discoveryinstitute--2020-04-15--The Stock Market: Gains, Pains, and Panics

Let ’ s push an imaginary rewind button on the stock market .
We ’ ll go back five years to April 14 , 2015 .
The S & P 500 is at 2096 , up 80 % over the previous decade .
That works out to a 5.6 % annual average price increase .
Add in dividends and investors enjoyed an average annual return above 7 % over the preceding five years .
Now , suppose the market were to go up a steady 6.3 % over the next five years , with the S & P 500 beginning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and finishing at 2842 ( which it did ) on April 14 , 2020 .
Add in dividends , and stockholders would have enjoyed a satisfying average annual return close to 8 % .
Investors would have been pleased by this serenely profitable market .
They certainly would not have fled the stock market , vowing never to return .
Of course , this alternative history is not at all what happened .
Instead , over the past five years , the market went up more than 60 % , and then @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 25 % .
Oh what a difference !
Instead of a peaceful stroll , it was a nauseating roller coaster ride .
Many investors panicked after the price collapse , sold everything , and vowed to give up on stocks—at least until the market returned to “ normal ” —as if there ever is a normal in the stock market .
An investor who sells a stock after its price falls from $ 100 to $ 50 and plans to buy the stock back after the price returns to $ 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loss .
This behavior makes little or no sense but human psychology isn ’ t always rational .
I know financial advisers who refuse phone calls after a market dip because they are trying to protect their clients from the consequences of their hysteria .
One manager of a large college endowment made up excuses—I ’ m traveling to Europe , I ’ m traveling to Asia—to avoid meeting with the university ’ s Board after the 23 % market crash on October 22 , 1987 .
He knew that they wanted him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ portfolio .
I also know financial advisers and investment managers who sell after prices go down and buy after prices go back up .
The uncomfortable truth is that it is impossible to predict short-term movements in stock prices .
J. P. Morgan was exactly right when he said that , “ The market will go up and it will go down , but not necessarily in that order.
” A fear that , if prices fall , they will continue falling is not justified by history but by panic .
If anything @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because investors overreact to news—good or bad—large price movements in either direction—up or down—tend to be followed by price reversals .
The hysterical reaction of many investors to stock prices soaring and then collapsing reflects a well-documented human trait known as loss aversion .
For many people , the pain from watching their wealth fall by 10 % is a lot sharper than is the pleasure from having their wealth increase by 10 % .
Thus , making money and then losing it feels much worse than not making any money at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that losses are twice as painful as equivalent gains are pleasing .
Making $ 10,000 and losing $ 5,000 balance out .
Making $ 10,000 , $ 100,000 , or $ 1,000,000 in the stock market and then losing it is traumatic .
Here is a simple mental experiment .
Yes , please do try this at home .
Suppose you have $ 100,000 and are offered an opportunity to pay $ 4,000 for a 50 % chance of winning $ 10,000 .
Would you take the wager ?
Many people would .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ way : You have $ 106,000 and can pay $ 6,000 to avoid a gamble that has a 50 % chance of losing $ 10,000 .
Would you take the wager ?
Many people who would take the first gamble would avoid the second gamble—even though the possible outcomes are identical : a safe $ 100,000 versus equally likely chances at $ 106,000 and $ 96,000 .
People react differently when the gamble is framed as a possible loss than when it is framed as a possible gain—because they fear losses more than @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coaster we call the stock market , the average investor makes money in the long run because companies earn profits , pay dividends , and grow with the economy .
Nonetheless , some people are so paralyzed by the fear of losing money that they put it in bank accounts paying little more than would dollar bills buried in the backyard .
For those investors who do venture into the stock market , some dismiss the gains as “ just on paper , ” hardly worth celebrating , while losses are considered real @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of thinking explains why gains followed by equal losses are much , much worse than nothing .
If Apple rises from $ 230 to $ 320 and then falls back to $ 230 , it feels terrifying .
So , instead of fixating on the past two months , let ’ s think about where the market will go next .
I don ’ t know what will happen tomorrow or next week or next month—and neither does anyone else .
But I do know that , in addition to loss aversion , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that , in the long run , really aren ’ t all that important .
As Keynes wrote : “ day-to-day fluctuations in the profits of existing investments , which are obviously of an ephemeral and nonsignificant character , tend to have an altogether excessive , and even absurd , influence on the [ stock ] market.
” This is why stock prices fluctuate wildly and tend to regress .
Good news causes prices to go up too much , and then retreat .
Bad news causes prices to go down too much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ managed a club soccer team , I used to say that the wins and losses are seldom as important as they seem at the time .
The same is true of stocks .
The latest breaking news is seldom as important as it seems at the time and has little or nothing to do with the long-run returns from stocks .
The S & P500 dividend yield is currently 2 % , while the 10-year Treasury rate is less than 1 % , and the 30-year rate is 1.4 % .
As Warren @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bonds—with the important difference that bond coupons are fixed while stock dividends will increase .
Since the coupons on Treasury bonds are fixed , a long-term investment in Treasury bonds will give an annual return of less than 2 % .
In contrast , I am confident that the US economy , earnings , and dividends will be much higher 10 , 20 , and 30 years from now than they are today .
If they are , a long-term investment in stocks will give a return that is much , much higher @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy is not far larger in the coming decades than it is today , then we will all have a lot more to worry about than our stock portfolios .
Stocks paying dividends that will grow over time are currently a much better long-term investment than Treasury bonds—even if there are ups and downs along the way .
Investors : calm down and enjoy the ride .
Serious investors should embrace the stock market algos .
We can use computers ’ inability to distinguish meaning from noise in data to our advantage

Let’s push an imaginary rewind button on the stock market. We’ll go back five years to April 14, 2015. The S&P 500 is at 2096, up 80% over the previous decade. That works out to a 5.6% annual average price increase. Add in dividends and investors enjoyed an average annual return above 7% over the preceding five years.
Now, suppose the market were to go up a steady 6.3% over the next five years, with the S&P 500 beginning at 2096 on April 14, 2015, and finishing at 2842 (which it did) on April 14, 2020. Add in dividends, and stockholders would have enjoyed a satisfying average annual return close to 8%. Investors would have been pleased by this serenely profitable market. They certainly would not have fled the stock market, vowing never to return.
Of course, this alternative history is not at all what happened. Instead, over the past five years, the market went up more than 60%, and then fell a breathtaking 34% before rebounding more than 25%.
Oh what a difference! Instead of a peaceful stroll, it was a nauseating roller coaster ride. Many investors panicked after the price collapse, sold everything, and vowed to give up on stocks — at least until the market returned to “normal” — as if there ever is a normal in the stock market.
An investor who sells a stock after its price falls from $100 to $50 and plans to buy the stock back after the price returns to $100, is locking in a 50% loss. This behavior makes little or no sense but human psychology isn’t always rational. I know financial advisers who refuse phone calls after a market dip because they are trying to protect their clients from the consequences of their hysteria. One manager of a large college endowment made up excuses — I’m traveling to Europe, I’m traveling to Asia — to avoid meeting with the university’s Board after the 23% market crash on October 22, 1987. He knew that they wanted him to liquidate the university’s stock portfolio. I also know financial advisers and investment managers who sell after prices go down and buy after prices go back up.
The uncomfortable truth is that it is impossible to predict short-term movements in stock prices. J. P. Morgan was exactly right when he said that, “The market will go up and it will go down, but not necessarily in that order.” A fear that, if prices fall, they will continue falling is not justified by history but by panic. If anything, the historical evidence is that, because investors overreact to news — good or bad — large price movements in either direction — up or down — tend to be followed by price reversals.
The hysterical reaction of many investors to stock prices soaring and then collapsing reflects a well-documented human trait known as loss aversion. For many people, the pain from watching their wealth fall by 10% is a lot sharper than is the pleasure from having their wealth increase by 10%. Thus, making money and then losing it feels much worse than not making any money at all. In fact, some studies indicate that losses are twice as painful as equivalent gains are pleasing. Making $10,000 and losing $5,000 balance out. Making $10,000, $100,000, or $1,000,000 in the stock market and then losing it is traumatic.
Here is a simple mental experiment. Yes, please do try this at home. Suppose you have $100,000 and are offered an opportunity to pay $4,000 for a 50% chance of winning $10,000. Would you take the wager? Many people would.
But suppose the wager is posed this way: You have $106,000 and can pay $6,000 to avoid a gamble that has a 50% chance of losing $10,000. Would you take the wager? Many people who would take the first gamble would avoid the second gamble — even though the possible outcomes are identical: a safe $100,000 versus equally likely chances at $106,000 and $96,000. People react differently when the gamble is framed as a possible loss than when it is framed as a possible gain — because they fear losses more than they welcome gains.
In the roller coaster we call the stock market, the average investor makes money in the long run because companies earn profits, pay dividends, and grow with the economy. Nonetheless, some people are so paralyzed by the fear of losing money that they put it in bank accounts paying little more than would dollar bills buried in the backyard. For those investors who do venture into the stock market, some dismiss the gains as “just on paper,” hardly worth celebrating, while losses are considered real and must be mourned. This way of thinking explains why gains followed by equal losses are much, much worse than nothing. If Apple rises from $230 to $320 and then falls back to $230, it feels terrifying.
So, instead of fixating on the past two months, let’s think about where the market will go next.
I don’t know what will happen tomorrow or next week or next month — and neither does anyone else. But I do know that, in addition to loss aversion, another human foible is overreaction to things that, in the long run, really aren’t all that important. As Keynes wrote: “day-to-day fluctuations in the profits of existing investments, which are obviously of an ephemeral and nonsignificant character, tend to have an altogether excessive, and even absurd, influence on the [stock] market.” This is why stock prices fluctuate wildly and tend to regress. Good news causes prices to go up too much, and then retreat. Bad news causes prices to go down too much, and then recover.
When I managed a club soccer team, I used to say that the wins and losses are seldom as important as they seem at the time. The same is true of stocks. The latest breaking news is seldom as important as it seems at the time and has little or nothing to do with the long-run returns from stocks.
The S&P500 dividend yield is currently 2%, while the 10-year Treasury rate is less than 1%, and the 30-year rate is 1.4%. As Warren Buffett observed, stocks are just disguised bonds — with the important difference that bond coupons are fixed while stock dividends will increase. Since the coupons on Treasury bonds are fixed, a long-term investment in Treasury bonds will give an annual return of less than 2%. In contrast, I am confident that the US economy, earnings, and dividends will be much higher 10, 20, and 30 years from now than they are today. If they are, a long-term investment in stocks will give a return that is much, much higher than Treasury bonds. If the US economy is not far larger in the coming decades than it is today, then we will all have a lot more to worry about than our stock portfolios.
Stocks paying dividends that will grow over time are currently a much better long-term investment than Treasury bonds — even if there are ups and downs along the way.
Investors: calm down and enjoy the ride.
Also by Gary Smith:
Serious investors should embrace the stock market algos. We can use computers’ inability to distinguish meaning from noise in data to our advantage


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-14--Chaos by the Bay

Chaos by the Bay

An odd pattern has emerged in San Francisco as the city responds to the Covid-19 pandemic .
The world of the well-off has become tightly restricted by public quarantine orders , and the world of the poor increasingly resembles that of Mad Max — lawless , crime-ridden , and devoid of functioning authority .
Over just a few weeks , San Francisco has instituted a policy that can be described as “ decarcerate , decriminalize , and depolice.
” Reducing the jail population , permitting public camping and other forms of disorder , and scaling back police presence in low-income @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of San Francisco ’ s progressive activists .
In the past , residents and business groups could restrain the most extreme impulses of the political class .
Now , with the coronavirus providing cover , city leaders have pushed forward their agenda with new vigor .
Citing concerns about a potential coronavirus outbreak among the incarcerated , District Attorney Chesa Boudin has reduced the county jail population by nearly 50 percent .
Contrary to the rhetoric of decarceration advocates , these released detainees are not “ nonviolent drug offenders.
” The most recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jail revealed that 68 percent of inmates were charged with violent crimes , weapons offenses , and other serious felonies ; only 4 percent of inmates were arrested for drug crimes .
Boudin ’ s campaign of humanitarian release would benefit many violent offenders , who now roam the streets during a major social crisis .
As the virus has spread through the city ’ s largest emergency shelter , and plans to provide hotel rooms for the homeless have collapsed , local authorities have adopted a “ Tents for All ” policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the past four years on a campaign to reduce the presence of illegal encampments , city leadership has reversed course and adopted the view that encampments—which harbor crime and lack proper sanitation—are the city ’ s best option to contain the virus .
City leaders and nonprofits are distributing hundreds of tents throughout the city ; the mayor has instructed the Public Works Department and Homeless Outreach Teams to allow public camping .
San Francisco ’ s political leadership has effectively divested itself from serving as a functioning legal authority , instructing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ all but the most serious crimes .
In the Tenderloin , the city ’ s unofficial opioid district , the local police station announced that it would “ temporarily redirect the vast majority of [ its ] efforts toward serious and violent crime , ” noting that this policy would significantly “ decrease [ its ] public contact.
” Fearing an imminent rise in property crime , business owners have begun boarding up their windows and installing security cameras .
The impact of the new policy has been dramatic .
In the Tenderloin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the homeless congregate in open-air drug markets ; dealers wear gloves and masks and sell heroin , fentanyl , and methamphetamine in broad daylight .
In residential neighborhoods , longtime residents describe the environment as “ apocalyptic , ” with encampments , trash , and drug havens in every corner .
As one public worker told the San Francisco Chronicle , “ The alleys are filled with people who are high as a kite , and they are basically controlled by two drug dealers and a pimp.
” Ironically , in their quest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have reinforced it .
The wealthy will obey quarantine orders and find ways to compensate , including remote work and home delivery of necessities , and generally insulate themselves from the consequences of decarceration , decriminalization , and depolicing ; the poor and working class , who live in the neighborhoods most affected by tent encampments and open-air drug markets , will pay the price .
In theory , progressives want to raise the floor beneath the dispossessed ; in practice , they have dropped the roof on the working poor .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lift the lockdown orders , San Franciscans will find that their city has been transformed , not toward greater equality , but toward greater misery , lawlessness , and disorder .
The hard-fought gains of recent years—the reduction of tent encampments and establishment of regular cleanups—have been lost .
It may take an enormous effort to recover .

An odd pattern has emerged in San Francisco as the city responds to the Covid-19 pandemic. The world of the well-off has become tightly restricted by public quarantine orders, and the world of the poor increasingly resembles that of Mad Max — lawless, crime-ridden, and devoid of functioning authority.
Over just a few weeks, San Francisco has instituted a policy that can be described as “decarcerate, decriminalize, and depolice.” Reducing the jail population, permitting public camping and other forms of disorder, and scaling back police presence in low-income neighborhoods have always been the favored policies of San Francisco’s progressive activists. In the past, residents and business groups could restrain the most extreme impulses of the political class. Now, with the coronavirus providing cover, city leaders have pushed forward their agenda with new vigor.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-14--Evolution,  ID, and the Coronavirus: Jonathan Wells Explains

On this episode of ID the Future , biologist and Discovery Institute senior fellow Jonathan Wells tackles questions of evolution @ @ @ @ @ relate to the novel coronavirus SARS CoV-2 .
Is it the product of evolution , @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Origin of Species ?
Wells argues to the contrary : It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ in fact viruses aren ’ t even considered living species .
Does modern evolutionary theory @ @ @ @ @ ?
Not when you consider that most of the major treatments being used and pursued @ @ @ @ @ intelligent design involved ?
Yes and no , Wells says .
Listen in to get @ @ @ @ @ more .

The coronavirus plague is devastating to our country. Public policy decisions are agonizing. We should insist on three principles which will help us make the wisest decisions


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-12--We Need Politicians in a Pandemic

We Need Politicians in a Pandemic

The U.S. economy has been cratered less by the coronavirus than by the response to it — driven by the @ @ @ @ @ ” should rule , even when much of the science and the data behind it @ @ @ @ @ ’ re told in this plague year that politicians have no role — in essence @ @ @ @ @ no real rights against consensus science , which can demand that we forfeit our liberties @ @ @ @ @ Political leaders , elected to exercise judgment on our behalf , must defer to doctors @ @ @ @ @ is addressable only through medical expertise .
Yet since many liken fighting the coronavirus to @ @ @ @ @ that in war admirals and generals defer to civilian authority — to the president , @ @ @ @ @ on matters of strategy and to Congress on matters of budget .
This is not @ @ @ @ @ a free people governs itself , even in a perilous crisis .
It is how @ @ @ @ @ perspective to decision-making .

The U.S. economy has been cratered less by the coronavirus than by the response to it — driven by the undemocratic idea that “science” should rule, even when much of the science and the data behind it remain in dispute.
We’re told in this plague year that politicians have no role — in essence, that the people have no real rights against consensus science, which can demand that we forfeit our liberties and suspend the Constitution. Political leaders, elected to exercise judgment on our behalf, must defer to doctors, because the viral threat is addressable only through medical expertise.
Yet since many liken fighting the coronavirus to war, we should remember that in war admirals and generals defer to civilian authority — to the president, as commander in chief, on matters of strategy and to Congress on matters of budget. This is not a design flaw but how a free people governs itself, even in a perilous crisis. It is how we bring the largest possible perspective to decision-making.
The demands of health-care experts are not greater than the demands of the economy, for a very simple reason: The health-care system is not separate from the economy but a crucial part of it. The health-care system saves lives; the economy provides everything we need to live. The damage being done to the economy — if sustained — could easily cost more lives world-wide than the coronavirus.
There are not, and never will be, scientific answers to all public problems. Scientific expertise and specialization inform good policy, but they should never be the final word. To navigate successfully between competing interests or competing calamities, between war and peace, and even between deadly pandemics and deadly economic depressions, we need politics — and politicians.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-12--Online Conferences: Conference Technology

The COVID-19 response has plunged many people who have never used online meeting software into the world of virtual meetings .
One challenge that comes up is running an entire conference online .
I ’ ve been doing that on and off since 2016 so I can outline some things you need to think about if you try .
This three-part series covers 1 ) Conference Technology ( below ) , 2 ) Conference Personnel , and 3 ) Conference Documents and Technology Tests .
Most of the meetings I have organized were on a tight budget so the solutions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or extremely low cost .
However , the main thing to recognize is that , as of right now , no one system has everything that you need .
Because the systems aren ’ t integrated , you will need to be more lax about how “ open ” the meeting is to non-registrants .
People who weren ’ t invited can probably join your conference and you have to rely on the honesty of those who registered not to share their information with others—though we will also cover mitigation strategies as well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an online conference , you generally need the following items : A number of systems can gather registrations .
Some of the more common ones are EventBrite and CVent .
However , these systems tend to take a chunk of your registration fees and , in reality , online conferences don ’ t take as much organizational work as in-person conferences .
Therefore , you may be able to just use a general e-commerce system for selling tickets .
The most important thing is to ensure that you can get a list of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have registered .
For WordPress users , WooCommerce is a great system but you can also just set up a product in PayPal to get the job done .
I would urge against creating an unpaid conference .
People tend to value less the things they didn ’ t have to pay for .
Even if the fee is nominal , people tend to be more inclined to follow through with things they have paid for .
However , if your conference is to be free , you can gather registrants using a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sheets ( you can create a form that feeds into a spreadsheet by simply going to “ insert ” and then “ form ” from a blank spreadsheet ) , JotForm , or SurveyMonkey .
A way to communicate with all your registrants Email is usually the preferred way for communicating with conference attendees .
For small conferences , you can get by with your normal email program .
However , for larger numbers of attendees , communication is best managed via a custom solution .
MailChimp has become a standard for this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ SendInBlue is far more cost effective for anyone who is graduating off of the free tier .
A way for attendees to chat in between scheduled events One of the great things about conferences is a chance to chat with other attendees .
You could set up a Slack channel for that but it gets hard to manage and it entails yet another login for people to remember .
For general chat , I prefer setting up channels on tlk.io .
On this site , all you need do is come up with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ join , ” and then copy the link to everyone .
If you want the channel to be moderated , you can register yourself as moderator by signing up ( free ) with either Twitter or Facebook .
tlk.io only allows each user to moderate one channel , though you can create as many channels as you like .
So you can create a channel for a general chat and then channels for topic-specific chats .
You can also do this with video chats , using the same meeting software , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unmoderated video chats are usually a little unwieldy for most people .
In any case , whatever solution you use , just be sure that you keep track of the channels you have created so that you can communicate them to everyone at the appropriate time .
Online conferences use technology , and technology always comes with problems .
Therefore , you will need some way to handle issues as they arise .
If you want formal issue-tracking ( where requests are assigned tracking numbers , with formal tracking toward resolution ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if you want something free and easy to implement , I suggest just setting up another tlk.io channel for helpdesk issues .
tlk.io works with all browsers and doesn ’ t rely on anything external , so you can be sure that users can connect to it .
Just create a channel for your conference helpdesk , and send everyone that link so they can chat with your helpdesk volunteers if needed .
A way to host the meeting itself , with multiple simultaneous tracks This is the core of your conference @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It must support numerous users , multiple rooms ( if you have a multi-track conference ) , a “ presentation mode ” ( muting everyone who is not presenting ) , a chat feature , screen sharing , and meeting recording .
While most people have been suggesting Zoom for this , I ’ ve actually found that the most cost-effective way of handling this is with Amazon Chime .
Chime is a newer contender in this space ; however , it comes in strong and has the backing of Amazon .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ for multi-room conferences .
Essentially , you pay $ 3/room/day , with a maximum of $ 15/room/month .
What I do is register as many rooms as I want as users ( I currently have six for my own activities ) but I only pay for them when I actually use them .
Each room supports all the things I need—250 simultaneous attendees , a presentation mode , no limits on time , “ event mode , ” screen sharing , and recording of meetings .
Most months , I only use one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one I get charged for .
Compare that to Zoom , which requires that you pay full price for 10 rooms for $ 20/month/room ( i.e.
, $ 200/month ) to get those features , and then you have to manage users constantly .
With Chime , I can run a full conference with 6 rooms for $ 18 total ( 6 rooms × $ 3/day ) .
If that ’ s all I used , that ’ s all I pay .
So , you can have all the features you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : Online Conferences , Part 2 : Conference Personnel How the people who make it happen work their magic .
Also by Jonathan Bartlett : We willl never go back to the pre-COVID-19 workplace .
The virus forced us to realize : Staying together apart has never been so easy .

The COVID-19 response has plunged many people who have never used online meeting software into the world of virtual meetings. One challenge that comes up is running an entire conference online. I’ve been doing that on and off since 2016 so I can outline some things you need to think about if you try. This three-part series covers 1) Conference Technology (below), 2) Conference Personnel, and 3) Conference Documents and Technology Tests.
Part 1. Conference Technology
Most of the meetings I have organized were on a tight budget so the solutions I will be suggesting are all free or extremely low cost. However, the main thing to recognize is that, as of right now, no one system has everything that you need. Because the systems aren’t integrated, you will need to be more lax about how “open” the meeting is to non-registrants. People who weren’t invited can probably join your conference and you have to rely on the honesty of those who registered not to share their information with others—though we will also cover mitigation strategies as well (in Part 3).
For an online conference, you generally need the following items:
A way to gather registrations (paid)
A number of systems can gather registrations. Some of the more common ones are EventBrite and CVent. However, these systems tend to take a chunk of your registration fees and, in reality, online conferences don’t take as much organizational work as in-person conferences. Therefore, you may be able to just use a general e-commerce system for selling tickets. The most important thing is to ensure that you can get a list of the email addresses of the people who have registered. For WordPress users, WooCommerce is a great system but you can also just set up a product in PayPal to get the job done.
A way to gather registrations (unpaid)
I would urge against creating an unpaid conference. People tend to value less the things they didn’t have to pay for. Even if the fee is nominal, people tend to be more inclined to follow through with things they have paid for. However, if your conference is to be free, you can gather registrants using a number of online tools such as Google Sheets (you can create a form that feeds into a spreadsheet by simply going to “insert” and then “form” from a blank spreadsheet), JotForm, or SurveyMonkey.
A way to communicate with all your registrants
Email is usually the preferred way for communicating with conference attendees. For small conferences, you can get by with your normal email program. However, for larger numbers of attendees, communication is best managed via a custom solution. MailChimp has become a standard for this, but I’ve found that SendInBlue is far more cost effective for anyone who is graduating off of the free tier.
A way for attendees to chat in between scheduled events
One of the great things about conferences is a chance to chat with other attendees. You could set up a Slack channel for that but it gets hard to manage and it entails yet another login for people to remember. For general chat, I prefer setting up channels on tlk.io. On this site, all you need do is come up with a name for your channel, hit “join,” and then copy the link to everyone. If you want the channel to be moderated, you can register yourself as moderator by signing up (free) with either Twitter or Facebook. tlk.io only allows each user to moderate one channel, though you can create as many channels as you like. So you can create a channel for a general chat and then channels for topic-specific chats. You can also do this with video chats, using the same meeting software, as we will discuss below. However, unmoderated video chats are usually a little unwieldy for most people. In any case, whatever solution you use, just be sure that you keep track of the channels you have created so that you can communicate them to everyone at the appropriate time.
A way to provide helpdesk functions
Online conferences use technology, and technology always comes with problems. Therefore, you will need some way to handle issues as they arise. If you want formal issue-tracking (where requests are assigned tracking numbers, with formal tracking toward resolution), Zendesk is the obvious choice. However, if you want something free and easy to implement, I suggest just setting up another tlk.io channel for helpdesk issues. tlk.io works with all browsers and doesn’t rely on anything external, so you can be sure that users can connect to it. Just create a channel for your conference helpdesk, and send everyone that link so they can chat with your helpdesk volunteers if needed.
A way to host the meeting itself, with multiple simultaneous tracks
This is the core of your conference, so the right tool is important. It must support numerous users, multiple rooms (if you have a multi-track conference), a “presentation mode” (muting everyone who is not presenting), a chat feature, screen sharing, and meeting recording. While most people have been suggesting Zoom for this, I’ve actually found that the most cost-effective way of handling this is with Amazon Chime.
Chime is a newer contender in this space; however, it comes in strong and has the backing of Amazon. Chime’s pricing structure is perfect for multi-room conferences. Essentially, you pay $3/room/day, with a maximum of $15/room/month. What I do is register as many rooms as I want as users (I currently have six for my own activities) but I only pay for them when I actually use them. Each room supports all the things I need—250 simultaneous attendees, a presentation mode, no limits on time, “event mode,” screen sharing, and recording of meetings. Most months, I only use one room, so that’s the only one I get charged for. Compare that to Zoom, which requires that you pay full price for 10 rooms for $20/month/room (i.e., $200/month) to get those features, and then you have to manage users constantly. With Chime, I can run a full conference with 6 rooms for $18 total (6 rooms × $3/day). If that’s all I used, that’s all I pay. So, you can have all the features you need at a great price.
Next: Online Conferences, Part 2: Conference Personnel How the people who make it happen work their magic.
Also by Jonathan Bartlett: We will never go back to the pre-COVID-19 workplace. The virus forced us to realize: Staying together apart has never been so easy.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-09--Whale of an Evolution Tale

Whale of an Evolution Tale

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition .
But is it ?
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species : “ I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered , by natural selection , more and more aquatic in their structure and habits , with larger and larger mouths , till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.
” Bears turning into whales ?
Scientists today disagree , instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the parameters that would have to be modified , ” says biologist Richard Sternberg , “ and then multiply that by , I don ’ t know — a thousandfold , or more than that .
That ’ s the scale of the problem that you ’ re dealing with.
” Join us for the live , online premiere of the new video Whale of an Evolution Tale , the latest in the Long Story Short series of videos .
Immediately following the video we ’ ll have a live Q & A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Richard Sternberg .
“ Long Story Short , ” is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very welcome format : concise , accessible , and funny .

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition. But is it?
Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more and more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale.”
Bears turning into whales? Scientists today disagree, instead claiming that other land animals were the real precursors to today’s whales.
“Just think of all the parameters that would have to be modified,” says biologist Richard Sternberg, “and then multiply that by, I don’t know — a thousandfold, or more than that. That’s the scale of the problem that you’re dealing with.”
Join us for the live, online premiere of the new video Whale of an Evolution Tale, the latest in the Long Story Short series of videos. Immediately following the video we’ll have a live Q&A about whale evolution with biologists Jonathan Wells and Richard Sternberg.
Long Story Short is a new occasional video series that compresses key points in the debate between Darwinism and intelligent design into a very welcome format: concise, accessible, and funny.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-08--The Return of the God Hypothesis

The Return of the God Hypothesis

Philosopher of science , intelligent design scholar , teacher , and New York Times bestselling author of Darwin ’ s @ @ @ @ @ presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God , based on breakthroughs in physics @ @ @ @ @ .
Stephen Meyer has finished his next book , The Return of the God Hypothesis @ @ @ @ @ a bit of insider information ) is currently awaiting copyedits from his publisher .
The @ @ @ @ @ not grind hastily .
I ’ ve read the book , and it ’ s @ @ @ @ @ impatient to get your hands on it , you can get a bit of a @ @ @ @ @ Meyer gave at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith .
You can watch @ @ @ @

Philosopher of science, intelligent design scholar, teacher, and New York Times bestselling author of Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen C. Meyer presents groundbreaking scientific evidence of the existence of God, based on breakthroughs in physics, cosmology, and biology.
Stephen Meyer has finished his next book, The Return of the God Hypothesis, and (here is a bit of insider information) is currently awaiting copyedits from his publisher. The wheels of book publishing do not grind hastily. I’ve read the book, and it’s fantastic. If you are impatient to get your hands on it, you can get a bit of a preview in a presentation Dr. Meyer gave at the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science and Faith. You can watch that right now.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-08--Christopher Rufo with Tucker Carlson on Progressives’ Response to COVID-19

For the last 100 years , socialist and progressive movements have used disasters , wars , and epidemics to gain @ @ @ @ @ American progressives are using the coronavirus to push a dangerous agenda of mass decarceration , @ @ @ @ @ , and nationalization of entire industries.I sat down with Tucker Carlson to explain the dangers @ @ @ @ @ .

This week I sought out Arnold Kling to learn more about some of his innovative ideas to deal with the health, economic and social fallout from the Covid-19 crisis. Arnold, who blogs at arnoldkling.com/blog, author of “Specialization and Trade” and “The Three Languages of Politics” and


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-08--Homelessness, Compassion, and COVID-19

Homelessness, Compassion, and COVID-19

Over the past decade , there has been an explosion in homelessness , addiction , crime , and disorder in @ @ @ @ @ .
By latest count , there are more than 500,000 people sleeping on the streets @ @ @ @ @ with the highest concentration in West Coast cities including Seattle , San Francisco , and @ @ @ @ @ has reached critical mass and the spread of COVID-19 may only exacerbate it as a @ @ @ @ @ to use the current crisis as a backdoor for socialism .
Policies such as government @ @ @ @ @ upend the social order , but could prove to be a breeding ground for the @ @ @ @ @ an online webinar with Christopher Rufo , Discovery Institute ’ s new Director for the @ @ @ @ @ , and learn about the root causes of the homeless crisis as well as what @ @ @ @ @ pandemic reveals about the Left-Right divide .
Instead of continuing to employ the same self-defeating @ @ @ @ @ outline new , bold strategies to combat the issue .

Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in homelessness, addiction, crime, and disorder in America’s major cities. By latest count, there are more than 500,000 people sleeping on the streets in the United States, with the highest concentration in West Coast cities including Seattle, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
The problem has reached critical mass and the spread of COVID-19 may only exacerbate it as a number of progressive cities seek to use the current crisis as a backdoor for socialism. Policies such as government sanctioned homeless encampments not only upend the social order, but could prove to be a breeding ground for the virus.
Join us for an online webinar with Christopher Rufo, Discovery Institute’s new Director for the Center on Wealth and Poverty, and learn about the root causes of the homeless crisis as well as what our response to the coronavirus pandemic reveals about the Left-Right divide. Instead of continuing to employ the same self-defeating progressive policies, Chris will outline new, bold strategies to combat the issue.


discoveryinstitute--2020-04-07--Balancing Lives, Economics, and Public Policy in This Plague

I am a physician , and while I don ’ t treat coronavirus patients personally ( I ’ m a neurosurgeon ) , I work in a regional coronavirus center and have first-hand knowledge of the medical impact of this pandemic .
The danger the virus poses to life is substantial — in vulnerable people , it causes severe pulmonary compromise , often requiring the patient to be placed on a ventilator , and a substantial portion of these ventilated patients will die .
The virus is highly contagious , and has a rather long incubation period , which helps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continue to walk around and spread it for quite a while before they become sick and realize that they are contagious .
For a variety of reasons , the coronavirus plague is devastating to our country .
Public policy decisions are agonizing — do we destroy our economy to save lives ?
What are the risks to life from economic devastation , and how can these risks be weighed against the risks to life from the virus ?
What are the psychological and sociological consequences of the pandemic and of our response to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
There are no easy answers .
I think that we should insist on three principles which will help us make the wisest decisions possible .
• Experts must keep in their lane — medical recommendations must be based entirely on medical rationale .
Legal recommendations must be based entirely on legal rationale .
Economic recommendations must be based entirely on economic rationale .
Foreign policy recommendations must be based entirely on foreign policy rationale .
The final decisions by our leaders — the political recommendations and policy — must incorporate scientific , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and arrive at a “ best course ” decision for our nation .
This principle , “ Experts : keep in your lane , ” is vital .
The reason is that expertise is specific to discipline .
There is no reason to think that expertise necessarily extends out of that discipline , and confusing personal or ideological perspectives with expert knowledge muddles final decision-making .
For example , an epidemiologist should give advice based strictly on epidemiological science .
This would include advice to close borders as soon as a risk of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ identified , advice for social distancing , tracking of carriers , making medications and equipment available , etc .
The personal beliefs of the scientists on the legal or moral aspects of immigration policy , etc.
, should play no role in their expert recommendations .
The feasibility and public policy wisdom of these scientific recommendations is not the concern of scientists , acting in their professional capacity .
Whether closing the borders is morally or legally or politically viable is not the bailiwick of scientists .
Scientists should inform the public and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without personal bias .
In this sense , expert opinion must be rarified .
Experts must stick to their lane .
• Transparency — exactly what is our calculus ?
The ultimate decision on management of this crisis is political ( in the sense that it is for the well-being of our polis ) , and our political policy makers ( the President , Congress and the Senate , governors , etc . )
should make their calculus transparent .
How many deaths are we willing to risk to save our economy ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ pandemic if we open businesses , in quantitative terms ?
Leaders should think this through carefully , and in a nation in which the people are sovereign , the people should know the calculus .
• Final public policy decisions must be well-informed and must be made based on sound ethical guidelines .
Thomas Aquinas ’ Principle of Double Effect , which is a venerable ethical framework that forms the basis for much of Western law and ethics , provides a good framework .
It is based on the observation that ethical choices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ knowledge of all variables and without guarantees of outcomes .
Ethical decisions are based on probabilities , and some of the possible outcomes of even the most sound decisions may be bad .
For example , your decision to drive to work in the morning is generally an ethical good — you need to earn a living , do right by your job and coworkers , etc .
But driving to work might cause a fatal car accident , which obviously is ethically bad .
A reasonable ethical decision would be to drive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under some circumstances ( you are too tired to drive safely , or there is a blizzard which make the roads hazardous ) , you may want to stay home .
The Principle of Double Effect can be formalized .
In order for a decision to be ethically good , it must conform to four criteria : • We must will the good .
The policy makers must have good intentions — for example , policy decisions on the pandemic that are motivated by considerations of private gain or partisan political advantage are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will the bad .
Bad intentions must be completely absent from policy decision-making .
It is not enough to will some good and some bad .
Our leaders ’ rationales must be based entirely on securing the welfare of the American people .
• The good must be much more likely than the bad — that is , there must be an excellent chance that the good will prevail .
This means that we should weigh the likelihood of good and bad outcomes .
If reopening the economy next week stood an 80 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing 100,000 excess deaths , it probably would be ethically wrong to do so , even though there is a 20 percent chance of success .
A 20 percent chance of success is not good enough when the downside is 100,000 deaths .
If we stood only a 1 percent chance of causing 1,000 excess deaths , it might be ethically right to do so , when the risks to health and well-being of economic devastation are factored in .
Succinctly , the decision to pursue a course of action must be based @ @ @ @ @ @ @ good outcome is much more likely than a bad one .
We have to consider the odds of good vs. bad outcomes .
• The bad must not be the means by which the good is accomplished .
We must never intend the bad , even if it is to obtain the good .
This is perhaps the most subtle , and dangerous , temptation in ethical decision-making .
If bad outcomes occur , they must be incidental , not instrumental , to our purposes .
For example , it would be ethical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for respiratory support in a crisis in which there were not enough ventilators or resources to save everyone .
We would do the very best we could to save all the lives possible with the means at our disposal , and we would accept ( but not intend ) some tragic deaths .
It would not , however , be ethical to euthanize patients ( e.g.
, the elderly with medical conditions ) in order to free up resources for others .
We can not morally intend and do evil ( euthanasia ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evil happens — if people die because we do not have the resources to save them — it must be incidental to our purposes , and not an instrument of our purposes .
Evil must never be deliberate .
In this difficult time , there are no easy public policy answers to the coronavirus pandemic .
Some expert recommendations may be easy , in the sense that epidemiological or legal principles may be quite clear — closing borders to potentially infected carriers , social distancing , respecting statutory and constitutional rights , etc @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have the easiest job .
They should speak based only on what they know .
Our leaders , who have the responsibility to make the final policy decisions , should consider the legitimate opinions of experts , should be transparent about their calculus , and should base public policy decisions on a rational ethical framework .
We should hold our experts , our leaders , and ourselves to these principles .

I am a physician, and while I don’t treat coronavirus patients personally (I’m a neurosurgeon), I work in a regional coronavirus center and have first-hand knowledge of the medical impact of this pandemic. The danger the virus poses to life is substantial — in vulnerable people, it causes severe pulmonary compromise, often requiring the patient to be placed on a ventilator, and a substantial portion of these ventilated patients will die. The virus is highly contagious, and has a rather long incubation period, which helps it spread — people who have it continue to walk around and spread it for quite a while before they become sick and realize that they are contagious.
A Framework for the Wisest Decisions
For a variety of reasons, the coronavirus plague is devastating to our country. Public policy decisions are agonizing — do we destroy our economy to save lives? What are the risks to life from economic devastation, and how can these risks be weighed against the risks to life from the virus? What are the psychological and sociological consequences of the pandemic and of our response to it? What are the political ramifications? There are no easy answers. I think that we should insist on three principles which will help us make the wisest decisions possible.
Experts must keep in their lane — medical recommendations must be based entirely on medical rationale. Legal recommendations must be based entirely on legal rationale. Economic recommendations must be based entirely on economic rationale. Foreign policy recommendations must be based entirely on foreign policy rationale. The final decisions by our leaders — the political recommendations and policy — must incorporate scientific, legal, medical, and economic input and arrive at a “best course” decision for our nation. This principle, “Experts: keep in your lane,” is vital. The reason is that expertise is specific to discipline. There is no reason to think that expertise necessarily extends out of that discipline, and confusing personal or ideological perspectives with expert knowledge muddles final decision-making. For example, an epidemiologist should give advice based strictly on epidemiological science. This would include advice to close borders as soon as a risk of transmission from outside of the country is identified, advice for social distancing, tracking of carriers, making medications and equipment available, etc. The personal beliefs of the scientists on the legal or moral aspects of immigration policy, etc., should play no role in their expert recommendations. The feasibility and public policy wisdom of these scientific recommendations is not the concern of scientists, acting in their professional capacity. Whether closing the borders is morally or legally or politically viable is not the bailiwick of scientists. Scientists should inform the public and policy makers of the scientific issues, without personal bias. In this sense, expert opinion must be rarified. Experts must stick to their lane. Transparency — exactly what is our calculus? The ultimate decision on management of this crisis is political (in the sense that it is for the well-being of our polis), and our political policy makers (the President, Congress and the Senate, governors, etc.) should make their calculus transparent. How many deaths are we willing to risk to save our economy? What is the likelihood of exacerbating the pandemic if we open businesses, in quantitative terms? Leaders should think this through carefully, and in a nation in which the people are sovereign, the people should know the calculus. Final public policy decisions must be well-informed and must be made based on sound ethical guidelines.
The Principle of Double Effect
Thomas Aquinas’ Principle of Double Effect, which is a venerable ethical framework that forms the basis for much of Western law and ethics, provides a good framework. It is based on the observation that ethical choices usually need to be made without full knowledge of all variables and without guarantees of outcomes. Ethical decisions are based on probabilities, and some of the possible outcomes of even the most sound decisions may be bad. For example, your decision to drive to work in the morning is generally an ethical good — you need to earn a living, do right by your job and coworkers, etc. But driving to work might cause a fatal car accident, which obviously is ethically bad. A reasonable ethical decision would be to drive to work on most days, but under some circumstances (you are too tired to drive safely, or there is a blizzard which make the roads hazardous), you may want to stay home.
The Principle of Double Effect can be formalized. In order for a decision to be ethically good, it must conform to four criteria:
We must will the good. The policy makers must have good intentions — for example, policy decisions on the pandemic that are motivated by considerations of private gain or partisan political advantage are ethically unsound. We must not will the bad. Bad intentions must be completely absent from policy decision-making. It is not enough to will some good and some bad. Our leaders’ rationales must be based entirely on securing the welfare of the American people. The good must be much more likely than the bad — that is, there must be an excellent chance that the good will prevail. This means that we should weigh the likelihood of good and bad outcomes. If reopening the economy next week stood an 80 percent chance of exacerbating the pandemic and causing 100,000 excess deaths, it probably would be ethically wrong to do so, even though there is a 20 percent chance of success. A 20 percent chance of success is not good enough when the downside is 100,000 deaths. If we stood only a 1 percent chance of causing 1,000 excess deaths, it might be ethically right to do so, when the risks to health and well-being of economic devastation are factored in. Succinctly, the decision to pursue a course of action must be based on solid reasons to believe that a good outcome is much more likely than a bad one. We have to consider the odds of good vs. bad outcomes. The bad must not be the means by which the good is accomplished. We must never intend the bad, even if it is to obtain the good. This is perhaps the most subtle, and dangerous, temptation in ethical decision-making. If bad outcomes occur, they must be incidental, not instrumental, to our purposes. For example, it would be ethical, in extremis, to triage patients for respiratory support in a crisis in which there were not enough ventilators or resources to save everyone. We would do the very best we could to save all the lives possible with the means at our disposal, and we would accept (but not intend) some tragic deaths. It would not, however, be ethical to euthanize patients (e.g., the elderly with medical conditions) in order to free up resources for others. We cannot morally intend and do evil (euthanasia) in order to accomplish good. If evil happens — if people die because we do not have the resources to save them — it must be incidental to our purposes, and not an instrument of our purposes. Evil must never be deliberate.
In this difficult time, there are no easy public policy answers to the coronavirus pandemic. Some expert recommendations may be easy, in the sense that epidemiological or legal principles may be quite clear — closing borders to potentially infected carriers, social distancing, respecting statutory and constitutional rights, etc. In this sense, the experts have the easiest job. They should speak based only on what they know.
Our leaders, who have the responsibility to make the final policy decisions, should consider the legitimate opinions of experts, should be transparent about their calculus, and should base public policy decisions on a rational ethical framework.
We should hold our experts, our leaders, and ourselves to these principles.
Photo credit: Edwin Hooper via Unsplash.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-11--Secrets of the Cell, Episode 5: The X-Factor in Life

In this episode of Secrets of the Cell , biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe explores the key missing factor @ @ @ @ @ complexity of life .
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised @ @ @ @ @ Stephen Meyer , “ A Scientific History and Philosophical Defense of the Theory of Intelligent @ @

In this episode of Secrets of the Cell, biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe explores the key missing factor in Darwinian explanations of the complexity of life.
Further Exploration
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised in this episode.
More about Michael Behe
More about Intelligent Design


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-10--Evolution, Design, and COVID-19

Evolution, Design, and COVID-19

I ’ ve been asked to comment on the coronavirus epidemic and evolution .
Much of what I wrote six years ago during an outbreak of Ebola virus applies to the current predicament as well.1 The bottom line is that , while of course the virus is dangerous , the situation can be compared to a strong storm on the ocean .
The waves may be huge and the surface roiling , but the deeper waters continue as they always have , essentially undisturbed .
In a similar way , although superficially it changes very rapidly , some researchers think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ types3 have remained basically the same for tens of millions of years .
Viruses are scraps of genetic material ( some composed of DNA , some of RNA , usually wrapped in a protein coat ) whose total genetic information ranges from about one ten-thousandth to about one millionth that of the human genome .
A virus can not reproduce by itself ; rather , it has to hijack a host cell ’ s molecular machinery to do so .
The immune system fights it every step of the way , but sometimes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the replication and release of its progeny can trash a cell .
If many cells are damaged by the multiplying particles , serious health consequences result .
In order to enter a cell , a protein on the surface of the virus particle must bind specifically to a “ receptor ” protein sticking out from the surface of the cell .
It can be likened to a skeleton key that can fit a few kinds of locks , allowing a burglar to enter a home .
Once inside , the burglar can use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But the key is key — unless the key fits , the home is safe .
Viral mutations can change the shape of the skeleton key at random .
Most of the time the process doesn ’ t work but , every once in a while , the virus hits the jackpot .
In some cases , a viral key that had bound to a wild-animal protein mutates and becomes able to bind to a similar human protein .
If a human is in close contact with the animal , the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Then , like an invasive species in a new environment , the virus can multiply until the immune system learns to deal with it .
Various common strains of coronavirus infect humans and cause the usually mild symptoms of the common cold .
But when an animal coronavirus strain crosses over to humans ( such as the SARS virus of the early 2000s , the MERS virus a decade later , and the current COVID-19 ) , it can be much more virulent.4 So , do I think viruses were designed ?
Yes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses , Ebola , and HIV — are exquisitely , purposively arranged , which is the clear signature of intelligent design .
Well , then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer ?
No , not necessarily .
I ’ m a biochemist , not a philosopher .
Nonetheless , I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone .
I started this post with an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Certainly , if we were on a ship in a powerful storm , we might be excused for thinking storms are bad .
But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that , given an ocean and the laws of nature , storms will arise from time to time .
What ’ s more , we just might get caught in one .
In the same way , most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive , necessary role to play @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unaware.5 ( I would bet on it . )
From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans .
But that ’ s no reason to think either that viruses weren ’ t designed or that the designer of viruses isn ’ t good .
• Wertheim , J. O. et al .
2013 .
A case for the ancient origin of coronaviruses .
Journal of Virology 87:7039-7045 .
• Simmonds , P. , Aiewsakun , P. and Katzourakis , A .
2019 .
Prisoners of war — host @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Nature Reviews Microbiology 17:321-328 .
• Cui , J. , Li , F. , and Shi , Z .
2019 .
Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses .
Nature Reviews Microbiology 17:181-192 .

I’ve been asked to comment on the coronavirus epidemic and evolution. Much of what I wrote six years ago during an outbreak of Ebola virus applies to the current predicament as well.1 The bottom line is that, while of course the virus is dangerous, the situation can be compared to a strong storm on the ocean. The waves may be huge and the surface roiling, but the deeper waters continue as they always have, essentially undisturbed. In a similar way, although superficially it changes very rapidly, some researchers think that the coronavirus2 and many other virus types3 have remained basically the same for tens of millions of years.
What Is a Virus?
Viruses are scraps of genetic material (some composed of DNA, some of RNA, usually wrapped in a protein coat) whose total genetic information ranges from about one ten-thousandth to about one millionth that of the human genome. A virus cannot reproduce by itself; rather, it has to hijack a host cell’s molecular machinery to do so. The immune system fights it every step of the way, but sometimes loses. When the virus wins, the replication and release of its progeny can trash a cell. If many cells are damaged by the multiplying particles, serious health consequences result.
In order to enter a cell, a protein on the surface of the virus particle must bind specifically to a “receptor” protein sticking out from the surface of the cell. It can be likened to a skeleton key that can fit a few kinds of locks, allowing a burglar to enter a home. Once inside, the burglar can use his standard tools to loot and pillage. But the key is key — unless the key fits, the home is safe. Viral mutations can change the shape of the skeleton key at random. Most of the time the process doesn’t work but, every once in a while, the virus hits the jackpot. In some cases, a viral key that had bound to a wild-animal protein mutates and becomes able to bind to a similar human protein. If a human is in close contact with the animal, the virus may be able to jump over. Then, like an invasive species in a new environment, the virus can multiply until the immune system learns to deal with it. Various common strains of coronavirus infect humans and cause the usually mild symptoms of the common cold. But when an animal coronavirus strain crosses over to humans (such as the SARS virus of the early 2000s, the MERS virus a decade later, and the current COVID-19), it can be much more virulent.4
Viral Design
So, do I think viruses were designed? Yes, I most certainly do! The viruses of which we are aware — including the coronaviruses, Ebola, and HIV — are exquisitely, purposively arranged, which is the clear signature of intelligent design. Well, then does that mean the designer is evil and wants people to suffer? No, not necessarily. I’m a biochemist, not a philosopher. Nonetheless, I see no reason why a designer even of such things as viruses should be classified as bad on that basis alone.
I started this post with an analogy of a storm on the ocean. Certainly, if we were on a ship in a powerful storm, we might be excused for thinking storms are bad. But in calmer moments we understand that on balance the ocean is very good and that, given an ocean and the laws of nature, storms will arise from time to time. What’s more, we just might get caught in one. In the same way, most viruses do not affect humans and may well have a positive, necessary role to play in nature of which we are currently unaware.5 (I would bet on it.) From time to time a storm arises in the virosphere and affects humans. But that’s no reason to think either that viruses weren’t designed or that the designer of viruses isn’t good.
References


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-04--Secrets of the Cell, Episode 4: The Effects of Mutation

In this episode of Secrets of the Cell , biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe explores the impact of mutations @ @ @ @ @ mutations and natural selection provide an explanation for the development of new organisms and features @ @ @ @ @ ?
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised in this episode @ @ @ @ @ Behe , Darwin Devolves : New Science about DNA that Challenges Evolution • BOOK : @ @ @ @ @ of Evolution : The Search for the Limits of Darwinism • Michael Behe , “ @ @ @ @ @ , and ‘ The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution , ’ ” Quarterly Review of @ @ @ @ @ “ Getting There First : An Evolutionary Rate Advantage for Adaptive Loss-of-Function Mutations , ” @ @ @ @ @

In this episode of Secrets of the Cell, biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe explores the impact of mutations on evolution. Do random mutations and natural selection provide an explanation for the development of new organisms and features in the history of life?
Further Exploration
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised in this episode.
More about Michael Behe
More about Mutations


discoveryinstitute--2020-02-28--Are We Close to Discovering the Origin Of Life? James Tour vs Lee Cronin

Nanotechnology Prof James ( Jim ) Tour & Glasgow biology Prof Lee Cronin debate contemporary Origins of Life research and @ @ @ @ @ is on the way to discovering it .

Nanotechnology Prof James (Jim) Tour & Glasgow biology Prof Lee Cronin debate contemporary Origins of Life research and whether Lee’s lab is on the way to discovering it.
Related
News from Evolution.News about Jim Tour


discoveryinstitute--2020-02-27--Seattle Is Socialism’s Laboratory, and It’s Not Pretty

Democratic socialists are in the middle of a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party .
Led by the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and the “ squad ” of newly elected congresswomen , the hard-left coalition has laid out an ambitious agenda to transform the United States into a democratic socialist nation .
While many commentators have dismissed the rhetoric around the Green New Deal , Housing for All , and End Cash Bail as pie-in-the-sky abstraction , in Seattle , the socialist coalition is quickly translating this agenda into a political reality .
After the socialist Left ’ s stunning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s municipal elections , Seattle has effectively become the nation ’ s laboratory for socialist policies .
Since the beginning of the year , the socialist faction on the Seattle City Council has proposed a range of policies on taxes , housing , homelessness , and criminal justice that put into practice the national democratic-socialist agenda .
In the most recent session , socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant and her allies have proposed massive new taxes on corporations , unprecedented regulations on landlords ( including rent control and a ban on “ winter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of homeless encampments , and the gradual dismantling of the criminal justice system , beginning with the end of cash bail .

Democratic socialists are in the middle of a hostile takeover of the Democratic Party. Led by the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign and the “squad” of newly elected congresswomen, the hard-left coalition has laid out an ambitious agenda to transform the United States into a democratic socialist nation. While many commentators have dismissed the rhetoric around the Green New Deal, Housing for All, and End Cash Bail as pie-in-the-sky abstraction, in Seattle, the socialist coalition is quickly translating this agenda into a political reality.
After the socialist Left’s stunning victory over business-backed moderates in last year’s municipal elections, Seattle has effectively become the nation’s laboratory for socialist policies. Since the beginning of the year, the socialist faction on the Seattle City Council has proposed a range of policies on taxes, housing, homelessness, and criminal justice that put into practice the national democratic-socialist agenda. In the most recent session, socialist councilwoman Kshama Sawant and her allies have proposed massive new taxes on corporations, unprecedented regulations on landlords (including rent control and a ban on “winter evictions”), the mandated construction of homeless encampments, and the gradual dismantling of the criminal justice system, beginning with the end of cash bail.
Continue Reading at National Review


God and/or Evolution?

The scientific community seeks to give an account of the world around us in terms of mathematical laws and natural @ @ @ @ @ extends to the account of biological life ’ s origin and evolution .
For Christians @ @ @ @ @ a number of challenges .
Does evolution account for biological life ?
Was God involved @ @ @ @ @ Is there evidence to tell us one way or another ?
We are happy to @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Michael Behe ( Lehigh University ) , one of the leading Intelligent Design advocates @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Joshua Swamidass ( Washington University at St. Louis ) , one of the rising @ @ @ @ @ faith and science .
The Veritas Forum at Texas A & M is an occasion @ @ @ @ @ and no faiths to come together and examine the big-picture questions of life .

The scientific community seeks to give an account of the world around us in terms of mathematical laws and natural processes; this description even extends to the account of biological life’s origin and evolution. For Christians, this consensus has posed a number of challenges. Does evolution account for biological life? Was God involved in evolution? How? Is there evidence to tell us one way or another? We are happy to host a spirited discussion between Dr. Michael Behe (Lehigh University), one of the leading Intelligent Design advocates in the world, and Dr. Joshua Swamidass (Washington University at St. Louis), one of the rising stars at the intersection of faith and science. The Veritas Forum at Texas A&M is an occasion for students of all faiths and no faiths to come together and examine the big-picture questions of life.
Related


discoveryinstitute--2020-02-26--Secrets of the Cell, Episode 3: The Power of Evolution

In this episode of Secrets of the Cell , biochemist Michael Behe starts by exploring the amazing mechanical gears discovered @ @ @ @ @ “ design !
, ” and then he moves into a discussion of the theory @ @ @ @ @ hopes to explain .
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised @ @ @ @ @ “ Mechanical Gears Discovered on Planthopper Insects Provide an Opportunity to Recognize , or Deny @ @ @ @ @ Masters of Physics in the Living World ”

In this episode of Secrets of the Cell, biochemist Michael Behe starts by exploring the amazing mechanical gears discovered in planthopper insects that scream “design!,” and then he moves into a discussion of the theory of evolution and what it hopes to explain.
Further Exploration
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised in this episode.
More about Michael Behe
More about Planthopping Insects
More about Evolution