Darwinism's bridge to nowhere?

Eye Evolution: A Closer Look
Brian Miller

In a  previous article  I described how theories of innovation provide insight into the limits of natural selection. I will now apply those concepts to hypotheses regarding the evolution of the vertebrate eye, a subject that, since the time of Charles Darwin, has been near center of the debate over the creative power of natural selection. As Darwin himself stated in the Origin of Species:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.
He did, however, still believe it could evolve over numerous gradual increments.

Today, evolutionists propose several of the stages in what they believe to be a plausible evolutionary path. Science writer Carl Zimmer outlined the standard story:

In 2007, Trevor Lamb and his colleagues at Australian National University synthesized these studies and many others to produce a detailed hypothesis about the evolution of the vertebrate eye. The forerunners of vertebrates produced light-sensitive eyespots on their brains that were packed with photoreceptors carrying c-opsins. These light-sensitive regions ballooned out to either side of the head, and later evolved an inward folding to form a cup. Early vertebrates could then do more than merely detect light: they could get clues about where the light was coming from...a thin patch of tissue evolved on the surface of the eye. Light could pass through the patch, and crystallins were recruited into it, leading to the evolution of a lens. At first the lens probably only focused light crudely...Mutations that improved the focusing power of the lens were favored by natural selection, leading to the evolution of a spherical eye that could produce a crisp image.
See Wikipedia for a chart illustrating  "Major stages in the evolution of the eye."

To add weight to this narrative, two biologists created a  computer simulation, demonstrating, in their view, the incremental evolution of an eye in fewer than 400,000 generations.

This often-repeated tale sounds impressive at first, but it is not unlike most supposed explanations of the evolution of complex features. It scores high on imagination and flare but low on empirical evidence and thoughtful analysis. It most certainly does not represent a "detailed hypothesis." Likewise, the simulation does an admirable job of describing how a mechanical eye could develop incrementally, but it is completely disconnected from biological reality. In particular, it ignores the details of how a real eye functions and how it forms developmentally. When these issues are examined, the story completely collapses.

To fully appreciate why that is so requires a basic understanding of developmental biology. During development, cells divide, migrate, and differentiate into a wide variety of types. Throughout this process, the cells send chemical signals to their neighbors, and these signals cause proteins known as transcription factors (TF) to bind to genes in regulatory regions, which control the corresponding genes' activity. The TFs bind to what are called transcription factor binding sites (TFBS), and the correct binding enables the genes to produce their proteins in the right cells at the right time in the right amount.

The evolution of additional components in the vertebrate eye requires that this network of intercellular signals, TFs, TFBS, chromatin remodeling, as well as many other details be dramatically altered, so that each developmental stage can progress correctly. For instance, the seemingly simple addition of a marginally focusing lens -- that is to say, a lens that directs slightly more light onto a retina -- requires a  host of alterations:

Ectodermic tissue folds into a lens placode, which then forms a lens vesicle.

Cells in the lens vesicle differentiate into lens fibers, which elongate to produce the proper lens shape.

The lens fibers then undergo several key modifications, including tightly binding together, filling almost entirely with special refractive proteins called crystallins, developing special channels to receive nutrients, and destroying their organelles.

All of these steps must proceed with great precision to ensure the end product focuses light in an improved manner. The development of the lens in  all vertebrates  is very similar, and it even resembles that in  other phyla. Therefore, the development of the first lens should have closely followed the steps outlined above with only minor differences, inconsequential to the basic argument.

The challenge to evolution is that, short of completion, most of these changes are disadvantageous. A lens that has not fully evolved through the third step noted above would either scatter light away from the retina or completely block it. Any initial mutations would then be lost, and the process would have to start again from scratch. In the context of fitness terrains, an organism lacking a lens resides near the top of a local peak. The steps required to gain a functional lens correspond to traveling downhill, crossing a vast canyon of visually impaired or blind intermediates, until eventually climbing back up a new peak corresponding to lens-enhanced vision.

Once an organism has a functional lens, natural selection could then potentially make gradual improvements. However, moving from a reasonably functional lens to one that produces a high-resolution image is rather complex. In particular, the refractive index (i.e., crystalline concentration) has to be adjusted throughout the lens to vary according to a precise mathematical relationship. A gradual decrease from the inside to the outside is  needed to prevent spherical aberrations blurring the image.

Even more steps are required for the improved image to be properly interpreted:

Feedback circuitry must be added to allow the lens to automatically refocus  on images at different distances.

The retina has to be completely reengineered to process high-resolution images, including the  addition of circuits  to enable edge and motion detection.

The neural networks in the brain have to be rewired to properly interpret the pre-processed high-resolution images  from the retina.

Higher-level brain functions must be enabled to identify different objects, i.e., dangerous ones such as a shark, and properly respond to them.

Until steps 2 through 4 are completed, a high-resolution image would likely prove disadvantageous, since most of the light would be focused on fewer photoreceptors. In insolation, the alterations of perfecting the lens and those involved in step 1 would hinder the analysis of large-scale changes to the field of view, such as identifying the shadow of a predator. Natural selection would thus remove most of the initial mutations, and evolution of the eye would come to a halt.

The difference between blurry and high-resolution vision is well illustrated by the box jellyfish. It has several eyes around its body. Two have lenses, which can produce highly focused images. However, the focal point is past the retina, so the retinal images are blurry. An ability to focus more clearly than is actually useful seems to be an example of gratuitous design. Zoologist Dan Nilsson comments:

For such a minute eye it is surprising to find well-corrected, aberration-free imaging, otherwise known only from the much larger eyes of vertebrates and cephalopods. The gradient in the upper-eye lenses comes very close to the ideal solution...The sharp image falls well below the retina and it would seem that the sharp focus of the lenses is wasted by inappropriate eye geometry.
However, for the box jellyfish a high-resolution image would be disadvantageous, since its neurology is engineered to respond to such bulky features as the edge of a mangrove. Is this blurry vision the result of the jellyfish not having yet evolved high-resolution vision? No: its neural organization is radically different from that needed for the latter. As Nilsson comments, "Another, more likely, interpretation is that the eyes are 'purposely' under-focused."


"Purposeful"? Yes, it would seem so. The example illustrates that low-resolution vision is not at an inferior point on the same fitness peak as high-resolution vision. Instead, both systems reside near the peaks of separate mountains. For any species, upgrading to high-resolution vision requires massive reengineering in a single step. Such radical innovation, coordinated to achieve a distant goal, is only possible with intelligent design.

Yet another ancient witness speaks in the defense of the Bible.: The Watchtower Society's commentary.

Another Bit of Evidence

Is there archaeological evidence supporting the Bible record? In 2014 an article in the magazine Biblical Archaeology Review addressed the question: “How many people in the Hebrew Bible have been confirmed archaeologically?” The answer given: “At least 50!” One man who did not make the list in that article was Tattenai. Who was he? Let us review his brief role in the Bible record.

Jerusalem was once part of a vast Persian Empire. The city lay in an area that the Persians called Across-the-River, that is, to the west of the Euphrates. After conquering Babylonia, the Persians released Jewish captives and authorized them to rebuild Jehovah’s temple in Jerusalem. (Ezra 1:1-4) Enemies of the Jews, however, opposed the project and used it as a pretext to accuse the Jews of rebelling against Persia. (Ezra 4:4-16) During the reign of Darius I (522-486 B.C.E.), a Persian official named Tattenai led an inquiry into the matter. The Bible calls him “the governor of the region Beyond the River.”—Ezra 5:3-7.

A number of cuneiform tablets bearing the name Tattenai have survived as part of what may have been a family archive. The tablet that links one member of this family to the Bible character is a promissory note dated to the 20th year of Darius I, 502 B.C.E. It identifies a witness to the transaction as a servant of “Tattannu, governor of Across-the-River”—the same Tattenai who appears in the Bible book of Ezra.

What was this man’s role? In 535 B.C.E., Cyrus the Great reorganized his dominions into provinces, one of which was called Babylon and Across-the-River. The province was later split into two parts, one of which was simply called Across-the-River. It included Coele-Syria, Phoenicia, Samaria, and Judah and was likely ruled from Damascus. Tattenai governed this region from about 520 to 502 B.C.E.

After traveling to Jerusalem to investigate the accusation of rebellion, Tattenai reported to Darius that the Jews claimed to have received authorization from Cyrus to rebuild Jehovah’s temple. Investigations in the royal archives substantiated that claim. (Ezra 5:6, 7, 11-13; 6:1-3) So Tattenai was ordered not to interfere, and he obeyed.—Ezra 6:6, 7, 13.


To be sure, “Tattenai the governor of the region Beyond the River” merits only a footnote in history. Note, though, that the Scriptures mention him and apply to him exactly the right title. That fact gives us yet another bit of evidence that archaeology repeatedly supports the Bible’s historical accuracy.

Yet another lynching by the Darwinian inquisition.

Happy Darwin Day! German Natural History Museum Is Our 2017 Censor of the Year
David Klinghoffer

The often-heard assertion that a scientific "consensus" exists in favor of orthodox Darwinian theory is true on the surface, but otherwise deceptive. Yes, a large majority of scientists if pressed, especially in public, would hastily affirm that neo-Darwinism explains the development of complex biological forms.

We know, however, that this apparent agreement conceals a great deal of intellectual and personal turmoil, just behind the facade. The unanimity is maintained by a tight discipline that includes outright censorship. That's why every year Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture recognizes a Censor of the Year, an outstanding example of a person or institution that contributed to this pro-Darwin "consensus" through intimidation, agitation, or professional retaliation.

Now, with the debate about intelligent design (ID) taking place on an increasingly international stage, we reach across the Atlantic to name Germany's Natural History Museum in Stuttgart as our 2017 Censor of the Year.

If you follow us at Evolution News, you'll already have an inkling of the story that lies behind this choice. On Friday  we announced a new Senior Fellow with the CSC, the distinguished German paleo-entomologist Günter Bechly, formerly curator of amber and fossil insects at the Natural History Museum. In welcoming Dr. Bechly, a specialist in dragonflies, we left out one thing. After coming out as an ID sympathizer in 2015, following his private exploration of the evidence for design in nature, Bechly was the victim of retaliation and censorship by his institution. Though the addition of Dr. Bechly to our scientific community is a wonderful boon to us, the ensuing parting of the ways with his museum came with heavy personal, professional, and health costs.


As told in the documentary  Revolutionary (see an excerpt below), his doubts on evolution were first stirred in 2009 when he organized an exhibition to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the publication of the Origin of Species and the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth. The exhibit included a display of a "scale" weighing the Origin against a collection of ID books by Michael Behe, Stephen Meyer, William Dembski, and others. Bechly's "mistake" was to actually read those books.This commenced a journey for him, motivated by scientific curiosity, not religion. As he recalls in the film, he had no religion to begin with, but only a love of and fascination with nature and animals.

He kept his interest in and support of ID private until October 2015, when he broached the subject on Facebook and a personal web page. Even then, Günter kept his ID writing strictly separate from his work for the museum. But word got out. He has shared it all with us, though some must be kept back, including names and positions, to protect innocent parties.

It began with strange smiles from colleagues, icy faces, and backstabbing gossip, moving on finally to open hostility. Without warning, his applications to acquire new fossil material -- say, a collection of mid-Cretaceous Burmese amber -- were blocked by unprecedented bureaucratic obstacles. He learned that a position he relied on, his amber preparator (handler), was proposed to go unfilled after its previous occupant retired.

Emails among his fellow scientists asked, "Have you already heard that Bechly has become a creationist? How shall we react and what can we do about it?" Conspiratorial meetings took place behind his back, as a colleague wondered, "How can we help Günter?" as if he were unwell. Co-workers placed phone calls to scientists outside the museum to ask if they knew about Bechly's turn to "creationism."

He was told that the large amber collection he was responsible for as curator would be moved away from his office. He was directed to resign from a position as ombudsman for the  Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation), a research-funding group.A colleague sought to draw out evidence of his heresy in a seemingly friendly email exchange, after which Günter was summoned for a discussion of his future at the institution. Says Dr. Bechly, he was told that "as a big threat to the credibility and reputation of the museum," he was "no longer welcome, and that it would be appreciated if I would decide to quit." The museum also informed him that colleagues no longer want to collaborate with him.

To reinforce the impression that Bechly would no longer enjoy a comfortable, supportive, and productive professional life there, the museum deleted his webpages (which made no mention of ID) and erased him from its own website. It dismissed him as scientific head of a major exhibition he had conceived and designed, "Life in the Amber Forest." Dr. Bechly was now forced to report as an underling to a colleague with no expertise in his area. He asked if he was being accused of any misconduct, and received the answer that, no, that certainly wasn't the case. On the contrary, his 17 years of work at the museum had been exemplary.

Seventeen years of fine work! And he was being gradually forced out over privately held views. "After a few days of soul searching and long discussions with my wife," says Bechly, "I decided that it did not make sense anymore to continue working in a hostile environment that makes productive research and collaboration with colleagues impossible." He resigned this past December, and now joins us.

"It was offensive, humiliating, and unfair," Bechly concludes in an apt summary. A few weeks after his resignation he received a troubling medical diagnosis of severe heart problems. He faces heart surgery later this month.

His story reminds us of many other cases, some involving past Censors of the Year. It recalls in particular evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg's experience at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History. That was after Dr. Sternberg published a peer-reviewed article by ID proponent Dr. Stephen Meyer in a journal that Sternberg edited, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. (I wrote about that in the Wall Street Journal  and at National Review Online.) For his offense -- editing an article! -- Sternberg suffered retaliation including being denied access to specimen collections, having his master key taken away from him, and an internal investigation of his religious and political belief. As with Bechly, colleagues refused to work him, and he was eventually forced out of his position.

This is how the "consensus" for Darwinian evolution is maintained. Oh, not only or primarily through outright censorship. Vanity is the single most effective tool that ensures uniformity of opinion. Men are monsters of vanity -- males especially, but women too. The pressure to be on the prestige side of any significant disagreement is intense, a fact often unacknowledged unless you are pretty honest with yourself. This holds across science, the media, education, politics, religion, and other fields.

Dr. Bechly was among the contingent of ID-friendly scientists present at the Royal Society meeting ("New Trends in Evolutionary Biology") in London last November. Another scientist on hand, we noted, a senior figure with views on Darwin overlapping with ours but allergic to ID itself, was visibly skittish about even being seen talking with us. So it goes.

Doubts about Darwin are also held in check by fear of what will happen to you if the suspicion gets around that you're in league with the "creationists." That word alone -- a masterpiece agitprop tool in the hands of Darwin enforcers, applied to everyone from Biblical literalists to the most sophisticated scientists examining objective evidence of design in nature -- does all the work of intimidation needed to keep most people in line.

But fear of punishment is a major factor too. When a scientist really does cross the line, as Günter Bechly did, the hammer almost always comes down, ruthlessly. So it proved at Stuttgart's Natural History Museum.

Günter's case, like others, is revealing. We know of many science professionals whose career or research would be endangered if we said a word here about their ID sympathies. Instances like that come to our attention all the time, and prudence keeps us from saying more.

Someday, a tipping point will come. Numerous closets will open in a swell of confessions: "I've doubted the straight Darwin story for years." "I've long suspected that design or teleology of some kind must have played a role in evolution, but I would never admit it till now." And at that time we'll stop giving out Censor of the Year awards. But that day has not yet arrived.

History Judges Cleopatra.

Examining the house that Darwin built. II

With Darwin Day Coming Tomorrow, Here's Tom Bethell on Darwin's Deception
David Klinghoffer

Update: Darwin Day is also Academic Freedom Day . Be sure to check back in here after midnight to find out who our 2017 Censor of the Year will be!














This year, Darwin Day falls on a Sunday -- tomorrow, February 12. Of all the Darwinist talking points, the most transparently false may be the claim that this 19th-century materialist theory of origins poses no challenge whatsoever to serious, sincere religious belief.

Oh, please! Do they really think we're that gullible? Well, maybe they are not wrong about that anyway.

As Tom Bethell (that's him in the video above) points out over at The American Spectator, many churches and synagogues, pastors, priests, and rabbis, have been captivated by the idea that they can have their cake and eat it too: enjoy the prestige and regard that come with assenting to evolutionary theory, while retaining the authority and regard that come with their clerical position.

February 12 is Darwin Day, and this year the international celebration falls on a Sunday. Look for theistic Darwinists to reassure churches that Charles Darwin believed in God, or at least that his theory of evolution harmonizes beautifully with Christian theology.

The reality is more complex.

In The Origin of Species, Darwin suggested the idea of a God who created a few original forms and then let the "laws" of nature govern the outcome. "It is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms," he wrote, "as to believe that he required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of his laws."

But later he wrote privately to friend Joseph Hooker, "I have long regretted that I truckled to public opinion, and used the Pentateuchal term of creation." And in 1862, he told Harvard botanist Asa Gray there seemed to be "too much misery in the world." He could not accept, for example, "that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created [digger wasps] with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice."

Darwin was careful to conceal his own loss of faith, and his surviving family members kept up the tradition.

[R]ealizing that a thoroughgoing materialism wasn't an easy sell, [Darwin] actively concealed this aspect of his thinking. In one notebook he reminded himself to "avoid stating how far, I believe, in Materialism."

...

One doesn't hear much about the materialism of Darwin and Darwinism, likely because there has been a longstanding effort to ignore and suppress it. Many of today's theistic Darwinists play this game, but they are hardly the first. So, for instance, Darwin's mounting hostility to Christianity was suppressed by his widow, who removed some inflammatory comments from his Autobiography.

Read the rest here. Veteran journalist Bethell's new book is Darwin's House of Cards: A Journalist's Odyssey Through the Darwin Debates. As a writer, he is a delight, praised by Tom Wolfe as "one of our most brilliant essayists." The tragedy of the clergy and their mass surrender to evolutionary thinking is that it is so unnecessary.


Yes, it requires some homework and independent thinking to realize this, but the cogency of evolution's main claim -- that blind churning produces brilliant novelties -- rests on remarkably little evidence. Bethell, as I've pointed out, has put to the rest "I'm not a scientist" dodge beloved by clergy, journalists, and other professionals unwilling to do that homework for themselves.

A clash of Titans. XLVII

How politics poisons everything II

The Truth about Soviet Science and Darwinian Evolution Isn't as Darwinists Would Like Us to Believe

Jonathan Wells

As an article at The Conversation by Professors Ian Godwin and Yuri Trusov observes,  "The tragic story of Soviet genetics shows the folly of political meddling in science."

There is much truth in the article, but its authors assume that during the era of Trofim Lysenko the Soviet government persecuted people who "embraced evolution and genetics." On this point, they quote "Australia's Chief Scientist, Alan Finkel, [who]  mentioned him [that is, Lysenko] during a speech  at a meeting of chief scientists in Canberra."

They continue:

The emerging ideology of Lysenkoism was effectively a jumble of pseudoscience, based predominantly on his rejection of  Mendelian genetics and everything else that underpinned [Nikolai] Vavilov's science. He was a product of his time and political situation in the young USSR.

In reality, Lysenko was what we might today call a crackpot. Among other things, he denied the existence of DNA and genes, he claimed that plants selected their mates, and argued that they could acquire characteristics during their lifetime and pass them on. He also espoused the theory that some plants choose to sacrifice themselves for the good of the remaining plants -- another notion that runs against the grain of evolutionary understanding.

In fact, the Soviet government embraced Darwinian evolution (which according to Darwin's own writings contained Lamarckian elements), and persecuted Mendelian genetics, which was considered to be a threat to Darwinism. For more, see the abridged excerpt below from Chapter 16 of my 2006 book  The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design:

American Lysenkoism

When Mendelian biologists criticized Trofim Lysenko, he simply evaded their arguments and declared that Mendelian genetics was unacceptable because it contradicted Darwinian evolution.1 By then, many Western biologists were accepting the "modern synthesis" of Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics, but Soviet Minister of Agriculture Jakov Jakovlev supported Lysenko by declaring Mendelism to be incompatible with true Darwinism. In 1937, Prezent praised Lysenko for "marching under the banner of reconstruction of biological science on the basis of Darwinism raised to the level of Marxism," while he demonized the Mendelians as "powers of darkness."2

If government officials and Darwinist ideologues had not come to Lysenko's rescue, the Mendelians would probably have prevailed -- as they did outside the Soviet Union -- because they had better science on their side. Lysenko's Stalinist suppression of Mendelians in the 1940s made matters much worse, but the underlying problem was that the government-supported scientific establishment had chosen to support one side in a scientific dispute. For many years, biologists in the Soviet Union were persecuted by the government if they challenged the official view of Darwinian orthodoxy or defended Mendelian genetics.3

So, contrary to the claims of [American Darwinists], the scientific conflict underlying Lysenkoism was not Lamarckism against Darwinism, but classical Darwinism (which had undeniably Lamarckian elements) against the new Mendelian genetics. The present conflict between neo-Darwinism and intelligent design resembles Lysenkoism in the sense that the Darwinists are still opposing new ideas.

Darwinists would like us to believe that ID proponents -- like Lysenko -- want to use the government to oppose evolution. But as often happens, Darwinists have things exactly upside-down. Stalin and Lysenko were Darwinists who persecuted Mendelians, just as modern Darwinists persecute IDers (though, thank God, they haven't imprisoned us). In fact, Darwinism is at the root of the persecution in both cases. And like Mendelism, ID is better science than Darwinism.

So the lesson is legitimate: Don't allow the government to use its power to enforce a particular view on a scientific question. If only the government would stay out of the evolution-ID controversy!

Notes:

(1) Nils Roll-Hansen, The Lysenko Effect: The Politics of Science (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2005), 86-89. Valery N. Soyfer, Lysenko and the Tragedy of Soviet Science (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1994), 63. David Joravsky, The Lysenko Affair (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), 208, 238-239. Zhores Medvedev, The Rise and Fall of T. D. Lysenko (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969), Chapter 3.

(2) Roll-Hansen, 218-220. Medvedev, 46-49.

(3) Medvedev, Chapter 11. Loren R. Graham, What Have We Learned about Science and Technology from the Russian Experience? (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1998), Chapter 1 and Conclusions. Roll-Hansen, Chapter 10.

The Struggle for equality is the problem?:Pros and cons.

second guessing the original designer?

Is There a Limit to the Number of a Designer's Creative Acts?
Walter Myers III 

Recently, I was listening to Bach's Orchestral Suite No. 3 in G Major, BWV 1068, followed a couple of days later by watching the Tom Cruise movie Oblivion. What does one have to do with the other? Well, the latter includes in the soundtrack the song "A Whiter Shade of Pale" by the 1960s English rock group Procol Harum, and it occurred to me that "A Whiter Shade" may be based on Bach.

A little research revealed that the organ countermelody of "A Whiter Shade" is, indeed, based on BWV 1068. The song itself is an adaptation of Bach's church cantata, Ich steh mit einem Fuß im Grabe ("I am standing with one foot in the grave"), BWV 156. Bach is among the most prolific and accomplished composers of all time, credited with in excess of 1,100 surviving compositions (many others of which have been lost). In its list of the Top 15 greatest composers, ListVerse has declared Bach the greatest of these based on "the intellectual depth of his music, the technical demand, and the artistic beauty." I agree, but that's neither here nor there.

"A Whiter Shade" is, in a real sense, a descendant of Bach's BWV 156, similar to an untold number of other songs that have borrowed from Bach over the centuries. An example would be "A Lover's Concerto" by The Toys, based on Bach's Minuet in G Major, BWV Anh. 114, but arranged in 4/4 time. Thinking about this led me to reflect on creativity and creative acts. What came to mind was Charles Darwin's statement in The Origin of Species:

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist, reflecting on the mutual affinities of organic beings, on their embryological relations, their geographical distribution, geological succession, and other such facts, might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. Nevertheless, such a conclusion, even if well founded, would be unsatisfactory, until it could be shown how the innumerable species inhabiting this world have been modified, so as to acquire that perfection of structure and coadaptation which most justly excites our admiration.

This passage, repeated in several forms in The Origin, comes from the introduction. Darwin criticized naturalists who believed each species could have been "independently created," or rather, designed. He felt that such thinking must be mistaken due to the sheer number of species, and considering the work it would take to modify them all to fit perfectly into their respective environments.

But let's think again. It is estimated that at present, there are approximately 8.7 million species on Earth. Yet when we consider the human brilliance of Bach, whose work was voluminous, and only limited by his untimely death of a stroke at 65, why would Darwin, or anyone else, conclude that the complexity, beauty, and artistry of extant species could not possibly come about through the creative act of a designer? Let's look at the syllogism that Darwin uses in this passage:

There are an innumerable number of species

It cannot be shown how an innumerable species could have been modified to adapt so well to their environments

Therefore, species could not have been independently created

On inspection, we see this syllogism fails, since the conclusion, (3), does not necessarily follow from premises (1) and (2). First, it is speculative to say that a particular number of species, which may be innumerable, yet still finite, could not each be the result of creative acts. Second, because it cannot be shown precisely how those species became so well adapted to their environment, it is not appropriate to conclude that evolution is the only possible mechanism.

Indeed, we know a lot about independent creative acts. For one thing, we know that not all acts are necessarily new but may be built on previous such acts, as we see with The Toys or Procol Harum that built on the previous work of Bach, while adding new and novel arrangements (or rather, information). So when we consider the creativity of the human mind, and what it is able to accomplish, why would we conclude that any given extant species could not have been the product of a continually working designer over the course of time?

When we look at the depth, complexity, and beauty that comes forth from the minds of humans such as Bach, The Toys, or Procol Harum, we reasonably conclude that a mind far greater than the human mind could over time have created the almost 9 million catalogued species we see on Earth. My argument is not that all species were created independently, as the ability to speciate could well have been built into the DNA of a number of aboriginal forms. However, when you look at an almost 600-million-year period of complex life forms, an average of about 70 creative acts per year does not seem outside the domain of possibility.


Yes, I'm having a little fun with such speculation, and taking extinction into account, am well aware there have been far more than 8.7 million species over time. A quick Internet check suggests 5 billion extinct species, which is fine. The point holds, because the numerical quantity of species over time is immaterial. What's material is that we know from our everyday experience that minds can produce creative acts. And thus, Darwin's insistence that only evolution can account for the modification of innumerable species is more an argument from personal incredulity than an argument from science.

Thoughts on the new atheism.

Science rediscovers an old truth.

Acts20:35NASB " In everything I showed you that by working hard in this manner you must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Has 'convergent evolution' become Darwinism's utility belt?

Pythons and boas shed new light on reptile evolution

Source:

Australian National University

A new study into pythons and boas has for the first time found the two groups of snakes evolved independently to share similar traits, shedding new light on how the reptiles evolved.

Pythons and boas are two families that include the largest snakes in the world, like the reticulated python and the anaconda boa, which have been known to grow close to eight meters in length.
The Australian National University (ANU) study found that by living in the same habitat, pythons and boas evolved independently to look similar. This happened at least five times in different habitats. Aquatic pythons look like aquatic boas, burrowing pythons look like borrowing boas and tree-dwelling pythons look like tree-dwelling boas.
Lead researcher Damien Esquerre said the study found pythons and boas were an important example of convergent evolution in reptiles. Convergent evolution is where species adapt to the same conditions and evolve similar traits.
"The finding of such a strong case of convergent evolution demonstrates the power of natural selection and adaptation in living organisms," said Mr Esquerre from the ANU Research School of Biology.
"If we see that different groups evolve the same things independently when they face the same challenges, we can find predictability in evolution."
Other famous examples of convergent evolution are sharks and dolphins, which are not related but have evolved similar body plans. Similarly, the extinct Tasmanian Tiger, a marsupial mammal, and the wolf, a placental mammal, evolved similar body plans.
Although they look the similar and both constrict their prey, the pythons and boas last shared a common ancestor 70 million years ago in the age of the dinosaurs.
The research focused on the head shape of close to 2,000 specimens in museum collections in Australia and America.
Mr Esquerre said not all evolution was driven by natural selection, but examples such as pythons and boas reinforce its importance in shaping biological diversity.
"By having greater understanding of the evolution of pythons and boas, researchers can now have better ideas of what extinct fossil snakes were doing before they disappeared," he said.

---

Story Source:
The above post is reprinted from materials provided by Australian National University. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.

The establishments policy on design advocates:Give them a 'fair trial' and then hang them.

In the "Public Interest"? ProPublica Misrepresents Intelligent Design and Discovery Institute Policy
Sarah Chaffee


In a recent article on Secretary of Education nominee Betsy DeVos (confirmed yesterday), Annie Waldman at ProPublica delves into intelligent design -- and in the process misrepresents design theory and Discovery Institute.

She starts by describing intelligent design as a "more nuanced outgrowth of creationism," and then says that Discovery Institute's Briefing Packet for Educators  advocates teaching ID under the guise of "critical thinking." That's wrong on both counts.

Intelligent design, unlike creationism, restricts itself to scientific evidence and the rational inferences that can be drawn from that evidence. It does not base its conclusions on the Bible or any other sacred text.

ProPublica, which claims to offer "Journalism in the Public Interest," insists that "[w]ithin this movement, 'critical thinking' has become a code phrase to justify teaching of intelligent design." Ms. Waldman then brings Discovery Institute in:

Advocates have contended that presenting  presenting intelligent design side-by-side , also known as "teaching the controversy," would enhance the critical thinking skills of students and improve their scientific reasoning. Indeed,  briefing packet for educators from the leading intelligent design group, the Seattle-based Discovery Institute, walks teachers through this approach.

"In American public education today, the status quo teaches evolution in a dogmatic, pro-Darwin-only fashion which fails to help students use critical thinking on this topic," the report states, adding that teaching "the controversy" can help students "learn the critical thinking skills they need to think like good scientists."

John West, vice president of the Discovery Institute, said that the implication that "critical thinking" is code for intelligent design is "ludicrous."

"Critical thinking is a pretty foundational idea supported by lots of people, not just us," said West in an email, adding that he also thinks "critical thinking should apply to discussions of evolution."

Discovery Institute does NOT advocate pushing intelligent design into public schools. Waldman cites our Briefing Packet, but she seems to have skimmed over our science education policy, which is in that document. It notes:

As a matter of public policy, Discovery Institute opposes any effort to require the teaching of intelligent design by school districts or state boards of education. Attempts to mandate teaching about intelligent design only politicize the theory and will hinder fair and open discussion of the merits of the theory among scholars and within the scientific community. Furthermore, most teachers at the present time do not know enough about intelligent design to teach about it accurately and objectively.

Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute seeks to increase the coverage of evolution in textbooks. It believes that evolution should be fully and completely presented to students, and they should learn more about evolutionary theory, including its unresolved issues. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned.

Teaching intelligent design is not the same as teaching criticisms of evolution. An argument for design requires making a positive case -- starting with observations of what human designers create (specified complexity) and examinations of where we find specified complexity in nature.

Furthermore, science standards in Kansas and Ohio, mentioned by Ms. Waldman, did not call for teaching intelligent design, but rather critical analysis.

Waldman also quotes Greg McNeilly, identified as a "longtime aide to DeVos and an executive at her and her husband's privately held investment management firm." He says regarding Mrs. DeVos:

I don't know the answer to whether she believes in intelligent design -- it's not relevant...There is no debate on intelligent design or creationism being taught in schools. According to federal law, it cannot be taught.

The claim that intelligent design is against federal policy is false. Perhaps he was referring to Kitzmiller v. Dover, a court decision involving design, but that applies only to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. For more on Kitzmiller, see our book  Traipsing into Evolution: Intelligent Design and the Kitzmiller v. Dover Decision.

Teaching the scientific strengths and weaknesses of evolution is different from teaching ID. Let me give you a couple examples of what critical analysis might look like:

Evaluating whether natural selection acting on random mutation can account for all life we see around us. This is an important discussion right now in the scientific world -- in fact, at the November Royal Society Conference, "New Trends in Evolutionary Biology," theoretical biologist Gerd Müller noted  that natural selection has a hard time accounting for phenotypic novelty and complexity. The conference provided a forum for proponents of the Modern Synthesis and the Third Way of Evolution to discuss questions about evolutionary mechanisms.

Learning about various proposed scientific scenarios for the origin of life. This includes discussing the code-first model (most prominently, RNA world), the metabolism first model, and the protein-first model. As the 2007 Priestley Medalist George M. Whitesides has noted: "Most chemists believe, as do I, that life emerged spontaneously from mixtures of molecules in the prebiotic Earth. How? I have no idea."

A quality science education teaches students accurate, up-to-date information. But it does more than that as well: It teaches them to think critically about science.

Scientific inquiry is fostered, not suppressed, by teaching topics, such as evolution, that are still under debate by scientists. No one expects high school biology students to solve the origin of life dilemma in the classroom, but by tracing the research and arguments of scientists in the field, they learn about approaches and methods of science that can only be beneficial to them in the future -- inside or outside the lab.


Critical analysis does not entail any discussion of religion. ProPublica's insistence to the contrary showcases a bias, common in the media, against any presentation of valid criticisms of neo-Darwinism. That's not in the public interest, and certainly not in the interest of students.

On Darwinism's conflating of micro with macro.

Incremental Versus Radical Innovation: A Response to Josh Swamidass on Evolution and Cancer

Brian Miller

Joshua Swamidass is an Assistant Professor of Laboratory and Genomic Medicine at Washington University, and a frequent critic of intelligent design. At the theistic evolutionary site BioLogos, he  recently posted  on the use of evolutionary theory in understanding cancer. He has written on this topic previously, and we have analyzed his arguments (see  here, here, and here ). I would like to take a step back and put his case in a larger context, the question of incremental versus radical innovation.

But first, let's meet Dr. Swamidass. Recently, he and I exchanged emails, giving me a chance to ask him to clarify his positions. I thank him for his time.

Swamidass explained that he is a devout Christian, and believes that God did create life. However, he thinks that the exact means by which this was accomplished, how the blueprints of different species were instantiated in the physical world, is a mystery. Because of this, he said, he doubts that the unfolding of life can ever be disentangled from physical processes.

Instead, he feels the evidence for design in nature should be seen as an entire package. He is skeptical of any characteristics of living organisms being used, via modern design-detection methods, as distinct, isolated evidence for design. Rather, he thinks the Modern Synthesis offers a very helpful framework for understanding many aspects of nature, such as antibiotic resistance and  cancer growth. He sees connections between these small-scale changes and patterns identified when comparing the genomes of different species. Therefore, he promotes the standard theory of evolution as the best approach to understanding the development of life.

There is some common ground here. Proponents of intelligent design agree with Swamidass that the evidence from nature taken as a whole points to a designer, while he's right as well that just how this design was instantiated in biology remains a mystery. There follows, however, a sharp parting of ways. First, ID theorists argue that many features of life could not plausibly arise from undirected natural process, and that those features instead display signatures (in the form of biological information) uniquely associated with intelligent agents. Second, we observe, recognizing this fact is scientifically fruitful. It leads to essential insights and new directions in research needed to fully understand biological processes and patterns.

Many biologists appear to recognize the second point, at least unconsciously. We notice this, in their frequent use of design language and logic in describing systems ranging from single cells to complex structures (see  here  and here). Of course, they always attribute such design features to the wondrous power of natural selection. This is their faith.

Which brings us to the subject of cancer. As Swamidass recognizes, and this is the key to his argument, an evolutionary framework can indeed provide insights into how tumor cells change and propagate (see here and here). However, this is true only to a certain limited extent. The key question is whether the sorts of mutations seen in tumors could accumulate in independent organisms to drive the large-scale transformations seen throughout the history of life. The answer is no. We see this, in part, from theories of engineering design that focus on the process of innovation. Such approaches recognize a fundamental difference between improving an existing design (incremental innovation) and creating an entirely new design based on a different design logic (radical innovation).

A crude example would be the difference between slightly modifying a car by streamlining the frame, on one hand, and changing a car into a helicopter, on the other. Making slight improvements through a series of small steps would help optimize performance. However, this process could not be extrapolated to change the basic design architecture. Very soon after incremental changes were made to start turning the car into a helicopter, the car would suffer a dramatic loss of functionality. This would occur long before it could ever fly. The problem is that the two basic designs operate under fundamental constraints that are directly in conflict. Any change helping to meet the target constraints (e.g., power from the engine redirected to turning the rotor) would cause the system to fail to meet the original constraints (e.g., power from the engine directed to turning the wheels), thus downgrading performance or eliminating it altogether. Such self-defeating alterations would be immediately abandoned, causing the "evolutionary" process to come to a halt.

Innovation experts  Donald Norman and Roberto Verganti  have illustrated this distinction in terms of hill climbing. They picture incremental improvements (in the evolutionary context, microevolution) as gradually climbing to the top of a local hill. A person only going uphill (improved fitness) would eventually reach a peak and become stuck. However, radical innovation (macroevolution) is the equivalent of moving from the face of one hill to an entirely different one. This would require a single, dramatic leap over the suboptimal terrain in between. What's more, the different hills are so isolated that any undirected leap would land the system in the middle of a sea of nonfunctional arrangements of parts. The whole basis of innovation theories (e.g., TRIZ) lies in using previous knowledge of innovation to anticipate where the islands of functionality might reside. Therefore, innovation can only proceed through intelligent direction.

The natural next question is to what extent this characteristic of engineered systems applies to life. At first glance, the logic seems to transfer completely. An illustration in nature would be the lung of a typical tetrapod evolving into the lung of a bird. All vertebrates, which long predate birds, have sack-like lungs, while birds and a few reptiles have lungs that are tubes, with air flowing in one direction only. Any mutation that alters a sack-like lung in such a way as to start turning it into a tube (e.g., puncturing a hole in the end) would seem to diminish the lung's effectiveness. This challenge, by the way, is part of the larger hurdle of a theropod dinosaur transforming into a bird.

However, the analogy is not complete. Living organisms differ from machines in many ways, such as their ability to grow, self-repair, and reproduce. Could these differences cause a comparison with human engineering to break down? Research over the past decades suggests the opposite. All of the differences actually result in even tighter constraints on life, making the challenge to evolution dramatically more severe. Imagine engineering a giant box filled with machinery, which self-assembles into a car. The constraints on that machinery would be greater than on a pre-assembled car, since any alteration at the beginning would have magnifying effects throughout the assembly process.

The self-assembly of a car corresponds in many ways to the development and growth of life (e.g., steps leading from a fish egg to an adult fish). The original egg cell divides into two cells. Then, those cells divide into four cells, and so forth for many generations. The earlier stages of this process establish the basic architecture (body plan) of an organism through networks of genes, which control cell duplication, migration, and differentiation. These developmental networks have been studied for decades, and the  conclusion of leaders in the field  is that they cannot tolerate even minor alterations. Any change that significantly alters an organism's body plan is always harmful and typically fatal, for the effects of early changes grow downstream, resulting in catastrophe for the adult. As a result, the fitness terrain that best corresponds to the different body plans is a series of highly isolated mountains, where every side is a steep, unscalable cliff.

Thus, changing from one body plan, such as a sponge or worm, into another plan, such as a fish, requires many dramatic alterations to be implemented, at once, through intelligent guidance. This conclusion leads directly to the expectation that new body plans (phyla) should appear suddenly in the fossil record without a continuous series of intermediates leading back to the trunk of an evolutionary tree. And this is what we find.


The prediction perfectly matches the pattern seen in the  Cambrian explosion and in n later sudden appearances of new architectures. Joshua Swamidass's protests about cancer notwithstanding, this seamless integration of design theory, developmental networks, and the fossil record is only possible within an ID framework.

The most favored foe?

The Curious Romance of Darwinism and Creationism -- And Why Intelligent Design Must Be Silenced
David Klinghoffer

One of the many smart observations in Tom Bethell's new book, Darwin's House of Cards, pertains to the curious relationship of Darwinism and Creationism -- and how that bears on efforts to suppress investigation of the theory of intelligent design.
Darwinists seem to long for the good old days when their only opposition was from Biblical creationism. This is reflected in efforts to conflate ID with creationism, or to make the former a kind of forbidden science, off limits to discussion. As Bethell writes in his chapter on "Intelligent Design and Information Theory":

Darwinians today are eager to stick their own labels onto ID: "Intelligent design creationism" is one favorite. It's as though an unseen collective voice had cried out: "Give us back our preferred enemy! Bring back creationism! That, we knew how to respond to." But so far, no intelligent rebuttal of intelligent design has appeared.

The longing, the romance -- perhaps "bromance"? -- makes sense, since for all that separates them, Darwinism and creationism have in common that they are both inferences from prior doctrines (respectively, materialism, or a particular way of reading the Bible). ID is different. Says Bethell, "Intelligent design is not a deduction from a philosophy but an inference from observed facts."
This is what's so enraging to Darwinists, and it goes some way to explaining why they lash out -- holding their own tongue, and punishing ID advocates and open-minded researchers for failing to hold theirs.
Bethell cites a telling lecture by University of Akron researcher Nita Sahai, "The Origins of Life: From Geochemistry to Biochemistry." (See the video by clicking on the image at the top.) You actually see her catch herself, as she's helped out by a colleague, first saying that her lab work simulating OOL requires "intelligent design" -- no, no, no, make that "careful selection."
Mr. Bethell also tells the story of the publication of The Privileged Planet. Arguably more interesting than the book itself, he says, is what happened to its astronomer co-author at the Iowa State University, denounced by

[o]ver 400 professor across the state [who] signed various statements, opposing "all attempts to represent Intelligent Design as a scientific endeavor." Both on and outside the planet, whether in astronomy or biology, the professors insisted, the philosophy of naturalism is expected to enjoy a monopoly.

That monopoly was challenged on another campus, Baylor University, by mathematician William Dembski.

Dembski formed the Polanyi Institute to debate these issues, with Darwinians and ID opponents included on the board. But the Institute was shut down after vehement protests from Baylor's biology faculty. They did not want ID to be so much as discussed.

Not even discussed. That is about as telling a statement as there could be. ID, unlike creationism, challenges Darwinian evolution on its own turf. That is not acceptable. Creationism for the Darwinist is a welcome foil. On the other hand, ID, which practices science where Darwinism is ultimately an exercise in philosophy, must be silenced.