Evolution News & Views

Charles Darwin's theory of evolution is a religious theory in the sense that it is based on powerful theological claims. Over the past four centuries these beliefs have influenced and even dominated science, and if anything have grown even stronger since Darwin. They form the foundation and ultimate justification for today's theory of evolution. As evolutionist Ken Miller rhetorically asked, would God "really want to take credit for the mosquito?" Evolution, in one form or another, must be true.

But theists are not the only ones using religion to mandate this rigid form of naturalism. Ironically, religious skeptics are just as capable of making God-wouldn't-create-the-species type arguments. David Hume is a well known historical example, though many of his ideas trace back to English skeptics from earlier in his century. Today, the likes of Richard Dawkins continue the tradition of atheists proclaiming theological truths in the name of science.

It is interesting that these sermonizing skeptics are not innocently drawing the necessary consequences of universal theological principles. Rather, these atheists apply naïve and simplistic metaphysical notions to deep theological issues. They think their atheism clarifies those deep waters, but they are just as wedded to the god of the philosophers as are the rest of the evolutionists, from Darwin to Miller. One of the great tragedies in the history of thought is that the great intellect of David Hume never rose above the pedestrian theologies of his day to arrive at a meaningful and lasting critique.

These nuances of today's origins debate are rarely discussed. That is why it was a pleasure to see science writer Jeremy Manier shine a light in this direction in his recent Chicago Tribune piece, "The New Theology." Of atheists and creationists, he writes:

In a curious way, Dawkins and his fellow scientific atheists espouse the same notion of God that drives their sworn enemies, the creationists who oppose teaching evolution in public schools. For both camps, the only God who makes sense is one who designed all life with exquisite attention to detail. Scientific atheists disavow such a religion; creationists embrace it.

Manier's piece went in another direction and, to be sure, is problematic at times. In a later paragraph he wrote that "[t]he union of Darwinian theory with genetics has shown that natural processes on their own can yield organisms and molecular machinery of stunning complexity." This is false and misleading, but not surprising. This is what evolutionists are saying, and so science writers repeat the mantra. For a moment, however, Manier's piece was a point of light in a debate where there usually is too much heat.

Posted by Cornelius Hunter at 7:26 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Over at Culture Watch, American born, Melbourne living, blogger Bill Muehlenberg provides yet another good review of John West's Darwin Day in America.

‘Social Darwinism’ is a term which refers to the social and political ramifications of biological Darwinism and the materialism which it is imbedded in. Darwin regarded humans as basically higher animals, and as the social sciences became more and more tinged by the Darwinian outlook, humans increasingly began to be treated as mere animals, or machines.

This volume looks at how the materialistic worldview of Darwinism has impacted on a wide range of fields. As academics, scientists and politicians apply the Darwinian view of man to various social sciences, some very negative outcomes have ensued. We have steadily become dehumanised and depersonalised as we have taken on board the logical implications of evolutionary materialism.

West offers a far-reaching and profound look at numerous areas clouded by the Darwinist mindset. He examines the fields of law, education, business, economics, sociology and ethics to see how the revolutionary ideas of Darwin have penetrated every aspect of Western culture. Scientific materialism, flowing forth from Darwin and the Neo-Darwinists, today underpins much of public policy in the West.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:22 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

"Theodore Dalrymple" not only has one of the most droll pen names I have seen (the man is a doctor who enjoys his privacy), but he also is one of England's best writers on social issues--and its finest contrarian. One of his favorite targets is scientism and the ways it ravages the poor and ignorant. In this review in The New York Sun he is singing a song whose tune I know well and whose lyrics I never tire of: "Marx is Dead, Freud is Dead, and by the way, so is Darwin."

Posted by Bruce Chapman at 3:24 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Technology often aims to imitate biology. But sometimes engineers find that biology itself is a superior replacement for our best technology. This may increasingly be the case for nano-technology, as MSNBC reports that the “[f]lagellum could potentially provide locomotion … to send future nanobots or other tiny medical devices zooming around the human body.” According to the article, engineers have found that a useful mechanism for transporting ATP, an energy-molecule of biology, is found within the energy-transport system that runs along the cilia of sperm (cilia are also sometimes called flagella, as is the case in this MSNBC article). The article reports that there are plans to integrate other components from biology into nano-biomedical devices.

The integration of biology into human nano-technology raises an interesting hypothetical scenario: What if someday human nano-technology becomes so sophisticated that it can be integrated into an organism’s DNA, and becomes part of self-replicating systems of living organisms? (This would be akin to the Borg, of Star Trek fame.) Then suppose that humans die off, but later alien scientists discover human-designed nano-biotechnology existing freely inside of living organisms that are still left on Earth. Of course those nano-biotechnological systems did not evolve, they were designed. Should those alien scientists be prevented from making a design inference?

In any case, it seems that human-technology is now coming full circle: The first outboard motor was the bacterial flagellum, and then came the eukaryotic cilium. Sometime much later, humans came around and humans invented the outboard motor using rotary engines— before they had any knowledge of flagellar outboard rotary engines. Then humans discovered the biological flagellum and found that it has a strikingly similar design to the human outboard motor.

But now biomedical researchers are abandoning human technology, realizing that biological pathways are better suited for propelling human nano-technology than is human technology itself. It seems clear to me that the paradigm of intelligent design will guide this kind of research much better than will a Darwinian paradigm.

If you’re a Darwinist whose head is now spinning, you might find it helpful to repeat the following statement from Francis Crick:

“Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved."

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind...”

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:43 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (1)

Like rain dancers, Darwinists in Texas are busily engaging in political cloud seeding, trying to whip up a storm of controversy about science education. As usual they mistakenly equate creationism with intelligent design, knowing full well that the two are very different.

The drum beat of these evolutionary rain makers started up last summer when the Dallas Morning News published a thumb-sucker of a story about the majority of the state board of education’s oppostion to inserting ID into Texas science classes. Even though it was clear that no one was proposing inserting ID into the curriculum, all of sudden Darwinists began chanting that the sky was falling. Throughout the fall they picked up the tempo, constantly, falsely claiming that there was an effort to revise Texas science standards to include ID. (And not just in Texas, they're dancing their pants off in Florida as well.)

Now, half a year further on and still no plans to insert ID into the curriculum, the Darwinist rain dancers are feverishly increasing their claims Texas students will soon be subjected to the theory in their science classrooms.

Friday, the Austin American Statesman published yet another of their weekly anti-ID opinion piece. This one reads like a big science encyclical. The writers are the heads or past heads of the Texas academy on science, and as such are trying to end all debate over ID and Darwinism by claiming there is no debate because ID is not science. As usual they simply throw their weight around as the establishment to bully everyone into line with their dogmatic Darwin only agenda.

They aren’t just rain dancers though. Turns out they’re prophets of doom and gloom, as well. If their arrogant insistence that there are no scientific critiques of Darwinian evolution isn’t enough to get you in line, well then they will scare you into adherence to the Darwin party platform. Indeed to hear them tell it, the very future of mankind depends on silencing proponents of ID.

The future of the world, our nation and the State of Texas hinges on continued breakthroughs in science, engineering and medicine as we face challenges in providing adequate supplies of energy and water, a clean environment, health care, and economic competitiveness. To meet these challenges, it is necessary to continue to attract the best minds to Texas and to provide our children with rigorous and challenging scientific training. Anything that diminishes the rigor of the education of the youth of Texas or our ability to recruit the best talent creates a great risk to the State and limits our contribution to protecting the nation from the "Gathering Storm".

As for science education, we would advocate that in Texas, as elsewhere, students would be best served to learn more about evolution, including the scientific evidence that challenges the theory. That’s a far cry from teaching intelligent design.

No serious participants in this debate are proposing that ID be mandated in Texas schools. The members of the state board of education have made this clear. But, the rain makers continue their dance, trying to whip up a storm where there is none.

Typical Darwinists, trying to make something out of nothing.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 1:29 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Salvo magazine's latest issue is out just this week and it's almost entirely focused on ID.

James Kushiner, publisher of Touchstone Magazine, opens the issue by asking, Are these really the last days of Darwin? and suggesting that readers let the evidence speak and then decide for themselves.

The magazine has a number of excellent articles pertaining to all the different aspects of the debate over intelligent design, penned by a veritable who's who of intelligent design scientists and scholars, including: Michael Behe, John Bloom, Raymond Bohlin, Larry Caldwell, Seth Cooper, Caroline Crocker, William Dembski, Michael Egnor, Logan Paul Gage, Guillermo Gonzalez, Phillip Johnson, Casey Luskin, Angus Menuge, Stephen Meyer, Paul Nelson, Denyse O'Leary, Jay Richards, Ralph Seelke, Geoffrey Simmons, Jonathan Wells, Benjamin Wiker, Jonathan Witt, and Heather Zeiger.

A few articles are sampled on Salvo's website:

• What Does Information Tell us About ID? by William A. Dembski;
• Can ID Explain the Origin of Evil? by Jay Richards;
• Has ID Been Banned in Public Schools? by Casey Luskin;
• Do ID Proponents Get Persecuted in the Academy? by Caroline Crocker; and,
• What Happens When You Challenge a School's Science Curriculum? by Larry Caldwell.

To order this issue, or to subscribe to Salvo, go here.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

CSC senior fellow John West will be speaking at a number of events in conjunction with Darwin Day.

Wednesday, February 6, 2008
4:30-6:00 pm at Discovery Institute, Seattle
If you are in Seattle you can hear Dr. West at the taping or our annual ID The Future Darwin Day Event, Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom.
If you can't attend the taping, be sure to tune on Tuesday Feb. 12 and watch the event at www.idthefuture.com. More info here.

If you are in Washington DC there will be two chances to see Dr. West.

February 8, 2008, Noon
God, Science and the Presidential Campaign of 2008
A public lecture by Dr. John West, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute, and author of Darwin Day in America.
Location: TBD
Faith and Law Forum, Washington DC

February 12, 2008
Darwin Day in America ft. Dr. John G. West
Download poster here.
Thi lecture will be broadcast via live webcast at www.frc.org.

WHERE: Family Research Council Media Center
801 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20001
(Across from Gallery Place Metro)

RSVP: 800-225-4008 or
online at www.frc.org or
www.witherspoonfellowship.org
on or before Mon., February 11, 2008

Posted by Robert Crowther at 6:53 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Media see, media do. And when it comes to the fossil record, the elite Darwinists of late seem unable to see evidence that challenges evolution. With the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and PBS forcefully promoting Tiktaalik to the public as proof of an evolutionary transition from fish to land-walking animals, the media is following closely in their footsteps (no pun intended). A recent article on Canada.com pushes a pro-evolution book titled “Your Inner Fish,” which tries to use Canadian- found fossil Tiktaalik to promote evolution and influence American presidential politics. It's the Canadian Darwinist's dream. But this is strange behavior: why are the scientific elite so forcefully pushing this one fossil, especially when it so poorly documents the evolution of the key aspect of the transition of fish into land-animals: the transformation of fins to feet? The answer lies in what PBS, the NAS, and the media are not telling the public about the fossil record.

Following in the scientific elite’s footsteps, the media is failing to mention the fact that the pattern in the fossil record is not one of transitional forms, but of explosions of mass biological diversity without plausible evolutionary transitions. As one textbook states: "Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group." But you won’t hear groups like the NAS or PBS admit any of this when they talk to the general public about evolution.

ID proponents are willing to boldly go where no Darwinist dares to go—to discuss the explosions in the history of life. At The Design of Life Blog, Denyse O’Leary recently documented how the history of life is full of explosions of biological diversity that challenge a Darwinian explanation. O’Leary also blogged about the newly revealed Avalon explosion, where a group of pre-Cambrian organisms (not thought to be ancestors of the Cambrian organisms) appear without any clear evolutionary precursors.

Following the scientific elite, the media ignore explosions in the fossil record and instead emphasize one or two fossils that ultimately serve as unconvincing examples of transitional forms. The media have also missed the fact that after evolutionists discover some new alleged transitional fossil, they suddenly feel comfortable enough to be quite candid about the lack of fossils previously documenting that alleged transition. This too is suspicious behavior. To recount the media behavior, Darwinist behavior, and real evidence surrounding Tiktaalik, the media’s new darling of the fossil record, I’m reposting an analysis of Tiktaalik from when this fossil was first reported in the spring of 2006:
----------------------------
For Darwinian Evolution, It’s One Step Forward, Acknowledging Two Steps Back: Taking a Look at Tiktaalik

I love it when new "missing links" are discovered, because it's then--and only then--that Darwinists admit how precious little evidence had previously existed for the evolutionary transition in question. When reports came out this week of an alleged example of a fossil representative of the stock that might have led from fish to tetrapods -- Tiktaalik roseae -- evolutionists finally came clean about the previous lack of fossil evidence for such a transition:

“The relationship of limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) to lobe-finned fish (sarcopterygians) is well established, but the origin of major tetrapod features has remained obscure for lack of fossils that document the sequence of evolutionary changes.”

(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006))

Authority Jennifer Clack even admits that before finding Tiktaalik, the large morphological gap between fish and true tetrapods was "frustratingly wide":

"It has long been clear that limbed vertebrates (tetrapods) evolved from osteolepiform lobefinned fishes3, but until recently the morphological gap between the two groups remained frustratingly wide. The gap was bounded at the top by primitive Devonian tetrapods such as Ichthyostega and Acanthostega from Greenland, and at the bottom by Panderichthys, a tetrapod-like predatory fish from the latest Middle Devonian of Latvia (Fig. 1)."

(Jennifer A. Clack & Per Erik Ahlberg, "A firm step from water to land," Nature 440:747-749 (April 6, 2006); emphasis added)

Again Daeschler et al. reiterate the lack of evidence previous fossils provide for a transition, focusing on deficiencies in what was previously considered to be the closest fish to tetrapods (see the diagram below as well):

"Panderichthys possesses relatively few tetrapod synapomorphies, and provides only partial insight into the origin of major features of the skull, limbs and axial skeleton of early tetrapods. In view of the morphological gap between elpistostegalian fish and tetrapods, the phylogenetic framework for the immediate sister group of tetrapods has been incomplete and our understanding of major anatomical transformations at the fish-tetrapod transition has remained limited."

(Edward B. Daeschler, Neil H. Shubin, and Farish A. Jenkins, “A Devonian tetrapod-like fish and the evolution of the tetrapod body plan,” Nature Vol 440: 757-763 (April 6, 2006))

Walk Off The Stage, Acanthostega
The previous darling of the "fish-to-tetrapod" transition-representatives was Acanthostega gunnari--a true tetrapod. Acanthostega has extremely tetrapod-like limbs, feet (with a few extra fingers), and a pelvic girdle. This little guy was a star of the PBS Evolution's episode II: "Great Transformations," where Jenny Clack called it a "fish with fingers" (The only problem is that Acanthostega wasn't a fish--as Daeschler et al. correctly categorize it as a non-fish tetrapod, contrasting "Skull roofs of elpistostegalian fish and the early tetrapod Acanthostega" [Nature 440:759]. Even Clack, quoted above, calls it a "tetrapod" and distinguishes it from fishes, making one wonder what was going on when PBS Evolution showed her calling it a "fish with fingers".)

But only now that we have Tiktaalik will we hear evolutionists boast about the size of the previously large "gap" in this transition, and how Tiktaalik solves all these previously unanswered questions. I'm super skeptical that this new fossil is good evidence that a transition took place: Acanthostega was truly a tetrapod, but Tiktaalik is a fish. As Clack and Ahlberg write, there's still a large gap (and any usefulness a fin had for walking was the result of a lucky pre-adaptation):

"There remains a large morphological gap between them and digits as seen in, for example, Acanthostega: if the digits evolved from these distal bones, the process must have involved considerable developmental repatterning. The implication is that function changed in advance of morphology." (Clack & Ahlberg, Nature 440:748; emphasis added).

I think that Figure 4 from, "The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb" (by Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, & Farish A. Jenkins Jr, Nature, Vol 440:764-771 (April 6, 2006)) says it all:

(Adapted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: "The pectoral fin of Tiktaalik roseae and the origin of the tetrapod limb" (by Neil H. Shubin, Edward B. Daeschler, & Farish A. Jenkins Jr, Nature, Vol 440:764-771 (April 6, 2006); figure resized to fit the page except for the text; click for the full figure)

This figure, which Nature graciously has granted permission to reprint, reveals the massive difference in the ray-finned fish-fin of Tiktaalik and the true tetrapod limbs of Acanthostega and Tulerpeton. Is evidence of a transition missing? This new fish fossil doesn’t seem to add much--if anything--to bridge the gap between fish fins and tetrapod limbs. In fact, if anything, the fin of Panderichthys appears closer to a true tetrapod limb than does the fin of Tiktaalik. I would assume that documenting how fins turned into feet would be one of the more important aspects of the fish-to-tetrapod evolutionary story.

In conclusion, this is a fascinating fossil which I'm sure will stir up much debate. But the next time we dig up some fossil of a fin-bound fish (possibly with a few tetrapod-ish characteristics), we'll hear again all about the previously existing big gaps and how Tiktaalik didn't really teach us much after all--but how the new fossil solves all the problems. That's how it usually works, and that makes me wonder where we're really left today. Anyone who thinks that we've found the "missing link" or clear evidence of an evolutionary transition has either forgotten history, or isn't looking very carefully at the evidence.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 2:56 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Every so often the Darwinists get all riled up about the Scientific Dissent From Darwin list, which lists over 700 PhD scientists who publicly affirm: “We are skeptical of the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian Theory should be encouraged.” As statements go, it’s simple and straightforward. And that perhaps is what concerns Darwinists. People instantly understand what it is saying, what the scientists are courageously endorsing, and why it matters.

In 2006, New York Times science writer Ken Chang wrote an article claiming “Few Biologists but Many Evangelicals Sign Anti-Evolution Petition,” which turned out to be not true on both counts. This perfectly fits with the agenda of Darwinists seeking to show that all skepticism of Darwinian evolution is religiously based, but that simply isn’t the case.

Signers of the Dissent List have signed the list because it is their professional opinion that the evidence is lacking for the claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Period. Nothing more, and nothing less.

It is not a political statement. It is not an educational policy statement. Signing doesn’t make one a proponent of intelligent design.

Over at Post-Darwinist Denyse O’Leary writes about another question she’s received recently about how many Discovery Institute Fellows are evangelical Christians. (As if she would know, or as if it even mattered. No one asks how many staffers at the NCSE are atheists, so why should anyone care about Discovery Fellows?) We get questions like thisperiodically. And the answer is, we don't keep count. Like the Dissent list, Discovery doesn’t have a religious litmus test for Fellows. Nor any other litmus test.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:57 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This past summer I backpacked with some friends through Switzerland, and spent a few days in the beautiful Swiss capital city of Bern. Bern is a city of extremes: extreme beauty (see a photo I took on a bridge over the River Aare at left), extreme night-club partying, and extremely empty museum-like churches. I had a great time in Bern—my favorite event was crashing a party with a Bluegrass band playing at a corporate party along the Aare. But Bern could use some moderation, especially when it comes to the teaching of evolution. According to an article in Swiss Info, Bern school officials are facing a choice between teaching evolution dogmatically or including young earth creationism in the curriculum. Since young earth creationism is so controversial, the article reports that “[t]he school authorities in canton Bern quickly revised the brochure included in the textbook” and removed the young earth creationist materials, leaving students to be told that “evolution has been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.” Bernese officials should not have to choose between young earth creationism or absolute evolutionary dogmatism. If they were to adopt Discovery Institute’s approach, they could avoid both extremes:

Discovery Institute’s recommended approach to the teaching about evolution, which the Dover school board rejected, is:

1. Make sure the evidence schools present for Darwin’s theory is scientifically accurate.

2. Teach the scientific evidence for and against the key claims of Darwin’s theory, but don’t mandate the study of alternative theories such as intelligent design.

»» This is a common ground approach that focuses on science, and that all reasonable people should be able to accept.

»» This approach focuses on debates over Darwin’s theory that are already well-represented in the standard scientific literature (such as questions about the creative power of natural selection, the ability of random mutations to generate useful biological changes, and the origination of animal body plans during the “Cambrian Explosion”). If scientists can read about these debates in their science journals, why can’t students hear about them in biology class?

(The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 10:01 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

The issue of how to teach evolution in Florida has almost nothing to do with intelligent design. Indeed, the proposed standards are not recommending intelligent design. Instead, they seek to include evolution, thankfully. Students need to learn more about evolution, not less, which has always been our position. Unfortunately, the draft Florida standards don't call for teaching students the full story about evolution, which is a shame. The best solution to that problem would be to add more about the scientific weaknesses of evolution, not mandate intelligent design. Never mind, that hasn't kept Darwinists from trying to make intelligent design an issue.

Still, it is interesting that intelligent design even comes up in Florida. But it does.

Here is a letter attacking intelligent design and promoting evolution. Really there was no need to attack intelligent design. No one has proposed including those two words in the state's science standards. There is no legislation or initiative or serious proposal to mandate the teaching of intelligent design.

Apparently the letter writer, Rep. Dan Gelber, hasn''t read a major newspaper in America since 2005. If he had, he would have known that mentioning intelligent design supposedly has been outlawed (at least in the middle district of Pennsylvania). No matter, he is granted a whopping 393 words to make his case. That's a full 143 words more than is allowed letter writers by the newspaper's own guidelines. The Palm Beach Post claims it doesn't print letters of more than 250 words, but they printed this one. About an issue that isn't even being seriously proposed.

Again, there is no proposal to teach intelligent design. But they published a long letter refuting the non-existent threat, anyhow.

Me thinks the local paper dost protest too much.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:33 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Seattle Times editorial writer Bruce Ramsey has a short review of John West's Darwin Day in America in today's paper.

John G. West, who disbelieves in Darwinism, has written a book on its bad cultural consequences, from eugenics to permissive sex education. West's opponents will not read it, because he is a fellow of the Discovery Institute, the Seattle think tank that has championed Intelligent Design. And that is too bad, because even those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution, as I do, can concede that some things done in its name have been less than pleasing.

West offers a strong argument, some of which may be appreciated by those who are ultimately against him.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 9:02 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

This CBS News report falls immediately into the hole of stereotyping the debate over
evolution as simply a religious issue. The reporter ominously opines: "How did life begin? The question often divides faith and science." This is an all too familiar setup for an Inherit the Wind style treatment of the issue — as if the only questions about Darwinism are religious ones. Not so. There are a lot of scientific questions at play in this debate — indeed, all of the serious questions about the evidence are scientific.

Yet, as the report goes on, it manages to climb out of that hole to give a better, fuller look at the overall debate. This story shows that while there may be philosophical or religious implications to the science, it is the science that is at the heart of the debate. It's an interesting clip, and the reporter has an insightful commentary at the end, where he says:

If we as adults keep our minds open, and are willing to explore all possibilities, that is one of the most important lessons we can possibly pass along to our children.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:46 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

Supporters of Darwin's theory have claimed to oppose teaching religion in the nation's science classrooms for years. Now, just in time for Darwin Day 2008, leading evolution proponents (including the National Academy of Sciences, the Public Broadcasting Service, and the National Center for Science Education) are cynically promoting religious instruction in schools as a way of defusing opposition to Darwinian evolution.

On February 6, Discovery Institute Senior Fellow Dr. John West, author of Darwin Day in America (ISI Books), will present a tale of hypocrisy and hubris on the part of leading Darwinists. Join Dr. West at Discovery Institute in Seattle as he examines how these organizations are willing to undermine the First Amendment's Establishment Clause in order to promote their views. This event will be taped for online viewing as part of the ID the Future Darwin Day broadcast on Darwin Day, February 12.

Watch last year's Darwin Day broadcasts:

Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin — Part 1
Darwin Day and the Deification of Charles Darwin — Part 2

Posted by Anika Smith at 2:49 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

WHAT:
Stanford University will play host to a debate entitled Atheism vs. Theism & the Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design. This debate is being organized by student groups at Stanford: IDEA Club at Stanford,The Stanford Review and Vox Clara: A Journal of Christian Thought at Stanford.

WHO:
Chirstopher Hitchens vs. Jay Richards

Christopher Hitchens — Contributing editor to Vanity Fair; visiting professor, New School in New York; author of God is Not Great.
VS.
Jay W. Richards — Research Fellow and Director of Acton Media at the Acton Institute; co-author, with astronomer Guillermo Gonzalez, of The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos Is Designed for Discovery.

Hosted by Ben Stein — Journalist, author and actor in the soon-to-be released movie, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed.

Moderated by Michael Cromertie — Vice President at the Ethics and Public Policy Center; co-editor, with Richard John Neuhaus, of Piety and Politics.

WHEN:
Sunday, January 27th at 4pm PST

WHERE:
Stanford University
Dinkelspiel Auditorium
471 Lagunita Drive
Stanford, CA 94305

TICKETS: You must have a ticket to attend the event. Tickets can be reserved/obtained at no charge, by emailing: idea.stanford@gmail.com You must provide this information: Name, Affiliation ("Referred by …"), # of tickets. Seating is limited and tickets will be reserved on a first come, first reserved basis. On the day of the debate there will be a table out front for reserved tickets, and you can pick them up there at the event.

Posted by Robert Crowther at 10:21 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

I have written an extensive response to the National Academy of Sciences’ new anti-ID booklet, Science, Evolution, and Creationism. The full response, The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism, can be read online here or downloaded as a PDF. Permission is freely granted to reproduce the document for educational use. Below are some excerpts from the rebuttal:

Introduction
A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. Two years later, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its first Science and Creationism booklet, stating that science and religion occupy "separate and mutually exclusive realms.” Public skepticism of evolution remained high—a 1993 poll found that only 11% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes.

In 1999 the NAS released a second version of Science and Creationism, again reassuring the public that “science and religion occupy two separate realms." Still public skepticism remains high—a 2004 poll found that only 13% of Americans believe that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes, and a 2006 Zogby Poll found that about 70% of Americans support including scientific criticism of evolution in public school curricula.

Fearing the public’s unyielding skepticism of evolution, the NAS has now issued another ex cathedra edict promoting misinformation about intelligent design (ID) and bluffs about the scientific status of Darwinian evolution. What follows is a discussion of some of the errors in Science, Evolution, and Creationism.

[…]

Materialist neurologist Dr. Steven Novella recently took Deepak Chopra to task for Chopra’s support for mind-body dualism. Chopra, a respected physician and professor of medicine who has written and lectured extensively on spirituality in medicine, had pointed out the numerous problems raised by a dogmatic materialist understanding of the mind-brain problem. Materialists believe that the mind in a sense doesn’t exist as a separate entity; it’s merely a state of the brain, caused entirely by neurons and neurochemistry. Novella states:

Deepak … plays the “false controversy” gambit. He wants us to keep an open mind “until the argument is resolved.” But there is actually nothing left unresolved. Deepak has presented no mysteries that cannot comfortably be explained within the completely material paradigm of neuroscience. His “invisible will” is nothing more than a trick of semantics - not an established phenomenon; not a genuine mystery to be solved. He says the material paradigm is “untenable” but has presented nothing that makes it so. [emphasis mine]

Is there genuinely “nothing left unresolved’ in our understanding of the mind-body problem? Are there “no mysteries that cannot comfortably be explained within the completely material paradigm of neuroscience?” The truth is that there remain enormous mysteries, and virtually nothing about these mysteries is resolved. The mind-body problem is perhaps the most active and contentious area of modern philosophy, and there is very little “resolved”. Of the many issues raised by philosophers, perhaps the most important is the “hard problem of consciousness” formulated by philosopher David Chalmers.

Chalmers divides the problems of consciousness into the “easy problems” and the “hard problem”. The easy problems are the sort treated routinely by neuroscientists. These are problems such as ‘what is the neuroanatomical correlate of arousal?’ or ‘which neurotransmitters are associated with depression?’ Of course, these questions are not easy in a scientific sense, but they are tractable by the methods of science, which are, for the most part, methodologically materialistic.

The “hard problem” of consciousness is another matter entirely. The hard problem is this: why are we subjects, and not just objects? Why do we have subjective experiences? Descriptions of neurophysiology are all third-person — neurons do this, serotonin does that. Yet consciousness is experienced in the first person — ‘I,’ not ‘it.’ How is the ‘third person’ matter in our brains related to our actual first person experiences? The easy problems of consciousness relate to objective phenomena — neurotransmitters and action potentials. The hard problem of consciousness is qualitatively different — it’s the problem of subjectivity. As Chalmers explains, the hard problem “persist[s] even when the performance of all the relevant functions [e.g. neurochemistry] is explained.”

How could physical processes give rise to an inner mental life? What is the scientific link between matter and self-awareness? Materialist neuroscience offers no explanation for the subjectivity of our existence, and it’s difficult to see how objective phenomena ever could provide a satisfactory explanation for subjective mental experience. How can subjective experience be explained completely by investigation of brain tissue and neurochemicals?

Hence dualism. Dualism is and always has been an effort to come to grips with the quite real and most intractable problem in understanding the mind: the fact that we experience it in the first person. Dualism accommodates first person experience as well as the profound differences between mind and matter. It is consistent with many religious traditions, and with the way that the vast majority of people understand themselves. Many of the greatest scientists and philosophers have been dualists, from Plato, Aquinas, and Descartes to pioneering neurophysiologist and Nobel Laurate C.S. Sherrington, pioneering epilepsy neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield, Nobel Prize winning neurophysiologist John Eccles, and philosopher of science Karl Popper. Indeed, dualism has plenty of problems of its own, and dualists are honest about the problems. For example, how do the mind and brain actually interact? How can mind ‘substance’ interact with matter ‘substance’ without violating conservation laws in physics? Dualists acknowledge these problems. Materialists, on the other hand, dismiss the real problems, and, like Dr. Novella, blithely assure us that they have, or will have, all the answers. It’s just chemical-meat marinade, so trust them, and don’t ask so many questions.

Dr. Novella’s silly assertion that “there is nothing left unresolved” is promissory materialism, not real science or even respectable philosophy. It’s just materialist dogma. Neuroscience has been an effective method for sorting out some of the easy problems of the mind. Yet unlike dualism, materialist monism fails to even address, let along solve, the hard problem of the mind: why we are subjects, and not just objects.

Posted by Michael Egnor at 12:00 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

One could write many pages correcting the inaccurate information in the National Academy of Science's (NAS) new version of Science, Evolution and Creationism. One of its most egregious errors is that it blatantly misrepresents the flagellum. It states, “For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria.” (pg. 40) While technically this statement may be true if one looks at the fine-grain of the amino-acid sequence of every single protein among flagellum-bearing bacteria, there most certainly are highly conserved flagellar parts. In this regard, this statement is extremely misleading and inaccurate. Consider the conclusions, directly to the contrary of the NAS, of Mark J. Pallen et al.’s 2005 article in Trends in Microbiology, "Bacterial flagellar diversity in the post-genomic era":

The E. coli/S. enterica paradigm emerges remarkably intact from our survey of flagellar diversity in the postgenomic era and appears to provide a perfect example of Darwin’s epithet: ‘prodigal in variation but niggard in innovation’ [37]. We have been able to provide functional assignments to many conserved, but previously unrecognized, flagellar genes in diverse systems, emphasizing the continuity of flagellar structure and function. These observations will provide a firm foundation for future experimental studies, enabling conserved (and therefore presumably important) domains and residues to be identified. Surprisingly, we have determined the conservation of some regulatory components of the flagellar apparatus; for example, the FliA–FlgM system is common to flagellar systems spanning four bacterial phyla (proteobacteria, spirochaetes, firmicutes and thermotogales).

(Mark J. Pallen, Charles W. Penn, and Roy R. Chaudhuri, "Bacterial flagellar diversity in the post-genomic era," Trends in Microbiology, Volume 13, Issue 4, April 2005, Pages 143-149)

Three modular molecular devices are at the heart of the bacterial flagellum: the rotorstator that powers flagellar rotation, the chemotaxis apparatus that mediates changes in the direction of motion and the T3SS that mediates export of the axial components of the flagellum.

(Mark J. Pallen and Nicholas J. Matzke, "From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella," Nature Reviews Microbiology, AOP, published online 5 September 2006.)

Posted by Casey Luskin at 3:48 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In April, Random House will release a brand new book by CSC senior fellow David Berlinski, titled The Devil's Delusion: Atheism and Its Scientific Pretensions. Who better than an agnostic to argue with atheists about science?

William F. Buckley likes it.

“Berlinski’s book is everything desirable: it is idiomatic, profound, brilliantly polemical, amusing, and of course vastly learned. I congratulate him.”
—William F. Buckley Jr.

“With high style and light-hearted disdain, David Berlinski deflates the intellectual pretensions of the scientific atheist crowd. Maybe they can recite the Periodic Table by heart, but the secular Berlinski shows that this doesn’t get them very far in reasoning about much weightier matters.”
—Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences, Lehigh University, bestselling author of Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution

Posted by Robert Crowther at 7:38 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 14 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

PBS presents a thoroughly pro-Darwin only account of the debate over evolution. In fact, there are many reasons why we should teach the controversy over Darwinian evolution:

(1) Congress supports such a policy:
"The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society."¹

(2) The United States Supreme Court has sanctioned such a policy:
“We do not imply that a legislature could never require that scientific critiques of prevailing scientific theories be taught.”²

(3) Darwin himself supports such a policy:
In Origin of Species, Darwin stated, “A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”³

PBS's propaganda doesn't even employ the approach that Darwin himself purportedly recommends. Viewers of PBS’s “Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial” documentary will do well to learn about both sides of this debate.

For more information on problems with PBS-NOVA's "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary, please see any of the following links:

PBS Airs False Facts in its "Inherit the Wind" Version of the Kitzmiller Trial

>> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/pbs_airs_its_inherit_the_wind.html

PBS, Darwin and Dover: an Interview with Phillip Johnson [ID the Future Podcast]

>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-11-12T14_06_00-08_00

The Theory of Intelligent Design: A Briefing Packet for Educators [B & W Version]

>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=1453

NOVA Program on Intelligent Design Biased, Not by Chance but Because They Designed It That Way

>> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/needs_title.html

The Truth about the Kitzmiller v. Dover Trial

>> http://www.traipsingintoevolution.com

PBS Encouraging Teachers to Violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, Discovery Institute Reports

>> http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=4304

Who's on Trial? A Look at NOVA's Judgment Day [ID the Future Podcast]

>> http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2007-11-05T15_07_35-08_00

Paula Apsell’s Lessons Not Learned from the History of Science

>> http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/11/paula_apsells_lessons_not_lear.html

References Cited:
1. Conference report to No Child Left Behind Act; House Committee of Conference, Report to Accompany H.R. 1, 107th Cong. 1st sess., 78 (2001) H. Rept. 334, 78
(emphasis added). This language was originally supported by a 91-8 vote by the U.S. Senate.
2. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578, 593 (1987).
3. Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1859), Introduction, available at http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/introduction.html.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 1:06 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

In his acclaimed book Evolution: The History of an Idea, the respected historian of evolution Peter J. Bowler explains that the journal Nature was originally founded in the late nineteenth century by T. H. Huxley and others for the express purpose of promoting a “campaign” to support Darwinism:

By exploiting their position in this network, Huxley and his friends ensured that Darwinism had come to stay. (Ruse, 1979a). They controlled the scientific journals—the journal Nature was founded in part to promote the campaign—and manipulated academic appointments. Hull (1978) has stressed how important these rhetorical and political skills were in creating a scientific revolution. The Darwinists adopted a flexible approach which deflected opposition, minimized infighting among themselves, and made it easy for others to join their campaign. Many, like Huxley himself, were not rigidly committed to the theory of natural selection; they were simply anxious to promote the case for evolution.

(Peter J. Bowler, Evolution: The History of an Idea, pg. 185 (University of California Press, 3rd ed., 2003).)

Nature has remained adept at using “rhetorical and political” tactics as part of a “campaign” to support Darwinism, and thus it comes as no surprise that the latest issue of Nature contains an editorial praising the National Academy of Science’s new version of Science, Evolution, and Creationism because it “summarize[s] the reasons why evolution is in effect as much a scientific fact as the existence of atoms or the orbiting of Earth round the Sun.” Such statements are saddening because they elevate evolution to the status of an unquestionable dogma and thus threaten the prestige of science as an objective voice in society.

More importantly, what are scientists who do question Neo-Darwinism supposed to do when the top scientific organization in the U.S. proclaims that evolution is as unquestionable as the existence of atoms or the heliocentric model of the solar system? Clearly such statements threaten the academic freedom of scientists to dissent from Neo-Darwinian evolution. As CSC senior fellow John West recently explained, there is significant scientific dissent from neo-Darwinism that deserves to be heard, but the NAS is using grand sweeping edicts to remove the academic freedom of scientists to challenge evolution.

The title of Nature’s editorial is “Spread the word: Evolution is a scientific fact, and every organization whose research depends on it should explain why.” Again, we see politics at work: they think scientists should defend evolution because their “research depends on it.” It seems that what Bowler called Nature’s “rhetorical and political” defense of evolution has only increased—to the point of religion-like dogmatism—over the past century.

Posted by Casey Luskin at 7:18 AM | Permalink | TrackBacks (0)

[Editor's Note: This is slide 13 in a series of 14 slides available at JudgingPBS.com, a new website featuring "Darwin's Failed Predictions," a response to PBS-NOVA's online materials for their "Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial" documentary.]

PBS has a slide stating that evolutionary paleontologists “continue to unearth key fossils that bridge those gaps Darwin bemoaned.” But evolutionary paleontologist David Raup wrote in 1979 that “we are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded ... ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time.”¹ PBS asserts that fossils discovered in the “past half century” have “filled in” gaps to explain the Cambrian explosion in evolutionary terms. Yet a textbook published just six years ago acknowledges that the fossil record has not given clues to help explain the origin of animal phyla in the Cambrian explosion:

"Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, ‘fully formed,’ in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago...The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla."²

But this is not the only such "explosion" in the fossil record. Paleontologists have observed a fish explosion, a plant explosion, a bird explosion, and even a mammal explosion. Abrupt explosions of mass biological diversity seem to be the rule, not the exception, for the fossil record. Transitions plausibly documented by fossils seem to be the rare exception. As leading evolutionary biologist, the late Ernst Mayr, wrote in 2001, “When we look at the living biota, whether at the level of the higher taxa or even at that of the species, discontinuities are overwhelmingly frequent. . . . The discontinuities are even more striking in the fossil record. New species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”³

This phenomenon exists not only at the species level but also at the level of higher taxa, as one zoology textbook discusses:

"Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group."⁴

PBS also cites Archaeopteryx as an alleged transition between dinosaurs and birds. But Archaeopteryx is generally regarded as a true bird, and its alleged dinosaurian ancestors are only known from one locality--the Yixian formation in China--which is "at least 20 Myr younger than Archaeopteryx.”⁵ If Archaeopteryx is the first known true bird, then from what, if anything, did birds evolve? The fossil record does not tell us. Despite the problems with this evolutionary story, Phillip Johnson provides a lucid and charitable analysis of the importance of this fossil:

“Archaeopteryx is on the whole a point for Darwinists, but how important is it? Persons who come to the fossil evidence as convinced Darwinists will see a stunning confirmation, but skeptics will see a lonely exception to a consistent pattern of fossil disconfirmation.”⁶

References Cited:
1. David Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology", Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50 (1) (1979).
2. R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pages 9–10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).
3. Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 189 (Basic Books, 2001).
4. C.P. Hickman, L.S. Roberts, and F.M. Hickman, Integrated Principles of Zoology, page 866 (Times Mirror/Moseby College Publishing, 1988, 8th ed).
5. Carl C. Swisher III, Yuan-qing Wang, Xiao-lin Wang, Xing Xu, and Yuan Wang, "Cretaceous age for the feathered dinosaurs of Lianoing, C