On distinguishing the hypothetically possible from the plausible.

New Peer-Reviewed Paper Demolishes Fallacious Objection: "Aren't There Vast Eons of Time for Evolution?"
Casey Luskin 

When debating intelligent design (ID), there are countless times I've heard the old objection, "But aren't there millions of years for Darwinian evolution?" Perhaps there are, but that doesn't mean the Darwinian mechanism has sufficient opportunities to produce the observed complexity found in life. Darwin put forward a falsifiable theory, stating that his mechanism must work by "numerous successive slight modifications." Michael Behe took Darwin at his word, and argued in Darwin's Black Box that irreducible complexity refuted Darwinian evolution because there exist complex structures that cannot be built in such a stepwise manner. Darwin's latter day defenders responded to Behe by effectively putting Darwinism into an unfalsifiable position: they put forth wildly speculative and unlikely appeals to indirect evolution. Largely based upon "exaptation," these scenarios required that complex biological systems be built by spontaneously "co-opting" or borrowing multiple parts within the cell to suddenly to perform wholly different functions in an entirely new system. The only evidence for such speculative scenarios is typically "protein homology," or sequence similarity between one part and another. The mere remote possibility of such a story is said to salvage evolution from falsification by Behe's arguments.

But is "mere possibility" sufficient justification to assert "scientific plausibility"? A new peer-reviewed article in Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling asks just this question. The abstract states:

Mere possibility is not an adequate basis for asserting scientific plausibility. A precisely defined universal bound is needed beyond which the assertion of plausibility, particularly in life-origin models, can be considered operationally falsified. But can something so seemingly relative and subjective as plausibility ever be quantified? Amazingly, the answer is, "Yes." A method of objectively measuring the plausibility of any chance hypothesis (The Universal Plausibility Metric [UPM]) is presented. A numerical inequality is also provided whereby any chance hypothesis can be definitively falsified when its UPM metric of ξ is < 1 (The Universal Plausibility Principle [UPP]). Both UPM and UPP pre-exist and are independent of any experimental design and data set.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).)

It's not just prominent proponents of intelligent design who are publishing peer-reviewed articles that support ID arguments. Other scientists are doing the same--and this article by Abel in fact cites to the work of Douglas Axe, Stephen Meyer and William Dembski, eloquently explaining why the progress of science depends on our rejecting falsified theories and not retaining highly unlikely explanations:

But at some point our reluctance to exclude any possibility becomes stultifying to operational science. Falsification is critical to narrowing down the list of serious possibilities. Almost all hypotheses are possible. Few of them wind up being helpful and scientific ally productive. Just because a hypothesis is possible should not grant that hypothesis scientific respectability. More attention to the concept of "infeasibility" has been suggested. Millions of dollars in astrobiology grant money have been wasted on scenarios that are possible, but plausibly bankrupt. The question for scientific methodology should not be, "Is this scenario possible?" The question should be, "Is this possibility a plausible scientific hypothesis?" One chance in 10200 is theoretically possible, but given maximum cosmic probabilistic resources, such a possibility is hardly plausible. With funding resources rapidly drying up, science needs a foundational principle by which to falsify a myriad of theoretical possibilities that are not worthy of serious scientific consideration and modeling.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).

The willingness of modern evolutionists to tolerate highly unlikely explanations in order to avoid the design inference has always reminded me of the great scene from "Dumb and Dumber" when Jim Carrey, who plays a socially awkward buffoon named "Lloyd," asks his secret crush Mary about the odds that she will return his love. As the exchange goes:
LLOYD: I'm gonna ask you something flat out and I want you to answer me honestly: What do you think the chances are of a girl like you and a guy like me ending up together?
MARY: Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean we hardly--

LLOYD: --I asked you to be honest, Mary.

MARY: But Lloyd, I really can't--

LLOYD: --Come on, give it to me straight. I drove a long way to see you, the least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

MARY: Not good.

LLOYD: You mean not good, like one out of a hundred?

MARY; I'd say more like one out of a million.

LLOYD: So you're telling me there's a chance?

Only an illogical emotional infatuation for Mary kept Lloyd hoping she would return his love. But if Lloyd understood how the world works, he would have realized Mary just told him that his chances of ending up with her are effectively zero, short of a miracle. Lloyd's hopes of getting the girl should have been falsified.
Michael Behe responded to his critics by noting that like Lloyd, they need to learn when it's time to acknowledge they're not gonna get the girl. He thus writes:

[O]ne needs to relax Darwin's criterion from this: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." to something like this:
If a complex organ exists which seems very unlikely to have been produced by numerous, successive, slight modifications, and if no experiments have shown that it or comparable structures can be so produced, then maybe we are barking up the wrong tree. So, LET'S BREAK SOME RULES!
Of course people will differ on the point at which they decide to break rules. But at least with the realistic criterion there could be evidence against the unfalsifiable. At least then people like Doolittle and Miller would run a risk when they cite an experiment that shows the opposite of what they had thought. At least then science would have a way to escape from the rut of unfalsifiability and think new thoughts.

(Michael Behe, "Answering Scientific Criticisms of Intelligent Design," Science and Evidence for Design in the Universe, Proceedings of the Wethersfield Institute, Vol 9:146-147 (Ignatius Press, 2000))

Behe's arguments are echoed by Abel's new paper:
The same standard should apply in falsifying ridiculously implausible life-origin assertions. Combinatorial imaginings and hypothetical scenarios can be endlessly argued simply on the grounds that they are theoretically possible. But there is a point beyond which arguing the plausibility of an absurdly low probability becomes operationally counterproductive. That point can actually be quantified for universal application to all fields of science, not just astrobiology. Quantification of a UPM and application of the UPP inequality test to that specific UPM provides for definitive, unequivocal falsification of scientifically unhelpful and functionally useless hypotheses. When the UPP is violated, declaring falsification of that highly implausible notion is just as justified as the firm commitment we make to any mathematical axiom or physical "law" of motion.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).

Abel then calculates the universal probability bounds wherein we are able to "falsify not just highly improbable, but ridiculously implausible scenarios." According to Abel's calculations, the probability bounds for various environments are as follows:
cΩu = Universe = 1013 reactions/sec X 1017 secs X 1078 atoms = 10108
cΩg = Galaxy = 1013 X 1017 X 1066 = 1096

cΩs = Solar System = 1013 X 1017 X 1055 = 1085

cΩe = Earth = 1013 X 1017 X 1040 = 1070

Thus, even though there are billions of years available in the universe, that does not imply that there are unlimited probabilistic resources. By calculating the maximum number of chemical reactions given the available time, Abel ably calculates the probabilistic resources. He concludes:
The application of The Universal Plausibility Principle (UPP) precludes the inclusion in scientific literature of wild metaphysical conjectures that conveniently ignore or illegitimately inflate probabilistic resources to beyond the limits of observational science. The UPM and UPP together prevent rapidly shrinking funding and labor resources from being wasted on preposterous notions that have no legitimate place in science. At best, notions with ξ < 1 should be considered not only operationally falsified hypotheses, but bad metaphysics on a plane equivalent to blind faith and superstition.
(David L. Abel, "The Universal Plausibility Metric (UPM) & Principle (UPP)," Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 6:27 (Dec. 3, 2009).


Such clarity of thought will undoubtedly be bitterly opposed by the evolutionary scientific community.

The case for mind re:The Origin of Life

Information Runs The Show -- The Understatement of the Century!
Jonathan M.

An interesting paper published in Nature by . Evgenia et al. documents the ability of the DNA double helix to exist in a functional alternative form for 1% of the time, called an "excited state." What does this mean for neo-Darwinism?

What is particularly remarkable is that the base-pairs present in these alternative forms show the ability to break apart and come together again to form stable structures which are non-characteristic of Watson-Crick base-pairing (called "Hoogsteen base pairs"). While these Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed before in instances where DNA has been subjected to damage or bound to drugs, this is the first time where such Hoogsteen base pairs have been observed under normal circumstances.

The authors report in the paper's abstract,
Sequence-directed variations in the canonical DNA double helix structure that retain Watson-Crick base-pairing have important roles in DNA recognition, topology and nucleosome positioning. By using nuclear magnetic resonance relaxation dispersion spectroscopy in concert with steered molecular dynamics simulations, we have observed transient sequence-specific excursions away from Watson-Crick base-pairing at CA and TA steps inside canonical duplex DNA towards low-populated and short-lived A�T and G�C Hoogsteen base pairs. The observation of Hoogsteen base pairs in DNA duplexes specifically bound to transcription factors and in damaged DNA sites implies that the DNA double helix intrinsically codes for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means of expanding its structural complexity beyond that which can be achieved based on Watson-Crick base-pairing. The methods presented here provide a new route for characterizing transient low-populated nucleic acid structures, which we predict will be abundant in the genome and constitute a second transient layer of the genetic code. [Emphasis mine]
The researchers used NMR to study the structure of the alternative form, and they concluded that the observed chemical shifts were characteristic of a structural orientation in which particular base-pairs are flipped 180 degrees to form a "Hoogsteen base pair." This was further corroborated by computer modelling.

As the papers' authors suggest, those results may imply that the DNA molecule is responsible for coding for excited state Hoogsteen base pairs as a means by which it can expand its structural complexity beyond that which it is able to achieve through classical Watson-Crick base-pairing.


If this prediction is correct, then it succeeds in adding a whole additional layer to the information enigma. This, of course, raises the pertinent issue of whether this discovery sits more comfortably with a neo-Darwinian paradigm or with an ID paradigm. Since neo-Darwinism, to date, may be considered to be demonstrably impotent to account for that specific property of living systems -- namely, information -- I would be inclined to significantly favour the latter.

See no evil,hear no evil,speak no evil.

Who Is James Le Fanu? Part V: Darwin's Three Monkeys
David Klinghoffer

Anyone who raises doubts about evolution in public discussions with non-scientists knows the automatic response you always get from the Three Monkeys crowd. Hands wrapped tightly over eyes, ears, and mouth, they chant: See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil -- about Darwin!

That's not exactly how it comes out. People will say things more like: But science has spoken! Scientists say! Science wins! Which sounds reasonable at first, until you reflect that it's a little like a Roman Catholic fending off some challenge to his faith by pointing out that 98 percent of Catholic priests agree with Catholic doctrine, and who knows more about Catholicism than Catholic priests? So it must be true. (Or substitute rabbis and Jewish doctrine, pastors and Protestant belief, etc.) As James Le Fanu smartly notes in his new book Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves  (Pantheon), there is a similar circularity to the "Scientists say!" case for Darwinian dogma:

The commitment to Darwin's materialist explanation of the living world would, in time, become a qualification requirement for all who aspired to pursue a career in biology -- where to express doubt (at least publicly) was tantamount to confessing to being of unsound (or at least unscientific) mind.
I've been writing this week in praise of Dr. Le Fanu's extremely lucid, readable, and unapologetic narration of Darwinism's increasingly obvious failure to account for the evidence of science, with an emphasis on recent advances in our knowledge about the brain and the genome. Then why is the meaning of these advances ignored, greeted with a great, booming silence?
Scientists themselves, apart from being qualified for the priesthood on the condition of their voicing no doubts about Darwin, are caught in a conflict of interest. Their professional standing is predicated on explaining a purely physical reality:

Scientists cannot acknowledge the possibility of there being a 'dual' nature of reality, with both a material and a non-material realm, for that would be to subvert their exclusive claims to understand how the world 'works.' Hence the silence. Scientists cannot 'see' the significance of the findings of the recent past because they cannot stand outside their materialist view and conceive of forms of understanding different from those in which they have been trained....
The dual nature of reality has, in short, been censored, written out of the script as being of historical interest only, a relic of the superstitious ways of thinking of the distant past.

So you find that the case against Darwin is made by a brave band of professional scientist dissenters, a vocal minority in the scholarly community, but more so by those outside the academic scientific cathedral. Like James Le Fanu, a physician and peer-reviewed writer of medical journal essays, but not the picture of a lab-coated scientist that the Three Monkeys insist on hearing from.
The loss is all of ours. Le Fanu describes the cost of Darwinism: "We have lost that sense of living in an enchanted world" that was taken for granted 150 years ago. As Richard Dawkins himself puts it, in his world there is "no design, no purpose, no evil and no good -- nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." Or as Isaiah Berlin bizarrely remarked, "As for the meaning of life, I do not believe it has any -- and [that] is a source of great comfort."


The situation is not irreversible, though: "It cannot be long before a proper appreciation of the true significance of the findings of the recent past begins to sow doubts in inquisitive minds." If as many people read Le Fanu's book as it deserves, the time of that hoped for outcome will have been advanced at least a little.

Our brotherhood:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Why Does God Have an Organization?

1. Why did God organize ancient Israel?

God organized descendants of the patriarch Abraham into a nation and gave them a body of laws. He called the nation “Israel” and made it the custodian of true worship and of his word. (Psalm 147:19, 20) So people of all nations could benefit from Israel.—Read Genesis 22:18.


God chose the Israelites to be his witnesses. Their ancient history provides a demonstration of how people benefit by obeying God’s laws. (Deuteronomy 4:6) Thus, through the Israelites, others could get to know the true God.—Read Isaiah 43:10, 12.

2. Why are true Christians organized?

In time, Israel lost God’s favor, and Jehovah replaced that nation with the Christian congregation. (Matthew 21:43; 23:37, 38) Now, in place of the Israelites, true Christians serve as Jehovah’s witnesses.—Read Acts 15:14, 17.


Jesus organized his followers to preach and make disciples in all nations. (Matthew 10:7, 11; 24:14; 28:19, 20) This work is reaching its climax now, in the conclusion of the present system of things. For the first time in history, Jehovah has united millions from all nations in true worship. (Revelation 7:9, 10) True Christians are organized to encourage and help one another. Worldwide, they enjoy the same program of Bible instruction at their meetings.—Read Hebrews 10:24, 25.

3. How did the modern-day organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses begin?

In the 1870’s a small group of Bible students began rediscovering long-lost Bible truths. They knew that Jesus had organized the Christian congregation to preach, so they began an international Kingdom-preaching campaign. In 1931 they adopted the name Jehovah’s Witnesses.—Read Acts 1:8; 2:1, 4; 5:42.

4. How are Jehovah’s Witnesses organized?

In the first century, the Christian congregations in many lands benefited from a central governing body that recognized Jesus as the Head of the congregation. (Acts 16:4, 5) Similarly today, Jehovah’s Witnesses worldwide benefit from a Governing Body of experienced elders. It oversees branch offices of Jehovah’s Witnesses that translate, print, and distribute Bible-study material in over 600 languages. Thus the Governing Body can provide Scriptural encouragement and direction for over 100,000 congregations worldwide. In each congregation, qualified men serve as elders, or overseers. These men lovingly care for God’s flock.—Read 1 Peter 5:2, 3.


Jehovah’s Witnesses are organized to preach the good news and make disciples. Like the apostles, we preach from house to house. (Acts 20:20) We also offer to study the Bible with sincere lovers of truth. But Jehovah’s Witnesses are not just an organization. We are a family with a loving Father. We are brothers and sisters who care for one another. (2 Thessalonians 1:3) Since Jehovah’s people are organized to please God and to help others, they form the happiest family on earth.—Read Psalm 33:12; Acts 20:35.

Sowing to the spirit.:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

How We Can Cultivate Virtue

MODERN-DAY dictionaries define “virtue” as “moral excellence; goodness.” It is “right action and thinking; goodness of character.” Lexicographer Marvin R. Vincent says that the original classical sense of the Greek word rendered “virtue” denotes “excellence of any kind.” Not surprisingly, then, such qualities  as prudence, courage, self-discipline, fairness, compassion, perseverance, honesty, humility, and loyalty have been hailed as virtues at one time or another. Virtue has also been defined as “conformity to a standard of right.”

To whose standard of excellence, goodness, and right should we conform? “According to the dominant school of moral philosophy,” said Newsweek magazine, “the skepticism engendered by the Enlightenment has reduced all ideas of right and wrong to matters of personal taste, emotional preference or cultural choice.” But is mere taste or preference a satisfactory way of determining right and wrong? No. For us to cultivate virtue, we need a reliable standard of good and bad—a standard by which a certain act, attitude, or quality may be judged right or wrong.

The Only True Source of Moral Standards

There is only one true Source for standards of morality—the Creator of mankind, Jehovah God. Soon after creating the first man, Adam, Jehovah God laid this command upon the man: “From every tree of the garden you may eat to satisfaction. But as for the tree of the knowledge of good and bad you must not eat from it, for in the day you eat from it you will positively die.” (Genesis 2:16, 17) Jehovah God gave the tree that unique name to denote his exclusive right to decide what is good and what is bad for his creatures. God’s standards of good and bad thus became the basis for judgment, or evaluation, of a person’s deeds, outlook, and personality traits. Without such standards we could not correctly distinguish right from wrong.

The command concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and bad set before Adam and Eve a choice—to obey or not to obey. For them, virtue meant obedience to that command. In time, Jehovah further revealed what pleases him and what displeases him, and he had this recorded for us in the Bible. Cultivating virtue, then, entails our conforming to Jehovah’s righteous standards set out in the Scriptures.

Get Fully Acquainted With God’s Standards

Since Jehovah God has determined the standards of good and bad and has revealed them in the Bible, should we not get fully acquainted with them? The apostle Paul wrote: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”—2 Timothy 3:16, 17.

For example, consider the misunderstanding that Kunihito, mentioned in the preceding article, faced when displaying modesty as his culture viewed it. A closer look at Scriptural standards later helped him to take a more balanced approach. The Bible certainly encourages modesty, and it counsels against overconfidence and presumptuousness. (Proverbs 11:2; Micah 6:8) Yet, when outlining the qualifications for “an office of overseer,” the apostle Paul spoke of “reaching out” for that privilege. (1 Timothy 3:1) This “reaching out” is to be done not only without being boastful or presumptuous but also without needlessly putting oneself down.

What does the Bible say about moral excellence in the business arena? Employing questionable methods or cutting corners on government regulations and tax laws is a common practice in today’s business world. Regardless of what others do, however, the Bible standard is that we are “to conduct ourselves honestly in all things.” (Hebrews 13:18) Hence, we cultivate virtue by being honest and fair with employers, employees, customers, and secular governments. (Deuteronomy 25:13-16; Romans 13:1; Titus 2:9, 10) Honesty certainly promotes trust and goodwill. And putting agreements in writing often prevents misunderstandings and complexities that may arise because of “unforeseen occurrence.”—Ecclesiastes 9:11; James 4:13, 14.

The matter of dress and grooming is another area in which we need to cultivate virtue. Clothing choices vary according to culture, and pressure may be strong to keep up with the latest styles and trends. But why should we follow every fad or fashion that comes along? The Bible admonishes us to “quit being fashioned after this system of things.” (Romans 12:2) Rather than make up rules, the apostle Paul wrote under inspiration: “I desire the women to adorn themselves in well-arranged dress, with modesty and soundness of mind, not with styles of hair braiding and gold or pearls or very expensive garb, but in the way that befits women professing to reverence God.” (1 Timothy 2:9, 10) This basic standard applies to men and women alike. Of course, there is room for delightful variety in style as a result of cultural preference or personal taste.

The Bible also identifies immoral practices that God explicitly condemns. At 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, we read the warning: “What! Do you not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God’s kingdom.” This scripture helped Maria, mentioned earlier, to see that according to the standard of moral excellence set out by the Creator, her involvement with Juan was wrong and she must put an end to it if she would have God’s approval. Clearly, to cultivate virtue, we need to get thoroughly familiar with Jehovah’s standards.

Learn With the Heart

Virtue is not a passive avoidance of what is bad. It has moral power. A virtuous person has goodness. “Virtue,” says one professor, “needs to be learned with the heart as well as the head.” Cultivating virtue, then, entails more than a thorough acquaintance with God’s Word. It calls for meditation on what is written there so that our hearts get filled with gratitude for Jehovah and we are moved to apply Scriptural principles in our lives.

“How I do love your law!” exclaimed the psalmist. “All day long it is my concern.” (Psalm 119:97) And King David wrote: “I have remembered days of long ago; I have meditated on all your [God’s] activity; I willingly kept myself concerned with the work of your own hands.” (Psalm 143:5) We too should make prayerful meditation an integral part of our study of the Bible and Bible-based publications.

True, making time for diligent study accompanied by meditation can be a challenge. But the pursuit of virtue requires that we buy out the time from other activities. (Ephesians 5:15, 16) Aaron, age 24, buys out such time every day by waking up 30 minutes earlier than he once did. He relates: “At first, I just read the Bible for the entire half hour. Only recently have I come to realize the importance of meditation. So now I use about half of that time to dwell upon what I have just read. This has been truly rewarding.” Meditation can be done at other times. In a melody to Jehovah, David sang: “During the night watches I meditate on you.” (Psalm 63:6) And the Bible relates: “Isaac was out walking in order to meditate in the field at about the falling of evening.”—Genesis 24:63.

Meditation is invaluable in cultivating virtue, for it helps us to feel the way Jehovah feels and to make his views our views. Maria, for example, knew that God prohibits fornication. But to ‘abhor what is wicked and cling to what is good,’ she needed to meditate on key Bible texts. (Romans 12:9) She was helped to see the need to make changes after reading Colossians 3:5, which urges us to ‘deaden our body members as respects fornication, uncleanness, sexual appetite, hurtful desire, and covetousness.’ Maria had to ask herself: ‘What kind of sexual appetite must I deaden? What should I avoid that might arouse unclean desires? Are there changes I need to make in the way I treat those of the opposite sex?’

Meditation includes considering the result of an action. Paul urges Christians to abstain from fornication and to exercise self-control so that “no one go to the point of harming and encroach upon the rights of his brother.” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7) Good questions to ponder are: ‘What damage would I do to myself, my family, or others by committing this act? How would I be affected spiritually, emotionally, and physically? How have things turned out for others who have violated God’s law in the past?’ Such contemplation made Maria stronger at heart, and it can do the same for us.

Learn From Examples

Can virtue be taught in a classroom? This question is one that has perplexed thinkers for millenniums. The Greek philosopher Plato leaned toward thinking that it can. Aristotle, on the other hand, reasoned that virtue is gained through practice. A journalist summed up the debate on the issue this way: “In short, an ethics of virtue cannot be learned alone. Nor can it be taught from textbooks. Good character comes from living in communities . . . where virtue is encouraged and rewarded.” But where would we find truly virtuous individuals? While most cultures offer some examples of virtue, at least in their mythological heroes and stories, the Bible contains abundant true examples.

The most outstanding example of virtue is Jehovah. He always acts in a virtuous way and does what is righteous and good. We can cultivate virtue by becoming “imitators of God.” (Ephesians 5:1) And God’s Son, Jesus Christ, ‘left us a model for us to follow his steps closely.’ (1 Peter 2:21) Moreover, the Bible contains accounts of many faithful individuals, such as Abraham, Sarah, Joseph, Ruth, Job, and Daniel and his three Hebrew companions. Not to be overlooked are the examples of virtue among modern-day servants of Jehovah.

We Can Succeed

Can we really succeed in doing what is virtuous in God’s eyes? Having inherited imperfection, at times there may rage within us a fierce battle between the mind and the flesh—between wanting to do what is virtuous and following our sinful tendencies. (Romans 5:12; 7:13-23) But the battle can be won with God’s help. (Romans 7:24, 25) Jehovah has provided his Word and Bible-based publications. By diligent study of the Scriptures and prayerful meditation on them, we can become pure in heart. From such a pure heart can come forth virtuous thoughts, words, and actions. (Luke 6:45) Based on the examples of Jehovah God and Jesus Christ, we can build a godly personality. And we can certainly learn much from individuals who are faithfully serving God today.

The apostle Paul exhorted his readers to “continue considering” virtue and other praiseworthy things. Doing this is sure to result in God’s blessing. (Philippians 4:8, 9) With Jehovah’s help, we can succeed in cultivating virtue.

Is mind or matter the nearer/better bridge re:those gaps?

Materialism of the Gaps
Michael Egnor

I must say that I've never understood the rhetorical force of the 'God of the Gaps' argument. The God of the Gaps sneer is invoked to imply the inexorability of materialism as a complete explanation in natural science. Any critique of materialist dogma in science from a design or immaterial perspective is derided as a 'God of the Gaps' argument. But the real issue is the gaps, which are plentiful and very wide.

Dr. Novella is fond of the God of the Gaps sneer, in the form of "Dualism of the Gaps." I have not met a materialist as supremely confident of the complete explanatory power of materialism as he is. It's ironic, as Dr. Novella claims the appellation "skeptic," yet he shows no skepticism for his own materialist dogma. Profound skepticism for the views of opponents, combined with complacent credulity for one's own views, is the stuff of ideological advocacy, not skepticism.

Dr. Novella responded recently to my post in which I clarified my views on the mind-brain problem. He accuses me of using a 'Dualism of the Gaps' argument. I've merely pointed out that the salient characteristics of the mind, such as intentionality, qualia, free will, incorrigibility, restricted access, continuity of self through time, and unity of consciousness (the 'binding problem') seem to be impossible to explain materialistically. Materialistic explanations for subjective mental states are not impossible merely because we lack experiments or evidence. Materialistic explanations for the mind are impossible within the framework of materialism itself, because mental properties are not physical properties. Nothing about matter as understood in our current scientific paradigm invokes subjective mental experience. The essential qualities on the mind are immaterial. Invocation of immaterial causation that incorporates subjectivity seems necessary for a satisfactory explanation of the mind.

Dr. Novella argues:

My "dualism of the gaps" point, however, is that lack of complete knowledge does not justify inserting a magical answer. Our lack of complete knowledge about life does not justify inventing a vital life force to explain it, our incomplete knowledge of evolution does not justify inventing an intelligent designer who miracled life into existence, and our current state of neuroscience does not require inserting a non-corporeal mind separate from the brain.. Further - you cannot logically justify a positive claim based upon a lack of information. Where is the evidence for a vital force, or an intelligent designer, or the ghost in the machine? There isn't any, such claims are based entirely on perceived gaps in knowledge.
But we don't 'lack knowledge' about the mind. We have a rich knowledge of the mind. Much of philosophy, art, literature, psychology, politics, and history are essentially knowledge of the human mind. It's fair to say that most of what mankind knows is knowledge about the mind. By any measure, we probably know much more about the mind than we do about the natural world.

And we certainly don't 'lack knowledge' about the brain. We have made astonishing strides over the past century in understanding neuroscience, from the molecular level to the functioning of the nervous system as a whole. We can image the brain functionally in real time with considerable precision. We can record brain waves with relative ease from the whole brain, and we can do surgery that enables us to record electrical activity in regions of the brain a few cubic millimeters in volume. We know an enormous amount about the brain.

Yet we know nothing -- nothing -- about how subjective experience could arise from matter alone. We certainly know a lot about correlations. But about causation -- how matter even could cause subjective mental states -- we know nothing. We don't even have a scientific paradigm by which we could even imagine what such an answer could be like. Subjective mental states share no properties whatsoever with matter. The 'explanatory gap' -- our inability to explain the subjective in terms of the objective -- is as wide as ever. It's infinitely wide. We don't even know where to begin to answer the question 'how does subjectivity arise in association with matter' from a materialistic standpoint.

Dr. Novella is wrong to attribute the inference to dualism to an argument from ignorance. The exact opposite is true. The reason that immaterial causation is invoked to explain the mind is because we know so much about the mind and about the brain, and it's evident to most people (that is, people who aren't dogmatic materialists) that the mind isn't material. It isn't an argument from ignorance. It's an argument from deep knowledge -- deep knowledge of the mind and of the brain. The invocation of immaterial causation for aspects of mental states is the result of our deep knowledge of the difference between mind and matter.

Perhaps it was more understandable several centuries ago for the philosophically naive to hold to a confident assurance that science would ultimately explain the mind purely in terms of the material brain. Neuroscience has rendered that view no longer tenable. The explanatory gap is real, and our evolving knowledge of neuroscience only makes the futility of materialist attempts to close the explanatory gap even more clear. This is not, pace Dr. Novella, infering a positive conclusion from negative evidence. This is coming to accept the obvious; neuroscience has failed to show how subjective experience arises from objective matter. In this, materialist neuorscientists are a bit late. Philosophers have pointed out the fundamentally different ontologies of mind and matter for several millenia, and it's time for materialistic neuroscientists to admit the obvious. The inference to immaterial causation is an honest effort to address the questions inherent to the mind-brain problem.The inference to materialism is an effort to evade the questions; materialism is an effort to explain the gap away.

And Dr. Novella's reference to "magic" is ironic. It is materialism that invokes "magic" in the mind-brain problem. Materialists insist that meaning and subjective experience arise spontaneously from amalgams of carbohydrates, lipids, and proteins, although a rigorous scientific description of brain physiology can be done without any reference to subjective experience. There's no 'science' there; the inference to subjective experience is epiphenomenal on materialistic science, which inherently lacks reference to subjective states. By denying the real problems raised by the subjective nature of mental states, materialism invokes magical explanations for the mind. The materialist argument is essentially this: 'materialism is the complete explanation for the mind, and if you ask questions, you're a neuroscience denialist'.

Dr. Novella asserts:

...it is clearly established, in my opinion, that the brain causes mind. The gap in our knowledge is in how the brain causes mind. I am open to any hypothesis that is scientifically testable and is compatible with existing established scientific knowledge...To put it another way - Egnor would have you believe that any scientific hypothesis is the same as a "god of the gaps" argument, but they are not. A hypothesis is testable. A"god of the gaps" argument simply inserts a final and untestable answer into a current gap in our scientific knowledge.
Dr. Novella insists that the only question that remains is how the brain causes the mind. And he implicitly restricts the explanations to his dogmatic philosophical materialism, which he confuses with the scientific method, which is the method by which natural effects are studied. Yet natural effects in science need not have natural causes; Big Bang theory, which posits the creation of all matter and time ex-nihilo, explains material effects (matter, time, and natural laws) using an immaterial cause (creation ex-nihilo). 

There is no philosophical, logical, or empirical basis to insist that materialism, or any monistic understanding of nature, is the necessary explanatory framework in natural science. Science is the inference to best explanation for the natural world, and, in keeping with contemporary evidence and scientific gestalt, materialism is no longer in ascendency in the scientific world. Its scientific heyday was in the 18thand 19th centuries, in which Laplace famously bragged that given all of the current physical information about the world he could know the future with certainty. In the 19th century, Darwin proposed to explain all of the complexity of life as a product of material chance and necessity. Yet the 20th century has not been kind to materialist complacency. Quantum mechanics, in many of its interpretations, invokes an observer in order to collapse a waveform. Relativistic cosmology invokes creation ex-nihilo and multiverses. The origin of life problem is essentially intractable, an inference that is supported, rather than weakened, by the panoply of wild guesses as to how it could have happened. Random genetic variation and 'survival of survivors' is grossly inadequate to explain the genetic code and intracellular molecular nanotechnology. The inference that brain matter entirely explains the immaterial aspects of mental states isn't even logically coherent, let alone scientifically verified. The 20th century, materialist denial notwithstanding, has been a catastrophe for strict materialism.

It's mere dogma on Dr. Novella's part-- and historically ignorant dogma, at that-- to assert that materialism explains everything, and to insist that we just wait patiently for the next materialistic revelation.

Materialism explains what it can. As a method -- the invocation of material and efficient causatio n-- it has been quite successful, particularly in classical physics and chemistry as they were developed in the 18th and 19th century. But the 20th century has been very hard on materialism -- creation of the universe ex-nihilo, the observer effect in quantum mechanics, the origin of life, the origin of biological information, the cause of the immaterial mind -- all seem to belie materialist reduction.

There's much that materialism can't explain. Some philosophers and scientists believe that the problem may lie with the artificial restrictions that dogmatic materialism imposes on natural science. Perhaps the natural phenomena on which materialism flounders, such as the Big Bang, the origin of life, the overwhelming evidence for intricate intelligent design in molecular biology, and the immaterial aspects of mental states, are better understood using all four Aristotelian causes -- formal and final causes, as well as material and efficient causes. Perhaps design and teleology play a role in natural science.

To the dogmatic materialist, teleology in nature is a very dangerous inference, because it's incompatible with atheism, which is the materialists' religion. Acceptance of the obvious evidence for design and teleology in nature would force materialists to rethink their worldview, which never comes easy, especially for fundamentalists.


The evidence that some aspects of the mind are immaterial is overwhelming. It's notable that many of the leading neuroscientists -- Sherrington, Penfield, Eccles, Libet -- were dualists. Dualism of some sort is the most reasonable scientific framework to apply to the mind-brain problem, because, unlike dogmatic materialism, it just follows the evidence. 

Materialism's new gods are experts with dice.

Cosmic Coincidences? Materialism Faces a Choice Between Unsavory Options
Evolution News & Views

It's convenient for ID advocates when materialists point out their own predicament so we don't have to do it for them. Such is the case in a recent series for New Scientist about fine-tuning.

One of the articles  begins with an image of a pencil balanced on its point. Stuart Clark says:

Next time you fancy doing something really frustrating, try balancing a pencil on its sharpened tip. Your efforts will succeed for a second at most. Yet the universe has been succeeding at a similar gravitational trick for the last 13.8 billion years. [Emphasis added.]
Clark is describing cosmology's "flatness problem," the ultra-precise balance between expansion and collapse, which one cosmologist likened to balancing a pencil on its point for billions of years. "The universe is as flat as a pancake," his title says. "Coincidence?"

That headline forms a template for five articles in the series, "Our implausible universe: the universe's five most startling coincidences."

"Cosmic dark matter and energy balance -- for now. Coincidence?"

"The universe lines up along the 'axis of evil'. Coincidence?"

"The universe is as flat as a pancake. Coincidence?"

"Space is all the same temperature. Coincidence?"

"The Higgs boson makes the universe stable -- just. Coincidence?"

Each article describes its particular coincidence, suggests models that might explain it, admits that such models don't exist, and leaves the mystery unresolved. Here's a sample about temperature (i.e., the horizon problem). The leading natural explanation is "totally bonkers":

Cosmologists try to explain this uniformity using the hypothesis known as inflation. It replaces the simple idea of a big bang with one in which there was also a moment of exponential expansion. This sudden, faster-than-light increase in the size of the universe allows it to have started off smaller than an atom, when it would have had plenty of time to equalise its temperature.
"On the face of it, inflation is a totally bonkers idea -- it replaces a coincidence with a completely nonsensical vision of what the early universe was like," says Andrew Pontzen at University College London.

After that chastisement, Stuart Clark leaves inflation as the best explanation because nobody has a better idea. It's a bit like Harold S. Bernhardt's quip about the leading origin-of-life theory as shown in Illustra's film Origin: "The RNA world hypothesis: the worst theory for the early evolution of life (except for all the others)."

Accompanying each article, a graphical image of an egg balanced in a loop of string conveys the challenge facing materialists, who by definition are obligated to explain things using only matter and energy.

The more we look at the universe, the stranger it appears. From the geometry of space-time to the masses of the elementary particles, its properties are finely tuned to allow life to exist. More bizarrely, though, it seems to be teetering on the brink of not existing at all. Here we look at five of its seemingly most implausible traits -- and ask what might lie behind them.
Appealing to coincidence is scientifically unsatisfying, so a follow-up article examines the alternatives. The buildup is electric. Like an energetic ringmaster, Gilead Amit introduces the big show. Ladies and Gentlemen! "One idea explains all the weird coincidences in the universe.." Drum roll... five hoops are lit on fire. The door opens. What animal can jump through all five hoops in a single bound? The ringmaster has not only one beast to try it. He has two!

"Don't believe in coincidences but stuck for an explanation? Time to call up the ...." Here come the two contestants. To groans from the audience, he sends in the clowns.

The first clown gets escorted out of the ring by the ringmaster himself. Shoo!

Physicists dislike coincidences such as those set out on these pages, suspecting them of covering up some new principle they don't yet grasp. But when they run out of theories, there's a one-size-fits-all explanation that can answer everything without really answering much at all: the universe is as it is because we're here to see it.
This piece of circular logic is the anthropic principle. A universe inhospitable to life would have no human beings around to observe it, so the one we see must, by definition, possess features essential to accommodating intelligent life. But that doesn't tell us whether a slightly different universe might still host life, why our particular universe exists and not some other, or why we see finely balanced features with no bearing on the emergence of life.

The second clown makes its entrance.

And yet there is an idea that sweeps all these objections away: all conceivable universes exist side by side in a patchwork multiverse. We merely inhabit one out of the infinite selection.
Michael Behe escorts this clown out of the ring. In The Edge of Evolution  (pp. 221-227), he shows why this explanation is the stranger of the two. "The Twilight Zone was never so bizarre" as the multiverse, he says (p. 225), because in a multiverse, everything can happen - and does happen. Brains pop into existence out of the void. "All false thoughts, no matter how detailed, no matter how vivid, will occur without end" (Ibid.). Multiverse theory becomes indistinguishable from brain-in-a-vat theory or solipsism.

Behe proceeds to show that multiverse scenarios are self-refuting and vacuous. "If they were true, you would have no reason to trust your reasoning" (p. 227). And when you think about them a little more, both the anthropic principle and the multiverse reduce to coincidences themselves. It's a coincidence that the universe is at it is so that we are here to see it. It's a coincidence that we won the cosmic lottery. Both ideas appeal to nothing beyond coincidence. So materialists have three choices to explain the fine-tuning of the cosmos: (1) coincidence, (2), coincidence, and (3) coincidence. New Scientist ends the series by admitting as much:

But some still see the multiverse as an abdication of scientific responsibility: a fancier way of simply saying "coincidences happen". And, if true, it means some astronomers out there are forced to justify a universe even more replete with coincidences than ours, while others could be bored stiff in a completely random cosmos.
There is a way out of the coincidence trap. It's no coincidence that Behe argues for another option. His alternative takes explanation out of the circus and back to the academy. Instead of abdicating scientific responsibility, it responsibly assigns known causes that are necessary and sufficient to explain the effects. Instead of shooting itself in the foot, it justifies reason. And it's not bizarre; it's intuitively obvious.

Instead, I conclude that another possibility is more likely: The elegant, coherent, functional systems on which life depends are the result of deliberate intelligent design (p. 166).

Only intellectual bias would forbid using this option in scientific explanation.

Healing in the scriptures:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

HEALING

The restoring of health to the sick; the making sound, or whole, that which is broken or injured; the curing of various diseases and defects; the returning of a person to the general state of well-being. The Hebrew verb ra·phaʼʹ and the Greek verb i·aʹo·mai are the principal words in the Bible that describe such healing in both a literal and a figurative sense. The Greek verb the·ra·peuʹo is rendered ‘cure.’ (Mt 4:23, 24) Sometimes the healing was a gradual matter; at other times it was instantaneous.

Among the blessings Jehovah bestowed on all mankind is the regenerative power of their physical organisms, the ability of the body to heal itself when wounded or diseased. A physician may recommend certain measures to speed recovery, but in reality it is the God-given recuperative powers within the body that accomplish the healing. Hence, the psalmist David acknowledged that though he was born imperfect, his Creator was able to sustain him during illness and heal all his maladies. (Ps 51:5; 41:1-3; 103:2-4) Jehovah restored the bodily health of afflicted Job (Job 42:10) and God also provided physical healing for his people Israel.—Ex 15:26.

Of Jehovah it is written that he both wounds and heals, and he does this literally and figuratively. Hence, with him there is a time to wound and a time to heal. (De 32:39; compare Ec 3:1, 3.) Unfaithful Jehoram, king of Judah, for example, was punished by Jehovah with a physical disorder of the intestines for which there was no healing. (2Ch 21:16, 18, 19) Moses recognized that it was Jehovah who had stricken Miriam with leprosy; hence, he pleaded with the only One who could cure her, saying: “O God, please! Heal her, please!” (Nu 12:10, 13) In the matter of childbearing, Jehovah healed King Abimelech, his wife, and his slave girls after the crisis had passed involving Sarah and the seed of promise.—Ge 20:17, 18.

In the Bible, spiritual rather than physical breakdown, and spiritual healing in turn, are subjects of particular significance. Attention is called to the responsibility of natural Israel’s leaders in these matters. “From the prophet even to the priest, each one [was] acting falsely” in Jeremiah’s day, they at the same time making a pretense of healing the breakdown of God’s people, claiming that all was well. (Jer 6:13, 14; 8:11) In this they were very much like Job’s comforters, “physicians of no value.”—Job 13:4.

In a few instances inanimate objects were healed, in the sense of being made whole again, like the torn-down altar Elijah mended. (1Ki 18:30) Also, the prophet Elisha healed the waters near Jericho so that they no longer caused miscarriages. (2Ki 2:19-22) Jeremiah, however, shattered the potter’s flask so completely that it was beyond repair, that is, beyond healing, and thus furnished a fine illustration. “In the same way,” Jehovah declared, “I shall break this people and this city as someone breaks the vessel of the potter so that it is no more able to be repaired [a form of ra·phaʼʹ; literally, healed].”—Jer 19:11; compare 2Ch 36:15-17.

Jesus and His Fellow Healers. Jesus Christ recognized that “teaching . . . and preaching the good news of the kingdom” was of first importance in his ministry and that “curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity among the people” was secondary. That is why he felt pity for the crowds primarily “because they were skinned and thrown about like sheep without a shepherd.”—Mt 4:23; 9:35, 36; Lu 9:11.

This Great Teacher also showed compassion on the multitudes that followed him because they hoped that he would heal their physical ailments. (Mt 12:15; 14:14; 19:2; Lu 5:15) His miraculous healing work served as a visible sign to his generation and gave added evidence of his Messiahship, as prophesied. (Mt 8:16, 17) It also foreshadowed the healing blessings that will be extended to mankind under God’s Kingdom rule. (Re 21:3, 4) In a very real sense Jesus healed and restored the health of many persons—the lame, the maimed, the blind, the dumb (Mt 15:30, 31), the epileptic, the paralytic (Mt 4:24), a woman suffering from a hemorrhage (Mr 5:25-29), one with a withered hand (Mr 3:3-5), a man with dropsy (Lu 14:2-4), and on many occasions those who were demon possessed were released from their Satanic enslavement and bondage.—Mt 12:22; 15:22-28; 17:15, 18; Mr 1:34; Lu 6:18; 8:26-36; 9:38-42; Ac 10:37, 38.

Jesus’ manner of curing people took various forms at different times. “Get up, pick up your cot and walk,” is all that Jesus said on one occasion, and a sick man near the pool of Bethzatha was cured. (Joh 5:2-9) In another instance, Jesus just spoke the word and the ailing one, though a distance away, was healed. (Mt 8:5-13) At other times he personally laid his hand on the sick one (Mt 8:14, 15) or touched a wound and healed it. (Lu 22:50, 51) Several diseased persons simply touched Jesus or even the fringe of his garment and were healed. (Mt 14:36; Mr 6:56; Lu 6:19; 8:43-47) And it made no difference that the persons had been afflicted with the disease for many years.—Mt 9:20-22; Lu 13:11-13; Joh 5:5-9.

Some persons opposed Jesus, not appreciating the wonderful healing work he was doing. The religious leaders were greatly angered when Jesus healed persons on the Sabbath. (Mt 12:9-14; Lu 14:1-6; Joh 5:10-16) On one such occasion Jesus silenced opponents by saying: “Hypocrites, does not each one of you on the sabbath untie his bull or his ass from the stall and lead it away to give it drink? Was it not due, then, for this woman who is a daughter of Abraham, and whom Satan held bound, look! eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the sabbath day?”—Lu 13:10-17.

It was not the application of Jesus’ own power, knowledge, or wisdom that healed the sick. Neither was hypnotherapy, psychotherapy, or any similar method used. Rather, it was the spirit and power of Jehovah that effected such healing. (Lu 5:17; 9:43) Not all, however, were grateful enough to give God the glory for these cures. (Lu 17:12-18) Today, not everyone recognizes the everlasting healing benefits made available through the ransom sacrifice of Christ.—1Pe 2:24.

Jesus delegated this divine power of healing to others who were closely associated with him in his ministry. When the 12 apostles were sent out, and later the 70 disciples, they were empowered to cure the sick. (Mt 10:5, 8; Lu 10:1, 8, 9) After Pentecost of 33 C.E., certain ones, including Peter, John, Philip, and Paul, were given this divine power to heal completely. (Ac 3:1-16; 4:14; 5:15, 16; 8:6, 7; 9:32-34; 28:8, 9) After Christianity became firmly rooted, and with the passing of the apostles off the scene, such “gifts of healings” also passed away.—1Co 12:8, 9, 28, 30; 13:8, 13.

It was important that the one performing the cure have full faith and confidence in Jehovah and acknowledge, as Jesus did, that the curing was accomplished by God’s power. (Mt 17:14-20; Joh 5:19) It was not necessary, however, for the afflicted ones to have faith before being cured. (Joh 5:5-9, 13) Many, though, did have strong faith.—Mt 8:5-13; 15:28; Mr 5:34; Lu 7:1-10; 17:19; Ac 14:8-10; see FAITH.

Miraculous healing was to be a “sign” of divine backing. (Ac 4:22, 29, 30) Those who refused to recognize and acknowledge this sign were spiritually blind and deaf. (Isa 6:10; Joh 12:37-41) For the reason, then, that divine healings were to serve as a sign to unbelievers, they were not ordinarily performed in behalf of those who were already spirit-begotten Christians. So when Timothy had stomach trouble, instead of performing a miraculous cure, Paul recommended that he take a little wine for his ailment.—1Ti 5:23.

Spiritual Healing. On the other hand, true spiritual healing comes from Jehovah to repentant ones. It means a return to his favor and the enjoyment of his blessings once again. (Isa 19:22; 57:17-19; Jer 33:6) Such healing has the effect of strengthening the weak hands and wobbly knees, opening blind eyes, restoring hearing to the deaf, healing the lame, and giving speech to the dumb, in a spiritual way. (Isa 35:3-6) But those incorrigible in their apostasy never experience a healing, or restoration to good health and prosperity spiritually. (2Ch 36:15-17; Isa 6:10; Jer 30:12, 13; Ac 28:24-28) Similarly, there was to be no healing for Egypt, her Pharaoh, and for the “king of Assyria.”—Jer 46:11; Eze 30:21; Na 3:18, 19.


The Scriptures prescribe the remedy for persons who are spiritually sick.—Heb 12:12, 13; Jas 5:14-16; Re 3:18.

The origin of our universe remains as mysterious as ever.

What came before the big bang?
By Douglas Heaven

PAUSE. Rewind. Suddenly the outward rush of 200 billion galaxies slips into reverse. Instead of expanding at pace, the universe is now imploding like a deflating balloon: faster and faster, smaller and smaller, everything hurtling together until the entire cosmos is squeezed into an inconceivably hot, dense pinprick. Then pshhht! The screen goes dead.

According to the big bang theory – our best explanation for why space is expanding – everything exploded from nothing about 13.8 billion years ago. Cosmologists have been able to wind things back to within a tiny fraction of a second of this moment. But now they’re stuck.

The trouble is, our understanding of space-time, and gravity in particular, is built from Einstein’s equations of general relativity, whereas the extreme conditions of the very early universe can only be described by quantum mechanics. No one knows how to reconcile the two to take us further back. “The rules we have simply don’t work in that regime,” says Carlo Contaldi at Imperial College London. “Nothing makes sense any more.”

That’s a problem for our origin story. Did time begin with the big bang? Or was there an epoch before it?

Some insist that if we rewind the universe far enough, time just stops.But Lee Smolin of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada, is having none of it.


“It’s a cute idea but there’s not much evidence for it,” he says. In fact, Smolin wants to see the idea that the universe has a starting point dropped entirely. We can only hope to explain why our universe is the way it is, he says, if there was something before the big bang. It’s about cause and effect; to arrive at satisfying explanations ...

Time to unhype A.I?:Pros and cons.

A clash of Titans XXXVII

File under "Well said" XLII

He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature. Socrates

On the "my I.D is better than yours" argument against I.D.

Alien Physics: Scientist Offers Novel Escape Hatch from Intelligent Design

David Klinghoffer

As I've said before, intelligent design can take or leave extraterrestrial life. It doesn't affect the cogency of ID arguments one way or the other. Materialism, on the other hand, must have ETs and the more intelligent and advanced, the better. After all, human life can't be special, therefore something like us must be replicated across the cosmos.

The problem is that the universe offers no hint of objective evidence for ETs. So the race is on to find plausible rationales for why the heck not. Enter Columbia University astrophysicist Caleb Scharf with a novel idea: We can't see advanced otherworldly life because it's so advanced it has encoded itself in the structure of the universe itself ("Is Physical Law an Alien Intelligence?").

Actually it's literally a novel idea since, as he points out at the end of an article for Nautilus, Carl Sagan came up with it in his science fiction classic Contact back in 1985.

[I]f the cosmos holds other life, and if some of that life has evolved beyond our own waypoints of complexity and technology, we should be considering some very extreme possibilities. Today's futurists and believers in a machine "singularity" predict that life and its technological baggage might end up so beyond our ken that we wouldn't even realize we were staring at it. That's quite a claim, yet it would neatly explain why we have yet to see advanced intelligence in the cosmos around us, despite the sheer number of planets it could have arisen on -- the so-called Fermi Paradox.

For example, if machines continue to grow exponentially in speed and sophistication, they will one day be able to decode the staggering complexity of the living world, from its atoms and molecules all the way up to entire planetary biomes. Presumably life doesn't have to be made of atoms and molecules, but could be assembled from any set of building blocks with the requisite complexity. If so, a civilization could then transcribe itself and its entire physical realm into new forms. Indeed, perhaps our universe is one of the new forms into which some other civilization transcribed its world.

These possibilities might seem wholly untestable, because part of the conceit is that sufficiently advanced life will not just be unrecognizable as such, but will blend completely into the fabric of what we've thought of as nature. But viewed through the warped bottom of a beer glass, we can pick out a few cosmic phenomena that -- at crazy as it sounds -- might fit the requirements.

What's that about a beer glass?

Actually, this is clever as a thought experiment. As an illustration of how his alien physics idea might be true, he suggests that mysterious dark matter, thought to constitute 27 percent of the mass and energy of the universe we see, might not be the formless, structure-less stuff we imagine. Perhaps it's more like cloud storage for alien civilizations that have uploaded themselves.

Coming on top of biologist Andy Gardner's proof against ID that I mentioned this morning -- from the fact that gazelles don't leap into the mouths of waiting cheetahs, as a perhaps "slightly facetious" Dr. Gardner would design things if he were in charge -- this is a good day for some rather underwhelming attempts to escape from scientific indications of ID.

So Scharf's escape hatch is to posit alien design in the cosmos in the form of physics and its laws. At first glance this doesn't sound radically at variance with Discovery Institute biologist Michael Denton's argument (see the Privileged Species website) that chemistry and physics, with their extraordinarily detailed fitness for life, give evidence of design.

One difference is that a suggestion like Scharf's is intended, perhaps not consciously, to evade the possibility that a designer is outside nature, something that the game of science as currently played arbitrarily excludes. Denton more reasonably leaves the question open. The other difference is that Denton's evidence is massive, while Scharf's is hard to distinguish from sci-fi.

On the "If I were God" argument against I.D

Biologist's New Argument Against Intelligent Design: Under ID, Gazelle Should Run Toward Cheetah

David Klinghoffer

It will be a treat to have the recording of last week's Royal Society conference, "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology,," to confirm the exact wording of a few choice quotes from the event. We've already pointed out this slide from Andy Gardner   of the University of St. Andrews. It says that Darwinism's "process" is "natural selection," its "purpose" being to "maximize fitness." ID's "process," on the other hand, is "God did it" while its purpose is "???"

What a way to turn a serious argument into a ludicrous cartoon. Completing the picture, Evolution News contributor Jonathan M., who was in the audience, notes on Facebook today that Dr. Gardner added a further observation. We alluded to this briefly before, but it deserves special highlighting. Jonathan writes, "And of course, if God made the gazelle, he would have made it run towards the cheetah. He really said this."

We've now had two reports of this. I double-checked to make sure there was no misunderstanding on my part or humorous intent on Jonathan's.

I am not joking. He said that, if the gazelle was designed, then its "purpose" is to provide food for the cheetah; and so we should expect it to be designed to run towards the cheetah rather than away. I think he was being slightly facetious but he really did say that.
"Slightly facetious" or not, folks, what we have here is a biologist speaking on "Anthropomorphism in evolutionary biology" before the world's most august scientific body and telling those assembled that, if ID is true, the direction of the gazelle's fleet running is in the wrong direction. It ought to jump straight into the cheetah's mouth.


Can you make this stuff up? Maybe you could. For myself, I don't have the imagination for it.