensus against intelligent design.
” That word , “ consensus , ” carries tremendous prestige and can be directed like a weapon against any minority view .
The logic of consensus , if granted , has the power to shut down discussion of any new idea , resulting in a suffocating conservatism .
If it had been maintained consistently @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would still believe numerous fallacies held by a consensus of thinkers in the past .
Science would truly be stuck .
Those who hold minority opinions argue that the consensus should not be worshipped but questioned .
At a time when free speech faces increasing pressure from social media , traditional media , and other power centers , sometimes in the name of the “ consensus , ” minorities know well the power of groupthink .
But I had not before seen a mathematical argument demonstrating the potential of a so-called consensus for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mathematician , at Harvey Mudd College and Claremont McKenna College , have published a technical paper , “ A Castro Consensus : Understanding the Role of Dependence in Consensus Formation.
” They acknowledge the reality of “ herd behavior ” even among scientists .
The title of the paper refers to the way Cuban elections produce landslide victories for the ruling party , by design : In Fidel Castro ’ s Cuba , superficially democratic elections unfailingly produced overwhelming support for the Communist Party of Cuba .
However , a lack of choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ municipal and national elections , potential candidates had to pass specific requirements and secure backing from government-influenced organizations to be placed on a ballot ( Shugerman , 2018 ; Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba , 2019 ) .
Thus , the overwhelming consensus supporting the Cuban Communist Party in elections resulted from political pressure on voters and government restrictions on candidates .
The consensus was neither independent nor meaningful .
I should be clear that the authors do not address the evolution debate , or intelligent design .
I don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Instead they say , “ Using mathematical modeling , we explore the influence of dependence on the formation of consensus.
” Dependence in this context is just the opposite of independence .
They launch into a Bayesian analysis of how the dynamic works , and why a consensus can be true or false , depending on how much it relies on pressure and coercion .
Consensus is viewed as a proxy for truth in many discussions of science .
When a consensus is formed by the independent and free deliberations of many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of truth .
Yet not all consensuses are independent and freely formed .
We investigate the role of dependence and pressure in the formation of consensus , showing that strong polarization , external pressure , and dependence among individuals can force consensus around an issue , regardless of the underlying truth of the affirmed position .
Dependence breaks consensus , often rendering it meaningless ; a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it .
Centuries ago , the Reverend Thomas Bayes derived his namesake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the testimony of a large number of independent eyewitness could ever establish the probable occurrence of an a priori highly unlikely event .
He showed that even highly unlikely events become plausible once the testimony of many independent witnesses is taken into account .
Bayes ’ theorem has found many real-world uses , including military and medical applications ( Cepelewicz , 2016 ) .
In agreement with its historical purpose , we use Bayes ’ theorem to model how consensus within a population can provide evidence for or against a position .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing us to consider the effects of differing levels of dependence , external pressure , and hyper-polarization on the formation of consensus within our framework .
They define a “ Castro Consensus ” : “ A Castro Consensus is a near-unanimous show of agreement brought about by means other than the honest and uncoerced judgements of individuals.
” Again , it ’ s a technical discussion , and you should review it for yourself , but it confirms common sense .
Believing “ a large number of independent eyewitness ” turns upon the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Sometimes that ’ s hard to tell .
Other times it ’ s obvious they are not .
In the case of some scientific controversies , such as the one over Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design , we know that genuine independence — freedom from coercion or other social or professional pressures — is somewhere between rare and nonexistent .
Evolutionary orthodoxy is maintained by a classic “ Castro Consensus.
” This by itself makes the Darwinian consensus questionable and in need of a fresh examination .

Photo: Fidel Castro confers with East German Politburo in 1972, Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-L0614-040 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE , via Wikimedia Commons.
How many times have we heard this or some variation on it: “I’m no scientist so I follow the scientific consensus against intelligent design.” Or, “I am a scientist so I follow the scientific consensus against intelligent design.” That word, “consensus,” carries tremendous prestige and can be directed like a weapon against any minority view. The logic of consensus, if granted, has the power to shut down discussion of any new idea, resulting in a suffocating conservatism. If it had been maintained consistently across the history of science, we would still believe numerous fallacies held by a consensus of thinkers in the past. Science would truly be stuck.
Those who hold minority opinions argue that the consensus should not be worshipped but questioned. At a time when free speech faces increasing pressure from social media, traditional media, and other power centers, sometimes in the name of the “consensus,” minorities know well the power of groupthink. But I had not before seen a mathematical argument demonstrating the potential of a so-called consensus for abuse.
“Herd Behavior”
Two computer scientists and a mathematician, at Harvey Mudd College and Claremont McKenna College, have published a technical paper, “A Castro Consensus: Understanding the Role of Dependence in Consensus Formation.” They acknowledge the reality of “herd behavior” even among scientists. The title of the paper refers to the way Cuban elections produce landslide victories for the ruling party, by design:
In Fidel Castro’s Cuba, superficially democratic elections unfailingly produced overwhelming support for the Communist Party of Cuba. However, a lack of choices left no other option. In both municipal and national elections, potential candidates had to pass specific requirements and secure backing from government-influenced organizations to be placed on a ballot (Shugerman, 2018; Foundation for Human Rights in Cuba, 2019). Thus, the overwhelming consensus supporting the Cuban Communist Party in elections resulted from political pressure on voters and government restrictions on candidates. The consensus was neither independent nor meaningful.
I should be clear that the authors do not address the evolution debate, or intelligent design. I don’t presume to know their views on that. Instead they say, “Using mathematical modeling, we explore the influence of dependence on the formation of consensus.” Dependence in this context is just the opposite of independence. They launch into a Bayesian analysis of how the dynamic works, and why a consensus can be true or false, depending on how much it relies on pressure and coercion.
Consensus is viewed as a proxy for truth in many discussions of science. When a consensus is formed by the independent and free deliberations of many, it is indeed a strong indicator of truth. Yet not all consensuses are independent and freely formed. We investigate the role of dependence and pressure in the formation of consensus, showing that strong polarization, external pressure, and dependence among individuals can force consensus around an issue, regardless of the underlying truth of the affirmed position. Dependence breaks consensus, often rendering it meaningless; a consensus can only be trusted to the extent that individuals are free to disagree with it.
They explain:
Centuries ago, the Reverend Thomas Bayes derived his namesake theorem to answer the question of whether the testimony of a large number of independent eyewitness could ever establish the probable occurrence of an a priori highly unlikely event. He showed that even highly unlikely events become plausible once the testimony of many independent witnesses is taken into account. Bayes’ theorem has found many real-world uses, including military and medical applications (Cepelewicz, 2016). In agreement with its historical purpose, we use Bayes’ theorem to model how consensus within a population can provide evidence for or against a position. We extend our analysis to dependent models, allowing us to consider the effects of differing levels of dependence, external pressure, and hyper-polarization on the formation of consensus within our framework.
Rare to Nonexistent
They define a “Castro Consensus”: “A Castro Consensus is a near-unanimous show of agreement brought about by means other than the honest and uncoerced judgements of individuals.”
Again, it’s a technical discussion, and you should review it for yourself, but it confirms common sense. Believing “a large number of independent eyewitness” turns upon the question of whether they are truly independent. Sometimes that’s hard to tell. Other times it’s obvious they are not. In the case of some scientific controversies, such as the one over Darwinian evolution versus intelligent design, we know that genuine independence — freedom from coercion or other social or professional pressures — is somewhere between rare and nonexistent. Evolutionary orthodoxy is maintained by a classic “Castro Consensus.” This by itself makes the Darwinian consensus questionable and in need of a fresh examination.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-19--Stephen Meyer, John Lennox: Against the Tide Sweeps Away Atheist “Power Play”

Looking forward to the release of the one-night-only movie Against the Tide , philosopher of science Stephen Meyer sat down with the film ’ s star , Oxford mathematician John Lennox , to talk about Lennox ’ s life and his thoughts on the ultimate question : Does the universe bear a “ stamp ” indicating the guidance of a designing intelligence ?
Lennox ’ s answer is yes .
As they discuss , he has spent a lifetime arguing as much .
It is a wonderful conversation that you can see here : Reserve your tickets for the event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at the Against the Tide website .
It releases on November 19 and you can only see it that one night !
Meyer and Lennox sweep away the misconception that there is a conflict between science and God .
The truth is otherwise but it is veiled by a “ power play and an authority play , ” says Lennox , by the most aggressive atheists .
In reality , there is a debate between theism and atheism over the question “ Where does science point ?
” The power play consists of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it to one side ’ s advantage .
Theists and atheists commit themselves to opposite views on the question , but neither operates outside of a particular picture of reality in which they place their faith .
“ Every single person is a person of faith , ” as Professor Lennox says .
As Dr. Meyer sets out in detail in his next book , Return of the God Hypothesis , three scientific realizations of the past century have revealed the stamp of design .
They are that the universe had a beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond any otherwise reasonable expectation , and that life is infused with information .
From the implications of this , atheists avert their eyes .
Against the Tide is an unusual and very well done mix of life story , science , and travelogue .
Lennox is a great personality .
He has both learned from and debated some of the greatest minds , theists and atheists alike — from C. S. Lewis to Fred Hoyle to Richard Dawkins .
He traveled extensively behind Iron Curtain , where , as he tells Meyer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very universities from which tenured atheists inveigh against theism were themselves Christian inventions .
Under Communism , universities were turned into state-controlled machines for propagandizing the populace .
If the most rigid atheists and materialists in the West carried the day , the same fate might well await their own universities .
We ’ re getting a taste of that particular power play with the current tide of “ soft totalitarianism ” in our own country .
I am not going to try to further summarize this fascinating discussion .
Do treat yourself @ @ @ @ @

Photo: John Lennox in Against the Tide.
Looking forward to the release of the one-night-only movie Against the Tide, philosopher of science Stephen Meyer sat down with the film’s star, Oxford mathematician John Lennox, to talk about Lennox’s life and his thoughts on the ultimate question: Does the universe bear a “stamp” indicating the guidance of a designing intelligence? Lennox’s answer is yes. As they discuss, he has spent a lifetime arguing as much. It is a wonderful conversation that you can see here:
Reserve your tickets for the event, in theaters across the country, at the Against the Tide website. It releases on November 19 and you can only see it that one night!
Meyer and Lennox sweep away the misconception that there is a conflict between science and God. The truth is otherwise but it is veiled by a “power play and an authority play,” says Lennox, by the most aggressive atheists. In reality, there is a debate between theism and atheism over the question “Where does science point?” The power play consists of framing the issue in order to twist it to one side’s advantage. Theists and atheists commit themselves to opposite views on the question, but neither operates outside of a particular picture of reality in which they place their faith. “Every single person is a person of faith,” as Professor Lennox says.
Three Scientific Realizations
As Dr. Meyer sets out in detail in his next book, Return of the God Hypothesis, three scientific realizations of the past century have revealed the stamp of design. They are that the universe had a beginning, that it is fine-tuned for life beyond any otherwise reasonable expectation, and that life is infused with information. From the implications of this, atheists avert their eyes.
Against the Tide is an unusual and very well done mix of life story, science, and travelogue. Lennox is a great personality. He has both learned from and debated some of the greatest minds, theists and atheists alike — from C. S. Lewis to Fred Hoyle to Richard Dawkins. He traveled extensively behind Iron Curtain, where, as he tells Meyer, he noted an irony. The very universities from which tenured atheists inveigh against theism were themselves Christian inventions. Under Communism, universities were turned into state-controlled machines for propagandizing the populace. If the most rigid atheists and materialists in the West carried the day, the same fate might well await their own universities. We’re getting a taste of that particular power play with the current tide of “soft totalitarianism” in our own country.
I am not going to try to further summarize this fascinating discussion. Do treat yourself by watching it now!


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-19--Morphogenesis: Coding for Shape

Morphogenesis: Coding for Shape

Organisms are hierarchies of shapes .
Bacteria form rods , spirals , and spheres .
Single-celled eukaryotes build diverse organelles inside and take on a characteristic shape outside ( compare Stentor , Paramecium , and Amoeba ) .
Think of all the varieties of shapes in multicellular organisms from Volvox to complex eukaryotes — hydra , rotifers , planaria at the microscopic end ; crabs , octopuses , and beetles in the lower middle range ; beavers , roses , and humans at the upper middle range ; whales , sequoias , and brachiosaurs at the large end .
Plants @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Animals grow tissues that organize into organs that combine into body plans .
How do all these 3-D shapes emerge from a linear code ?
That is the puzzle of morphogenesis .
Biologists know about genetic codes for molecules fairly well now , but where is the software for anatomy ?
The recent fad for 3-D printing is crude by comparison .
Those machines can produce a shape from a linear code , but they simply build a static object a layer at a time using homogeneous material .
Morphogenesis requires bringing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , like hearts .
These must continue functioning at all levels while being networked with other moving machines during construction .
The end product is what Douglas Axe calls a “ functional whole ” ( Undeniable , p. 143 ) .
Functional wholes in biology are composed of hierarchically organized functioning components and sub-components and elementary constituents that not only work in three-dimensional space , but over the fourth dimension of time .
They possess the remarkable property of self-repair , too .
Michael Levin , director of the Allen Discovery Center at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ University ’ s Wyss Institute , is baffled by the origin of biological shapes .
He writes in The Scientist : In the movie Terminator 2 , the assassin from the future is smashed into a thousand fragments of liquid metal , and then reconstitutes itself to carry on its mission .
It is a very clever piece of special effects , but when you think about the problem , how could each fragment know where to go ?
And yet something like that happens in organisms that are able to regenerate themselves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and a few other species .
Something like that also occurs during embryonic development .
After multiple rounds of cell division of clones , diversification begins , and shape begins to emerge .
Each cell gains a role and a destination in which to fulfill that role .
See Illustra Media ’ s video clip about chick embryonic development : In human embryonic development , something beyond DNA tells the growing mass how many liver cells are needed , how they should organize into the familiar liver shape , how many blood @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In addition , something regulates how these shapes coordinate their growth from baby to adult .
The liver always ends up at the proper size and position under the ribs on the right side , with the right connections to other organs .
All the organs and systems follow this goal-directed process .
Achieving this outcome requires much more information than the DNA code possesses for liver enzymes alone , as complex as that is .
Where is “ biology ’ s software — the rules that enable great plasticity in how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Answering the question will require interdisciplinary research , Levin points out .
Scientists have only taken baby steps to tackle this enormous puzzle .
All they can do currently is try to break down the question into manageable sub-questions .
So far , they have only gotten frog embryos to grow weird synthetic shapes by genetic engineering .
It ’ s an exciting start , Levin thinks , but the work resembles children in a playground .
This work could represent the start of a biological revolution as significant as the genomic revolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It represents the next step up : “ elucidating the computations that cells and groups of cells carry out to orchestrate tissue and organ construction on a whole-body scale.
” It ’ s as if biochemists have gotten a grip on how musical instruments are made , and now want to see how the music is performed , and how music is derived from a score coded by silent symbols on a page .
But they ’ re trying to do all this without the central player : the composer !
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of research will emerge from the flow of ideas between computer scientists and biologists .
Unlocking the full potential of regenerative medicine will require biology to take the journey computer science has already taken , from focusing on the hardware — the proteins and biochemical pathways that carry out cellular operations — to the physiological software that enables networks of cells to acquire , store , and act on information about organ and indeed whole-body geometry .
In the computer world , this transition from rewiring hardware to reprogramming the information flow by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information technology revolution .
This shift of perspective could transform biology , allowing scientists to achieve the still-futuristic visions of regenerative medicine .
The effort can also transform engineering , he says .
Engineers can learn from how organisms build structures that still work in noisy environments and can remain robust to perturbations .
Even when his group genetically engineers frog embryos , Levin says , the embryos tend to find their way back to the target shape , as if a monitoring process constantly compares its activities with the ideal shape .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Those are stimulating questions for the ID community to consider .
ID understands foresight , control , and communication .
Is Darwinism Up to the Task ?
Levin tries to bring evolution into the picture .
But that is not Darwinian evolution at all !
A mindless , aimless physical process doesn ’ t care what happens .
It can not exploit .
It can not achieve .
It can not enable .
This statement is like putting a Darwin sticker on intelligently designed machinery .
Much less can Darwinism signal , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make decisions , or regulate anything .
Observing is not explaining .
Levin ’ s group can watch what happens , but he appeals to causes that are inadequate to account for them .
The team can tweak working processes to achieve modified outcomes , but not explain their emergence .
They can imitate them , but not originate them .
They can compare them to intelligently designed computers and software , but not account for the similarities by appealing to opposite causes .
“ Evolvability ” and “ evolutionary plasticity ” are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the capability to learn and adapt to circumstances .
That takes design .
And why must plasticity be evolutionary ?
Take the e-word out and recognize the concept as robustness .
That ’ s also design .
Tolerance to perturbations , with some leeway for change , is a good design strategy .
Musical compositions allow for some plasticity , too , as when the composer marks “ Ad lib ” for an improvisation or allows room for a cadenza .
Works can be modified for different ensembles , too , like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chamber orchestra or piano .
Here ’ s another example of affixing a “ Made by Darwin ” sticker on design concepts : Such a claim makes no sense .
Evolution can not understand machinery or ensure that cells use it .
Is Design Science Up to the Task ?
Only design science has the conceptual framework to understand this “ new kind of epigenetics , information that is stored in a medium other than DNA sequences and chromatin.
” Information Technology ( IT ) is design science by definition .
Levin essentially @ @ @ @ @ @ @ artificial selection an analogue of natural selection , except that in morphogenesis , we infer the activity of a designing intelligence from its effects and from our uniform experience with a mind ’ s ability to organize components to reach targets reliably .
Will progress slow if ID takes the lead in morphogenesis research ?
Certainly not .
Design scientists can continue the work on frog embryos and genetic engineering .
In fact , they will likely work more productively unencumbered by the baggage of Darwin ’ s hoary Victorian myth .
Chance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Intelligence can conceive of a plan , exercise foresight to identify the requirements , and then execute the plan by programming the components to fulfill the plan .
At the forefront of this major biological revolution , it ’ s time to recognize that anatomical software is intelligent design all the way down .

Photo: A axolotl can regenerate itself, by Stan Shebs, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons.
Organisms are hierarchies of shapes. Bacteria form rods, spirals, and spheres. Single-celled eukaryotes build diverse organelles inside and take on a characteristic shape outside (compare Stentor, Paramecium, and Amoeba). Think of all the varieties of shapes in multicellular organisms from Volvox to complex eukaryotes — hydra, rotifers, planaria at the microscopic end; crabs, octopuses, and beetles in the lower middle range; beavers, roses, and humans at the upper middle range; whales, sequoias, and brachiosaurs at the large end. Plants generate stems, leaves, and flowers. Animals grow tissues that organize into organs that combine into body plans. How do all these 3-D shapes emerge from a linear code? That is the puzzle of morphogenesis.
Functional Wholes
Biologists know about genetic codes for molecules fairly well now, but where is the software for anatomy? The recent fad for 3-D printing is crude by comparison. Those machines can produce a shape from a linear code, but they simply build a static object a layer at a time using homogeneous material. Morphogenesis requires bringing together diverse materials to construct moving machines, like hearts. These must continue functioning at all levels while being networked with other moving machines during construction. The end product is what Douglas Axe calls a “functional whole” (Undeniable, p. 143). Functional wholes in biology are composed of hierarchically organized functioning components and sub-components and elementary constituents that not only work in three-dimensional space, but over the fourth dimension of time. They possess the remarkable property of self-repair, too.
Michael Levin, director of the Allen Discovery Center at Tufts University and Associate Faculty at Harvard University’s Wyss Institute, is baffled by the origin of biological shapes. He writes in The Scientist:
While genomes predictably encode the proteins present in cells, a simple molecular parts list does not tell us enough about the anatomical layout or regenerative potential of the body that the cells will work to construct. Genomes are not a blueprint for anatomy, and genome editing is fundamentally limited by the fact that it’s very hard to infer which genes to tweak, and how, to achieve desired complex anatomical outcomes. Similarly, stem cells generate the building blocks of organs, but the ability to organize specific cell types into a working human hand or eye has been and will be beyond the grasp of direct manipulation for a very long time. [Emphasis added.]
In the movie Terminator 2, the assassin from the future is smashed into a thousand fragments of liquid metal, and then reconstitutes itself to carry on its mission. It is a very clever piece of special effects, but when you think about the problem, how could each fragment know where to go? And yet something like that happens in organisms that are able to regenerate themselves, like hydras, planarians, axolotls, and a few other species. Something like that also occurs during embryonic development. After multiple rounds of cell division of clones, diversification begins, and shape begins to emerge. Each cell gains a role and a destination in which to fulfill that role. See Illustra Media’s video clip about chick embryonic development:
Beyond DNA
In human embryonic development, something beyond DNA tells the growing mass how many liver cells are needed, how they should organize into the familiar liver shape, how many blood vessels are needed to supply the liver. In addition, something regulates how these shapes coordinate their growth from baby to adult. The liver always ends up at the proper size and position under the ribs on the right side, with the right connections to other organs. All the organs and systems follow this goal-directed process. Achieving this outcome requires much more information than the DNA code possesses for liver enzymes alone, as complex as that is. Where is “biology’s software — the rules that enable great plasticity in how cell collectives generate reliable anatomies”?
Answering the question will require interdisciplinary research, Levin points out. Scientists have only taken baby steps to tackle this enormous puzzle. All they can do currently is try to break down the question into manageable sub-questions.
But researchers working in the fields of synthetic morphology and regenerative biophysics are beginning to understand the rules governing the plasticity of organ growth and repair. Rather than micromanaging tasks that are too complex to implement directly at the cellular or molecular level, what if we solved the mystery of how groups of cells cooperate to construct specific multicellular bodies during embryogenesis and regeneration? Perhaps then we could figure out how to motivate cell collectives to build whatever anatomical features we want.
So far, they have only gotten frog embryos to grow weird synthetic shapes by genetic engineering. It’s an exciting start, Levin thinks, but the work resembles children in a playground.
These cells rebooted their multicellularity into a new form, without genomic changes. This represents an extremely exciting sandbox in which bioengineers can play, with the aim of decoding the logic of anatomical and behavioral control, as well as understanding the plasticity of cells and the relationship of genomes to anatomies.
A Biological Revolution
This work could represent the start of a biological revolution as significant as the genomic revolution when genetics graduated from molecules to codes. It represents the next step up: “elucidating the computations that cells and groups of cells carry out to orchestrate tissue and organ construction on a whole-body scale.” It’s as if biochemists have gotten a grip on how musical instruments are made, and now want to see how the music is performed, and how music is derived from a score coded by silent symbols on a page. But they’re trying to do all this without the central player: the composer!
The next generation of advances in this area of research will emerge from the flow of ideas between computer scientists and biologists. Unlocking the full potential of regenerative medicine will require biology to take the journey computer science has already taken, from focusing on the hardware — the proteins and biochemical pathways that carry out cellular operations — to the physiological software that enables networks of cells to acquire, store, and act on information about organ and indeed whole-body geometry. In the computer world, this transition from rewiring hardware to reprogramming the information flow by changing the inputs gave rise to the information technology revolution. This shift of perspective could transform biology, allowing scientists to achieve the still-futuristic visions of regenerative medicine.
The effort can also transform engineering, he says. Engineers can learn from how organisms build structures that still work in noisy environments and can remain robust to perturbations. Even when his group genetically engineers frog embryos, Levin says, the embryos tend to find their way back to the target shape, as if a monitoring process constantly compares its activities with the ideal shape. How is that information stored and communicated?
The remarkable thing is not simply that growth begins after wounding and that various cell types are generated, but that these bodies will grow and remodel until a correct anatomy is complete, and then they stop. How does the system identify the correct target morphology, orchestrate individual cell behaviors to get there, and determine when the job is done? How does it communicate this information to control underlying cell activities?
Those are stimulating questions for the ID community to consider. ID understands foresight, control, and communication.
Is Darwinism Up to the Task?
Levin tries to bring evolution into the picture.
Evolution exploits three modalities to achieve such anatomical homeostasis: biochemical gradients, bioelectric circuits, and biophysical forces. These interact to enable the same large-scale form to arise despite significant perturbations.
But that is not Darwinian evolution at all! A mindless, aimless physical process doesn’t care what happens. It cannot exploit. It cannot achieve. It cannot enable. This statement is like putting a Darwin sticker on intelligently designed machinery. Much less can Darwinism signal, create, and operate electrical networks, make decisions, or regulate anything.
Observing is not explaining. Levin’s group can watch what happens, but he appeals to causes that are inadequate to account for them. The team can tweak working processes to achieve modified outcomes, but not explain their emergence. They can imitate them, but not originate them. They can compare them to intelligently designed computers and software, but not account for the similarities by appealing to opposite causes.
The emerging picture in this field is that anatomical software is highly modular — a key property that computer scientists exploit as subroutines and that most likely contributes in large part to biological evolvability and evolutionary plasticity.
“Evolvability” and “evolutionary plasticity” are highly misleading terms. What Levin means is the capability to learn and adapt to circumstances. That takes design. And why must plasticity be evolutionary? Take the e-word out and recognize the concept as robustness. That’s also design. Tolerance to perturbations, with some leeway for change, is a good design strategy. Musical compositions allow for some plasticity, too, as when the composer marks “Ad lib” for an improvisation or allows room for a cadenza. Works can be modified for different ensembles, too, like when an orchestral work is transcribed for chamber orchestra or piano.
Here’s another example of affixing a “Made by Darwin” sticker on design concepts:
In molecular biomedicine, we are still focused largely on manipulating the cellular hardware — the proteins that each cell can exploit. But evolution has ensured that cellular collectives use this versatile machinery to process information flexibly and implement a wide range of large-scale body shape outcomes. This is biology’s software: the memory, plasticity, and reprogrammability of morphogenetic control networks.
Such a claim makes no sense. Evolution cannot understand machinery or ensure that cells use it.
Is Design Science Up to the Task?
Only design science has the conceptual framework to understand this “new kind of epigenetics, information that is stored in a medium other than DNA sequences and chromatin.” Information Technology (IT) is design science by definition. Levin essentially repeats Darwin’s fallacy of using artificial selection as an analogue of natural selection, except that in morphogenesis, we infer the activity of a designing intelligence from its effects and from our uniform experience with a mind’s ability to organize components to reach targets reliably.
Will progress slow if ID takes the lead in morphogenesis research? Certainly not. Design scientists can continue the work on frog embryos and genetic engineering. In fact, they will likely work more productively unencumbered by the baggage of Darwin’s hoary Victorian myth.
Chance is not a cause; intelligence is. Intelligence can conceive of a plan, exercise foresight to identify the requirements, and then execute the plan by programming the components to fulfill the plan. At the forefront of this major biological revolution, it’s time to recognize that anatomical software is intelligent design all the way down.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-20--Journal Finds It Can’t Keep a Good Pro-ID Paper Down

I have to laugh .
The Journal of Theoretical Biology tried to trash its own paper because it was friendly to intelligent design .
Intimidated by the censors , they placed a Disclaimer on it making it appear that the penitent editors had no idea that they had published a peer-reviewed paper favorable to ID , though the authors , Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer , explicitly cite intelligent design , by that name , as well as a range of familiar ID scientists and researchers and ID-related concepts .
We have covered the paper about biological fine-tuning here already @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Journal Offers a Weak Rebuttal to Its Own Pro-ID Fine-Tuning Paper ” • “ Really ?
Editors Claim They Were ‘ Unaware ’ of Article ’ s Intelligent Design Connections ” It is “ Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.
” Well , as a correspondent points out , the paper is this prominent biology journal ’ s current No .
1 most downloaded article .
What ’ s more , it beats out several others in the Top 10 about Covid and related hot topics !
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ they sought to do was bury the paper , they failed spectacularly .

Photo credit: Mark Daynes via Unsplash.
I have to laugh. The Journal of Theoretical Biology tried to trash its own paper because it was friendly to intelligent design. Intimidated by the censors, they placed a Disclaimer on it making it appear that the penitent editors had no idea that they had published a peer-reviewed paper favorable to ID, though the authors, Steinar Thorvaldsen and Ola Hössjer, explicitly cite intelligent design, by that name, as well as a range of familiar ID scientists and researchers and ID-related concepts. We have covered the paper about biological fine-tuning here already. See,
It is “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.” Well, as a correspondent points out, the paper is this prominent biology journal’s current No. 1 most downloaded article. What’s more, it beats out several others in the Top 10 about Covid and related hot topics! Download it yourself now. If what they sought to do was bury the paper, they failed spectacularly.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-20--Epiphany — Denton on Nature’s Fitness for Life

On a new episode of ID the Future , biochemist Michael Denton tells host Eric Anderson more about his new @ @ @ @ @ Cell , and about his epiphany when he recognized the many remarkable ways that nature @ @ @ @ @ for life .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .
The focus in @ @ @ @ @ chemistry and its “ goldilocks zone ” ability to form stable bonds but let loose @ @ @ @ @ Whereas biologists once wondered about a vitalist “ life force ” in the cell , @ @ @ @ @ in the very design of carbon , its unique properties , and its “ coincidental @ @ @ @ @ According to Denton , all of this , taken together , constitutes “ one of @ @ @ @ @ examples of nature ’ s fitness for life on earth.
” Carbon ’ s suite @ @ @ @ @ says , is foundational to the cell ’ s peerless ability to build sophisticated biological @ @ @ @ @ smallest bacterium to the tallest tree , and you and me .

Image credit: Arek Socha via Pixabay.
On a new episode of ID the Future, biochemist Michael Denton tells host Eric Anderson more about his new book The Miracle of the Cell, and about his epiphany when he recognized the many remarkable ways that nature’s chemistry is fine-tuned for life. Download the podcast or listen to it here.
The focus in this conversation is on carbon chemistry and its “goldilocks zone” ability to form stable bonds but let loose of them when needed. Whereas biologists once wondered about a vitalist “life force” in the cell, Denton sees intelligence and foresight in the very design of carbon, its unique properties, and its “coincidental” relation to water. According to Denton, all of this, taken together, constitutes “one of nature’s most remarkable examples of nature’s fitness for life on earth.” Carbon’s suite of life-friendly features, he says, is foundational to the cell’s peerless ability to build sophisticated biological forms — everything from the smallest bacterium to the tallest tree, and you and me.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-22--Disagreeing Agreeably — A Timely Lesson from Darwin and Wallace

Scanning news headlines and social media , not least as we approach a national election , induces nausea .
The way disagreements are poisoned by contempt , by a willingness to humiliate others because you don ’ t like their ideas , should make us want to apologize to younger people .
How will they reinvent respect ?
No one side is exclusively to blame .
Adults across the board engage in public fights where the personal destruction of ideological enemies is always a ready weapon .
On an episode of ID the Future , science historians Michael Flannery and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how to disagree agreeably .
Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace co-discovered what we think of as the “ Darwinian ” theory of evolution by natural selection .
However , Wallace changed his mind about the scope of the theory .
Professor Flannery recently released a new edition of his book Intelligent Evolution : How Alfred Russel Wallace ’ s World of Life Challenged Darwinism .
Wallace did indeed challenge Darwin , breaking with him over issues including human exceptionalism and planetary fine-tuning that looked ahead to the modern theory of intelligent design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Darwin was saddened by Wallace and while the break undoubtedly cooled their relationship , the distance between them held no rancor .
They remained respectful , civil , even generous .
Before he died , Darwin even recommended Wallace for a government pension — which Wallace , who did not come from a wealthy background like Darwin ’ s , really needed .
Did Darwin mock Wallace , belittle his ideas , seek revenge ?
No , just the opposite , and the respect was fully reflected on Wallace ’ s part .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ we could all learn from Wallace ’ s forward-looking science but also from his , and Darwin ’ s , style of “ friendly battle.
” Download the podcast or listen to it here .

Photo credit: Charles Deluvio, via Unsplash.
Scanning news headlines and social media, not least as we approach a national election, induces nausea. The way disagreements are poisoned by contempt, by a willingness to humiliate others because you don’t like their ideas, should make us want to apologize to younger people. How will they reinvent respect? No one side is exclusively to blame. Adults across the board engage in public fights where the personal destruction of ideological enemies is always a ready weapon.
On an episode of ID the Future, science historians Michael Flannery and Michael Keas offer a timely reminder of how to disagree agreeably. Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace co-discovered what we think of as the “Darwinian” theory of evolution by natural selection. However, Wallace changed his mind about the scope of the theory. Professor Flannery recently released a new edition of his book Intelligent Evolution: How Alfred Russel Wallace’s World of Life Challenged Darwinism. Wallace did indeed challenge Darwin, breaking with him over issues including human exceptionalism and planetary fine-tuning that looked ahead to the modern theory of intelligent design.
But as Flannery recalls, while Darwin was saddened by Wallace and while the break undoubtedly cooled their relationship, the distance between them held no rancor. They remained respectful, civil, even generous. Before he died, Darwin even recommended Wallace for a government pension — which Wallace, who did not come from a wealthy background like Darwin’s, really needed.
Did Darwin mock Wallace, belittle his ideas, seek revenge? No, just the opposite, and the respect was fully reflected on Wallace’s part. As Keas and Flannery point out, we could all learn from Wallace’s forward-looking science but also from his, and Darwin’s, style of “friendly battle.” Download the podcast or listen to it here.