The appearance of life constitutes a revolution in the history of matter.  A vast gulf separates the organic form from the inorganic world, and that gulf is properly characterized in terms of information.  The matter in the dirt under your feet and the matter that makes up your body is the same.  Nevertheless, the arrangement of that matter—the information—vastly differs in these two cases.
—William Dembski, “Biology’s Information Problem,” The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), p. 139.

China: Where Evolution Destroys Human Rights   11/30/2004
According to World Magazine, China is cracking down on what it calls “evil teachings,” i.e., religious beliefs and “superstition” contrary to the official atheist position of the communist government.  Christians in unregistered house churches have noticed a crackdown since May 27, when an internal document leaked to the West called for harsher measures against non-atheists.  Entitled “Notice on Further Strengthening Marxist Atheism Research, Propaganda and Education,” one of its provisions clarified China’s position on the creation-evolution debate:

Aiming at the phenomenon of fatuity and superstition, which exists among some people, we shall strengthen the research, propaganda and education of natural science, particularly the basic knowledge about life, the rule on human evolution, and correctly deal with various natural phenomena, natural disasters, birth, aging, disease and death....
    To publicize Marxist atheism, we shall positively use films, TV programs, books, electronic publications, and other things to people’s taste, and firmly ban all illegal publications, which disseminate superstitions and evil teachings.

Autopsy pictures showed her body badly bruised and beaten.  Police ordered her body cremated within three days, her husband said, in an attempt to cover up evidence of the killing.  Her death, Mr. [Bob] Fu [president of Texas-based China Aid] believes, was a direct result of local officials following the Central Committee directive.

Except for the torture, killing and banning of books, this sounds like Eugenie Scott’s perfect society.  Most of it is already here in America: especially the movies, books and TV programs to the people’s taste – just watch the weekly fare on the Science Channel and PBS.  The Darwin Party in America must feel a deep bond with China’s goals: to perpetuate the false dichotomy between science and religion; to equate science with naturalism; to equate religion with supersitition; to tell people to keep their religious beliefs to themselves and outside of the natural world; and to strengthen research, propaganda and education of “natural science” (that’s a euphemism for naturalistic philosophy), particularly the basic knowledge about [the origin and evolution of] life, the rule on human evolution.  (Only someone born yesterday wouldn’t know that Darwinism is the official Marxist interpretation of the world, from molecules to man.)  Sounds great, doesn’t it, Eugenie and Ken?  Why don’t you both move there so you can live happily ever after?
    Know your world history.  Know what happened under Lenin and Stalin, when churches were converted into museums of atheism and pastors were taken out of their homes without warning and sent to the Gulag for years at a time, their homes seized and their families left destitute.  Picture the suffering Christians in Siberia doing hard labor in the cold, dying of starvation, merely for sharing good news: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son....  Remember Georgi Vins and Richard Wurmbrand.  It’s not just history; it is now, in every remaining Marxist dictatorship on earth, where Darwinian evolution is the official state dogma, and the justification for their political philosophy.
    Innocent as some of the directives sound, those familiar with communist phraseology will get a chill when reading between the lines.  Visualize what these things mean to a communist government official who views man as a social animal, a product of evolution, with no individual rights, whose only purpose is to further the evolution of the state: “we shall ... correctly deal with various natural phenomena, natural disasters, birth, aging, disease and death.”  (See 11/07/2002 and 03/06/2002 commentaries.)
Next headline on:   Politics and Ethics • Movies and Media

The answer: “Can I borrow your recipe for Swedish meatballs?”  Or perhaps, “Wiolets are bloo, rozhes are red, we more advanshed dan yoo, we know Darwin izh dead.”  Send your contribution here.
Next headline on:   SETI • Dumb Ideas

The astrophysical observations discussed here indicate that axions and neutralinos may have been abundantly produced in the early universe and/or inside stars.  These two types of particles remain the favorite candidates for dark matter and other celestial phenomena.  As ever more sensitive detectors are built, more definitive evidence for or against neutralinos and axions should become available.  Existence of one does not preclude existence of the other: The dark matter in the universe may contain both of these particles, as well as many other, as yet unforeseen ones.

Well, that’s nice; we don’t mind you looking on someone else’s euro, but come back when you have proof.  The null hypothesis is that dark matter does not exist (see 09/03/2003 headline).  We’d like to know your timeline and exit strategy.  How long should a con artist be allowed to look for some claimed miracle substance or magical force that he says explains everything?  (See 02/10/2004 headline.)  Some hunches in science proved very productive and enlightening, but some have been dead ends, like the search for caloric and phlogiston.  Giving a fictitious particle a name does not validate an endless quest for it (see 06/20/2003 headline).  How can it be falsified?  What will you do with your cosmological models if you can no longer appeal to undetected or undetectable substances?  Are you prepared to deal with the universe as it is?  Are you prepared to endure the wrath of Bob Berman? (see 10/06/2004 headline).
Next headline on:   Cosmology

Since many more people read USA Today rather than science journals that falsify neo-Darwinian theory (see yesterday’s headline), let’s use this article for a baloney detecting exercise:

• Scopes Trial:  The 1925 monkey trial is mentioned in the opening paragraph without any hint that the roles have been reversed.  In 1925, the teaching of evolution was banned.  Now, not only is creation banned, but non-religious intelligent design theory is banned, and even pointing out flaws in Darwinian theory from scientific sources can get a teacher fired.  This is the dictatorship of the opposition with a vengeance, but Parker makes it seem that the current debate is just a resurgence of backwoods hicks who can’t realize they lost.
• Pro-Science:  The Darwin Party loyalist on the Kansas school board who was defeated this month is described as “pro-science”.  (Presumably that makes the opponent anti-science.)  If he were really pro-science, he would read the journals like we do at Creation-Evolution Headlines and admit that the Darwin Party’s case is a long litany of flipflops, storytelling and embarrassing admissions.
• Political Science:  “The debate over evolution itself has evolved,” jokes Parker.  She quotes Ms. Sola Darwina, Eugenie Scott, as describing the new debates as “politically smart”.
• They have no science:  Parker does not contest the view of Scott, who dismisses the opposition with, “They have no science.”  Big lie, and shoe on the wrong foot; those four words fit Darwinists like hand and glove.
• Is that a fact?  Perform qual (qualitative analysis) on this sentence: “But giving equal time to alternative views, critics such as Scott say, suggests that they are on par scientifically with evolution, which is grounded in scientific fact.”  I.e., a fact is a fact because I say so with feeling.
• Be sensible: don’t mislead the kids:  A teacher and political activist is quoted, “It doesn’t make any sense to give equal time to all these other ideas that are vastly unsupported.  It’s misleading to kids.”  That’s right, so stop teaching Darwinism as fact.  Who is asking for equal time?  Which ideas are vastly unsupported?  Let the Darwinist scientists themselves speak: see headline and follow the chain links on Darwinism, if you want better support for a position than spin-doctored sound bites.
• Sneaky Conspirators:  Parker says, “The most popular alternative is ‘intelligent design.’  Proponents of intelligent design do not publicly identify the ‘intelligent force,’ although they privately say it is God.”  Why not turn the tables on the Darwinists?  Isn’t it fair to say: “Proponents of Darwinism do not publicly identify their religious beliefs, but privately they say there is no God.”  Many intelligent design movement leaders are very clear in their writings and speaking what their personal beliefs are, but that is beside the point.  Their claim is that design detection is possible without identifying the designer, which is already the practice in SETI, archaeology, forensic science and cryptography.  There are scientists of various religious persuasions, and no religious persuasion (like Michael Denton and Paul Davies) who find the arguments for design compelling.  Parker ignores the arguments of ID in favor of portraying them as sneaky tactics of religious zealots.
• Follow the money:  Parker mentions the Discovery Institute in Seattle “boasts as its largest donor the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.”  Then why not mention that Paul Allen, Bill Gates’ right-hand man, personally funded the $14 million PBS Evolution series?  Why not mention the governmental and foundation funding that outspends opponents many times over?
• Protestors:  The honorable, altruistic Jeff Brown and his wife resigned in protest over Dover, Pennsylvania’s vote to include ID in the curriculum.  “I don’t think we should be teaching it.  It is not a scientific theory, it is only a hypothesis,” he said.  Sounds like what William Jennings Bryan said about Darwinism in 1925.
• Sneaky conspirators, reprise:  Parker writes, “Opponents call intelligent design ‘creationism in a tuxedo’ that attempts to blur the line between religion and science in a way that will survive an inevitable court challenges.”  O, those dastardly creationists, with subterfuge attempting to fling mud on the ivory idol of Charlie under cover of night.  They sneak up in tuxedos instead of barnyard overalls.  It seems a little difficult to hide the intentions of creation/ID proponents that are daily broadcast all over the world wide web.  Notice also how the Darwin Party hopes the courts will come to the rescue.  They don’t trust we, the people.
• Rewriting history:  “In 1987,” the article continues, “the Supreme Court found that teaching creationism in public schools violates the constitutionally guaranteed separation of church and state.”  No, it did not (here we go again): it forbade states from mandating equal time for creation and evolution.  It specifically stated that any scientific evidence about origins could be taught.
• Can’t stamp out this nuisance:  “We’ve been fighting this since 1925,” says Witold Walczak, a Pennsylvania ACLU lawyer.  “Why aren’t people questioning atomic theory?  Why aren’t they questioning the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun?  That’s because evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs.”  Need we remind Mr. Walczak that chemistry and gravity are observable phenomena in the present, but Darwin’s common ancestry story involves the unobservable past?  Turn the tables again: let’s say, “The Darwinists fight the opposition because creation conflicts with their antireligious beliefs.”  He’s right about 1925.  The ACLU wanted John Scopes to be free to use the textbook that taught that Caucasians were the superior race (see 08/04/2004 headline).
• Whole lot of shaking going on:  Ken Miller, co-author of the textbook that Cobb County, Georgia stickered with disclaimers, doesn’t like the disclaimer that encourages students to keep an open mind and use critical analysis, because it “gives the impression that it’s a very shaky theory.”  The definition of a shaky theory is one whose proponents fear open-minded, critical analysis of the evidence.

Don’t just read these arguments.  Practice them.  Get good at baloney detecting, and write your newspaper whenever they perpetuate fallacious statements and misconceptions.  They will continue to get away with it until they fear the light from knowledgeable, articulate, informed readers who understand the issues and cannot endure one-sided propaganda.
Next headline on:   Politics and Ethics • Education • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design

It wasn’t creationism that brought civilization the theatre of the absurd.  Creationists brought the world things like the Hallelujah Chorus and The Greatest Story Ever Told.  If evolution is making you ill, and giving you an upset stomach, try these guaranteed remedies: Psalm 119, and I Peter 1.  To feel even better, follow it up with Philippians 4. 
Next headline on:   Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas

• Evolution as sculptor:  Sid Perkins, in Science News, submitted three entries in an article on penguin evolution:
  • Early in penguin evolution, the bones, especially in the wings and hind limbs, became thick and dense.  This change would have improved the ease with which the birds could dive to chase underwater prey.  In contrast, the bones of flight-capable birds are highly buoyant because evolution has fine-tuned them to be thin, light, and, in some cases, filled with air.
  • Besides acquiring dense bones, penguin ancestors evolved narrow wings with inflexible elbows that worked as streamlined hydrofoils....
  • Evolution Marches On...  So, even though penguins have been immensely successful, the forces of evolution continue to sculpt their genome.

• No speculations here:  Thurston Lacalli, in Nature (Nov 25), in an article on the evolution of the eye, commenting on a presumed ancestral marine worm that had two kinds of photoreceptors:

  Speculations aside, the new work provides a solid starting point for further study of the evolution of photoreceptor organs during the diversification of bilateral multicelled animals.  In evolutionary terms, it is a long way from a simple ocellus [see 08/13/2004 headline], involving no more than a few cells, to the complexity of an optimally constructed image-forming eye.  Evolution seems to have accomplished this transition piecemeal, by myriad small steps, each an adaptive improvement over what went before.  A detailed accounting of the steps is as yet beyond us, but clarifying the nature of the ancestral condition is a useful beginning.

• The persistence of myth:  Paul Mellars, in Nature (25 Nov) in an article on Neanderthal man (see also 10/01/2004 and 09/21/2004 headlines):

  That the Neanderthals were replaced by populations that had evolved biologically, and no doubt behaviourally, in the very different environments of southern Africa makes the rapid demise of the Neanderthals even more remarkable, and forces us to ask what other cultural or cognitive developments may have made this replacement possible.... Perhaps it was the emergence of more complex language [see 02/27/2004 headline] and other forms of symbolic communication that gave the crucial adaptive advantage to fully modern populations and led to their subsequent dispersal across Asia and Europe and the demise of the European Neanderthals.  The precise mechanisms and timing of this dramatic population dispersal from southern Africa to the rest of the world remains to be investigated.

• No data?  No problem:  R. Van Boekel et al., in Nature (25 Nov), in the abstract to a paper on interplanetary dust:

  Our Solar System was formed from a cloud of gas and dust.... Little is known about the evolution of the dust that forms Earth-like planets. (Note: All they suggested was that observations from dust disks around other stars shows an apparent zone of crystallization in the inner regions: “Our observations thus imply that crystallization of almost the entire inner disk and a substantial part of the outer disk must have occurred very early in the evolution of the disk.”  How the crystals afterward survived the melting of terrestrial planets during their formation and bombardment was not explained.)

  Giving evolution a kickstart:  Robert Service, in Science (26 Nov), commenting on recent experiments on artificial selection of proteins:

  Evolution isn’t known for its quick work.  In recent years, researchers have come up with numerous ways to give it a kick in order to evolve [sic; this is intelligent design] proteins with new functions.  But most of these techniques are painfully slow, taking as long as a month to go through a single round of evolution.  The immune cells of vertebrates long ago perfected a faster approach, which they use to generate the myriad antibody proteins that fight off infections.  Now a team of California researchers has coaxed immune cells to apply their skill to other proteins, an ability that could speed the development of novel proteins for studies from catalysis to cell biology.

  Comfort is the mother of evolution:  Erik Stokstad, in a story on horse evolution in Science (26 Nov):

  High-crowned teeth took a while to evolve to resist gritty food.  Later, During the Miocene, horses and camels were evolving longer limbs, but apparently not to escape accelerating predators--which evolved longer limbs some 20 million years later.  Instead, [Christine] Janis (Brown U.) proposed, the limbs first evolved to be more efficient at walking.... High-crowned teeth might not be the only way to make life on the grasslands less of a grind.

Decisions, decisions.  It’s like having 800 cable channels and nothing worth watching except the old comedies.
Next headline on:   Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas

Reproductive strategies such as sexual reproduction and recombination that involve the shuffling of parental genomes for the production of offspring are ubiquitous in nature.  However, their evolutionary benefit remains unclear.  Many theories have identified potential benefits, but progress is hampered by the scarcity of relevant data.

OK, Darwin Party; the burden of proof is on you.  Let’s see you squirm your way out of this one without concocting a myth to explain it away.
    Another quotable quote in the Bonhoeffer paper was their demolition of evolutionary stories about the evolution of sex:

One of the most fundamental questions in biology is why sexual reproduction and recombination are so widespread.  Meiotic recombination and sexual reproduction both induce the shuffling of parental genomes for the production of offspring.  Intuitively, shuffling might appear to be beneficial, because it promotes genetic diversity among the offspring and thus allows for a faster rate of adaptation.  However, this explanation has several shortcomings.  First, sexual reproduction and recombination do not always increase genetic variation.  Second, even when they do, it is not clear why greater genetic variation should generally be adaptive.  Third, recombination may not only create but also destroy favorable combinations of mutations.  Therefore, what is the evolutionary benefit of shuffling two genotypes that are proven viable in their current environment?

They studied recombination, looking for a benefit.  They found none, but provided good grist for the anti-Darwinism quote mill.
Next headline on:   Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

• Another Adult Stem Cell Success:  EurekAlert reports that adult stem cells have been shown to cure incontinence.  Stem cells are first extracted from the patient’s arm, and cultured for six weeks.  Then, they are injected into the urinary tissue in a 20-minute outpatient procedure that makes them grow into the surrounding cell type, stopping leakage within 24 hours.  18 of 20 patients remained continent a year later.
• Homing Pigeon Secret:  A new study summarized by EurekAlert and National Geographic News found that homing pigeons store a magnetic map in their beaks.  Researchers from University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, led by Cordula V. Mora, could affect the pigeons’ homing ability with external fields and with beak-mounted magnets.
• Spiders Weave Material of the Future:  EurekAlert reports that spider silk could become the “intelligent materials of the future” if engineers can figure out how to mass produce it.  “The distinctive toughness of spider silk could allow manufacturers to improve wound-closure systems and plasters, and to produce artificial ligaments and tendons for durable surgical implants.  The silk could also be woven into strong textiles to make parachutes, body armour, ropes and fishing nets.  A whole range of ecological materials could emerge from the industrial production of spider silk,” it promises, without harming the environment.
• Galileo Gets Website:  Science pointed out last week that the Galileo Project website at Rice University is growing, with many historical documents now freely available online: for instance, all 124 letters from his daughter Maria Celeste have been published.  (See Galileo in our online book.)
• Molecular Rotary Motor Designed:  A team from University of Edinburgh, reporting in Science (26 Nov), succeeded in coaxing a ring-like molecular structure to undergo reversible rotary motion.  Using Brownian (random thermal) motion to advantage to create such a motor requires, they say, “(i) a randomizing element, (ii) an energy input to avoid falling foul of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and (iii) asymmetry in the energy or information potential in the dimension in which the motion occurs.”  They mentioned ATP synthase (see 02/13/2004 headline) but did not claim their invention was anywhere near as complex, or suggest how such a motor evolved.  Instead, their experiments were meant to “illustrate how interplay between informational and thermodynamic laws governs directional Brownian rotation in molecular structures.”
• Hobbit Fossil Goes to Skeptic:  Science was somewhat alarmed that possession of the bones of Homo florensiensis (see 10/27/2004 headline) are going to Dr. Teuku Jacob, a skeptic of the idea that these were evolutionary links.  He believes instead they were modern human specimens suffering from microcephaly.  Whether he will returns the bones after a year, or ever, is a fear making other paleoanthropologists very unhappy.
• Tetrapod Transitional Form:  Erik Stokstad attended the annual meeting of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology earlier this month, and dropped a hint in Science (26 Nov) that a team of American paleontologists found lobe-finned fish fossil in Canada that “may be an Archaeopteryx-quality transitional fossil” between fish and tetrapods.  Since Archaeopteryx was a flying, feathered, perching bird, one can only surmise what this means.
• Survival of the Unfit:  National Geographic News summarized a report from Nature that shows natural selection does not always clearly favor the swift and the strong.  Studies of lizards under selection pressure did not always produce a clear result.  Other factors, such as the environment and behavior, can complicate the selection process and produce a variety of effects.  One evolutionist smirked about the naive concepts people have.  The weak and slow often thrive, “even though the theory of natural selection suggests that weak runners ought to be weeded out from the gene pool.”  That led NG to begin its report, “Glance at a crowd at just about any big sporting event and you’ll notice that humans are a diverse bunch.  Not only the fittest have survived.”

One of Murphy’s spinoff laws stated: “The intelligence of the human race is a constant.  The population is increasing.”  One might make similar comparisons about the plausibility of Darwinism as evidence increases.
Next headline on:   Health • Birds • Early Man • Fossils • Darwinism • Intelligent Design

The authors make only the meagerest references to evolution, none of it helpful to the Darwin Party.  They merely state as matters of belief the “evolutionary divergence” between humans and mice, and make other similar assumptions that said divergent animals evolved from a common ancestor.  They merely assume some genes evolve quickly and others slowly.  But when it comes to explaining how such extremely conserved sequences could survive the inexorable pressure of natural selection for oodles of aeons, they admit there is nothing but guesswork:

A number of other ideas on the evolutionary mechanisms responsible for “ultra-conservation” have been suggested, involving decreased mutation rate, increased DNA repair, and multiply-overlapping transcription factor binding sites, but without more functional studies such hypotheses remain speculative.

Elsewhere, they remark with astonishment about specific examples of CNEs in all four species (human, rat, mouse, pufferfish) that show 100% identity, “demonstrating an extraordinary level of conservation for genomes separated by 900 million years of divergent evolution.”  Maybe no divergent evolution.  Maybe no 900 million years.
    So, any biologists around still wanting to assume this non-coding material is “junk DNA”?  Stop wasting your life work, your lab equipment, and your grant money.  Get with the program – the ID program.  Get out there and find out what it was made for.
Next headline on:   Genetics and DNA • Intelligent Design

He’s lying.  It was all a ruse to win Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week.  Did you catch his encore?  He said lying evolved, but then said, “Morally, lying is wrong.”  Good one!
Next headline on:   Darwinism • Dumb Ideas

Support survival of the fittest.  Support the removal of parasitic Darwin Party welfare programs (see 12/22/2003 commentary).  Now that Darwinism has been falsified (see 10/19/2004 headline), and even its high priest doesn’t want it acting on him (see 11/14/2004 headline), it’s time to clean house: clean the science class of musty, dusty, outmoded, obsolete speculations by 18th century radical liberals.  Move it to the History class.
Next headline on:   Politics and Ethics • Education • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

Since there are plenty to go around, let’s see more home school dino digs (see 07/23/2003 and 05/21/2002 headlines).  Everything seems to have been bigger in the past.  Cave bears used to be triple the size of grizzlies, and saber tooth tigers were bigger than our modern lions.  We live in a species-impoverished world compared to the fossil record.  Does that sound like evolution?
Next headline on:   Dinosaurs • Fossils

Islamic Science Is Backward   11/21/2004
Two Pakistani scientists asked for “enlightened moderation” among fellow Muslims in the Nov. 18 issue of Nature.¹  Admitting to the “backwardness of Islamic science and technology,” they called on the 57 predominantly-Muslim nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to reaffirm their commitment to science:

The global security situation has given Islam a false image, that of a religion of intolerance, activism and terrorism.  Islam is unfairly linked with fundamentalism, fundamentalism with extremism, and extremism with terrorism.
    Muslims can argue all they like that this loose thinking is unfounded, but we are having little impact in today’s battle of ideas.  It doesn’t help that some Muslim nations are probably among the poorest, the least educated and the least powerful on the planet.  We must get out of this rut if we do not want to be marginalized and to condemn future generations.

Good questions, and noble dreams, but why not condemn the terrorists?  Notice how Rahman and Nasim did not repudiate the acts of terror that have given Westerners an image of AK47-toting Muslim men jumping up and down over burning American flags, Muslims beheading prisoners and treating their women as half-human.  A little moderation is certainly in order.  To what extent is the religion of Islam responsible for these damnable actions by its most ardent followers, the ones who are most dedicated to following Mohammed’s teachings to the letter?  To what extent is the religion of Islam responsible for the poverty and backwardness of most of its people, such that six of the eight poorest countries in the world belong to the OIC?
    Visitors to Muslim countries are quick to affirm that most of their citizens are ordinary people just like those in any other country, with hopes and dreams for their families, a desire for peace and an exemplary level of hospitality.  The fault lies primarily in the Islamic leadership and media that continue to foment hatred and fear.  But one must also seriously ask whether the teachings of Mohammed himself are to blame, a man whose sexual and terrorist exploits are legendary, a man who, unlike Jesus Christ, was petty, vindictive, capricious, violent, murderous, illogical, superstitious, contradictory, delusional, a plagiarist and basically anti-scientific.  Would his disciples be expected to rise to higher levels of virtue and intellect than the revered master?  We must be skeptical of the claim that the Koran encourages the pursuit of science, as claimed here and by other Muslim apologists.  (Notice they gave no references).
      Medieval Muslims did bequeath to the world the zero and algebra, the names of stars and some medical advances, geometric art and many cultural achievements, but science as an enterprise for its own sake never really took off in Arab countries.  Much of what was achieved was based on Aristotle rather than the Koran.  Some Muslim scholars have noted that the lack of a true, maintainable science is due to the nature of their God Allah, who is viewed as so utterly sovereign that he acts capriciously and unpredictably.  The Judeo-Christian God, by contrast, is sovereign but never acts contrary to his own nature of righteousness and justice.  As a lawgiver, his work can be studied and trusted.  To a Christian, when an arrow is shot, it follows the laws of physics; to a Muslim, Allah himself must push the arrow at every instant.  Therefore a Muslim can never be sure that the arrow will fly the same way every time.
    The contrast between Islamic and European science is a complex subject well worthy of study.  Islamic apologists today try to defend science in the Koran in a manner somewhat analogous to Christians who do so with the Bible.  (They omit the parts of the Hadith that say Adam was 90 feet tall, that yawning is from Satan, that an entire village turned into apes and that Jews were turned into pigs, or that seven men and their animals slept for 309 years in a cave and got up just fine.  Islamic physicians don’t repeat for Westerners what Mohammed taught, that if a fly falls into your cup it’s OK because one wing has the disease but the other has the antidote; see Islamic Invasion by Dr. Robert Morey for the Hadith references for all these claims.)  Early Muslims also subscribed to circular rather than linear time, which hindered their conception of cause and effect and produced many weird anachronisms in the Koran and Hadith.  Their philosophy did not produce the intelligent design movement, but now some are trying to co-opt it for its apologetic (jihad?) value (see IslamOnline.net article by Mustafa Akyol).
    Good luck, Rahman and Nasim.  It seems to us to get more moderation and enlightenment in OIC nations, they will have to ignore the Koran and start reading Western books, including the Bible.  And science itself will not produce a virtuous people.  A thief with mathematics will become a worse thief, and a murderer with physics can become a mass murderer.  Science will not bring a happy and prosperous future to the OIC if Muslim scientists use their learning to build better WMDs.  And Westerners, fear greatly a scientifically-literate religion that believes in conquering by the sword, as its founding prophet commanded (see Morey, pp. 197-200).
Postscript:  Notice how Nature gave lengthy, positive press to the religion of peace in their science journal.  How many want to hold their breath for a similar article on Christian or Jewish science?  You wouldn’t think that Big Science is also enslaved to political correctness now, would you?
Next headline on:   Politics and Ethics

We show that the use of a Frank-like model² in a recycled system composed of reversible chemical reactions, rather than the classical irreversible system, allows for the emergence of a synergetic autoinduction from simple reactions, without any autocatalytic or even catalytic reaction.  This model is described as a theoretical framework, based on the stereoselective reactivity of preexisting chiral monomeric building blocks (polymerization, epimerization, and depolymerization) maintained out of equilibrium by a continuous energy income, via an activation reaction.  It permits the self-conversion of all monomeric subunits into a single chiral configuration.  Real prebiotic systems of amino acid derivatives can be described on this basis.  They are shown to be able to spontaneously reach a stable nonracemic state in a few centuries.  In such systems, the presence of epimerization³ reactions is no more destructive, but in contrast is the central driving force of the unstabilization of the racemic state.

Of course, the APED system [their model] does not yet constitute a metabolic pattern, but has some of its characteristics.  It does not take into account the matter of creation (i.e., the formation of amino acids in the described example), but it describes the use of external energy to reproduce some properties (here, the absolute configuration of the monomers) and to increase the complexity of matter (by way of polymerization).  An interesting extension to a more complex system is being investigated by others, focusing on molecular energetic use, via carboxylicphosphoric mixed anhydrides.

Sorry, close only counts in horseshoes.  The requirement is 100% purity (see 11/05/2004 headline, pt. 6).  30% poison is not better than 50% poison.  Too many ad hoc conditions.  No way to get them to join into useful polypeptides.  Too much bluffing.  Next.
Next headline on:   Origin of Life

• National Geographic:  “Ancient Ape Discovered: Last Ape-Human Ancestor?
• BBC News:  “Scientists have unearthed remains of a primate that could have been ancestral not only to humans but to all great apes, including chimps and gorillas.  The partial skeleton of this 13-million-year-old ‘missing link’ was found by palaeontologists working at a dig site near Barcelona in Spain.  Details of the sensational discovery appear in Science magazine.”
• MSNBC News:  “Ape fossil bridges evolutionary gap” and “Specimen could represent the last common ancestor of humans and great apes.”
• ABC News:  “Ancient Animal Could Be Human-Ape Ancestor: Scientists Say Fossil in Spain Shows Animal That Is Common Ancestor to Humans, Great Apes.”

This animal was pure ape.  It would have walked like an ape, climbed like an ape, smelled like an ape, and aped like an ape.  If you found one you would put it in the zoo in the ape cage.  It was no more evolving into a human than a new kind of horse fossil was evolving into a giraffe.  Instead of helping clarify evolution, it confused it, because it had a mosaic of features that did not fit neatly into any evolutionary lineage.  The researchers had to employ the hocus-pocus phrase “convergent evolution” to explain it.  Compared with other apes, there was not a single incipient human feature about it, but all the news media hyped the faintest suggestion by some of the researchers that it might have had something to do with the “last common ancestor” (assuming evolution) between apes and humans.  Shouldn’t this make a sensible person angry?  Suppose any other special interest group or religion routinely got such favorable press for non-sequiturs like this.  Yet as predictably as monkey see, monkey do, the instant any fossil of an ape, monkey or alleged hominid is reported by any scientist, you can bet your bananas there will be a color picture of an artist’s reconstruction of it on National Geographic News the same day, complete with a big fib about how this is helping us understand our own evolution.  But will they give fanfare to the headline that neo-Darwinism has been falsified in the lab? (see 10/19/2004 headline).  Never.  Bad press for Charlie makes them fold up like monkeys and say, “Hear no righteousness, see no righteousness, speak no righteousness.”  (Now read the next headline.)
Next headline on:   Early Man • Darwinism

Moreover, running is more costly for humans than for most mammals, demanding roughly twice as much metabolic energy per distance travelled than is typical for a mammal of equal body mass.  Finally, human runners are less manoeuvrable and lack many structural modifications characteristic of most quadrupedal cursors [walkers/runners] such as elongate digitigrade feet and short proximal limb segments.

Running exposes the skeletal system to much higher stresses than walking, especially when the foot collides with the ground, producing a shock wave that passes up the body from the heel through the spine to the head.  Peak vertical ground reaction forces (GRFs) at heel strike are approximately twice as high during running than during walking and may approach 3–4 times body weight at higher ER speeds.  Human runners reduce these stresses to some extent through limb compliance and mid-foot striking (thereby also storing elastic strain energy in the leg and foot), but must otherwise dissipate impact forces within their bones and joints.

Such specialized structures include: an extensive system of springs in the leg and foot that effectively store and release significant elastic energy during running; hypertrophied gluteus maximus and spinal extensor muscles that contract strongly to stabilize the trunk in running but not walking; and an elongate, narrow waist in combination with a low, wide, decoupled shoulder girdle that have an essential stabilizing function only in running.

• Stride length:  Humans uniquely increase their stride when running, due to their relatively long legs: “Unlike most quadrupeds, humans increase speed during ER mostly by increasing stride length rather than rate.... Stride lengths in humans during ER are typically more than 2 m, and can exceed 3.5 m in elite runners, approximately a metre longer than the strides predicted for a 65-kg quadruped or measured in chimpanzees at the same speeds, even when galloping.”
• Stride rate:  “Humans also have relatively low stride rates at ER speeds, even lower than are predicted for a 500-kg quadruped.... Low stride rates that increase little in the ER range reduce the force required to oscillate the heavy legs (30% of body mass in humans, compared to 18% in chimpanzees) and may favour greater reliance on more slowly contracting, oxidative and fatigue-resistant muscle fibres, which are relatively more abundant in the legs of competitive distance runners than in sprinters.”
• Small feet:  “Reductions in distal limb mass have little effect on the energetics of walking but produce substantial metabolic savings during ER, roughly proportional to the square of the distance of the mass from the hip.... Although we do not know the relative mass of the distal [leg] limb in fossil hominids, humans differ from australopithecines, and resemble many specialized cursors [animals that walk] in having more compact feet and relatively short toes; the human foot is only 9% of total leg mass, compared to 14% in chimpanzees.”
• Joint size:  “Many studies have found that compared to both Pan [chimpanzee] and Australopithecus, Homo has substantially larger articular surface areas relative to body mass in most joints of the lower body, including the femoral head and knee, the sacroiliac joint, and the lumbar centra.”  The larger joints help dissipate impact energy while running.
• Vertebral adaptations:  The authors describe how the pelvis, spinal column and neck vertebrae in humans help “minimize the angular momentum in the trunk caused by rapid oscillation of long, heavy legs,” and also how they keep us from pitching forward during the “inherently unsteady” bipedal gait.
• Muscle adaptations:  It may be the butt of jokes, but the gluteus maximus, “whose increased size is among the most distinctive of all human features, is strongly recruited in running at all speeds but not in walking on level surfaces.”  Don’t laugh; everything has a purpose (it also provides a soft cushion when sitting, thanks also to our lack of a tail).  Chimps, by contrast, “have no buns,” Bramble told National Geographic.
• Counter-rotational adaptations:  Humans swing their arms and torso during running while keeping the head straight.  When the foot is on the ground, it can help counteract the rotational torque on the trunk.  “However, during the aerial phase of running, leg acceleration generates even larger torques that cannot be counteracted by ground forces.  These potentially destabilizing forces are offset by the opposing torques produced by counter-rotation of thorax and arms (but not the head).”  They mention three specific human adaptations that keep us running in a straight line: a long, narrow waist; greater structural independence of the pectoral girdle and head; and wider shoulders that permit less massive forearms.  “Reductions in the forearm of Homo (50% less massive relative to total body mass in humans than chimpanzees), substantially lower the muscular effort required to maintain the stereotypically flexed elbow during ER.”
• Head adaptations:  Our tall, bipedal posture puts us more at risk of pitching forward than quadrupeds or knuckle-walkers.  Fortunately, compared to other primates, we have reduced facial projections, larger semicircular canals (increasing our sensitivity to imbalance), and and a nuchal ligament that runs from the base of the skull to the base of the neck – “a convergent feature in Homo... and other mammals that are either cursorial (for example, dogs, horses, hares) or have massive heads (elephants).  Interestingly, a nuchal ligament is absent in chimpanzees, and apparently in australopithecines (as evinced by the absence of a median nuchal line).”  This ligament may keep the runner’s head from bobbing violently like those bobble-head toys.
• Heat dissipation:  Since “running generates so much endogenous heat that sustained running is considerably more limited by thermoregulatory capabilities than is walking,” humans have several “derived” [i.e., absent in ancestors] features for dissipating heat: hairlessness, “elaboration and multiplication” of sweat glands, a narrow, elongated body form, more cranial veins, a cavernous sinus, “hot arterial blood in the internal carotid artery before it reaches the brain,” a tendency for “mouth breathing (but not panting) during strenuous activity.”  They note that while nasal breathing is typical of apes, “Human distance runners are thus obligate mouth breathers, permitting higher airflow rates with less resistance and muscular effort; mouth breathing is also a more effective means of unloading excess heat during expiration.”

The ER capabilities of Homo raise several additional questions, the first being whether long-distance running was an important behaviour in human evolution or merely the by-product of enhanced walking capabilities.  Traditional arguments have favoured the latter hypothesis; several of the derived features of Homo in Table 1 are proposed as adaptations to improve long-distance walking performance in more arid, open habitats....  These features include relatively longer legs, larger hindlimb and vertebral joint surfaces, narrower waists and shorter toes.  Yet walking alone cannot account for many of the other derived features in Table 1 because the mass-spring mechanics of running, which differ fundamentally from the pendular mechanics of walking, require structural specializations for energy storage and stabilization that have little role in walking.  Such specialized structures include: an extensive system of springs in the leg and foot that effectively store and release significant elastic energy during running; hypertrophied gluteus maximus and spinal extensor muscles that contract strongly to stabilize the trunk in running but not walking; and an elongate, narrow waist in combination with a low, wide, decoupled shoulder girdle that have an essential stabilizing function only in running.

The physiological descriptions in this paper are wonderfully informative, and must make a thoughtful person stand in awe of the complexity required for such an ordinary thing as running.  Humans may not have the speed of a cheetah, the eyes of an eagle, the deep diving ability of a whale or some other specialties, but for overall flexibility and performance, the human body is unexcelled.  Just watch the Olympics for proof: gymnasts, swimmers, divers, sharpshooters, equestrians, pole vaulters, shot putters, weight lifters, basketball players, cyclists, hurdlers, sprinters and marathoners exemplify the wide range of capabilities designed into a two-meter, 65kg package.  Add to that the ability to think, write, create, compose, love, share, and speak, and you have every reason to respect the sanctity of life.  Let us never take these things for granted.  Let us live life to the fullest, and honor the Giver of these wondrous gifts.
    Notice the stark contrast between the measurable science in this article and the fluffy speculation about evolution.  The authors supplied no clear transitional forms, no relevant genetic phylogenies, and nothing but airy speculations about how alleged ancestors might have lived in the plains of Africa such that they “needed” to run.  Necessity is the mother of invention, not evolution: invention is intelligent design; evolution, on the contrary, is mindless and directionless, based ultimately on accidents.  How could so many multiple, independent adaptations converge on the ability to run?  How many lucky mutations did that require?
    Let’s up the ante a little (actually, a lot).  The authors described running only on flat surfaces.  How many additional adaptations are required for running up and down stairs, running up and down hills, or hopping from boulder to boulder across a river?  How about all the leaping, twisting, dribbling and slam-dunking in a basketball game, or the dramatic movements of a gymnast on floor exercise or the balance beam?  Keep in mind that it’s not just the skeleton, joints and muscles that need to be adapted for these things.  All the body’s systems must be prepared for the jolts of running: circulatory, endocrine, reproductive, nervous, sensory, digestive, excretory, lymphatic and respiratory – from the subcellular level, to the tissue, to the organ, to the integrated body.  A lucky mutation here or there will accomplish nothing, and will likely be selected against and removed, unless every change is synchronized to the whole function.  But didn’t we just learn last month that epistatic interactions prevent this, effectively falsifying the neo-Darwinian paradigm? (see 10/19/2004 headline).  On top of all that, the body knows how to maintain itself, and can usually repair most kinds of damage.  And the whole system runs on potatoes!
    Despite the Darwinian bluffing, rather than contributing knowledge to evolutionary theory, these authors actually made the situation worse for the Darwin Party.  They pointed out that running is not a by-product of walking – it requires too many independent structural adaptations.  And they emphasized numerous physiological traits that make humans outdistance our supposed nearest ape-like ancestors, the chimpanzees – you know, the primates that evolutionists keep telling us have genes 98.5% identical to ours (an oft-repeated myth—see 09/22/2002 headline).  We ask again: does the actual evidence point to evolution, or to creation?  Get off your hypertrophied gluteus, go jogging, and think about it.  You were made for running and thinking.  A little sweat (both mental and physical) will do wonders for your soul.
Next headline on:   Human Body • Physics • Early Man • Mammals • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Amazing Facts

....the pattern of collagen fibres was highly organised in three dimensions.  They had sets of structural fibres running parallel and perpendicular to the surface, and then further sets at 45° to each of these axes, providing strength in all directions.  The fibres of the bulletproof fabric Kevlar are similarly arranged.

No mention is made of how close-knit stitching of protein chains “arose” to produce these structures, nor how the genetic code “emerged” to cover the entire animal, nor how the embryonic development program grew them at the right places at the right times.  An evolutionary tale requiring too many lucky mutations is like an alibi with too many improbable circumstances.
    The ankylosaurs may be extinct, but there are other heavily shielded animals today: turtles and armadillos, for some.  Collagen is an amazing, versatile protein that can be as tough as armor, or as soft as baby’s skin.

A reader comments:
About midway through the article is read “Scheyer and Sander conclude that ankylosaur species evolved progressively better armour plates to withstand the great crushing forces applied by the hungry jaws of its predators.”
    Wouldn’t this imply an intelligence to evolution?  I can see natural selection happening – the stronger shells happen to survive but to suggest this as a reason for their development is quite different.  Wouldn’t the evolutionary desire for stronger shells be selected out after each ‘crushing force of a hungry jaw’.  Just how does evolution network with a dead animal?

Next headline on:   Dinosaurs • Amazing Facts

This was too good to pass up.  Not sure what the moral is, but you can make up your own.  Should be good for some cartoon captions, too: “Don’t gamble on your future; there’s thousands of dollars of equity in your home,” advertises the beaver mortgage broker.  “Should I invest my cash in real estate?” asks a young customer.  “Gnaw.  Go against the flow: civil engineering is the best dam business around for a young pup like you; home values will collapse unless you first stop the runaway flow of currency.”
    “These leaves taste funny, Pa; I don’t want to get sick and cash in my chips.”  “Quit worrying, son, they come from a money tree.  Keep busy, and watch the bottom line.”
    The sheriff should realize the cash wasn’t doing anybody any good in a casino, so he should leave it to beaver.
Send your entries here.
• Beaver couple gazing at the Hoover Dam.  “and you thought I put a lot of cash in ours!”
• “When you said take this and put it into our dam, I didn’t know you meant as concrete.”
• “Oh!  That’s what the money was for!”
Next headline on:   Mammals

One planetary scientist quoted in the article calculated that if a comet containing only 2% methane struck Mars, the methane could survive 2000 years.  But he also calculated that the plentiful dust devils would destroy the methane at a high rate.  If methane has always been leaking from Mars, they are at a loss to find a plausible source.  The lack of known geological processes that could maintain it for billions of years is tempting some to believe it might come from living organisms.  But that conclusion comes more from a bias toward long ages than any evidence that methane and rocks and water will create life – far from it.  This will be an interesting story to watch.   If life is detected, will it be found to have arrived from Earth?  If not, will it put more pressure on scientists to give up the idea that Mars is billions of years old?  Stay tuned.
Next headline on:   Mars • Geology • Origin of Life

• Bush Bash:  Owen seemed a little alarmed that Dawkins was overtly political in the book: “Dawkins doesn’t always come across as the dispassionate scientist.  Given that the book covers four billion years of evolution, readers might be surprised by a number of critical references to President George W. Bush and the current U.S. administration.”
• Darwin Bash:  Believe it or not, Dawkins is anti-Darwinian – in his own personal context.  When asked whether medicinal drugs, education and the rule of law were disrupting our own natural evolution, Dawkins was quick to distance himself from Darwin’s curse:

  “Most of us have had our lives saved by medical science, probably more than once, and I am all for it,” he said in the interview.  “As an academic scientist I am a passionate Darwinian, in the sense that I believe Darwinian natural selection is the explanation for all life.  But as a citizen I am an anti-Darwinian!  I do not want to see the ruthless callousness of natural selection taking its toll of human life and happiness.”

• Creation Bash:  Dawkins, as usual, has no tolerance for creationists, though this time he dropped the words insane or wicked:

  He said, “I know perfectly well that these people are not stupid but ignorant.  Ignorance is no crime and it is easily cured by education.  What annoys me is the religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education.  And it doesn’t just annoy me.  It annoys respectable theologians who worry that creationism besmirches the reputation of true religion.”

Dawkins illustrates the proverb that no life is ever a complete waste; it can always be used as a bad example.  He provides his disciples excellent training in how to shoot oneself in the foot.  His self-refuting and contradictory statements (i.e., religion is an evolutionary adaptation and there is no God, but speaks of “true religion”) provide useful case studies on logical fallacies.  His cross-eyed expression while tripping out over the wonders of nature and the mindlessness of natural selection provide comic relief (see 09/12/2004 headline).  His zeal for evolution is both passionate and NIMBY (not in my back yard): like a Massachusetts liberal all in favor of putting a nuclear waste dump in Nevada, he doesn’t want the ruthless callousness of Darwinian natural selection to get close to him.  His anti-conservative political views exemplify our claim that the Darwin Party leans strongly liberal-leftist in ideology (see 09/22/2003 commentary), as did Chairman Charlie (see 04/29/2004 commentary).  And his tirades about the creationists wanting to “prevent scientific education” illustrate the Big Lie at work today: creationists want the students to hear more about evolution, including the problems and criticisms, while the Darwinists insist on one-sided indoctrination (see next entry).  And finally, his atheist-priest title adds to the list of amusing oxymorons.  Yes, Dr. Dawkins, keep those useful quotes coming.  We especially liked the one with the 11-second silence, complete with furrowed brow and deep breath, when asked if any mutation or evolutionary process was known to add information to the genes.  Quotes are juicy, but silence is golden.
Next headline on:   Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Politics and Ethics

We thought that competition and survival of the fittest was good for evolution.  Why not be consistent, Darwinists?  The fittest are apparently 82% to 12% against evolution-only indoctrination (see 10/18/2004 headline).  Maybe you should look at the intelligent design movement as something that evolved for the fitness of the human race.  Whatever is, is right.  Whatever will be, will be.  Don’t let your own memes be so selfish.  Get with the game; since nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, this is apparently the hottest evolutionary trend.  Don’t worry, be happy.
Next headline on:   Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design • Education

Evolution is not a force.  A force has magnitude and direction.  Evolution is aimless, purposeless, directionless.  As simple a thing as skin color requires genes, organelles, molecular motors and developmental programs, to say nothing of the eyes with which to see the results.  Natural selection and sexual selection are powerless to drive dumb fish to invent the molecular factories that produce such gaudy clothing.  Since evolutionists have had over a century to explain this and have come up empty, can creationists get a turn?
    Maybe the Lord, the all-wise Creator of life, likes variety.  Psalm 104 says, “Here is the sea great and wide, which teems with creatures innumerable, living things both small and great.  There go the ships, and Leviathan, which you formed to play in it” (Psalm 104:25-26).  Why would God form a creature for play in the water?  Why not?  The effect harks back to the cause: God loves creativity, art, goodness and beauty.  He takes pleasure in the breaching whale and the snow-sledding otter, the eagle and the deer and the angelfish.  The overwhelming variety of color and ability in the animal kingdom is a testimony to God’s creativity and wisdom.
    Evolutionists may quibble over which just-so story might work to explain this or that, but every time they look for a clear-cut explanation in a specific instance, it evades them (see the peppered moth update, for example, in the 06/25/2004 headline – one of their most celebrated cases of evolution).  The mindless mechanisms of natural selection are futile to explain complex functions and beauty.  Omniscience and omnipotence, coupled with goodness and wisdom, are more than adequate.  Science is supposed to believe in cause and effect.  Let’s put design back at the scientific table where it belongs.
Next headline on:   Fish and Marine Life • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

• Ring theft:  Saturn’s little moon Prometheus may not steal fire from the gods, but is stealing material from Saturn’s F-ring, reports New Scientist.  Presumably the little klepto is not putting it back, or they would say it was just borrowing it.
• Groovy rings:  A new ultraviolet image of Saturn’s A ring (see SpaceRef.com) shows finer detail than ever before seen.  The waves generated by moons like Janus stimulate particles to bounce against each other, and thereby lose material.  The JPL press release (Nov. 8) by the ultraviolet imaging team speaks of other dynamic activity around the ringed planet, including “an ever-changing vista at the frontiers of Saturn, featuring wayward moons, colliding meteoroids, rippling rings and flickering auroras.”
• Groovy musical rings:  As if the visible resemblance of Saturn’s rings to a phonograph record were not enough, here’s another new likeness: the rings make music!  New Scientist reports that the radio and plasma wave science (RPWS) experiment on Cassini detected radio waves in the rings that, when reduced to human frequencies, sound like a “melodic series of musical notes.”  Principal investigator Don Gurnett was “completely astonished” by the “surprising discovery.”
      OK, who, or what, is playing our tune?  The short answer is, impacts.  Meteoroids a centimeter in size (more or less by up to a factor of ten), when they strike the rings at high speed, generate radio waves that the RPWS instrument is detecting.  The tones last about one to three seconds and are distinct.  They might be related to the “spoke-like features” that Voyager 1 had detected in 1981.  This new radio observation, and others, are leading the Cassini scientists like Larry Esposito to recalibrate the age of the rings downward by a factor of ten.  The tones “suggest the rings are even more dynamic and unstable than had been thought,” New Scientist continues.  “If the rings had been in their present configuration for more than about 10 million years, their composition would have been thoroughly mixed and would now be uniform, according to dynamical models.”  (The old estimate had been 100 million years, still far younger than the solar system is presumed to be.)
• Titanic mystery:  Scientists still don’t know what to make of Titan after the 750-mile flyby October 26.  Planetary scientists think they see an ice volcano spilling slushy ice (see report and picture on BBC News and JPL).  For more of the intriguing radar images, see The Planetary Society’s report.  The data are still confusing, but one realization is emerging: the lack of impact craters means Titan’s surface is young (see JPL press release from Oct. 29, for instance).
• How dry I am:  Another enigma about Titan concerns the lack of evidence for lakes and oceans of ethane or methane.  Titan seems dry, although the roughness in the images could be caused by winds roughing up the liquid, if there is any.  See report on New Scientist that says that the paradigm of a moon covered in lakes or oceans up to three kilometers deep “has been shaken to its foundations” by the new observations.  “There had been hope that these bodies of liquid might harbour early stages in the development of biological molecules, and perhaps even simple forms of life,” the article reads, but “all that has changed.”  The Huygens Probe may have to land on a solid surface come January 14, to the slight dismay of its scientific team (although it can survive an impact on solid, too).
• Cracked moon:  Cassini snapped a preview shot of the battered moon Tethys, better than Voyager’s (see The Planetary Society report).  Scientists are eager to investigate a huge canyon named Ithaca Chasma that formed when an impacting body cracked the moon from pole to pole.
• Stormy weather:  A photo of Saturn’s “storm alley” made Astronomy Picture of the Day.  The caption ends, “Although the above image provides data and clues, the power behind Saturn’s storms still remains a mystery.”
• Uranus activity:  Long thought bland and dull, the planet Uranus is showing more activity and diversity in its cloud patterns than expected, reports