Search This Blog

Friday 20 May 2022

Anthropocentrism back with a bang? II

In His New Book, Denton Shows How Science Leads the Charge to Theism

Neil Thomas
 
 

William Paley once quipped that observation of the complexity of the human eye (which, it will be recalled, was wont to give Darwin uncomfortable doubts about the efficacy of natural selection) supplied an assured “cure for atheism.” Extending Paley’s quip, I would add that if the eye doesn’t do it for you, the brain with its quadrillions of synchronizedelectro-chemical operations almost certainly will. There seems to be little exaggeration in claiming that cytology, the microscopic study of cells enabled by the ultra-high magnifications of the electron microscope, has led to a wholly unexpected revival of the fortunes of Paley’s once derided natural theology.

Recent advances in biological science, a subject formerly proclaimed to be corrosive of metaphysical beliefs1, have somewhat unexpectedly become a stimulus to the emergence of new advances which endorse many of the older observations of natural theology. As astronomer Paul Davies remarked some four decades ago, “It may seem bizarre, but in my opinion science offers a surer path to God than religion.”2 Supporting this contention — that science itself leads the charge toward a fresh theistic turn — Michael Denton makes the firm observation in his new book, The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence, that recent studies of the way the terrestrial environment appears to be fine-tuned for humankind are “not based on the Judeo-Christian scriptures or classical philosophy but on evidence derived from advances in our scientific understanding of nature.” (p. 208)

Gifts from the Gods

Providing chapter and verse for his views, in convincing detail with an enviably multi-disciplinary command, Denton elaborates on ways in which the properties of light, carbon, water, and metals contribute to the fitness of nature for humankind, providing substantial circumstantial evidence that the world we in habit was “pre-adapted” for our use. Taking as an example the earth’s hydrological cycle, which provides our water, this reveals itself to be an autonomous phenomenon enabling and promoting human life which, unlike gasoline and other products, requires no human input to garner it for our use. It is, to use a proverbial cliché, simply “a gift from the gods.” Comments Denton: “If you were Plato’s demiurge starting from scratch, you would need to create water and configure it with precisely its present suite of thermal properties.” (p. 134)

Turning to human physiology, Denton points out how such organs as the heart and lungs appear to have been optimized with “extraordinary prescience” and he does not hesitate to call them and other human organs “miracles of bioengineering.” Such fitness for human purpose, he emphasizes, cannot be ascribed to Darwinian natural selection since human-friendly features must have been built into nature long before natural selection could have had time to act. (p. 149) Fully embracing Darwin’s proscribed “t” word (teleology), Denton does not shrink from referencing the “teleological details” of nature’s shaping. 

Denton is particularly strong on what he terms “the post-Copernican delusion of mankind’s cosmic irrelevance.” (p. 149) This is a fallacy which he traces back to Darwinism’s having triggered a form of philosophical regression towards an unregenerate form of ancient materialism:

With the acceptance of Darwinism by the biological mainstream, western civilization took the final step back to the atomism, materialism and many-worlds doctrine of Democritus and other pre-Socratic philosophers of ancient Greece. (p. 21)

The notion that we are simply an “epiphenomenon” of mindless processes cast adrift in a cosmos configured by pure chance has in the last half century or so been challenged by a new scientific landscape, Denton argues — with some understatement. For as Michael Behe comments in his advance praise of Denton’s work, the philosopher Bertrand Russell’s notorious contention that “Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving” has turned out to be “the most spectacularly wrong-headed pronouncement of the 20th century.” (p. ii)

No Respecters of Compartmentalization

Questions about the nature and origin of mankind are clearly no respecters of traditional academic compartmentalization, and Darwinism has clear cosmological as well as biological implicationsIt is at this point of intersection that Denton’s work makes common cause with the idea put forth by modern astronomers that planet Earth itself must have in some sense been, to use Denton’s term, “pre-planned.” Before the beginning of the 1970s many people might have accepted that the universe was a jumble of material forces churning away mindlessly over the eons with the unaccountable exception of the unplanned anomaly of human life. Yet that idea was challenged once astrophysicists came to realize that planet Earth was being constantly ministered to by a group of forces dubbed the cosmological constants, all precisely calibrated to promote and sustain life.3 Such factors give the Earth its uniquely privileged position and run counter to the older opinion that it arose through purely aleatory processes of cosmic vicissitude. These modern findings stand in implicit but conspicuous opposition to that “de-centering” of the Earth brought about by the Copernican Revolution, and Denton points to many points of contact linking modern cosmology and biology with the distinctly anthropocentric medieval view of the human estate as it has been articulated by the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Surrounded by an infinity of purposeless nullity on all sides, our Earth stands out as a cosmic beacon pulsating with life and purpose.4 Cosmologists make no bones about the fact they can see no logical pathway to how we all came to be here on this planet. The cosmological constants which create conditions favorable to life are on any statistical reckoning improbable to an extreme, even prohibitive degree. The same goes for the genesis and proliferation of life forms: the whole phenomenon remains stubbornly unamenable to rational decipherment. There cannot even be any sensible talk of an inference to the best explanation when there are no helpful indices pointing in any direction on the naturalistic continuum of understanding.

A Singular Cosmic Exception

Planet Earth would therefore appear to represent a cosmic exception so singular as to require a separate form of explanation altogether from the rest of a dead universe. In fact, the absolute disparity in existential status between our living cosmos and its surrounding chaos of jostling corpse planets prompts the inference that sentient life could not have developed without a form of foresight and an accompanying instrumental power to realize some originary vision through a selective abrogation of the otherwise universal laws of chaos dominating the rest of the universe. Hence, despite the undeniable fact of the sun’s geometrically central position, Earth, as the single locus of habitability amidst the lifeless chaos of our extraterrestrial surroundings, can with some justice lay claim to a form of moral and symbolic centrality within the cosmic scheme of things.

Earth’s Accumulated Intricacies

Denton has gone further than this in earlier writings and argued that the new discoveries in astrophysics point to a form of providential dispensation. For that reason he has taken exception with modern liberal theologians who have apparently resigned themselves to seeing science and theology occupying discrete epistemological realms where science acts as the “senior partner,” so to speak. Support for Denton’s position has also been amply hinted at in the work of Paul Davies who concludes that it would be a considerable stretch to suppose that the temperate zone cocooning the Earth might be the result of pure accident. He therefore feels himself unable to subscribe to the belief that the accumulated intricacies of our planet could have come about by pure chance.5

Even Denis Diderot, it will be recalled, one of the free-thinking French philosophes who was speculating on evolutionary matters in the same century as Charles’s free-thinking grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was ready to accept the Argument from Design. It seemed self-evident to Diderot that the readily observable and palpable “works of nature” were more convincing of a divine hand then any amount of philosophizing or theologizing.6 Diderot’s somewhat inchoate intuitions certainly receive weighty and scientifically corroborated support in Michael Denton’s The Miracle of Man.

Notes

  1. Daniel Dennett, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea (London; Penguin, 1996).
  2. Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (London: Penguin, 1983), Preface, p. ix.
  3. These constants include the protective electromagnetic force issuing from the Earth’s still molten core and the force of gravity, which turns out to be neither too strong nor too weak, neither crushing us nor causing us to levitate into the skies. From being just the right distance from the sun we derive warmth and energy without being burned to a cinder and remain protected by the solar shield from the bane of astronauts, harmful cosmic rays. See Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery (Washington: Regnery, 2020).
  4. See Jonathan Witt and Benjamin Wiker, A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature (Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 2006).
  5. See Paul Davies, The Mind of God: Science and the Search for Ultimate Meaning (London: Penguin, 1992).
  6. For discussion of this point see Mitchell Stevens, How Atheism Helped Create the Modern World (London: Palgrave, 2014), pp. 118-21.

 

"Survival of the fittest" taken to its logical conclusion?

Weikart: In His Own Mind, White Supremacist Gunman Was Only Following the Science

David Klinghoffer
 

After the supermarket shooting in Buffalo, NY, a woke church in my neighborhood quickly posted on its marquee sign, “WHITE SUPREMACY: AMERICA’S ORIGINAL SIN.” According to some, white supremacy is of pandemic proportions in the U.S. It takes surprising shapes — even people of color can be white supremacists, we’re told. It is not only widespread, but growing rapidly. Evangelical Christianity is tainted by it. Political conservatives “enable” it, or worse. Apparently it’s so on the march as to be a “harsh reality” in, of all places, our politically correct neighbor Canada

President Biden this week said it is “running through our body politic.” If so, it’s strange that I’m not sure I’ve ever met a genuine white supremacist. But we know they are out there. Even if in reality they are only a minuscule minority, one mentally ill young man with such ideas in his mind can perform an act of shocking evil, as happened last weekend in Buffalo. It’s worth understanding why, not simply assuming that we know.

Reading the Manifesto

Historian Richard Weikart is among the few analysts who have troubled themselves to read the gunman’s manifesto. When he did, Weikart found that the mental profile of this shooter, like others before him, defies almost every stereotype about white supremacy currently being circulated. The accused killer, while upholding the vilest racism and anti-Semitism, disdains Christianity and conservatism. In the individual’s own telling, he took inspiration from what Professor Weikart in his recent book calls Darwinian Racism. The killer explains that he is only following the science — the very best evolutionary science.

Weikart writes on this at Townhall:

[H]e continually claims that he is a man of reason and logic, and he tries to demonstrate that his racist views are actually scientific, not based on religion or emotion. 

He also appeals to science to explain why races are unequal. According to this young man — and most white nationalists today — races arose through biological evolution. He argues that races are subspecies that have diverged, not only in physical traits, but also in their mental and moral characteristics. He believes that the white race has evolved to have higher intelligence and that blacks have evolved with greater biological tendencies to crime, rape, and other immoral behavior.

Built upon this Darwinian framework, he became obsessed with what he considers the on-going competition between races in the struggle for existence. To be sure, he does not actually use the term “struggle for existence,” but he does use the term “struggle” a number of times. He also describes the Darwinian struggle for existence, which is competition between organisms to out-reproduce other organisms. Darwin stated that this struggle was most intense within a species, and he also proclaimed in The Descent of Man that some indigenous races were being driven to extinction by other races (primarily the Europeans) in the human struggle for existence.

White supremacists, including the Buffalo mass murderer, are obsessed with the differential reproductive rates between the races, believing that this will result in the defeat of the white race in the Darwinian struggle. Their “replacement theory” is intended as a warning that the white race will be replaced by other races.

In His Own Words

This fits a pattern with recent mass killers, as political scientist John West has also noted. You would need to peer into the shooter’s soul really to understand the origins of his madness and hatred. No one can do that. All we have to go on are his own words. For all the denunciations of opponents from political partisans, cynically using this terrible crime to tar competing views, isn’t it strange that so few media folks or politicians appear to be interested in the young man’s own account of himself.

 

 

Plenty of guilt to go around? II

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/VWrfjUzYvPo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Plenty of guilt to go around?

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/wsaPQ8jOqGo" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Anthropocentrism back with a bang?

Denton: Return of the Man Hypothesis

Evolution News
 

On a new episode of ID the Future, host Eric Anderson sits down with Australian biologist and MD Michael Denton to discuss his new book, The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence. As Denton notes, throughout the Middle Ages, humans were viewed as central to the cosmic scheme of things. But this anthropocentric view began to fall out of favor in the 16th century, and few if any scientific discoveries in the subsequent two centuries offered any apparent aid or comfort to the view.

That, however, isn’t the end of the story. According to Denton, even as Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution by natural selection seemed to be draining from the idea what little life remained in it, discoveries in chemistry, physiology, and physics were emerging. Playing on the title of Stephen Meyer’s recent book, it was the return of the man hypothesis — revitalizing the outlook that placed man at the center of the cosmos, not in a physical way, as before, but in a far more important metaphysical sense.

Denton says that the case that nature is fine tuned for intelligent creatures such as ourselves — land-going, air-breathing bipeds capable of controlling fire and developing new technologies — is today stronger than ever, and getting stronger. The Miracle of Man brings together the key lines of evidence as never before. Find the book, and advance praise for this capstone work, here. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

 

Thursday 19 May 2022

The truth has fallen. III

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6hD1mNrY6R4" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

With us in mind?

Earth’s Atmosphere Demonstrates Stunning Biocentric Fine-Tuning

Michael Denton
 

Summary: Our planet’s atmosphere provides a beautiful example of the parsimony and elegance of nature’s fine-tuning for aerobic life. This extraordinarily improbable degree of environmental fitness was woven in the order of things.

Editor’s note: Biologist Michael Denton’s new book, The Miracle of Man: The Fine-Tuning of Nature for Human Existence, is out now. This essay is adapted from Chapter 3, “Fitness for Aerobic Life.”

In my book The Miracle of Man, I review a stunning range of coincidences in nature that should inspire both awe and wonder. One striking illustration may be found in our planet’s atmosphere, which provides compelling evidence of a very special fitness for the generation of oxygen for oxygen-hungry beings such as ourselves. 

For photosynthesis to proceed on a planet like Earth, sunlight (visual light) must penetrate the atmosphere all the way to the ground, and part of the sun’s infrared radiation needs to be absorbed by the atmosphere so as to warm the planet into the ambient temperature range, where the chemistry of life, including the chemistry of photosynthesis, can work its magic.

Happily, our atmosphere obliges. Earth’s atmosphere absorbs a significant fraction of the infrared radiation — warming the atmosphere into the ambient range — and lets through nearly all of the radiation in the visual region to empower the process of photosynthesis. 

Some infrared radiation does reach the Earth’s surface, felt as warmth on the skin, and some penetrates a little way into water, as is commonly experienced in a swimming pool. But there are several major atmospheric absorption bands in the near infrared region that capture and retain the sun’s heat, raising our planet’s surface temperature by 33°C over what it would be without them, a chilly −18°C.

If our atmosphere didn’t absorb at least a significant fraction of the infrared radiation when the sun was shining, the atmosphere would be intolerably hot during the day, and when night fell the temperature would plunge below zero. We would experience wild temperature swings like those on the moon. There temperatures spike in the daytime to more than 100°C (the boiling point of water at sea level) and plunge to −178°C at night, a temperature far, far colder than any experienced on Earth today. This wide variation is because the moon has no atmosphere to retain heat at night or prevent the surface from getting so hot during the day. No type of carbon-based plant life based in a water matrix could survive such massive temperature fluctuations.

On the other hand, if our atmosphere absorbed too much in the infrared region, that too would be disastrous. And this highlights another intriguing element of fitness in the absorption pattern of electromagnetic radiation in the infrared region. The windows between the absorption peaks are as crucial as the peaks. Why? Because without some spectral windows, all the infrared radiation would be absorbed by the atmosphere, none could be radiated back out into space, and Earth would suffer a runaway greenhouse effect, ending up a hellish hothouse like Venus.

A Sizable Absorption Window

In this context an intriguing feature of our atmosphere’s absorption spectrum is a sizable absorption window between eight and fourteen microns. It’s intriguing because the sun is not the only body that emits infrared radiation. The Earth also does, since all bodies at a given temperature emit radiation with a characteristic range of wavelengths. In Earth’s case, the emission peak is in the infrared region near 10 microns. And our atmosphere’s absorption gap allows a significant fraction of Earth’s infrared emission to escape into space through the eight-to-fourteen micron window. Around a fourth of the outgoing infrared emission from Earth escapes through this window, which consequently plays a major role in preventing our planet from going the way of Venus. If all radiation in the infrared between 0.80 and 100 microns had been absorbed by the atmospheric gases, if there were no windows, a runaway greenhouse would have been inevitable. The Earth would be a hot, Venus-like planet. Upon these windows, including the eight-to-fourteen-micron window, all advanced life on the surface of the Earth, including of course Homo sapiens, depends.

It is no exaggeration to say even with all the other elements of fitness that make possible our existence, without this eight-to-fourteen micron window — but one small detail in the atmosphere’s overall absorption spectrum — we wouldn’t exist. This represents yet another stunning instance of the biocentric fine tuning of nature.

Some Additional Fortuities 

Before turning to the role of specific atmospheric gases in the fine-tuning of our atmosphere for advanced terrestrial life, a few quick notes on some additional fortuities regarding Earth’s relationship to light. 

The light that passes through our atmosphere must penetrate water, not just to gift the sun’s energy to aquatic plants but because water is the matrix of life, and to reach the chloroplasts in any green plant, aquatic or terrestrial light must traverse the water in the cell. Again nature obliges as water is transparent to radiation in the visual band as a liquid, as a vapor in the atmosphere, and as ice. If liquid water or water vapor in the atmosphere absorbed visual light — the right light for photosynthesis — then photosynthesis would not be possible, and Earth would be devoid of aerobic life forms. 

Also fortuitous is the transparency of our atmosphere to visible light, which made important scientific advances possible, as Carl Sagan underscored in his 1980 book Cosmos. There he asked us to imagine intelligent life evolving on a cloud-covered planet such as Venus. “Would it then invent science?” he asked. “The development of science on Earth was spurred fundamentally by observations of the regularities of the stars and planets. But Venus is completely cloud-covered… nothing of the astronomical universe would be visible if you looked up into the night sky of Venus. Even the sun would be invisible in the daytime; its light would be scattered and diffused over the whole sky — just as scuba divers see only a uniform enveloping radiance beneath the sea.”

Finally, it is not just that our atmosphere lets through the right light. It also strongly absorbs radiation from the dangerous or potentially dangerous regions of the electromagnetic spectrum on either side of the visual and near infrared regions.

The Atmospheric Gases

Another remarkable aspect of the absorption characteristics of Earth’s atmosphere is that it arises from the combined absorption spectra of the atmospheric gases, five of which — nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), ozone (O3), carbon dioxide (CO2), and water vapor (H2O) — are bound to be present in the atmosphere of any planet hosting complex carbon-based biological life. It is their combined absorption characteristics which lets through just the right light for photosynthesis while at the same time absorbing just the right amount of heat, as well as most of the harmful radiation outside of the visual and infrared regions.

Oxygen

Oxygen (O2) is indispensable to complex organisms such as ourselves. We need a lot of it (250 ml every minute, even at rest). Indeed, the metabolic rates needed to sustain the most advanced biological life depend on taking oxygen directly from an atmosphere. Atmospheres sustaining complex aerobic life will inevitably contain substantial quantities of oxygen.

Ozone

Where there is O2 in an atmosphere there is bound also to be ozone (O3), since it’s formed in the stratosphere by the reaction of individual oxygen atoms with molecules of dioxygen, catalyzed by the action of UV light.

 O2 + O = O3

Ozone is important to life because it absorbs harmful ultraviolet radiation.

Carbon Dioxide

Breathing involves taking in oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide (CO2), which is a major product of aerobic metabolism (the process which provides us with 90 percent of our energy needs). Consequently CO2 will be found in the atmosphere of any planet where organisms use the oxidation of reduced carbon to generate energy. Carbon dioxide is also essential to plants, which require it for photosynthesis. Moreover, CO2 is the only feasible carrier of the carbon atom to all parts of any carbon-based biosphere.

CO2 is also delivered to the atmosphere on Earth by volcanic activity and is recycled via silicate weathering.

Water Vapor

Atmospheric water vapor will be found in the atmosphere of any planet harboring abundant carbon-based life because water is the essential physical matrix of all carbon-based cells and it is the necessary medium of the circulatory system in all complex multicellular organisms. Only worlds that possess water can harbor carbon-based life, hence the NASA adage “follow the water” in searching for extraterrestrial life. And since water evaporates at temperatures fit for biochemistry, some water vapor is bound to be present in the atmosphere of any world bearing carbon-based life. 

Nitrogen

Atmospheric nitrogen provides most of the nitrogen atoms incorporated into organic compounds by life on Earth. It’s one of the four core atoms of organic chemistry alongside carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. It provides necessary density to the atmosphere, keeps our oceans from evaporating, and serves as a fire retardant, slowing the speed that fire spreads, rendering it controllable. Nitrogen is the only viable candidate for these roles and thus appears to be an essential ingredient in the atmosphere of any planet hosting carbon-based life.

All this suggests that oxygen, nitrogen, water vapor, carbon dioxide, as well as ozone are bound to be present in the atmosphere of any world inhabited by oxygen-utilizing, advanced carbon-based life, for reasons over and above their life-friendly atmospheric transparency for the right kinds of electromagnetic radiation.

The Right Proportions

Our atmosphere not only has the right components for complex aerobic life, it also has them in the right proportions. Only an oxygen concentration of about 20 percent, at a partial pressure of more than 80 mm Hg, provides the requisite oxygen for the active metabolism of organisms like ourselves. If the concentration were substantially higher, fires would be a far greater danger. In the case of nitrogen, only a considerable quantity of nitrogen provides the density and pressure needed to keep fires from raging uncontrollably in oxygen-rich atmospheres such as Earth’s, and to prevent the oceans from evaporating.

CO2 levels have varied throughout geological time, although over the past 400 million years — since advanced life colonized the land — they have almost certainly never reached levels ten times those of today and probably never more than about four to five times present levels. A recent study provided evidence of this. It found that raising CO2 levels in controlled atmospheres up to four times present levels diminished cognitive function in human subjects. This gives some indication of a CO2 ceiling, beyond which advanced life may no longer viable.

The Greenhouse Gases

Diatomic molecules with the same two atoms, such as O2 or N2, do not absorb infrared radiation. This is quite fortunate for life on Earth, since if either of these two gases, which make up most of our atmosphere, were strong absorbers of infrared radiation, Earth likely would have become a boiling cauldron like Venus, with temperatures hot enough to melt lead.

Also fortuitous: the major greenhouse gases CO2 and H2O are both stable in the presence of O2. This is enormously important. If they were unstable in the presence of oxygen, the whole atmospheric system and global heat balance would collapse. Aerobic life, our sort of life, would be impossible. However, in keeping with nature’s profound fitness for advanced life as it exists on Earth, H2O and CO2 are fully oxidized and stable in the presence of oxygen. Nitrogen, the major component of the atmosphere, is also stable in the presence of oxygen, because the nitrogen atoms in N2 bond strongly with each other and resist combining with oxygen. The stability of water, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen in the presence of oxygen is a point worth underscoring, since most other substances (apart from the noble gases) react strongly with oxygen — in some cases, explosively.

A fascinating further teleological aspect to all this concerns the quantity of ozone in the atmosphere. Because of the vast amounts of O2 in the atmosphere, inevitably there will also be some ozone (O3). Although ozone is indispensable for blocking harmful ultraviolet radiation, it is also a powerful greenhouse gas that absorbs strongly in the infrared region — one thousand times more strongly than CO2. Because of this, anything beyond trace amounts of ozone would contribute dangerously to the greenhouse effect. This means that its life-giving fitness in absorbing the dangerous ultraviolet radiation between 0.20 and 0.30 microns would be negated entirely if more than trace amounts were necessary for that vital task, or if it were produced in excess amounts by the action of ultraviolet radiation on O2 in the stratosphere. Happily, only trace amounts are needed to effectively block harmful ultraviolet radiation, and the rate of breakdown of ozone in the stratosphere almost equals its rate of synthesis, guaranteeing that it is indeed only present in trace amounts.

Finally, an intriguing aspect of ozone’s synthesis in the atmosphere is that ozone (O3) and diatomic oxygen (O2) indirectly promote their own formation by absorbing dangerous ultraviolet radiation and thereby protecting plant life, both aquatic and terrestrial, which synthesize the oxygen from which ozone is formed. This is yet another beautiful example of the parsimony and elegance of nature’s stunning fitness for aerobic life.

Vital Coincidences 

The absorption properties of our atmosphere are not vital for all carbon-based life on Earth, but particularly for plants and energy-hungry aerobes like ourselves. Our atmosphere’s fortuitous mix of gases enables photosynthesis and the manufacture of oxygen, warms Earth into the ambient temperature range, and shields life from harmful radiation. Even slight differences in our atmospheric gases’ absorption properties, or in their relative concentration, and Earth would be uninhabitable, particularly for aerobic life. And note, these gases exist in our atmosphere, and in the proportions they do, because of factors quite distinct from the life-essential absorption properties described above.

There is a final twist to this teleology: Three of the key atmospheric gases whose physical absorption properties are indispensable to the process of photosynthesis are also central players in the process of photosynthesis itself. 

6CO2 + 6H2O +light +heat —> C6H12O6 + 6O2

Indeed, they are the major reactants in the process. It is as if CO2, H2O, and O2 were deliberately colluding to incorporate themselves into the stuff of living matter.

Light and Air

Let’s review. The laws of nature, which determine the absorption properties of the atmospheric gases, have no logically necessary connection with their chemical properties or the chemical properties of their constituent atoms, which are of such utility to life. This is a striking fortuity in the nature of things. 

Similarly, there is no connection between the laws of nature which determine the tiny size of the biologically useful region in the electromagnetic spectrum, and those laws which determine the radiant output of the sun. And there is no connection between the radiant output of the sun and the laws determining the absorption properties of the atmospheric gases and liquid water.

So here we have several coincidences on which the existence of oxygen-hungry aerobic organisms like ourselves depends. In the 15th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, in the article entitled “Electromagnetic Radiation,” the authors comment, “Considering the importance of visible sunlight for all aspects of terrestrial life, one cannot help being awed by the dramatically narrow window in the atmospheric absorption… and in the absorption spectrum of water.”

Coincidences — the narrow windows in the EM spectrum that facilitate photosynthesis.

And it isn’t just the “dramatically narrow window.” We should be in awe of the entire ensemble of prior environmental fitness, an ensemble that enables photosynthesis and, by extension, our own existence as oxygen-hungry “light-eaters.” 

Simply put, our existence, inhabiting the surface of a planet like Earth, deriving energy generated by the oxidation of the reduced carbon compounds manufactured during the process of photosynthesis, depends on what can only be described as an extraordinarily improbable degree of environmental fitness in the order of things. Note, too, that the improbable coincidences reviewed above, and much more fully treated in The Miracle of Man, are largely irrelevant to the other major domain of carbon-based life on our planet — the great biomass of “rock-eating” anaerobic denizens of the dark. Nature’s awe-inspiring fitness for photosynthesis is a fitness for our type of life, for life in the light, for life on a planetary surface, for creatures such as ourselves.

 

Yes, the technology is real. III

Brian Miller: From Non-Life to Life via Natural Forces Alone? Nope

Evolution News
 

A new episode of ID the Future continues physicist Brian Miller’s exploration of a recent report from the University of Tokyo claiming a big breakthrough in origin-of-life research. As Miller and host Eric Anderson make clear, the university’s laboratory work on RNA, detailed in a recent Nature Communications article, involved the intelligent interference of the lab scientists and, despite this intelligent interference, the devolution of RNA rather than the evolution of increasing RNA sophistication.

Miller says that it’s ironic that Steven Novella, a scientist committed to puncturing science hype, seems to have fallen for the hype surrounding this laboratory work. Miller and Anderson go on to discuss critiques of origin-of-life tall-tale claims, critiques coming from Robert Shapiro, James Tour, and others. Life, Miller says, requires organizational blueprints and design logics already in place to battle against nature’s relentless tendency toward entropy. Without those sophisticated organizational blueprints already instantiated in living cells and sophisticated molecular machinery, natural forces appear utterly powerless to pull off the kind of creative design work required to move from non-life to life. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

 

 

 

Yes, the technology is real. II

Brian Miller: “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Engineering in the Biological Sciences”

Brian Miller
 

At the recent Dallas Conference on Science and Faith, Discovery Institute physicist Brian Miller gave a great talk on the convergence of biology and engineering. It’s up now on YouTube and eminently worthy of being shared. Miller’s theme is that “you see the same engineering principles in human engineering as you see in life.” Funny that that should be the case when you consider engineering is obviously all intelligent design. 

The point about engineering is not merely Dr. Miller’s personal view — it’s the insight behind an emerging scientific field, systems biology, that analyzes how living systems work with their “very clear design logic,” including “pre-programmed or pre-engineered responses” to the environment. Systems biology is quickly displacing impatient dismissals of supposed “poor design” in life — “how cr*ppy our shoulders are,” for example, in the phrase of one journalist who took instruction from biologist Nathan Lents. (See Jonathan Wells’s post on that here.) Miller examines a number of interesting specific illustrations including the celebrated eyeless cavefish, which he “used to think was an absolute win for microevolution.” He refers at the end to a famous paper by physicist Eugene Wigner, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences.” Brian would like to write a follow-up, he quips, “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Engineering in the Biological Sciences.” Watch the whole lecture now:

 <iframe width="770" height="433" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/M9i2vFEa6rE" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

 

Darwin's replacement theory?

Darwin, Galton, and “Replacement Theory”

David Klinghoffer

After the horrific Buffalo, NY, shooting of last weekend, “replacement theory” is suddenly on everyone’s lips. Unlike agitators in the media and politics, John West actually took the time to read the shooter’s manifesto to see what drove him. West found that the latter’s racism derived from online study of mainstream evolutionary theory. What the cynical manipulators don’t tell you is that “the Buffalo shooter’s evolutionary racism is not an outlier among recent mass killers. Arguments drawn from evolution have been prominent in the ideologies of many mass shooters in recent years.” But recognizing this reality would do nothing to advance political agendas, so the partisans ignore it.

Now a new podcast by Hank Hanegraaff with historian Richard Weikart provides some very relevant historical background, drawing on Weikart’s recent book Darwinian Racism: How Darwinism Influenced Hitler, Nazism, and White Nationalism. The interview was conducted before the event in Buffalo unfolded, though Weikart and Hanegraaff discuss a similar crime, a 2019 shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival, also fueled by the killer’s reading about evolution.

What I found particularly interesting is that Darwinism and eugenics, going back to the 19th century, were haunted by ideas of “replacement.” Darwin in The Descent of Man predicted, “At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races” (emphasis added). But replacement could work in the reverse direction: Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin who first advanced the idea of eugenic theory, worried that people of what he regarded as inferior stock would “swamp” (Weikart’s word) their betters by out-reproducing them. The question of who would replace or swamp whom has been a preoccupation of pseudo-scientific racists ever since. Listen to the excellent conversation here.

 

 

Saturday 14 May 2022

The selfish gene dethroned?

Biologist Michael Denton: Paradigm Shifts

Evolution News
 
On a classic episode of ID the Future, biologist Michael Denton reflects on paradigm shifts in science he’s witnessed in his lifetime and how his own thinking has changed. He also looks at how these shifts challenge Darwinian evolution in new ways. Denton is the author of the new book The Miracle of Man: The Fine Tuning of Nature for Human Existence. Download the podcast or listen to it here.

 

Beware the ides of march?

<iframe width="853" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2KQTQiag2ow" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The new Rome?


Why OOL science remains the key issue in the design debate.

 How does one select the key issue in the design debate. I would say that it is the one most likely to force the opposition to play defense. From that standpoint OOL science, in my humble opinion, is hard to beat. Darwinism is the opposition's opening salvo against the notion of actual design being a necessary explanation for the technology evident in nature. The claim is that some combination of chance and necessity is a better explanation for this technology and thus any perception of intelligent design was illusory,a kind of pareidolia. Well if you say so mr. materialist, but in as much as science is about objectively testing truth claims how are we to test this particular claim. Well,if Darwinian evolution is the source of the (apparent) design in biology we should surely be able to observe some co-relation between the amount of Darwinian evolution and the amount of Design in the history of life. Hence the need for a simple beginning to life.

It simply will not do for there to exist any of the design that Darwinism is supposed to have successfully explained away prior to any Darwinian processes. So how's that search for a simple lifeform going?

Yes,the technology is real.

Natural Machinery Operates Without Intervention; But How?

David Coppedge
 
 

In Francis Bacon’s day, it was easy to oversimplify nature. Elizabethan scientists began to conceive of a world that ran like a machine. Robert Boyle was a strong proponent of the mechanical philosophy. Soon, Isaac Newton’s clockwork heavens reinforced the notion that all the Creator had to do was wind it up, and let it run all by itself. From Boyle to Babbage, the Newtonian revolution showed the way for scientific progress: just uncover the natural laws that make the universe run. 

By the late 18th century and into Victorian times, mechanical philosophy was sufficient unto itself. An original Designer could be conceived of, perhaps, but as science progressed, the Prime Mover had less and less to do. Some argued that it was an insult to the Watchmaker to suggest he needed to intervene and fix the watch.

Then molecular biology arrived, and we found out the clocks are real. Literal machines made of molecules make life run. Simultaneously, the computer age dawned and we learned a bit about programming. Now, robotics is here. We’re going to need a new philosophy: one that can handle realities the Elizabethans and Victorians could never have imagined.

It’s important to note that we’re not speaking of mechanistic or reductionist philosophy. See Jay Richards’s clarification. We seek an explanation for how natural machinery can operate without continuous intervention.

Real Clocks

Paley’s “watch on a heath” was only an analogy in 1805. Now, we can see real biological clocks of amazing design and precision in the cells of life. Current Biology talks about “unexpected biochemical cogs” in a cyanobacterium, freely using the word “clock” as well as “oscillator,” “regulator,” and “switch.” The circadian clock runs on a much slower schedule than most cellular reactions. It’s calibrated to the 24-hour day-night cycle, and keeps constant time even when the temperature changes. It would have been astonishing to Paley or Bacon to learn that a three-protein oscillating machine is found in such a tiny organism. In higher vertebrates, biological clocks are even more elaborate.

Real Engines

Is this the little engine that could? Penn State News finds that “little engines” of kinesin (see our animation) can do more than thought on their microtubule tracks. These little walking robots, one ten-thousandth the diameter of a human hair, not only walk the tracks but help them grow. When kinesin-5 pauses at the end of a microtubule, it “generates pushing forces, which slide the microtubules apart and essentially allow the motor to grow the microtubules.” [Emphasis added.]

Real Solar Panels, Quality Control, and Recycling

The Salk Institute calls chloroplasts “solar panels” and reveals how the cell monitors them with a “quality control check” that can “recycle” the parts of damaged chloroplasts. Notice the mechanical word: they uncovered “how plants thrive using a natural mechanism to recycle chloroplasts.” 

Real Stress Management

Another “fundamental biological mechanism” is described by bioscientists at the University of Heidelberg. In a common lab plant, they found that proteins are “further adapted” after they are manufactured “for their specific jobs.” In one case they studied, chemical tags regulate the stress response to drought by closing the stomata and lengthening the primary root.

Real Coordinated Timing and Assembly

Scientists at Virginia Tech found that, during development, “timing is indeed everything.” They use music as an analogy:

Everyone who has played in a band or orchestra knows that playing in time creates music, while playing out of time creates cacophony. In an orchestra, each player may be out of tune when warming up, but eventually, all players must reach the same pitch, rhythm, and timing to produce a viable piece of music.

They found something similar in dividing cells. Just as live musicians can compensate for other players’ changes in tempo, “cells modulate the exact timing of when crucial cellular eventshappen, slowing down or speeding everything up to make sure everything is playing its proper part at the right time.” They were “astonished to see how greatly the starting conditions for each cell could differ and still lead to the same outcome,” the article says.

Is it just an analogy to call a ribosome a “protein-making factory“? Ask the researchers at Rockefeller University, who think “factory” is an appropriate description:

Ribosomes, the molecular factories that produce all the proteins a cell needs to grow and function, are themselves made up of many different proteins and four RNAs. And just as an assembly line must be built before it can manufacture cars, these tiny factoriesmust be constructed before they can put proteins together.

Real Mobile Factories

Rockefeller is not alone in using the word factory — only the one they found escaped detection till now. “Salk Scientists Discover Protein Factories Hidden in Human Jumping Genes,” a news item from Salk Institute says. Researchers found a third Open Reading Frame (ORF0) in certain jumping genes known as LINE-1 elements. 

“Jumping genes with ORF0 are basically protein factories with wheels,” they said. The fact that they consider “evolution” to be the driver of the bus does not negate the fact that they are real machines that must function properly, otherwise it could cause disease. And there are 3,500 of these “factories with wheels” in the human genome.

Real Repair Stations

The nuclear membrane gained new respect from scientists at the University of Southern California when they found that it’s a lot more than “just a protective bubble” around the nuclear material. A team at USC has documented “how broken strands of a portion of DNA known as heterochromatin are dragged to the nuclear membrane for repair.” At the inner wall of the nuclear membrane, “a trio of proteins mends the break in a safe environment, where it cannot accidentally get tangled up with incorrect chromosomes.” (The discovery was made in fruit flies.)

As for heterochromatin, this “mysterious part of the genome” composed of repetitive elements has been promoted from “junk DNA” to superhero (watch the word “mechanism”):

The reason why we don’t experience thousands of cancers every day in our body is because we have incredibly efficient molecular mechanisms that repair the frequent damages occurring in our DNA. But those that work in heterochromatin are quite extraordinary.

Real Repair Machines

We see “mechanism” also used to describe a “new class of DNA repair enzyme” found by researchers at Vanderbilt University. This adds to the same work that earned a Nobel Prize earlier this year. This enzyme has some “remarkable properties,” they said, such as the ability to find damage indirectly without actually contacting the lesion, and the ability to fix bulkier lesions than other repair mechanisms can. 

“Our discovery shows that we still have a lot to learn about DNA repair, and that there may be alternative repair pathways yet to be discovered. It certainly shows us that a much broader range of DNA damage can be removed in ways that we didn’t think were possible,” said Eichman. “Bacteria are using this to their advantage to protect themselves against the antibacterial agents they produce. Humans may even have DNA-repair enzymes that operate in a similar fashion to remove complex types of DNA damage.

Real Shaping Machinery

Nonsense-mediated mRNA decay (NMD) is described in Nature Reviews: Molecular Cell Biology as “an intricate machinery that shapes transcriptomes.” The abstract mentions “intricate steps” in this process, “cellular quality control,” and the ability of NMD to “dynamically adjust their transcriptomes and their proteomes to varying physiological conditions.”

Real Packaging

grad student at MIT is studying how cells pack two meters’ worth of DNA into a cell nucleus. It’s like “trying to fit 24 miles of string into a tennis ball,” Abe Weintraub says. He’s intrigued by the fact that “DNA gets packed tightly in organized loops, rather than being haphazardly crammed into cell nuclei.” The specific 3-D organization appears to affect its functionality, because mistakes cause cancer and other diseases.

Philosophical Implications

Those are a few recent examples of the “machine talk” pouring out of labs around the world. This is not just metaphorical language for “nature” like the Victorians used. It’s observation and description of realities the early mechanical philosophers could not have imagined. And it’s everywhere. Machine talk is driving an explosion of discovery in science. 

The old mechanical philosophy is hopelessly inadequate for these realities. The reason? We know from our experience that unguided natural law does not produce machinery, factories, and quality control. Something else is required: information.

The Santa Fe Institute identifies this critical part of the new 21st-century philosophy. A working group met to discuss the question, “What physical principles predict life?” They put the question into stark perspective:

We are immersed in life here on Earth, but life isn’t found on the Moon. Nor has it arisen, so far as we know, anywhere else in the solar system. Why do some physical environments precipitate life, and why don’t others?

It’s not enough to say that the moon has no water:

If the Earth really does use sunlight to convert a disorderly lump of mass and energy into organized living things, why can’t the Moon, Earth’s nearest neighbor, do something similar using different mechanisms?

This implies that “natural laws” alone are insufficient to account for the difference. David Wolpert was on hand to share an important suggestion:

One part of the answer, Wolpert says, might lie in information theory. In addition to being central to modern biologists’ understanding of evolution, information theory overlaps heavily with thermodynamics, the area of physics concerned with how the different kinds of internal energy of a system (such as heat and stored chemical energy) might be affected by the outside world.

In a video clip Wolpert elaborates on this theme. Apparently many others in the working group felt it was a promising avenue of thought.

“In many talks and discussions, the nature of information flow between different scales of organization emerged as an important theme and open question,” says O’Dwyer. “We look forward to future collaboration on each of these ideas.”

Willaim Dembski’s book Being as Communion would serve as a fine discussion starter. Wolpert comes so close, but is still so far from explaining what he set out to explain: why the moon differs from the earth. He talks about information flow through the system, but the moon gets exactly the same sunlight the earth does. And he never defines what information is, or where it comes from. Here is where intelligent design can offer real, substantive insight.

Information is the key to a “mechanical” philosophy for the 21st century. We know, because we have a great deal of experience producing information and imposing it on matter. We build computers. We make robots. We make clocks and trucks and factories. Indeed, we can even make machines that make other machines, and robots that increasingly look and act like us. 

Our machines can run like clockwork, not because we shined sunlight on a “disorderly lump” and waited for natural laws to take their unguided course, but because we infused the lumps with information. And since we know that intelligence was the true cause that resulted in those lumps of raw material becoming Steinway pianos, Toyota robotic assembly lines, and New Horizons spacecraft, it’s a fair inference that intelligence is the true cause behind atoms that become kinesins, ribosomes, and circadian clock proteins.

This article was originally published in 2015.

 

Trying to school JEHOVAH again?

Is the Human Shoulder Badly Designed?

Jonathan Wells
 
 

A few months ago, I fell and dislocated my left shoulder. My upper arm bone was put back in its socket the same day, but then I spent months in physical therapy to regain full function. In the process, I have learned a lot about an amazing joint that I previously took for granted.

The drawing below shows only part of the human shoulder’s anatomy. Not shown is the large deltoid muscle, which overlies the shoulder joint and connects the upper arm bone (humerus) to the collarbone (clavicle) and the shoulder blade (scapula). Also not shown is the trapezius muscle across the back, which connects the left and right scapulas. Both the deltoid and the trapezius play important roles in stabilizing the joint. 

Image source: National Institute Of Arthritis And Musculoskeletal And Skin Diseases (NIAMS); SVG version by Angelito7, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

Anatomy of the Shoulder Joint

In the drawing, yellow indicates bone, red indicates muscle, blue indicates tendon, and purple indicates bursa (a fluid-filled cushion). The dashed black lines indicate the hidden ball-and-socket joint between the humerus and the scapula. Unlike the hip joint, in which the ball is deeper in the socket, the shoulder joint is more open. This means the shoulder joint is less stable than the hip joint, but it is also much more flexible. In fact, it is the most flexible joint in the human body. 

The biceps muscle at the lower left gets its name from the fact that it has two heads. One attaches, through a tendon and a small bursa, near the top of the humerus. The other head attaches to the coracoid process, an extension of the scapula. The lower end of the biceps muscle is attached to the forearm. Although it is primarily involved in moving the forearm, its divided head helps to stabilize the shoulder joint.

Both the flexibility and stability of the shoulder joint are due primarily to the muscles of the “rotator cuff,” listed on the left side of the drawing. All four of the listed muscles stretch across the scapula and attach to the top of the humerus. For a 10-minute tutorial on the rotator cuff, see here. For a longer (20-minute) tutorial on the movements, bones, and muscles of the shoulder, see here.

The more I have learned about the shoulder joint, the more I have been impressed by its specified complexity, which points to intelligent design. Imagine my surprise when I came across a six-and-a-half-minute video claiming that the human shoulder is a “design disaster.” The video was made by Cheddar News, which describes itself as “the only news network focused on the next generation of innovators and decision-makers[.] Cheddar News is where forward thinkers go to learn about the people, ideas and innovations that are driving change and creating what’s next.”

 

I am confident that a rigorous argument can be made for the intelligent design of the human shoulder. But that is not what I present here. In what follows, I examine the claims against design that are made in the Cheddar News video.

Proof that the Human Shoulder Is a Design Disaster?

The video’s producer is Natalia Ryzak, who has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University. At the beginning, Ryzak explains that “human shoulder blades tilt down and outwards, whereas chimps tilt up. Small variations like this are the reason humans have awful shoulders. And chimps, with whom we share nearly 99% of our DNA, don’t.” For that, Ryzak continues, “we can thank evolution — or more specifically, how we are outpacing it.”

But the tilt difference does not explain why the human shoulder is “awful.” If we spent most of our time swinging from tree branches, it might; but we don’t. And the claimed 99% similarity between human and chimp DNA has no bearing on the issue.

Ryzak goes on (from 0:47 to 0:59) to say:

Side effects of a human shoulder may include dislocation, separation, rotator cuff tears, bursitis, tendonitis, tendonosis, impingement syndrome, instability, arthritis, adhesive capsulitis (frozen shoulder), and fracture.

But these are not “side effects,” any more than getting a flat tire is a “side effect” of making an automobile. Or having a roof torn off by a tornado is a “side effect” of building a house. And these problems are not unique to humans: Chimps can also suffer from arthritis and fractures, among other things.

Enter Nathan Lents, professor of biology at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City. In 2015, Lents argued on his blog that the human eye is badly designed, primarily because “the vertebrate retina is wired in backwards.” Like Richard Dawkins and others before him, Lents based his claim on the fact that the light-sensing cells face away from the incoming light. But evidence published from the 1960s onward — and reported in standard textbooks — shows that this arrangement is far better than the one Lents favors.

Back to the video on “Why the Human Shoulder is a Design Disaster.” Lents says (at 1:30) that the shoulder is “more of a floating joint than any other joint in the body.” Ryzak explains that the outer layer of muscles (consisting of the deltoid and trapezius) is stronger than the inner layer (the rotator cuff). Then Lents continues (from 1:59), “Having such an overlapping meshwork of muscles, what you’re inviting is pinching, and tearing, as the orientation can shift.” Lents compares the shoulder joint to the hip joint, in which “the relationship of the hip to the leg is fairly fixed in place.”

So far, the video has summarized the structure of the shoulder and its difference from the hip. The shoulder is more flexible than the hip. Good thing, too, or we wouldn’t be able to perform many of the actions we do. Just watch an acrobat performing on the parallel bars. Or a baseball player pitching a fastball. Or an athlete swimming the butterfly.

But journalist Ryzak confidently concludes ex cathedra (starting at 2:19) that “we’ve proven to you just how cr*ppy our shoulders are.” How so? Ryzak doesn’t say. Instead she simply suggests going “back into the evolution part.”

Does Evolution Explain It All?

According to Lents (starting at 2:28), “In our quadrupedal ancestors, in our deep past, really we had four legs, they weren’t really arms, to speak of. When you think of a dog and a cat, they don’t have arms, they have legs. But they still have a shoulder joint, as we can think of it.”

Then Ryzak says, “Our shoulders evolved for a life in the trees, swinging and hanging out. Then we left the trees behind and began to stand upright. This freed our arms up for other purposes, like hunting and gathering.” So from four-legged animals that walked and ran on the ground, we get animals that spend some of their time on the ground but mostly swing from branches to branches in the trees. Then those animals “evolved” into animals that stood upright and used their arms for other purposes. This is the standard Darwinian narrative. But how, exactly, did four-legged animals on the ground evolve into two-armed animals that swung on tree branches, which then evolved into two-armed animals that stood upright on the ground? The video offers no explanation; only an imaginative story.

Lents continues (starting at 2:54), “We are partially adapted for throwing, which is… no other animal in our group of animals throws anything.” This is not true: Chimps can throw, though not as far or as accurately as humans. Indeed, they are infamous for flinging feces at visitors to zoos.

But that’s a minor detail. Lents goes on to say, “So we believe that throwing was a very strong evolutionary pressure as we began to hunt — throwing spears, thrusting as well, so thrusting and throwing are very specific kinds of motion. And that required that floating nature to our shoulder.” But “evolutionary pressure” just means that throwing favored the survival of early humans. It does not account for the origin of the human shoulder. As Darwinian biologists wrote in 1996, adaptations “concern the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.”

So the claim that “we left the trees behind and began to stand upright” does not explain the remarkable anatomy of the human shoulder. After all, chimps leave the trees on a regular basis (though they don’t stand upright). Yet their shoulder anatomy has not changed.

The Problem and Its Solution

According to Lents (at 3:57), “Part of the problem in present-day humans is not so much a bad shoulder design but a mismatch between what our shoulder is designed to do and how we use it on a daily basis.” Of course, Lents doesn’t think the shoulder was intelligently designed. As a Darwinist, he believes that the shoulder evolved through accidental variations and survival of the fittest. And in our immediate ancestors, the shoulder was adapted (“designed”) to swing through trees.

Most of our modern activities are very different. Ryzak adds (starting at 4:16), 

It might surprise you, but simply sitting at your desk is a major contributor to shoulder problems. When we hunch forward for days, hours, months, years on end, we end up causing unnecessary pulls and strains on our rotator cuff muscles. That can lead to injuries.

Lents explains (starting at 5:20) that you can minimize shoulder problems by “changing the way you eat, changing the ways you use your body.” And, Ryzak adds (from 5:34 to 5:52), “pay attention to basic posture.” So after all the talk about bad design and evolutionary mismatch, the solution to our “design disaster” is for us to pay attention to dietexercise, and posture

I think I could have figured that out without all the anti-design rhetoric and Darwinian storytelling. Oh, and I would add: Be careful not to fall in such a way as to dislocate your shoulder.

The sanctity of life: The Bible's view.

The question of the sanctity of human life(specifically at what point should human life be regarded as "sacred") has returned to the public square in big way recently. Much of the discussion has been about what the sciences of medicine and biology have to say as to when any human offspring should be considered a person.

Some maintain that as long as the infant is biologically attached to its mother it ought not to be considered a person and its life ought not to be accorded the same value as a person. This post is addressed primarily to those who are interested in what the bible has to say about the matter,there are individuals on both sides of the issue who are citing scriptures as an authority. I would like to lay out what scriptures and reasonings thereon inform the position of my brothers and me.

Genesis1:27KJV"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. "

All life is the property of God Almighty, human life has a peculiarly sacred quality because Man is a living representation of the supreme divinity. Therefore the destruction of any human life apart from due process is sure to incur divine wrath.

Genesis9:5,6ASV"And surely your blood, the blood of your lives, will I require; At the hand of every beast will I require it. And at the hand of man, even at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man.

6Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: For in the image of God made he man."

Does this include life in the womb? Consider.

Psalms139:15KJV"My frame was not hidden from thee, When I was made in secret, And curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16Thine eyes did see mine unformed substance; And in thy book they were all written, Even the days that were ordained for me , When as yet there was none of them."

The Psalmist was certain that the Lord JEHOVAH loved him from the very beginning,because He knew that there was latent potential to reflect His glory in a unique way in this nascent being. Thus even before this potential was known to any other it was being keenly and sympathetically observed by its source.

Liluke1:42KJV"And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? " No dedicated servant of JEHOVAH worthy of that designation could ever say "my body my choice". when we made our dedication we handed over all that we are and possess to their rightful owner i.e the God and Father of Jesus Christ. For all of JEHOVAH'S servants the fruit of the womb is JEHOVAH'S we are merely custodians of what is our Lord's the above quoted text further confirms his interest in the potential in the impregnated womb.

1Corinthians6:20NIV"you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies."