"Settled Science" vs. Actual science.

Stifling Opposition Is the Real “Anti-Science”

Wesley J Smith 

The advancement of science is one of mankind’s greatest triumphs. And who could be against it? Deploying the raw power of rational analysis, science exponentially increases our understanding of the natural world and leads to wonderous applications to improve the human condition.

But these days, science has become something of a divisive concept. It’s not that most people reject the scientific method or science’s many achievements. Rather, because some in the scientific establishment co-opt the term “science” as a means of exerting control over policy or to further favored ideological agendas, trust in the scientific sector is deflating.

You know the types. They can be seen regularly on cable TV claiming righteously that “the science is settled” about the rightness of their opinions — for example, the medical propriety of “affirming” gender confusion in children with puberty blockers. Then, they deploy the pejorative “anti-science” against those who disagree to stifle other perspectives.

The Antithesis of Science

But shutting critics up is the antithesis of science, properly understood. Indeed, stifling opposition is the real “anti-science” because it betrays the fundamental precepts of the scientific method, an approach to learning that requires continual argumentation, (sometimes bitter) disagreements, and the never-ending willingness to challenge accepted orthodoxies. In this sense, “the science” is never “settled” but always open to revised understandings. Otherwise, science mutates into dogma, which suppresses the pursuit of knowledge. Indeed, sometimes that is the point.

Examples of once-unquestioned “truths” overturned by subsequent discoveries are legion. Here’s a recent example. Biologists used to believe that the human appendix was a useless vestigial organ. But because science is dynamic, this once uncontroversial perspective was challenged. And what do you know? “Science” has now discovered at least two valuable purposes for the appendix: it supports the body’s immune system and serves as a “bank” of sorts for storing beneficial gut bacteria.

Now, imagine if the scientists who worked to attain a better understanding of the appendix had been prevented from exploring that subject because the “scientific consensus” had determined previously that the organ had no beneficial purpose. What if the self-appointed guardians of perceived medical wisdom had dissuaded researchers from pursuing their investigations for fear of losing university tenure, being scorned by colleagues, or having research funding blocked? Valuable knowledge would have been lost. New medical approaches for treating an infected appendix would never be developed. The mistaken scientific understanding would have remained, yes, “settled.”

The Costs of “Settled Science”

Alas, these days the science establishment too often engages in just such censorship when it involves controversial scientific issues. We saw that on full display during the COVID-19 pandemic. When three noted epidemiologists (pictured above) questioned the wisdom of societal shutdowns and keeping children out of school, in the Great Barrington Declaration (GBD), rather than engage its content — as would have been the proper scientific approach — the public health establishment instead attempted to destroy the messengers. For example, then-National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins slandered the authors as “fringe,” and Anthony Fauci worked to undermine the GBD in the media. One of the authors, Stanford University professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, even found himself scorned by his own academic community for contesting the “settled science.”

Funny that. In the end, the GBD proved to have the better argument, illustrating the terrible harm that can be caused by stifling the scientific method and suppressing dissenting views.

Or consider the hot-button topic of evolution. For decades public spokespersons for the scientific establishment have insisted that the contemporary theory of evolution is unchallengeable. Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins even went so far as to claim that “if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).” Talk about chilling open scientific inquiry!

Yet, in 2016, a group of leading evolutionary and cell biologists convened a conference at the Royal Society in London. Many scientists who attended openly called for a new theory of evolution because of their increasing doubts about the supposed creative power of Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection. Are all these scientists “ignorant, stupid or insane”? Of course not. They are simply “doing science.”

The same vituperative anti-science approach to stifling critics was pursued by the scientific establishment during the embryonic stem cell debate between 2001 and 2008. After President George W. Bush funded embryonic stem cell research but also placed modest federal funding limitations on the experiments, he and supporters of his policy were accused of imposing their religious beliefs against “the gold standard” of regenerative medicine that could soon allow disabled people to throw away their wheelchairs. Scientific arguments that adult stem cells offered the better hope of developing treatments for a wide array of medical conditions were similarly attacked.

The Proof Is in the Pudding

More than twenty years later, what do we see? Embryonic stem cell research was mostly hype. There is not one FDA-approved treatment using embryonic stem cells. Meanwhile, adult stem cells are used to treat a wide array of pathologies. In other words, despite all the name-calling and screeching about interference with the scientific consensus, the heterodox theorists were right.

That isn’t always true, of course. Established views frequently prove correct when challenged. But that isn’t the point. What matters is that for science to be “science,” perceived truths — no matter how seemingly settled — must always be subject to rethinking. The defense of generally accepted views should be based on evidence, not personal denigration of the challengers.

Alas, they never learn. Whether the scientific issue involves climate change, the safety of vaccines, how best to care for children with gender dysphoria, or the alleged scientific support in favor of Darwinian evolution, etc., the scientific establishment continues to brand those who contest their opinions (as a column in Scientific American put it recently) “anti-science” for rejecting “mainstream scientific views.”

That’s Baloney

Stifling the messy and contentious process required for scientific knowledge to advance undermines science. Yes, that means charlatans and frauds may, at times, successfully beguile the ignorant. But just like the most efficacious answer to bad speech is good speech, the way to overcome bad science is for good science to demonstrate its veracity. Attempts to short-circuit that contentious process betray the very purposes science is supposed to serve.

Yet another of the fossil record's explosions.

 Fossil Friday: The Big Bang of Tertiary Birds and a Phylogenetic Mess

Gunter Bechly

This Fossil Friday we look into the abrupt origin of birds, which is just one of the many discontinuities in the fossil record of life on Earth. The image features a fossil bird of the genus Rhychaetites from the famous Eocene Messel pit in Germany. It is similar and also related to modern ibises.

While feathered dinosaurs and primitive toothed birds were abundant during the Cretaceous period, only the chicken and duck clade (Galloanserae) appeared in the Late Cretaceous (Field et al. 2020), while all the other groups of modern birds (Neoaves) appeared suddenly and with great diversity in the Lower Tertiary (today called Paleogene). Indeed, modern crown group birds appear and diversify so abruptly that it has been called a “Big Bang of Tertiary birds” by some paleo-ornithologists (Feduccia 1995, 2003a, 2014, Ksepka et al. 2017). Some of their colleagues did not like such an explosive view for obvious reasons (e.g. Dyke 2003, van Tuinen et al. 2003), but Alan Feduccia addressed and rebutted all critics (Feduccia 2003b), and emphasized that “a rapid, explosive Tertiary radiation best explains why resolving phylogenetic relationships of modern orders remains intractable.” James (2005) reviewed the Paleogene fossil record of birds and found that

before the Paleogene, fossils of putative neornithine birds are sparse and fragmentary (Hope 2002), and their phylogenetic placement is all the more equivocal. … The weak molecular genetic signal found so far for relationships among many higher-level taxa of birds could be explained if there was an early, explosive radiation of birds into diverse ecological niches. … Perhaps the greatest unsolved problem in avian systematics is the evolutionary relationships among modern higher-level taxa.

Rocks vs Clocks

Molecular clock studies, which suggested that modern birds might have originated more early in the Cretaceous, were thoroughly rejected as incompatible with the fossil record (Benton 1999), which could rather suggest that the molecular clock is running faster during the phases of rapid diversification in the major radiations. Nevertheless, van Tuinen (2009) estimated for the Timetree of Life that Neoaves initially diversified already 95 million years ago, followed by another diversification 87-75 million years ago and in the Tertiary (van Tuinen 2009). The author hoped that “more Cretaceous and Paleocene fossil material” may resolve the conflict but admitted that “phylogenetic resolution among the main divergences within Neoaves continues to remain a major hurdle, with most neoavian orders appearing to have diverged in close succession … indicating a rapid evolutionary radiation.” Six years later new fossil discoveries did not come to rescue yet: A fossil calibrated time line of animal evolutionary history (Benton et al. 2015; also see Fossil Calibration Database) suggested an age 86.8-60.2 million years for crown group Neoaves, even though the authors explicitly acknowledged the Paleocene penguin Waimanu from New Zealand as oldest unequivocal neoavian fossil record. Clearly, the molecular clock studies still do not agree with the empirical data of paleontological research.

A few scientists claimed that the problem can be resolved, such as the study by Ericson et al. (2006), which presented “the first well-resolved molecular phylogeny for Neoaves, together with divergence time estimates calibrated with a large number of stratigraphically and phylogenetically well-documented fossils.” According to these authors their results “do not contradict palaeontological data and show that there is no solid molecular evidence for an extensive pre-Tertiary radiation of Neoaves.” However, their result was quickly critiqued and refuted by Brown et al. (2007), who found that “nuclear DNA does not reconcile ‘rocks’ and ‘clocks’ in Neoaves”. They mentioned that “the discrepancy between fossil- and molecular-based age estimates for the diversification of modern birds has persisted despite increasingly large datasets on both sides”, and their reanalysis of Ericson’s data documented “that there is no reliable molecular evidence against an extensive pre-Tertiary radiation of Neoaves.” In the same year Zhang (2007) confirmed that “paleontological studies showed that modern avian groups probably first appeared in the Paleocene and experienced an explosive radiation in the early Cenozoic.”Brown et al. (2008) called this problem the “rock-clock gap” and said that “determining an absolute timescale for avian evolutionary history has proven contentious. The two sources of information available, paleontological data and inference from extant molecular genetic sequences (colloquially, ‘rocks’ and ‘clocks’), have appeared irreconcilable; … These two sources of data therefore appear to support fundamentally different models of avian evolution.” Their own study of mitochondrial DNA did “fail to reconcile molecular genetic divergence time estimates with dates taken from the fossil record; instead, we find strong support for an ancient origin of modern bird lineages.” Thus, the problem turned out to be quite stubborn and refused to go away with more data. On the contrary, each new study reenforced the problem. For example, the attempt by Pratt et al. (2008) to resolve the deep phylogeny of Neoaves produced molecular datings from mitochondrial genomes that “support a major diversification of at least 12 neoavian lineages in the Late Cretaceous.” Another example is the study by Pacheco et al. (2011), who used several molecular dating approaches and conservative calibration points, but still “found time estimates slightly younger than those reported by others, most of the major orders originated prior to the K/T boundary.” But even more interestingly, these authors revealed the secret reason why so many evolutionary biologists do not like the Big Bang model: “proponents of this hypothesis do not provide viable genetic mechanisms for those changes” (Pacheco et al. 2011). In other words, if there were such Big Bangs then Darwinism cannot plausibly explain them. This is why these abrupt appearances in the history of life fascinate me and will be subject of my book project called “The Big Bangs of Life.”

Phylogenomics vs Clocks

But it gets worse. Not just that rocks and clocks conflicted, but phylogenomic studies increasingly supported the Big Bang of Tertiary birds so that now molecular trees conflicted with molecular clocks. The Big Bang view was most strongly confirmed by the seminal study of Jarvis et al. (2014), a genome scale phylogenetic analysis by more than 100 authors (!), who found that “even with whole genomes, some of the earliest branches in Neoaves proved challenging to resolve, which was best explained by massive protein-coding sequence convergence and high levels of incomplete lineage sorting that occurred during a rapid radiation after the Cretaceous-Paleogene mass extinction event about 66 million years ago.” This result was widely reported by the popular science media with sensational headlines about the mapping of the “‘Big Bang’ of Bird Evolution” (AMNH 2014, Duke University 2014, BGI Shenzen 2014, Smithsonian Insider 2014), or as Time Magazine titled “There was a Big Bang for Birds” (Kluger 2014), or “Rapid bird evolution after the age of dinosaurs unprecedented, study confirms” (University of Sydney 2014). Casey Luskin (2014) then also reported for Evolution News how this “massive genetic study confirms birds arose in Big Bang-type of explosion.”

Another comprehensive phylogenetic study more recently again confirmed such an extremely rapid “major radiation of crown birds in the wake of the Cretaceous–Palaeogene (K–Pg) mass extinction” (Prum et al. 2015; also see Wink et al. 2023 for a perfect visualization of Prum’s results). Claramunt & Cracraft (2015) “combined DNA sequences of clock-like genes for most avian families with 130 fossil birds to generate a new time tree for Neornithes” and concluded that “it was not until the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition (66 million years ago) that Neornithes began to diversify rapidly around the world.” Brusatte et al. (2015) concluded in their review article on the origin and diversification of birds that “after the mass extinction, modern birds (members of the avian crown group) explosively diversified, culminating in more than 10,000 species distributed worldwide today.” Braun et al. (2019) still acknowledged that Neoaves “appears to have undergone a rapid radiation near the end Cretaceous mass extinction (the K-Pg boundary).” Looks like a solid scientific consensus, but not so fast. After all, we are dealing with evolutionary biology, where almost anything can happen.

A New Study

Indeed, this month a new paper by Wu et al. (2024) came to a totally different result from the consensus of virtually all previous studies. The press release (Yirka 2024) says that this “new study suggests birds began diversifying long before dinosaurs went extinct” and “the research team found evidence that the Neoaves divergence path began long before the asteroid struck.” The team of mainly Chinese authors analyzed the genomes of hundreds of species of birds and arrived at a new tree of Neoaves. The authors concluded that “the evolution of modern birds followed a slow process of gradualism rather than a rapid process of punctuated equilibrium, with limited interruption by the KPg catastrophe”. They dated the common ancestor of Neoaves to 130 million years ago in the Early Cretaceous and their diversification to the Late Cretaceous, even though there exists not a single Cretaceous fossil of this group, which had already led the worlds foremost expert on the fossil record, Michael Benton (1999), to strongly reject such hypotheses as impossible.

Unsurprisingly, other experts are not convinced either, and said that “if the new study was right, there should be fossils of all major groups of living birds from well before the asteroid impact. But almost none have been found. The signal from the fossil record is not ambiguous” (Berv quoted in Zimmer 2024 for the New York Times). Likewise another comment in the prestigious journal Science said that “if major bird groups really did emerge before the asteroid impact, then why have almost no ancient bird fossils from that time period been found?” (Jacobs 2024). Spot on, but still we have a conflict between molecular evidence and the fossil record, which should agree if Darwinism is correct.

Conflicting Trees

However, the conflicts are by no means restricted to the timing of bird evolution. Even though Darwinism would predict that all different sources of data should point to one true tree of life, there is fundamental conflict in the various attempts to reconstruct the tree of birds in the 20th and 21st century. This conflict is visible in the results of three general methodological approaches (DNA-DNA-hybridization, morphological cladistics, and phylogenomics), as well as between morphological and molecular data and even between different sets of molecular genetic data.

DNA-DNA-Hybridization

In the 1970s and 1980s the American ornithologists and molecular biologists Charles Sibley and Jon Edward Ahlquist conducted DNA-DNA-hybridization studies of numerous species of modern birds (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sibley 1994; also see Wikipedia). Their revolutionary great tree of 1,100 species of living birds was called “the tapestry” and introduced a major revision of avian classification.

Sibley and Ahlquist’s used the melting temperatures of hybridized strands of DNA of two species as proxy for their overall similarity. Their methods were strongly critiqued as flawed and phenetic (Houde 1987, Lanyon 1992, Harshman 1994, Marks 2011), but even John Harshman found that “the data in Sibley and Ahlquist (1990), properly analyzed, have a strong phylogenetic signal.” Nevertheless, only few of the supraordinal groups from their tree survived later studies, mainly the basal split between Galloanserae and Neoaves.

It is of course a cheap point to say today that the method of DNA-DNA-hybidization is obsolete and was just a short-lived and misguided fad in the early days of phylogenetics, but was it? Think about it. Instead of just comparing arbitrarily selected and arbitrarily defined morphological characters, or instead of just looking into selected sequenced genes, this method compared the overall similarity between complete genomes, the whole shebang of DNA. If anything, it is this very method, which should have recovered the echo of evolutionary history and common descent. That its results failed to agree with the more modern cladistic and phylogenomic studies is basically evidence for the total bankruptcy of Darwinism.

Hennigian Phylogenetics (Cladistics)

Another school of phylogenetic methodology that dominated the pre-phylogenomic era was Hennigian phylogenetic systematics, also known as cladistics. It was mainly based on data from comparative morphology and used only shared derived similarities (called synapomorphies) for the reconstruction of the most parsimonious tree topology. In bird phylogenetics the most prominent representative was certainly the American paleo-ornithologist Joel Cracraft, who was the curator for birds at the American Museum of Natural History in New York (Cracraft 1981, Cracraft & Clarke 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004). Even though Cracraft’s work was not without criticism even from fellow cladists (e.g., Olson 1982), it arguably represents the culmination of traditional cladistic studies on avian phylogeny. Other important cladistic studies based on bird morphology were contributed by Livezey & Zusi (2001, 2006, 2007) and many other works on particular neoavian subgroups. The results differed from each other, from Sibley & Ahlquist’s “tapestry,” and from more modern phylogenomic trees.

By the way: Cracraft (2001) also looked into the rocks vs clocks problem. He acknowledged that “the fossil record has been used to support the origin and radiation of modern birds (Neornithes) in Laurasia after the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction event, whereas molecular clocks have suggested a Cretaceous origin for most avian orders.” He looked into the vicariance biogeography of birds as new source of data to resolve the problem and concluded “that neornithines arose in Gondwana prior to the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event.” However, this is fully consistent with the Big Bang hypothesis, which is about the radiation of Neoaves, not of Neornithes. After all, we do have a late Cretaceous fossil record of fowl (Galloanserae). Fifteen years later Claramunt & Cracraft (2015) clarified, as already mentioned above, “that the most recent common ancestor of modern birds inhabited South America around 95 million years ago, but it was not until the Cretaceous-Paleogene transition (66 million years ago) that Neornithes began to diversify rapidly around the world.”

Phylogenomics

In the 21st century the era of phylogenomics came to dominate the field of bird phylogenetics, which mainly uses maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods for tree reconstruction from DNA sequence data. Within a few years several very extensive phylogenomic studies appeared (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Pratt et al. 2008, Pacheco et al. 2011, McCormack et al. 2013, Jarvis et al. 2014, Zhang et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015, Reddy et al. 2017, Houde et al. 2019, Kimball et al. 2019, Braun & Kimball 2021, Kuhl et al. 2021, Yu et al. 2021, Wu et al. 2024; also see the Bird Phylogeny website), which not just conflicted with the previous phylogenies but also with each other (Mayr 2011, Matzke et al. 2012, Braun et al. 2019). This led some experts, such as Poe & Chubb (2004) and Suh (2016), to rather propose a hard polytomy (called “neoavian comb” by Cracraft et al. 2004) based on an explosive evolution, which brings us right back to the Big Bang of birds, because as Feduccia (2014) said: “our continued inability to produce a veracious phylogeny of higher avian taxa is likely related to a Paleogene explosive burst or ‘big bang’ evolution of bird and mammal evolution, resulting in short ordinal internodes.” The resolution of this polytomy has been called “the greatest current challenge of avian systematics” and “last frontier” which “is still elusive” (Pratt et al. 2008). The numerous phylogenomic studies only agree on a few higher clades that were called the “magnificent seven” by Reddy et al. (2017), which already indicates how rare such agreement is, but even those few clades conflict with the older trees based on DNA-DNA-hybridization and morphological cladistics (but see Mayr 2007, 2008 for a few exceptions).

Collapsing Trees

The above-described phylogenetic conflict and incongruent trees of birds exactly confirm a point that I recently made in two other Evolution News articles for Fossil Friday on the phylogeny of arachnids (Bechly 2023) and of insectivore mammals (Bechly 2024): When you look at the numerous published phylogenetic trees of a certain group of organisms and then calculate a strict consensus tree as a kind of common denominator, the result generally tends to be an unresolved polytomy, with basically only the pre-Darwinian Linnean classification of phyla, classes, orders, and families surviving this collapse of phylogenies. This is highly unexpected under Darwinian assumptions but very much resonates with the views of Darwin critics.

This is even implicitly and a bit cryptically acknowledged in mainstream findings like that of Gordon et al. (2021) who said:

Phylogenomic analyses have revolutionized the study of biodiversity, but they have revealed that estimated tree topologies can depend, at least in part, on the subset of the genome that is analyzed. For example, estimates of trees for avian orders differ if protein-coding or non-coding data are analyzed. The bird tree is a good study system because the historical signal for relationships among orders is very weak, which should permit subtle non-historical signals to be identified, while monophyly of orders is strongly corroborated, allowing identification of strong non-historical signals.

Maybe non-history (in the sense of uncommon descent) is the simple reason for a non-historical signal.

Braun et al. (2019) concluded in their review of the phylogenomic era in avian phylogenetics:

Reconstructing relationships among extant birds (Neornithes) has been one of the most difficult problems in phylogenetics, and, despite intensive effort, the avian tree of life remains (at least partially) unresolved. Thus far, the most difficult problem is the relationship among the orders of Neoaves, the major clade that includes the most (~95%) named bird species.

Explaining Away Conflicting Evidence

Of course, this is all reflecting the substantial conflicting data that do not align with an unambiguous nested hierarchy, contrary to the predictions of neo-Darwinism and the bold (and false) claims of its modern popularizers like Richard Dawkins. Something is way off, and mainstream evolutionary biologists simply ignore it and happily produce one conflicting tree after the other without ever questioning the underlying assumptions or even the general Darwinian paradigm. Conflicting evidence is explained away with inexpensive ad hoc hypotheses like convergence, ghost lineages, or incomplete lineage sorting. Torres & Van Tuinen (2013) said “rampant phylogenetic conflict at the ordinal level in modern birds can be explained by ordinal diversification taking place over a short time interval.” However, this is not the explanation of the problem but the description of the problem!

We can conclude that fossil and molecular data conflict in terms of the question when and how quickly modern birds originated, and molecular and morphological data conflict in terms of the reconstruction of the assumed bird tree of life. Why is there such a stark conflict, when Darwinism would naturally predict that different lines of evidence should converge towards one true evolutionary history of birds. Again, a quite obvious explanation could be that there just was no such history, or at least that totally different causal mechanism were at work.

Abrupt Origins

The most important take home message from this article is this: in spite of the new study by Wu et al. (2024), there is overwhelming evidence, recognized by the vast majority of mainstream experts, that there was an explosive diversification of modern birds (Neoaves) in the Lower Tertiary (Paleogene). There was an abrupt origin, a burst of biological creativity with a genuine Big Bang of modern birds, which is best explained by an infusion of new information from an intelligent agent outside the system. What do evolutionary biologists suggest instead? They say that the global collapse of forest ecosystems after the end-Cretaceous impact killed off all arboreal bird lineages and the remaining ground-dwelling ancestors of modern birds experienced a rapid diversification afterwards (Field et al. 2018). Yet another description of the problem, rather than an explanation, which seems to be a recurring theme in evolutionary biology.

Determinism is theatre?

 Reply to Free Will Deniers: Show Me

Michael Egnor

Free will denial is a cornerstone of materialist–determinist ideology. We are, say the deniers, purely physical machines, meat robots.

Atheist-materialist evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne is a prominent proponent of deterministic free will denial, and there are many others — philosopher Stephen Cave, biologist Robert Sapolsky, author Sam Harris, attorney Clarence Darrow, to name just a few.

From Harris:

How can we be “free” as conscious agents if everything that we consciously intend is caused by events in our brain that we do not intend and of which we are entirely unaware?… My choices matter — and there are paths towards making wiser ones — but I cannot choose what I choose. And if it ever appears that I do — for instance, after going back between two options — I do not choose to choose what I choose. There is a regress here that always ends in darkness.

Free will deniers invariably acknowledge that we have the ineluctable sense of freely choosing, and that our belief in free will is a cornerstone of human psychology, of our social interaction, of our moral codes and of our judicial system. Nonetheless, deniers claim, we are deluded. We are not free at all — we are slaves to the laws of physics and chemistry that govern the physiology of our brains.

How Do We Know What Words Really Mean?

What to make of this bizarre viewpoint that we have no genuine freedom to choose — a viewpoint that is contrary to the lived experience of every human being? It is helpful to consider the question on a different level — not “do we have free will?,” but rather “what does it mean to believe we don’t have free will?”.

What does it mean to believe anything? Philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889–1951) critiqued our conventional understanding of the “meaning” of words and I think he sheds light on what both meaning and belief really are. He pointed out (in his middle work, most notably The Blue Book ) that it is confused to say that the meaning of a word is assigned via an interior mental act or act of interpretation. Why do we attribute the meaning of a word to brain physiology, when we could just as plausibly attribute it to the physiology of the larynx, tongue or hand when we speak or write the word?

Meaning, according to Wittgenstein, is just the way the word is used in life. Meaning, in a sense, is use. It is common for a word to have several different meanings, depending on the context in which it is used.

Even the word believe itself has several meanings depending on use — “I believe it’s going to rain,” “I believe in you,” “I believe that I will have a ham sandwich,” etc. The difference in the meaning of believe in these instances is in the context of use — what we mean by believe is determined by the context (the gestalt) in which we use the word. To believe something is to behave in a certain way.

Belief is behavior. The belief-behavior can include speaking or writing the belief, of course, but belief is behavior in a much broader sense than merely speaking. Belief is what you do, not merely what you say. Consider the statement by a serial adulterer “I believe in fidelity and chastity.” Of course, such a claim is not credible, because his behavior makes a mockery of that belief. Serial adulterers believe in serial adultery (otherwise, they wouldn’t do it), just as embezzlers believe in embezzlement and philanthropists believe in philanthropy. Belief is much more than words — it is, to use Wittgenstein’s phrase, a form of life. Belief is a way of living.

So, do free will deniers really believe that free will isn’t real? Of course not. Free will deniers live as if free will is real, despite their proclamations and their blog posts. What matters is what they do, not merely what they say. Every human being lives life as if free will is real. We all believe — as demonstrated by our behavior — in the fact that we choose some options and not others, that we have real moral accountability, that there is such a thing as justice. No one (outside of a mental hospital) really believes that we are meat robots without free will.

If you want to know what a free will denier really believes, steal his laptop or dent his fender and see if he holds you morally accountable.

So What’s Free Will Denial Really All About?

So what are free will deniers really doing when they say that they don’t believe in free will, but never act like free will isn’t real? Free will denial is determinist signaling, in which materialists flaunt their bona fides. It is analogous to a political yard sign or a cross worn around the neck.

It’s a way of announcing to the world who you are — whether or not you really believe (i.e., behave in accordance with) your politics or your faith. The difference between a political belief expressed on a sign or faith expressed via a pendant and free will denial is that sometimes the sign or cross do correspond to a way of life, and thus are real expressions of belief. Free will denial, on the other hand, never constitutes genuine belief, because it is not possible to live as if free will isn’t real.

Free Will Denial as Performance Art

Materialists don’t really mean it because they never do it. To truly believe that free will isn’t real — to believe that our actions are wholly determined by our brain chemicals, for which we have no moral responsibility whatsoever— is to utterly abandon any real sense of morality, to deny not only the salience but even the meaning of right and wrong behavior. It means to live every moment as if you and all people on earth are meat robots, utterly devoid of choice or free agency. A person who really believed that free will isn’t real wouldn’t hold a murderer morally responsible for murder, any more than the gun or the bullet is. If you carelessly dent a genuine free will denier’s car in a parking lot, he wouldn’t hold you responsible any more than he’d hold your car responsible.

So the next time a LARPing materialist declares to you that he doesn’t believe in free will, say this: “Your free will denial is performance art. What you do is immeasurably louder than what you say. You don’t really believe that free will isn’t real, unless you live like it isn’t real.”

Darwin has his bluff called?

Darwin’s Bluff Is a Number 1 New Release on Amazon!

David Klinghoffer 

Congratulations to our colleague Professor Robert Shedinger on the release of his new book, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished! At this writing it’s the #1 New Release in Scientist Biographies on Amazon, and the #1 New Release in Evolution on Kindle.

Great work, Dr. Shedinger and Discovery Institute Press! It is a remarkable thing that Charles Darwin seems never to have been honest with himself, perhaps to the end of his life, about the implications of the fact that his planned big book about the actual evidence for his theory could not be written, because the evidence wasn’t there. It still isn’t. The famous Origin of Species, he said, was a “mere abstract.” If he could have written the Big One, you can be sure he would have done so. He found time to write other books subsequent to the Origin. Just not the really crucial one.

Back to the future?

 

The state can't handle the truth?

 

Irreconcilable differences?

 

Not an argument from silence.

 Atheist Philosopher Explains Why Intelligent Design Is Not a “God of the Gaps” Argument

Jonathan McLatchie

Jeffrey Jay Lowder is an atheist philosopher and author, whom I would rate as among the top tier of intellectual critics of theistic belief (you can watch him debate Frank Turek here). Not only is he an extremely balanced and nuanced thinker, but he is also quite amicable. I consider him a friend, and we have met for dinner or drinks a couple of times. On Twitter (I refrain from calling it by its hideous new name, “X”), he goes by the handle “Secular Outpost.” Recently Lowder posted the following remark:

Unpopular opinion (among nontheists): the arguments for intelligent design defended by the likes of Moreland, Craig, and Meyer are NOT god of the gaps arguments.

My colleague David Klinghoffer asked Lowder to clarify his thinking on this. In response, Lowder linked to two blog posts he had written addressing the subject. The first, published in 2016, responds to Victor Reppert, who had asked whether there is “any theistic argument [from/in natural theology] that can’t be accused of being a god-of-the-gaps argument,” and if this rejoinder may serve as “an all-purpose reply to all natural theology.” Lowder answers the first of those questions in the affirmative and the second in the negative. 

Why Intelligent Design Is Not a “God of the Gaps’ Argument

(1) There is some puzzling phenomenon P which science cannot at present explain. 

(2) Theism does explain P. 

Therefore, 

(3) P is more likely on the assumption that God exists than on the assumption God does not exist.

I have no issues with Lowder’s reconstruction of a god-of-the-gaps argument. As he explains, “The key feature of this argument — and what makes it a ‘God-of-the-gaps’ argument — is premise (1). The focus is on science’s present inability to explain P.” How might one construct an argument that is not vulnerable to the god-of-the-gaps critique? Suppose you want to advance an argument for theism based on the existence of consciousness. Lowder proposes that the following formulation of the argument (where E is the existence of human consciousness, T is theism, and N is naturalism) evades this charge:

(1) E is known to be true, i.e. Pr(E) is close to 1.

(2) N is not intrinsically much more probable than T, i.e., Pr(|N|) is not much greater than Pr(|T|).

(3) Pr(E | T & B) > Pr(E | N & B).

(4) Other evidence held equal, N is probably false, i.e., Pr(N | B & E) < 1/2.

Put into straightforward English, the argument is as follows:

(1) The existence of human consciousness is known to be true.

(2) Naturalism is not intrinsically much more probable than theism.

(3) The probability of the existence of human consciousness given theism and the background information is greater than the probability of the existence of human consciousness given naturalism and the background information.

(4) Other evidence held equal, naturalism is probably false (i.e., the probability of naturalism given the background and the evidence is less than 50 percent).

Lowder concludes that “Whatever problems may exist within that argument, being a God-of-the-gaps argument clearly isn’t one of them.” I completely agree with Lowder’s assessment. Intelligent design makes the argument that various specific features of life and the universe — in particular, the informational properties of DNA, and the irreducibly complex nature of molecular systems — are rendered vastly more probable than they would otherwise be by the supposition that a conscious mind was involved in their origins. Thus, they are positively confirmatory of design. Since confirmations of design in the universe are significantly less surprising (or, more probable) given the hypothesis of theism than on its falsehood, the evidence of design also translates into positive evidence of the existence of God. Perhaps there are vulnerabilities in this argument structure — but, whatever may be wrong with it, it is certainly not wrong by virtue of being a god-of-the-gaps argument. I would like to commend Lowder for his intellectual integrity in pointing this out, despite our disagreements on the larger question of whether intelligent design is in fact true.

Jeff Lowder Reviews Signature in the Cell

The second article linked by Lowder is a critical review of Stephen Meyer’s book, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design. I had more disagreements with this article than with the first. Lowder remarks that “We are fortunate that Meyer explicitly provides the logical form of his argument,” which he quotes as follows:

Premise One: Despite a thorough search, no material causes have been discovered that demonstrate the power to produce large amounts of specified information. 

Premise Two: Intelligent causes have demonstrated the power to produce large amounts of specified information. 

Conclusion: Intelligent design constitutes the best, most causally adequate, explanation for the information in the cell.

Lowder, again to his credit, notes, “I agree with Meyer that it would be a mistake to dismiss his argument as an argument from ignorance.” Furthermore, “We should consider the possibility that the origin of life is a source of potential evidence for intelligent design (and for theism).” What, then, is Lowder’s principle objection to Meyer’s argument? He writes,

The objection I have in mind is this: the design hypothesis is not an explanation because, well, it doesn’t explain. Regarding the origin of biological information, it still isn’t clear to me what Meyers [sic] believes the design explanation is. I don’t find in the book a description of how an intelligent designer created / designed / programmed — not sure what the right verb is — the first biological information. In order to explain biological information, it’s not enough to posit the existence of an intelligent designer as a potential cause of biological information. In addition, it seems to me that a design explanation must also include a description of the mechanism used by the designer to design and build the thing. In other words, in order for design to explain something, we have to know how the designer designed it. If we don’t know or even have a clue about how the designer did it, then we don’t have a design explanation.

However, this seems to me to be mistaken. For example, suppose that future scientists are able to capture high resolution images of Alpha Centauri, the closest star to our sun, and were to discover that a vehicle resembling a Volkswagen Beetle were orbiting a planet there. Presumably, we could justifiably infer design if we had no idea what equipment or processes were used to assemble the vehicle, and even if we could not identity the agent responsible. Those are interesting downstream questions, to be sure. But our inability to answer them does not negate our ability to infer design as an explanation of how the Beetle came to be there. 

Moreover, we all believe that our conscious minds interact with the material world, even though we lack an understanding of how consciousness works. Thus, to postulate that a conscious mind is responsible for complex and functionally specific information content, or an engineered system, is a legitimate explanation, even though we currently cannot give an adequate account of how our minds animate our bodies to accomplish engineering tasks.

Theism and Explanation

Lowder quotes Gregory Dawes’s Theism and Explanation, in which he asserts, objecting to Richard Swinburne’s argument for theism,

It is only when you have specified the divine intention in question that we can test your explanation, by asking what else would follow if God did indeed have this intention. And as we have seen, it will not do merely to substitute the explanandum for the posited goal… As we have already seen, this would be a spurious kind of explanation, seriously lacking in empirical content. 

P. 119

However, to make a compelling argument for theism, it is not necessary to posit that there is a high probability of God having a particular motivation or intention for creating, for example, complex life. It is enough to posit that it is not immensely implausible that God would have such a purpose for creating. Suppose, for example, that God’s purpose in creating a world containing complex embodied creatures is that they might participate in an arena of moral choice, providing them opportunities to mold and shape their character, developing in morally significant ways. In such a scenario, for actions to have predictable consequences, the universe would have to be governed by fixed natural laws. And it is being physically embodied — in a world of pushes and pulls — that accentuates our ability to engage in moral decision-making. I think most readers can see that such a scenario is not at all wildly implausible on the supposition of classical theism. However, the existence of such a world is rendered absurdly improbable if we assume the falsehood of theism. Therefore, the world we observe constitutes strong (I would say, overwhelming) evidence in favor of theism.

Despite our many disagreements, I sincerely appreciate Lowder’s spirit and intellectual honesty. I hope the next generation of secular thinkers follow his lead.

Darwin corrects JEHOVAH?

Darwin’s “God Wouldn’t Do It This Way” Argument 

Robert Schedinger

Editor’s note: We are delighted to present an excerpt from the new book by Dr. Shedinger, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished. This article is adapted from Chapter 3.

Aside from proposing a naturalistic explanation for the mechanism driving evolution, it is clear that one of Charles Darwin’s main goals in his species work was to put the final nail in the coffin of creationist approaches to the diversity of life. Natural selection was actually subordinated to this latter goal. Darwin wrote to Asa Gray on May 11, 1863, “Personally, of course, I care much about Natural Selection; but that seems to me utterly unimportant compared to [the] question of Creation or Modification.” As a result, a book widely hailed as proposing a true mechanism for evolution actually reads more like an anti-creationist polemic.

In contrast to the view that species represent ideal types in the mind of God that were created in the form we see them today and placed in the locations where we encounter them today, Darwin argued that the geographical distribution of species in the world represented evidence for a long history of evolutionary development from common ancestors. There are many places in the Origin of Species where Darwin makes explicit that the evidence he is describing makes little sense on the assumption that species were each specially created.

On Oceanic Islands

For example, when discussing the lack of certain species of animals and plants on oceanic islands, Darwin writes, “He who admits the doctrine of the creation of each separate species, will have to admit that a sufficient number of the best adapted plants and animals were not created for oceanic islands.”1 Here Darwin seems to assume that a creator would have no reason to leave oceanic islands devoid of these “best adapted plants and animals,” so their absence stands as evidence against creationism. A few pages later Darwin argues:

As the amount of modification which animals of all kinds undergo partly depends on the lapse of time, and as islands which are separated from each other or from the mainland by shallow channels, are more likely to have been continuously united within a recent period than the islands separated by deeper channels, we can understand how it is that a relation exists between the depth of the sea separating two mammalian faunas, and the degree of their affinity, — a relation which is quite inexplicable on the theory of independent acts of creation.2

That is, because the mammalian fauna on islands close to continents is more like the continental fauna than that found on oceanic islands much farther away from continents, it is reasonable to believe there is a relationship between continental and island fauna rather than to believe that a creator decided to make the fauna of oceanic islands more different from continental fauna.

Doubling Down

Darwin doubles down on this line of argument when discussing the way in which closely allied species can often be found in separate but nearby locations, suggesting a common ancestor that inhabited both places that then diverged into two new species. To illustrate, he again invokes the island/continent relationship. “We see this in the striking relation of nearly all plants and animals of the Galápagos archipelago, of Juan Fernandez, and of the other American islands, to the plants and animals of the neighboring American mainland; and of those of the Cape de Verde archipelago, and of the other African islands to the African mainland,” he writes. “It must be admitted that these facts receive no explanation on the theory of creation.”3

Time after time Darwin discusses some specific observation about the distribution of living organisms and then insists that a theory of independent creation of each species is powerless to explain it. Yet surely it is hazardous to assume one knows what a creator of the natural world would or would not do.

There is also the fact that many of Darwin’s best examples of geographical distribution pointing to evolutionary change involve rather less than dramatic modifications. In light of this, perhaps natural selection can diversify a species into a family of species and no further. The Darwin skeptic could thus contend, why not the special creation of types that then diverged into families of species via natural processes? Or perhaps the diversification fueled by natural selection reaches another rung or two up the taxonomic ladder, to orders or classes. Or perhaps universal common descent is the case, but it proceeded from intelligent input rather than by a purely blind mechanism.

A Classic Fallacy

One searches the Origin in vain for a thoughtful engagement with these other options. Darwin’s theory of descent with modification may indeed be a better explanation than independent creation of each species, but Darwin does not merely declare his explanation better than this one alternative; he implies it is the only possible explanation. Thus one could be forgiven for seeing in Darwin’s argumentation the classic either/or fallacy, wherein the person knocks down one option and declares a second option the clear winner, never mind that there are other live options available.

In Darwin’s defense, he does invoke a more sweeping defeater for any theory of biological origins invoking a creator. We find this in a passage where he is discussing the phenomenon of typology — the structural similarity between many organisms such as the four-limbed pattern found in mammals, birds, and reptiles: “On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that it is so; — that it has pleased the Creator to construct all the animals and plants in each great class on a uniform plan; but this is not a scientific explanation.”4

Darwin’s Wider Goal

Darwin’s problem with creationist explanations is not that they are demonstrably false or impossible; it is that they are not, in his view, scientific. Here we find one of Darwin’s wider goals for the Origin: to stamp out creationist explanations and put natural history on a firmly naturalistic (by his lights, scientific) foundation. But it never seems to have occurred to him that his “God wouldn’t do it this way” argument was itself theologically driven, and therefore, on his own accounting, itself not a particularly scientific mode of argument.4

Of course, Darwin knew he would be on firmer ground if he could produce empirical evidence to support his view and overcome various difficulties confronting it. One such difficulty: If all organisms had descended from one or a few common ancestors, how had life spread all over the planet? Certain animals like birds and fish can move over long distances, but what about stationary organisms like plants? How could plants travel over long oceanic distances to colonize islands? Trying to answer this question sent Darwin into a series of experiments related to seed dispersal.

Antimatter is rebellious?

 

On reductionism: Pros and Cons.

 

The thorium dream lives?

 

Prisoner of conscience or public enemy?

 

Conditionalism is not a kook position? Pros and Cons

 

The other prisoner of conscience? II

 

The other prisoner of conscience?

 

The decanonizing of Darwin continues apace?

 In Darwin’s Bluff, Robert Shedinger Rightly Forgoes the Hagiographic Tradition

Neil Thomas

The new book by Robert Shedinger, Darwin’s Bluff: The Mystery of the Book Darwin Never Finished, is a deeply researched and fascinating volume which, like the author’s previous work (The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms, 2019), digs up facts and figures about Darwin’s work which you won’t find elsewhere. The fact that Shedinger avoids the hagiographic tradition of treating Darwin as an inviolable icon is all to the good, chiming as it does with a tendency post-1985 to look honestly at the disabling empirical deficits which reveal Darwin in retrospect to have been engaged more in some rather idiosyncratic Nature mysticism than in evidence-based science.

The fact that the author is a professor of religion (at Luther College) does not in any way define him as what American linguist S. I. Hayakawa once termed the “snarl word” of creationist. The present reader, in company with a host of agnostic biologists and cosmologists, simply finds in Darwin a complete dearth of convincing scientific evidence. For myself and other scholars, the issue of religion is quite irrelevant, a misleading canard which should never be referenced in a properly scientific debate.

Getting fraud down to a science?

 

The Thorium dream dies hard?

 

The book he didn't write said more about him than the ones he did?

 

The fall of the empire of the gene?

 

What could go wrong? II

 

The appeal to engineerless engineering continues to fail..

 Sophisticated Precision in Fruit Fly Sensory Systems

David Coppedge

Last week, we considered the signal “wave” that controls development of the compound eyes in fruit flies and the motor neurons that control their rapid zigzag turns in the air. Pilots have to learn the forces of lift, drag, and thrust, and know how to prevent stalls. They know that rapid banking turns vastly increase G-forces and come with a high risk of stalling. Aerobatic know-how comes built-in for fruit flies. The same is true for all unrelated animals that perform powered flight, whether mammal (bat), reptile (pterosaur), or bird.

Smell Sense

The miniature insect flyers around us also have good olfactory organs that help them smell where to go. They smell good (or well, for you grammarians).

A news item from Ruhr University Bochum in Germany tells, “How Fruit Flies Smell CO2.” This commands our attention. Could fruit flies offer solutions for climate change monitoring? The scientists are inspired by the fly’s sensing ability.

The new findings are to be incorporated into the development of a CO2 biosensor, which the Bochum team is researching in cooperation with the Institute of Aircraft Systems in Stuttgart. “This should enable us to detect CO2in liquid media, which is something that as yet can’t be done,” says Störtkuhl. CO2 sensors are used on the International Space Station, for example, where they must consume as little energy as possible. Given that physical measurement methods are not very energy-efficient, a biosensor could be a great alternative.[

Notice the higher rank bestowed on biological sensors. A biosensor might be able to detect other volatile molecules. And so, curiosity rises about how fruit flies smell carbon dioxide, and why they need to. Some readers may be aware that mosquitoes follow the CO2 in human breath to find their victims. Fruit flies smell CO2 emissions from fermenting fruit for their needs. 

Since CO2 is ubiquitous in the atmosphere, flying insects must be able to detect elevated concentrations along a gradient. The tiny insects’ expertise at finding and following carbon dioxide plumes in the air leads to suspicions of sophisticated systems for detecting the “odorless” gas that we humans exhale with each breath. (Thank goodness it is odorless to us.) So, how do they do it? We look at the paper in PLOS One for answers.

Answer: They’re not sure. The team found two receptors on the third segment of the fly’s antennae that respond strongly to bicarbonate CO2 emissions when those receptors are encoded in frog eggs. The response, however, depends on the mix of receptors.

We found that application of sodium bicarbonate evokes large inward currents in oocytes co-expressing Gr21a and Gr63a. The receptors most likely form hetromultimeric [sic] complexes. Homomultimeric receptors of Gr21a or Gr63a are sufficient for receptor functionality, although oocytes gave significantly lower current responses compared to the probable heteromultimeric receptor.

They also found that citronellol blocks the receptors — good to know for manufacturers of insect repellants.

Taste Sense

In fruit flies, the gustatory and olfactory senses overlap. Dr. Roman Arguello at Queen Mary University of London has been “delving into the genes and cells behind their delicate noses and tongues,” finding that the insects are able to adapt their senses to their environments. He likens it to one fly responding to a ripe peach as if it “tastes and smells like tangy vinegar to one fly, but like a burst of summer to another.” It’s quite common in fruit flies, he says, which inhabit a variety of habitats. But is this evolution?

“It’s like finding hidden islands of diversity within a vast ocean of uniformity,” says Dr Arguello. “These changes in gene expression tell us about the evolution of new smells, new sensitivities, and even new ways of using scent to navigate the world.”

Again,

“These findings open up exciting new avenues for understanding how sex differences evolve and how they impact animal behavior,” says Dr Arguello.

But does this research published in Nature Communications really provide “valuable insights into the general principles of how sensory systems evolve,” as they claim? 

All they found were changes in gene expression — not mutated genes that were naturally selected as Darwinian theory requires. The paper only mentions mutations four times (pleiotropic mutations, at that), but “evolution” 144 times. As for “selection,” most of the 14 mentions involved stabilizing selection (i.e., keeping things the same), not the positive selection required for novelty and innovation. The only mentions of “positive selection” were from another study that contradicted this team’s finding of predominantly “evolutionary constraint.” They had no word on how taste receptors originated in the first place.

Directional Sense

Returning to the fundamental aspect of flight (flies do fly), another paper, this one in Nature, discusses the directional sense in these tiny aerobatic insects. Mathematicians will enjoy the abstract from this paper:

To navigate, we must continuously estimate the direction we are headed in, and we must correct deviations from our goal. Direction estimation is accomplished by ring attractor networks in the head direction system.However, we do not fully understand how the sense of direction is used to guide action. Drosophila connectome analyses reveal three cell populations (PFL3R, PFL3L and PFL2) that connect the head direction system to the locomotor system. Here we use imaging, electrophysiology and chemogenetic stimulation during navigation to show how these populations function. Each population receives a shifted copy of the head direction vector, such that their three reference frames are shifted approximately 120° relative to each other. Each cell type then compares its own head direction vector with a common goal vector; specifically, it evaluates the congruence of these vectors via a nonlinear transformation. The output of all three cell populations is then combined to generate locomotor commands.

For non-mathematicians, we can just recall the coach’s advice in many sports to turn your head in the direction you need to go. Fruit flies automatically know this, because specific cells are doing vector calculus and nonlinear transformations, then giving commands to the legs and wings. If building a robot, this would require some engineering know-how:

Accurate navigation requires us to fix a goal direction and then maintain our orientation towards that goal in the face of perturbations. This is also a basic problem in mechanical engineering: how can we keep the angleof some device directed at a target? One solution to this problem is to use a resolver servomechanism to measure the discrepancy or error between the current angle and the goal angle.

The eight researchers describe how fruit flies keep focused on the goal. They create a model and compare it to live data from fruit fly behavior. Why is a transformation needed? Because, they say, motor commands must convert their coordinates from allocentric space (other-directed) to egocentric space (self-directed). 

This poses a coordinate transformation problem. Here we describe a network that solves this problem. This network creates two opponent copies of the allocentric head direction representation, with equal and opposite shifts (θ ± shift). Each copy is then separately compared with an allocentric goal representation, to measure congruence with the goal. The difference between the two opponent congruence values becomes an egocentric motor command.

The PFL3R and PFL3L cell populations take care of this. But there was a surprise finding:

At the same time, our results highlight the unexpected role of PFL2 cells. These cells provide a solution to a classic problem — namely, the fundamental tradeoff between speed and accuracy. High feedback gain allows a system to converge quickly towards its goal, and so it makes sense that gain should be high when error is large, that is, when there is a large discrepancy between the system’s current state and its goal. However, high gain can cause overshooting of the goal, especially when error is already small. We show that PFL2 cells effectively adjust the system’s gain, depending on the magnitude of the system’s current error.

Wow. That should be enough to make us all pause before swatting. CO2 sensors on the antenna, taste sensor gene regulators that adapt to the environment, and vector calculus in the head and legs — how does all this sensory engineering fit into such a tiny fly? The authors had almost nothing to say about evolution, leapfrogging over it with this statement, “the idea that a neuron’s inputs are adjusted (over development and/or evolution) to fit into some standard dynamic range dictated by the biophysical properties of a typical neuron….”

While admiring the humble fruit fly, let us take a moment to marvel at the human mind that can figure these things out. The next time you see a tiny fly or gnat, imagine inventing tools to study those itty-bitty eyes, wings, and antennae — to say nothing of the genes and proteins regulating them — and figure out how they work, using models and mathematical functions. Our sensory capabilities are well-designed, too.

Hydrogen vs. Lithium?

 

The immortal?

 

Making the elegant the enemy of the obvious?

 Vilenkin: A Physicist in Flight from Intelligent Design

Evolution News

In his discussion with Robert Lawrence Kuhn at Closer to Truth, Tufts physicist and cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin addresses the question, “Is the Universe Fine-Tuned for Life and Mind?” Kuhn asks:

If the deep laws of the universe had been ever so slightly different human beings wouldn’t, and couldn’t, exist. All explanations of this exquisite fine-tuning, obvious and not-so-obvious, have problems or complexities. Natural or supernatural, that is the question.

Vilenkin — who is also a professor of evolutionary science — concedes the main point:

Alexander Vilenkin: [0:40] “Well yeah that’s right. It appears that the Universe is fine-tuned in the sense that there are about 30 constants of nature which take some specific value: if you look at these numbers, they look like totally random numbers. However, if you change these numbers even slightly, the properties of our universe would change quite dramatically so…”

Robert Lawrence Kuhn: “Generally for the bad.”

Alexander Vilenkin: “Yes, generally for the bad and the question is, what do we make of that?”

Vilenkin then introduces the idea that there might be a multiverse in which our universe, one of many, just happens to have these constants. But he admits that efforts to derive the 30 constants from a fundamental theory have failed [7:11]: “There is no question that despite tremendous effort to explain the constants of nature from fundamental theory, there is very little to show for that effort.” 

But what about the more basic cosmological constant?

Should the Cosmological Constant be Close to Zero?

Vilenkin rejects the idea that the universe is designed, in part because the cosmological constant — a repulsive force that acts against gravity — does not have a “special value” like zero or nearly zero:

Alexander Vilenkin: [9:36] “It is hard to disprove that the value was selected by design but it does look like it is a product of entropic selection. The reason is that there is a range of values of the cosmological constant that is consistent with the formation of galaxies and evolution of life This is a narrow range which includes zero actually. And if it is a random selection (and) you have many regions with different values of this cosmological constant, we expect to find ourselves somewhere in the middle of that range. And this is actually what we observe. So what we observe is perfectly consistent with this such random entropic selection. On the other hand, if you think of design, I would think that design would choose some more special value, for example zero, and in fact if the value of the cosmological constant were fine-tuned, more for example much closer to zero than it is, it would be very hard to explain it through the multiverse hypothesis and that would be evidence against this hypothesis.”

What Is the Cosmological Constant?

It’s really hard to know. The constant is generally represented as an equation. But much about it is unclear. From science writer Adam Mann:

The cosmological constant is presumably an enigmatic form of matter or energy that acts in opposition to gravity and is considered by many physicists to be equivalent to dark energy. Nobody really knows what the cosmological constant is exactly, but it is required in cosmological equations in order to reconcile theory with our observations of the universe.

ADAM MANN, WHAT IS THE COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT?, LIVE SCIENCE, FEBRUARY 16, 2021

Cosmologists use it, Mann says, because they “may not know what it is, but they know that they need it to make the universe make sense.” At Scientific American, it was described in 2021 as “physics’ most embarrassing problem.”

If We Don’t Know What It Is, How Do We Know It Should Equal Zero?

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon writes to offers some thoughts:

The cosmological constant, also known as dark energy, arises from Big Bang models that have acceleration, where the expansion of the universe is speeding up with time. This is just one of many models of the universe. The observational data supporting this model was so lacking, a Nobel Prize was offered to anyone who could find evidence for it. Perlmutter, Reiss and Schmidt used 75 type Ia supernovae to argue that acceleration was there, and received the Nobel Prizein 2011. But Subhir Sarkhar used >2000 SNIa in a paper in 2021 to show that the acceleration was consistent with zero…

Not only is this “Dark Energy constant” not well supported theoretically (the simplest derivations are 120 orders of magnitude too big), it isn’t even well supported experimentally.

Rather than admit there is something wrong with the model (which shows the power of consensus thinking), Alexander Vilenkin argues for a multiverse to avoid a Designer. But in a multiverse, everything is possible, including Designers. So I really don’t see this as a logical atheistic solution. It reeks of terrified desperation.

So the arguments against the idea that our universe was designed amount to 1) a speculation that there might also be countless flopped universes out there; and 2) a claim that there is a cosmological constant that should equal zero but doesn’t. But the claims for a cosmological constant are not well supported theoretically.

If you are not an ideological materialist atheist, it would make more sense just to assume that our universe is designed because of the clear evidence for fine-tuning. All the rest is up for debate.