discoveryinstitute--2020-02-20--Philosophical-ish Objections to Intelligent Design: A Response to Paul Draper

Recently I was asked by several people whether I had ever responded to an old review of Darwin ’ s Black Box by Purdue University philosopher of religion Paul Draper .
I had not done so , but will use the occasion to respond now and to clear up a couple of philosophical-ish objections that have been raised against intelligent design over the years .
In 2002 Draper — then on the faculty of Florida International University — published a paper in the journal Faith and Philosophy : Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers , entitled “ Irreducible complexity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Michael J. Behe.
” 1 Draper wrote that “ My goal in this paper will be to show that , while this challenge is both more original and , with a few modifications , more powerful than many of Behe ’ s critics realize , it is incomplete and for that reason does not refute Darwinism.
” I appreciate his recognition of the argument as a potent one and I ’ m grateful for Draper ’ s defense of it against some other objections .
However , his own main line of criticism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allen Orr2 ( Draper cites Orr ) that I had already addressed,3 and Draper ’ s charge of incompleteness rests on neglecting differences between a philosophical argument and a scientific one .
I Say Mousetrap ; He Responds … “ A Then B ” Let ’ s start with Allen Orr .
In 1996 H. Allen Orr reviewed Darwin ’ s Black Box for Boston Review .
Orr correctly described the problem of irreducible complexity I had pointed out:4 And he agreed that such systems can ’ t be developed by recruiting parts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my response to his review that his proposed solution was quite vague and that he had dodged the critical question:7 “ Some part initially does some job ?
Which part of the mousetrap is he talking about ?
A mouse has nothing to fear from a ‘ trap ’ that consists of just an unattached holding bar , or spring , or platform , with no other parts.
” Yes , new ideas are often hazy , but in order to be considered scientific they must progress beyond hand-waving .
Orr gives credit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” scenario to the early 2oth century geneticist Hermann Muller .
Yet in 1918 — when , according to Orr , Muller first proposed it — no one knew what genes even were !
The structures of proteins — the machinery of the cell — would not begin to be elucidated for another four decades .
Since the 195os , however , biology has made tremendous progress in understanding the molecular basis of life .
In the 21st century — more than a hundred years after Muller ’ s proposal — it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ letters .
Exactly what are those magical parts “ A ” and “ B ” ?
And exactly what are they supposed to be doing ?
Orr went on to suggest that the transformation of air bladders of fish into lungs of terrestrial vertebrates illustrated his point:8 So apparently he hadn ’ t grasped the concept of irreducible complexity after all .
I had stressed in Darwin ’ s Black Box that it is the molecular level of life that must be examined to decide about irreducibility .
Complex tissues such as air @ @ @ @ @ @ @ [ i.e.
, molecular ] systems.
” When one writes glibly about the evolution of whole organs ( as Darwin himself did with the eye9 ) , whose molecular components are many and mostly unknown , one quickly descends into fantasy .
Notice that Orr doesn ’ t tell us in sufficient detail — or any detail , for that matter — how a Darwinian process could transform even an air bladder into a lung .
Like most other evolutionary biologists , he simply assumes it can .
Professor Draper ’ s line @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also an imaginary exercise of evolution-by-letter , misses the same point as does Orr ’ s.10 In addition to being terminally fuzzy ( like Orr ’ s ) , Draper ’ s proposal overlooks key problems of his own scenario .
For example : 1 ) The fact that the necessary parts of Z ( “ Z1 and Z2″ ) may be attached to each other ( that ’ s how I understand “ composed ” ) , as he stipulates , instead of physically separated does not obviate the problem , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it makes the problem worse .
The parts must be connected to each other in the correct way — more irreducible requirements .
For example , all the parts of a mousetrap are attached in specific orientations ( if , say , the spring were facing the wrong way , the trap would fail ) .
Yet the unguided production of even that comparatively simple machine has resisted the efforts of Darwin defenders on the Internet for 25 years.11 2 ) If , as Draper concedes , Z is composed of two necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ starting with irreducible complexity , not explaining it .
3 ) Even if Z is already working ( somehow ) and the subsequent addition of A and then B improves it , as Draper posits , why in the world should we think A and B can later take over Z ’ s role ?
Improving the function of Z is a different task from performing the function of Z .
Placing a drop of oil on the spring and a piece of cheese on the platform might improve a mousetrap ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both together would make the other parts dispensable .
If A and B did take over Z ’ s role later , it would seem to be a gratuitous development , no different in kind or difficulty from the postulated irreducibly complex starting point .
Another putative route to irreducible complexity that Draper explores is also an imaginative exercise in evolution-by-letter.12 I ’ m afraid I find that scenario very unclear .
Wouldn ’ t it be great if Professor Draper offered a concrete illustration of what he meant here ?
But he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only conclude that he can ’ t .
Rather , the argument strikes me as little more than word play — just a riff on Hermann Muller ’ s hundred-year-old-idea from a time when no one knew much about the molecular foundation of life .
The only physical illustration Draper cites is a standard mousetrap that has been degraded and purposely manipulated .
In an endnote Draper explains:13 With his proposed very careful rearranging of the functioning standard mousetrap , the intelligent agent Paul Draper runs squarely into a problem that I had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Perhaps because of professional inclinations , philosopher Draper does not even try to argue that his imagined mousetrap is a physical ( rather than just a conceptual ) precursor to the standard mousetrap I discussed .
I responded to a similar intelligently guided mousetrap-scenario by Professor John McDonald of the University of Delaware years before Draper ’ s paper was published.15 Mousetraps can of course be built in many different ways .
But McDonald ’ s and Draper ’ s examples are not Darwinian , single-random-step precursors to a standard mousetrap .
Rather @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resemble the trap I pictured only because that is the goal they are intended to reach .
As I wrote in my response to McDonald , those may be conceptual precursors to a standard mousetrap , but they are not physical precursors and therefore not Darwinian precursors either.16 It ’ s a lot easier to imagine that , through a long series of unexplained steps , “ A ” could morph into “ B ” than that , say , a glue trap could morph into a standard mechanical mousetrap .
I think @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approaches and scientific ones .
If intermediate steps are not enumerated and tested for a physical pathway , then a theorist is in serious danger of getting stuck in a fantasy world .
Recall that evolutionary biologist Allen Orr agreed that borrowing parts used for something else is quite unlikely to work for irreducibly complex systems : “ You may as well hope that half your car ’ s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department.
” Draper ’ s schemes seem to be built entirely on such hopes .
Yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ account for even a humble mousetrap ( even if we supposed , for the sake of argument , that mousetraps reproduced and were subject to small mutations ) , why should we think Darwin ’ s theory can account for the sophisticated machinery of the cell ?
In Darwin ’ s Black Box I argued that for all practical purposes irreducibly complex biochemical systems met Darwin ’ s challenge that “ If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous , successive , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ break down.
” 17 Twenty five years later there is still no reason to think otherwise .
The State of the Literature Circa 2020 Near the end of his review from 2002 Professor Draper writes:18 The discipline of biochemistry is now nearly 25 years older than when Darwin ’ s Black Box was published .
Yet , as I document in my latest book , Darwin Devolves , the state of the literature regarding irreducibly complex systems is unchanged — even as problems for Darwin have multiplied.19 Although the science of life at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and bounds , that new work conspicuously does not include explanations for how Darwinian processes could produce irreducibly complex systems .
Despite the intervening years , despite the immense progress of science , and despite the intense dislike of intelligent design to motivate many very smart scientists , even the examples I highlighted in 1996 have gone completely unexplained .
That in itself is strong evidence that Darwinists have been barking up the wrong tree .
Time has not been kind to Draper ’ s position .
As I discuss in Darwin Devolves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better position than we were in 1996 to see how Darwinian processes work in nature , rather than in people ’ s imaginations .
Turns out there is indeed much evolutionary change that is both gradual and driven by Darwinian mechanisms , as Draper noted .
However , the surprise — made possible by recent advances in DNA sequencing techniques — is that the large majority of even helpful , beneficial mutations swept through a population by natural selection are degradative .
That is , they break or damage pre-existing genes .
One @ @ @ @ @ @ @ success stories ” if one wishes .
Degradative processes , however , are prohibitively unlikely to have initially constructed the elegant biochemical machinery modern science has discovered in the cell .
In his 2011 book , Where the Conflict Really Lies : Science , Religion , and Naturalism , the Christian über-philosopher Alvin Plantinga discusses my Darwin ’ s Black Box in connection with Paul Draper ’ s objections and says explicitly that he thinks Draper is right .
Yet , in support of his agreement , Professor Plantinga quotes the same fuzzy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , F , S* , and F* that I quoted here .
Plantinga then emphasizes a critical difference between philosophical and scientific arguments:21 But no scientific argument simply follows deductively from its premises .
An argument about nature necessarily concerns detailed empirical facts — evidence — so it can not be a completely deductive one .
Although scientific thinking of course involves logic and deduction , all scientific arguments — including the argument for the irreducible complexity of the molecular machinery of life — rest most heavily on empirical data .
No scientific @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rival explanations by dint of deductive logic alone .
Draper used a wholly inappropriate standard to evaluate my argument , one that is not applied to any other scientific theory .
Plantinga goes on to discuss my argument from The Edge of Evolution that empirical results — especially data on the development of resistance to the antimalarial drug chloroquine — show there is a real limit to what Darwinian processes can explain in life .
He then wonders whether this makes it likely that life was designed:22 Since improbable-yet-fair bridge hands are dealt @ @ @ @ @ @ @ low probability alone can ’ t be the criterion for design .
True enough , as far as it goes .
But that doesn ’ t mean we can ’ t confidently recognize design in low probability events .
This line of thought was explored by William Dembski in his 1998 The Design Inference .
He explained that an inference to design required not only an event of small probability , but also one that was specified — that is , one that hit a pre-determined or retrospectively surprising target .
For example @ @ @ @ @ @ @ numbers of possible bridge hands , but if a person at a table kept getting hands with 13 cards of the same suit , eyebrows would be raised .
The “ lots of things are improbable ” tack to explain away the elegant structure of the machinery of life is simply not a serious response .
Professor Plantinga then raises an objection first put forward by the philosopher of science Elliott Sober , that we need to have a positive reason to think a designer would want to make cellular machinery to conclude @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — a designer who didn ’ t want to design machinery probably wouldn ’ t do so.24 Try as I might , and as admiring as I am of other work of both Plantinga and Sober , I see absolutely no force to this argument , and it is quite susceptible to reductio ad absurdum : Sure , a designer who didn ’ t want to design something probably didn ’ t design it .
But let ’ s not stop there .
After all , a designer who really did want to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forgot , wouldn ’ t have designed it either .
Nor would a designer who wanted to design but went on vacation instead .
Or one that came down with the flu .
Or was stopped by someone else .
Or got its head stuck in a vase .
Do we really have to individually eliminate all those and many other possibilities before coming to a conclusion of design ?
I don ’ t think so .
Rather , the rejection of all those hypotheticals is baked into the positive , affirmative design @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach , I think , is that it seems ( perhaps unconsciously ) focused on a particular candidate for designer — maybe God , maybe a space alien , whatever — and imagines that the proper question to ask is , how do we know that this particular candidate has the motivation to design something ?
Wrong question .
The intelligent design argument rightly starts with the physical system itself and asks , Does this system exhibit a strongly purposeful arrangement of parts ?
It would be silly to examine , say , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the Moon in the movie 2001 : A Space Odyssey , and say no inference about their possible design could be made because we didn ’ t know whether a designer wanted to make either of them .
Rather , we conclude from observation of a system itself that it was designed .
Indeed , interesting secondary questions ( such as who designed it , when , how , why , and so on ) can ’ t even be posed unless we already suspect that a system was designed .
Photo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in a scene from Episode 2 of Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe .
• Draper , Paul .
2002 .
“ Irreducible complexity and Darwinian gradualism : a Reply to Michael J. Behe.
” Faith and Philosophy 19:3-21 .
• Darwin , C. 1859 .
The Origin of Species .
New York , Bantam Books ( 1999 ) , pp .
155-158 .
• Behe , M. J .
2019 .
Darwin Devolves : the New Science about DNA That Challenges Evolution .
New York , NY : HarperOne , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ J .
1996 .
Darwin ’ s Black Box : The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution .
New York : The Free Press , pp .
43-45 .
• Plantinga , A .
2011 .
Where the Conflict Really Lies : Science , Religion , and Naturalism .
New York : Oxford University Press , p. 231 .
• Sober , E. 2002 .
“ Intelligent Design and Probability Reasoning.
” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 52:65-80 .

Recently I was asked by several people whether I had ever responded to an old review of Darwin’s Black Box by Purdue University philosopher of religion Paul Draper. I had not done so, but will use the occasion to respond now and to clear up a couple of philosophical-ish objections that have been raised against intelligent design over the years.
In 2002 Draper — then on the faculty of Florida International University — published a paper in the journal Faith and Philosophy: Journal of the Society of Christian Philosophers, entitled “Irreducible complexity and Darwinian gradualism: a Reply to Michael J. Behe.”1 Draper wrote that “My goal in this paper will be to show that, while this challenge is both more original and, with a few modifications, more powerful than many of Behe’s critics realize, it is incomplete and for that reason does not refute Darwinism.”
I appreciate his recognition of the argument as a potent one and I’m grateful for Draper’s defense of it against some other objections. However, his own main line of criticism echoes one from the evolutionary biologist H. Allen Orr2 (Draper cites Orr) that I had already addressed,3 and Draper’s charge of incompleteness rests on neglecting differences between a philosophical argument and a scientific one.
I Say Mousetrap; He Responds … “A Then B”
Let’s start with Allen Orr. In 1996 H. Allen Orr reviewed Darwin’s Black Box for Boston Review. Orr correctly described the problem of irreducible complexity I had pointed out:4
You cannot, in other words, gradually improve a mousetrap by adding one part and then the next. A trap having half its parts doesn’t function half as well as a real trap; it doesn’t function at all. So Darwinism’s problem is obvious: it requires that each step in the evolution of a system be functional and adaptive.
And he agreed that such systems can’t be developed by recruiting parts from other systems:5
[W]e might think that some of the parts of an irreducibly complex system evolved step by step for some other purpose and were then recruited wholesale to a new function. But this is also unlikely. You may as well hope that half your car’s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department. Such things might happen very, very rarely, but they surely do not offer a general solution to irreducible complexity.
Orr then proposed a solution:6
Behe’s colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become — because of later changes — essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn’t essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required.
I pointed out in my response to his review that his proposed solution was quite vague and that he had dodged the critical question:7 “Some part initially does some job? Which part of the mousetrap is he talking about? A mouse has nothing to fear from a ‘trap’ that consists of just an unattached holding bar, or spring, or platform, with no other parts.” Yes, new ideas are often hazy, but in order to be considered scientific they must progress beyond hand-waving. Orr gives credit for the original “A then B” scenario to the early 2oth century geneticist Hermann Muller. Yet in 1918 — when, according to Orr, Muller first proposed it — no one knew what genes even were! The structures of proteins — the machinery of the cell — would not begin to be elucidated for another four decades. Since the 195os, however, biology has made tremendous progress in understanding the molecular basis of life. In the 21st century — more than a hundred years after Muller’s proposal — it is well beyond time to stop hiding behind letters. Exactly what are those magical parts “A” and “B”? And exactly what are they supposed to be doing?
Orr went on to suggest that the transformation of air bladders of fish into lungs of terrestrial vertebrates illustrated his point:8
The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches — like dry land — that were unavailable to their lungless peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries — they are essential.
So apparently he hadn’t grasped the concept of irreducible complexity after all. I had stressed in Darwin’s Black Box that it is the molecular level of life that must be examined to decide about irreducibility. Complex tissues such as air bladders and lungs are not “single [i.e., molecular] systems.” When one writes glibly about the evolution of whole organs (as Darwin himself did with the eye9), whose molecular components are many and mostly unknown, one quickly descends into fantasy. Notice that Orr doesn’t tell us in sufficient detail — or any detail, for that matter — how a Darwinian process could transform even an air bladder into a lung. Like most other evolutionary biologists, he simply assumes it can.
Six Years Later
Professor Draper’s line of reasoning from 2002, which is also an imaginary exercise of evolution-by-letter, misses the same point as does Orr’s.10
[A]n irreducibly complex two-part system AB that performs function F could evolve directly as follows. Originally, Z performs F, though perhaps not very well. (This is possible because, from the fact that AB cannot perform F without A or B, it doesn’t follow that Z cannot perform F by itself.) Then A is added to Z because it improves the function, though it is not necessary. B is also added for this reason. One now has a reducibly complex system composed of three parts, Z, A and B. Then Z drops out, leaving only A and B. And without Z, both A and B are required for the system to function. One might object that in this scenario AB is not really produced directly because, although the route from Z to AB involves no change in function, it must involve a change in mechanism since interaction between two distinct parts is essential to AB’s mechanism and so Z cannot function by the same mechanism as AB. If this is right, then no complex system of interacting parts, whether irreducibly complex or not, could evolve both gradually and directly from scratch. An indirect route would always be required in order to get started. But that’s no problem for this model. For I can simply stipulate that Z itself is composed of two parts (Z1 and Z2), which do perform AB’s function by the same mechanism, and then add that Z1 drops out first, followed by Z2.
In addition to being terminally fuzzy (like Orr’s), Draper’s proposal overlooks key problems of his own scenario. For example: 1) The fact that the necessary parts of Z (“Z1 and Z2″) may be attached to each other (that’s how I understand “composed”), as he stipulates, instead of physically separated does not obviate the problem, as he seems to think; rather, it makes the problem worse. The parts must be connected to each other in the correct way — more irreducible requirements. For example, all the parts of a mousetrap are attached in specific orientations (if, say, the spring were facing the wrong way, the trap would fail). Yet the unguided production of even that comparatively simple machine has resisted the efforts of Darwin defenders on the Internet for 25 years.11 2) If, as Draper concedes, Z is composed of two necessary parts, then of course one is starting with irreducible complexity, not explaining it. 3) Even if Z is already working (somehow) and the subsequent addition of A and then B improves it, as Draper posits, why in the world should we think A and B can later take over Z’s role? Improving the function of Z is a different task from performing the function of Z. Placing a drop of oil on the spring and a piece of cheese on the platform might improve a mousetrap’s function, but certainly neither alone nor both together would make the other parts dispensable. If A and B did take over Z’s role later, it would seem to be a gratuitous development, no different in kind or difficulty from the postulated irreducibly complex starting point.
Another putative route to irreducible complexity that Draper explores is also an imaginative exercise in evolution-by-letter.12
The sort of route I have in mind occurs when an irreducibly complex and irreducibly specific system S that serves function F evolves from a precursor S* that shares many of S’s parts but serves a different function F*. Notice that parts that S and S* share and that are required for S to perform F need not be required for S* to perform F* even if they contribute to F*, and parts that are irreducibly specific relative to F may be only reducibly specific relative to F*. Thus, both S* and the specificity of its parts may have been gradually produced via a direct evolutionary path. Then one or more additional parts are added to S*, resulting in a change of function from F* to F. And relative to F, the parts and their specificity, which had not been essential for F*, are now essential.
I’m afraid I find that scenario very unclear. Wouldn’t it be great if Professor Draper offered a concrete illustration of what he meant here? But he doesn’t, and I can only conclude that he can’t. Rather, the argument strikes me as little more than word play — just a riff on Hermann Muller’s hundred-year-old-idea from a time when no one knew much about the molecular foundation of life. The only physical illustration Draper cites is a standard mousetrap that has been degraded and purposely manipulated. In an endnote Draper explains:13
These claims are easy to demonstrate. Simply remove the catch from a trap and bend the holding bar so that (roughly) the middle of it can be placed just barely under the tip of the slightly curved end of the spring that extends under the hammer when it is armed. This will make it possible to arm the hammer without a catch, and the closer to the tip of the spring the holding bar is placed, the more insecurely the hammer will be armed. Additionally, one can make the trap even more sensitive to pressure on the platform by allowing the end of the holding bar to extend below the platform when the hammer is armed (so that the platform will not lie flat on the floor when the trap is set).
With his proposed very careful rearranging of the functioning standard mousetrap, the intelligent agent Paul Draper runs squarely into a problem that I had flagged in Darwin’s Black Box:14
To feel the full force of the conclusion that a system is irreducibly complex and therefore has no functional precursors we need to distinguish between a physical precursor and a conceptual precursor. The trap described above is not the only system that can immobilize a mouse. On other occasions my family has used a glue trap. In theory at least, one can use a box propped open with a stick that could be tripped. Or one can simply shoot the mouse with a BB gun. However, these are not physical precursors to the standard mousetrap since they cannot be transformed, step-by-Darwinian-step, into a trap with a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar.
Perhaps because of professional inclinations, philosopher Draper does not even try to argue that his imagined mousetrap is a physical (rather than just a conceptual) precursor to the standard mousetrap I discussed. I responded to a similar intelligently guided mousetrap-scenario by Professor John McDonald of the University of Delaware years before Draper’s paper was published.15 Mousetraps can of course be built in many different ways. But McDonald’s and Draper’s examples are not Darwinian, single-random-step precursors to a standard mousetrap. Rather, they are intelligently re-engineered systems that resemble the trap I pictured only because that is the goal they are intended to reach. As I wrote in my response to McDonald, those may be conceptual precursors to a standard mousetrap, but they are not physical precursors and therefore not Darwinian precursors either.16
It’s a lot easier to imagine that, through a long series of unexplained steps, “A” could morph into “B” than that, say, a glue trap could morph into a standard mechanical mousetrap. I think that is one crucial difference between philosophical approaches and scientific ones. If intermediate steps are not enumerated and tested for a physical pathway, then a theorist is in serious danger of getting stuck in a fantasy world. Recall that evolutionary biologist Allen Orr agreed that borrowing parts used for something else is quite unlikely to work for irreducibly complex systems: “You may as well hope that half your car’s transmission will suddenly help out in the airbag department.” Draper’s schemes seem to be built entirely on such hopes. Yet if Draper and others can’t account for even a humble mousetrap (even if we supposed, for the sake of argument, that mousetraps reproduced and were subject to small mutations), why should we think Darwin’s theory can account for the sophisticated machinery of the cell?
In Darwin’s Black Box I argued that for all practical purposes irreducibly complex biochemical systems met Darwin’s challenge that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”17 Twenty five years later there is still no reason to think otherwise.
The State of the Literature Circa 2020
Near the end of his review from 2002 Professor Draper writes:18
A defender of Behe might respond that the improbability of all Darwinian paths is established by the silence of the scientific literature on the issue of how Behe’s systems evolved. … Should we conclude, then, that this silence provides substantial indirect evidence for Behe’s position that Darwinism cannot explain the development of these systems? In other words, is it likely that the literature would be much noisier if Behe’s position were false? I am inclined to give negative answers to these questions for two reasons. First, the discipline of biochemistry is very young.
The discipline of biochemistry is now nearly 25 years older than when Darwin’s Black Box was published. Yet, as I document in my latest book, Darwin Devolves, the state of the literature regarding irreducibly complex systems is unchanged — even as problems for Darwin have multiplied.19 Although the science of life at the molecular level has advanced by leaps and bounds, that new work conspicuously does not include explanations for how Darwinian processes could produce irreducibly complex systems. Despite the intervening years, despite the immense progress of science, and despite the intense dislike of intelligent design to motivate many very smart scientists, even the examples I highlighted in 1996 have gone completely unexplained. That in itself is strong evidence that Darwinists have been barking up the wrong tree.
Draper adds:20
Second, any indirect evidence that the silence of the literature provides in support of Behe’s position is offset by indirect evidence against Behe’s position. For in assessing the probability that some system evolved gradually, one cannot just examine the specifics of that system. One must also consider what we know about how other systems evolved. And Behe admits, as well he should, that much evolutionary change is both gradual and driven by Darwinian mechanisms. These Darwinian success stories raise the probability that Darwinian evolution produced Behe’s biochemical systems, even if we cannot yet specify step by step exactly how that happened.
Time has not been kind to Draper’s position. As I discuss in Darwin Devolves, we are now in a much better position than we were in 1996 to see how Darwinian processes work in nature, rather than in people’s imaginations. Turns out there is indeed much evolutionary change that is both gradual and driven by Darwinian mechanisms, as Draper noted. However, the surprise — made possible by recent advances in DNA sequencing techniques — is that the large majority of even helpful, beneficial mutations swept through a population by natural selection are degradative. That is, they break or damage pre-existing genes. One can call examples of evolutionary degradation “success stories” if one wishes. Degradative processes, however, are prohibitively unlikely to have initially constructed the elegant biochemical machinery modern science has discovered in the cell.
The Conflict Lies Elsewhere
In his 2011 book, Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism, the Christian über-philosopher Alvin Plantinga discusses my Darwin’s Black Box in connection with Paul Draper’s objections and says explicitly that he thinks Draper is right. Yet, in support of his agreement, Professor Plantinga quotes the same fuzzy paragraph of Draper’s about S, F, S*, and F* that I quoted here. Plantinga then emphasizes a critical difference between philosophical and scientific arguments:21
It’s important to note that the possibilities Draper suggests are merely abstract possibilities. Draper doesn’t argue or even venture the opinion that in fact there are routes of these kinds that are not prohibitively improbable; he simply points out that Behe has not eliminated them. And of course this is quite proper, inasmuch as Draper is doing no more than evaluating Behe’s argument. All he is trying to show is that Behe’s conclusion doesn’t deductively follow from his premises.
But no scientific argument simply follows deductively from its premises. An argument about nature necessarily concerns detailed empirical facts — evidence — so it cannot be a completely deductive one. Although scientific thinking of course involves logic and deduction, all scientific arguments — including the argument for the irreducible complexity of the molecular machinery of life — rest most heavily on empirical data. No scientific explanation has ever ruled out all possible rival explanations by dint of deductive logic alone. Draper used a wholly inappropriate standard to evaluate my argument, one that is not applied to any other scientific theory.
Plantinga goes on to discuss my argument from The Edge of Evolution that empirical results — especially data on the development of resistance to the antimalarial drug chloroquine — show there is a real limit to what Darwinian processes can explain in life. He then wonders whether this makes it likely that life was designed:22
How does the argument go? One possibility: the main alternative to intelligent design is unguided evolution, but the probability that unguided evolution should produce these protein machines is so low that we must conclude that it is false. Is this right? Not clearly. First, exceedingly improbable things do happen, and happen all the time. Consider a deal in a hand of bridge. If you distribute the fifty-two cards into four groups of thirteen cards each, there are some 1028 possible combinations. Therefore the probability that the cards should be dealt just as they are dealt is in the neighborhood of 10-28. So consider a rubber of bridge that takes four deals: the probability that the cards should be dealt precisely as they are, for those four deals, is about 10-112.
Since improbable-yet-fair bridge hands are dealt all the time, he implies, low probability alone can’t be the criterion for design.
True enough, as far as it goes. But that doesn’t mean we can’t confidently recognize design in low probability events. This line of thought was explored by William Dembski in his 1998 The Design Inference. He explained that an inference to design required not only an event of small probability, but also one that was specified — that is, one that hit a pre-determined or retrospectively surprising target. For example, there are of course very large numbers of possible bridge hands, but if a person at a table kept getting hands with 13 cards of the same suit, eyebrows would be raised. The “lots of things are improbable” tack to explain away the elegant structure of the machinery of life is simply not a serious response.
Professor Plantinga then raises an objection first put forward by the philosopher of science Elliott Sober, that we need to have a positive reason to think a designer would want to make cellular machinery to conclude that it did.23 Plantinga seems to agree — a designer who didn’t want to design machinery probably wouldn’t do so.24
Well, should we instead compare P(protein machines/unguided evolution), the probability of the existence of these protein machines given unguided evolution, with P(protein machines/intelligent designer), the probability of the existence of these protein machines given the existence of an intelligent designer? Here, again, the problem is that we don’t have a very good grasp of either of those probabilities. … Suppose there is an intelligent designer: how likely is it that he or she (or it) would design and cause to come to be just these protein machines? … An intelligent designer that really hated life, or proteins, or protein machines, would be very unlikely to design protein machines.
Try as I might, and as admiring as I am of other work of both Plantinga and Sober, I see absolutely no force to this argument, and it is quite susceptible to reductio ad absurdum: Sure, a designer who didn’t want to design something probably didn’t design it. But let’s not stop there. After all, a designer who really did want to design machinery, but got distracted and forgot, wouldn’t have designed it either. Nor would a designer who wanted to design but went on vacation instead. Or one that came down with the flu. Or was stopped by someone else. Or got its head stuck in a vase. Do we really have to individually eliminate all those and many other possibilities before coming to a conclusion of design?
I don’t think so. Rather, the rejection of all those hypotheticals is baked into the positive, affirmative design argument. The problem with the Sober approach, I think, is that it seems (perhaps unconsciously) focused on a particular candidate for designer — maybe God, maybe a space alien, whatever — and imagines that the proper question to ask is, how do we know that this particular candidate has the motivation to design something? Wrong question. The intelligent design argument rightly starts with the physical system itself and asks, Does this system exhibit a strongly purposeful arrangement of parts?
(As an aside, the major focus of my books on demonstrating the stark inability of Darwinian processes to achieve what proponents claim for them is of course necessary in order to dispel that common misconception. But a conclusion of design is not, as the caricature frames it, simply a default judgment rendered in the absence of some other plausible explanation. Rather, as I have explained in a number of places,25 design — the work of a mind — is positively perceived in a purposeful arrangement of parts.)
It would be silly to examine, say, Mount Rushmore, or the monolith found on the Moon in the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey, and say no inference about their possible design could be made because we didn’t know whether a designer wanted to make either of them. Rather, we conclude from observation of a system itself that it was designed. Indeed, interesting secondary questions (such as who designed it, when, how, why, and so on) can’t even be posed unless we already suspect that a system was designed.
Photo: Michael Behe and the iconic mousetrap, in a scene from Episode 2 of Secrets of the Cell with Michael Behe.
References:


discoveryinstitute--2020-02-19--Secrets of the Cell, Episode 2: The Complexity of Life

Join biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe as he explores “ reducible ” and “ irreducible ” complexity at the @ @ @ @ @ 2 of his series “ Secrets of the Cell.
” Use the links below to @ @ @ @ @ raised in this episode .
• WEB PAGE : “ Introduction and Responses to Criticism @ @ @ @ @ about the Bacterial Flagellum

Join biochemist and bestselling author Michael Behe as he explores “reducible” and “irreducible” complexity at the foundation of life in Episode 2 of his series “Secrets of the Cell.”
Further Exploration
Use the links below to explore more about the issues raised in this episode.
More about Michael Behe
More about Irreducible Complexity
More about the Bacterial Flagellum


discoveryinstitute--2020-02-19--The Return of the God Hypothesis

The Return of the God Hypothesis

Join us at Biola University for a weekend seminar with Dr. Stephen Meyer , director of Discovery Institute ’ s @ @ @ @ @ .
As you may well know , the scientific naturalist worldview still dominates the natural @ @ @ @ @ philosophy and many other disciplines , in addition to other aspects of everyday life .
@ @ @ @ @ have helped give rise to the credibility of intelligent design .
In this course , @ @ @ @ @ of his important publications that argue not only against the scientific naturalist worldview , but @ @ @ @ @ design .
The course will draw upon his groundbreaking work in Signature in the Cell @ @ @ @ @ , and The Return of the God Hypothesis ( forthcoming ) .

Join us at Biola University for a weekend seminar with Dr. Stephen Meyer, director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.
As you may well know, the scientific naturalist worldview still dominates the natural sciences, as well as philosophy and many other disciplines, in addition to other aspects of everyday life. However, several influential works have helped give rise to the credibility of intelligent design.
In this course, Dr. Meyer will explore three of his important publications that argue not only against the scientific naturalist worldview, but also in favor of intelligent design. The course will draw upon his groundbreaking work in Signature in the Cell, Darwin’s Doubt, and The Return of the God Hypothesis (forthcoming).


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-16--Three Big Ways Christianity Supported the Rise of Modern Science Explained by Historian Michael Keas

Are Christianity and science at war ?
Historian of science Michael Keas busts the stereotypes as he explores the historical @ @ @ @ @ , discussing three key ways Christian theology supported the development of modern science .
Dr. @ @ @ @ @ book Unbelievable : 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion , @ @ @ @ @ Discovery Institute ’ s Center for Science & Culture .

Are Christianity and science at war? Historian of science Michael Keas busts the stereotypes as he explores the historical relationship between Christianity and science, discussing three key ways Christian theology supported the development of modern science. Dr. Keas is author of the book Unbelievable: 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion, and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-16--Are Christianity and Science Perpetually at War with Each Other

Historian of science Michael Keas explores the relationship between science and Christianity , discussing three big myths about the history @ @ @ @ @ Dr. Keas is author of Unbelievable : 7 Myths about the History and Future of @ @ @ @ @ There is a false idea circulating out there that science grows only when guided by @ @ @ @ @ contrary , modern science from its inception was a project guided by religious thinking , @ @ @ @ @ the Bible form two “ books , ” both revealing God ’ s thoughts though @ @ @ @ @ mathematics , or Hebrew and Greek , respectively ) .
As Dr. Keas demonstrates , @ @ @ @ @ methods , and institutions ” without which science and scientists would have been significantly handicapped @

Historian of science Michael Keas explores the relationship between science and Christianity, discussing three big myths about the history of science and Christianity. Dr. Keas is author of Unbelievable: 7 Myths about the History and Future of Science and Religion.
“There is a false idea circulating out there that science grows only when guided by godless thinking.” On the contrary, modern science from its inception was a project guided by religious thinking, the idea that Nature and the Bible form two “books,” both revealing God’s thoughts though written in different languages (mathematics, or Hebrew and Greek, respectively). As Dr. Keas demonstrates, Christianity contributed “ideas, methods, and institutions” without which science and scientists would have been significantly handicapped.


Plot Twist

In recent years , discussion about homelessness has been circumscribed around a set of premises acceptable to progressive opinion .
The homeless were thrown onto the streets , we ’ re told , because of rising rents , heartless landlords , and a lack of economic opportunity .
Activists , journalists , and political leaders have perpetuated this line of reasoning and , following it to its conclusion , have proposed investing billions in subsidized housing to solve homelessness .
But new data are undermining this narrative .
As residents of West Coast cities witness the disorder associated with homeless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to accept the progressive consensus — especially in the context of the coronavirus epidemic , which has all Americans worried about contagion .
An emerging body of evidence confirms what people see plainly on the streets : homelessness is deeply connected to addiction , mental illness , and crime .
Homeless advocates argue that substance abuse is a small contributor to the problem , and that no more than 20 percent of the homeless population abuses drugs .
Last year , when I suggested that homelessness is primarily an addiction crisis — citing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ half of homeless individuals suffered from opioid addiction — activists denounced me on social media and wrote letters to the editor demanding a retraction .
But according to a recent Los Angeles Times investigation , 46 percent of the homeless and 75 percent of the unsheltered homeless have a substance-abuse disorder — more than three times higher than official estimates from the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority .
In the interest of preventing “ stigmatization , ” progressives downplay the connection between schizophrenia , severe bipolar disorder , and homelessness .
In general @ @ @ @ @ @ @ percent to 39 percent of the homeless suffer from mental-health disorders .
As new data from the California Policy Lab show , it ’ s likely that 50 percent of the homeless and 78 percent of the unsheltered homeless have a serious mental health condition .
For residents of cities like San Francisco , Portland , and Seattle , this should come as no surprise .
The people smashing up property and yelling in the streets are clearly suffering from mental illness .
The numbers confirm the ground-level reality .
The relationship between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ taboo in the public discourse .
Activists and political leaders insist that the homeless are ordinary neighbors who commit crimes at rates comparable with that of the general population .
Not so : according to new data from the Downtown Seattle Association , the homeless represent 45 percent of all bookings into the King County Jail system , which means that homeless individuals are nearly 100 times more likely to commit crimes and get booked into jail than the average citizen .
Public fears about homeless encampments are not a symptom of “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggest , then , but a rational response to the increased probability of crime .
Residents in the most progressive enclaves of West Coast cities have quietly begun to demand policy changes to address the obvious causes of the homelessness crisis .
In San Francisco , city leaders have launched a new initiative to focus on the 4,000 individuals who suffer from the “ perilous trifecta ” of homelessness , addiction , and mental illness .
Mayor London Breed has spoken frankly about the human causes of homelessness , and Anton Nigusse Bland @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health reform for the city , has pledged to “ develop a strategic approach to mental health and substance use services for people experiencing homelessness in San Francisco.
” This is a small but promising step .
Especially now , with the threat of an infectious disease becoming a national crisis , it is imperative that city leaders come to grips with the dangers of letting people live in encampments that lack even rudimentary sanitation .
We can only hope that this new awareness extends to other cities .
For now , more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and Washington continue to languish in the streets .

In recent years, discussion about homelessness has been circumscribed around a set of premises acceptable to progressive opinion. The homeless were thrown onto the streets, we’re told, because of rising rents, heartless landlords, and a lack of economic opportunity. Activists, journalists, and political leaders have perpetuated this line of reasoning and, following it to its conclusion, have proposed investing billions in subsidized housing to solve homelessness.
But new data are undermining this narrative. As residents of West Coast cities witness the disorder associated with homeless encampments, they have found it harder to accept the progressive consensus — especially in the context of the coronavirus epidemic, which has all Americans worried about contagion. An emerging body of evidence confirms what people see plainly on the streets: homelessness is deeply connected to addiction, mental illness, and crime.


Telecosm

The computer age is over .
After a cataclysmic global run of thirty years , it has given birth to the age of the telecosm — the world enabled and defined by new communications technology .
Chips and software will continue to make great contributions to our lives , but the action is elsewhere .
To seek the key to great wealth and to understand the bewildering ways that high tech is restructuring our lives , look not to chip speed but to communication power , or bandwidth .
Bandwidth is exploding , and its abundance is the most important @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
George Gilder is one of the great technological visionaries , and “ the man who put the ‘ s ’ in ‘ telecosm ' ” ( Telephony magazine ) .
He is equally famous for understanding and predicting the nuts and bolts of complex technologies , and for putting it all together in a soaring view of why things change , and what it means for our daily lives .
His track record of futurist predictions is one of the best , often proving to be right even when initially opposed by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the power of fiber and wireless optics , the decline of the telephone regime , and the explosion of handheld computers , among many trends .
His list of favored companies outpaced even the soaring Nasdaq in 1999 by more than double .
His long-awaited Telecosm is a bible of the new age of communications .
Equal parts science story , business history , social analysis , and prediction , it is the one book you need to make sense of the titanic changes underway in our lives .
Whether you surf the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether you live on your cell phone or hate it for its invasion of private life , you need this book .
It has been less than two decades since the introduction of the IBM personal computer , and yet the enormous changes wrought in our lives by the computer will pale beside the changes of the telecosm .
Gilder explains why computers will “ empty out , ” with their components migrating to the net ; why hundreds of low-flying satellites will enable hand-held computers and communicators to become ubiquitous ; why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ magazines will revive ; why advertising will become less obnoxious ; and why companies will never be able to waste your time again .
Along the way you will meet the movers and shakers who have made the telecosm possible .
From Charles Townes and Gordon Gould , who invented the laser , to the story of JDS Uniphase , “ the Intel of the Telecosm , ” to the birthing of fiberless optics pioneer TeraBeam , here are the inventors and entrepreneurs who will be hailed as the next Edison or Gates @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to storage , here are the technologies that will soon be as basic as the air we breathe .

The computer age is over. After a cataclysmic global run of thirty years, it has given birth to the age of the telecosm — the world enabled and defined by new communications technology. Chips and software will continue to make great contributions to our lives, but the action is elsewhere. To seek the key to great wealth and to understand the bewildering ways that high tech is restructuring our lives, look not to chip speed but to communication power, or bandwidth. Bandwidth is exploding, and its abundance is the most important social and economic fact of our time.
George Gilder is one of the great technological visionaries, and “the man who put the ‘s’ in ‘telecosm'” (Telephony magazine). He is equally famous for understanding and predicting the nuts and bolts of complex technologies, and for putting it all together in a soaring view of why things change, and what it means for our daily lives. His track record of futurist predictions is one of the best, often proving to be right even when initially opposed by mighty corporations and governments. He foresaw the power of fiber and wireless optics, the decline of the telephone regime, and the explosion of handheld computers, among many trends. His list of favored companies outpaced even the soaring Nasdaq in 1999 by more than double.
His long-awaited Telecosm is a bible of the new age of communications. Equal parts science story, business history, social analysis, and prediction, it is the one book you need to make sense of the titanic changes underway in our lives. Whether you surf the net constantly or not at all, whether you live on your cell phone or hate it for its invasion of private life, you need this book. It has been less than two decades since the introduction of the IBM personal computer, and yet the enormous changes wrought in our lives by the computer will pale beside the changes of the telecosm. Gilder explains why computers will “empty out,” with their components migrating to the net; why hundreds of low-flying satellites will enable hand-held computers and communicators to become ubiquitous; why television will die; why newspapers and magazines will revive; why advertising will become less obnoxious; and why companies will never be able to waste your time again.
Along the way you will meet the movers and shakers who have made the telecosm possible. From Charles Townes and Gordon Gould, who invented the laser, to the story of JDS Uniphase, “the Intel of the Telecosm,” to the birthing of fiberless optics pioneer TeraBeam, here are the inventors and entrepreneurs who will be hailed as the next Edison or Gates. From hardware to software to chips to storage, here are the technologies that will soon be as basic as the air we breathe.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-18--Purpose and Hope in a Time of Turmoil

Purpose and Hope in a Time of Turmoil

During a recent staff meeting , two Discovery Institute staff members referenced C.S .
Lewis ’ s essay , On Living in the Atomic Age .
In this new era of coronavirus uncertainty , Lewis ’ s words offer comfort in knowing that the situation we face is not unique , nor unprecedented .
The world has faced many plagues before , and wars , and suffering , and the economic uncertainty that often accompanies these periods .
And — as has been the case throughout history — human beings face death , regardless of its cause .
As I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suffering severely ( and bravely ) from cancer .
I feared for him , and prayed for him , long before coronavirus came on the scene .
Now we fear another contagion en masse .
Times like these , frightening as they are , can reorient one ’ s own priorities and those of society as a whole .
It is arguable that our decadence has preoccupied much of our time and energy on matters that , in the end , don ’ t really matter .
I won ’ t bother to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ my list might be different from yours .
But one thing is certain : the top priority for most in these times is the health and well-being of family and friends , the ongoing work that doesn ’ t pause for a pandemic , and a greater reliance , for many , on faith in God .
The latter , if lasting , could be the best outcome from our present circumstance .
Discovery Institute ’ s mission is to advance a culture of purpose , creativity , and innovation .
Those three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ now even our country , through the weeks and months ahead .
With that in mind , I recently asked a fellow worker a rhetorical question : Why do we care about what is happening ?
Why is it that we worry about the lives and livelihoods of our family , friends , and neighbors ?
And why are we presently trading economic hardship for the protection of human life ?
You know the answer : Because life matters more than the material .
Regardless of whether or not one accepts the idea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ God , the value of life is written on the human heart .
In times of crisis , life is what matters most .
Even to many dyed-in-the-wool materialists .
Human beings also display remarkable ingenuity and creativity .
Every human achievement — from eternity past to present day — represents the accumulation of knowledge and the application of that knowledge in everyday life .
This will be put to the test in big ways and small to address the current threat .
The big ways are obvious and immediate : the need @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and vaccines to protect the healthy .
These will take time , but they will happen .
Other creative solutions — both known and unknown — are smaller , but no less important , especially when considered as a whole .
There is one example from our home base of Seattle that brought a tear to my eye just last night .
Health care workers from Providence St. Joseph Health , lacking urgently needed protective medical gear for nurses and doctors , scoured the city for raw materials from home improvement and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference room in Renton ( near Seattle ) , they produced 500 medical grade masks and face shields desperately needed to safely test patients .
As the old adage says , necessity is the mother of invention .
It is a truism , and one that can be witnessed in moving photos of the scene , now making the rounds on social media .
This ability to apply human creativity , and to innovate , will save lives .
In the end — thanks to our focus on purpose , creativity , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ month will mark my 20thyear at Discovery Institute .
In that time , I have witnessed the trauma of September 11 , the wars that followed , the Great Recession , and other national and personal tragedies .
It ’ s not easy , and difficult decisions remain , but we always come through .
So , too , will our country .
And when we do , we will look back and realize that , in these times , purpose became primary ; that human minds , not material processes saved the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ unknown , played a vital role in rising to the challenge .
A restoration of faith , and its application in daily life , is likely to be an outcome as well .
Here is some additional good news .
In this indefinite time of self-quarantine , social distancing , and binge watching , I encourage you to take advantage of Discovery Institute ’ s incredible array of video and audio resources along with some recent articles .
Please also share them with your friends and family .
Thank you for your loyal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even in the midst of the turmoil .
It is appreciated beyond words .

During a recent staff meeting, two Discovery Institute staff members referenced C.S. Lewis’s essay, On Living in the Atomic Age. In this new era of coronavirus uncertainty, Lewis’s words offer comfort in knowing that the situation we face is not unique, nor unprecedented. The world has faced many plagues before, and wars, and suffering, and the economic uncertainty that often accompanies these periods. And — as has been the case throughout history — human beings face death, regardless of its cause. As I write this, a close friend is suffering severely (and bravely) from cancer. I feared for him, and prayed for him, long before coronavirus came on the scene. Now we fear another contagion en masse.
Steve Buri, Discovery President
Times like these, frightening as they are, can reorient one’s own priorities and those of society as a whole. It is arguable that our decadence has preoccupied much of our time and energy on matters that, in the end, don’t really matter. I won’t bother to list them here. After all, my list might be different from yours. But one thing is certain: the top priority for most in these times is the health and well-being of family and friends, the ongoing work that doesn’t pause for a pandemic, and a greater reliance, for many, on faith in God. The latter, if lasting, could be the best outcome from our present circumstance.
Discovery Institute’s mission is to advance a culture of purpose, creativity, and innovation. Those three pillars will guide our organization, and now even our country, through the weeks and months ahead. With that in mind, I recently asked a fellow worker a rhetorical question: Why do we care about what is happening? Why is it that we worry about the lives and livelihoods of our family, friends, and neighbors? And why are we presently trading economic hardship for the protection of human life? You know the answer: Because life matters more than the material. Regardless of whether or not one accepts the idea of a purposeful universe, which suggests God, the value of life is written on the human heart. In times of crisis, life is what matters most, even to many dyed-in-the-wool materialists.
Human beings also display remarkable ingenuity and creativity. Every human achievement — from eternity past to present day — represents the accumulation of knowledge and the application of that knowledge in everyday life. This will be put to the test in big ways and small to address the current threat. The big ways are obvious and immediate: the need to develop therapies to treat the sick, and vaccines to protect the healthy. These will take time, but they will happen.
Other creative solutions — both known and unknown — are smaller, but no less important, especially when considered as a whole. One recent example from our home base of Seattle brought a tear to my eye. Health care workers from Providence St. Joseph Health, lacking urgently needed protective medical gear for nurses and doctors, scoured the city for raw materials from home improvement and hobby stores. Working together in a conference room in Renton (near Seattle), they produced 500 medical grade masks and face shields desperately needed to safely test patients. As the old adage says, necessity is the mother of invention. It is a truism, and one that can be witnessed in moving photos of the scene, now making the rounds on social media. This ability to apply human creativity, and to innovate, will save lives.
In the end — thanks to our focus on purpose, creativity, and innovation — I am hopeful. Next month will mark my 20th year at Discovery Institute. In that time, I have witnessed the trauma of September 11, the wars that followed, the Great Recession, and other national and personal tragedies. It’s not easy, and difficult decisions remain, but we always come through. So, too, will our country. And when we do, we will look back and realize that, in these times, purpose became primary; that human minds, not material processes saved the day; and that innovations, heretofore unknown, played a vital role in rising to the challenge. A restoration of faith, and its application in daily life, is likely to be an outcome as well.
Here is some additional good news. In this indefinite time of self-quarantine, social distancing, and binge watching, I encourage you to take advantage of Discovery Institute’s incredible array of video and audio resources along with some recent articles. Please also share them with your friends and family.
Thank you for your loyal and steadfast support of our work, even in the midst of the turmoil. It is appreciated beyond words.
Warmly –
Steven J. Buri
President
Discovery Institute


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-19--Rewriting the History of COVID-19 in China

As the world reels amid the COVID-19 ( formerly , coronavirus ) pandemic , the government of China wants us to know that 1 ) the virus didn ’ t originate in China and 2 ) President Xi stopped it in its tracks .
And that we should all be thankful to him .
The people of the city of Wuhan , where the virus was first identified , have expressed anger at the decision to censor doctors who warned the public about a SARS-like virus and to delay issuing a warning that the virus was contagious .
Although the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 2019 , for seven weeks , local officials did nothing to inform Wuhan residents or curb travel in and out of the city .
On the contrary , they carried on with their plans for an annual congress in January , thereby creating doubt as to whether concern was justified .
Dr. Li Wenliang , who was punished for letting colleagues know of the new pathogen on December 30 , has since died of what is now officially called COVID-19 , leaving behind a wife and young children .
Many Chinese regard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mention of him on WeChat is censored by the government as a “ public opinion incident ” : Dr. Ai Fen , director of emergency at Wuhan Central Hospital , has recently come out with more information in an interview on how the Chinese government censored any reports on the coronavirus in the early days of the outbreak : She took a photo of the lab report and sent it a colleague from medical school at another Wuhan hospital .
The photo , shared by Li Wenliang , was circulated among several medical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were reprimanded for “ spreading rumors ” and “ harming stability.
” Against this backdrop , the people of Wuhan were asked to undergo “ gratitude education , ” to learn how to thank President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China for saving them from the virus .
Many chose to voice their outrage on Weibo and WeChat instead , mainly directed at Wuhan party secretary Wang Zhonglin for proposing the idea ( Lily Kuo The Guardian , March 9 , 2020 ) Wang ’ s statements met with such public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Changjiang Daily , was told to remove the offending article .
Bandurski terms this “ a full-blown public opinion crisis for the Party and the wound was self-inflicted.
” Bandurski sees the Chinese Communist Party ’ s efforts to control and redirect information “ in order to maintain political stability and the Party ’ s legitimacy in the eyes of the public ” as counterproductive .
Autocratic , top-down government prioritizes saving face over protecting citizens : Making the government the hero of the tale Chinese scientists worked together swiftly and seamlessly to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 ) , even as the government was downplaying the extent of the problem and silencing doctors who attempted to warn colleagues and the public .
Among other things , the sequencing team discovered that COVID-19 is probably one of the viruses that jumps to humans from bats .
The occasional flareups of racism in various places in the meantime seem even more unfortunate than usual , a clear case of confusing the people of China with their government .
Speaking of the government , China was on track to become a world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ countries to question their increasingly cozy relationship with the economic powerhouse .
As a result , the propaganda department sending the embarrassing history of the virus back for a global rewrite : The government ’ s two major talking points are : • The coronavirus did not necessarily originate in China .
The propaganda department is saying that the virus was discovered in China , but originated elsewhere .
And that those who say the virus started in China have political or racist motives .
( Evidence from other sources traces the virus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) • China ’ s excellent response to the virus bought time for the rest of the world .
Considerable evidence shows that official attempts to hide the extent of the virus in the crucial early days of the outbreak in December led to it getting out of control and spreading widely .
Bitter Winter , an online magazine that reports on religious persecution in China , reports that leaked government documents sent to Chinese embassies tell staff to call the pathogen the “ Italian virus ” or the “ Iranian virus ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s rulers from its spread .
The documents also forbid any mention of the origin of COVID-19 in China .
And they don ’ t forget to put in a plug for autocracy : Furthermore , journalists in China who spoke to Bitter Winter on condition of anonymity , said they are required to print the story the government wants them to print irrespective of known facts .
For example , if the government wants them to say everyone is going back to work and the viral spread has been curbed , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one of their sources : The guiding principle for reporting now is to show the public support for the government ’ s policy that businesses have to return to work… But media outlets can ’ t , under no circumstances , report that some of the returned people have a fever and are suspected of being infected because this would be against the policy that people should return to work… As China ’ s news outlets , in essence , serve the regime , you can only read whatever news the government allows @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to think in a way it allows you to think .
Zhang Feng , “ Media Reports about Coronavirus Heavily Censored in China ” at Bitter Winter ( March 17 , 2020 ) However incredulously such messages may be received outside China and its environs , the propaganda that the virus did not originate there seems to be taking hold within the country .
Some friends of mine who live overseas have found that in China and nearby Asia-Pacific countries , foreigners are subject to discrimination because people believe the virus came from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that foreigners will “ bring the virus back ” and undermine the government ’ s efforts to eradicate it .
And , to further cement the official narrative , China is also publishing a book about how Xi Jinping ’ s leadership defeated the coronavirus : While declaring victory over the virus , China has expelled American journalists from The New York Times , The Wall Street Journal , and The Washington Post ( New York Times , March 18 , 2020 ) .
These aggressive efforts at controlling the narrative indicate that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fallout from its management of the pandemic .
Elizabeth C. Economy , Director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations , told the New York Times that the rebranding is a “ a last-ditch effort by Xi to deflect blame and avoid a demand by the international community for an honest accounting of what actually transpired.
” He must hope that the world has a very short memory .
More from Heather Zeiger : on the role lack of transparency has played in the spread of the pandemic : Further reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) Coronavirus in world without trust In China , medical heroism thrives despite both paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities .
Censorship ?
But coronavirus doesn ’ t care !
Back when SARS was a threat , social media wasn ’ t the giant it is today .
Censorship , secrecy , and detention are less effective tools of control now .
Serious media in China have gone strangely silent .
With a compulsory new app , the government can potentially access journalists ’ phones , both for surveillance and capturing data .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few words : “ Outside of China , journalists are fired for writing false reports… Inside China , they are fired for telling the truth .
”

As the world reels amid the COVID-19 (formerly, coronavirus) pandemic, the government of China wants us to know that 1) the virus didn’t originate in China and 2) President Xi stopped it in its tracks. And that we should all be thankful to him.
The people of the city of Wuhan, where the virus was first identified, have expressed anger at the decision to censor doctors who warned the public about a SARS-like virus and to delay issuing a warning that the virus was contagious. Although the first case was identified around December 10, 2019, for seven weeks, local officials did nothing to inform Wuhan residents or curb travel in and out of the city. On the contrary, they carried on with their plans for an annual congress in January, thereby creating doubt as to whether concern was justified.
Dr. Li Wenliang, who was punished for letting colleagues know of the new pathogen on December 30, has since died of what is now officially called COVID-19, leaving behind a wife and young children. Many Chinese regard him as a martyr; thus any mention of him on WeChat is censored by the government as a “public opinion incident”:
The coronavirus epidemic has been a serious test of the Chinese Communist Party’s capacity to “guide public opinion,” a phrase it uses to describe the work of controlling and redirecting information in order to maintain political stability and the Party’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Efforts by an often rigid and unresponsive Party-state media system to turn the tide of criticism away from the government have often backfired, encouraging anger and resentment with the leadership’s apparent interest in managing appearances over acknowledging and grappling with problems. David Bandurski, “When propaganda bites back” at China Media Project (March 8, 2020)
Dr. Ai Fen , director of emergency at Wuhan Central Hospital, has recently come out with more information in an interview on how the Chinese government censored any reports on the coronavirus in the early days of the outbreak:
On 30 December, after seeing several patients with flu-like symptoms and resistant to usual treatment methods, Ai received the lab results of one case, which contained the word: “Sars coronavirus.” Ai, reading the report several times, says she broke out into a cold sweat. Lily Kuo, “Coronavirus: Wuhan doctor speaks out against authorities” at The Guardian (March 11, 2020)
She took a photo of the lab report and sent it a colleague from medical school at another Wuhan hospital. The photo, shared by Li Wenliang, was circulated among several medical groups. The result? The doctors were reprimanded for “spreading rumors” and “harming stability.”
Against this backdrop, the people of Wuhan were asked to undergo “gratitude education,” to learn how to thank President Xi Jinping and the Communist Party of China for saving them from the virus. Many chose to voice their outrage on Weibo and WeChat instead, mainly directed at Wuhan party secretary Wang Zhonglin for proposing the idea (Lily Kuo The Guardian, March 9, 2020)
Wang’s statements met with such public backlash that the state-controlled Wuhan newspaper, Changjiang Daily, was told to remove the offending article. Bandurski terms this “a full-blown public opinion crisis for the Party and the wound was self-inflicted.”
Bandurski sees the Chinese Communist Party’s efforts to control and redirect information “in order to maintain political stability and the Party’s legitimacy in the eyes of the public” as counterproductive:
Efforts by an often rigid and unresponsive Party-state media system to turn the tide of criticism away from the government have often backfired, encouraging anger and resentment with the leadership’s apparent interest in managing appearances over acknowledging and grappling with problems. David Bandurski, “When propaganda bites back” at China Media Project (March 8, 2020)
Making the government the hero of the tale
Chinese scientists worked together swiftly and seamlessly to sequence the virus, (completed February 25), even as the government was downplaying the extent of the problem and silencing doctors who attempted to warn colleagues and the public. Among other things, the sequencing team discovered that COVID-19 is probably one of the viruses that jump to humans from bats. The occasional flareups of racism in various places in the meantime seem even more unfortunate than usual, a clear case of confusing the people of China with their government.
Speaking of the government, China was on track to become a world superpower but the pandemic has forced many countries to question their increasingly cozy relationship with the economic powerhouse. As a result, the propaganda department is sending the embarrassing history of the virus back for a global rewrite:
The world is facing a potential global economic recession that can trace its roots to specific decisions by Chinese authorities. Chinese President Xi Jinping wants to prevent that narrative from taking hold. Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, “ Beijing’s coronavirus propaganda blitz goes global” at Axios (March 11, 2020)
The government’s two major talking points are:
The coronavirus did not necessarily originate in China. The propaganda department is saying that the virus was discovered in China, but originated elsewhere. And that those who say the virus started in China have political or racist motives. (Evidence from other sources traces the virus to an animal market in Wuhan.)
China’s excellent response to the virus bought time for the rest of the world. Considerable evidence shows that official attempts to hide the extent of the virus in the crucial early days of the outbreak in December led to it getting out of control and spreading widely.
Bitter Winter, an online magazine that reports on religious persecution in China, reports that leaked government documents sent to Chinese embassies tell staff to call the pathogen the “Italian virus” or the “Iranian virus” in a none-too-subtle attempt to distance China’s rulers from its spread. The documents also forbid any mention of the origin of COVID-19 in China. And they don’t forget to put in a plug for autocracy:
The CCP-controlled media keep explaining that democratic countries could not have taken such decisive measures against [the virus] as China did, because Western-style democracy limits the powers of the governments. This should prove, once again, the superiority of the Chinese non-democratic system. Massimo Introvigne, “De-Sinicizing the Virus: How CCP Propaganda is rewriting history” at Bitter Winter (March 9, 2020)
Furthermore, journalists in China who spoke to Bitter Winter on condition of anonymity, said they are required to print the story the government wants them to print irrespective of known facts. For example, if the government wants them to say everyone is going back to work and the viral spread has been curbed, they must report that.
According to one of their sources:
The guiding principle for reporting now is to show the public support for the government’s policy that businesses have to return to work… But media outlets can’t, under no circumstances, report that some of the returned people have a fever and are suspected of being infected because this would be against the policy that people should return to work… As China’s news outlets, in essence, serve the regime, you can only read whatever news the government allows you to read, and you have to think in a way it allows you to think. Zhang Feng, “Media Reports about Coronavirus Heavily Censored in China” at Bitter Winter (March 17, 2020)
However incredulously such messages may be received outside China and its environs, the propaganda that the virus did not originate there seems to be taking hold within the country. Some friends of mine who live overseas have found that in China and nearby Asia-Pacific countries, foreigners are subject to discrimination because people believe the virus came from foreigners. In China, many fear that foreigners will “bring the virus back” and undermine the government’s efforts to eradicate it.
And, to further cement the official narrative, China is also publishing a book about how Xi Jinping’s leadership defeated the coronavirus:
Party officials have tried to spin the crisis as a testament to the strength of China’s authoritarian system and its hard-line leader, Xi Jinping, even announcing plans to publish a book in six languages about the outbreak that portrays him as a ‘major power leader’ with ‘care for the people.’ Javier C. Hernandez, “China Spins Coronavirus Crisis, Hailing Itself as a Global Leader” at New York Times (February 28, 2020/updated March 3, 2020)
While declaring victory over the virus, China has expelled American journalists from The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Washington Post (New York Times, March 18, 2020).
These aggressive efforts at controlling the narrative indicate that the Chinese government is worried about the fallout from its management of the pandemic. Elizabeth C. Economy, Director of Asia Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, told the New York Times that the rebranding is a “a last-ditch effort by Xi to deflect blame and avoid a demand by the international community for an honest accounting of what actually transpired.” He must hope that the world has a very short memory.
More from Heather Zeiger: on the role lack of transparency has played in the spread of the pandemic:
Further reading on COVID-19 in China (Heather Zeiger)
Coronavirus in world without trust In China, medical heroism thrives despite both paranoia and justified mistrust of authorities.
Censorship? But coronavirus doesn’t care! Back when SARS was a threat, social media wasn’t the giant it is today. Censorship, secrecy, and detention are less effective tools of control now.
and
Serious media in China have gone strangely silent. With a compulsory new app, the government can potentially access journalists’ phones, both for surveillance and capturing data. Liu Hu sums up the scene in a few words: “Outside of China, journalists are fired for writing false reports… Inside China, they are fired for telling the truth.”


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-19--Upstairs into the Plague

Upstairs into the Plague

I was driving into work this morning and I hit the traffic jam .
Every morning at about 6:30 am the traffic begins to back up on the highway leading into my medical center .
It ’ s the morning shift — hundreds of nurses and clerks and aides and orderlies and housekeepers bleary-eyed and guzzling Starbucks and they wait to enter the parking garage and begin their ( usually 12 hour ) shift .
I avoid the crush and go in the back way .
It ’ s a bit of a walk but I need the exercise .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ our team was waiting to make rounds .
Several of them were on call overnight — they spent the night in the ER , seeing neurosurgery patients , amidst the crush of humanity with fevers and coughs .
I ’ m lucky — I ’ m the professor , and I mostly go to the operating room — where it ’ s sterile and everyone wears masks .
My team in the ER doesn ’ t have that luxury .
They don ’ t complain .
I worry about them .
For their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ because we really need them .
Most of the neurosurgery emergency care for our very large county is provided by our department , and if our people get sick , a couple of million people will have difficulty getting care .
We ’ re trying very hard to stay healthy in this COVID-19 pandemic , and to keep working and keep informed .
The media is full of talking heads and experts .
They ’ re mostly doing their best , but the ideologues and grifters are all too plentiful .
To wit @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” about the importance of evolutionary science and Darwin in the management of the coronavirus pandemic .
• “ Geneticist Spencer Wells on COVID-19 as ‘ Evolution in Action ’ ” • “ Coronavirus — we need to learn from Darwin ” There ’ s no doubt that COVID-19 evolved : populations of viruses change with time .
Of course , we know that from epidemiology and virology and simple observation .
Darwin ’ s theory has little to do with epidemiology .
Darwin proposed that all biological adaptation and speciation arose from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evidence for intelligence in nature , this atheist biology was a tough sell without a mechanism by which the stunning tapestry of information-bearing life came about .
In an epiphany , Darwin hit upon the explanation for life — survivors survived !
Atheists at last were intellectually satisfied .
Darwin ’ s actual impact on epidemiology is minimal — his theory ( published in 1859 ) mainly served to distract scientists and doctors from the real science on infectious disease that emerged from the work of Girolamo Fracastoro ( 16th-century physician who proposed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Antonie van Leeuwenhoek ( 17th century — discovered microorganisms ) , Thomas Sydenham ( studied London epidemics in the 17th century ) , Edward Jenner ( first smallpox vaccine — 1757 ) ) , Ignaz Semmelweis ( discovered in 1847 that antisepsis prevented post-partum infections ) , John Snow ( stopped cholera epidemic in London , 1854 ) , Louis Pasteur ( germ theory of disease ) , Joseph Lister ( antiseptic surgery ) , Robert Koch ( modern bacteriology ) , Paul Ehrlich ( Nobel laureate who cured syphilis ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Salk ( polio vaccine ) , to name just a few .
Darwin , who was mathematically illiterate and fascinated by barnacles , flunked out of medical school , married his ( wealthy ) first cousin , wrote a book on the origin of species by natural selection in which he provided no evidence for the origin of species by natural selection , and worked sporadically , mostly from bed .
He would have required remedial training to get a job cleaning Pasteur ’ s test tubes .
Yet his contribution to atheism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was epochal .
Epidemiology , to which Darwinism is a “ narrative gloss , ” is an old and vigorous science .
But there ’ s more to the amelioration of epidemics than superb science .
The most important advance in preventing epidemics — probably more important than vaccinations and the gamut of 21st-century high-tech science — is low-tech public sanitation .
There is probably nothing ( except for food and water and blankets ) that has saved more lives from epidemics than enforcement of the principle that drinking water and sewage water @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And low-tech medical care is indispensable as well .
Historian Rodney Stark points out that survival in epidemics is often more the consequence of ordinary courageous people who stick around and do their jobs than it is of sophisticated medical technology .
This was the reason that Christian communities in antiquity had much higher survival rates than pagan communities during epidemics .
Christians would stick around — at risk to themselves — and would not flee and abandon plague victims to die of starvation or exposure .
The most effective medical care in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ damn .
Of course many modern scientists are doing good vital work in this pandemic .
Kudos to the virologists and epidemiologists and critical care specialists who are working hard to save lives .
We need to understand virology and develop anti-viral medications and develop strategies to “ flatten the curve ” of the pandemic .
But to those politicians and science grifters who would use this catastrophe for partisanship or ideology , give it a break .
Spin and evolutionary tautologies are just a pandemic of an intellectual sort .
What we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ image from 9-11 — this coronavirus pandemic reminds me of that time .
It ’ s a picture of a fireman in Tower 1 running up stairs , when everybody was running down .
You could see in his face that he knew what he was facing .
He had no illusions .
There are people who run towards things like that .
Every night , when most of us have put away our favorite novel and switched off our remote classroom link on our university-bought computer and done our last wipe with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ boys at Shop Rite will begin restocking the shelves with toilet paper and food , working through the night in aisles trodden by thousands of panicked ( and a few febrile ) shoppers .
In the hospital the housekeepers on the 11-7 shift will clean patients ’ rooms , scrubbing walls and toilets that the rest of us wouldn ’ t touch without a hazmat suit .
And the nurses on the night shift will wipe the mucous and hold the hand of someone ’ s grandmother who is gasping for breath in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ housekeeper or nurse is doing more to fight this pandemic than all the politicians and talking-head science grifters and tenure-track professors in the department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard .
And more than all the neurosurgery professors , too .
So say a prayer , whether evolutionary biologists like it or not .
Pray for the stock boys and the housekeepers and the nurses .
Pray for the people on the front line — the people waiting in line at the hospital parking garage at 6:30 am .
Pray for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ else is running away .

I was driving into work this morning and I hit the traffic jam. Every morning at about 6:30 am the traffic begins to back up on the highway leading into my medical center. It’s the morning shift — hundreds of nurses and clerks and aides and orderlies and housekeepers bleary-eyed and guzzling Starbucks and they wait to enter the parking garage and begin their (usually 12 hour) shift. I avoid the crush and go in the back way. It’s a bit of a walk but I need the exercise.
When I got into the office, our team was waiting to make rounds. Several of them were on call overnight — they spent the night in the ER, seeing neurosurgery patients, amidst the crush of humanity with fevers and coughs. I’m lucky — I’m the professor, and I mostly go to the operating room — where it’s sterile and everyone wears masks. My team in the ER doesn’t have that luxury. They don’t complain.
I worry about them. For their health, of course, but also because we really need them. Most of the neurosurgery emergency care for our very large county is provided by our department, and if our people get sick, a couple of million people will have difficulty getting care. We’re trying very hard to stay healthy in this COVID-19 pandemic, and to keep working and keep informed.
Treat Coronavirus with Darwinian Theory?
The media is full of talking heads and experts. They’re mostly doing their best, but the ideologues and grifters are all too plentiful. To wit, we get lots of “reminders” about the importance of evolutionary science and Darwin in the management of the coronavirus pandemic.
There’s no doubt that COVID-19 evolved: populations of viruses change with time. Of course, we know that from epidemiology and virology and simple observation. Darwin’s theory has little to do with epidemiology. Darwin proposed that all biological adaptation and speciation arose from wholly unintelligent processes. Given the ubiquitous evidence for intelligence in nature, this atheist biology was a tough sell without a mechanism by which the stunning tapestry of information-bearing life came about. In an epiphany, Darwin hit upon the explanation for life — survivors survived! Atheists at last were intellectually satisfied.
Darwin’s actual impact on epidemiology is minimal — his theory (published in 1859) mainly served to distract scientists and doctors from the real science on infectious disease that emerged from the work of Girolamo Fracastoro (16th-century physician who proposed that infections were caused by microorganisms), Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (17th century — discovered microorganisms), Thomas Sydenham (studied London epidemics in the 17th century), Edward Jenner (first smallpox vaccine — 1757)), Ignaz Semmelweis (discovered in 1847 that antisepsis prevented post-partum infections), John Snow (stopped cholera epidemic in London, 1854), Louis Pasteur (germ theory of disease), Joseph Lister (antiseptic surgery), Robert Koch (modern bacteriology), Paul Ehrlich (Nobel laureate who cured syphilis), Alexander Flemming (penicillin), Jonas Salk (polio vaccine), to name just a few.
Fascinated by Barnacles
Darwin, who was mathematically illiterate and fascinated by barnacles, flunked out of medical school, married his (wealthy) first cousin, wrote a book on the origin of species by natural selection in which he provided no evidence for the origin of species by natural selection, and worked sporadically, mostly from bed. He would have required remedial training to get a job cleaning Pasteur’s test tubes. Yet his contribution to atheism, unlike his contribution to science, was epochal.
A “Narrative Gloss”
Epidemiology, to which Darwinism is a “narrative gloss,” is an old and vigorous science. But there’s more to the amelioration of epidemics than superb science. The most important advance in preventing epidemics — probably more important than vaccinations and the gamut of 21st-century high-tech science — is low-tech public sanitation. There is probably nothing (except for food and water and blankets) that has saved more lives from epidemics than enforcement of the principle that drinking water and sewage water must not be the same water. And low-tech medical care is indispensable as well. Historian Rodney Stark points out that survival in epidemics is often more the consequence of ordinary courageous people who stick around and do their jobs than it is of sophisticated medical technology. This was the reason that Christian communities in antiquity had much higher survival rates than pagan communities during epidemics. Christians would stick around — at risk to themselves — and would not flee and abandon plague victims to die of starvation or exposure. The most effective medical care in a plague is someone who gives a damn.
Of course many modern scientists are doing good vital work in this pandemic. Kudos to the virologists and epidemiologists and critical care specialists who are working hard to save lives. We need to understand virology and develop anti-viral medications and develop strategies to “flatten the curve” of the pandemic. But to those politicians and science grifters who would use this catastrophe for partisanship or ideology, give it a break. Spin and evolutionary tautologies are just a pandemic of an intellectual sort.
Running Toward Danger
What we need right now is captured in an image from 9-11 — this coronavirus pandemic reminds me of that time. It’s a picture of a fireman in Tower 1 running up stairs, when everybody was running down. You could see in his face that he knew what he was facing. He had no illusions. There are people who run towards things like that.
Every night, when most of us have put away our favorite novel and switched off our remote classroom link on our university-bought computer and done our last wipe with Purell before bed, the midnight-shift stock boys at Shop Rite will begin restocking the shelves with toilet paper and food, working through the night in aisles trodden by thousands of panicked (and a few febrile) shoppers. In the hospital the housekeepers on the 11-7 shift will clean patients’ rooms, scrubbing walls and toilets that the rest of us wouldn’t touch without a hazmat suit. And the nurses on the night shift will wipe the mucous and hold the hand of someone’s grandmother who is gasping for breath in the ICU.
Every stock boy or housekeeper or nurse is doing more to fight this pandemic than all the politicians and talking-head science grifters and tenure-track professors in the department of Organismic and Evolutionary Biology at Harvard. And more than all the neurosurgery professors, too.
So say a prayer, whether evolutionary biologists like it or not. Pray for the stock boys and the housekeepers and the nurses. Pray for the people on the front line — the people waiting in line at the hospital parking garage at 6:30 am.
Pray for the people running into this plague when everyone else is running away.


discoveryinstitute--2020-03-18--Walter Bradley on the Mystery of Life’s Origin

The origin of life from non-life remains one of the most enduring mysteries of modern science .
Dr. Walter Bradley explains why materialist suppositions fail as science , pointing to the need for an intelligent author of the first life .
At the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith his presentation explored the paradox-filled intellectual world of origin-of-life research .
According to Bradley , one of science ’ s biggest questions has always been , and remains , what is the origin of the first life ?
The Baylor University Distinguished Professor of Engineering Emeritus and co-author of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Life ’ s Origin , discussed the current state of the research which is that scientists simply don ’ t know what brought about the first life .
Also in this segment , a Q & A session with three scientists who sparked the modern intelligent design revolution .
That was in 1984 with the publication of The Mystery of Life ’ s Origin .
The pioneering authors , biochemist Charles Thaxton , materials scientist Walter Bradley , and geochemist Roger Olsen , were interviewed by Center for Science & Culture director Stephen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Darwin ’ s Doubt .
The annual Dallas Conference on Science & Faith explores exciting scientific discoveries about the origin of the universe , the origin of life , and the development of biological complexity , as well as critiquing the scientific and cultural impact of Darwinism .
It also deals directly with the intersection of science and religion and the role that faith plays in scientific research and study .

The origin of life from non-life remains one of the most enduring mysteries of modern science. Dr. Walter Bradley explains why materialist suppositions fail as science, pointing to the need for an intelligent author of the first life. At the 2020 Dallas Conference on Science & Faith his presentation explored the paradox-filled intellectual world of origin-of-life research. According to Bradley, one of science’s biggest questions has always been, and remains, what is the origin of the first life? The Baylor University Distinguished Professor of Engineering Emeritus and co-author of the seminal intelligent design book The Mystery of Life’s Origin, discussed the current state of the research which is that scientists simply don’t know what brought about the first life.
Also in this segment, a Q&A session with three scientists who sparked the modern intelligent design revolution. That was in 1984 with the publication of The Mystery of Life’s Origin. The pioneering authors, biochemist Charles Thaxton, materials scientist Walter Bradley, and geochemist Roger Olsen, were interviewed by Center for Science & Culture director Stephen Meyer, author of Signature in Cell and Darwin’s Doubt.
The annual Dallas Conference on Science & Faith explores exciting scientific discoveries about the origin of the universe, the origin of life, and the development of biological complexity, as well as critiquing the scientific and cultural impact of Darwinism. It also deals directly with the intersection of science and religion and the role that faith plays in scientific research and study.