From contenders to counterparts?

 How Faith Can Improve Rigor and Creativity in Scientific Research

Evolution News 

On a new episode of ID the Future, plant geneticist Richard Buggs speaks to the hosts of the Table Talk podcast about the long-standing claim that science and religion are at odds. Buggs is a professor and Senior Research Leader at Kew Royal Botanic Gardens, one of the UK’s largest plant science research institutes. He is also Professor of Evolutionary Genomics at Queen Mary University of London. Contrary to the prevailing view, Buggs says his Christian faith motivates his research, giving him the ability not only to think with different perspectives but also better understand the people groups stewarding natural resources around the world as well as more adequately explain certain processes he studies in nature. Buggs explains why the term “evolution” can vary between scientists and the public, and he reminds listeners of the current debate among evolutionary biologists themselves about the sufficiency of the current Darwinian mechanism to account for the origin and diversity of life. Along the way, Buggs points out the unconscious bias within his field that favors atheistic assumptions, noting that more cognitive diversity would improve the scientific landscape and bring more rigor and creativity to the scientific process. For their kind permission to post this informative exchange, we thank Table Talk hosts Jack Timpany and Graeme Johnstone. Download the podcast or listen to it Here.

And yet even more primeval tech vs. Darwin

 Natural Engineering in the Lifestyle of Honey Bees

Eric Hadin 

A week ago, my wife came in and announced, “There’s a scary-looking bees’ nest in the lilac bush!” Wasps routinely try to build nests around our house, so I was prepared for the worst when I went out to investigate. What I found was a basketball-sized cluster of honey bees — a “swarm.” There was no nest, only a living ball of thousands of bees hanging from a branch. 

I’ve never done any beekeeping, but fortunately, we have some friends who do. We had no idea, but apparently a swarm of bees in May on an easily accessible branch is something to get excited about! Soon, our beekeeper friends rolled up in their pickup truck. One pulled on jacket and bee-proof bonnet, set a large container (a portable hive box) on top of a stepladder underneath the swarm, took hold of the branch, and shook it. The swarm of bees, all festooned together, fell in a clump into the box. Or, rather, most of them did. Hundreds of them draped over the sides, which our undaunted friend scooped into the box (with gloved hands), while hundreds more buzzed around. The couple who came kept reassuring us, “They’re not going to sting because they’re focused on staying with the queen.” I learned that the queen bee’s presence is of utmost importance for the thousands of others.

Thanks for the Bees

Our friends extended thanks for the bees, then went home, while we went inside for a belated supper. The next day, I saw a smaller swarm around a branch in the same lilac bush. Here’s the interesting thing. Our friends said that they didn’t think they had captured the queen since the bees were acting agitated, so they came right back over to recover the remaining small swarm. When they added it to the hive with the bulk of the bees, all of them settled down right away. The queen had come home.

Here was a fascinating example of a finely tuned aspect of living organisms that was surely worth further investigation. A trip to the university library and online research quickly yielded multiple sources of information about honey bees from specialists of all types. As I’ve read up on bee behavior and their life cycles, a striking picture appears of ingenious design in living systems.

Natural Engineering

A recent research article reported on the use of x-ray microscopy to provide three-dimensional, time-resolved details on how bees manufacture their iconic honeycomb structure. Several observations from the authors are worth mentioning:1

Honeycomb is one of nature’s best engineered structures.

Engineers recognize design, and never has good human-level engineering come about by anything other than intelligent design.

Honeycomb is a structure that has both fascinated and inspired humans for millennia, including serving as inspiration for many engineering structures. It is a multifunctional structure that acts as a store for food, a nursery for developing honey bee brood, and a physical structure upon which honey bees live. It is constructed of wax produced by bees in specialized glands in their abdomen. Wax is an expensive commodity and so comb construction can be quite costly for a honey bee colony. Honeycomb is constructed in such a way to minimize wax consumption.

Honeycomb construction is optimized to serve multiple purposes for the bee colony, subject to the constraint of material and labor costs. Sounds like the bees are a responsible engineering firm.

The ability of bees to “know” how to manufacture the structurally optimal hexagonal-packed honeycomb is even more amazing when one considers that the worker bees constructing it hatched less than three weeks earlier.

While not a perfect analogy, a colony of bees may be compared to a multicellular living organism. Each member of the colony seems to know what to do at each stage of its life for the good of the whole “organism.” An isolated bee will soon die, even if supplied with nutrients, suggesting that it is designed to function as part of the whole. 

Arranged by a Designer

We could say that the whole honey bee colony is greater than just the sum of its individual members. This state of affairs usually arises when the individual components of a complex system are specifically arranged by a designer to accomplish a predetermined purpose. Consider any complex electrical or mechanical device. All of the components of my laptop would make a fascinating pile if laid out on a table; but they’re even more fascinating when assembled and functioning together as a whole, according to their designed purpose.

A professor of entomology at Iowa State University, studying the behavior of honey bee colonies, writes:

Each bee appears to specialize, for a time at least, on a particular job. Thinking about this, you may decide that a single bee is somewhat like a single cell of your own body. The work force in charge of a particular job, such as feeding larvae, would then correspond to one of your tissues. And if you follow this analogy further, you may conclude that a colony of honey bees is like an organism — a superorganism.2

Aspects of an organism that manifest in a honey bee colony include caring for developing larvae, securing and processing nutrients (similar to metabolism), tending the queen (whose presence coordinates the behavior of the entire colony), guarding the hive and patrolling for intruders (similar to an immune system), temperature regulation (fanning their wings to cool the hive, clustering and vibrating their wings to heat the cluster of bees), growth of the whole colony in terms of the number of individual bees, reproduction of the “organism” (resulting in the phenomenon of the honey bee swarm), coordination of activities mediated by a variety of communication channels, and a sense of purpose.

Observers of complex, functional systems, whether nonliving or alive, rationally conclude that, “If something works, it’s not happening by accident.”3

Beyond Mere Survival

The honey bee colony “works” and accomplishes a purpose beyond mere survival. It diligently stockpiles nectar which its workers convert to honey in amounts exceeding its needs.4 Honey’s unique ingredients give it value as a food source for humans that has been recognized for millennia.

The high total sugar concentration [primarily fructose and glucose, with a smaller amount of sucrose] in honey is beneficial in that most yeasts cannot ferment in it. Also, together with one other constituent (glucose oxidase), it gives the honey antimicrobial properties, and it can be stored safe from spoilage…5

Beyond the direct production of honey for our use, the role of honeybees as pollinators is of critical importance in agriculture:

Bees and other pollinators play a critical role in our food production system. More than 100 U.S. grown crops rely on pollinators. The added revenue to crop production from pollinators is valued at $18 billion.6

Continuing to ponder bee behavior, comments made by Professor Richard Trump of Iowa State University are instructive:

If a honey bee, with her microbrain, knows what she is doing, this is cause for wonder. If she does not know — if she is fully programmed by those sub-microchips of DNA that come to her as a legacy from her ancestors — this is even greater cause for wonder. It is incredible.7

Here are a couple of examples that may cause us to wonder how bees know how to do what they do. Researchers have found that bees possess an internal organic timer, which in conjunction with an awareness of the rotation of the Earth, allows them to efficiently time their foraging activities to arrive at flowers when pollen sources are at their peak. 

The famous “waggle dance” that a scout bee performs back at the hive after discovering a food source communicates to other bees (by touching, since the inside of the hive is dark) both the distance and the direction of the food in relation to the current position of the sun. Bee keepers have found that if they reorient the honeycomb on which the bee is dancing, the undaunted bee will adapt its dance so that it still correctly communicates the proper direction to the food source.8 Sometimes the dancing scout bee will continue its dance for more than an hour, and over this time, the position of the sun has changed. In response, the bee will compensate for the sun’s movement across the sky by gradually adjusting the angle of its dance.

How Many Lines of Code?

If humans tried to duplicate the capabilities of honey bees by building and programming mini-robots that could fly, how many lines of code would have to be written and executed to make an artificial bee? We can also ask what the likelihood is of all this coded information arising from unguided natural processes. Someone committed to the evolutionary paradigm might answer that any genomic changes that offered a survival advantage would’ve been locked in by the ratchet-like mechanism of natural selection until primitive bee ancestors evolved into the complex, coordinated colonies of honey bees seen today.

Systems engineer Steve Laufmann, co-author of the recent book Your Designed Body, addresses the engineering hurdles facing any proposed evolutionary explanation:

…when evolutionary biologists hypothesize about small and apparently straightforward changes to a species during its evolutionary history, the biologists tend to skip both the thorny engineering details of what’s necessary to make the system work, and the bigger picture of how any system change has to be integrated with all the other systems it interacts with. The result is that biologists tend to massively underestimate the complexities involved.

And here’s the rub: if they’ve massively underestimated those complexities, then they’ve massively underestimated the challenge for any gradual, materialistic evolutionary process to build up these systems a little bit at a time while maintaining coherence and function. 

PP. 324-325

The difficulties outlined by Laufmann are in the context of the human body, but they apply equally well to the complexities of a colony of honey bees. Bee keepers are all too aware of the precarious balance between life and death throughout a single year for a colony of bees. Engineers know that making changes to a delicately balanced complex functional system, even small ones, have a way of upsetting the balance — not towards better function but towards failure and collapse.

Honey bees offer us a glimpse of a remarkable living system involving interdependent, communally cooperative behavior. In some ways, they outshine the best in conscious human attempts to build a thriving society. Perhaps we can learn a thing or two from the humble bee.

Notes

Rahul Franklin, Sridhar Niverty, Brock A. Harpur, Nikhilesh Chawla, “Unraveling the Mechanisms of the Apis mellifera Honeycomb Construction by 4D X-ray Microscopy,” Advanced Materials, Vol. 34, Issue 42, Oct. 20, 2022.

Richard F. Trump, Bees and Their Keepers, (Iowa State University Press, Ames, IA, 1987).

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/12/caltech-finds-amazing-role-for-noncoding-dna/

How do bees make honey? From the hive to the pot | Live Science (accessed 5/28/2023).

Diana Sammataro and Alphonse Avitabile, Beekeeper’s Handbook, (New York: Cornell University Press, 1998). 

pollinator_week_factsheet_06.25.2020 (usda.gov).

Trump, Bees and Their Keepers, p. 78.

Trump, Bees and Their Keepers, pp. 80-1. 

"Professor"Dave =most clueless of all Q.E.D?

 Hello, Professor Dave: James Tour’s Criticisms of OOL Research Echo Those of Other Experts

Brian Miller 

In several articles we have already deconstructed the debate between Professor James Tour and “Professor” Dave Farina on the state of research about the origin of life (OOL). For example, see my latest, on Farina’s habit of citation bluffing, here. Today, I will address one of the few honest questions Farina and other critics have asked: If Tour’s critique of the field is accurate, why has he not published his arguments in peer-reviewed literature? The answer is simple: Tour’s criticisms and concerns have already been recognized by experts in origins research and published in technical journals. Tour has simply compiled and explained the challenges to the public to expose the disconnect between what the public has been told and the true state of the field. 

Steven Benner

One of the most comprehensive and insightful critiques of origins research is by Steven Benner (2009), a synthetic chemist praised by Farina. Benner’s article “Paradoxes in the Origin of Life” lists five seemingly insurmountable hurdles facing origin-of-life scenarios. I will explain only two. 

The first is termed the Asphalt Paradox. It refers to the tendency of systems of organic molecules to degrade into mixtures of molecules that are useless for life. Benner states:

An enormous amount of empirical data have established, as a rule, that organic systems, given energy and left to themselves, devolve to give uselessly complex mixtures, “asphalts”… Further, chemical theories, including the second law of thermodynamics, bonding theory that describes the “space” accessible to sets of atoms, and structure theory requiring that replication systems occupy only tiny fractions of that space, suggest that it is impossible for any non-living chemical system to escape devolution to enter into the Darwinian world of the “living.”

Benner goes on to explain why this tendency undermines all potentially viable approaches to explaining even the simplest and earliest steps toward life’s origin:

Such statements of impossibility apply even to macromolecules not assumed to be necessary for RIRI [replication involving replicable imperfections] evolution. Again richly supported by empirical observation, material escapes from known metabolic cycles that might be viewed as models for a “metabolism first” origin of life, making such cycles short-lived. Lipids that provide tidy compartments under the close supervision of a graduate student (supporting a protocell-first model for origins) are quite non-robust with respect to small environmental perturbations, such as a change in the salt concentration, the introduction of organic solvents, or a change in temperature….

Benner labels a second challenge the Information-Need Paradox. It refers to the implausibility of an RNA molecule forming with the information required for it to self-replicate. The central problem is that the probability is miniscule for a random sequence of nucleotides (the building blocks of RNA) to contain the required information for an RNA molecule to perform self-replication or any other complex function required for a minimally complex cell. Benner states:

If a biopolymer is assumed to be necessary for RIRI evolution, we must resolve the paradox arising because implausibly high concentrations of building blocks generate biopolymers having inadequate amounts of information. These propositions from theory and observation also force the conclusion that the emergence of (in this case, biopolymer-based) life is impossible.

At the end of the article, Benner exchanges the hat of an objective scientist for that of a high priest of the secular faith. He encourages his readers not to lose hope that the paradoxes will one day be solved. Yet no discovery since the article’s publication has suggested that the barriers to life’s genesis identified by Benner could ever be overcome.     

Tour’s critique appears far more charitable than Benner’s assessment. Tour simply stated that researchers do not yet have any understanding of how life could have originated. In contrast, Benner stated that the most fundamental theories of science and all experimental evidence point to the origin of life through natural processes being “impossible.”

Elbert Branscomb and Michael Russell

A second key paper is “Frankenstein or a Submarine Alkaline Vent: Who Is Responsible for Abiogenesis?” This two-part article (Part 1, Part 2) was authored by Elbert Branscomb and Michael Russell (2018), who are leaders in the alkaline-vent hypothesis for the origin of life. The article explains why all theories on life’s origin relying solely on natural processes must fail. The authors detail how nearly every reaction in cells requires molecular machines to drive it at the correct rate:

But even those of life’s molecular transformations that do run downhill have to be taken out of chemistry’s hands and “managed” by a dedicated macromolecular machine — in order to impose conditionally manipulable control over reaction rates and to exclude undesirable reactions, both as to reactants and products. On its own, chemistry is far too indiscriminate and uncontrollable.

The authors also state that the operations of a cell must conform to “an elaborate organizational design.” 

Life does not represent an emergent property of matter, but a system of processes directed by advanced nanotechnology to operate in conformity with a blueprint or design architecture. One could no more explain the organization of a cell through the chemistry and physics of its constituent molecules than one could explain the organization of a car through the chemistry and physics of metal, glass, rubber, and gasoline. 

Remarkably, the authors even recognize that the need for molecular machines eliminates any possibility of Life emerging through natural processes:

We claim in particular that it is untenable to hold that life-relevant biochemistry could have emerged in the chemical chaos produced by mass-action chemistry and chemically nonspecific “energy” inputs, and only later have evolved its dauntingly specific mechanisms (as a part of evolving all the rest of life’s features).

They respond to this challenge by appealing to natural selection. Yet nothing is reproducing, so their only hope for explaining life is a delusion. Here again, the authors present a bleak picture of the field by concluding that life’s origin appears “untenable.”

Assembling the Cellular Components

Ironically, explaining the synthesis of life’s building blocks (e.g., proteins, RNA, membranes, sugars) is far easier than explaining how they could assemble into a functional cell. What would happen if aliens deposited millions of tons of randomly sequenced proteins and RNA, cell membranes, molecular machines, and every other cellular component on the early Earth? Everything would simply decompose into “uselessly complex mixtures.” Even if decomposition were somehow prevented, forming a minimally complex cell would still require three steps: 

Selecting the correct proteins, RNA, and other structures out of an unfathomably large pool of molecules. 

Localizing the building blocks in a microscopic environment. 

Properly assembling the molecules and structures into a fantastically rare arrangement.

Tour explained the complete implausibility of these steps through known natural processes in a video, which I summarized in a previous Article. 

Irrelevant Research on Life’s Origin

Examining the assembly problem reveals the irrelevance of current origin-of-life research. Origins experiments and hypotheses represent mere nibbling around the edges of the real challenge, for reasons that can best be understood with an analogy. Imagine a group of scientists claiming that the laws of aerodynamics guarantee that a tornado plowing through an auto parts store will often assemble the parts into a functional car. To prove their point, they attempt to demonstrate that high winds under the right conditions can push nuts and bolts closer together. Even if successful, this one step is inconsequential in relation to the entire task of car assembly. 

Similarly, simply forming a few biologically relevant molecules or linking them together is inconsequential when compared to fabricating a cell, which represents a nanotechnology vessel capable of such feats as energy production, information processing, and error correction. Any honest assessment of the evidence must conclude that life did not originate through natural processes, but instead is the product of a mind.

Yet more on why there will be no rise of the machines

I D on the march?

Yet more on when the thumb print of JEHOVAH is the logical conclusion.

 <iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1ZvrwDtg7rQ" title="Stephen Meyer: Return of the GOD Hypothesis!" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Copying the original engineer?

 Engineering Brings Life and Vice Versa

David Coppedge 

I came across an uplifting video about a life-saving invention that encapsulates several running themes about intelligent design. If you can, take 22 minutes to watch this video by Mark Rober, a former NASA engineer. I assure you it will be well worth your time.

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/DOWDNBu9DkU" title="Amazing Invention- This Drone Will Change Everything" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The story is uplifting on many levels. How wonderful is it to see former enemies from a major genocide in 1994 having learned how to live together in peace 30 years later? How inspiring is it to see one near victim of that slaughter starting in poverty to become a Harvard engineer and inventor in a company that is saving lives? How beautiful is it to see smiling children mastering soccer with a makeshift ball? How gratifying to prove naysayers wrong, and to show the fruit of well-tested engineering being put to beneficial use in the poorest parts of the world? I was very impressed by this story.

There was one brief statement I will criticize, but otherwise this video made my day, especially since I have relatives in Africa on a medical mission who may soon benefit from this amazing technology. Whether or not you like drones or believe this type of delivery system will change shopping in America (I can see lawyers rubbing their hands), the way the invention is working in Africa right now cannot help but impress. This is the power of ethical intelligent design in action. Let’s look at some lessons from this story.

           

Biomimetics

The heroes of the story are the birds. They were already masters of takeoff, landing, and pinpoint navigation. An owl was the inspiration for the Zipline drone’s whisper-quiet propeller system. A hummingbird inspired their miniaturized and silent flight control. As I like to say, if the engineers can get their drones to lay eggs and hatch babies with the software and hardware already included, that can grow larger while maintaining function, and power themselves from the environment by ingesting worms, they will really have something to brag about. Bravo to the birds that once again inspired inventors from the Wright Brothers to the high-tech engineers of NASA and Zipline.

                    

Trial and Error with Thinking

                 As Rober shows, Abdul and his crew had to try and fail many times. They succeeded through the failures and made progress because they applied their minds to problem solving. By thinking, and learning the principles of how things work, elucidated by great minds of the past, they could bring parts together to achieve a goal that first existed only in the mind’s eye. They could envision a concept, experiment, and test possibilities, making progress toward the goal by learning from their failures. 

Darwinians tell us that is how natural selection works, but think about it. (In passing, note that thinking also requires a mind.) If nature is mindless and aimless, with no foresight, could it invent a Zipline delivery system, much less a bird as they claim happened? A fundamental ID principle first clearly enunciated by Michael Behe is that irreducibly complex systems defeat the Darwinian mechanism and give positive evidence for intelligent design. We see that in this story implicitly.

Altruistic Design

Another thing the Darwinians continue to teach (examples here and here) is that altruism evolved by natural selection. Indeed, they attribute every noble ideal in human society to this blind, aimless, purposeless “mechanism” that works in bacteria similarly to how (they say) it works in human societies. With their evolutionary game theory models, they divide up members of a population into cooperators and cheaters whose actions are genetically determined by the mechanism, not by morality or by human exceptionalism. But doesn’t this quote from the video knock the air out of that explanation? Rober shows battle scars from the Rwandan genocide, then says,

                 As horrific as that ways, it galvanized the country to a period of healing and solidarity as a single Rwandan people instead of divisive ethnic groups. For instance, on the last Saturday of the month, literally everyone spends the day picking up trash and volunteering in their local communities. And that’s one of the reasons you hardly see litter anywhere…. There was just a pervasive optimism everywhere. Everyone was moving with a purpose everywhere we went, not just working hard, but working smart with the resources on hand…

For over a decade, attending school up to age 16 has been both mandatory and free. And when you combine that with leapfrogging to new technologies like drone delivery, in the last decade their economy has been growing at four times the rate of the U.S. economy, while their violent crime rate has been 15 times less than the U.S.

                         Who can say with a straight face that these Rwandan people, recovering from a devastating civil war, are just pawns of evolutionary game theory? Who can say that Abdul, after his near escape from terror that took his family, is no better than a germ cooperating with other bacteria? To even suggest such a notion is to defeat it. That word purpose stands out as anti-Darwinian as anything in the whole video. 

This calls for an occasion to promote the new Book Darwin Comes to Africa by Olufemi Oluniyi, who recounts the abominations wrought by the European imperialists who were mostly ardent believers in Social Darwinism. Would Darwinists today draw no distinctions between the altruistic, cooperative black Africans of Rwanda, whose behavior serves as a model for Westerners, than the colony of gorillas Mark Rober visited next in the video? Perish the racist thought. Westerners could learn some lessons from the morals of these friendly people who turned evil into good, and from Abdul whose noble soul did not take the evolutionary route of retaliation for his own personal fitness but instead is today saving the lives of distant people he hasn’t even met.

              

Teaching Design

             Rober bypasses academia at one point. He shares his vision of getting children to build things and learn by doing, realizing that “thinking like an engineer” means breaking things to figure out what works and what doesn’t. How many of the happy children he shows trying to solve simple problems, like getting a ping pong ball to bounce into a boot, will be likely to end up Darwinists? The harder the problem, the more the student will learn that things don’t just happen. Teaching engineering at an early age may prove to be the antidote to Darwinism for the next generation

          

The Flaw

OK, so what is the lone criticism I have of the video? It’s a throwaway line when Rober claims that “with owls, there’s an evolutionary pressure to be as quiet as possible” as he shows an owl flying imperceptibly past a line of microphones. What can possibly be meant by “evolutionary pressure”? The Darwinist imagines that adaptations are caused by an organism’s surroundings. The Darwinist believes that innovations that are engineering marvels, like powered flight, can emerge this way. For those who maintain that environments have such power, consider a simple illustration. The desert pupfish in Nevada have faced environmental pressure from increasing salinity as their habitats dry up, and now survive high salt concentrations that would kill other fish. Isn’t that “evolutionary pressure” forcing them to adapt? There are several problems with this explanation. 

For one thing, a chance mutation that helps a lone pupfish survive increasing salt is not going to aid the individual, but only its offspring. Standard neo-Darwinism teaches that the beneficial mutation needs to occur in the germline, not in somatic cells. Even if epigenetic benefits can be inherited, as has been shown more recently, they cannot happen gradually by random mutations, but involve rewiring of complex genetic circuits. Second, the neo-Darwinian explanation transfers the cause of adaptation to the environment instead of locating it in the organism. This borders on vitalism or personification, as if the environment is pressuring the organism in certain adaptive directions. The environment is mindless; it cannot care what happens. Extinction is a perfectly valid option, as the fossil record shows. Third and most important, the pupfish can only adapt if there is built-in engineering for adaptation prior to need. This presupposes an ability to sense the change, reprogram itself, and alter its own responses. Intelligent design for robustness in changing environments matches what engineers do when they build in redundancy and fail-safe mechanisms, as shown in the video. The owl that flies silently was not “pressured” by “evolution” to adapt its wing feathers. The cause of the adaptation was internal to the owl. That required foresight, not a randomly changing environment. 

Enough on that minor flaw in the video. Everything else was spectacularly encouraging for ID advocates. By the way, signups are being taken for the next CELS event (Conference on Engineering in Living Systems) in Texas this June 3-10. Read about it here.

                    

The Uplift

                    For an upbeat summary, Rober’s ending comment bears repeating.

                   Here you have Abdul, who bears a scar on his head from the same machete that killed his entire family as a child, not only using his engineering knowledge to save the lives of his people, but more importantly, to inspire the next generation of problem solvers to dream even bigger. It’s the type of thing that leaves you feeling a little bit of that contagious Rwandan optimism for the future and the incredible potential of us mere humans.

                            Human exceptionalism is real; it is part of our own experience and of human history. We thrive best when using our minds and morals unselfishly to solve problems for the improvement of our world.

ID is perfectly natural?

 Let’s Help Harvard Understand Intelligent Design

Jonathan McLatchie 

Last week, my wife and I spent an afternoon at the Harvard Museum of Natural History, in Cambridge, MA, near where we live. We both were generally impressed by the exhibitions, particularly the dinosaur section, and would recommend the museum to anyone visiting Boston. I was, however, quite disappointed to see this notice at the entrance to the display on evolution:

It was disappointing to see the inaccurate representation of intelligent design (ID), along with the poor scientific epistemology.

               

A “Super-Natural Explanation”?

First, proponents of ID have long stressed that ID, in its purest sense, does not necessarily postulate a supernatural cause but is consistent with a natural or supernatural intelligence. Furthermore, I would contend that the natural / supernatural distinction is problematic. What precisely is meant when a phenomenon is described as supernatural, and by what set of criteria is it distinguished from the natural? Often, the word “supernatural” is used to describe the capacity to perform miracles, defined as violations of natural law. I would, however, offer a more nuanced definition of a miracle, which is that a miracle describes an interruption in the way nature normally behaves when left to itself. A miracle does not violate natural law, because natural law only describes what happens when nature is left to itself – not what happens when there is an intervention by an external agent. I am not by any means the first to define a miracle in these terms. Indeed, the atheist philosopher John Mackie in his classic book, The Miracle of Theism, defines a miracle along similar lines.1 As agents ourselves, we have the capability of interrupting the normal course of nature, determined by natural law. When I consciously choose to catch a ball with my hands, I am interrupting the trajectory it would have otherwise taken if left to itself. Agency itself is not governed by natural law, nor can it be reduced to material constituents. Human free will — my belief in which I take to be strongly justified by direct acquaintance — is, in my view, utterly incompatible with a materialistic reductionist perspective on the mind. Since, in my judgment, the strong burden of proof required to demonstrate that the strong appearance of free agency is merely illusory has not been met, this provides a strong prima facie justification for believing the mind to not be reducible to material components. Few would want to use the term “supernatural” to describe the human mind. A more helpful distinction, then, is between material and non-material causes. But non-material causes — assuming my judgment about the non-reducibility of agency to be correct — are already demonstrably a part of the natural world, since all of us have minds. Thus, the fact that ID postulates a non-material entity cannot be used to exclude ID from the natural sciences. Moreover, if our epistemology arbitrarily excludes one possible answer to an inquiry a priori, there is a real danger of being led to an incorrect conclusion about the natural world.

“Observation”

Second, the invocation of an unobservable entity should not be a demarcating factor that renders ID unscientific, for that would exclude other scientific disciplines, such as particle and nuclear physics, as well. Unobservable entities can often be detected by their effects, even without direct observation. For example, black holes are not directly observable since they do not emit electromagnetic radiation that can be detected with telescopes. Their existence and presence, however, is inferred by the effects that they exert on nearby matter, since gas flowing around a black hole increases in temperature and emits radiation that can be detected (their gravitational effects on surrounding objects, such as nearby stars, and the bending of light passing by a black hole, can also reveal the presence of a black hole).

 

“Testing”

Third, ID is testable in the same way that other hypotheses purporting to explain events in the distant past (including evolution by natural selection) are tested — by the historical abductive method of inference to the best explanation.2 Given that functionally specific information content is, in every other realm of experience, habitually associated with conscious activity and no other category of explanation has been demonstrated to be causally sufficient to account for its origin, ID is the most causally adequate explanation of the relevant data.

“Predictions”

Fourth, a scientific theory can be well justified even if it does not make strong predictions; it just needs to render the evidence significantly more probable than it would have otherwise been. For example, the hypothesis that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant does not strongly predict that you will have radioactive poisoning (few such workers suffer this). But if you did have radioactive poisoning, it would be significant evidence that you were in the vicinity of a nuclear plant since that data is more expected (or, less surprising) given the truth of the hypothesis than given its falsehood. Thus, even if ID only weakly predicts the observed data, it can still be strongly justified if the data is extremely unlikely if ID is false. ID, I would argue, also has a reasonably high intrinsic plausibility (what probability theorists call prior probability) given the independent evidence of there being a mind behind the universe who has an interest in creating complex life (that is, the evidence of cosmic fine tuning3 and prior environmental fitness4). It shouldn’t be too surprising, then, if the data also indicate that life was purposely brought about.

An “Inherent Conflict”?

Fifth, ID is not postulated because there is a perceived incompatibility between evolution and religion, but rather because we understand it to be the best interpretation of the scientific evidence. That being said, the “many scientists and religious leaders” who “do not perceive an inherent conflict between religion and the scientific theory of evolution” are correct that God and naturalistic evolution are logically compatible. However, naturalistic evolution, if true, would constitute significant evidence against theism and by extension religion. Why? First, if the conclusion that teleology best explains biological phenomena is evidence for theism, it necessarily follows that the falsehood of this conclusion would be evidence against theism. Second, atheism, and in particular naturalism (which, I would contend, is the most consistent version of atheism), strongly predicts that there be a naturalistic evolutionary account of life’s origins and development on earth. However, this is significantly less well predicted by theism. Therefore, though not by itself sufficient grounds on which to reject theism, unguided evolution — being more surprising given theism than given atheism — would, if true, constitute significant evidence against theism.It is unfortunate that the administrators of the Harvard Museum of Natural History seem to have failed to do their due diligence to understand the claims of ID, and how its advocates propose to test it, before dismissing it as being outside of the scope of science.

Yet another question mark in the fossil chronicles.

 Fossil Friday: The Abrupt Origin of Ichthyosaurs

Gunter Bechly 

This Fossil Friday features Stenopterygius quadricissus from the Lower Jurassic Posidonia shale of Holzmaden in southern Germany, which is about 190 million years old. As a child I went collecting fossils from this fossil locality, which was close to my childhood home, and with a bit of luck you could not only find ammonites but even vertebrae of such ichthyosaurs. Apart from dinosaurs and pterosaurs, the ichthyosaurs are one of the iconic groups of Mesozoic reptiles. Even though they look like a hybrid between a dolphin and a shark, they were marine reptiles that are believed to have descended from monitor-lizard-like terrestrial ancestors.

Darwinism would predict a long and gradual transition between these very different body plans, but actually ichthyosaurs appeared very abruptly about 4 million years after the great end-Permian mass extinction event about 252 million years ago, which annihilated about 81 percent of marine and 70 percent of terrestrial biodiversity. There is general consensus that ichthyosaurs did not yet exist before this cataclysm, and the oldest fossils indeed only appeared in the Lower Triassic of China about 248 million years ago. Jiang et al. (2016) concluded that “ichthyosauriforms evolved rapidly within the first one million years of their evolution.” Well, that was the state of knowledge until a few days ago, when a brand new study (Kear et al. 2023) changed the picture and made the origin of ichthyosaurs even much more abrupt. A team of scientists from Norway and Sweden described ichthyosaur remains from the Arctic island of Spitsbergen, which are about 250 million years old but already show clear evidence for a fully marine way of life.

                      

Revealing Admissions

The press release by Uppsala University (2023) makes some very revealing admissions about this unexpected discovery:

             As the story goes, land-based reptiles with walking legs invaded shallow coastal environments to take advantage [of] marine predator niches that were left vacant by this cataclysmic event. Over time, these early amphibious reptiles became more efficient at swimming and eventually modified their limbs into flippers, developed a fish-like body shape, and started giving birth to live young; thus, severing their final tie with the land by not needing to come ashore to lay eggs.

The new fossils discovered on Spitsbergen are now revising this long accepted theory. …

Unexpectedly, these vertebrae occurred within rocks that were supposedly too old for ichthyosaurs. Also, rather than representing the textbook example of an amphibious ichthyosaur ancestor, the vertebrae are identical to those of geologically much younger larger-bodied ichthyosaurs, and even preserve internal bone microstructure showing adaptive hallmarks of fast growth, elevated metabolism and a fully oceanic lifestyle.

                        This means nothing less than that the transition from a land-living reptile to a fish-like marine reptile was completed in less than 2 million years, which corresponds to about half the average longevity of a larger vertebrate animal species. This is incredibly short in geological and biological terms and does not allow for the required genetic changes to have originated by an unguided process. This waiting time problem of neo-Darwinism is proven by population genetic calculations, which is the subject on an ongoing research project by Discovery Institute scientists.

Even the time span of 4 million years that was implied by the previously known fossil record of Early Triassic ichthyosaurs is shockingly short, so much so that a friend and colleague of mine, who is a renowned expert on ichthyosaurs and neither a theist nor an advocate of intelligent design, confidentially told me that he came to doubt the neo-Darwinian explanation for this very reason. He said: “That this transition happened by a Darwinian mechanism in such a short time is simply IMPOSSIBLE!” With this window of time now cut in half, the transition becomes even more incredible.

                       

A Temporal Paradox

But there is another problem: The new discovery makes fully marine ichthyosaurs older than their alleged amphibious relatives such as Cartorhynchus (Motani et al. 2015, Jiang et al. 2016) and likely older than their unknown terrestrial relatives. This creates a temporal paradox of assumed descendants appearing before their assumed stem group. Thus, ichthyosaurs joined the numerous other examples of such paradoxes, such as early tetrapods or early birds. Not exactly a success story for Darwinism.

With increasing knowledge of the fossil record, the mainstream narrative is rendered more and more untenable and inconsistent with the empirical evidence. It’s time to move on and consider more adequate explanations like intelligent design theory.

Another look at the thumb print of JEHOVAH.

Cosmic Fine-Tuning: A Look at the Implications

Evolution News

On a new episode of ID the Future host and geologist Casey Luskin continues his conversation with astrobiologist Guillermo Gonzalez about the many ways Earth’s place in the cosmos is fine-tuned for life. In this second half of their conversation, Gonzalez zooms out to discuss the galactic habitable zone and the cosmic habitable age. Luskin says that the combination of exquisite cosmic and local fine-tuning strongly suggests intelligent design, but he asks Gonzalez whether he thinks these telltale clues favor theism over deism? That is, does any of the evidence suggest a cosmic designer who is more than just the clockmaker God of the deists who, in the words of Stephen Dedalus, “remains within or behind or beyond or above his handiwork, invisible, refined out of existence, indifferent, paring his  fingernails”? Gonzalez answers in the affirmative, but the reasons he offers for this conclusion may surprise you. Download the podcast or Listen to it here. 

Biology's lexicon and the design inference.

 Mapping the Pleiotropic Network of Human Cells

Paul Nelson 

If you think about how you use English words, you quickly realize that words are polyfunctional. “House,” for instance, can be a noun, a verb, or an adjective (“house music,” “house money,” etc.). 

Thus, if you imagine eliminating the word “house” from your daily-use lexicon, a wide range of different propositions would be affected, many having no apparent semantic relation to each other.

Genes and proteins are remarkably similar to natural-language words in this polyfunctional respect. For many decades, “pleiotropy” has been the term describing the multiple-system consequences of genetic mutations to a single locus, where the functional consequences can be wide-ranging, and often surprising in their diversity.

For more on the subject, here is an open access article at Nature Genetics: “Network expansion of genetic associations defines a Pleiotropy map of human cell biology.” 

Darwinism simple beginning is more than a phantom? Pros and cons.

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HE6TtIdddU0" title="Stephen Meyer &amp; Saleem Ali: Where does order in nature come from?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe> 

On extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.

Yes, Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence — Let’s Hear Some for Darwinian Evolution

Granville Sewell 

Carl Sagan famously said on his TV series Cosmos, “I believe that the extraordinary should be pursued. But extraordinary claims require Extraordinary evidence " I agree. You shouldn’t change the entire direction of science based on a few isolated pieces of evidence.

Intelligent design (ID) proponents make an extraordinary claim, that the origin and evolution of life cannot be explained without postulating a guiding intelligence. If this idea becomes generally accepted it will be a huge change in the direction of science, so the scientific establishment is justified in dragging its feet. But the evidence for intelligent design does not consist of a few missing fossils or a few examples of irreducible complexity, which could eventually be shown to be reducible. ID advocates believe we have long ago passed the threshold of evidence required to accept this extraordinary claim and that every new discovery in biology and biochemistry pushes us farther beyond the threshold. Evolution News readers are exposed to this evidence daily.

                

Another Extraordinary Claim

But less noticed is that ID opponents also make an extraordinary claim. They believe that they have found, or at least will eventually find, natural, unintelligent, causes capable of creating things which in our uniform experience are known to be created only by intelligence. 

I have often argued (most recently here) that to attribute to natural selection the ability to create spectacular order out of disorder is to attribute to it, alone among all unintelligent forces in the universe, the ability to defy the more general statements of the second law of thermodynamics, or at least the general principle behind this law. But it is not really necessary to appeal to the second law because everyone can see that Darwin’s claim to have discovered an unintelligent force capable of creating all the magnificent species in the living world, and even human brains, was quite an extraordinary claim. It credits natural selection with creative powers far beyond those claimed for any other natural causes. (Origin-of-life researchers’ claim that chance chemical processes could have created the first self-replicators, when human engineered self-replicating machines are still far beyond current technologies, could also be considered to be an extraordinary claim.)

And where do we stand with regard to evidence for the Darwinists’ extraordinary claim? Have we passed the threshold of evidence required to accept their claim? Hardly. The ongoing debate between Michael Behe and his critics is over whether or not there is evidence that natural selection of random mutations can be credited with any evolutionary changes that would not be considered “devolution” and do not simply “promote the loss of genetic information.” And evolutionists now openly wonder if they need an entirely new theory. While the evidence for the extraordinary claim made by design theorists continually increases, the evidence for the Darwinists’ claim seems to be shrinking.

“Why Evolution Is Different”

In my 2020 video “Why Evolution Is different” I imagine watching a tornado running backward and trying to come up with a scientific explanation for what we are seeing. It concludes: 

                                Anyone who claims to have a scientific explanation for how unintelligent agents might be able to turn rubble into houses and cars would be expected to produce some very powerful evidence if they want their theory to be taken seriously. The burden of proof should be equally heavy on those who claim to have a scientific explanation for how a few unintelligent forces of physics alone could rearrange the basic particles of physics into computers and encyclopedias and Apple iPhones — and there is no evidence that natural selection of random mutations can explain anything other than very minor adaptations.

                         Some observers of the ID-Darwinism debate feel that the Darwinian point of view is the default so that the burden of proof is on us. But it is extraordinary that we are here at all, so any ideas about how we got here should require extraordinary evidence. 

<iframe width="460" height="259" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/NEyFUB7vtJw" title="Why Evolution is Different (w. Spanish subtitles)" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" allowfullscreen></iframe>

JEHOVAH'S masterclass on supply chain operation.

How the Earth Operates Supply Chains for Life

David Coppedge  

The “supply chain crisis” in the news underscores the need for complex systems to have access to the parts they need in time. Breakdowns in the supply chain for one system can cause ripple effects with other systems.

During World War II, the science of Operations Research, a branch of engineering dealing with time and space efficiency, was founded to optimize interconnected systems. With new diagrams like Pert charts, efficiency experts identified nodes where supply breakdowns could slow or halt production of complex systems like aircraft or ships. Some nodes can be worked on in parallel; others cannot. For instance, if parts for a subsystem are plentiful at the Norfolk shipyard but specific widgets must be shipped from Peoria on unreliable transports, laborers could find themselves being paid for idle time waiting for the parts to arrive. Tracing a project’s critical path through these nodes allows managers to estimate the time required to complete a project, and then look for ways to eliminate showstoppers or inefficiencies. Advances in Operations Research led to innovations like buffering and Just-in-time delivery.

             As with engineering, so with life. For one example, I’ve reported on how toxic heme molecules, essential for many life processes, are synthesized, stored, and buffered for just-in-time delivery without endangering the cell. See here as well for three other examples.

          

Elemental Abundance vs. Availability

The most abundant elements in our bodies (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, comprising 96 percent) are available plentifully in the crust and atmosphere. Proximity, though, does not equate to availability. As we saw here and here, nitrogen is a tough nut to crack despite being the most abundant gas in the atmosphere, and oxygen is highly toxic to cells unless handled carefully. Similarly, carbon and hydrogen come in many molecular forms that are not directly useful to cells. The supply chain problem, therefore, depends not only on proximity but on packaging. Essential ingredients are not helpful if locked in a metal box without a key. 

         The Earth is blessed with a crust and an atmosphere that provide essential elements for life. But it’s no help having the elements in the Earth’s crust if they can’t get where the organisms need them. One of the most fascinating aspects of Michael Denton’s Privileged Species series of books, especially The Miracle of Man (2022), concerns the synergy between geology and biology that satisfies life’s supply chain requirements. Let’s look at some new discoveries about getting chemical elements where they are needed, on time.

The Geological Supply Chain

Denton spoke of the combined benefits of glaciers and the unique properties of water for grinding down rocks to expose minerals. The process works like sandpaper, he says (The Miracle of Man, pp. 37-38), creating “rock flour” that brings elements to soils and clays usable by plants.

From Penn today, we learn that “Biogeochemist Jon Hawkings of the School of Arts & Sciences and his lab study glaciers to understand the cycling of elements through Earth’s waters, soils, and air in its coldest regions, with implications for climate change, ecosystem health, and more.” Collecting freezing water in Greenland without contamination is not glamorous work, Hawkings says, but is leading his colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania to appreciate the rivers of ice as habitats for algae and bacteria.

                In addition to harboring life, glaciers also move, albeit fairly slowly, says Hawkings. They are sometimes referred to as “ice rivers.” As they flow, the ice can act like sandpaper, grinding up the bedrock upon which they sit. “Anything that’s in that bedrock can become mobilized and, if it’s reactive, will dissolve into water,” he says.

          The team’s work on “elemental mobilization and global systems” has only been possible in the past decade, Hawkings says. 

The geological supply chain also includes volcanoes, which enrich soils with nutrients. One “striking” non-biological supplier is lightning, which can break N2’s triple bonds and create nitrates usable by organisms. Many planetary scientists, furthermore, believe that other essential elements, like zinc (Imperial College London), and perhaps Earth’s ocean water, were delivered air mail: via meteorites and comets. Micrometeoroids deliver a steady rain of Elements that include biological essentials like manganese, iron, magnesium, calcium, phosphorus, and even chromium. Some of these are also supplied by volcanoes.

                 Chromium (Cr, atomic number 24) is another essential trace Element not just for shiny bicycle handlebars and stainless steel kitchenware but also for insulin utilization. Though it is toxic in excess, our metabolism depends on it. We usually get sufficient chromium in a variety of foods. A paper by Bertinotto and Griffin in PLOS one reported that “A low chromium diet increases body fat, energy intake and circulating triglycerides and insulin in male and female rats fed a moderately high-fat, high-sucrose diet from peripuberty to young adult age.” Without the volcanic and meteoritic supply chains, there might not be sufficient chromium on the surface. That could be true of other trace elements needed by organisms, including rare earth Elements.

                  

The Biological Supply Chain

As stated above, lightning can make atmospheric nitrogen available, but most biologically available nitrogen is “fixed” by microbes containing the nitrogenase enzyme. These biological marvels are located in root nodules of legumes and other plants that have symbiotic relationships with the microbes. It’s more irreducibly complex than a mousetrap, but if you could build a mimic of nitrogenase the world would beat a path to your door.

Another interesting case of microbial delivery concerns cobalt. Many do not think of this shiny metal in their diet, but Co (element 27) is incorporated in the active site of Vitamin b12, essential for the synthesis of nucleic acids and for cellular metabolism. The vitamin is also involved in the synthesis of fatty acids for the myelin sheath that supercharges neurons. Watanabe and Bito (2017) describe how we obtain vitamin B12 with its cobalt ion in the center:

           Vitamin B12 is synthesized only by certain bacteria and archaeon, but not by plants. The synthesized vitamin B12 is transferred and accumulates in animal tissues, which can occur in certain plant and mushroom species through microbial interaction. In particular, the meat and milk of herbivorous ruminant animals (e.g. cattle and sheep) are good sources of vitamin B12 for humans. Ruminants acquire vitamin B12, which is considered an essential nutrient, through a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria present in their stomachs. In aquatic environments, most phytoplankton acquire vitamin B12 through a symbiotic relationship with bacteria, and they become food for larval fish and bivalves. Edible plants and mushrooms rarely contain a considerable amount of vitamin B12, mainly due to concomitant bacteria in soil and/or their aerial surfaces. Thus, humans acquire vitamin B12 formed by microbial interaction via mainly ruminants and fish (or shellfish) as food sources.

                From volcano to ore to microbe to cow to lunchtime hamburger, this unexpected metal makes its appearance through both geological and biological supply chains. (The role of the ruminant forestomach I discussed here. You can listen to the episode on ID the Future.)

         

Limiting Factor?

Of the essential elements for life, phosphorus (P, atomic number 15) may be a limiting factor. See “The Problem of Phosphorous” and “Is There Enough Phosphorus for Us?” Those articles gave circumstantial evidence that P availability has been adequate through the history of life on Earth, and noted that microbes and plants are good recyclers of phosphorus, able to implement pre-programmed remediation measures under P starvation.

Phosphorus shortages have become a global concern (Auburn University). Nature Communications is worried that soil warming may decrease phosphorus availability. There may be better supply chain strategies at work in the biosphere than we realize. The Chinese Academy of Sciences reported via Phys.org that phosphorus availability is enhanced in some cases by — of all things — termites.

           Termites are social insects of the infraorder Isoptera and are widely distributed across tropical and subtropical ecosystems. These insects are the most important soil bioturbators and have been called “soil engineers.”Phosphorus concentrations are usually low in highly weathered tropical acid soils, but termite nests form bioaggregates that serve as carriers for P protection and stabilization.

                 As this is a new finding, it is reasonable to expect other biological processes will be found working to maintain just-in-time delivery of phosphorus in other ecosystems.

A Hidden Hand

One hopes these glimpses into Earth’s “operations research” solutions help give us confidence that life will continue to thrive as it has since the beginning. And maybe the success of the biosphere will point to a hidden hand of engineering that knew all about critical paths and just-in-time delivery.

The Fossil record's trolling of Darwinism continues .

 Fossil Friday: A Strange Dragonfly Larva

Gunter Bechly

This Fossil Friday features Nothomacromia sensibilis, a strange type of dragonfly larva from the Early Cretaceous (ca. 115 mya) Crato limestones of northeast Brazil. I photographed this specimen at a German trader collection in April 2010, before it was acquired by the famous private collector Burkhard Pohl, who also runs the Wyoming Dinosaur Center.

These nothomacromiid larvae are not uncommon at this fossil locality and are found in different sizes corresponding to different instars. The largest ones are about three inches long, which implies very large adults.

In a monograph in 2007, I suggested that these larvae may not be genuine dragonflies of the suborder Anisoptera, but could instead represent the larval stages of the anisozygopteroid Cratostenophlebia. Another possibility is that these larvae correspond to the larval stages of the extinct family Aeschnidiidae that I featured last Fossil Friday. Whatever these enigmatic larvae were, they look highly unusual with their spidery legs, lyra-shaped antennae, and forcep-like anal appendages that do not form the typical anal pyramid of anisopteran larvae.

On pondering the work of the original Technologist

Where Biology and Engineering Intersect: CELS 2023 Applications Are Open Now!

Steve Laufman 

We recently announced the 2023 Conference on Engineering in Living Systems (CELS), which will be held June 1-3, 2023, at the Tally Retreat Center at Camp Copass, in Denton, TX. 

CELS 2023 brings together an interdisciplinary group of biologists, engineers, computer scientists, medical practitioners and researchers, systems modelers, process designers, and others from related disciplines in order to: (1) apply engineering principles to better understand biological systems, (2) craft a design-based theoretical framework that explains and predicts the behaviors of living systems, and (3) develop research programs that demonstrate the engineering principles at work in living systems.

A Collegial Setting

The conference will follow a workshop-like format of discussion-oriented sessions in a collegial setting, with a goal of fostering active participation and establishing concrete results and action items. 

Topics include the following:

Intersection of Biology and Engineering — the impacts of engineering thinking in the study of biology

Architecture of Living Systems — design principles and design patterns in living systems

Theory of Biological Design — theoretical foundations for a new design-based framework for living systems

Adaptation — mechanisms and processes used by living systems to adapt to changing circumstances and environments

Coherence — organization of capabilities and processes to achieve and sustain life

Optimization — mechanisms and processes for optimizing resource usage

Interdependency and Causal Circularity — how complex and coherent systems are initialized and jumpstarted

Resilience — failure prevention and anti-fragility in living systems

Process Coordination — mechanisms for orchestrating biological processes

Applications and Models — formal methods for modeling and understanding living systems

Not Merely for Listening

This is not a conference for listening to thought leaders in the intelligent design community (though many will be there), but an opportunity to jump in and become part of the conversation — working together to develop a new theoretical framework for how living systems work, as well as their adaptive capabilities and limits to change over time. We expect many who have long stayed on the sidelines will find themselves uniquely positioned to contribute.

We hope to be able to offer a limited number of scholarships to upper class and graduate students, or to post-docs in early career positions.

Space is limited in order to promote meaningful discussion and concrete results, so if you’d like to join us for this unique opportunity, we encourage you to complete the application process as soon as possible.

For more information, and to apply, go here. We look forward to seeing you at CELS 2023!