evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-08--Survey Misclassifies Darwin-Doubting Teachers

As we ’ ve been discussing , Ann Reid , executive director of the National Center for Science Education ( NCSE ) , recently published an article in the world ’ s top scientific journal , Nature , reporting on apparent successes they have had in preventing teachers from teaching “ creationism ” in public schools .
Citing her recent study in the journal Evolution : Education and Outreach , Reid claimed “ teachers who present creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution fell from 32 % in 2007 to 18 % in 2019.
” Keeping in mind that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with “ creationism , ” there are reasons to be skeptical of that purported large drop .
As we explained , the details of their survey show that the number of teachers who agreed that they present ID as a “ valid , scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations ” was precisely unchanged between 2007 and 2019 .
But teaching intelligent design in public schools isn ’ t even what Discovery Institute recommends .
Rather , we recommend that public schools present students with the scientific strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian evolution and theories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into intelligent design .
If we take Reid ’ s article at face value , the percentage of teachers who reject this approach is very high : However , a closer look at the survey shows that because of the questionable criteria and definitions it employs , a teacher that is claimed as an “ advocate of evolution ” and teaches evolution as “ settled science ” could actually be teaching the controversy .
One of the main weaknesses in the modern theory of evolution is the lack of a mechanism to account @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observe in life .
Traditionally the explanation has been natural selection acting on random mutation .
But over 1,000 PhD scientists have signed a statement agreeing that they are “ skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.
” Of course there are many other weaknesses in modern Darwinian theory .
If we look at this these two surveys from 2007 and 2019 , how many teachers do we find are teaching the scientific controversy over evolutionary biology ?
Turns out the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The survey ’ s methodology either labels teachers as “ advocates of creationism ” or “ advocates of evolution , ” and anyone else is placed in an ambiguous and poorly defined group they have called “ ambivalent , ” the “ cautious middle ” or teachers who send “ mixed messages.
” Based upon their survey ’ s methodology , it ’ s impossible to say how many teachers are teaching the controversy over evolution because it does not interrogate that question .
In fact , their survey ’ s methodology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who are potentially teaching the controversy over evolution as if they are “ advocates of evolution ” who teach evolution as “ settled science.
” According to their methodology , a teacher is an “ advocate of evolution ” who pushes evolution as “ settled science ” if they : None of the above criteria are incompatible with a teacher who teaches the required curriculum but also wants to go beyond that curriculum and inform students about scientific weaknesses in evolution .
In fact , the way they designed their survey , a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the “ mechanism ” of natural selection acting on random mutation ( plus other forces like genetic drift ) , and teaching students that standard evolutionary mechanisms can not build many of the complex features we see in life , and yet still agree with statement ( a ) .
By including the caveat , “ even as scientists disagree about the specific mechanisms through which evolution occurred , ” it seems almost as if the investigators intentionally created a survey that made it appear that teachers who are teaching the controversy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evolution ” who push evolution as “ settled science.
” A teacher could literally tell students , “ Credible biologists such as Michael Behe accept common ancestry but doubt that evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection , random mutation ( and genetic drift , etc . )
can produce complex molecular machines and other irreducibly complex features , ” and by the NCSE ’ s survey ’ s standards that teacher could still be considered as teaching evolution as “ settled science.
” Thus , the irony is that a teacher could honestly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” criteria — ( a ) noting that the scientific consensus supports evolution , ( b ) teaching everything in the prescribed curriculum which makes evolution a central theme , and ( c ) agreeing that a good biology course needs to cover Darwin — and yet still actively teach students about scientific weaknesses of evolutionary biology , such as doubts over the ability of natural selection acting on random mutation to generate the complexity of life .
In fact , Discovery Institute supports teachers who take exactly this approach .
There ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be misclassified as “ advocates of evolution ” : the survey mentions support for “ evolution ” but never defines exactly what it means by that term .
Teachers are thus free to interpret the term and assess their support for it however they want .
Teachers may define — and agree with — evolution understood as ( 1 ) “ change over time , ” or ( 2 ) “ common ancestry , ” but they may have doubts about evolution defined as ( 3 ) natural selection acting upon random mutation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) serving as the driving mechanism to generate the adaptive complexity of species .
Even a so-called “ creationist ” teacher might agree with evolution definition # 1 — “ change over time.
” Teaching “ evolution ” as “ settled science ” might not always mean what the survey ’ s authors want it to mean .
But even if a teacher did understand “ evolution ” to mean the full-blown modern neo-Darwinian model ( which incorporates all three definitions above — change over time , common ancestry , and natural selection @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mechanism ) , he or she could still meet all the criteria of an “ advocate of evolution ” and yet teach students about the theory ’ s weaknesses .
The study therefore undoubtedly underreports the percentage of teachers who instruct students about weaknesses in evolution .
We discussed this back in 2011 when the survey was first published in the journal Science in an article here on Evolution News , “ Evolution Education Survey Underreports Darwin-Doubting Teachers.
” We noted that the study has sources of error and bias that would lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ theory .
The authors of the study actually seemed cognizant that many teachers might be teaching the controversy over evolution yet the survey would never uncover this fact .
They wrote in Science : Or , as Berkman and Plutzer wrote in an article , “ Enablers of Doubt : How Future Teachers Learn to Negotiate the Evolution Wars in Their Classrooms , ” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science : Last year Eric Plutzer , lead author of the 2020 study , admitted that his survey methods @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ have doubts ” about evolution , but don ’ t necessarily admit to teaching intelligent design or creationism , as David Klinghoffer observed : Of course , words like “ enablers of doubt ” or “ hindering scientific literacy ” or “ undermining ” the teaching of evolution are their pejorative , censorship-driven code words for simply mentioning to students that there are scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory .
Yet as we showed above , even teachers who aren ’ t in this “ middle group ” and are deemed “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaching students that modern evolutionary theory has weaknesses .
The point is that whatever this survey is reporting , it isn ’ t reporting anything about the degree to which teachers inform students about scientific weaknesses in Darwinian evolution .
There ’ s another major reason to expect that the survey undercounts Darwin-doubting teachers : Teachers taking the survey were expected to self-report whether they taught favorably about intelligent design or “ creationism.
” But other surveys have shown that teachers who teach on these topics are fearful for their jobs .
Asking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ teaching intelligent design or “ creationism ” would undoubtedly have a selection effect , discouraging such teachers from truthfully admitting that they don ’ t support Darwin .
The key phrase is “ self-report ” : teachers in this survey got to choose what to report or whether to answer the survey at all .
Because of a climate of intolerance that pervades academia , many teachers fear for their jobs if they were to merely mention intelligent design , and would likely be highly reticent to admit to talking about it in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most likely to throw the surveys in the trash and simply not respond .
If you ’ re skeptical , consider this hypothetical scenario .
Imagine that you are a public school science teacher who teaches your students about scientific weaknesses in evolution or maybe even mentions “ intelligent design.
” Now imagine that you receive a survey from Penn State University asking if you teach intelligent design or “ creationism , ” or asking leading questions about if you teach evolution as “ fact.
” No authors are mentioned on the survey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ diligent teacher , about five minutes of Googling reveals that this research was directly connected with the NCSE .
You ’ re aware of this group , which sometimes shows up at science teacher meetings pushing Darwin-only views , and is internationally famous for opposing , censoring , and even persecuting those who aren ’ t full-blown “ advocates of evolution ” in the classroom .
You may even read that researchers affiliated with this survey did not want students to be able to “ make up their own minds ” on evolution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pursue other careers.
” It ’ s not hard to predict what would happen next : You would conclude that the people behind the survey are extremely hostile toward you , and you would not feel safe participating in their survey .
If you did fill it out , you might be highly reticent about self-reporting how you teach intelligent design or “ creationism , ” and might even overstate your agreement with “ evolution.
” Oh yes .
A year after you received the survey , when the results are published in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , you then read about the survey here on Evolution News and discover a startling fact : two of the three authors of the survey study are leading NCSE activists — Glenn Branch and Ann Reid .
You even learn that the NCSE ’ s executive director Ann Reid admitted in Nature that her group “ commissioned ” the survey !
Your immediate response would be : “ Thank goodness I listened to my instincts and made the smart move to not participate in this survey !
” Indeed , the survey ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 37 percent , with only 28.5 percent of surveys apparently being “ complete.
” It ’ s not a terrible result as far as surveys go , but it does mean that a very large percentage of teachers chose not to participate .
If there was a selection-effect that discouraged Darwin-doubting teachers from responding .
then the results could be highly skewed .
Our 2011 response to the original survey noted this observer-effect as a major reason why the survey underreports the percentage of Darwin-doubting teachers : many teachers would likely fear participating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s impossible to know the exact numbers , the survey likely does indicate that more teachers are teaching evolution dogmatically than they have in the past .
This is at least partly attributable to the dogmatic Next Generation Science Standards that have been adopted by many states .
But given the pressures that teachers may feel to report toeing the party line on evolution , and given that even teachers could still be teaching about scientific weaknesses in evolution and yet still qualify as “ advocates of evolution ” under the survey ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the actual percentage of Darwin-doubting teachers is higher than what is being suggested .
Unfortunately , because of the survey ’ s design , this project can not tell us how many students are taught evolution dogmatically and how many are studying it scientifically , learning both its strengths and weaknesses .

As we’ve been discussing, Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), recently published an article in the world’s top scientific journal, Nature, reporting on apparent successes they have had in preventing teachers from teaching “creationism” in public schools. Citing her recent study in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach, Reid claimed “teachers who present creationism as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution fell from 32% in 2007 to 18% in 2019.”
Keeping in mind that the NCSE always lumps intelligent design together with “creationism,” there are reasons to be skeptical of that purported large drop. As we explained, the details of their survey show that the number of teachers who agreed that they present ID as a “valid, scientific alternative to Darwinian explanations” was precisely unchanged between 2007 and 2019.
But teaching intelligent design in public schools isn’t even what Discovery Institute recommends. Rather, we recommend that public schools present students with the scientific strengths and weaknesses of neo-Darwinian evolution and theories of chemical evolution, and not get into intelligent design. If we take Reid’s article at face value, the percentage of teachers who reject this approach is very high:
This week’s results are from a similar survey, which the NCSE commissioned last year. They show a rise not only in the time spent teaching evolution, but also in the proportion of educators emphasizing the scientific consensus (now 67%).
However, a closer look at the survey shows that because of the questionable criteria and definitions it employs, a teacher that is claimed as an “advocate of evolution” and teaches evolution as “settled science” could actually be teaching the controversy.
Ignoring Doubts about the Mechanism
One of the main weaknesses in the modern theory of evolution is the lack of a mechanism to account for many of the complex features we observe in life. Traditionally the explanation has been natural selection acting on random mutation. But over 1,000 PhD scientists have signed a statement agreeing that they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” Of course there are many other weaknesses in modern Darwinian theory. If we look at this these two surveys from 2007 and 2019, how many teachers do we find are teaching the scientific controversy over evolutionary biology? Turns out the survey doesn’t address this question.
The survey’s methodology either labels teachers as “advocates of creationism” or “advocates of evolution,” and anyone else is placed in an ambiguous and poorly defined group they have called “ambivalent,” the “cautious middle” or teachers who send “mixed messages.” Based upon their survey’s methodology, it’s impossible to say how many teachers are teaching the controversy over evolution because it does not interrogate that question.
In fact, their survey’s methodology almost seems deliberately designed to misclassify teachers who are potentially teaching the controversy over evolution as if they are “advocates of evolution” who teach evolution as “settled science.” According to their methodology, a teacher is an “advocate of evolution” who pushes evolution as “settled science” if they:
(a) Agree with the statement: “When I teach evolution (including answering student questions) I emphasize the broad consensus that evolution is a fact, even as scientists disagree about the specific mechanisms through which evolution occurred.” (b) Teach evolution as “the unifying theme for the content of the course. (c) Disagree that “excellent general biology course” could make “no mention of Darwin or evolutionary theory.”
None of the above criteria are incompatible with a teacher who teaches the required curriculum but also wants to go beyond that curriculum and inform students about scientific weaknesses in evolution. In fact, the way they designed their survey, a teacher could be explicitly critiquing the adequacy of the “mechanism” of natural selection acting on random mutation (plus other forces like genetic drift), and teaching students that standard evolutionary mechanisms cannot build many of the complex features we see in life, and yet still agree with statement (a).
By including the caveat, “even as scientists disagree about the specific mechanisms through which evolution occurred,” it seems almost as if the investigators intentionally created a survey that made it appear that teachers who are teaching the controversy over evolution are actually “advocates of evolution” who push evolution as “settled science.” A teacher could literally tell students, “Credible biologists such as Michael Behe accept common ancestry but doubt that evolutionary mechanisms such as natural selection, random mutation (and genetic drift, etc.) can produce complex molecular machines and other irreducibly complex features,” and by the NCSE’s survey’s standards that teacher could still be considered as teaching evolution as “settled science.”
Thus, the irony is that a teacher could honestly affirm all of their pro-“evolution” criteria — (a) noting that the scientific consensus supports evolution, (b) teaching everything in the prescribed curriculum which makes evolution a central theme, and (c) agreeing that a good biology course needs to cover Darwin — and yet still actively teach students about scientific weaknesses of evolutionary biology, such as doubts over the ability of natural selection acting on random mutation to generate the complexity of life. In fact, Discovery Institute supports teachers who take exactly this approach.
Definitions May Define the Results
There’s another reason why Darwin-doubting teachers might be misclassified as “advocates of evolution”: the survey mentions support for “evolution” but never defines exactly what it means by that term. Teachers are thus free to interpret the term and assess their support for it however they want. Teachers may define — and agree with — evolution understood as (1) “change over time,” or (2) “common ancestry,” but they may have doubts about evolution defined as (3) natural selection acting upon random mutation (plus genetic drift, etc.) serving as the driving mechanism to generate the adaptive complexity of species. Even a so-called “creationist” teacher might agree with evolution definition #1 — “change over time.” Teaching “evolution” as “settled science” might not always mean what the survey’s authors want it to mean.
But even if a teacher did understand “evolution” to mean the full-blown modern neo-Darwinian model (which incorporates all three definitions above — change over time, common ancestry, and natural selection acting on random mutations as the driving mechanism), he or she could still meet all the criteria of an “advocate of evolution” and yet teach students about the theory’s weaknesses.
Authors Admit Undercounting Darwin-Doubting Teachers
The study therefore undoubtedly underreports the percentage of teachers who instruct students about weaknesses in evolution. We discussed this back in 2011 when the survey was first published in the journal Science in an article here on Evolution News, “Evolution Education Survey Underreports Darwin-Doubting Teachers.” We noted that the study has sources of error and bias that would lead to underreporting teachers who doubt modern evolutionary theory. The authors of the study actually seemed cognizant that many teachers might be teaching the controversy over evolution yet the survey would never uncover this fact. They wrote in Science:
The cautious 60% may play a far more important role in hindering scientific literacy in the United States than the smaller number of explicit creationists. The strategies of emphasizing microevolution, justifying the curriculum on the basis of state-wide tests, or “teaching the controversy” all undermine the legitimacy of findings that are well established by the combination of peer review and replication. These teachers fail to explain the nature of scientific inquiry, undermine the authority of established experts, and legitimize creationist arguments, even if unintentionally.
Or, as Berkman and Plutzer wrote in an article, “Enablers of Doubt: How Future Teachers Learn to Negotiate the Evolution Wars in Their Classrooms,” in Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science:
We found that some teachers are strong advocates of evolution, that a smaller but meaningful number were outright creationists, but that the majority fell in the middle — being somewhere between strong advocates of evolution and outright creationists. This middle group is, in some ways, the most intriguing (Berkman and Plutzer 2012). They do not teach creationism, which would, of course, go against state standards and a good deal of constitutional law. But they clearly allow doubt and uncertainty into their teaching of evolution and are weak advocates for evolutionary science. In their instruction, they often entertain the notion that evolutionary science is scientifically controversial and that nonscientific alternatives may have a valid place in the classroom.
Last year Eric Plutzer, lead author of the 2020 study, admitted that his survey methods might miss large numbers of teachers who “have doubts” about evolution, but don’t necessarily admit to teaching intelligent design or creationism, as David Klinghoffer observed:
Some educators in this ambivalent 60 percent tend to teach evolution only as it applies to molecular biology, Plutzer said, but not the macroevolution of species…. Others distance themselves from the material even as they tell students it will be on a standardized test. “Their primary concern is not offending the students or their parents by characterizing the science in a way that seems to be challenging religious faith,” Plutzer told me. “I think that in some cases, the teachers themselves have doubts.”
Of course, words like “enablers of doubt” or “hindering scientific literacy” or “undermining” the teaching of evolution are their pejorative, censorship-driven code words for simply mentioning to students that there are scientific weaknesses in modern evolutionary theory. Yet as we showed above, even teachers who aren’t in this “middle group” and are deemed “advocates of evolution” might still be teaching students that modern evolutionary theory has weaknesses. The point is that whatever this survey is reporting, it isn’t reporting anything about the degree to which teachers inform students about scientific weaknesses in Darwinian evolution.
The NCSE’s Observer Effect
There’s another major reason to expect that the survey undercounts Darwin-doubting teachers: Teachers taking the survey were expected to self-report whether they taught favorably about intelligent design or “creationism.” But other surveys have shown that teachers who teach on these topics are fearful for their jobs. Asking teachers to self-report on whether they are teaching intelligent design or “creationism” would undoubtedly have a selection effect, discouraging such teachers from truthfully admitting that they don’t support Darwin.
The key phrase is “self-report”: teachers in this survey got to choose what to report or whether to answer the survey at all. Because of a climate of intolerance that pervades academia, many teachers fear for their jobs if they were to merely mention intelligent design, and would likely be highly reticent to admit to talking about it in the classroom. These teachers would be most likely to throw the surveys in the trash and simply not respond.
If you’re skeptical, consider this hypothetical scenario. Imagine that you are a public school science teacher who teaches your students about scientific weaknesses in evolution or maybe even mentions “intelligent design.” Now imagine that you receive a survey from Penn State University asking if you teach intelligent design or “creationism,” or asking leading questions about if you teach evolution as “fact.” No authors are mentioned on the survey, but because you’re a diligent teacher, about five minutes of Googling reveals that this research was directly connected with the NCSE. You’re aware of this group, which sometimes shows up at science teacher meetings pushing Darwin-only views, and is internationally famous for opposing, censoring, and even persecuting those who aren’t full-blown “advocates of evolution” in the classroom. You may even read that researchers affiliated with this survey did not want students to be able to “make up their own minds” on evolution and insultingly suggested Darwin-doubting teachers should “pursue other careers.”
It’s not hard to predict what would happen next: You would conclude that the people behind the survey are extremely hostile toward you, and you would not feel safe participating in their survey. If you did fill it out, you might be highly reticent about self-reporting how you teach intelligent design or “creationism,” and might even overstate your agreement with “evolution.”
One More Thing
Oh yes. A year after you received the survey, when the results are published in the journal Evolution: Education and Outreach, you then read about the survey here on Evolution News and discover a startling fact: two of the three authors of the survey study are leading NCSE activists — Glenn Branch and Ann Reid. You even learn that the NCSE’s executive director Ann Reid admitted in Nature that her group “commissioned” the survey! Your immediate response would be: “Thank goodness I listened to my instincts and made the smart move to not participate in this survey!”
Indeed, the survey’s authors reported a response rate of 37 percent, with only 28.5 percent of surveys apparently being “complete.” It’s not a terrible result as far as surveys go, but it does mean that a very large percentage of teachers chose not to participate. If there was a selection-effect that discouraged Darwin-doubting teachers from responding. then the results could be highly skewed.
Our 2011 response to the original survey noted this observer-effect as a major reason why the survey underreports the percentage of Darwin-doubting teachers: many teachers would likely fear participating in the survey:
As noted, the authors of the study are so ardently pro-Darwin-only that they criticized a teacher who dared to suggest that students should be allowed to “make up their own minds” on evolution. Given that this survey was conducted by investigators who are apparently hostile to Darwin-doubters, it’s likely that many pro-intelligent design teachers would be hesitant to participate in the survey and risk outing themselves. Thus, many streetwise teachers which the survey would otherwise shoehorn as “Advocates of Creationism” would choose not to participate. They might view participation akin to turning yourself in to the thought police.
Although it’s impossible to know the exact numbers, the survey likely does indicate that more teachers are teaching evolution dogmatically than they have in the past. This is at least partly attributable to the dogmatic Next Generation Science Standards that have been adopted by many states. But given the pressures that teachers may feel to report toeing the party line on evolution, and given that even teachers could still be teaching about scientific weaknesses in evolution and yet still qualify as “advocates of evolution” under the survey’s methodology, it seems likely that the actual percentage of Darwin-doubting teachers is higher than what is being suggested. Unfortunately, because of the survey’s design, this project cannot tell us how many students are taught evolution dogmatically and how many are studying it scientifically, learning both its strengths and weaknesses.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-10--Darwinism Would Fare Poorly Against Pandemics

In an article last month in Nature , Ann Reid , executive director of the National Center for Science Education ( NCSE ) , praised the apparent success of efforts to teach Darwin-only curricula in public schools .
We ’ ve addressed some major weaknesses in her account , here , here , and here .
Reid ’ s predecessor , Eugenie Scott , once said , “ There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.
” Reid ’ s article frames the NCSE ’ s dogmatic view of evolution as if it is necessary for solving urgent public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus pandemic .
She ’ s wrong : Understanding evolution helped us to make educated guesses about how the [ Spanish flu ] virus might have changed between 1918 and the 1930s , when influenza viruses were first isolated .
This enabled us to design reagents with the best chance of finding the killer virus .
Once we had the entire sequence , evolution helped us to understand where the virus came from and how it moved between hosts As another pandemic sweeps the globe , evolution is again crucial to understanding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how the virus circulates , and to identify its vulnerabilities .
It helps us to counter conspiracy theories .
I ’ m glad scientists are helping to give young people an understanding of evolution as they navigate our complicated world .
There is a dangerous irony here .
Reid in her article points to medical advances in fighting disease as if they depend on the NCSE ’ s idiosyncratic and dogmatic version of “ understanding evolution.
” In fact the progress we all hope for and need depends on rejecting the NCSE ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appreciating that there are limits to how much features can evolve .
When combatting disease-causing pathogens , such as bacteria or viruses , we don ’ t use the idea that Darwinian evolution is of unlimited creativity .
Rather , we design drug cocktails based on the fundamental premise that there are limits to how much viruses and other living systems can evolve .
The more drugs we throw at a disease-causing organism , the less likely it is that the organism will be able to evolve the multiple mutations needed to evade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resistant .
In his book The Edge of Evolution , Michael Behe shows that because there is an “ edge ” or a “ limit ” to evolution , we can use drug cocktails to combat antibiotic resistance : To greatly increase the chances of successful treatment , one strategy is to use a cocktail of drugs , each component of which is able to kill a sizeable chunk of cells .
For example , in urging that several drugs should be used simultaneously against malaria , one researcher explained : “ Resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mutants .
.
.
which confer reduced drug susceptibility are selected , and are then transmitted .
Simultaneous use of two or more antimalarials … will reduce the chance of selection , because the chance of a resistant mutant surviving is the product of the parasite mutation rates for the individual drugs , multiplied by the number of parasites in an infection that are exposed to the drugs.
” Suppose a cocktail contains two drugs , A and B , and that one in a million parasite cells is resistant to drug A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug B .
Assuming resistance to A is due to a different mutation than resistance to B , then the odds that a single individual cell is resistant to both drugs at the same time are multiplied , a million times a million , which is one in a trillion .
How Does the NCSE Respond to Behe ?
In a review of his book posted at their website , the NCSE recognized that “ Behe ’ s new thesis is that there are limits to what Darwinian evolution can accomplish.
” But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The NCSE review ’ s assertion is completely false .
There are traits that require multiple mutations in order to provide some selectable effect .
If this were not so , we would not use drug cocktails that force organisms to acquire multiple mutations — a highly unlikely event — before they can survive the antibiotic dose .
To put it another way , if there were no evolutionary limits ( due to the fact that some features require many mutations before allowing a survival advantage ) , then we would have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pathogens .
The NCSE ’ s philosophy , if put into practice , would prevent us from being able to fight many pathogenic diseases and deal with pandemics .
Yet that philosophy is exactly what the NCSE wants students to learn — students , as in our future doctors and medical researchers .
Refusing to admit weaknesses in the Darwinian mechanism is not only wrong as science .
It also puts health at risk .

Photo credit: ThisisEngineering RAEng, via Unsplash.
In an article last month in Nature, Ann Reid, executive director of the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), praised the apparent success of efforts to teach Darwin-only curricula in public schools. We’ve addressed some major weaknesses in her account, here, here, and here. Reid’s predecessor, Eugenie Scott, once said, “There are no weaknesses in the theory of evolution.” Reid’s article frames the NCSE’s dogmatic view of evolution as if it is necessary for solving urgent public health crises, such as the current coronavirus pandemic. She’s wrong:
Understanding evolution helped us to make educated guesses about how the [Spanish flu] virus might have changed between 1918 and the 1930s, when influenza viruses were first isolated. This enabled us to design reagents with the best chance of finding the killer virus. Once we had the entire sequence, evolution helped us to understand where the virus came from and how it moved between hosts […] As another pandemic sweeps the globe, evolution is again crucial to understanding a pathogen. It helps us to learn how the virus circulates, and to identify its vulnerabilities. It helps us to counter conspiracy theories. I’m glad scientists are helping to give young people an understanding of evolution as they navigate our complicated world.
Admit No Weaknesses, Cure Fewer Diseases
There is a dangerous irony here. Reid in her article points to medical advances in fighting disease as if they depend on the NCSE’s idiosyncratic and dogmatic version of “understanding evolution.” In fact the progress we all hope for and need depends on rejecting the NCSE’s view on Darwinism. It requires appreciating that there are limits to how much features can evolve.
When combatting disease-causing pathogens, such as bacteria or viruses, we don’t use the idea that Darwinian evolution is of unlimited creativity. Quite the reverse. We design drug cocktails based on the fundamental premise that there are limits to how much viruses and other living systems can evolve. The more drugs we throw at a disease-causing organism, the less likely it is that the organism will be able to evolve the multiple mutations needed to evade the cocktail and survive, thereby becoming resistant. In his book The Edge of Evolution, Michael Behe shows that because there is an “edge” or a “limit” to evolution, we can use drug cocktails to combat antibiotic resistance:
To greatly increase the chances of successful treatment, one strategy is to use a cocktail of drugs, each component of which is able to kill a sizeable chunk of cells. For example, in urging that several drugs should be used simultaneously against malaria, one researcher explained: “Resistance to antimalarial drugs arises when spontaneously occurring mutants . . . which confer reduced drug susceptibility are selected, and are then transmitted. Simultaneous use of two or more antimalarials … will reduce the chance of selection, because the chance of a resistant mutant surviving is the product of the parasite mutation rates for the individual drugs, multiplied by the number of parasites in an infection that are exposed to the drugs.” Suppose a cocktail contains two drugs, A and B, and that one in a million parasite cells is resistant to drug A, and one in a million to drug B. Assuming resistance to A is due to a different mutation than resistance to B, then the odds that a single individual cell is resistant to both drugs at the same time are multiplied, a million times a million, which is one in a trillion. (The Edge of Evolution, p. 56)
How Does the NCSE Respond to Behe?
In a review of his book posted at their website, the NCSE recognized that “Behe’s new thesis is that there are limits to what Darwinian evolution can accomplish.” But they then said he was flat wrong:
Behe’s thesis of evolutionary limits hangs on the assumption that important evolutionary steps require multiple simultaneous mutations without the benefit of cumulative selection. However, there is no evidence to support this claim.
The NCSE review’s assertion is completely false. There are traits that require multiple mutations in order to provide some selectable effect. If this were not so, we would not use drug cocktails that force organisms to acquire multiple mutations — a highly unlikely event — before they can survive the antibiotic dose. To put it another way, if there were no evolutionary limits (due to the fact that some features require many mutations before allowing a survival advantage), then we would have no way to combat many rapidly evolving pathogens.
The NCSE’s philosophy, if put into practice, would prevent us from being able to fight many pathogenic diseases and deal with pandemics. Yet that philosophy is exactly what the NCSE wants students to learn — students, as in our future doctors and medical researchers. Refusing to admit weaknesses in the Darwinian mechanism is not only wrong as science. It also puts health at risk.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-09--American Museum of Natural History Cancels Teddy Roosevelt; Keeps Bust of Racist Director?

Last month , the American Museum of Natural History ( AMNH ) in New York City requested removal of an iconic statue of Teddy Roosevelt on horseback displayed outside the museum since 1940 .
Lost in the controversy over Roosevelt , however , was the fact that within its doors , the museum honors a far more disturbing individual .
That individual is Henry Fairfield Obsorn ( 1857-1935 ) , the AMNH ’ s president for 25 years .
As discussed in my documentary Human Zoos , Osborn was one of America ’ s most prominent proponents of evolution in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
He served as a professor of zoology at Columbia University and as head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science .
Osborn was also a scientific racist who championed eugenics , the horrific crusade to breed a superior human race based on the principles of Darwinian biology .
Osborn even arranged for the American Museum of Natural History to host two international congresses on eugenics , as well as to accompany the meetings with large museum exhibits extolling eugenics and disparaging non-white races .
In a speech to fellow eugenists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , declaring that 500,000 years of human evolution , under widely different environmental conditions , have impressed certain distinctive virtues as well as faults on each race .
In the matter of racial virtues , my opinion is that from biologial principles there is little promise in the “ melting pot ” theory .
Put three races together , you are as likely to unite the vices of all three as the virtues .
Arguing that racial groups should be studied to determine what tasks “ each race is best fitted to accomplish @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he already knew the proper place of non-whites in society , especially blacks .
In his words , “ If the Negro fails in government , he may become a fine agriculturalist or a fine mechanic.
” ( “ Address of Welcome , ” Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics , 2-3 ) In an article on human evolution in 1926 , Osborn asserted that “ the standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.
” ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” Natural History , Jan-Feb 1926 , 5 ) Despite Osborn ’ s toxic legacy of scientific racism , the American Museum of Natural History for decades has continued to honor him with a bust and a wall inscription .
The wall inscription proclaims that “ Under his leadership the museum attained great eminence in science and education.
” When I visited the museum in the spring of 2019 , both the bust and wall inscription were still on display .
However , the two displays were now disconnected .
Originally , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the wall inscription .
But sometime in the past few years , the AMNH moved the bust of Osborn to another room so it is no longer near the wall inscription .
The bust now stands alone without any label telling who the person is .
Perhaps someone at the museum was embarrassed enough about their longtime previous director to try to hide him in plain sight ?
The wall inscription , by contrast , remains where it has always been , with no bust beneath it .
No Response to an Inquiry @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s press office about whether they planned to remove the bust and wall inscription .
Thus far , they have failed to respond .
To be clear , I generally don ’ t favor removing old statues .
I prefer using them as an occasion for learning about the past .
In the case of Osborn , I ’ d suggest that the museum create an exhibit that exposes and explores Osborn ’ s embrace of Darwinian racism and eugenics and his role in getting the museum to promote those ideas .
Let @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t pretend it didn ’ t happened , and don ’ t sweep it under the rug .

Photo: Bust of Henry Fairfield Obsorn, AMNH, by John West.
Last month, the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH) in New York City requested removal of an iconic statue of Teddy Roosevelt on horseback displayed outside the museum since 1940.
Lost in the controversy over Roosevelt, however, was the fact that within its doors, the museum honors a far more disturbing individual.
That individual is Henry Fairfield Obsorn (1857-1935), the AMNH’s president for 25 years. As discussed in my documentary Human Zoos, Osborn was one of America’s most prominent proponents of evolution in the first half of the 20th century. He served as a professor of zoology at Columbia University and as head of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Champion of Eugenics
Osborn was also a scientific racist who championed eugenics, the horrific crusade to breed a superior human race based on the principles of Darwinian biology. Osborn even arranged for the American Museum of Natural History to host two international congresses on eugenics, as well as to accompany the meetings with large museum exhibits extolling eugenics and disparaging non-white races.
In a speech to fellow eugenists in 1921, Osborn attacked racial intermarriage, declaring that
500,000 years of human evolution, under widely different environmental conditions, have impressed certain distinctive virtues as well as faults on each race. In the matter of racial virtues, my opinion is that from biologial principles there is little promise in the “melting pot” theory. Put three races together, you are as likely to unite the vices of all three as the virtues.
Arguing that racial groups should be studied to determine what tasks “each race is best fitted to accomplish,” Osborn was pretty clear that he already knew the proper place of non-whites in society, especially blacks. In his words, “If the Negro fails in government, he may become a fine agriculturalist or a fine mechanic.” (“Address of Welcome,” Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics, 2-3)
In an article on human evolution in 1926, Osborn asserted that “the standard of intelligence of the average adult Negro is similar to that of the eleven-year-old youth of the species Homo sapiens.” (“The Evolution of Human Races,” Natural History, Jan-Feb 1926, 5)
A Toxic Legacy
Despite Osborn’s toxic legacy of scientific racism, the American Museum of Natural History for decades has continued to honor him with a bust and a wall inscription. The wall inscription proclaims that “Under his leadership the museum attained great eminence in science and education.” When I visited the museum in the spring of 2019, both the bust and wall inscription were still on display.
However, the two displays were now disconnected. Originally, the bust of Osborn was located directly beneath the wall inscription. But sometime in the past few years, the AMNH moved the bust of Osborn to another room so it is no longer near the wall inscription. The bust now stands alone without any label telling who the person is. Perhaps someone at the museum was embarrassed enough about their longtime previous director to try to hide him in plain sight? The wall inscription, by contrast, remains where it has always been, with no bust beneath it.
No Response to an Inquiry
This week I asked the museum’s press office about whether they planned to remove the bust and wall inscription. Thus far, they have failed to respond.
To be clear, I generally don’t favor removing old statues. I prefer using them as an occasion for learning about the past. In the case of Osborn, I’d suggest that the museum create an exhibit that exposes and explores Osborn’s embrace of Darwinian racism and eugenics and his role in getting the museum to promote those ideas. Let people know about the past. Don’t pretend it didn’t happened, and don’t sweep it under the rug.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-09--Optimized Insect Designs — via Evolution?

On a new episode of ID the Future , host Andrew McDiarmid draws on an essay at Evolution News to @ @ @ @ @ designs that are inspiring human engineers and raise the question , Could evolution have done @ @ @ @ @ or listen to it here .
Cicadas and dragonflies use an exquisitely engineered “ bed @ @ @ @ @ wings to disarm and neutralize bacteria .
Butterflies and bird feathers also use this trick @ @ @ @ @ that have multiple navigation systems , complete with error correction for hard turns .
And @ @ @ @ @ able to walk on water and launch itself explosively thanks to an impressive combination of @ @ @ @ @ really bring all those design factors together ?
Or was something else required — intelligence @ @ @

Photo credit: Dustin Humes, via Unsplash.
On a new episode of ID the Future, host Andrew McDiarmid draws on an essay at Evolution News to explore some intricate optimized insect designs that are inspiring human engineers and raise the question, Could evolution have done that? Download the podcast or listen to it here.
Cicadas and dragonflies use an exquisitely engineered “bed of nails” on their wings to disarm and neutralize bacteria. Butterflies and bird feathers also use this trick. There are fruit flies that have multiple navigation systems, complete with error correction for hard turns. And the sea skater insect is able to walk on water and launch itself explosively thanks to an impressive combination of engineering marvels. Did evolution really bring all those design factors together? Or was something else required — intelligence and foresight?


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-09--Namacalathus, an Ediacaran Lophophorate Animal?

I have been writing a series of articles on alleged Ediacaran animals that have been postulated as precursors of the Cambrian explosion .
Today and Friday we will have a look at Namacalathus , a problematic fossil organism from the Ediacaran Small Shelly Fauna ( Hofmann & Mountjoy 2001 , Bengtson 2004 , Zhuralev et al .
2012 ) .
I will append my References section tomorrow .
The Ediacaran Small Shelly Fauna is very different from the Cambrian Small Shelly Fauna ( Grotzinger et al .
2000 ) .
Apart from Namacalathus it mainly includes Cloudina ( the two @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( cloudinomorphs ) as well as the genus Namapoikia .
These three Ediacaran calcareous taxa are generally considered to be the oldest known macroscopic biomineralized ( skeletal/shelly ) organisms .
I have discussed Cloudina and Namapoikia in previous articles ( Bechly 2020a , 2020b ) .
These small shelly fossils are never found together with the typical Ediacaran organisms like Dickinsonia or the frond-like taxa .
As Butler ( 2015 ) remarked : “ Interestingly , Ediacaran organisms and these early shelly organisms are never found together , but they can be found @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they preferred different environments.
” For several years the weird Namacalathus fossils were overlooked and considered as deformed specimens of Cloudina ( e.g.
, Grant 1990 : fig .
8B ; see Zhuravlev et al .
2012 ) , with which they are generally found in association .
Namacalathus hermanastes was first recognized and described by Grotzinger et al .
( 2000 ) from the microbial reefs of the 548-541 million years old Nama Group in southern Namibia ( also see Grotzinger et al .
2005 , Wood 2011 , and Penny et @ @ @ @ @ @ @ since also been found in the Kolodzha and Raiga Formations of West Siberia and the Anastas ’ ino Formation of the Altay-Sayan Foldbelt in Siberia ( Kontorovich et al .
2008 , 2009 , Terleev et al .
2011 , Zhuravlev et al .
2012 , Grazhdankin et al .
2015 ) , the Birba Formation of Oman ( Amthor et al .
2003 ) , the Byng Formation of British Columbia in Canada ( Hofmann & Mountjoy 2001 ) , and the Itapucumi Group of Paraguay ( Warren et al .
2017 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Siberia was considered as a new and much smaller species of the same genus by Kontorovich et al .
( 2008 ) but it was not formally named .
The wide distribution of Namacalathus suggests dispersal with a planktonic larval stage ( Penny et al .
2017 ) .
Namacalathus abruptly appeared in the terminal Ediacaran 548.8 million years ago , without any putative ancestors in older strata , and then globally disappeared likewise abruptly at the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary about 542 million years ago ( Amthor et al .
2003 , Zhuralev @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cloudina it is therefore considered as index fossil for the terminal Ediacaran era ( Kontorovich et al .
2008 ) .
Namacalathus hermanastes is a 5-50 mm long and 2-35 mm wide , goblet-shaped organism with a hollow stalk carrying a hollow bulbous cup that has a wide apical opening at the top and a series of about six ( 5-7 ) openings around the side of the cup .
Namacalathus was a solitary organism but is found in dense aggregations in fills between stromatolites and thrombolite reefs .
The walls of its @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 100 μm thick ) , triple-layered with two thin inner and outer layers encasing a thicker inner layer comprising irregularly arranged rod-like crystals .
The skeletons originally were aragonitic rather than calcitic ( Wood 2011 , Pruss et al .
2018 ) , and later underwent diagenetic conversion into high-magnesium calcite , which is probably related to a different seawater chemistry in the Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian eras ( Porter 2007 , Zhuravlev & Wood 2008 ) .
Brasier et al .
( 2011 ) proposed that living Namacalathus could have been unmineralized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ tufa-like ” abiogenic encrustation , but this was refuted by other studies ( Zhuravlev et al .
2012 ) .
Namacalathus were environmental generalists ( Penny et al .
2017 ) and probably lived as sessile benthic filter-feeders or suspension-feeders on the seafloor , where they were attached to the microbial-algal carpets with a basal unmineralized holdfast at the lower end of the stalk .
It is still controversial if aggregations of Namacalathus and Cloudina did ( Wood & Curtis 2015 , Wood 2011 , 2017 ) or did not ( Grotzinger @ @ @ @ @ @ @ substantial way to reef-building .
The only lightly mineralized calcitic fossils can not be separated from the calcitic stone matrix with conventional techniques , so that the three-dimensional shape had to be digitally reconstructed with computed tomographic analysis ( Grotzinger et al .
2000 , Watters & Grotzinger 2001 ) .
An interactive 3D-model of Namacalathus is available on the website of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History .
Namacalathus was originally described as a putative cnidarian by Grotzinger et al .
( 2000 ) , who explicitly emphasized that these fossil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ closely related to the well-skeletonized bilaterian animals that radiated in younger oceans ” and “ Namacalathus hermanastes and other calcified Nama fossils are morphologically , and perhaps phylogenetically , distinct from Paleozoic skeleton formers.
” Most subsequent authors ( e.g.
, Wood 2011 , Kouchinsky et al .
2012 ) also considered Namacalathus as calcareous cnidariomorphs .
Grotzinger et al .
( 2000 ) alternatively considered an affinity with sponges , especially the superficially similar Cambrian archeocyathans .
Such a poriferan relationship was dismissed by Antcliffe et al .
( 2014 ) in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is because apart from the overall hollow shape with an aboral opening there are no specific similarities with sponges , and the most distinctive sponge characters like pores and spicules are absent .
In particular , the lateral ring of six openings is not only inconsistent with a poriferan but even with a cnidarian affinity .
That is why Grotzinger et al .
( 2000 ) suggested that this character is just a diagenetic artifact .
This was refuted by later studies , while Landing et al .
( 2018 ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ peculiar that in a fossil with so few characters , that its assignment would attempt to explain away one of these very few characters as diagenetic because it is not easily explicable in the context of a preferred phylogenetic hypothesis.
” Grotzinger et al .
( 2000 ) excluded a possible affinity with calcified green or red algae , because no known living forms possess a similar goblet-shaped morphology .
This was controverted by Antcliffe et al .
( 2014 ) , who suggested that Namacalathus is most likely a calcareous alga and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dasycladales algae .
Landing et al .
( 2018 ) concluded : As is the case in Cloudina , there are thousands of Namacalathus specimens and none preserve septa or mesenteries .
Similarly , there is no evidence for intergamet communication , axial structures , peripheral dissepiments , mural pores , tunnels , connective tubules or any of the other features that would allow confident placement in the Cnidaria .
Indeed , the calcareous “ goblet on a stalk ” morphology is not widely distributed among the Cnidaria , yet it is common @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in our opinion have been dismissed far too easily from consideration .
At the very least , it is controversial whether Namacalathus represents a fossil eumetazoan and claims for its coloniality are not compelling .
Even though Grotzinger et al .
( 2000 ) had dismissed the possibility of a protist nature , Seilacher et al .
( 2003 ) suggested that Namacalathus could be a rhizopod protist due to its small size and an apparent lack of accretionary growth .
Wood ( 2011 ) suggested that it belongs to the diploblast grade @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or basal stem-group bilaterians but did not support this with any evidence .
After a lophotrochozoan relationship was already suspected by Zhuravlev et al .
( 2012 ) , more recently , a sensational study was published by Zhuravlev et al .
( 2015 ) in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society .
The authors identified Namacalathus as a triploblastic bilaterian eumetazoan animal of the clade Lophophorata , which also includes brachiopods and bryozoans .
The press release by the University of Edinburgh ( 2015 ) , which was widely distributed through @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , said : “ The find is the first to suggest the earliest complex animals on Earth – which may be related to many of today ’ s animal species – lived millions of years earlier than was previously known.
” Unsurprisingly , the findings were celebrated by the blogosphere ( Anonymous 2015 , Bauwens 2015 ) and by international media as a “ big piece of animal evolutionary history ” ( Joel 2015 ) .
They were even advertised to kids as the “ earliest ever animal , ” as theNational Geographic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s animals could count the Namacalathus as their ancestors .
… The discovery has changed scientists ’ belief that most major animal groups evolved during the Cambrian Period.
” Indeed , one of the co-authors of the study , Amelia Penny from the University of Edinburgh , wrote a blog post ( Penny 2015 ) in which she maintained : This is a mouthful indeed .
Tomorrow let ’ s take a look and see if the attribution of Namacalathus to lophophorate animals really is well justified and undisputed .
Or is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
We should expect some excellent research and extraordinary evidence because paleontologist Marc LaFlamme from the University of Toronto , who was not involved in the study , commented in the Washington Post that : “ I don ’ t remember seeing such detailed work done with any other Ediacaran fossil .
This is the study that is going to set the bar for anyone else looking at Ediacaran fossils preserved like these specimens ” ( Joel 2015 ) .
I fear I have to disagree with that .

Namacalathus and Cloudina fossils, collection of Redpath Museum, McGill University, by Daderot / CC0, via Wikimedia.
I have been writing a series of articles on alleged Ediacaran animals that have been postulated as precursors of the Cambrian explosion. Today and Friday we will have a look at Namacalathus, a problematic fossil organism from the Ediacaran Small Shelly Fauna (Hofmann & Mountjoy 2001, Bengtson 2004, Zhuralev et al. 2012). I will append my References section tomorrow.
The Ediacaran Small Shelly Fauna is very different from the Cambrian Small Shelly Fauna (Grotzinger et al. 2000). Apart from Namacalathus it mainly includes Cloudina (the two are pictured above) and its relatives (cloudinomorphs) as well as the genus Namapoikia. These three Ediacaran calcareous taxa are generally considered to be the oldest known macroscopic biomineralized (skeletal/shelly) organisms. I have discussed Cloudina and Namapoikia in previous articles (Bechly 2020a, 2020b). These small shelly fossils are never found together with the typical Ediacaran organisms like Dickinsonia or the frond-like taxa. As Butler (2015) remarked: “Interestingly, Ediacaran organisms and these early shelly organisms are never found together, but they can be found in alternating layers, perhaps indicating that they preferred different environments.”
Overlooked for Years
For several years the weird Namacalathus fossils were overlooked and considered as deformed specimens of Cloudina (e.g., Grant 1990: fig. 8B; see Zhuravlev et al. 2012), with which they are generally found in association. Namacalathus hermanastes was first recognized and described by Grotzinger et al. (2000) from the microbial reefs of the 548-541 million years old Nama Group in southern Namibia (also see Grotzinger et al. 2005, Wood 2011, and Penny et al. 2017). Namacalathus has since also been found in the Kolodzha and Raiga Formations of West Siberia and the Anastas’ino Formation of the Altay-Sayan Foldbelt in Siberia (Kontorovich et al. 2008, 2009, Terleev et al. 2011, Zhuravlev et al. 2012, Grazhdankin et al. 2015), the Birba Formation of Oman (Amthor et al. 2003), the Byng Formation of British Columbia in Canada (Hofmann & Mountjoy 2001), and the Itapucumi Group of Paraguay (Warren et al. 2017). Some material from the Vendian of Siberia was considered as a new and much smaller species of the same genus by Kontorovich et al. (2008) but it was not formally named. The wide distribution of Namacalathus suggests dispersal with a planktonic larval stage (Penny et al. 2017).
A Goblet-Shaped Organism
Namacalathus abruptly appeared in the terminal Ediacaran 548.8 million years ago, without any putative ancestors in older strata, and then globally disappeared likewise abruptly at the Ediacaran-Cambrian boundary about 542 million years ago (Amthor et al. 2003, Zhuralev et al. 2012). Like Cloudina it is therefore considered as index fossil for the terminal Ediacaran era (Kontorovich et al. 2008).
Namacalathus hermanastes (skeleton) from the terminal Ediacaran era, via Wikipedia.
Namacalathus hermanastes is a 5-50 mm long and 2-35 mm wide, goblet-shaped organism with a hollow stalk carrying a hollow bulbous cup that has a wide apical opening at the top and a series of about six (5-7) openings around the side of the cup. Namacalathus was a solitary organism but is found in dense aggregations in fills between stromatolites and thrombolite reefs. The walls of its skeleton are very thin (ca. 100 μm thick), triple-layered with two thin inner and outer layers encasing a thicker inner layer comprising irregularly arranged rod-like crystals. The skeletons originally were aragonitic rather than calcitic (Wood 2011, Pruss et al. 2018), and later underwent diagenetic conversion into high-magnesium calcite, which is probably related to a different seawater chemistry in the Ediacaran and earliest Cambrian eras (Porter 2007, Zhuravlev & Wood 2008). Brasier et al. (2011) proposed that living Namacalathus could have been unmineralized and that its fossils are based on “tufa-like” abiogenic encrustation, but this was refuted by other studies (Zhuravlev et al. 2012).
Namacalathus were environmental generalists (Penny et al. 2017) and probably lived as sessile benthic filter-feeders or suspension-feeders on the seafloor, where they were attached to the microbial-algal carpets with a basal unmineralized holdfast at the lower end of the stalk. It is still controversial if aggregations of Namacalathus and Cloudina did (Wood & Curtis 2015, Wood 2011, 2017) or did not (Grotzinger et al. 2005) participate in substantial way to reef-building. The only lightly mineralized calcitic fossils cannot be separated from the calcitic stone matrix with conventional techniques, so that the three-dimensional shape had to be digitally reconstructed with computed tomographic analysis (Grotzinger et al. 2000, Watters & Grotzinger 2001). An interactive 3D-model of Namacalathus is available on the website of the Oxford University Museum of Natural History.
Putative Cnidarian
Namacalathus was originally described as a putative cnidarian by Grotzinger et al. (2000), who explicitly emphasized that these fossil organisms “do not appear to be closely related to the well-skeletonized bilaterian animals that radiated in younger oceans” and “Namacalathus hermanastes and other calcified Nama fossils are morphologically, and perhaps phylogenetically, distinct from Paleozoic skeleton formers.” Most subsequent authors (e.g., Wood 2011, Kouchinsky et al. 2012) also considered Namacalathus as calcareous cnidariomorphs.
Grotzinger et al. (2000) alternatively considered an affinity with sponges, especially the superficially similar Cambrian archeocyathans. Such a poriferan relationship was dismissed by Antcliffe et al. (2014) in their large revision of alleged Precambrian sponges. That is because apart from the overall hollow shape with an aboral opening there are no specific similarities with sponges, and the most distinctive sponge characters like pores and spicules are absent. In particular, the lateral ring of six openings is not only inconsistent with a poriferan but even with a cnidarian affinity. That is why Grotzinger et al. (2000) suggested that this character is just a diagenetic artifact. This was refuted by later studies, while Landing et al. (2018) sniped: “It also seems rather peculiar that in a fossil with so few characters, that its assignment would attempt to explain away one of these very few characters as diagenetic because it is not easily explicable in the context of a preferred phylogenetic hypothesis.”
Grotzinger et al. (2000) excluded a possible affinity with calcified green or red algae, because no known living forms possess a similar goblet-shaped morphology. This was controverted by Antcliffe et al. (2014), who suggested that Namacalathus is most likely a calcareous alga and mention an example for goblet-shape among the Dasycladales algae. Landing et al. (2018) concluded:
As is the case in Cloudina, there are thousands of Namacalathus specimens and none preserve septa or mesenteries. Similarly, there is no evidence for intergamet communication, axial structures, peripheral dissepiments, mural pores, tunnels, connective tubules or any of the other features that would allow confident placement in the Cnidaria. Indeed, the calcareous “goblet on a stalk” morphology is not widely distributed among the Cnidaria, yet it is common among a range of algal groups which in our opinion have been dismissed far too easily from consideration. At the very least, it is controversial whether Namacalathus represents a fossil eumetazoan and claims for its coloniality are not compelling.
Even though Grotzinger et al. (2000) had dismissed the possibility of a protist nature, Seilacher et al. (2003) suggested that Namacalathus could be a rhizopod protist due to its small size and an apparent lack of accretionary growth. Wood (2011) suggested that it belongs to the diploblast grade, i.e., stem- or crown-group cnidarians or basal stem-group bilaterians but did not support this with any evidence.
A Sensational Recent Study
After a lophotrochozoan relationship was already suspected by Zhuravlev et al. (2012), more recently, a sensational study was published by Zhuravlev et al. (2015) in the prestigious Proceedings of the Royal Society. The authors identified Namacalathus as a triploblastic bilaterian eumetazoan animal of the clade Lophophorata, which also includes brachiopods and bryozoans. The press release by the University of Edinburgh (2015), which was widely distributed through popular outlets like Science Daily and Phys.org, said: “The find is the first to suggest the earliest complex animals on Earth – which may be related to many of today’s animal species – lived millions of years earlier than was previously known.”
Unsurprisingly, the findings were celebrated by the blogosphere (Anonymous 2015, Bauwens 2015) and by international media as a “big piece of animal evolutionary history” (Joel 2015). They were even advertised to kids as the “earliest ever animal,” as theNational Geographic claimed: “Many of today’s animals could count the Namacalathus as their ancestors. … The discovery has changed scientists’ belief that most major animal groups evolved during the Cambrian Period.” Indeed, one of the co-authors of the study, Amelia Penny from the University of Edinburgh, wrote a blog post (Penny 2015) in which she maintained:
Our findings support the idea that complex animal groups evolved during the Ediacaran, long before the diversification of life habits and morphologies in the Cambrian. This suggests that the Cambrian Explosion was not the result of the rapid origin of animals. … There is increasing evidence that the evolutionary radiation of animals was not a geologically instantaneous event, and instead commenced tens of millions of years earlier.
This is a mouthful indeed. Tomorrow let’s take a look and see if the attribution of Namacalathus to lophophorate animals really is well justified and undisputed. Or is it just another piece of overhyped soft science? We should expect some excellent research and extraordinary evidence because paleontologist Marc LaFlamme from the University of Toronto, who was not involved in the study, commented in the Washington Post that: “I don’t remember seeing such detailed work done with any other Ediacaran fossil. This is the study that is going to set the bar for anyone else looking at Ediacaran fossils preserved like these specimens” (Joel 2015). I fear I have to disagree with that.


evolutionnewsandviews--2020-07-10--Theistic Evolution: The Case of Theodore Munger

So-called “ theistic evolutionists , ” including Kenneth Miller , Karl Giberson , and the BioLogos crowd , seem to think they can take Darwinian evolution and insert all sorts of theistic propositions into it unamended .
That ’ s interesting for a theory explicitly aimed at excluding theology .
But such oxymoronic thinking is the hallmark of Darwinian theism .
It has created all sorts of confusions , such as making Darwinism a synecdoche for science , and worse , falsely imputing ideas to people who never held them .
A case in point is the important 19th- and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 1830-1910 ) .
Munger , a leading voice for the “ New Theology ” that would increasingly make itself felt in America following the Civil War , had the qualities of piety and progressivism that allowed him to reconcile evolution with science and religion .
Unfortunately , an opinion prevails that Munger ’ s lasting legacy resides in his promotion of Darwinian evolution .
According to the scope notes of his papers residing at Yale , Munger “ is remembered for his attempts to accommodate Christianity to Darwin ’ s theory of evolution.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could be further from the truth .
In the May 1886 issue of The Century Magazine , in an extensive article of more than 10,000 words , Munger tackled the problem of “ Evolution and the Faith.
” He puts the reader on early notice that his brand of evolution is “ very different from the evolution propounded twenty years ago.
” Furthermore , acceptance of evolution need not entail common assumptions and inferences frequently associated with it .
Munger proceeds to make six significant propositions regarding evolution : • A properly construed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ provides a unified theory of organic development that places God in the center of creation .
The laws of nature reveal an intelligent mover actively guiding them in a coordinated fashion towards a goal or purpose .
• In contrast to Darwin , Munger observes that our moral faculties ’ relationship to our organic bodies in no way degrades or invalidates the divine nature of the human intellect .
Mind and body “ are united by the secret cord of the creative energy.
” Although scientistic reductionists believe that it is brought about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence itself can only be brought about by an intelligent force working freely and progressively , and therefore possibly by increments .
• Of the rudimentary constituents of higher mental attributes in beasts , “ There is only an indication that the moral is in the mind and purpose of God , even so far back as in the brute world — a foregleam of the approaching issue .
They show the divine purpose .
.
.
pressing on with yearning speed towards his [ God ’ s ] moral image.
” • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken unwarranted ownership over evolutionary theory , and here is where the danger to the faith is realized .
• Munger further rejects Darwinian reductionism and positivism because it abandons the very reason upon which it is based and “ attempts to measure the universe by a rod no longer than the eye can see.
” • Munger insists that four foundations must support every evolutionary proposition : a ) every observed effect must assume a cause ; b ) a force can not originate itself ; c ) a law must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and d ) forces working in a complex and orderly way toward a goal presuppose a mind or mind-like action behind them .
In the end , Munger ’ s purpose in this essay it to show that evolution not only poses no threat to Christian faith but can confirm it by linking God ’ s creative powers and purposes to the organic operations of nature .
Positivism , and Munger ’ s hostility to it , is extremely important when considering Darwinism .
It was not necessary to insist upon Darwin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( nature does not make jumps ) or even natural selection in order to be a Darwinist ; what was crucial was some commitment to positivism .
Munger ’ s essay challenges all aspects of positivism and proposes a new and distinctly different version of evolution that is intrinsically theistic .
As might be expected , this view was quickly challenged .
In the September 1886 issue of The Century , the Rev .
Charles F. Deems , a Methodist minister from New York , accused Munger of conflating terms and providing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its leading proponents .
Where Munger used “ evolution , ” Deems insisted that he should have used “ development ” to avoid confusion .
In fact , Deems points out that every time Munger holds fast to “ the faith , ” he is required to abandon evolution .
But Munger tells his colleague , “ I do not consider it wise to yield the word to the school that first brought it into general use and put its own definition upon it .
It is not a trade-mark ; it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so far disagree with my friend as to think that it has not been so exclusively used by one school , that it can not properly be used by other schools.
” But Deems had a point .
If terms are used with such imprecision and multiple meanings , confusion is bound to arise .
Nevertheless , Munger had every right to use the idea of organic change in nature as he saw fit .
Darwin , Huxley , Haeckel and their allies did not own an exclusive trade-mark even if they acted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exemplary of theistic evolution not Darwinian theism .
In this sense he is closer to his contemporaries Alfred Russel Wallace and St. George Mivart , both of whom argued for intelligent evolution .
So the next time you hear talk of theistic evolution , be sure to dig a little deeper .
Darwinian theism — e.g.
, as espoused by Miller , Giberson , BioLogos — and theistic evolution are a confusion of terms .
They are often not the same .
Munger proves it .
In a post on Sunday I ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ same erroneous attribution is committed against a well-known American scientist .
Stay tuned .

Theodore T. Munger, in 1913, by Benjamin Wisner Bacon / Public domain.
So-called “theistic evolutionists,” including Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, and the BioLogos crowd, seem to think they can take Darwinian evolution and insert all sorts of theistic propositions into it unamended. That’s interesting for a theory explicitly aimed at excluding theology. But such oxymoronic thinking is the hallmark of Darwinian theism. It has created all sorts of confusions, such as making Darwinism a synecdoche for science, and worse, falsely imputing ideas to people who never held them.
A case in point is the important 19th- and early 20th-century American theologian Theodore Munger (1830-1910). Munger, a leading voice for the “New Theology” that would increasingly make itself felt in America following the Civil War, had the qualities of piety and progressivism that allowed him to reconcile evolution with science and religion. Unfortunately, an opinion prevails that Munger’s lasting legacy resides in his promotion of Darwinian evolution. According to the scope notes of his papers residing at Yale, Munger “is remembered for his attempts to accommodate Christianity to Darwin’s theory of evolution.” But, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.
“Evolution and the Faith”
In the May 1886 issue of The Century Magazine, in an extensive article of more than 10,000 words, Munger tackled the problem of “Evolution and the Faith.” He puts the reader on early notice that his brand of evolution is “very different from the evolution propounded twenty years ago.” Furthermore, acceptance of evolution need not entail common assumptions and inferences frequently associated with it. Munger proceeds to make six significant propositions regarding evolution:
A properly construed and inherently teleological theory of evolutionary development provides a unified theory of organic development that places God in the center of creation. The laws of nature reveal an intelligent mover actively guiding them in a coordinated fashion towards a goal or purpose. In contrast to Darwin, Munger observes that our moral faculties’ relationship to our organic bodies in no way degrades or invalidates the divine nature of the human intellect. Mind and body “are united by the secret cord of the creative energy.” Although scientistic reductionists believe that it is brought about by natural forces, Munger argues that intelligence itself can only be brought about by an intelligent force working freely and progressively, and therefore possibly by increments. Of the rudimentary constituents of higher mental attributes in beasts, “There is only an indication that the moral is in the mind and purpose of God, even so far back as in the brute world — a foregleam of the approaching issue. They show the divine purpose . . . pressing on with yearning speed towards his [God’s] moral image.” Munger bemoans the positivism and scientism that has taken unwarranted ownership over evolutionary theory, and here is where the danger to the faith is realized. Munger further rejects Darwinian reductionism and positivism because it abandons the very reason upon which it is based and “attempts to measure the universe by a rod no longer than the eye can see.” Munger insists that four foundations must support every evolutionary proposition: a) every observed effect must assume a cause; b) a force cannot originate itself; c) a law must assume the priority of a mind; and d) forces working in a complex and orderly way toward a goal presuppose a mind or mind-like action behind them.
No Threat to Christianity
In the end, Munger’s purpose in this essay it to show that evolution not only poses no threat to Christian faith but can confirm it by linking God’s creative powers and purposes to the organic operations of nature.
Positivism, and Munger’s hostility to it, is extremely important when considering Darwinism. It was not necessary to insist upon Darwin’s principle of natura non facit saltum (nature does not make jumps) or even natural selection in order to be a Darwinist; what was crucial was some commitment to positivism. Munger’s essay challenges all aspects of positivism and proposes a new and distinctly different version of evolution that is intrinsically theistic.
Quickly Challenged
As might be expected, this view was quickly challenged. In the September 1886 issue of The Century, the Rev. Charles F. Deems, a Methodist minister from New York, accused Munger of conflating terms and providing a description of evolution contrary to most of its leading proponents. Where Munger used “evolution,” Deems insisted that he should have used “development” to avoid confusion. In fact, Deems points out that every time Munger holds fast to “the faith,” he is required to abandon evolution. But Munger tells his colleague, “I do not consider it wise to yield the word to the school that first brought it into general use and put its own definition upon it. It is not a trade-mark; it is not private property; and I must so far disagree with my friend as to think that it has not been so exclusively used by one school, that it cannot properly be used by other schools.”
But Deems had a point. If terms are used with such imprecision and multiple meanings, confusion is bound to arise. Nevertheless, Munger had every right to use the idea of organic change in nature as he saw fit. Darwin, Huxley, Haeckel and their allies did not own an exclusive trade-mark even if they acted as if they did.
Munger is exemplary of theistic evolution not Darwinian theism. In this sense he is closer to his contemporaries Alfred Russel Wallace and St. George Mivart, both of whom argued for intelligent evolution. So the next time you hear talk of theistic evolution, be sure to dig a little deeper. Darwinian theism — e.g., as espoused by Miller, Giberson, BioLogos — and theistic evolution are a confusion of terms. They are often not the same. Munger proves it.
In a post on Sunday I’ll give an example of how this same erroneous attribution is committed against a well-known American scientist. Stay tuned.