evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-05--Breakout Paper in Journal of Theoretical Biology Explicitly Supports Intelligent Design

As John West noted here last week , the Journal of Theoretical Biology has published an explicitly pro-intelligent design article , “ Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.
” Let ’ s take a closer look at the contents .
The paper is math-heavy , discussing statistical models of making inferences , but it is also groundbreaking for this crucial reason : it considers and proposes intelligent design , by name , as a viable explanation for the origin of “ fine-tuning ” in biology .
This is a major breakthrough for science , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ If the paper is any indication , appearing as it does in a prominent peer-reviewed journal , some of the suffocating constraints on ID advocacy may be coming off .
The authors are Steinar Thorvaldsen , a professor of information science at the University of Tromsø in Norway , and Ola Hössjer , a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University .
The paper , which is open access , begins by noting that while fine-tuning is widely discussed in physics , it needs to be considered more in the context of biology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The definition is essentially equivalent to specified complexity : They then introduce the concept of “ design , ” and explain how humans are innately able to recognize it : A design is a specification or plan for the construction of an object or system , or the result of that specification or plan in the form of a product .
The very term design is from the Medieval Latin word “ designare ” ( denoting “ mark out , point out , choose ” ) ; from “ de ” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identifying mark , sign ) .
Hence , a public notice that advertises something or gives information .
The design usually has to satisfy certain goals and constraints .
It is also expected to interact with a certain environment , and thus be realized in the physical world .
Humans have a powerful intuitive understanding of design that precedes modern science .
Our common intuitions invariably begin with recognizing a pattern as a mark of design .
The problem has been that our intuitions about design have been unrefined and pre-theoretical .
For @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ask ourselves whether it is possible to turn the tables on this disparity and place those rough and pre-theoretical intuitions on a firm scientific foundation .
That last sentence is key : the purpose is to understand if there is a scientific method by which design can be inferred .
They propose that design can be identified by uncovering fine-tuning .
The paper explicates statistical methods for understanding fine-tuning , which they argue reflects “ design ” : They cite the work of multiple leading theorists in the ID research community .
Fine-Tuning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They return to physics and the “ anthropic principle , ” the idea that the laws of nature are precisely suited for life : Suppose the laws of physics had been a bit different from what they actually are , what would the consequences be ?
( Davies , 2006 ) .
… The chances that the universe should be life permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable .
… The finely tuned universe is like a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ … If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left , the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all .
If the Big Bang had been just slightly stronger or weaker , matter would not have condensed , and life never would have existed .
The odds against our universe developing were “ enormous ” – and yet here we are , a point that equates with religious implications… However , rather than getting into religion , they apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design ” as an explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe .
They cite ID theorist William Dembski : The article offers additional reasons why the multiverse is an unsatisfying explanation for fine-tuning — namely that “ multiverse hypotheses do not predict fine-tuning for this particular universe any better than a single universe hypothesis ” and “ we should prefer those theories which best predict ( for this or any universe ) the phenomena we observe in our universe.
” The paper reviews the lines of evidence for fine-tuning in biology , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the “ waiting-time problem.
” Along the way it considers the arguments of many ID theorists , starting with a short review showing how the literature uses words such as “ sequence code , ” “ information , ” and “ machine ” to describe life ’ s complexity : The paper cites and reviews the work of Michael Behe , Douglas Axe , Stephen Meyer , and Günter Bechly .
Some of these discussions are quite long and extensive .
First , the article contains a lucid explanation of irreducible @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Michael Behe and others presented ideas of design in molecular biology , and published evidence of “ irreducibly complex biochemical machines ” in living cells .
In his argument , some parts of the complex systems found in biology are exceedingly important and do affect the overall function of their mechanism .
The fine-tuning can be outlined through the vital and interacting parts of living organisms .
In “ Darwin ’ s Black Box ” ( Behe , 1996 ) , Behe exemplified systems , like the flagellum bacteria use to swim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called irreducibly complex , configured as a remarkable teamwork of several ( often dozen or more ) interacting proteins .
Is it possible on an incremental model that such a system could evolve for something that does not yet exist ?
Many biological systems do not appear to have a functional viable predecessor from which they could have evolved stepwise , and the occurrence in one leap by chance is extremely small .
To rephrase the first man on the moon : “ That ’ s no small steps of proteins , no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of irreducible complexity was mentioned in Section 3 .
It is composed of several well-matched , interacting modules that contribute to the basic function , wherein the removal of any one of the modules causes the system to effectively cease functioning .
Behe does not ignore the role of the laws of nature .
Biology allows for changes and evolutionary modifications .
Evolution is there , irreducible design is there , and they are both observed .
The laws of nature can organize matter and force it to change .
Behe ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex systems that can not be produced by the laws of nature : “ If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws [ reproduction , mutation and natural selection ] then we can not conclude that it was designed .
.
.
however , I have shown why many biochemical systems can not be built up by natural selection working on mutations : no direct , gradual route exist to these irreducible complex systems , and the laws of chemistry work strongly against the undirected development of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ AMP1 ” ( Behe , 1996 , p. 203 ) .
Then , even if the natural laws work against the development of these ‘ ‘ irreducible complexities ” , they still exist .
The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process .
They are rather to be acknowledged as finetuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences .
These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created .
Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ series of selectable intermediates , and in addition , as we saw in Section 4.1 , each module ( protein ) is of low probability by itself .
The article also reviews the peer-reviewed research of protein scientist Douglas Axe , as well as his 2016 book Undeniable , on the evolvability of protein folds : An important goal is to obtain an estimate of the overall prevalence of sequences adopting functional protein folds , i.e .
the right folded structure , with the correct dynamics and a precise active site for its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this question at the Medical Research Council Centre in Cambridge .
The experiments he performed showed a prevalence between 1 in 1050 to 1 in 1074 of protein sequences forming a working domain-sized fold of 150 amino acids ( Axe , 2004 ) .
Hence , functional proteins require highly organised sequences , as illustrated in Fig .
2 .
Though proteins tolerate a range of possible amino acids at some positions in the sequence , a random process producing amino-acid chains of this length would stumble onto a functional protein only about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ due to genetic variation .
This empirical result is quite analog to the inference from fine-tuned physics .
The search space turns out to be too impossibly vast for blind selection to have even a slight chance of success .
The contrasting view is innovations based on ingenuity , cleverness and intelligence .
An element of this is what Axe calls ‘ ‘ functional coherence ” , which always involves hierarchical planning , hence is a product of finetuning .
He concludes : ‘ ‘ Functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 , p. 160 ) .
They conclude that the literature shows “ the probability of finding a functional protein in sequence space can vary broadly , but commonly remains far beyond the reach of Darwinian processes ( Axe , 2010a ) .
” Citing the work of Günter Bechly and Stephen Meyer , the paper also reviews the question of whether sufficient time is allowed by the fossil record for complex systems to arise via Darwinian mechanisms .
This is known as the “ waiting-time problem ” : In this section we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the probability of an event and the time available for that event to happen .
In the context of living systems , we need to ask the question whether conventional Darwinian mechanisms have the ability to achieve fine-tuning during a prescribed period of time .
This is of interest in order to correctly interpret the fossil record , which is often interpreted as having long periods of stasis interrupted by very sudden abrupt changes ( Bechly and Meyer , 2017 ) .
Examples of such sudden changes include the origin of photosynthesis , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ complex eyes and the evolution of animal flight .
The accompanying genetic changes are believed to have happen very rapidly , at least on a macroevolutionary timescale , during a time period of length t. In order to test whether this is possible , a mathematical model is needed in order to estimate the prevalence P ( A ) of the event A that the required genetic changes in a species take place within a time window of length t. Throughout the discussions are multiple citations of BIO-Complexity , a journal dedicated to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Lastly , the authors consider intelligent design as a possible explanation of biological fine-tuning , citing heavily the work of William Dembski , Winston Ewert , Robert J .
Marks , and other ID theorists : Intelligent Design ( ID ) has gained a lot of interest and attention in recent years , mainly in USA , by creating public attention as well as triggering vivid discussions in the scientific and public world .
ID aims to adhere to the same standards of rational investigation as other scientific and philosophical enterprises , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ methods of evaluation and critique .
ID has been criticized , both for its underlying logic and for its various formulations ( Olofsson , 2008 ; Sarkar , 2011 ) .
William Dembski originally proposed what he called an ‘ ‘ explanatory filter ” for distinguishing between events due to chance , lawful regularity or design ( Dembski , 1998 ) .
Viewed on a sufficiently abstract level , its logics is based on well-established principles and techniques from the theory of statistical hypothesis testing .
However , it is hard to apply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because a huge number of potential but unknown scenarios may exist , which makes it difficult to phrase a null hypothesis for a statistical test ( Wilkins and Elsberry , 2001 ; Olofsson , 2008 ) .
The re-formulated version of a complexity measure published by Dembski and his coworkers is named Algorithmic Specified Complexity ( ASC ) ( Ewert et al.
, 2013 ; 2014 ) .
ACS incorporates both Shannon and Kolmogorov complexity measures , and it quantifies the degree to which an event is improbable and follows a pattern @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of data ( and hence patterns ) , but suffers from the property of being unknowable as there is no general method to compute it .
However , it is possible to give upper bounds for the Kolmogorov complexity , and consequently ASC can be bounded without being computed exactly .
ASC is based on context and is measured in bits .
The same authors have applied this method to natural language , random noise , folding of proteins , images etc ( Marks et al.
, 2017 ) .
The laws , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nature present the flow of nature .
These purely natural objects discovered in recent years show the appearance of being deliberately fine-tuned .
Functional proteins , molecular machines and cellular networks are both unlikely when viewed as outcomes of a stochastic model , with a relevant probability distribution ( having a small P ( A ) ) , and at the same time they conform to an independent or detached specification ( the set A being defined in terms of specificity ) .
These results are important and deduced from central phenomena of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ molecular biology , fine-tuning emerges as a uniting principle and synthesis – an interesting observation by itself .
In this paper we have argued that a statistical analysis of fine-tuning is a useful and consistent approach to model some of the categories of design : ‘ ‘ irreducible complexity ” ( Michael Behe ) , and ‘ ‘ specified complexity ” ( William Dembski ) .
As mentioned in Section 1 , this approach requires a ) that a probability distribution for the set of possible outcomes is introduced , and b ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or more generally a specificity function f is defined .
Here b ) requires some apriori understanding of what fine-tuning means , for each type of application , whereas a ) requires a naturalistic model for how the observed structures would have been produced by chance .
The mathematical properties of such a model depend on the type of data that is analyzed .
Typically a stochastic process should be used that models a dynamic feature such as stellar , chemical or biological ( Darwinian ) evolution .
In the simplest case the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is a scalar ( one nucleotide or amino acid ) , a vector ( a DNA or amino acid string ) or a graph ( protein complexes or cellular networks ) .
A major conclusion of our work is that fine-tuning is a clear feature of biological systems .
Indeed , fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems .
It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology .
Biology is inherently more complicated than the large-scale universe and so fine-tuning is even more a feature .
Still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more complicated data structures , using more sophisticated empirical criteria .
Typically , such criteria correspond to a specificity function f that not only is a helpful abstraction of an underlying pattern , such as biological fitness .
One rather needs a specificity function that , although of non-physical origin , can be quantified and measured empirically in terms of physical properties such as functionality .
In the long term , these criteria are necessary to make the explanations both scientifically and philosophically legitimate .
However , we have enough evidence to demonstrate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scientific community as a conceptual tool for investigating and understanding the natural world .
The main agenda is to explore some fascinating possibilities for science and create room for new ideas and explorations .
Biologists need richer conceptual resources than the physical sciences until now have been able to initiate , in terms of complex structures having non-physical information as input ( Ratzsch , 2010 ) .
Yet researchers have more work to do in order to establish fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis , and ultimately a Design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The article gives the arguments of intelligent design theorists a major hearing in a mainstream scientific journal .
And don ’ t miss the purpose of the article , which is stated in its final sentence — to work towards “ establish [ ing ] fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis , and ultimately a Design Science.
” The authors present compelling arguments that biological fine-tuning can not arise via unguided Darwinian mechanisms .
Some explanation is needed to account for why biological systems “ show the appearance of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that often surrounds this debate , for ID arguments to receive such a thoughtful and positive treatment in a prominent journal is itself convincing evidence that ID has intellectual merit .
Claims of ID ’ s critics notwithstanding , design science is being taken seriously by scientists .

Photo: Red poppy, Auckland Botanic Gardens, Auckland, New Zealand, by Sandy Millar via Unsplash.
As John West noted here last week, the Journal of Theoretical Biology has published an explicitly pro-intelligent design article, “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.” Let’s take a closer look at the contents. The paper is math-heavy, discussing statistical models of making inferences, but it is also groundbreaking for this crucial reason: it considers and proposes intelligent design, by name, as a viable explanation for the origin of “fine-tuning” in biology. This is a major breakthrough for science, but also for freedom of speech. If the paper is any indication, appearing as it does in a prominent peer-reviewed journal, some of the suffocating constraints on ID advocacy may be coming off.
The authors are Steinar Thorvaldsen, a professor of information science at the University of Tromsø in Norway, and Ola Hössjer, a professor of mathematical statistics at Stockholm University. The paper, which is open access, begins by noting that while fine-tuning is widely discussed in physics, it needs to be considered more in the context of biology:
Fine-tuning has received much attention in physics, and it states that the fundamental constants of physics are finely tuned to precise values for a rich chemistry and life permittance. It has not yet been applied in a broad manner to molecular biology.
The authors explain the paper’s main thrust:
However, in this paper we argue that biological systems present fine-tuning at different levels, e.g. functional proteins, complex biochemical machines in living cells, and cellular networks. This paper describes molecular fine-tuning, how it can be used in biology, and how it challenges conventional Darwinian thinking. We also discuss the statistical methods underpinning finetuning and present a framework for such analysis.
They explain how fine-tuning is defined. The definition is essentially equivalent to specified complexity:
We define fine-tuning as an object with two properties: it must a) be unlikely to have occurred by chance, under the relevant probability distribution (i.e. complex), and b) conform to an independent or detached specification (i.e. specific).
They then introduce the concept of “design,” and explain how humans are innately able to recognize it:
A design is a specification or plan for the construction of an object or system, or the result of that specification or plan in the form of a product. The very term design is from the Medieval Latin word “designare” (denoting “mark out, point out, choose”); from “de” (out) and “signum” (identifying mark, sign). Hence, a public notice that advertises something or gives information. The design usually has to satisfy certain goals and constraints. It is also expected to interact with a certain environment, and thus be realized in the physical world. Humans have a powerful intuitive understanding of design that precedes modern science. Our common intuitions invariably begin with recognizing a pattern as a mark of design. The problem has been that our intuitions about design have been unrefined and pre-theoretical. For this reason, it is relevant to ask ourselves whether it is possible to turn the tables on this disparity and place those rough and pre-theoretical intuitions on a firm scientific foundation.
That last sentence is key: the purpose is to understand if there is a scientific method by which design can be inferred. They propose that design can be identified by uncovering fine-tuning. The paper explicates statistical methods for understanding fine-tuning, which they argue reflects “design”:
Fine-tuning and design are related entities. Fine-tuning is a bottom-up method, while design is more like a top-down approach. Hence, we focus on the topic of fine-tuning in the present paper and address the following questions: Is it possible to recognize fine-tuning in biological systems at the levels of functional proteins, protein groups and cellular networks? Can fine-tuning in molecular biology be formulated using state of the art statistical methods, or are the arguments just “in the eyes of the beholder”?
They cite the work of multiple leading theorists in the ID research community.
Fine-Tuning as an Answer to the Copernican Principle
They return to physics and the “anthropic principle,” the idea that the laws of nature are precisely suited for life:
Suppose the laws of physics had been a bit different from what they actually are, what would the consequences be? (Davies, 2006). … The chances that the universe should be life permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. … The finely tuned universe is like a panel that controls the parameters of the universe with about 100 knobs that can be set to certain values. … If you turn any knob just a little to the right or to the left, the result is either a universe that is inhospitable to life or no universe at all. If the Big Bang had been just slightly stronger or weaker, matter would not have condensed, and life never would have existed. The odds against our universe developing were “enormous” – and yet here we are, a point that equates with religious implications…
However, rather than getting into religion, they apply statistics to consider the possibility of “design” as an explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. They cite ID theorist William Dembski:
William Dembski … regards the fine-tuning argument as suggestive, as pointers to underlying design. We may describe this inference as abductive reasoning or inference to the best explanation. This reasoning yields a plausible conclusion that is relatively likely to be true, compared to competing hypotheses, given our background knowledge. In the case of fine-tuning of our cosmos, design is considered to be a better explanation than a set of multi-universes that lacks any empirical or historical evidence.
The article offers additional reasons why the multiverse is an unsatisfying explanation for fine-tuning — namely that “multiverse hypotheses do not predict fine-tuning for this particular universe any better than a single universe hypothesis” and “we should prefer those theories which best predict (for this or any universe) the phenomena we observe in our universe.”
Fine-Tuning in Biology
The paper reviews the lines of evidence for fine-tuning in biology, including information, irreducible complexity, protein evolution, and the “waiting-time problem.” Along the way it considers the arguments of many ID theorists, starting with a short review showing how the literature uses words such as “sequence code,” “information,” and “machine” to describe life’s complexity:
One of the surprising discoveries of modern biology has been that the cell operates in a manner similar to modern technology, while biological information is organized in a manner similar to plain text. Words and terms like “sequence code”, and “information”, and “machine” have proven very useful in describing and understanding molecular biology (Wills, 2016). The basic building blocks of life are proteins, long chain-like molecules consisting of varied combinations of 20 different amino acids. Complex biochemical machines are usually composed of many proteins, each folded together and configured in a unique 3D structure dependent upon the exact sequence of the amino acids within the chain. Proteins employ a wide variety of folds to perform their biological function, and each protein has a highly specified shape with some minor variations.
The paper cites and reviews the work of Michael Behe, Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer, and Günter Bechly. Some of these discussions are quite long and extensive. First, the article contains a lucid explanation of irreducible complexity and the work of Michael Behe:
Michael Behe and others presented ideas of design in molecular biology, and published evidence of “irreducibly complex biochemical machines” in living cells. In his argument, some parts of the complex systems found in biology are exceedingly important and do affect the overall function of their mechanism. The fine-tuning can be outlined through the vital and interacting parts of living organisms. In “Darwin’s Black Box” (Behe, 1996), Behe exemplified systems, like the flagellum bacteria use to swim and the blood-clotting cascade, that he called irreducibly complex, configured as a remarkable teamwork of several (often dozen or more) interacting proteins. Is it possible on an incremental model that such a system could evolve for something that does not yet exist? Many biological systems do not appear to have a functional viable predecessor from which they could have evolved stepwise, and the occurrence in one leap by chance is extremely small. To rephrase the first man on the moon: “That’s no small steps of proteins, no giant leap for biology.” […] A Behe-system of irreducible complexity was mentioned in Section 3. It is composed of several well-matched, interacting modules that contribute to the basic function, wherein the removal of any one of the modules causes the system to effectively cease functioning. Behe does not ignore the role of the laws of nature. Biology allows for changes and evolutionary modifications. Evolution is there, irreducible design is there, and they are both observed. The laws of nature can organize matter and force it to change. Behe’s point is that there are some irreducibly complex systems that cannot be produced by the laws of nature: “If a biological structure can be explained in terms of those natural laws [reproduction, mutation and natural selection] then we cannot conclude that it was designed. . . however, I have shown why many biochemical systems cannot be built up by natural selection working on mutations: no direct, gradual route exist to these irreducible complex systems, and the laws of chemistry work strongly against the undirected development of the biochemical systems that make molecules such as AMP1” (Behe, 1996, p. 203). Then, even if the natural laws work against the development of these ‘‘irreducible complexities”, they still exist. The strong synergy within the protein complex makes it irreducible to an incremental process. They are rather to be acknowledged as finetuned initial conditions of the constituting protein sequences. These structures are biological examples of nano-engineering that surpass anything human engineers have created. Such systems pose a serious challenge to a Darwinian account of evolution, since irreducibly complex systems have no direct series of selectable intermediates, and in addition, as we saw in Section 4.1, each module (protein) is of low probability by itself.
The article also reviews the peer-reviewed research of protein scientist Douglas Axe, as well as his 2016 book Undeniable, on the evolvability of protein folds:
An important goal is to obtain an estimate of the overall prevalence of sequences adopting functional protein folds, i.e. the right folded structure, with the correct dynamics and a precise active site for its specific function. Douglas Axe worked on this question at the Medical Research Council Centre in Cambridge. The experiments he performed showed a prevalence between 1 in 1050 to 1 in 1074 of protein sequences forming a working domain-sized fold of 150 amino acids (Axe, 2004). Hence, functional proteins require highly organised sequences, as illustrated in Fig. 2. Though proteins tolerate a range of possible amino acids at some positions in the sequence, a random process producing amino-acid chains of this length would stumble onto a functional protein only about one in every 1050 to 1074 attempts due to genetic variation. This empirical result is quite analog to the inference from fine-tuned physics. […] The search space turns out to be too impossibly vast for blind selection to have even a slight chance of success. The contrasting view is innovations based on ingenuity, cleverness and intelligence. An element of this is what Axe calls ‘‘functional coherence”, which always involves hierarchical planning, hence is a product of finetuning. He concludes: ‘‘Functional coherence makes accidental invention fantastically improbable and therefore physically impossible” (Axe, 2016, p. 160).
They conclude that the literature shows “the probability of finding a functional protein in sequence space can vary broadly, but commonly remains far beyond the reach of Darwinian processes (Axe, 2010a).”
Citing the work of Günter Bechly and Stephen Meyer, the paper also reviews the question of whether sufficient time is allowed by the fossil record for complex systems to arise via Darwinian mechanisms. This is known as the “waiting-time problem”:
Achieving fine-tuning in a conventional Darwinian model: The waiting time problem In this section we will elaborate further on the connection between the probability of an event and the time available for that event to happen. In the context of living systems, we need to ask the question whether conventional Darwinian mechanisms have the ability to achieve fine-tuning during a prescribed period of time. This is of interest in order to correctly interpret the fossil record, which is often interpreted as having long periods of stasis interrupted by very sudden abrupt changes (Bechly and Meyer, 2017). Examples of such sudden changes include the origin of photosynthesis, the Cambrian explosions, the evolution of complex eyes and the evolution of animal flight. The accompanying genetic changes are believed to have happen very rapidly, at least on a macroevolutionary timescale, during a time period of length t. In order to test whether this is possible, a mathematical model is needed in order to estimate the prevalence P(A) of the event A that the required genetic changes in a species take place within a time window of length t.
Throughout the discussions are multiple citations of BIO-Complexity, a journal dedicated to investigating the scientific evidence for intelligent design.
A Serious Consideration of Intelligent Design
Lastly, the authors consider intelligent design as a possible explanation of biological fine-tuning, citing heavily the work of William Dembski, Winston Ewert, Robert J. Marks, and other ID theorists:
Intelligent Design (ID) has gained a lot of interest and attention in recent years, mainly in USA, by creating public attention as well as triggering vivid discussions in the scientific and public world. ID aims to adhere to the same standards of rational investigation as other scientific and philosophical enterprises, and it is subject to the same methods of evaluation and critique. ID has been criticized, both for its underlying logic and for its various formulations (Olofsson, 2008; Sarkar, 2011). William Dembski originally proposed what he called an ‘‘explanatory filter” for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design (Dembski, 1998). Viewed on a sufficiently abstract level, its logics is based on well-established principles and techniques from the theory of statistical hypothesis testing. However, it is hard to apply to many interesting biological applications or contexts, because a huge number of potential but unknown scenarios may exist, which makes it difficult to phrase a null hypothesis for a statistical test (Wilkins and Elsberry, 2001; Olofsson, 2008). The re-formulated version of a complexity measure published by Dembski and his coworkers is named Algorithmic Specified Complexity (ASC) (Ewert et al., 2013; 2014). ACS incorporates both Shannon and Kolmogorov complexity measures, and it quantifies the degree to which an event is improbable and follows a pattern. Kolmogorov complexity is related to compression of data (and hence patterns), but suffers from the property of being unknowable as there is no general method to compute it. However, it is possible to give upper bounds for the Kolmogorov complexity, and consequently ASC can be bounded without being computed exactly. ASC is based on context and is measured in bits. The same authors have applied this method to natural language, random noise, folding of proteins, images etc (Marks et al., 2017). […] The laws, constants, and primordial initial conditions of nature present the flow of nature. These purely natural objects discovered in recent years show the appearance of being deliberately fine-tuned. Functional proteins, molecular machines and cellular networks are both unlikely when viewed as outcomes of a stochastic model, with a relevant probability distribution (having a small P(A)), and at the same time they conform to an independent or detached specification (the set A being defined in terms of specificity). These results are important and deduced from central phenomena of basic science. In both physics and molecular biology, fine-tuning emerges as a uniting principle and synthesis – an interesting observation by itself. In this paper we have argued that a statistical analysis of fine-tuning is a useful and consistent approach to model some of the categories of design: ‘‘irreducible complexity” (Michael Behe), and ‘‘specified complexity” (William Dembski). As mentioned in Section 1, this approach requires a) that a probability distribution for the set of possible outcomes is introduced, and b) that a set A of fine-tuned events or more generally a specificity function f is defined. Here b) requires some apriori understanding of what fine-tuning means, for each type of application, whereas a) requires a naturalistic model for how the observed structures would have been produced by chance. The mathematical properties of such a model depend on the type of data that is analyzed. Typically a stochastic process should be used that models a dynamic feature such as stellar, chemical or biological (Darwinian) evolution. In the simplest case the state space of such a stochastic process is a scalar (one nucleotide or amino acid), a vector (a DNA or amino acid string) or a graph (protein complexes or cellular networks). A major conclusion of our work is that fine-tuning is a clear feature of biological systems. Indeed, fine-tuning is even more extreme in biological systems than in inorganic systems. It is detectable within the realm of scientific methodology. Biology is inherently more complicated than the large-scale universe and so fine-tuning is even more a feature. Still more work remains in order to analyze more complicated data structures, using more sophisticated empirical criteria. Typically, such criteria correspond to a specificity function f that not only is a helpful abstraction of an underlying pattern, such as biological fitness. One rather needs a specificity function that, although of non-physical origin, can be quantified and measured empirically in terms of physical properties such as functionality. In the long term, these criteria are necessary to make the explanations both scientifically and philosophically legitimate. However, we have enough evidence to demonstrate that fine-tuning and design deserve attention in the scientific community as a conceptual tool for investigating and understanding the natural world. The main agenda is to explore some fascinating possibilities for science and create room for new ideas and explorations. Biologists need richer conceptual resources than the physical sciences until now have been able to initiate, in terms of complex structures having non-physical information as input (Ratzsch, 2010). Yet researchers have more work to do in order to establish fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis, and ultimately a Design Science.
This is a significant development. The article gives the arguments of intelligent design theorists a major hearing in a mainstream scientific journal. And don’t miss the purpose of the article, which is stated in its final sentence — to work towards “establish[ing] fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis, and ultimately a Design Science.” The authors present compelling arguments that biological fine-tuning cannot arise via unguided Darwinian mechanisms. Some explanation is needed to account for why biological systems “show the appearance of being deliberately fine-tuned.” Despite the noise that often surrounds this debate, for ID arguments to receive such a thoughtful and positive treatment in a prominent journal is itself convincing evidence that ID has intellectual merit. Claims of ID’s critics notwithstanding, design science is being taken seriously by scientists.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-05--Doctor’s Diary: The Wonder of Your Body’s Genetic Instructions

Editor ’ s note : Dr. Simmons is a physician and the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves ?
He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .
As a physician and a lifelong student of biology , I have always been impressed by how the 75 trillion cells that make up the adult human body are able to follow and pass on millions of genetic instructions .
These How-To , When-To , Where-To , and Combine-With “ manuals , ” our genes , are written in DNA code .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ up for just one characteristic .
Genes are lined up in a very special order within the 23 twisted , paired chromosomes found in the nucleus of each cell .
Most cells and all nuclei are far too small to be seen with the naked eye , yet they hold more information than the largest metropolitan library in the world .
Possibly , more than all libraries combined .
A cell can also reproduce itself entirely in a matter of hours , and over time , does so over and over again .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ thick manual that is vertically cut in half .
Only one half is given to an egg ( ovum ) and one sperm .
A new child needs both halves .
When they combine at the time of fertilization , all the varied half-instructions become complete genes ( manuals ) again .
Imagine the great New York Public Library cutting every manual in half daily , sometimes more often , and sending every month entire halves to a comparable library in London that does its own cutting once a month .
All of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ books with mechanics books , medical books with medical books , and politics with politics .
Some are identical , many are not .
Once connected they become a new working library with information and instructions that are constantly flying out of every window , door , and computer .
Hundreds of thousands of search engines work simultaneously .
Downstream , downwind , and downstairs all of life ’ s processes are carried out .
The sign in front of this new “ building ” might say UNIQUELY HUMAN LIBRARY .
Other animals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , some with more genes/chromosomes ( manuals ) , some with fewers .
Some authors might say our blueprint resembles that belonging to a chimp , a similarity of 95 percent , but on closer inspection there are hundreds of thousands of differences .
Note that a 5 percent difference in three billion nucleotide pairs means a lot of different pairs .
Also , recently we have learned that 80 percent of our proteins are different from chimps ’ .
( Stay tuned for more on this from Marcos Eberlin . )
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The messengers may look alike , but the coded messages do not .
Think of the room you are presently in and then look at a period at the end of this sentence .
That dot is larger than most human cells .
Now , enlarge that period to the size of your room and place a transparent , slightly deflated basketball on the floor .
You now have the equivalent size of nucleus inside a fertilized ovum .
This is where each person ’ s library resides .
It is chock full @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are in fact uncountable .
In some ways , select genes act like trading cards .
They switch or trade places .
Some jump , like an insect between blades of grass .
Although a gene might reside on chromosome number 3 , it might work with a gene on chromosomes number 18 and 22 .
The reasons for these behaviors have not been found , but it feels like outside manipulation .
Genetic “ manuals ” cover virtually everything needed from day one .
The process does not act as if life @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fertilized egg may dictate what you will look like at every second of every age , what your basic personality will be like barring tragic experiences , what your many likes and dislikes will be ( what you will like to drink , what vegetable you will hate to eat , how you like your steak cooked , what characteristics you want in a spouse , etc . )
, how all of your organs will look and function and maybe if they might fail some day , where the billions of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ connect , how your body will stop bleeding and/or repair wounds , the color of your skin , the color of your eyes .
All this , plus much more , can be found within that “ invisible ” dot within a nearly invisible dot inside a pinprick .
I find all this beyond extraordinary .
Living , working manuals within a living , working library can not be the consequence of accidents of nature , trial and error , and natural selection .
As the fertilized egg travels toward the uterus , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it passes the genes ( manuals ) , originally half from Mom and half from Dad , to all of its “ daughter cells.
” One cell readily becomes two cells , two become four , four become eight , and so on , into the millions , and , later , the trillions as an adult .
Many cells change their appearance and/or activate new functions and turn others off .
For example , a common ancestor marrow cell divides into pre-pre-red blood cells and pre-pre-white blood cells .
Then come @ @ @ @ @ @ @ actual rbc and wbc .
Later on , the wbc ’ s change into at least five varieties .
This kind of progression is true of pre-kidney to kidney cells , pre-bone to bone cells , and so on throughout the different systems .
Somehow newer cells pick and choose what directions they need to get the work done and which ones are unnecessary .
For example , the completed , thyroid hormone cells don ’ t need to know how to stimulate muscle fibers and the completed nerve cells don ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make growth hormone .
How changes like that happened , no one really knows .
Although the copying process carries an incredible 99.99 percent accuracy rate , special teams stand by to make corrections in real time .
Because everything is timed , all processes are actually four-dimensional .
These instructions come in a biological language that is unlike anything ever spoken .
It is not written in ink or typed .
It can not be read with eyes , felt with fingertips , or heard by ears .
This is a biological @ @ @ @ @ @ @ living entities .
This is much too complex to have come about by serendipity .
Darwinian explanations don ’ t apply .
And , where does the spark of life come from ?
What or where is the soul ?
It ’ s all undetermined .
Each gene may have hundreds of directions such as construction needs , timing issues ( ON and OFF ) , specifications , and what-ifs .
For example , the gene for eye color would include where to plant each iris ( the colored part ) , how @ @ @ @ @ @ @ construction materials , how to mix the different specks of color , and how to interact with each pupil in the eye .
The same for hair color : where to put the thousands of hair on our bodies and possibly when to start losing some .
The same for all bones ; even that small groove between the nose and the upper lip , called a philtrum .
I doubt we will ever know how all of the parts work together .
Certainly not what starts our engines .
Only a designer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sense demands it .

Image credit: Reimund Bertrams via Pixabay.
Editor’s note: Dr. Simmons is a physician and the author most recently of Are We Here to Re-Create Ourselves? He is a Fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
As a physician and a lifelong student of biology, I have always been impressed by how the 75 trillion cells that make up the adult human body are able to follow and pass on millions of genetic instructions. These How-To, When-To, Where-To, and Combine-With “manuals,” our genes, are written in DNA code. Note that a gene is not set up for just one characteristic. Genes are lined up in a very special order within the 23 twisted, paired chromosomes found in the nucleus of each cell.
Most cells and all nuclei are far too small to be seen with the naked eye, yet they hold more information than the largest metropolitan library in the world. Possibly, more than all libraries combined. A cell can also reproduce itself entirely in a matter of hours, and over time, does so over and over again. During reproduction every gene is like a thick manual that is vertically cut in half. Only one half is given to an egg (ovum) and one sperm. A new child needs both halves. When they combine at the time of fertilization, all the varied half-instructions become complete genes (manuals) again.
New York and London
Imagine the great New York Public Library cutting every manual in half daily, sometimes more often, and sending every month entire halves to a comparable library in London that does its own cutting once a month. All of the subject matters match up, mechanics books with mechanics books, medical books with medical books, and politics with politics. Some are identical, many are not. Once connected they become a new working library with information and instructions that are constantly flying out of every window, door, and computer. Hundreds of thousands of search engines work simultaneously. Downstream, downwind, and downstairs all of life’s processes are carried out.
The sign in front of this new “building” might say UNIQUELY HUMAN LIBRARY. Other animals and plants have their own unique libraries, some with more genes/chromosomes (manuals), some with fewers. Some authors might say our blueprint resembles that belonging to a chimp, a similarity of 95 percent, but on closer inspection there are hundreds of thousands of differences. Note that a 5 percent difference in three billion nucleotide pairs means a lot of different pairs. Also, recently we have learned that 80 percent of our proteins are different from chimps’. (Stay tuned for more on this from Marcos Eberlin.) The reason may lie in different messaging. The messengers may look alike, but the coded messages do not.
A Room with a View
Think of the room you are presently in and then look at a period at the end of this sentence. That dot is larger than most human cells. Now, enlarge that period to the size of your room and place a transparent, slightly deflated basketball on the floor. You now have the equivalent size of nucleus inside a fertilized ovum. This is where each person’s library resides. It is chock full of genes (manuals), that are in fact uncountable. In some ways, select genes act like trading cards. They switch or trade places. Some jump, like an insect between blades of grass. Although a gene might reside on chromosome number 3, it might work with a gene on chromosomes number 18 and 22. The reasons for these behaviors have not been found, but it feels like outside manipulation.
Genetic “manuals” cover virtually everything needed from day one. The process does not act as if life begins later. The DNA instructions in the fertilized egg may dictate what you will look like at every second of every age, what your basic personality will be like barring tragic experiences, what your many likes and dislikes will be (what you will like to drink, what vegetable you will hate to eat, how you like your steak cooked, what characteristics you want in a spouse, etc.), how all of your organs will look and function and maybe if they might fail some day, where the billions of blood vessels and nerve cell tracts will connect, how your body will stop bleeding and/or repair wounds, the color of your skin, the color of your eyes. All this, plus much more, can be found within that “invisible” dot within a nearly invisible dot inside a pinprick.
Beyond Extraordinary
I find all this beyond extraordinary. Living, working manuals within a living, working library cannot be the consequence of accidents of nature, trial and error, and natural selection.
As the fertilized egg travels toward the uterus, it starts dividing. With each division, it passes the genes (manuals), originally half from Mom and half from Dad, to all of its “daughter cells.” One cell readily becomes two cells, two become four, four become eight, and so on, into the millions, and, later, the trillions as an adult. Many cells change their appearance and/or activate new functions and turn others off. For example, a common ancestor marrow cell divides into pre-pre-red blood cells and pre-pre-white blood cells. Then come the pre-rbc and pre-wbc and finally the actual rbc and wbc. Later on, the wbc’s change into at least five varieties. This kind of progression is true of pre-kidney to kidney cells, pre-bone to bone cells, and so on throughout the different systems. Somehow newer cells pick and choose what directions they need to get the work done and which ones are unnecessary.
For example, the completed, thyroid hormone cells don’t need to know how to stimulate muscle fibers and the completed nerve cells don’t need to know how to use or make growth hormone. How changes like that happened, no one really knows. Although the copying process carries an incredible 99.99 percent accuracy rate, special teams stand by to make corrections in real time. Because everything is timed, all processes are actually four-dimensional.
A Biological Language
These instructions come in a biological language that is unlike anything ever spoken. It is not written in ink or typed. It cannot be read with eyes, felt with fingertips, or heard by ears. This is a biological language that can be found in all living entities. This is much too complex to have come about by serendipity. Darwinian explanations don’t apply. And, where does the spark of life come from? What or where is the soul? It’s all undetermined.
Each gene may have hundreds of directions such as construction needs, timing issues (ON and OFF), specifications, and what-ifs. For example, the gene for eye color would include where to plant each iris (the colored part), how to construct it, what are the construction materials, how to mix the different specks of color, and how to interact with each pupil in the eye. The same for hair color: where to put the thousands of hair on our bodies and possibly when to start losing some. The same for all bones; even that small groove between the nose and the upper lip, called a philtrum.
I doubt we will ever know how all of the parts work together. Certainly not what starts our engines. Only a designer could have planned all this. Common sense demands it.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-06--Free Speech for Richard Dawkins? Absolutely!

Some years ago ( as I recall , autumn 2006 ) , David Berlinski and I were invited by the debating society at Trinity College Dublin to speak about intelligent design and evolution .
It was a raucous event : the students were interested mainly in rhetorical grandstanding and display , although ( I hope ) some truth was conveyed .
There was much tradition and ceremony ( signing of official registers , etc. )
.
However , Berlinski and I could easily have been “ disinvited , ” or to use the current parlance , canceled .
Richard Dawkins @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his invitation to Trinity College Dublin rescinded .
From The College Fix : Apparently not Trinity College Dublin ’ s College Historical Society , which proclaims itself “ the world ’ s oldest undergraduate society ” and “ the model for debating societies ” at Oxford , Cambridge and Yale .
Student newspaper University Times reports that the society ’ s auditor , Brid O ’ Donnell , announced on her personal Instagram page that “ The Hist ” was disinviting the militant atheist and famed author of “ The Selfish Gene ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ sic ] above all else.
” She did not know about his “ opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening , ” O ’ Donnell reportedly wrote Sunday… I think Dawkins is wrong about a great many things , but cancel culture destroys truth-seeking .
So I signed this open petition .
Here is a true story about Dawkins and me .
This goes way back , to 1987 , when I was a second-year graduate student , and The Blind Watchmaker ( TBW ) had just been published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ philosopher Michael Ruse , whom I knew personally ( we had just debated at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh , at a forum sponsored by the American Jewish Committee ) in his capacity as editor of the journal Biology and Philosophy , to ask if I could submit an essay review about TBW .
Ruse wrote back to say that TBW had already been assigned to someone else — but would I like to submit an article defending ID ?
He explained that he had cleared this offer with his associate editors , in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dawkins was strongly in favor of giving me a hearing in the journal .
Alas , their generous offer was so momentous and unexpected that I ended up paralyzed with writer ’ s block and uncertainty , and never submitted anything .
Over the next decade ( ’ 87- ’ 97 ) , Ruse and I became much closer friends , the ID debate exploded with the publication of Darwin on Trial ( 1991 ) , and you know the rest of the story .
In 1987 , a harmless graduate student who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neo-Darwinism might be an entertaining spectacle .
Nowadays , the Journal of Theoretical Biology finds itself attaching a confused disclaimer to an ID article , because no one in mainstream evolutionary theory is entertained any more .
They ’ re angry and frightened about ID .
Anyway , if you support intellectual freedom , I encourage you to sign the Dawkins / Trinity College Dublin petition .

Photo: Trinity College Dublin, by Niaz at English Wikipedia / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0).
Some years ago (as I recall, autumn 2006), David Berlinski and I were invited by the debating society at Trinity College Dublin to speak about intelligent design and evolution. It was a raucous event: the students were interested mainly in rhetorical grandstanding and display, although (I hope) some truth was conveyed. There was much tradition and ceremony (signing of official registers, etc.).
“A Polarizing Figure”
However, Berlinski and I could easily have been “disinvited,” or to use the current parlance, canceled. Richard Dawkins has just suffered that fate, with his invitation to Trinity College Dublin rescinded. From The College Fix:
Who knew evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins was a polarizing figure? Apparently not Trinity College Dublin’s College Historical Society, which proclaims itself “the world’s oldest undergraduate society” and “the model for debating societies” at Oxford, Cambridge and Yale. Student newspaper University Times reports that the society’s auditor, Brid O’Donnell, announced on her personal Instagram page that “The Hist” was disinviting the militant atheist and famed author of “The Selfish Gene” because “we value our members comfort [sic] above all else.” She did not know about his “opinions on Islam and sexual assault until this evening,” O’Donnell reportedly wrote Sunday…
I think Dawkins is wrong about a great many things, but cancel culture destroys truth-seeking. So I signed this open petition.
No Longer Entertained
Here is a true story about Dawkins and me. This goes way back, to 1987, when I was a second-year graduate student, and The Blind Watchmaker (TBW) had just been published in the United States. I wrote to philosopher Michael Ruse, whom I knew personally (we had just debated at Duquesne University in Pittsburgh, at a forum sponsored by the American Jewish Committee) in his capacity as editor of the journal Biology and Philosophy, to ask if I could submit an essay review about TBW.
Ruse wrote back to say that TBW had already been assigned to someone else — but would I like to submit an article defending ID? He explained that he had cleared this offer with his associate editors, in particular, with Dawkins, and that Dawkins was strongly in favor of giving me a hearing in the journal.
Alas, their generous offer was so momentous and unexpected that I ended up paralyzed with writer’s block and uncertainty, and never submitted anything. Over the next decade (’87-’97), Ruse and I became much closer friends, the ID debate exploded with the publication of Darwin on Trial (1991), and you know the rest of the story.
In 1987, a harmless graduate student who wanted to take on the dreadful giant neo-Darwinism might be an entertaining spectacle. Nowadays, the Journal of Theoretical Biology finds itself attaching a confused disclaimer to an ID article, because no one in mainstream evolutionary theory is entertained any more. They’re angry and frightened about ID.
Anyway, if you support intellectual freedom, I encourage you to sign the Dawkins / Trinity College Dublin petition.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-06--Admit an “Error” by Darwin and Huxley? Here’s How It Could Be Permitted

There ’ s a psychologically interesting article up at Nautilus .
The author , biologist Aaron Hirsch , is willing to admit that Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley committed an “ error.
” What ?
?
As we all know , evolutionary theory , like the famed golf game of Kim Jon-il , contains no errors or weaknesses of any kind .
More startling , Hirsch chides evolution ’ s masters for not recognizing human exceptionalism .
He rushes to assure readers that Huxley is his hero : “ Just for the record , since I am about to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heroes.
” Despite the CYA gesture , lest someone think he is one of those intelligent design scoundrels , Hirsch surprised me .
Darwin ’ s epic significance , he says , lies in the demotion of mankind from the very goal and purpose of creation to a mere byproduct of a mindless process that couldn ’ t care less about us : Since its publication in 1859 , Darwin ’ s On the Origin of Species has been read as a blow to the hubris of Homo sapiens .
We aren ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perfect creation , after all , but merely one more product of the same evolutionary process that gave rise to apes , lampreys , and limpets .
In his eulogy to Darwin , delivered in 1882 , the German physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond put it concisely : “ Darwin seems to me to be the Copernicus of the organic world.
” Just as Copernicus had displaced man from the center of celestial orbits , Darwin had toppled him from the pinnacle of “ animated beings.
” Du Bois-Reymond ’ s analogy gained broad @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is often misattributed to Sigmund Freud , who appropriated it with just a wee bit of vainglory , adding psychoanalysis as “ the third and most bitter blow ” to humanity ’ s “ naive self-love .
If the idea that Darwin humbled us has become canonical , what is less often observed is the fact that the newfound humility was , in certain important respects , misleading — and dangerously so .
In the latter half of the 19th century , when small-scale artisanal methods were giving way to larger-scale industrialization in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Homo sapiens was not , in fact , just another species , an organism like any other .
To the contrary , H. sapiens was just embarking on a period of more sudden environmental transformation than any single species had ever achieved .
Homo sapiens was , in fact , quite special .
It was a consequential error to think otherwise .
In one important area of resource extraction — marine fisheries — we can trace the ramifications of Darwinian humility as it blinded powerful people to the unique and cataclysmic scale @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huxley ’ s indifference to English overfishing of the North Sea , as he reasoned that man , being like any other species , would stop short of catastrophe : “ Any tendency to overfishing will meet with its natural check in the diminution of the supply … this check will always come into operation long before anything like permanent exhaustion has occurred.
” He was wrong in that .
Man is not like any other species , for both good and evil .
Our inventions ensure that , if used unwisely , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
No other animal can do that : Hirsch toys with recognizing the Biblical view of man as holding “ dominion ” over the planet , but then in the end concludes that what makes us unique is how uniquely dangerous we are not only to nature but to ourselves : If Huxley had taken Darwinian humbling further , perhaps he might have wondered whether humanity was entitled to its sweeping extractive project .
Or perhaps it would have occurred to him that the remarkable evolutionary trajectory of Homo sapiens , like those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across in the fossil record , might have rendered him vulnerable to extinction .
Like Lord Byron , we are “ mad , bad , and dangerous to know.
” In that way only — our badness — do we stand out .
Hirsch ’ s hero Huxley could and should have “ taken Darwinian humbling further ” by recognizing this .
What ’ s fascinating , as I said , is the psychology here .
Degrading humankind to the animal level is , to many Darwinists , one of their theory ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no exaggeration that self-degradation drives the theory — and that is the profoundest thing at stake in the evolution debate .
For strict Darwinists , an exceptional place for man in nature is a conclusion to be resisted at all costs — just as attributions of “ error ” to Darwin , or Huxley , must be resisted .
There is one escape clause , though .
A special place for humans , or an error by Darwin , may be admitted if , and only if , the upshot of the admission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ privileges in a worse light than before .
In this way , Hirsch can grant himself permission to question the masters .

Image: T. H. Huxley, by A. Legros, via Wikimedia Commons.
There’s a psychologically interesting article up at Nautilus. The author, biologist Aaron Hirsch, is willing to admit that Charles Darwin and T. H. Huxley committed an “error.” What?? As we all know, evolutionary theory, like the famed golf game of Kim Jon-il, contains no errors or weaknesses of any kind. More startling, Hirsch chides evolution’s masters for not recognizing human exceptionalism. He rushes to assure readers that Huxley is his hero: “Just for the record, since I am about to indict him: He is among my heroes.” Despite the CYA gesture, lest someone think he is one of those intelligent design scoundrels, Hirsch surprised me.
Goal and Purpose
Darwin’s epic significance, he says, lies in the demotion of mankind from the very goal and purpose of creation to a mere byproduct of a mindless process that couldn’t care less about us:
Since its publication in 1859, Darwin’s On the Origin of Species has been read as a blow to the hubris of Homo sapiens. We aren’t God’s final and most perfect creation, after all, but merely one more product of the same evolutionary process that gave rise to apes, lampreys, and limpets. In his eulogy to Darwin, delivered in 1882, the German physiologist Emil du Bois-Reymond put it concisely: “Darwin seems to me to be the Copernicus of the organic world.” Just as Copernicus had displaced man from the center of celestial orbits, Darwin had toppled him from the pinnacle of “animated beings.” Du Bois-Reymond’s analogy gained broad intellectual currency, and in fact it is often misattributed to Sigmund Freud, who appropriated it with just a wee bit of vainglory, adding psychoanalysis as “the third and most bitter blow” to humanity’s “naive self-love. If the idea that Darwin humbled us has become canonical, what is less often observed is the fact that the newfound humility was, in certain important respects, misleading — and dangerously so. In the latter half of the 19th century, when small-scale artisanal methods were giving way to larger-scale industrialization in many areas of resource extraction and use, Homo sapiens was not, in fact, just another species, an organism like any other. To the contrary, H. sapiens was just embarking on a period of more sudden environmental transformation than any single species had ever achieved. Homo sapiens was, in fact, quite special. It was a consequential error to think otherwise. In one important area of resource extraction — marine fisheries — we can trace the ramifications of Darwinian humility as it blinded powerful people to the unique and cataclysmic scale of their ecological impact.
Hirsch recounts Huxley’s indifference to English overfishing of the North Sea, as he reasoned that man, being like any other species, would stop short of catastrophe: “Any tendency to overfishing will meet with its natural check in the diminution of the supply … this check will always come into operation long before anything like permanent exhaustion has occurred.” He was wrong in that. Man is not like any other species, for both good and evil. Our inventions ensure that, if used unwisely, we can destroy the environment and ourselves. No other animal can do that:
Twenty years later Huxley would serve again on a royal commission, this one prompted by the advent of yet another revolutionary advance in fishing technology, the steam trawl. Where before trawlers had traveled under sail and hauled their nets by manpower, now the steam engine enabled ships to swiftly and efficiently traverse every patch of seabed, and winches were turned with unprecedented ease and speed.
Uniquely Dangerous
Hirsch toys with recognizing the Biblical view of man as holding “dominion” over the planet, but then in the end concludes that what makes us unique is how uniquely dangerous we are not only to nature but to ourselves:
If Huxley had taken Darwinian humbling further, perhaps he might have wondered whether humanity was entitled to its sweeping extractive project. Or perhaps it would have occurred to him that the remarkable evolutionary trajectory of Homo sapiens, like those of several other species he had come across in the fossil record, might have rendered him vulnerable to extinction.
Like Lord Byron, we are “mad, bad, and dangerous to know.” In that way only — our badness — do we stand out. Hirsch’s hero Huxley could and should have “taken Darwinian humbling further” by recognizing this.
What’s fascinating, as I said, is the psychology here. Degrading humankind to the animal level is, to many Darwinists, one of their theory’s main attractions. It’s no exaggeration that self-degradation drives the theory — and that is the profoundest thing at stake in the evolution debate. For strict Darwinists, an exceptional place for man in nature is a conclusion to be resisted at all costs — just as attributions of “error” to Darwin, or Huxley, must be resisted. There is one escape clause, though. A special place for humans, or an error by Darwin, may be admitted if, and only if, the upshot of the admission is to set our species and its privileges in a worse light than before. In this way, Hirsch can grant himself permission to question the masters.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-07--The Evolutionary Psychologist Will See You Now

If you ’ ve ever sought counseling over distressing issues in your life , consider the prospect of looking for help from an evolutionary psychologist .
Denyse O ’ Leary at Mind Matters offers a brilliant dissection of an article by a pair of anthropologists who emphasize the Darwinian view that humans are nothing more than evolved animals .
Writing at Psyche , Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen argue that “ Most anguish isn ’ t an illness but an evolved response to adversity ” : Fear , anxiety , sadness and low mood are forms of psychological pain @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to physical pain — informing the organism that it is experiencing harm , helping it escape or mitigate harm , and stimulating it to learn to avoid similar harms .
Psychological pain , like physical pain , probably evolved by natural selection , and in many or most cases is therefore not a disease .
They see value in avoiding the “ stigma ” associated with disease .
O ’ Leary : Probably .
But it ’ s unclear that most mental health professionals treat grief and anxiety as a disease unless it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationships , and then they really must see it that way .
Issues about how and why it “ evolved ” wouldn ’ t matter much in the medical context .
How about wouldn ’ t matter at all ?
There are problems with thinking of anguish as simply an evolved animal response .
It is empty evolutionary storytelling , for one thing .
This should sound familiar .
As Philip Skell , writing for The Scientist , found after surveying research in a number of relevant scientific fields , the pattern is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had provided no discernible guidance , but was brought in , after the breakthroughs , as an interesting narrative gloss.
” Or as neuroscientist Michael Egnor has written here : False medicalization of what needs a wise counselor ’ s intervention instead could ruin a person ’ s life .
Resisting a diagnosis of disease when it ’ s not appropriate is important , but you didn ’ t need evolution to tell you that .
I have observed up close a case of just that kind and it was the mother ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s narrative , that won the day and averted what might have been a disaster .
The limits , veering on the uselessness , of the evolutionary insight stands out .
But worse , false evolutionary analysis , in a context where , again , wise counsel is required , could be as harmful as the false medical take .
It needs no wisdom to stamp “ ANIMAL ” on the sufferer ’ s forehead , any more than it does to stamp “ DISEASED.
” Would you ever seek help from an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t .
Would anyone ?
Not many , probably not many evolutionary biologists for that matter .
But if they did , there are worse things than irrelevance .
Treating serious problems of the soul with a touch of narrative gloss could be nothing less than catastrophic .
Read the rest at Mind Matters .

Photo credit: Nik Shuliahin, via Unsplash.
If you’ve ever sought counseling over distressing issues in your life, consider the prospect of looking for help from an evolutionary psychologist. Denyse O’Leary at Mind Matters offers a brilliant dissection of an article by a pair of anthropologists who emphasize the Darwinian view that humans are nothing more than evolved animals.
Writing at Psyche, Kristen Syme and Edward H. Hagen argue that “Most anguish isn’t an illness but an evolved response to adversity”:
Fear, anxiety, sadness and low mood are forms of psychological pain that probably serve functions that are analogous to physical pain — informing the organism that it is experiencing harm, helping it escape or mitigate harm, and stimulating it to learn to avoid similar harms. Psychological pain, like physical pain, probably evolved by natural selection, and in many or most cases is therefore not a disease.
They see value in avoiding the “stigma” associated with disease. O’Leary:
Probably. But it’s unclear that most mental health professionals treat grief and anxiety as a disease unless it is harming physical and mental health and relationships, and then they really must see it that way. Issues about how and why it “evolved” wouldn’t matter much in the medical context.
“Wouldn’t Matter Much”?
How about wouldn’t matter at all? There are problems with thinking of anguish as simply an evolved animal response. It is empty evolutionary storytelling, for one thing. This should sound familiar. As Philip Skell, writing for The Scientist, found after surveying research in a number of relevant scientific fields, the pattern is this: “Darwin’s theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.”
Or as neuroscientist Michael Egnor has written here:
Darwinists use “evolution” because it’s their creation myth and because its regular invocation is required by their thought police. Doctors and medical researchers don’t use “evolution” because it’s irrelevant to medical research. Fairy tales about survival of survivors contribute nothing to medical research, or to any other research.
A Mother’s Instinct
False medicalization of what needs a wise counselor’s intervention instead could ruin a person’s life. Resisting a diagnosis of disease when it’s not appropriate is important, but you didn’t need evolution to tell you that. I have observed up close a case of just that kind and it was the mother’s instinct, not the evolutionist’s narrative, that won the day and averted what might have been a disaster.
The limits, veering on the uselessness, of the evolutionary insight stands out. But worse, false evolutionary analysis, in a context where, again, wise counsel is required, could be as harmful as the false medical take. It needs no wisdom to stamp “ANIMAL” on the sufferer’s forehead, any more than it does to stamp “DISEASED.”
Would you ever seek help from an avowed evolutionary psychologist? I sure wouldn’t. Would anyone? Not many, probably not many evolutionary biologists for that matter. But if they did, there are worse things than irrelevance. Treating serious problems of the soul with a touch of narrative gloss could be nothing less than catastrophic. Read the rest at Mind Matters.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-07--Michael Denton Identifies TWO Intelligent Designs in the Universe

Here is a wonderful new video lecture , “ The Fitness of Nature for Mankind , ” by Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton .
He gives a new expression to what he calls the “ medieval synthesis ” of knowledge about life , now enjoying a “ Reconquista ” thanks to modern science .
In charming and lyrical yet rigorous fashion , Denton reviews the design evidence detailed in his books , including the most recent , The Miracle of the Cell : “ The whole world works together in the service of man , ” as Francis Bacon wrote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ modern rigor .
You may notice that Dr. Denton is wearing not one but two sweaters at once , one on top of the other .
It ’ s not a bad , professorial sort of look .
But I also take it as a deliberate gesture , a significant sign or metaphor : there are two lairs or sides to the argument for intelligent design .
One focuses on biology .
It highlights the design of living things , their bodies , their organs , their minds and consciousness .
The other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precise tuning of nature , its fitness for carbon-based living creatures specifically of our own design .
This lair represents the remarkable , even absurdly precise preconditions of life .
There could be no intelligent design to life without it .
As Denton points out , the design of physics and chemistry must have been in place already at the Big Bang .
It is the very “ ground of being.
” It must reflect the planning of an intelligence that came before the first moments of our universe .
To this design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ divine.
” The design of physics and chemistry is necessarily divine .
If it comes before all known physical existence , what else would it be ?
The contrast with the design in biology is noteworthy .
Hypothetically , biological design might not be of a transcendent origin .
But the design Denton discusses here must be transcendent .
It seals the deal .

Here is a wonderful new video lecture, “The Fitness of Nature for Mankind,” by Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton. He gives a new expression to what he calls the “medieval synthesis” of knowledge about life, now enjoying a “Reconquista” thanks to modern science. In charming and lyrical yet rigorous fashion, Denton reviews the design evidence detailed in his books, including the most recent, The Miracle of the Cell:
“The whole world works together in the service of man,” as Francis Bacon wrote. Denton revives this ancient insight with modern rigor.
You may notice that Dr. Denton is wearing not one but two sweaters at once, one on top of the other. It’s not a bad, professorial sort of look. But I also take it as a deliberate gesture, a significant sign or metaphor: there are two layers or sides to the argument for intelligent design. One focuses on biology. It highlights the design of living things, their bodies, their organs, their minds and consciousness. The other focuses on physics and chemistry, the precise tuning of nature, its fitness for carbon-based living creatures specifically of our own design. This layer represents the remarkable, even absurdly precise preconditions of life. There could be no intelligent design to life without it.
As Denton points out, the design of physics and chemistry must have been in place already at the Big Bang. It is the very “ground of being.” It must reflect the planning of an intelligence that came before the first moments of our universe. To this design, Dr. Denton attaches the word “divine.” The design of physics and chemistry is necessarily divine. If it comes before all known physical existence, what else would it be? The contrast with the design in biology is noteworthy. Hypothetically, biological design might not be of a transcendent origin. But the design Denton discusses here must be transcendent. It seals the deal.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-07--Bechly: The Demise of the Artifact Hypothesis

Darwinian gradualism predicts biological forms evolving gradually from one to another .
However , it is widely acknowledged that this @ @ @ @ @ record shows .
Darwinists have long suggested that the fossil record ’ s pattern of @ @ @ @ @ artifact of that record being incomplete .
But on a new episode of ID the @ @ @ @ @ makes the case that recent findings have put the nails in the coffin of this @ @ @ @ @ goes on to argue that these findings are “ not just a tiny problem but @ @ @ @ @ modern Darwinism .
Download the podcast or listen to it here .

Photo credit: Smith609 at English Wikipedia / CC BY-SA (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/).
Darwinian gradualism predicts biological forms evolving gradually from one to another. However, it is widely acknowledged that this is not what the fossil record shows. Darwinists have long suggested that the fossil record’s pattern of major discontinuities is merely an artifact of that record being incomplete. But on a new episode of ID the Future, paleoentomologist Günter Bechly makes the case that recent findings have put the nails in the coffin of this “artifact hypothesis.” He goes on to argue that these findings are “not just a tiny problem but a fatal problem” for modern Darwinism. Download the podcast or listen to it here.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-08--Really? Editors Claim They Were “Unaware” of Article’s Intelligent Design Connections

As John West reported , the co-Chief Editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology capitulated to intelligent design ( ID ) critics and added a disclaimer to a groundbreaking peer-reviewed article on intelligent design .
They say they were “ unaware ” that the authors had added the keyword “ intelligent design ” to the paper .
Is this complaint credible ?
Let ’ s take a look .
The implication is that the editors — Denise Kirschner , Mark Chaplain , and Akira Sasaki — did not realize the article was about intelligent design .
That is three people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ notice the obvious .
Further , it ’ s implied that the authors inappropriately snuck intelligent design into the keywords when , it would seem from the disclaimer , this was unwarranted .
But if the paper is about ID , avowedly so , wouldn ’ t it make sense to put ID in the keywords ?
After all , that ’ s how keywords work .
More on that in a moment .
But the precise details of how and when the keyword was added become trivial when you realize that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ design , and trying to determine if a scientific methodology for detecting design can be developed .
It is completely non-credible for the journal ’ s editors to feign surprise that intelligent design is a core concept in the paper .
Had any of them simply read the paper , it would have been evident that the paper has a major focus on ID .
See our earlier commentary on the science of the paper here .
The paper explicitly discusses intelligent design throughout .
Here are some direct quotes ( emphasis added @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ID ) has gained a lot of interest and attention in recent years , mainly in USA , by creating public attention as well as triggering vivid discussions in the scientific and public world .
ID aims to adhere to the same standards of rational investigation as other scientific and philosophical enterprises , and it is subject to the same methods of evaluation and critique .
ID has been criticized , both for its underlying logic and for its various formulations ( Olofsson , 2008 ; Sarkar , 2011 ) .
” • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ called an ‘ ‘ explanatory filter ” for distinguishing between events due to chance , lawful regularity or design ( Dembski , 1998 ) .
Viewed on a sufficiently abstract level , its logics is based on well-established principles and techniques from the theory of statistical hypothesis testing .
However , it is hard to apply to many interesting biological applications or contexts , because a huge number of potential but unknown scenarios may exist , which makes it difficult to phrase a null hypothesis for a statistical test ( Wilkins and Elsberry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
” • “ We believe the model selection approach is very promising for future fine-tuning research .
It can be used , for instance , when deciding whether the diversity of life is best explained by Darwinian macroevolution ( M2 ) or a design-inspired model ( M1 ) .
Examples of design-inspired models are the Dependency Graph of Winston Ewert ( 2018 ) , and a forest of microevolutionary family trees , where the species within each family tree descend from a designed common ancestral population ( Tan , 2015 ; 2016 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ paper we have argued that a statistical analysis of finetuning is a useful and consistent approach to model some of the categories of design : ‘ irreducible complexity ’ ( Michael Behe ) , and ‘ ‘ specified complexity ” ( William Dembski ) .
” • “ However , we have enough evidence to demonstrate that fine-tuning and design deserve attention in the scientific community as a conceptual tool for investigating and understanding the natural world .
The main agenda is to explore some fascinating possibilities for science and create room for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ richer conceptual resources than the physical sciences until now have been able to initiate , in terms of complex structures having non-physical information as input ( Ratzsch , 2010 ) .
Yet researchers have more work to do in order to establish fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis , and ultimately a Design Science.
” Déjà Vu All Over Again This reminds us of a past incident with the book Biological Information : New Perspectives ( BINP ) .
The editors at the science publisher Springer similarly claimed they were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the book .
That too was a false claim because Springer had agreed to publish the BINP book based upon a prospectus they had received from the authors .
The prospectus explicitly stated and outlined the ID arguments of the book and its contributors .
Perhaps pro-censorship groups like the National Center for Science Education feed science publishers the same talking point when publishers accidentally forget to blacklist ID-friendly viewpoints : “ Don ’ t worry about the details or the facts .
Just claim you were ‘ unaware ’ of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ look like those devious ID guys tried to sneak it past the reviewers.
” But as we can see , the article ’ s interest in investigating ID is open , unhidden , and plain to all readers .
The only scandal here is on the part of the editors .
Either they don ’ t read what they publish , or they are pretending they were “ unaware ” of the ID connections in the article .
Is Intelligent Design an Appropriate Keyword ?
Now , back to the question of keywords @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Theoretical Biology , explains that choosing the right keywords for an article is important to make the article findable by search engines : Effective keywords for your article portray an accurate representation of what you publish .
When someone searches for an article on the latest nutritional studies pertaining to apples , they don ’ t want to see an article about the relationship between tectonic activity and volcanoes .
That ’ s an extreme example , but if enough keywords about nutrition and apples end up in an article about tectonics @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the article is about apples .
Elsevier and Wiley both emphasize choosing keywords “ naturally to signal that they are key topics covered in your research ” and to “ portray an accurate representation of what you publish.
” Would “ intelligent design ” as a keyword for this article fit those criteria ?
Given that the main focus of the article is to ask whether there are statistical methods by which “ fine-tuning ” and “ intelligent design ” can be detected , the answer is of course yes .
It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ intelligent design ” should be listed as keywords .
The editors ’ complaints are entirely phony .

Photo credit: Mimi Thian, via Unsplash.
As John West reported, the co-Chief Editors of the Journal of Theoretical Biology capitulated to intelligent design (ID) critics and added a disclaimer to a groundbreaking peer-reviewed article on intelligent design. They say they were “unaware” that the authors had added the keyword “intelligent design” to the paper. Is this complaint credible? Let’s take a look.
The implication is that the editors — Denise Kirschner, Mark Chaplain, and Akira Sasaki — did not realize the article was about intelligent design. That is three people, working together, all failed to notice the obvious. Further, it’s implied that the authors inappropriately snuck intelligent design into the keywords when, it would seem from the disclaimer, this was unwarranted. But if the paper is about ID, avowedly so, wouldn’t it make sense to put ID in the keywords? After all, that’s how keywords work. More on that in a moment. But the precise details of how and when the keyword was added become trivial when you realize that the entire paper is framed around investigating intelligent design, and trying to determine if a scientific methodology for detecting design can be developed. It is completely non-credible for the journal’s editors to feign surprise that intelligent design is a core concept in the paper. Had any of them simply read the paper, it would have been evident that the paper has a major focus on ID.
Some Direct Quotes
See our earlier commentary on the science of the paper here. The paper explicitly discusses intelligent design throughout. Here are some direct quotes (emphasis added):
“Intelligent Design (ID) has gained a lot of interest and attention in recent years, mainly in USA, by creating public attention as well as triggering vivid discussions in the scientific and public world. ID aims to adhere to the same standards of rational investigation as other scientific and philosophical enterprises, and it is subject to the same methods of evaluation and critique. ID has been criticized, both for its underlying logic and for its various formulations (Olofsson, 2008; Sarkar, 2011).”
“William Dembski originally proposed what he called an ‘‘explanatory filter” for distinguishing between events due to chance, lawful regularity or design (Dembski, 1998). Viewed on a sufficiently abstract level, its logics is based on well-established principles and techniques from the theory of statistical hypothesis testing. However, it is hard to apply to many interesting biological applications or contexts, because a huge number of potential but unknown scenarios may exist, which makes it difficult to phrase a null hypothesis for a statistical test (Wilkins and Elsberry, 2001; Olofsson, 2008).”
“We believe the model selection approach is very promising for future fine-tuning research. It can be used, for instance, when deciding whether the diversity of life is best explained by Darwinian macroevolution (M2) or a design-inspired model (M1). Examples of design-inspired models are the Dependency Graph of Winston Ewert (2018), and a forest of microevolutionary family trees, where the species within each family tree descend from a designed common ancestral population (Tan, 2015; 2016).”
“In this paper we have argued that a statistical analysis of finetuning is a useful and consistent approach to model some of the categories of design: ‘irreducible complexity’ (Michael Behe), and ‘‘specified complexity” (William Dembski).”
“However, we have enough evidence to demonstrate that fine-tuning and design deserve attention in the scientific community as a conceptual tool for investigating and understanding the natural world. The main agenda is to explore some fascinating possibilities for science and create room for new ideas and explorations. Biologists need richer conceptual resources than the physical sciences until now have been able to initiate, in terms of complex structures having non-physical information as input (Ratzsch, 2010). Yet researchers have more work to do in order to establish fine-tuning as a sustainable and fully testable scientific hypothesis, and ultimately a Design Science.”
Déjà Vu All Over Again
This reminds us of a past incident with the book Biological Information: New Perspectives (BINP). The editors at the science publisher Springer similarly claimed they were “unaware” of the ID connections in the book. That too was a false claim because Springer had agreed to publish the BINP book based upon a prospectus they had received from the authors. The prospectus explicitly stated and outlined the ID arguments of the book and its contributors.
Perhaps pro-censorship groups like the National Center for Science Education feed science publishers the same talking point when publishers accidentally forget to blacklist ID-friendly viewpoints: “Don’t worry about the details or the facts. Just claim you were ‘unaware’ of the intelligent design connections, and make it look like those devious ID guys tried to sneak it past the reviewers.” But as we can see, the article’s interest in investigating ID is open, unhidden, and plain to all readers. The only scandal here is on the part of the editors. Either they don’t read what they publish, or they are pretending they were “unaware” of the ID connections in the article.
Is Intelligent Design an Appropriate Keyword?
Now, back to the question of keywords. Elsevier, which publishes the Journal of Theoretical Biology, explains that choosing the right keywords for an article is important to make the article findable by search engines:
Who do you want to read your article? Put yourself in their shoes: if they were trying to find your article, what would they search for? … Make sure you include keywords naturally to signal that they are key topics covered in your research, increasing the likelihood of your article appearing for search queries related to each term.
Wiley, another publisher, gives similar advice:
Effective keywords for your article portray an accurate representation of what you publish. When someone searches for an article on the latest nutritional studies pertaining to apples, they don’t want to see an article about the relationship between tectonic activity and volcanoes. That’s an extreme example, but if enough keywords about nutrition and apples end up in an article about tectonics and volcanoes, search engines may think the article is about apples.
Elsevier and Wiley both emphasize choosing keywords “naturally to signal that they are key topics covered in your research” and to “portray an accurate representation of what you publish.” Would “intelligent design” as a keyword for this article fit those criteria? Given that the main focus of the article is to ask whether there are statistical methods by which “fine-tuning” and “intelligent design” can be detected, the answer is of course yes. It is absolutely appropriate that “fine-tuning” and “intelligent design” should be listed as keywords. The editors’ complaints are entirely phony.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-08--Helen Hansma: Round Two on the Origin of Life

My latest exchange in the journal Inference on the origin of life was just published .
Please find it here @ @ @ @ @ Hansma , Research Biophysicist Emeritus , Department of Physics at U.C .
Santa Barbara .
@ @ @ @ @ model .
Her response is very respectful , and she actual engages my arguments .
@ @ @ @ @ entering into such thoughtful exchanges given how most scientists in the ID movement have been @ @ @ @ @ to come later .
For Round One , see , “ On the Origin of @ @ @ @ @ Response to Jeremy England .
”

Photo: Mica, by Pascal Terjan from London, United Kingdom / CC BY-SA (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0).
My latest exchange in the journal Inference on the origin of life was just published. Please find it here. My interlocutor is Helen Hansma, Research Biophysicist Emeritus, Department of Physics at U.C. Santa Barbara. She pioneered the mica-sheet origin-of-life model. Her response is very respectful, and she actual engages my arguments. I feel a little guilty entering into such thoughtful exchanges given how most scientists in the ID movement have been treated. More on this to come later. For Round One, see, “On the Origin of Life, Here Is My Response to Jeremy England.”


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-10-08--Logan Paul Gage: “Our Galileo Complex”

Logan Paul Gage: “Our Galileo Complex”

In you live in a place like Seattle , you see them everywhere : yard signs announcing “ IN THIS HOUSE , WE BELIEVE , ” followed by a series of statements that all sound obvious enough at first .
One statement says , “ SCIENCE IS REAL.
” Now , who doesn ’ t believe that ?
Have you ever met someone who thinks that science is NOT real ?
I sure haven ’ t .
These signs fascinate me .
They imply that the homeowner thinks he may have neighbors who the believe the scientific enterprise itself to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with certain scientists on certain controversial or other-than-scientific matters ) .
But of course the signs ’ function isn ’ t to make such a ridiculous assertion .
They are more like a notification that the people living in the house are enlightened and morally superior , and of the true faith .
That ’ s the real point .
How did science , of all things , come to be a vehicle for virtue signaling , a virtual religion , with insiders and outsiders , the churched and the unchurched , believers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damned ?
Philosopher Logan Paul Gage address that question in a series of lectures , “ How Science Became a Religion.
” You can watch the first lecture here .
It ’ s excellent : Professor Gage , who teaches at Franciscan University , is smart to cast the subject in a historical light .
The novel religion of science , he says , goes back to the “ Galileo legend ” that established an influential fiction : scientists are the pure and the holy while the traditional religions , especially Christianity , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Gage reminds us , the Galileo story “ was hardly a simple case of the church blindly clinging to tradition , or reason versus superstition.
” The history is much more fascinating and complicated than that .
But a really effective myth must be simple .
Belief in this myth establishes the dividing line between the virtuous and the unholy , Science versus Anti-Science .
We all live in the shadow of Galileo , a falsified shadow , and those “ SCIENCE IS REAL ” yard signs are there to remind you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You can and should watch the rest of the series here at the New Polity website .
It ’ s FREE NOW through October 15 .

Image: Galileo Facing the Roman Inquisition, by Cristiano Banti / Public domain.
In you live in a place like Seattle, you see them everywhere: yard signs announcing “IN THIS HOUSE, WE BELIEVE,” followed by a series of statements that all sound obvious enough at first. One statement says, “SCIENCE IS REAL.” Now, who doesn’t believe that? Have you ever met someone who thinks that science is NOT real? I sure haven’t.
These signs fascinate me. They imply that the homeowner thinks he may have neighbors who the believe the scientific enterprise itself to be fake (as opposed to disagreeing with certain scientists on certain controversial or other-than-scientific matters). But of course the signs’ function isn’t to make such a ridiculous assertion. They are more like a notification that the people living in the house are enlightened and morally superior, and of the true faith. That’s the real point.
How did science, of all things, come to be a vehicle for virtue signaling, a virtual religion, with insiders and outsiders, the churched and the unchurched, believers and deniers, the saved and the damned? Philosopher Logan Paul Gage addresses that question in a series of lectures, “How Science Became a Religion.” You can watch the first lecture here. It’s excellent:
Historical Light on an Influential Fiction
Professor Gage, who teaches at Franciscan University, is smart to cast the subject in a historical light. The novel religion of science, he says, goes back to the “Galileo legend” that established an influential fiction: scientists are the pure and the holy while the traditional religions, especially Christianity, are their benighted persecutors. In fact, Gage reminds us, the Galileo story “was hardly a simple case of the church blindly clinging to tradition, or reason versus superstition.” The history is much more fascinating and complicated than that.
But a really effective myth must be simple. Belief in this myth establishes the dividing line between the virtuous and the unholy, Science versus Anti-Science. We all live in the shadow of Galileo, a falsified shadow, and those “SCIENCE IS REAL” yard signs are there to remind you of it every time who go by.
You can and should watch the rest of the series here at the New Polity website. It’s FREE NOW through October 15.