As an example of what he misses, he points to the writing of the 19th-century anti-Darwinian writer Samuel Butler whose famed novel Erewhon satirizes evolutionary thinking, among other things. In the story, the protagonist visits a fictional dystopia called Erewhon which provides an occasion for Butler's sending up various aspects of Victorian culture, including Victorian science:

I remember one incident which bears upon this part of the treatise. The gentleman who gave it to me had asked to see my tobacco-pipe; he examined it carefully, and when he came to the little protuberance at the bottom of the bowl he seemed much delighted, and exclaimed that it must be rudimentary. I asked him what he meant.

"Sir," he answered, "this organ is identical with the rim at the bottom of a cup; it is but another form of the same function. Its purposes must have been to keep the heat of the pipe from marking the table upon which it rested. You would find. if you were to look up the history of tobacco-pipes, that in early specimens this protuberance was of a different shape to what it is now. It will have been broad at the bottom, and flat, so that while the pipe was being smoked the bowl might rest upon the table without marking it. Use and disuse must have come into play and reduced the function its present rudimentary condition. I should not be surprised, sir," he continued, "if, in the course of time, it were to become modified still farther, and to assume the form of an ornamental leaf or scroll, or even a butterfly, while in some cases, it will become extinct."

Today at his Huffington Post blog, Shapiro responds to Barham's challenge to distinguish his view from vitalism of one kind or another.

Shapiro responds in part:

Unfortunately, scientific vitalism, as championed by serious people like Hans Driesch, acquired a bad name in the early 20th century. Reliable observations definitely indicated sensory and control processes at work in embryonic development, wound healing and regeneration following experimental disruption. But the vitalists had no objective way to describe the cellular "home" of these capabilities.

Molecular biology has pointed us toward solutions by uncovering complex arrays of sensory, signaling, and decision-making networks in all living cells. In many cases we can enumerate network components and interactions, although in no case can we be sure the list is complete.

How these immensely sophisticated analog molecular networks operate is still a mystery. We can look to electronic computation systems for models and ideas. But I am not aware of any truly original conceptual understanding of how cell circuits operate that goes beyond the limits of current digital computers, which have neither the flexibility nor robustness of cell networks (let alone the capacity to reproduce).

I think the ability to change the genome is a basic vital function. Change is repeatedly necessary to adapt to a dynamic environment, as the fossil record demonstrates so well. Life is the story of organisms that succeeded in changing in response to periodic evolutionary crises.

I took pains in the book to say that origins-of-life questions are still beyond rigorous scientific investigation. We do not yet understand enough about life as we find it. This gap in understanding includes the issues of agency and teleology so fascinating to Barham.

I wrote here recently that -- again, if Shapiro is right -- that leaves intelligent design as the sole explanation of life's origin that seems remotely plausible, a major if implicit concession to the case Stephen Meyer makes in Signature in the Cell.

a guy being prodded in the face with an electrical current. Darwin then asked his guests-cum-guinea pigs to describe the emotion displayed in each photo. Was the subject happy? Sorrowful? Cheeky? Darwin hoped to determine what universal core emotions exist (if any) and what culturally modified variations branch from them.

Cambridge University's Darwin Correspondence Project was inspired by the experiment and conducted it anew using the same photos but a much larger sampling of viewers, some 18,000 in all.

Interestingly, the experimenters found that, far from being "wired" or somehow part of our animal nature, the way we interpret what facial expressions mean is culturally, not just biologically determined. Less than a century and a half later, for example, the meaning of a certain expression (produced when the "zygomaticus minor (left side), corrugator supercilli" muscles are galvanized) is read as indicating the subject is "confused." In Darwin's day, it meant he was "crying from grief."

Of the emotions, Wired notes that "You might say they've evolved." Yes but not, apparently, in the familiar Darwinian sense.

Image credit: Wikicommons.

What got this whole Carson controversy started, you remember, is the letter written by four Emory University professors and signed by close to 500 Emory faculty, staff and student, published in the Emory student paper. They were protesting against (and distorting) Carson's thoughts on evolution. Well, in the comments under the article, Hunter found that a reader had reproduced an email that one of the four professors, Jacobus de Roode, addressed apparently to signers of the original protest letter. It was a follow-up.

Dr. de Roode reports that Emory president James Wagner met with the university's Faculty Science Council and discussed, among other things, the matter of how Ben Carson, famed pediatric neurosurgeon at Johns Hopkins University who has admitted to being a Darwin doubter, came to be invited as Emory's Commencement speaker where he would also receive an honorary degree. There's no indication that Dr. Wagner directly apologized for honoring Dr. Carson but he came very close:

President Wagner explained that the committee who had invited Dr. Carson and recommended him for an honorary degree (in Humane Letters, not Science) had not explored fully Dr. Carson's views on evolution. He explained that the University has already implemented an additional background checking step in the procedures that will lead to commencement speaker invitations and the awarding of honorary degrees in the future. Overall, President Wagner thanked all those who signed the letter for bringing up this important issue, and for starting a valuable discussion among the Emory community. He expressed his hopes that this discussion can be followed up in the fall, with a College-wide discussion on truth and systems of belief.

I assume that Professor de Roode's account is authentic and accurate. I wrote him an email to check and will let you know. (UPDATE: Yes, it's authentic.)

Again, think what this means for Dr. Carson. Professor de Roode wrote the email, according to his heading, on April 30. The meeting with President Wagner happened, according to the email, on April 26. So more than two weeks before Commencement, faculty and administration together allowed it be known, on the website of the student newspaper, that if Emory had it to do over again they would have "background checked" Dr. Carson for dissenting evolutionary views. Even though he was never going to breath a word in his speech about evolution!

By clear implication, had his views come to light before Emory issued the invitation to Dr. Carson to be honored at Commencement, the university would have not have invited him to speak.

Otherwise, what point would there be in a background check? You find something suspect, and you go ahead and invite the guy anyway? I don't think so.

I imagine that Ben Carson is a man of the world and doesn't get his feelings hurt too easily. But this is a heck of a thing to know about your hosts as you're flying down to Atlanta from Baltimore to receive an honorary degree and speak at Commencement: that the university president who will hand you the degree and introduce you as Commencement speaker regrets having invited you and has told the science faculty as much? That the president and faculty allowed this to get out, in the student paper, is almost unbelievably shoddy.

Talk about Southern hospitality!

But as we've said all along, the main point to take away from this whole business is the message it sends to scientists and scholars who are more professionally vulnerable than Ben Carson. It says that you should regard any doubts you have about Darwinian evolution as a mark of poor character, a stain on your intellectual record, that will hinder you in any academic associations you seek to forge or maintain for yourself.

Want to get a job in academia, and keep it once you get it? Better hope your heterodox thoughts on evolutionary theory don't get out. Better still, much better if you are at all risk averse, just go ahead and adjust your opinions in line with evolutionary orthodoxy. Even if you don't intend to teach about evolution. Say what everyone else says, think what they think, and you stand a chance of getting ahead in university life.

Photo credit: TranceMist/Flickr.

Some 500 of Emory's faculty and students have condemned pediatric neurosurgeon and Commencement speaker Ben Carson for doubting Darwin. He's scheduled to speak at the campus in Atlanta and receive an honorary degree this morning sometime between 8 and 9:15 AM. In seeking to cast him in an embarrassing light, the professors used the familiar tactic of attributing to Dr. Carson beliefs, patently foolish ones, he does not hold. Emory's administration supported the professors and, as far as we know at this moment, has said nothing in favor of Dr. Carson's right to think for himself.

This shoddy treatment adds to what's often called a "chilling effect" on other scholars, less well armored by fame than Dr. Carson is. If even a star like him can be subjected to the indignity of this unwelcoming welcome, then think of what a less well known figure in academia would experience if he publicly voiced similar views. Intermediate-school students have their way of bullying; adults who are professional academics have their own methods. It's how they keep genuine skeptics in line.

That's why it was so important to communicate this message in a timely fashion.

Following is the letter from Center for Science & Culture associate director Dr. John West to Emory's president, Dr. Wagner:

May 13, 2012

James W. Wagner, President
Emory University

Dear Dr. Wagner:

Attached to this email I am forwarding an electronic petition gathered in the past few days by Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture and now bearing more than 2,700 signatures. The signers share a strong concern about the unworthy treatment that has been accorded to Emory University's Commencement speaker this year, Dr. Ben Carson, by Emory faculty and students.

We ask that you, as Emory's president, speak out promptly and unambiguously to affirm Dr. Carson's right to hold a dissenting view in the debate about Darwinian evolution. As you know, approximately 500 Emory faculty members, students and staff published a letter of their own not merely disagreeing with Dr. Carson on certain scientific and moral aspects of conventional evolutionary theory -- a position to which they are certainly entitled -- but grossly distorting Dr. Carson's published views and, in the process, making him appear foolish and disreputable.

The story has attracted national media attention. In public comments, an Emory University spokesman sided with the professors and said nothing in defense of Dr. Carson's right to express a different view. This had the effect of undermining the honor and welcome that normally go with the distinction of delivering a university's Commencement address and receiving an honorary degree. The signers of our petition believe that Emory's teaching staff has dishonored Dr. Carson.

This alone requires the courtesy of a statement of clarification from the university. However, even more important is the message that recent events at Emory send to scientists and scholars who are less prominent and therefore less "bullet proof" than Ben Carson.

There is a genuine and fascinating scientific debate going on about Darwinian theory -- specifically, about the explanatory adequacy of natural selection (operating on random variation) to account for the history of life's evolution, as compared to an alternative theory, that of intelligent design. The debate has important scientific, moral and cultural ramifications. Yet, for all that this is a scholarly discussion that needs to take place, scientists with doubts about Darwin are under the perpetual threat of intimidation and retaliation. As a result, many choose to maintain silence.

Distorting the views of opponents has been a key strategy of Darwin advocates, who seek to maintain the pretense of a freely determined scientific "consensus" on evolution. Responsible leaders in higher education need to take a firm stance and demand that science allow an open, no-holds-barred debate on evolution, where no one needs to fear that his name will be besmirched and his thoughts misrepresented in an effort to silence him.

The signers of this petition respectfully ask that Emory University offer a public statement calling on the scholarly community to refrain from intimidating dissenters in the evolution controversy and, instead, to allow an unhindered search for scientific truth.

Sincerely yours,

John G. West, Ph.D.
Associate Director, Center for Science and Culture
Discovery Institute, Seattle

Almost 500 Emory University faculty and students have expressed their dismay that their commencement speaker on Monday does not toe the ideological line when it comes to evolutionary biology. Yes -- gasp -- the renowned Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon Ben Carson does not believe in evolutionary theory. Not only that, but biology professors at Emory and their supporters also accuse Dr. Carson of committing a thought crime because he allegedly "equates acceptance of evolution with a lack of ethics and morality."

Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculty's consternation over Dr. Carson's belief that evolution undermines objective ethics and morality. Last summer, I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on "The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution." Thus, I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic. Nonetheless, many evolutionists -- from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference) -- have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Dr. Carson was highlighting: They claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.

Whether from willfulness or just sloppy self-righteousness, they have ended up smearing their own Commencement speaker. This is yet another instance of academic bullying by Darwin advocates, and it has received national attention in the media. Yet Emory University still has not responded with a statement affirming academic freedom.

Dr. Carson will also receive on honorary degree. Some honor!

We're delighted to have those two-thousand plus signers on our side and we'll be delivering the petition to Emory's president, James W. Wagner, by Monday morning, which is Commencement day at Emory. This is your chance to make a difference in the fight for academic freedom. Please take a moment and sign now! Tell your friends and email lists to do likewise!

Photo credit: Wikipedia.

Since I am a historian who has studied and published on the history of evolutionary ethics, I was rather surprised by the Emory faculty's consternation over Carson's belief that evolution undermines objective ethics and morality. Last summer I attended a major interdisciplinary conference at Oxford University on "The Evolution of Morality and the Morality of Evolution." So I am well aware that there are a variety of viewpoints in academe on this topic. Nonetheless, many evolutionists -- from Darwin to the present (including quite a few at that Oxford conference) -- have argued and are still arguing precisely the point that Dr. Carson highlighted: they claim that morality has evolved and thus has no objective existence.

One of the keynote speakers at the Oxford conference was a leading philosopher of science, Michael Ruse, who stated in a 1985 article co-authored with Harvard biologist E. O. Wilson: "Ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to co-operate." Why do biologists at Emory try to make Carson appear foolish for asserting that evolution undermines ethics, while one of the leading evolutionary biologists and one of the leading philosophers of science admit that evolution destroys any objective morality? Wilson in his book Consilience (1998) argued: "Either ethical precepts, such as justice and human rights, are independent of human experience or else they are human inventions." He rejected the former explanation, which he called transcendentalist ethics, in favor of the latter, which he named empiricist ethics.

The whole field of sociobiology, which is a vigorous field of biology founded by Wilson in the 1970s, presupposes that morality is the product of evolutionary processes and tries to explain most human behaviors by discovering their alleged reproductive advantage in the evolutionary struggle for existence. (Even some evolutionists consider some of their "just-so" stories either speculative or downright ridiculous.) Sociobiologists, and their colleagues in the related field of evolutionary psychology, have explained that behaviors ranging from adultery to infanticide to abortion to warfare -- and many, many more -- evolved because they conferred reproductive advantages to those engaging in these behaviors. On the flip side, they have also argued that altruistic behaviors -- such as helping the poor, healing the sick, taking care of the disabled -- simply helped our forebears get their genes into the next generation.

The idea that evolution undermines objective moral standards is hardly a recent discovery of sociobiology, however. In the Descent of Man, Charles Darwin devoted many pages to discussing the evolutionary origin of morality, and he recognized what this meant: morality is not objective, is not universal, and can change over time. Darwin certainly believed that evolution had ethical implications.

Ben Carson, then, should hardly be pilloried for arguing that evolution has ethical implications and that it undermines morality. If Emory University professors want to argue that evolution has no ethical implications, they are free to make that argument (I wonder how many of them actually believe this). However, if they do, they need to recognize that they are not just arguing against "benighted" anti-evolutionists, but against many of their cherished colleagues in evolutionary biology, including Darwin himself.

Emory University graduates should feel honored to receive a commencement address from Carson. Aside from the obvious -- his path-breaking surgical techniques and medical expertise that landed him a position at one of the most prestigious academic hospitals in the United States -- his life story of overcoming poverty and his subsequent dedication to philanthropy are exemplary and inspirational. His willingness to courageously embrace ideas he considers true, despite the ridicule heaped on him as a consequence, should count as another point in his favor.

When I was in the Army in the 1980s, my battalion was equipped with I-HAWK surface-to-air missiles. In addition, we had rugged launchers, cramped control stations, and powerful guidance radars. The guidance radar illuminated the bogey with radiation so that the on-missile receiver could clearly recognize it. This radar was particularly capable. After acquiring the target, the assembly would rotate and elevate as necessary, staying locked on to the moving target like a spectator at a tennis match. If lock was broken for whatever reason, the device would instantly begin searching for the target, frantically moving up and down, back and forth, as if it had a mind of its own, in an eerily human way.

Of course, this was a machine simply following a search algorithm that told it what success looked like. The radar looked intelligent. It was not intelligent.

Daniel Dennett has a similar story to tell, but draws different conclusions. His talk is publicly available. He speaks of another faux-intelligent system. He plays a video for his audience that documents the work of digital media artist Karl Sims showing evolution in action. Actor Alan Alda pleasantly narrates, and playful Disneyesque music fills the background.

Sims's work is useful for showing how computer algorithms behave, automating a task that could be done manually. In this simulation, the program starts with two eager to please, but mostly immobile digital blocks. These two blocks are jointed, and wobble to the best of their ability, but are stymied by their lack of complexity. These ur-blocks are then mutated to produce daughter organisms of increasingly complex design. Blocks of different sizes and orientation are added, and differing motion types are input. These changes produce (what else?) differences in mobility! Better organisms have evolved, all "without human intervention." Presumably, the unfortunate less-fit block creatures have been humanely euthanized. Dennett is positively radiant with this proof of Darwinism in action.

Of course, a little skepticism is in order. We're just staring at a computer screen here, and then talking about biology. Everything that is actually alive is physical, not virtual. Calling a thing biological doesn't make it so. Since we live in a physical world, it would have been helpful for Mr. Sims to build physical, not virtual, organisms. Obviously, introducing this level of added realism would bring the whole enterprise to a swift halt. It is hard to imagine shoeboxes that are bungee-corded together reproducing the motion prescribed by Sims.

The Sims-ulated organisms do not model life in any meaningful way. This program is modeling a very simplistic random search algorithm to produce an output, like a radar searching for an aircraft, or a robo-call computer punching out all the numbers inside of one area code, looking for a mark. The information, process, and therefore success have all been pre-loaded.

That we're only talking about blocks with magic joints cannot be overstressed. Think about a steam-powered locomotive, which was one of the first non-biological devices to show autonomous motion. A steam engine has a frame, tank, water, fuel, boiler, exhaust, cylinders, pistons, valves, regulators, wheels, pitman arms, axles...the list goes on. None of these highly interdependent and complex components arose via Darwinian processes applied to an ox cart.

Darwinism is a "bottoms up" view of life, which can work for components, but not to originate complex systems. A system is a coherent and sophisticated grouping of interrelated parts that all work to achieve a goal. Like an orchestra. The actions of the violinist are dependent upon those of the flautist and vice versa. Suppose each of the members of an orchestra were to compose and record a demo piece independently, and then the collection of 25 audiotapes were to be run concurrently. It would be gibberish, complete incoherence, as there was no top-down goal specified.

Years ago, there was a hilarious segment of the British television show Jeeves and Wooster with Hugh Laurie. The Drones, Wooster's man club, decided to make some money by playing banjo for parties. The Drones rehearsed, but the piece sounded awful and incoherent. As they played, the Drones looked at one another in discomfort. When the song concluded and everyone was feeling dismayed, one of the Drone banjo players jumped up and declared triumphantly, "I finished miles ahead of you fellows!" Clearly, he didn't get the memo.

As a last example of this, there is an informative video on YouTube that shows the sobering complexity of mobility. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) intelligently designed an ersatz mule to help soldiers carry equipment in combat. This was not designed in any Darwinian fashion.

To his credit, Dennett realizes that Sims's production is unreasonably simplistic, and he pokes fun at it. Why he uses it is clear. It is convincing, but only to the already convinced. The "bottoms up" method has already been tried experimentally in biology. You can take a mutagen such as a low-level poison or x-rays and artificially mutate a genome. What is found isn't astonishingly rapid progress coupled with moving music, but rather damaged or altogether unviable organisms.

Go here now and sign! Tell your friends and email lists to do so as well!

Here's the background. Emory invited Dr. Carson to deliver the university's Commencement address and receive an honorary degree this coming Monday. But when Darwin advocates on campus got wind of it, they kicked up a protest, gathering nearly 500 signatures from professors and students, and published a letter in the student newspaper distorting Carson's views on evolution and making him sound like a fool.

That's some way to make a guest feel unwelcome and dishonored! We are calling on Emory University to promptly reaffirm Dr. Carson's right, and that of any scientist or any thoughtful person at all, to hold a dissenting view on Darwinian theory without having to face rude and distorting attacks.

Please add your name and help get out the word! We'll be delivering the petition directly to Emory University.

There's much more at stake than Ben Carson's right to academic freedom. As we have exhaustively documented at ENV, the scientific "consensus" for Darwin and against intelligent design is maintained in the world of Big Science by a pervasive and poisonous culture of intimidation.

Ben Carson is a star. We're not worried about his future career prospects. We are very worried about the message his ill treatment sends to younger, up-and-coming scholars and scientists. Dr. Carson may be bullet-proof but other workers in the scientific fields are extremely vulnerable to Darwinist bullying and intimidation.

See our further coverage here.

If you help us convince Emory University to do the right thing and reconfirm its commitment to academic freedom, that's a victory for all the scientists whose names you may never have heard, who hold skeptical views on evolution but are afraid to speak openly.

Every signature makes a difference. Make your voice heard now!

Readers who expect a sharp clash of swords will be disappointed. In fact, some might wonder what disagreement, if any, exists between us. Indeed, at one point in his response, Falk suggests that we differ on a matter about which it happens we stand in further agreement. Falk is at pains to underscore that divine action is as real whether it happens naturally or supernaturally whereas he implies that design proponents, in looking for evidence of intelligent activity in nature, regard God as absent unless he is acting supernaturally:

God is always active, but scientific testing of God's activity would require a "control" where God is not active. How can we conduct an experiment which studies the "presence vs. absence of God" when God is always present as sustainer as well as creator? [Falk, part ii]

That said, I disagree with Falk's view that intelligent design (or ID), in looking for evidence of intelligence in nature, requires that God be present only in those instances where it identifies design and absent from the rest. For Falk to endorse such a claim flies in the face of a point that my colleagues and I in the intelligent design movement have underscored repeatedly, which is that our methods of design detection tells us where design is, not where it isn't. My explanatory filter, for instance, in identifying design, is subject to false negatives, i.e., it may fail to find design in places where it exists. Moreover, I never claimed that my method of design detection was the only way to identify design or purpose.

Now one might ask, If design is everywhere, then what's the point of developing a design-detection method? The problem is that even if in some metaphysically lofty sense everything that occurs is a product of design or purpose, as a practical matter we still need to distinguish among distinct modes of explanation, some of which are intelligent and some of which are not. As a matter of basic human rationality, we must distinguish among events, objects, and structures that we can legitimately take to be the product of intelligence and those that we take to be the product of natural forces and thus to give no direct evidence of intelligence.

For instance, radio signals reaching Earth from outer space may exhibit no salient pattern and thus appear random. Those signals, within the divine scheme of things, may be fully intended by God. And yet we would distinguish those signals from one that conveys a long sequence of prime numbers, as in the film Contact, which we would ascribe to an alien intelligence. The signal conveying a sequence of primes would, within the divine scheme of things, likewise be fully intended by God. But it is qualitatively different from random radio noise.

In any case, the issue is not, and should never be, whether ID saddles the theologian with an untenable view of divine action in which God might have to be counted as absent from certain parts of creation. Theologically speaking, ID imposes few limits and is compatible with God acting at all levels of creation and through all modes of causation. When design is detected, God is active. And when design is not detected, God is still active. This doesn't make ID contentless. Rather, it means that ID is largely neutral with respect to one's doctrine of God, a fact that should not be surprising given that ID is compatible not only with Judeo-Christian theism but also with just about any religious view that regards purpose as basic to reality. ID's content is scientific, not religious or theological. Insofar as it has metaphysical implications, it is in challenging naturalism.

In the paper to which Falk responds, I lay out four non-negotiables of Christianity as well as four non-negotiables of Darwinism. Falk and I are united on the four non-negotiables of Christianity, but differ a bit on those of Darwinism. The four non-negotiables of Darwinism that I list are common descent, natural selection, human continuity, and methodological naturalism. Because Falk and I both reject Darwinism, there's quite a bit of overlap in how we view these four non-negotiables. Nonetheless, I think it will help readers of my essay and Falk's response to clarify some of our differences here, subtle though they may be.

With regard to common descent, I agree with Falk that God could have brought about life by means of a large-scale form of evolution that links all organisms to a common ancestor. That said, I don't accept common descent. I think the scientific evidence is against it (for my reasons, see my book The Design of Life, coedited with Jonathan Wells). Also, even though common descent may be acceptable in broad theological terms, I think it is problematic exegetically with regard to Scripture. Simply put, I think you're going to have a hard time getting large-scale evolution out of Scripture or rendering the two compatible.

With regard to natural selection, Falk appears to accept that this is the principal mechanism by which organisms are brought into existence successively by an evolutionary process. At the same time, Falk does not want to see natural selection as devoid of purpose but rather as a mechanism through which God is able to accomplish his purposes. But in that case, in what sense is selection "natural"? Is Falk's view of natural selection, when viewed as a scientific hypothesis, any different from Richard Dawkins's? And if their views, taken scientifically, are the same, what is the evidence for the creative power of this mechanism?

Falk extols "God's marvelously ordinary processes of creation: ordinary because they follow his natural laws so faithfully, marvelous because they have resulted in a world of complex and beautiful life." In my view, the word "ordinary" is entirely out of place here. As I've argued with Robert Marks in a paper titled "Life's Conservation Law," even if life is the result of an evolutionary process driven by natural selection, it would have to be a form of selection finely tuned by an environment that is itself finely tuned (see our contribution to The Nature of Nature, edited by Bruce Gordon and me -- the paper in question is available online here).

Falk takes exception to my thinking it "odd" that God would create by natural selection, and thus by a process that gives no evidence of intelligence. And he rejects my charge that such a method of creation "occludes" God's activity. Falk, echoing Psalm 19, proclaims that all aspects of creation bespeak God's handiwork and glory. Now let me concede that "oddness," in the sense of what appears odd to us very limited human beings with our very limited vantages on the world, is not a good criterion for determining what God would and wouldn't do. Still, it hardly seems that God is mandated to create via a process that provides no evidence of his creative activity -- and nowhere does Falk admit that God provides actual evidence of himself in creation (at best he allows that nature provides "signposts" -- but what exactly are these signs? who is reading them? why should we take them as pointing to God?). Moreover, for Falk to echo the psalmist is hardly an argument for the world proclaiming God's handiwork and glory, because many atheistic evolutionists will deny Falk's confident affirmations of divine perspicuity.

I've seen this directly. I recall posting on my blog a gorgeous picture of wildflowers, hinting at the wonders of God's creation, and seeing comments by atheistic evolutionists who dismissed it as merely "sex" run amuck. Thus, when Falk echoes Psalm 19, what more is he doing than giving expression to his own faith? Indeed, what more is he saying to atheists than merely "I see God's hand in all of this and you don't -- you're blind and I see." Perhaps faith has given him sight that atheists lack. But in that case, how can it be claimed that God is not occluding his activity in nature? God, as omnipotent, can certainly make his existence and presence known to even the most ardent atheist - we can all imagine flamboyant enough miracles that would convince anyone.

Still, the more interesting question here is whether there is a rational basis for Falk's faith that is grounded in the order of nature. ID, in finding scientific evidence of intelligence in nature, says there is. Falk, along with BioLogos generally, denies this. But in that case, how can he avoid the charge that the faith by which he sees God's handiwork is merely an overlay on top of a nature that, taken by itself, is neutral or even hostile to Christian faith? Note that I'm not alone in thinking it odd that God would create by natural selection. Many atheistic evolution see evolution as a brutal and wasteful process that no self-respecting deity would have employed in bringing about life. Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, and the late Stephen Jay Gould were united on this point.

With regard to human continuity, I'm glad to see that Falk regards humans as exceptional and thus doesn't follow Darwin in affirming the full continuity between humans and the rest of the animal world. Still, I don't think Falk goes far enough. For Falk, what distinguishes humans from the rest of the animal world is that God has chosen to enter into a special relationship with us. But does that mean God could as well have chosen to enter into a special relationship with dolphins, say, and, given their present cognitive and moral capacities, have endowed them with the image of God? Falk isn't clear on this matter, but I would argue that human exceptionalism depends, in the first instance, on our God-given capacities, which are different in kind from the rest of the animal world (notably our moral, aesthetic, cognitive, and linguistic capacities). From these capacities it then follows that we can have a special relationship with God and properly be regarded as made in the divine image. And note, if these capacities truly render us exceptional, then they pose a stumbling block for any purely naturalistic account of evolution because, as Falk rightly notes, our "material ordinariness" makes us one with the rest of the animal world.

Finally, with regard to methodological naturalism, Falk makes the thought-provoking point that in working miracles in salvation history, God has special purposes for humanity and thus is under no compulsion to act the same way in natural history, where he might work exclusively through ordinary natural processes. Thus God might work naturally in the one and supernaturally in the other with no contradiction or tension. Let me grant this point, though, as a sociological matter, thinkers who have embraced methodological naturalism have often found themselves on a slippery slope and ended up rejecting miracles in salvation history as well. Take, for instance, Howard Van Till.

In any case, it seems that whether God acts miraculously only in salvation history and only naturally in natural history needs more justification than simply "God might have good reasons for doing so." Before taking this position, an evidential question needs first to be answered, namely, what is the evidence that purely natural forces are capable of doing all the creative work required for nature to produce a profligate living world that includes hawks, hippos, and humans. Many definitions of miracles exist, but the one central to this discussion treats them as events beyond the ordinary powers of nature. Men dead and buried for three days don't rise again simply through the ordinary forces of nature (Mary Shelley's Frankenstein notwithstanding). Likewise, it is an open question whether purely natural forces are able to produce the information-rich structures that we find in living things. To say that Darwin or his naturalistic successors have solved this problem is delusional.

In conclusion, I found much to agree with in Falk's response to my essay and am heartened to see that we are on the same page theologically, upholding traditional Christian orthodoxy, affirming the classic creeds of the church, and doing so without reservation. Moreover, I found it refreshing that Falk would distance himself and BioLogos from strict Darwinism, which Falk rightly sees as spanning not only the Origin of Species but also the far more theologically contentious Descent of Man. Ultimately, our main source of disagreement is scientific: What properly counts as scientific inquiry? Can ID legitimately qualify as science? Is the evidence for a purely naturalistic form of evolution so compelling that thinking Christians must adopt it? I hope to see further exploration of such questions at BioLogos.

All that, but if you once shared your critical thoughts on evolutionary science and its moral implications -- everything else about you suddenly dwindles to very little.

Dr. Ben Carson of Johns Hopkins University is that man. He's scheduled to give the Commencement address and receive an honorary degree at Emory University but close to 500 faculty members, students and staff protested, drawing up a gravely serious letter to the student paper expressing their "concerns." Over what? Carson had no intention of speaking about evolution but someone dug up an impromptu interview he once gave to a publication associated with his Christian denomination (he's a Seventh Day Adventist).

Carson explained why he's not impressed by the evidence on offer for Darwinian theory and why a materialist philosophy is at odds with the idea of free will and therefore makes it tough to offer a coherent account of moral principles. The interview is casual in tone and it's not clear whether his views are more along the lines of theistic evolution, intelligent design, or some other perspective. Not that the protestors seemed inclined to make any careful distinctions.

Emory isn't withdrawing the invitation and the letter's signatories don't demand that the university do so. But they do distort his opinions and make him sound far less thoughtful than he actually is. Because he says you can't, under materialism, give a sound rationale for morality, they claim he said that evolutionists are therefore morally defective, which is of course absurd.

At the First Things website, Princeton University moral philosopher Robbie George comes to Carson's defense. Professor George agrees with Carson:

But of course Gentle Ben (and he is indeed one of the gentlest, kindest people one could ever meet) doesn't believe that his Darwinist friends and colleagues are necessarily unethical. What he believes is that Darwinism is necessarily materialistic. (This is a view about Darwinism that he shares with some devout Darwinists themselves.) And he believes that materialism, if true, is incompatible with free will and with ethical norms (which must be, after all, norms for the guidance of free choices, if they are to have any standing, force, and validity at all). Now, he knows perfectly well that people who believe in materialism are in many cases decent, honorable, ethical people. But he thinks that they lead lives that are much better than their formal philosophical beliefs would require them to lead. He believes that their commitment to materialism makes it impossible for them to give a sound account of the ethical norms which they themselves, to their credit, live by. Of course, he might be wrong about that (though I don't think he is), just as he might be wrong about the validity of Darwinism as a scientific theory, or the compatility of Darwinism with the rejection of materialism. But it's certainly not a mean or crazy thing to believe or say. It's scarcely a cause for "concern" about having him as a Commencement speaker.

Campus spokesman Ron Sauder said Emory wasn't aware of Carson's views on evolution until after extending the invitation. The invitation isn't necessarily an endorsement of Carson's opinions. "Our position is to follow the research and the scientific method where it leads," Sauder said. "Our leading life scientists would define our views on evolution, and the number of signatories on that petition would probably speak to that."

If Carson's brief comments on evolution drew this kind of harsh and distorting criticism, imagine the results if he were someone else: a young scientist seeking a strong start to his career, a not so young but still untenured scientist with his livelihood to protect, even a tenured academic worried about his reputation and the future careers of his own grad students.

Imagine one of those folks harboring private doubts about Darwin -- as, in fact, we know that plenty do. He would have to be nearly suicidal, in disregarding his future job prospects -- either that or fantastically brave -- to breath a word about his opinions.

This is, once again, how Darwinists maintain the fiction that the scientific community has reached a freely determined "consensus" in favor of Darwinian evolution and against competing scientific views like intelligent design. The consensus is maintained by intimidation. It's a farce -- but for vulnerable people in academic life, a scary farce.

What I'm saying is that the evidence for evolution that is available to the casual person of interest, including most students, is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless. In other words, the popular argument for evolution is bull****, independent of the underlying reality of evolution or the evidence available to experts in the field.

Those who subscribe to universal common ancestry interpret biological similarity of sequence, structure and anatomy as resulting from descent with modification from a common ancestral source. ID proponents who question common ancestry typically interpret biological similarity as resulting from a common blueprint. Is there a way to evaluate which of these two competing hypotheses better fits the evidence?

If you take such similarity as pointing to common descent, then you would expect to see it exhibiting a nested hierarchical distribution, the more seamless the better. In other words, the patterns of distribution of this similarity ought to mutually corroborate a single family tree. Sure, there might be occasional deviations from that tree, the results of phenomena such as incomplete lineage sorting. One would not expect to see the pervasive occurrence of a high degree of similarity -- what would normally be regarded as "homology" -- that decidedly cannot be accounted for within the framework of common descent. Yet that is in fact what we do observe.

Perhaps the most impressive examples of convergent evolution are those that occur at the molecular level -- that of amino acid or even nucleotide sequences. Assessing the pervasiveness of convergence at the nucleotide sequence level is difficult, however, owing to a current lack of available data. Indeed, Castoe et al. (2010) point out that "complete vertebrate nuclear genomes still number in the tens, not hundreds."

Even so, the little data that we do have yield startling results. One example of such convergence, documented by Zhang (2006), is the case of the pancreatic RNase in the African colobine monkeys and Asian colobine monkeys (thought to have diverged some 13 million years ago). Three identical nucleotide substitutions occurred in the DNA coding for these enzymes in the two lineages. This resulted in a lowering of the pH of the enzyme's maximum ribonucleolytic activity from 7.4 to 6.3, allowing the enzyme to work in more acidic conditions than normal, making it perfectly suited for the small intestine.

Cuevas et al. (2002) have furthermore documented, in retroviruses, the occurrence of molecular convergences in 12 variable sites in independent lineages. Some of these convergent mutations even took place in intergenic regions (changes in which are normally thought to be selectively neutral) and also in synonymous sites. The authors note that this is fairly widely observed among HIV-1 virus clones in humans and in SHIV strains isolated from macaques, monkeys and humans.

Mitochondrial DNA data has revealed even more astonishing results. Castoe et al. (2009, 2010), for example, report the occurrence of 44 parallel amino acid substitutions in all 13 mitochondrially encoded oxidative phosphorylation metabolic proteins in the distantly related snakes and agamid lizards. Their 2009 paper notes:

These results indicate that nonneutral convergent molecular evolution in mitochondria can occur at a scale and intensity far beyond what has been documented previously, and they highlight the vulnerability of standard phylogenetic methods to the presence of nonneutral convergent sequence evolution.

Gene function explains part but not all of the observed pattern of parallel genetic evolution. In several cases, parallelism has been observed even though mutations in a large number of genes can produce similar phenotypic changes. For example, although more than 80 genes regulate flowering time, changes in only a subset of these genes have produced evolutionary changes in flowering time. Hundreds of genes regulate the pattern of fine epidermal projections, called trichomes, on Drosophila melanogaster larvae. But only one gene, called shavenbaby, has evolved to alter larval trichome patterns between Drosophila species, and this gene has accumulated multiple evolutionarily relevant mutations. [internal citations omitted]

In the entire regulatory network governing development of the Drosophila embryo, only shavenbaby, with its specialized function to rally the entire module of trichome morphogenesis, can accumulate mutations that alter trichome patterns without disrupting other developmental processes.

The paper reports that echolocating dolphins "group with echolocating bats in a phylogenetic tree of Prestin." Jones (2010) states that,

...dolphins and porpoises share at least 14 derived amino acid sites in prestin with echolocating bats, including 10 shared with the highly specialized CF bats. Consequently, dolphins and porpoises form a sister group to CF bats in a phylogenetic analysis of prestin sequences (Figure 1). This finding is arguably one of the best examples of convergent molecular evolution discovered to date, and is exceptional because it is likely to be adaptive, driven by positive selection.

Another example is reported by Robson et al. (2000), who document that 28 of the amino acids in the oothecin protein of the cockroach are in exactly the same order as those in the lampry lamprin protein. The authors state that "sequence similarities between lamprin and oothecin, which share a 28/30 amino acid sequence identity, may represent one of the best examples of primary sequence convergence so far identified."

Furthermore, Lawn et al. (1997) report on the "convergent evolution of apolipoprotein(a) in primates and hedgehog." Apolipoprotein(a), or apo(a), a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that is a risk factor for human atherosclerosis, is found in Old World primates (Catarrhini), and has also been identified in European hedgehogs. Remarkably, the protein functions identically in both organisms. The paper reports,

By apparent remodeling of a plasminogen-like gene, hedgehog and human ancestors independently evolved an apo(a) protein with multiple kringle domains that covalently links to apoB-containing lipoproteins, binds fibrin, lacks proteolytic activity, and competitively inhibits plasminogen activation.

Even highly sophisticated molecular mechanisms have often evolved multiple times independently. One especially remarkable case of this is the convergent evolution of very similar DNA biosynthesis mechanisms in the archaea and the eubacteria (Leipe et al., 1999). Complex camera eyes have also arisen independently in multiple ineages, having evolved in chordates and molluscs, as well as alciopid annelid worms (Wald and Raypart, 1977) and two different groups of spiders (Laughlin, 1980; Williams and McIntyre, 1980).

Finally, one of the most astonishing cases of convergent evolution is discussed by Lukes et al. (2009). This paper concerns the evolution of two major distantly related phyla of flagellate protozoa, namely, the dinoflagellates and euglenozoa. These two groups are taxonomically so far apart that they are even members of different kingdoms (chromalveolates and excavates respectively). What is remarkable about these groups is that their evolutionary trajectories -- indeed the evolution of "fundamental structures and processes" -- have substantially deviated, in numerous respects, from other eukaryotes.

But here's the point: Despite being very distantly related, these two lineages have deviated from the eukaryotic norm, in many cases, in much the same fashion. Indeed, there is a treasure trove of independently acquired features and characteristics. The paper (whose contents are helpfully summarized in this lecture) discusses numerous instances of convergent evolution pertinent to cellular organization, the nucleus, the plastid and the mitochondrion.

Convergent evolution is everywhere in biology. Many more examples could be given: The cases described above barely scratch the tip of the iceberg.

In his book Convergent Evolution: Limited Forms Most Beautiful, George McGhee reflects,

But what about the numerous cases in nature whether the morphological data and the nuclear data clash? In those cases, it is generally assumed that similarities in morphological traits have arisen by convergent evolution and are not synapomorphies, because the nuclear genome data can be trusted to be almost free from molecular convergences. What if this is not true?

In other words, extensive convergent evolution at the DNA level is considered to be so improbable under standard evolutionary assumptions that the nuclear data is preferred over morphological data in those many cases where conflict exists. In light of the numerous instances of demonstrable molecular convergence, however, the validity of this assumption -- perhaps even some of the key tenets of the modern evolutionary paradigm -- may need to be revisited. The widespread nature of homoplasy at both the molecular and morphological level substantially undercuts the frequent argument for common descent based on the nested hierarchical distribution of shared traits among organisms.

For further material on homoplasy and convergent evolution, in addition to George McGhee's book mentioned above, I refer readers to Simon Conway Morris's Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (you can also find Conway Morris's website on the topic here); as well as Fazale Rana's contribution (chapter 21) to The Nature of Nature. No doubt the more genomes that are sequenced the more the pervasive nature of homoplasy will come to be appreciated.

Image credit: Wikipedia.

"'Copying' error may have built up our brains," reports MSNBC in a headline that captures the gist of the excited science-media coverage.

A copyediting error appears to be responsible for critical features of the human brain that distinguish us from our closest primate kin, new research finds.

When tested out in mice, researchers found this "error" caused the rodents' brain cells to move into place faster and enabled more connections between brain cells.

That's also when the brains of our ancestors began to expand and when dramatic changes in cognitive abilities are likely to have emerged.

The researchers don't think SRGAP2 is solely responsible for that brain expansion, but the genetic interference does have potential benefits. Polleux and colleagues mimic the function of the human-specific SRGAP2 duplication in mice. They show that loss of SRGAP2 function accelerates neurons' migration in the developing brain, potentially helping them reach their final destination more efficiently. Moreover, neurons that have decreased SRGAP2 function, due to expression of the human-specific SRGAP2 display more knob-like extensions or spines on their surfaces, making the neurons appear much more like those found in the human brain. These spines enable connections between neurons to form.

Only one account I found, in The New Scientist, actually asked the question and the answer is: No one knows!

Although Polleux and his colleagues have not yet figured out whether the mice were smarter, he says those experiments are in the works.

Photo credit: Ruud Hein/Flickr.