[Darwin’s] whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers.  This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account.  Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account.  It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.
—Antony Flew, former atheist, in an interview in Philosophia Christi (Winter 2004).

Steve, you know better (see 11/05/2004 entry).  Stop grandstanding to dupe the gullible news media.  This appears to be a naked ploy to arouse funding for another Titan mission: Benner said, “We need to go back, with a lander that can survive for weeks, not minutes.”  We should go back, all right, but to learn more about an intriguing geology and atmosphere, not to prop up a dying theory.  Why didn’t you tell Nature that you cannot fathom a chemical basis for life that does not use DNA and proteins?  Why not explain why water is unique for life? (see 12/30/2003 entry).  Why not tell them that the problems with your naturalistic origin of life studies are almost bad enough to make you contemplate becoming a creationist?
Next headline on:  Origin of Life • Dumb Stories

• A Newsweek article by Jerry Adler began by asking, “How did life, in its infinite complexity, come to be?  A controversial new theory called ‘intelligent design’ asserts a supernatural agent was at work.”  In “Doubting Darwin,” Adler gives good coverage to both sides, though ending with the suggestion that theistic evolution would result in fewer conflicts.
• Diane Carroll in the Kansas City Star was certainly not partial to the intelligent-design side, but gave its spokespersons substantial coverage.  The main Darwinist objections she cited were in the “hidden agenda” category.
• David Klinghoffer, writing an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, decried the branding of Stephen Meyer as a heretic after his ID paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal (see 09/24/2004 entry).  He characterized the uproar not as science vs. religion, but “an instance of one religion persecuting a rival, demanding loyalty from anyone who enters one of its churches--like the National Museum of Natural History.”
• Josh Kelley in The Arizona Republic actually gave most of his coverage to the intelligent design side, including Walt Brown, a young-earth creationist with a PhD involved in rewriting the state science standards.  Biochemist Michael Behe, who coined the phrase “irreducible complexity,” actually got the last word for a change.

Big ships turn slowly.  While none of these articles endorses ID or gives Darwinism the interrogation it deserves, it does hint at a slight temperature change that can have big El Niño consequences later.  At least more and more reporters are listening to ID arguments and not dismissing them out of hand.  Here are some suggestions reporters should consider for their next articles:

• Design science has an illustrious history.  Most of the great scientists of history were religious people, like Newton, Boyle and Maxwell, who believed the universe was created.  Their religious beliefs didn’t hinder science, but, on the contrary, advanced it.
• The pure atheistic, naturalistic brand of science is relatively new.  The trend to discount Genesis dates primarily from the 18th century, but the overtly anti-religious, materialistic brand of science was championed by the likes of Huxley and Haeckel in the late 19th century to early 20th century.  These Darwin bulldogs knew nothing of modern genetics and biochemistry.
• Design is already an accepted part of several sciences, including archaeology, cryptography, information theory, criminology and SETI, yet is not dismissed there as being religiously motivated.  These examples prove that design detection can legitimately be part of scientific investigation, and that design explanations can be valid, without knowing the designer or his/her/its motives (especially in the case of SETI).  They also demonstrate that a design conclusion is not a cop-out, but can be a valid inference based on evidence.
• The controversies within Darwinism are deep and profound; they cannot merely be characterized as nitpicking about the mechanism while accepting the “fact” of evolution.  Is a fact without a mechanism really a fact at all?
• The evidence from microbiology has been trending steadily toward a design inference and away from a Darwinian inference.  We know things about genetics that Darwin and all the early evolutionists could not possibly have known.  These and other evidences, like the Cambrian explosion and the anthropic principle, pose new and severe challenges to the belief that life arose without a Designer (see 01/28/2005 entry).

The points above are rarely mentioned in secular news reports about the intelligent design vs. Darwinism controversy.  It’s time to give them more prominence.
Next headline on:  Education • Darwinism • Intelligent Design.

We owe an apology to our readers.  We have been repeating earlier reports that ATP synthase runs at 6,000 rpm.  That’s like insulting the Ferrari company by watching one moving slowly in a parking lot and claiming it is rated at 10 mph.  We’re sorry for not giving proper credit to the Designer of this high-performance marvel.  Eat your heart out, Charlie.
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Amazing Stories

1. Mars:  Dr. Ehrenfreund agreed that the Martian Meteorite that sparked the modern astrobiology movement did not contain signs of life.  It was useful in retrospect for arousing interest in astrobiology, she said, but the consensus of scientists is that the alleged biogenic markers were produced by purely physical processes.
2. Water:  The primary source of water in our oceans was probably not comets, she agreed, but outgassing or water-rich planetesimals from 2-3 AU (see 03/02/2002 entry).
3. Chirality:  She agreed that polypeptides have to be 100% one-handed to function, and suggested that maybe adsorption on minerals provided the sorting of otherwise mixed-handed molecules; she conceded, however, that minerals are often heterogeneous.
4. Dilution:  The concentration of amino acids in meteorites is exceedingly low; they would have been hopelessly diluted if a meteorite landed in the oceans.
5. Fellowship:  She admitted that molecules delivered from space would have to collect somehow in small areas where they could “meet” one another.  She suggested small basins or rock layers, but failed to explain how a rapidly-moving meteorite could protect its precious cargo, or how the molecules, once delivered, could be protected from the same UV radiation that her experiments showed were rapidly destructive.
6. Real vs. Virtual:  She agreed with Benner (see 11/05/2004 entry) that ribose is very unstable in all conditions, and so are phosphates, the essential backbones of nucleic acids.  This forced her to suggest that the biomolecules with which we are familiar were not involved in the origin of life, and that astrobiologists must seek simpler, more stable, more abundant, more primitive building blocks to get life started.  Even PNA, a popular alternative to RNA, is already fairly “evolved” and therefore unlikely to be the first, she said.  What these more primitive, more abundant molecules must have been to produce something that could be considered alive, she did not specify.
7. Takeover:  When confronted with Benner’s argument that you cannot invoke so many ad hoc “genetic takeovers” in an origin-of-life scenario, she dismissed it by claiming Benner is a theorist, not an experimentalist.  (Yet Benner’s team had tried hundreds of alternatives to ribose, and all the popular alternatives to RNA, and said they don’t work.)

Astrobiology is a totally bogus science built on the assumptions of Darwinism and naturalistic philosophy.  Its only bright side is to motivate more experimental work in chemistry, physics, geology and astronomy – which is good, but assumes no other motive would do so.  And its track record is abysmal.  Of the biomolecules we know, Dr. Ehrenfreund said, “I wouldn’t really fix on this modern biochemistry thing, and on one component [like ribose or RNA]; we have done that for 50 years, and we didn’t succeed to go any step further with that; so I think you have to think a little bit in a new way.”  So 50 years after Stanley Miller proudly announced the formation of amino acids in a laboratory flask, we now know all that was irrelevant hype.  Today, the wizards of chemistry are into visualization.  They ask us to envision hypothetical simpler entities, yet to be discovered, that might self-organize into self-reproducing machines.
    So what do you think?  Is the “useful lie” tactic the only way to get funding for science?  (see 05/02/2003 entry).  The Miller experiment used it.  The Mars Meteorite used it.  Both are now defunct.  Is astrobiology a welfare program for scientists who ought to be studying the real world, not hypothetical sci-fi landscapes where primitive molecules “get together” and start living?  What if Wall Street acted this way?  Would you continue patronizing a financial adviser who, after 50 years, admits that you have lost money on every investment he tried, and said that now you need to think of new, unspecified, unknown, untested investments?
Next headline on:  Origin of Life

Michael Ruse, a preeminent authority on Darwinian evolutionary thought and a leading participant in the ongoing debate, uncovers surprising similarities between evolutionist and creationist thinking.  Exploring the underlying philosophical commitments of evolutionists, he reveals that those most hostile to religion are just as evangelical as their fundamentalist opponents.  But more crucially, and reaching beyond the biblical issues at stake, he demonstrates that these two diametrically opposed ideologies have, since the Enlightenment, engaged in a struggle for the privilege of defining human origins, moral values, and the nature of reality.

Maybe that’s what hanging around Phillip Johnson for too long does to a hardened Darwinist.  To his credit, Michael Ruse has been open-minded enough to debate his opponents publicly numerous times (see 07/19/2002 entry) and appear on the air and at conferences with them.  Perhaps Ruse is realizing that such friendly and intelligent folk can’t be as wicked and ignorant as Richard Dawkins said they were.  Maybe also he is cringing at the weak arguments being foisted by his side (see 09/03/2002 entry, for example).  It seems he is starting to take Dawkins’ attacks against his new friends personally, and trying to find some middle ground.  Ruse seems in a mental tug-of-war between Charlie and Phil.  Is this part of a slow-motion Damascus experience? (see 06/12/2003 entry).  Write in if you know more about this book.
Next headline on:  Darwinism

For a case study on how to spin-doctor a bad situation, read the UC Riverside press release.  You’d expect lies from National Geographic, of course: “Scientists Fill Blanks on Bat Family Tree.”  They just don’t tell you what they filled it with: imagination.
    In debates with evolutionists, creationist Dr. Duane Gish, author of Evolution: The Fossils Say No, often taunted the opponent by showing a picture of the earliest known fossil bat, which was clearly 100% bat.  He would emphasize that there were no transitional forms between a mouse-sized mammal and a flying bat.  Dr. Gish has earned a grin for Science to say the same thing.
    Both papers suggest that bats appeared because new food sources arose.  Presumably, a wealth of new insects, fruits, flowers and small mammals was like a shopping mall without customers, so the customers “emerged” somehow to fill all the wonderful new ecological niches.  Maybe this is the “If you build it they will come” theory of evolution.  We think, rather, that if Charlie has been up to bat for 140 years and is still striking out, it’s time to retire.
    Bats are exceptional examples of incredible creatures that defy evolution.  Some of their technical feats are illustrated in the Moody Institute of Science classic Dust or Destiny, which shows them navigating through jail bars in total darkness by echo-location.  They can swoop up an insect in their wings during their agile, acrobatic flights, and detect texture, shape and movement with sonar.  Despite their scary appearance, bats are our allies, ridding the air of excess insects.  Bats are among four totally separate groups of animals capable of flight – reptiles (pterosaurs), insects, birds and mammals – each different, yet thoroughly capable from first appearance on earth, just as the Bible creation account says.
Next headline on:  Fossils • Mammals • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

• Ben MacArthur, a bone and joint researcher at University of Southampton, reminded Nature that science without dissent is in danger of dogmatism.  He said that science, which has become the “orthodox worldview of the industrialized world,” has become a court from which there is no appeal, and in so doing, has become the mirror image of medieval religious intolerance:

  As you note in your Editorial, “Where theology matters” (Nature 432, 657; 2004), this is perhaps most clearly seen in medical research.  It is often presented as being carried out purely to relieve pain and maximize personal autonomy.  Yet most religious traditions would disagree with these aims, suggesting that well-being additionally depends upon other, ‘spiritual’, factors such as expressions of love and fulfilment of purpose.
      Critical dissent has played a central role in advancing scientific understanding, and the right to dissent should be held in high esteem by scientists.  In the past this dissent has primarily been by thinking scientists against the religious establishment.  It seems ironic that these roles have now been reversed, with much dissent coming from thinking religious communities against the scientific establishment.
      Like it or not, such dissent should be accepted, perhaps even embraced, since it may provide a means to a more balanced view of the place of science in society.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

  Did he have in mind the intelligent design scientists and the creationists as the dissenters that should be embraced?  The context seems to demand it.
• Stephen McSorley of the University of Connecticut Health Center gave Nature some advice about claiming the moral high ground.  In a tone of righteous indignation, he writes that it’s not just theologians who are morally troubled: on the contrary, the shoe is on the other foot:

  Your Editorial “Where theology matters” (Nature 432, 657; 2004) fails to mention that it is scientists, not theologians, who are out of step with society.  The seemingly important ethical question, “Why [should society] be denied a medical advance just because some of its members find it morally troubling?”, is disingenuous.
      I question the assumption that only a small minority are troubled by the ethics of medical research.  In the United States, scientists who believe that “all scientifically sound lines of research should be pursued simultaneously” are in the minority.  Although US polls reveal a large majority in support of stem-cell research for therapeutic purposes, they also indicate broad support for President Bush’s stance on federal funding restrictions.  Scientific progress within strict ethical limitations seems to be the majority opinion.
      Thankfully, we live in a democracy where public policy is decided by elected representatives, not a scientific oligarchy.  A better question is why certain individuals should be allowed to pursue a line of research when most members of our society find it morally troubling.

Medical professionals may be the awakening giant among allies in the revolution against Darwinism and the naturalistic, secularistic Big Science oligarchy.  Highly intelligent, well trained and compassionate, doctors have no use for a philosophy that glorifies selfishness and survival of the fittest, even though the Darwin Party tries to wiggle its way into the medical schools (see 06/25/2003 entry).  Medical doctors have devoted their lives to the unselfish care of the unfit: the weak, the sick, the poor and needy, unlike followers of eastern religions that have viewed the suffering as better off left alone to work out their karma.^*  Western doctors understand morals, love and purpose.  If you are a medical professional, follow the lead of these two bold letter-writers, and voice your opinion.  All that is needed for out-of-touch, dogmatic, disingenuous scientific oligarchies to triumph is for good doctors to say nothing.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics
^*Mother Theresa, recall, was from the Western Christian tradition, not a product of Buddhist or Hinduist philosophy; that is one reason her example in the slums of Calcutta stood out so starkly against the status quo.  William Carey’s epic story provides another good example of the contrast between the two religious traditions regarding ethics, science, compassion, and “following one’s own path” vs. obeying the Word of God.

Maybe it didn’t evolve; did you ever consider that possibility?
    With all our lab technology we still cannot understand how a brainless, eyeless plant managed to invent an exquisite, functioning trap.  Actually, the question these scientists investigated (the fast action) is one of the simplest aspects of this wonderful organism.  How does the plant keep from springing its traps when only one trigger hair is touched?  (This keeps it from responding unnecessarily to wind-blown particles.)  How does the signal get propagated at the cellular level?  How does it maintain the curvature of the leaves?  How did trigger hairs form at just the right positions?  How do the spines along the trap edges grow and overlap, to form a secure prison the fly can’t wiggle out of?  How does the trap close even more tightly after the prey is captured, so as to squeeze the juice out of the bug?  How does a plant digest animal tissue, and why does it need to, when it can apparently survive without it?  How does the trap know to stay closed until digestion is finished, and how does it reopen like new?  Where are the transitional forms for this amazing plant?  How can evolutionists believe it arose by chance?
    The Venus flytrap makes a wonderful object lesson for the family.  Pick one up at the nursery and let your kids experiment with it.  It’s a good way to have them learn to ask questions, try to figure out how things work, and develop a sense of wonder about natural phenomena.  Follow it up with a showing of the Moody Institute of Science classic The Prior Claim, a fun film that shows the plant in action.  It also shows a “simpler” plant – a fungus – that has a microscopic trap that is so fast, you can’t see the action even if you avoid blinking.  One moment the bug is outside, and within a split second it’s inside.  Amazing.  There are wonders everywhere that almost seem designed to create headaches for unbelievers.
Next headline on:  Plants • Amazing Stories

Molecular biology studies the cause-and-effect relationships among microscopic processes initiated by individual molecules within a cell and observes their macroscopic phenotypic effects on cells and organisms.  These studies provide a wealth of information about the underlying networks and pathways responsible for the basic functionality and robustness of biological systems.  At the same time, these studies create exciting opportunities for the development of quantitative and predictive models that connect the mechanism to its phenotype then examine various modular structures and the range of their dynamical behavior.  The use of such models enables a deeper understanding of the design principles underlying biological organization and makes their reverse engineering and manipulation both possible and tractable.  The heat shock response presents an interesting mechanism where such an endeavor is possible.  Using a model of heat shock, we extract the design motifs in the system and justify their existence in terms of various performance objectives.  We also offer a modular decomposition that parallels that of traditional engineering control architectures.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

However, to understand the operational principles of a certain machine, to repair it, or to optimize its performance, it is often necessary to consider a modular decomposition of the machine itself.  Such a decomposition does not necessarily require stripping the machine down to the component level but rather identifying its submodules with their predefined functionalities.  A particularly successful such modular decomposition has been extensively used in the field of control and dynamical systems, where components of a system are classified in terms of their role with respect to the regulation objective.  Similar decompositions exist in computer science, for example, because modularity is a basic principle of good programming.

Big Science went ballistic when Stephen Meyer published an ID paper in a minor journal (see 09/24/2004 entry), claiming it was a mistake to let such material pass peer review.  Well, ID scientists should print this paper and wave it in the face of Eugenie Scott and Ken Miller and all the other Darwin Party hacks who claim ID is illegitimate in science.  Here again – and this is one of many examples we have reported (see 01/01/2005 and 12/20/2004 for recent examples) – ID is not only detectable in biological phenomena, but ID itself is the most fruitful approach to doing science.  This is abundantly evident in this paper, written by authors completely outside the “intelligent design movement” and published in a leading secular journal.  Most likely unintentionally, they have underscored what the ID movement has been saying all along: regardless of one’s religious beliefs (or lack of them), a reasonable inquirer into a phenomenon can detect design, and the design approach is productive for science.  It’s the same approach used by Faraday, Mendel, Kepler, Carver and most of the other great scientists of history.  Only the Darwin Party welfare bums have a problem with it.  (See 12/22/2003 entry; contrast it with the one that follows it.)
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Intelligent Design

We’ll leave it to others to debate whether the Shroud of Turin dates from the time of Christ or not.  Even if so, whether it was the burial shroud of Christ is a separate question.  Suffice it to say that adherents on both sides had their experts, but experts are only human.  Scientific results don’t exist in a vacuum.  Fallible humans must interpret them.
Next headline on:  Bible and Theology • Dating Methods

So George Washington Carver was right about the humble peanut: it is delicious and nutritious.  And they bring good luck.  That’s why JPL scientists always pass the peanuts just before every important spacecraft maneuver.
    You already knew these things, so what are you waiting for?  Your mind, your body and your spirit need Creation Safaris.  Look at what you missed just this past weekend – and it only took 2.5 hours.  Life is too short to be a couch potato.
Next headline on:  Health

And you thought the animators on PBS and the Discovery Channel had whale and hippo evolution all figured out.  From what missing links did hippos get their antibiotic sunscreen sweat? (see 05/25/2004 entry).
Next headline on:  Mammals • Darwinism

When the ancestors of robber crabs first walked out of their watery environment to live on land, their sensory equipment needed a makeover.  The olfactory receptors on the antennae of marine crabs detect soluble, water-loving molecules.  A landlubbing crab must zero in on molecules that waft through the air.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The prize is a week-long series of lectures by George C. Williams (see 05/31/2004 entry) on how not to tell Darwinian just-so stories, followed by a friendly visit with Phillip Johnson – in a courtroom.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Dumb Stories

• Senator Rick Santorum (R., Pennsylvania) in The Morning Call advocated a balanced approach to teaching evolution.
• Brian Fahling in The Union Leader took up the charge to defend Georgia’s “critical thinking” stickers (see 01/13/2005 entry).
• Neal McCluskey, writing for the Cato Institute, argued that the Georgia case is a reason for vouchers.  The “one-size-fits-all” method of teaching means someone will always be offended: “Why is it acceptable to force them [Christians] to use their tax dollars to teach their children something to which they strenuously object, but unacceptable to place a sticker on textbooks that asks other people to consider, even for a moment, beliefs contrary to their own?”  The answer, he thinks, is privatization.  Get government out of education and let the parents exercise consumer choice.
• John Whitehead, Constitutional attorney, writing for Accuracy in Academia, agreed with Phillip Johnson that “It’s the Darwinists who are religious dogmatists.”
• Jeff Gardner wrote a scathing rebuke of PBS in the Albuquerque Tribune, after New Mexico affiliate station KNME pulled the intelligent-design film Unlocking the Mystery of Life from its schedule after first agreeing to air it, under pressure from scientists and the ACLU.  He mercilessly castigated “the rabidly anti-Christian voices that squeak like greaseless wheels in the so-called science community” for this act of “censorship,” and decided PBS is not only wrong, but irrelevant in today’s TV market.

Want to take part in one of the biggest revolutions of modern times?  Take up the pen, not the sword, and let your eloquence help bring down the idol of King Charlie the Usurper, where it can join its mates in the fantasyland section of StalinWorld.
Next headline on:  Intelligent Design • Darwinism • Education

Think about this when you eat spinach.  You are consuming a supreme example of nanoscale engineering.  A can of spinach may not help you punch Brutus to kingdom come, but might help you appreciate the King who came.
Next headline on:  Plants • Amazing Stories

Yongsoon Shin and colleagues at the Department of Energy lab have converted wood to mineral, achieving in days what it takes nature millions of years to do in such places as the Gingko Petrified Forest, an hour up the Columbia River.  There, trees likely felled in a cataclysmic eruption and, buried without oxygen beneath lava, leached out their woody compounds and sponged up the soil’s minerals over the eons. (Emphasis added.)

A million years is an awful, awful, awful long time.  Think about everything that has transpired since the first record of human civilization: all the wars, natural disasters, climate changes, environmental and population shifts.  Now multiply that thought by a hundred – that is less than one million years, let alone 10 million or a hundred million.  Don’t you think in all that time, with all the volcanoes going off and continents drifting around, all the weathering and erosion, all the pressure and temperature changes, nature couldn’t figure out how to petrify wood a little faster, if we can do it in less than a week?  Why do you think this article claims it took millions of years?  Evidence?  ... or maybe another reason?
Next headline on:  Plants • Dating Methods

Wow – truth is stranger than fiction.  What a strange and imaginative world!  And think, all this is just from one small location on a sphere bigger than Mercury.  It looks like our prediction won: no thick deposits of hydrocarbon precipitates were described, only water-ice geology with thin coatings of dirty snows that are easily washed off.  Before gloating, we would need to know how deep the flat lakebeds are.  Our opponents also need to come up with a plausible source for the methane.
    Truth is also better than speculation.  Results will continue to be announced as time goes on.  It will be interesting to see what complex chemicals were detected from the surface.  The analysis will take some time.  Don’t expect the chemical evolutionists to be vindicated, even if they try to draw a happy Charlie face in the mud of this dynamic scene of frigid sterility.
Next headline on:  Solar System

Wow, those early birds must have evolved from dinosaurs pretty fast.  This seems to require a dramatically accelerated rate of lucky mutations per year.  Beware, Charlie: gambling is addictive.
Next headline on:  Birds • Dinosaurs

Clearly, this is only one datum point, for one particular age and one particular mass.  Nonetheless, there are wide potential ramifications.  If this is a fair reflection of the theoretical models, then analyses of the luminosity distribution of low-mass stars and brown dwarfs in young clusters may be systematically underestimating their masses.  In consequence, the turnover in the mass function would be exaggerated (that is, there would be more brown dwarfs than currently estimated), but a lower-mass cut-off might lie at higher masses, because the supposed objects of 1-2 Jupiter masses might in fact exceed 15–20 Jupiter masses (0.015–0.02 solar masses).   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

There could well be planets around other stars, but it’s one thing to find an exoplanet.  It’s another thing to find a privileged exoplanet.
Next headline on:  Stellar Astronomy

In their studies of ratcheting of the two ribosomal subunits between the pre- and posttranslocation states, Frank and Agrawal (2000) observed a reciprocal expansion and contraction in the diameter of the upstream and downstream tunnels, suggesting that these two features may alternately grab and release the mRNA during translocation of mRNA.  This dynamic behavior in the downstream tunnel could also be related to its helicase function.
  (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The inescapable presence of secondary structure within mRNA coding sequences must have been one of the first problems encountered in the transition from an RNA world to a protein world and may have resulted in coupling of ribosomal helicase activity with the fundamental mechanics of translocation.

Again, we see an elaborate system, with only a wave of the Darwinian hand to explain it.  It is a cardinal sin of evolutionists that they merely assume evolution can solve any problem the realities of chemistry, physics and the environment throw at life.  They invoke hypothetical lucky mutations, never observed, that somehow appeared at the right time and place to produce irreducibly complex structures like ribosome helicase.
    Take off the funky Darwin glasses and what do you see?  Evidence of exquisite, effective design.  The authors take note that this helicase activity is very efficient and works rapidly: “The ability of the ribosome to unwind a long, highly stable helix shows that it is a highly processive helicase, capable of successive disruption of many base pairs without dissociation from the mRNA.”  Materialists decry miracles, yet they want us to believe nature solved this problem so exquisitely all by itself.  Come, let us reason together.
Next headline on:  The Cell • Genetics and DNA • Amazing Stories

King Solomon had some pretty good ones:

• A joyful heart is good medicine (17:22)
• A wise man is strong (24:5)
• The glory of young men is their strength (18:40)
• A tranquil heart is life to the body (14:30)
• Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul and healing to the bones (16:24)
• Who has woe?  Who has sorrow? ... Those who linger long over wine (23:29-30)
• Bright eyes gladden the heart; good news puts fat on the bones (15:30)
• Eat honey for it is good, and the honeycomb which is sweet to your taste; so shall knowledge of wisdom be to your soul. (24:13-14)

A proverb a day is good advice, but not all pithy sayings in Reader’s Digest or elsewhere are wise.  Pith without fruit is substance without nutrition.  Pick your proverbs with discernment.  The advantage of Solomon’s proverbs over Choi’s is that this wisest of kings gave attention not merely to physical health, but, more importantly, to spiritual health.  Notice how they are related.
Next headline on:  Health • Bible

So “The Human Genome” may be a myth.  Perhaps DNA storage is more dynamic than we expected.  The story does not establish any connection to evolution by natural selection except by assuming evolution and its commonly-accepted time scale.  Notice this non-sequitur: at the end, Donnelly says, “If such inversions are common, then there isn’t just one version of the human genome... this shows natural selection is still acting on us.”  Come again?  We’re here, we have differences, therefore we evolved?  Get a grip, Pete.
Next headline on:  Human Body • Evolutionary Theory

Pack a healthy lunch in a day pack and drive off with a group of friends to a trail head in God’s great outdoors – why, that’s the recipe for Creation Safaris.  Doesn’t this picture look healthy?  How about an encore?  Here’s proof that more is better.  It doesn’t have to be all strenuous, though.  Relaxation can be healthy, too.
Next headline on:  Health

How many generations of water lilies had to drown till the right combination of lucky heritable mutations came along?  The simplest things about plants and animals are sometimes just as noteworthy as the dazzling ones.
Next headline on:  Botany • Amazing stories

October 1997: to enrich the Cassini-Huygens mission with a human message to potential extra-terrestrial populations, and to leave trace of our humanity to the unknown, 4 original musics [sic] composed by French musicians Julien Civange and Louis Haéri are placed on board Huygens....
    The Music will reach Titan on January 14 2005 after a 7 year and 4 Billion Kilometer Journey.  Never will human signs have traveled and landed so far.
    “Music2Titan reflects a wish to highlight mankind’s existence in the universe through music and to familiarize people with the spatial exodus and possible existence of extra-terrestrial life,” said Julien Civange, producer, musician and initiator of Music2Titan.  “It also serves as a way to offer people hope for the future and to make music travel beyond normal boundaries.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Good thing nobody was there to listen to this stuff.  Can you believe it?  Here was an opportunity to send a token of man’s greatest art, music and intellectual achievements, and what do the Europeans send?  A dustbin of human depravity (except for the Mona Lisa and Wall Street, perhaps, and whatever these mopheads considered “knowledge”).  Don’t blame the scientists for this folly: most of them probably didn’t even know about it.  At least Carl Sagan had enough taste to outweigh Johnny Be Good with lots of Bach and Beethoven aboard the Voyagers, and Rosetta sent along a language disk of Genesis 1-3 in 1000 languages (see 01/13/2003 entry).
    On second thought, maybe it’s a good thing these recordings were sent to Titan, where they could be drowned out in the howling wind as they freeze into harmless monuments no one will ever hear or see again.  Any extra-terrestrials finding these artifacts on Titan might well debate a stimulating question: did these items arise from chaos, or were they intelligently designed?  Examining the hardware, then the recordings, they might come to mixed conclusions.
Next headline on:  SETI • Dumb Stories

So Charlie couldn’t deliver, and now, 150 years later, we are stuck with teaching his mythoid as fact without being able to subject it to critical analysis (see 01/13/2005 entry).
    The problems with evolutionary theory are mounting.  Now that neo-Darwinism has been falsified (see 11/29/2004 entry), and so many thousands of beneficial mutations would be required to evolve a human brain (see 12/30/2004) that human evolution is falsified, what mechanism is left?  Judge Cooper said it was OK to criticize evolution as to its mechanism, but like a car without an engine, a theory without a mechanism is not a theory at all.  Would this kind of logic work in commerce and relationships?

• I’ve invented a new form of shipping heavy freight.  Now I just need to invent a mechanism to convert power into motion.
• The check is in the mail.  Now we just need a mail system.
• I conceived of a perpetual motion machine, but haven’t figured out a way to overcome the second law of thermodynamics.
• Watch me swim up this waterfall, as soon as I learn how to swim.
• The Nigerian government will give you $10 million dollars; we just need you to send in $10,000 now.
• I’ll buy you dinner, but I have no money.
• I love you; just give me everything you have until I find out how to express my love.

Why don’t we all tell Charlie, Mr. slick used car salesman, that we’re wise to his tricks.  Let’s tell him to stop giving us the runaround, and come back when he has his magic mechanism that can deliver the goods: bald eagles from slime.  Meanwhile, what say we walk over and kick the tires on that Model ID over there.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Genetics and DNA

Speaking of predictions, here’s a chance to compare expectations of liberal evolutionists and conservative creationists.  If Titan is old, it should have a layer of hydrocarbon snow half a mile thick (see 04/25/2003 and 10/16/2003 entries).  If young, it should have less than an inch.  Let’s see whose prediction matches the findings.  Let’s also see if the old-agers can account for the replenishment of methane, which should have eroded away long ago if Titan had an atmosphere 4.5 billion years ago.
    You read that prediction here before the descent began.  Well, where are the deposits?  So far, it is unclear they even exist.  The probe landed with a thud on a surface comparable to wet sand or clay.  Is this the top of half a mile of hydrocarbon snow?  Or is it an icy bedrock somewhat softened by a thin veneer of surface hydrocarbon slush?  Too soon to tell, but keep an eye on that subject.  Remarkably absent was any mention of craters.  The few images released to date show not a single clear impact crater.  Either the surface of this frigid moon has been active for 4.5 billion years, or it is not that old.  Stay tuned.
    At the night-before celebration in Pasadena, Planetary Society president Wes Huntress reminded the audience that every time we have visited a new world, our prior speculations were proved wrong.  This was true at Venus, where scientists envisioned swamps and life, and Mars, where 1960-era astronomers still believed they saw vegetation.  Much of the speculation about Titan (even the day of landing, on The Science Channel special) revolved around the chance for finding life – or at least “prebiotic chemistry similar to that which existed on the Earth at the time life evolved.”  We expect the chemical evolutionists will be sorely disappointed.  For now, though, it’s time to enjoy the salt air of discovery, like sailors leaning over the bow of Columbus’ ship, eyes straining wide open to see the new world, after first hearing, “Land ho!”
Next headline on:  Solar System • Dating Methods

By denigrating evolution, the school board appears to be endorsing the well-known prevailing alternative theory, creationism or variations thereof, even though the sticker does not specifically reference any alternative theories.... While evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Dogma?  What religious dogma?  The only religious dogma on display is that of the Judge and the ACLU who get paranoid when they think they sniff someone else’s religion, whether or not any is present.  They are like the drunk who thought the whole world smelled rotten when a practical joker had smeared limburger cheese in his beard.  For the life of them, these attorneys, judges and Darwin-worshippers cannot see the religious dogma is their own.  What is dogma, if not an insistence that other views must be excluded from free inquiry and critical thinking?  This decision is disappointing, because it seemed like a slam-dunk.  Anyone with common sense would agree that controversial ideas should be examined with critical thinking.  It takes the convoluted arguments of Charlie worshippers to explain why their buddha needs special protection from scrutiny.
    The “reverend” Barry Lynn shows his true colors, for any that think his title means anything.  His god (little g) is merely a figment of imagination that has absolutely nothing to do with the naturalistic, mechanistic, directionless universe he assumes he lives in.  Why is he always on the side of the liberal Democrats on every political issue, just like Big Science? (see 12/02/2004 entry).  Connect the dots.  Lynn’s position is not about scientific accuracy or protection of religion, but about naturalistic philosophy, which almost always overlaps with political liberalism and moral relativism.  (See Answers in Genesis editorial from 04/08/2004 on the Cobb County textbook controversy.)
    Here is another case of a single, unelected federal judge (this one a Clinton appointee) trumping the will of the people and their elected representatives.  And notice: he did it not for something they did or said, but for something he thought they might have meant: the wording of the sticker appeared (not in reality, but in suspicion) to be endorsing (start the somber, ominous music) that deep, dark, evil, malicious doctrine of: (shall we utter the word?) creationism!  Aaaaaiiiiiiaaaa!
    So now Emperor Charlie gets to parade naked in front of the crowd, and little boys with eyes open, who wonder why everyone is praising the invisible robes, are forbidden to say anything.  The royal robes cannot be “denigrated,” even indirectly; in fact, it is against the law now to even entertain the thought in your mind that something is wrong with this picture.  The potential effects of this kind of legal reasoning (or lack of it) on the decisions, discussions and even motives of locally-elected officials are chilling.  Parents, students, if you are mad about this, keep the heat on.  Just don’t underestimate the power of Charlie’s thought police and inquisitors.  Dogmatism is all the more reason to turn on the floodlights.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Education • Dumb Stories

Often, when we take a picture with a digital or film camera, we are disappointed that many details we remember seeing appear in the image buried in deep shadows or washed out in overexposed regions.  This is because our eyes have a built-in mechanism to adapt to local illumination conditions, while our cameras don’t.  Because of this camera deficiency, robot vision often fails.   (Emphasis added.)

Werner Gitt provides many more gee-whiz statistics about the eye, and other body senses, in a wonderful book, The Wonder of Man.  One square millimeter of retina has 400,000 sensors.  The photoreceptors are so sensitive, a single photon can activate them.  The rods can react in 0.3 seconds, the cones in 0.075 seconds.  Three types of cones, sensitive to different wavelengths, give us complete coverage of the visible light spectrum, with over 300 discernible hues.  Unlike film, which is rated for a particular “speed” or sensitivity, the eye’s photoreceptors are sensitive over 5 powers of 10, or 100,000 to one.  The signals are transmitted on two separate channels then recombined, to avoid the problem of thermal noise.  The optic nerve also filters out noise by sensing the response from multiple rods within a time limit of 0.02 second, and sending the signal along only if there is nearly simultaneous response from four or five rods scattered across the field.
    Rhodopsin, the light-sensing protein, is a large molecule composed of 350 amino acids (see online book).  To avoid saturation of the photoreceptors, muscles move the eyes in constant jerks called saccade's, but the optic nerve and brain automatically compensates for the motion (see 03/29/2002 entry).  The optic nerves cross behind the eyes, and are received by opposite sides of the brain; there, the inverted images are flipped and recombined seamlessly.  The brain even fills in the blanks caused by the holes where the optic nerves leave the retina, by interpolating these “blind spots” with similar pixels from the surrounding field.  Small as they are, the eyes have 120 megapixel resolution and can separate angles of one minute (1') of arc.  What’s more, they can do it in full-motion stereo.  With the help of the iris, eyelid, retina and other mechanisms, we can see everything from dim stars to bright sunlight reflected off snow: a phenomenal range of sensitivity – a factor of 1 million million to one.  And our eyes are not even the sharpest or most sensitive in the animal kingdom.  Need more?  Buy Gitt’s book.  After you enjoy it, hand it to an evolutionist.  Perhaps, though, these days, intentionally giving someone cold shudders would be misconstrued as cruelty (see 07/13/2001 commentary).
Next headline on:  Human Body • Amazing Stories

Some of the new questions Anne Weil is asking turn the evolutionary story of the Cretaceous upside down:

Hypotheses developed to explain the evolution of mammalian size often focus on dinosaurs.  The most frequently repeated speculation is that Mesozoic mammals were forced to remain small by a combination of heavy predation pressure from dinosaurs and the saturation of ecological niches by large reptiles.  Are the mammals from the Lujiatun beds large because the dinosaurs are small?  This question may be premature, as the fossil deposits are under active excavation and description of the fauna is not complete.  Yet the two new specimens of Repenomamus prompt a reversal of the question, if only in speculation: how might mammals have influenced dinosaur evolution?  It seems likely that small dinosaurs experienced predation pressure from mammals.  Indeed, in describing the diminutive S. changii, which lies evolutionarily at the base of a lineage closely related to that of birds, Xu et al. express surprise that, although the avian lineage continued an evolutionary trend towards small size, closely related dinosaurian lineages became larger again.  Maybe these small dinosaurs got larger – or got off the ground – to avoid the rapacious mammals.

So evolutionary theory can explain anything, no matter what the bones.  But if early mammals were already large and carnivorous, where is the evolution?  No problem; just throw in a few new subplots to the never-ending story.  Animals just got larger and smaller according to who was eating whom.  The old speculation game is alive and well (read about Doug in the 09/18/2003 commentary).
    By the way, Anne added an admission to the public: “Despite the frequently made generalization that Mesozoic mammals were rat-sized, palaeontologists have known for some time that this was not the case” – sizeable mammal fossils are also known from North America and Australia.  Time to revise Walking with Dinosaurs – again (see 09/25/2003 entry).  The animators don’t mind.  The Great Society for Storytellers (see 12/22/2003 entry) provides job security for them, too.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Mammals

The genetic code is established in aminoacylation reactions catalyzed by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.  Many aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases require an additional domain for editing, to correct errors made by the catalytic domain.  A nonfunctional editing domain results in an ambiguous genetic code, where a single codon is not translated as a specific amino acid but rather as a statistical distribution of amino acids.  Here, wide-ranging consequences of genetic code ambiguity in Escherichia coli were investigated with an editing-defective isoleucyl-tRNA synthetase.  Ambiguity retarded cell growth at most temperatures in rich and minimal media.  These growth rate differences were seen regardless of the carbon source.  Inclusion of an amino acid analogue that is misactivated (and not cleared) diminished growth rate by up to 100-fold relative to an isogenic strain with normal editing function.  Experiments with target-specific antibiotics for ribosomes, DNA replication, and cell wall biosynthesis, in conjunction with measurements of mutation frequencies, were consistent with global changes in protein function caused by errors of translation and not editing-induced mutational errors.  Thus, a single defective editing domain caused translationally generated global effects on protein functions that, in turn, provide powerful selective pressures for maintenance of editing by aminoacyl-tRNA synthetases.   (Emphasis added.)

Notice that they implied that natural selection had strong motivation to preserve the editing function of these machines.  They did not say natural selection had the ability to originate these machines.  That supports creation, not evolution.  Hughes and Ellington added nothing but speculation: namely, the Darwinian plot line that stress is good, because it forces organisms to evolve or perish.  But they only gave examples of mechanisms that are already in place to respond to stress.  They did not show how a mindless cell would think to itself, “Y'know, I really ought to come up with a disaster plan.”
Next headline on:  Genetics and DNA

Now, wait just a rockhounding minute.  Isochrons have been touted by the uniformitarians as a fail-safe method for dating rocks, because the data points are supposed to be self-checking (Darwin-lover Ken Miller used this argument in a debate against Henry Morris years ago.)  Now, these geologists, publishing in the premiere geological journal in the world, are telling us that isochrons can look perfect on paper yet give meaningless ages, by orders of magnitude, if the initial conditions are not known, or if the rocks were open systems at some time in the past.  That sounds like what young earth creationists have been complaining about all along.  But then, these geologists put a happy face on the situation.  It’s not all bad news, they say, because if the geologist can know the true age by another method, he can glean some useful information out of the errors.  But if they were wrong about the isochron method, what faulty assumptions are going to turn up some day about other methods, in a future issue of Geology?  Their confidence that they can know anything about what happened 200 million years ago is about as reassuring as the surgeon who told his patient, “I have good news and bad news.  The bad news is that we removed the wrong kidney.  The good news is that your other kidney is doing just fine.”
Next headline on:  Geology • Dating Methods

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part.
    Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered.  The Theory is not a fact.  Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence.  A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations.
    Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view.  The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves.
    With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind.  The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families.  As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards-based assessments.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Dr. Sniegowski and Dr. Weisberg (authors of this open letter), your assignment is to write on the blackboard, 500 times, “I will not tell a lie” (see 11/30/2004 entry).  Then you must read all four years of back issues of Creation-Evolution Headlines.  Anyone who cannot find anything wrong with this letter must also read the back issues before continuing.  Selective evidence?  Bias?  Religious motivation?  Such hypocrisy is laughable.  How many times do we need to go over this?  Go back and read 11/30/2004, 09/29/2004, 08/18/2004, 05/07/2004, 02/27/2004 and the rest of the chain links on Darwinism or Intelligent Design.
    As well-meaning as the board’s intentions are, this compromise will not work.  Teachers have much more emotional power over the students than administrators.  Students view administrators as distant bureaucrats in formidable offices, those mean guys with white shirts and ties that you get sent to when you’re bad.  You can just picture a Darwinista teacher smirking as the statement is read over the intercom, whistling a silly tune and rotating his finger around his ear.  Students will get the message – ID is crazy, and that it is “cool” to mock it.  A few students may glance at the alternate textbook (if they can find one – the Darwinista comrade will conveniently “lose” it), and a small number of students may feel relieved they have official permission to use their brains.  But unless there is a charismatic student leader in the classroom willing to stand up to the Darwin-only dogma and attract fellow students to his or her side, most students will just fall in line.  The Darwin Party teacher will also have power over grading, and with many and varied subtle techniques, will be able to make any student regret listening to the announcement.  Sadly, the policy may backfire, and raise up a class of students even more brainwashed than before.  That is why even the pro-ID Discovery Institute considered the policy misguided.  Proponents of ID don’t want to mandate their view; they want students to hear both sides and think critically; Darwinists do not.  That is the difference: using your brains, or being brainwashed.
    The Darwin Party muscles out ID mostly because of bandwagon and bully tactics, not evidence, as we repeatedly demonstrate right here.  Unless school boards understand the issues clearly, the Darwinistas will continue to get away with their blustering about science vs. religion, separation of church and state, equating evolution with good science education, threats about jobs and college, and empty promises of medical advances.  School boards should first master the baloney detector.  Then they must master the history and philosophy of evolutionism.  They need to understand clearly the philosophical bases of naturalism, and the fallacies of positivism.  They need to expose the religious bias of these philosophies, and be prepared to argue worldviews, not just pieces of evidence.  They need to understand the way Darwinists smuggled their philosophy into the definition of science; like physicist Keith Wanser said, “There is not one theory of evolution, but a body of opinions, speculations and methods for interpretation of observational facts so that they fit into the philosophy of naturalism” (see Nov. 2001 quote).  After these things, school boards need to devise strategies that empower the students and the teachers to unite against the illegitimate dictatorship of the Darwinista usurpers.  It’s as much strategy as knowledge.
    The latest Creation Research Society Quarterly has an essay by several authors that provides a primer on the historical and philosophical errors of evolutionism.  It points out how philosophical naturalists co-opted Christian assumptions that would otherwise make their own beliefs self-refuting, and how the naturalists pulled a coup over science with misdirection and redefinition of terms.  Their claim that science must be naturalistic is refuted by the fact that most of the greatest scientists of history were Christians and creationists (see online book).
    These historical and philosophical issues must be understood before writing education policy.  The students need to see “teaching the controversy” as a revolution against tyranny, against intolerant dogmatists who brainwash them, who shield from view the ugly problems with their views, as if student psyches are too tender to deal with them.  Students, parents and school boards need to be equipped to answer the Darwinist propaganda with facts, logic, and a firm grasp of the issues.  They need to be able to parry attempts to misdirect the argument, control definitions of terms or dodge difficulties.  They need to defend the right to think and ask questions.  They need to stop being intimidated by bluffing, even when signed off by a bandwagon of PhDs.  Can the establishment and the “experts” be wrong?  Have you ever had a history class?
    For every open letter like the one sent to the Dover school board, there need to be a dozen reasoned, informed responses.  For every ACLU threat, there needs to be a firm show of resolve by citizens who will not be cowed into silence.  The Darwinists should be the ones on the defensive; they are trying to push a myth that the universe came from nothing, that life arose by chance, and that all the complexity and beauty of life “arose” through undirected processes without purpose.  This is ridiculous on the face of it.  They want to maintain their right to tell these stories to kids, without contradiction.  The pompous Emperor Charlie is naked.  Don’t be afraid to shout the evidence to a docile crowd, bullied into thinking they cannot trust their eyes.
Next headline on:  Education • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design

Planetary science is the art of building skeet for observations to shoot down.  Next episode in this exciting sport comes this Friday, when the Huygens Probe parachutes to the surface of Titan.
Next headline on:  Solar System

For astrobiology not to be viewed by historians as a giant boondoggle, its adherents had better find something soon.  But even if they don’t find it on Mars or Europa, their search extends to the stars, where they can speculate endlessly.  Missions like Kepler, the Space Interferometry Mission and Terrestrial Planet Finder are motivated largely by the search for life’s origins (which being interpreted, always means a naturalistic origin by chemical evolution; see 06/23/2003 headline).  Similarly, SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial intelligence, thrives on the premise that life evolves wherever the conditions are favorable.  It, too, is “an area of study without a known subject.”
    It is worthwhile to ask big questions and seek answers.  Rather than keeping philosophers wandering blindly in speculation space, astrobiology may provide needed constraints on what is possible.  It would be better to know for sure whether all the bodies in our solar system beyond Earth are sterile or not.  The search for extrasolar planets has already helped corral speculation about the nature and possible origins of planetary systems.  The problem is that visions of money and fame can create self-perpetuating myths that enrich individuals and dupe the public.
    Some conspiracy theorists have claimed recently that cell phone companies are hiding evidence that long-term use of cell phones contributes to brain cancer, knowing that by the time instances of cancer start to rise, the companies will have made a lot of money and the managers will be retired.  Whether or not that is true is someone else’s research project.  But consider the case of Sidney Fox.  He got $1.7 million dollars from NASA for exobiology projects between 1959 and 1964, and became famous for his “protenoid microspheres” that he claimed showed how proteins could self-organize into bodies that resembled primitive cells.  But now, Bada claims in this book review that “the impact of his research today is generally considered minimal.”  Those microspheres were cooked up under conditions very implausible for the early Earth, and no more resembled cells than a bronze expressionist hunk of metal resembles a living Michael Moore.  (On second thought....)
    In short, Sidney Fox got rich and famous, on taxpayer money, for a sham.  He got to play around in an all-expense-paid laboratory, look like he was busy, generate nonsense, and retire, by racing to get “a piece of the action” when exobiology was a fad.  What other “useful lies” like the Stanley Miller experiment (see 05/02/2003 headline) become funding bandwagons?  Along that line, someone should try to connect the dots between the founding of the Astrobiology Institute and the announcement of ALH84001 the next year.  Dan Goldin, how about some hard questions?
    The only way to get control of the propensity for NASA to waste money on false hopes is to fund debate.  Why should Astrobiology funds go to only one party, the Darwin Party?  (They’re mostly liberal Democrats anyway–see 12/02/2004 headline).  NASA administrators are rightly concerned about maintaining public interest, because jobs and careers for many decent Americans are at stake, and legitimate science and technological spinoffs depend on a strong national program of basic research.  We have a suggestion.  Instead of cartoons, give the public professional wrestling.  Most of the public believes in creation, not evolution, so giving the public a steady stream of Charlie cartoons goes against the grain and is borrrrringggggg.  Let’s have NASA distribute Astrobiology funds to both parties, Darwinism and Intelligent Design.  Missions to collect data from Mars, Europa and Titan can continue.  Kepler, SIM, and TPF can proceed, and efforts to gather better data and constrain models will be valued.  But competition will simultaneously generate public interest while providing checks and balances against wild speculation.  Both sides will be motivated to falsify the other’s claims.  The best science will survive the battle.  (Whassamatta, Charlie.... chicken?)  The public, and the truth, will win in the end.  Write here with your comments on this proposal.
Next headline on:  Origin of Life

Dr Denis Doorly, the other principal researcher [with Bob Schroter], said, “People are used to the flows around an aeroplane being complicated but that is in some ways simpler than understanding the flows inside the nose.  The geometry of the nose is highly complex, with no straight lines or simple curves like an aircraft wing and the regime of airflow is not simply laminar or turbulent.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The research has mapped the flow of air around anatomical landmarks in the nose, such as the conchae and has discovered why we need to breathe deeply to smell a flower.  Our sense of smell relies on a sample of air reaching the olfactory bulb at the top of the nose and that requires a sharp breathe [sic] and a high velocity shot of air to reach it.  The Imperial scientists have found that the geometry of the nose causes the air to eddy around in the vicinity of the bulb so you can smell the flower.

Sniffing must be true for all mammals.  Watch your dog sniff in puffs of air when trying to smell an object.  If the olfactory bulb were always exposed to every breath, it might overwhelm the brain with TMI (too much information).  This way, it allows the user to focus on a smell when it wants to.  So not only is the olfactory bulb offset from the breathing passage, it sits where the air forms an eddy, allowing it to get multiple readings for higher resolution.  Remember the 11/07/2001 headline, also, that reported you have a code in your nose.  Who designed the fluid dynamics of this system?  Charlie?  Eheu! (see 10/10/2002 headline).
Next headline on:  Human Body • Amazing Stories

Bird Studies Overthrow Evolutionary Assumptions About Population Genetics    01/05/2005
The assumption was that gene flow homogenized a population, and selection diversified it.  But now, two studies in Nature^1,2 of an English songbird called the great tit, Parus major, carried on for decades, has shown that differences between closely-associated populations can persist in spite of homogenizing gene flow.  Garant et al. explain the significance of this to evolutionary theory:

Evolutionary theory predicts that local population divergence will depend on the balance between the diversifying effect of selection and the homogenizing effect of gene flow.  However, spatial variation in the expression of genetic variation will also generate differential evolutionary responses.  Furthermore, if dispersal is non-random it may actually reinforce, rather than counteract, evolutionary differentiation.  Here we document the evolution of differences in body mass within a population of great tits, Parus major, inhabiting a single continuous woodland, over a 36-year period.  We show that genetic variance for nestling body mass is spatially variable, that this generates different potential responses to selection, and that this diversifying effect is reinforced by non-random dispersal.  Matching the patterns of variation, selection and evolution with population ecological data, we argue that the small-scale differentiation is driven by density-related differences in habitat quality affecting settlement decisions.  Our data show that when gene flow is not homogeneous, evolutionary differentiation can be rapid and can occur over surprisingly small spatial scales.  Our findings have important implications for questions of the scale of adaptation and speciation, and challenge the usual treatment of dispersal as a force opposing evolutionary differentiation.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

On the surface, this looks like it could accelerate evolution by removing the homogenizing effect of gene flow.  But consider what these papers indicate.  First, assumptions can be flat wrong.  Many evolutionists assumed, with armchair modeling, that populations with many opportunities for interbreeding would become more homogeneous.  Both these studies, however, showed that slight differences in clutch size and body mass could be maintained in spite of shared habitat.  Second, they found that differentiation of two populations can be rapid and occur in a small area.
    Keep in mind that these studies involve only microevolution.  They are about one species of bird, Parus major, that were still the same species at the beginning and end of the observations.  They have nothing to say, therefore, about the origin of birds, the origin of flight, the origin of feathers, the origin of species or any other major change that would help Charlie feel gratified.  In fact, creationists could use these studies to support the idea that microevolution was rapid after the Flood.  The evolutionists themselves were surprised that their assumptions about population genetics were wrong, and admitted that these studies “challenge the usual treatment” of dispersal, as well as gene flow and selection, as agents of evolution.  If you cannot trust your assumptions, you cannot trust your models; and if you cannot trust your models, you cannot trust your perception of reality.
    Incidentally, despite its embarrassing name, the great tit is beautiful bird.  The picture accompanying David Coltman’s commentary shows the bird in flight, wings splayed in geometrical artistry, exquisitely-designed feathers extended, handsome black-capped head, food in its beak, alert eyes, displaying aerodynamic excellence.  Differences in clutch size and egg size say nothing about these examples of functional adaptation par excellence.  The caption reads, “The great tit: challenging assumptions about gene flow and genetic differentiation.”  Darwinists preach macroevolution, but cannot understand microevolution.  They want to explain the whole living world by their theory, and can’t even get the population genetics of one species of bird right.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Birds

Do you get angry when TV shows ignore these facts?  Science programs on secular TV routinely gloss over major difficulties with evolutionary myths, and make the origin of life seem as simple as “just add water.”  The NOVA program was commendable for its portrayal of the human drama of exploration, and the MER team deserves credit for the tremendous technological feat they accomplished, and the enthusiasm and dedication with which they carried it out.  But they did not help the search for life: in fact, the results have been depressing compared to earlier expectations (see 12/20/2004, 12/03/2004, 10/18/2004, 08/06/2004 headlines).  They found evidence that Mars had wet periods, at least intermittent shallow ones sometime in the past.  But water is the easy part.  H₂O is abundant in the solar system, and to get it in liquid form only requires an environment between its freezing and boiling points.  Despite its importance and unusual properties, water is a simple molecule.  It only has three atoms.  The simplest molecules of life involve thousands of atoms, in complex molecules hundreds of units long, interacting in complex ways.  What’s more, an incipient lifeform must be able to accurately duplicate all its parts.  It is the height of irresponsibility for NOVA, the Science Channel, the Discovery Channel, Bill Nye and all the other media outlets to continue to push the myth that if water is found, life cannot be far behind.  If water is found, it does not mean life.  If life is found, it does not mean it evolved.  Extraordinary, mind-bogglingly incredible claims demand extraordinary, mind-bogglingly incredible proof.
Next headline on:  Mars • Origin of Life • Media

It’s the Type III civilizations that are the interesting ones (see II Corinthians 12).
Next headline on:  SETI

A tokay gecko can cling to virtually any surface and support its body mass with a single toe by using the millions of keratinous setae on its toe pads.  Each seta branches into hundreds of 200-nm spatulae that make intimate contact with a variety of surface profiles.  We showed previously that the combined surface area of billions of spatulae maximizes van der Waals interactions to generate large adhesive and shear forces. [see 09/05/2003 headline].  Geckos are not known to groom their feet yet retain their stickiness for months between molts.  How geckos manage to keep their feet clean while walking about with sticky toes has remained a puzzle until now.  Although self-cleaning by water droplets occurs in plant and animal surfaces, no adhesive has been shown to self-clean.  In the present study, we demonstrate that gecko setae are a self-cleaning adhesive.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Question: why is this paper classified under Evolution?  Anyone see any evolution here?  Evolution is not an engineer.  Without all the structural properties present simultaneously, the gecko would quickly die of clogged feet that could not cling to anything.  These guys said nothing about how this intricate and effective structure could have evolved by a chance process.  Let’s keep Charlie out of it.
Next headline on:  Zoology • Amazing stories

Sooner or later, everyone needs to come to grips with the big questions about suffering.  Actually, this disaster, which will undoubtedly go on record as one of the biggest in modern history, is a trifle compared to the global flood in the days of Noah described in the Bible (Genesis 6-9).  From orbit, these tsunamis would not even register as bathtub ripples.  The Flood killed all but Noah and his family, and reshaped the whole planet (see Dr. Walt Brown’s geological treatment of the Biblical Flood).
    The Creator God is the Sovereign God.  He can give life as well as take it, especially from a world of rebels.  Remember that the Flood was a judgment on sin.  The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23); God never misses a payday.  His word warned us that “it is appointed unto man once to die, and after that the judgment” (Hebrews 9:27), so it’s not a matter of if, but when, and how.  This keeps our need for God and His mercy imminent in our minds.  We must always be ready to face the judgment, even when sunbathing on the beach at a vacation resort.  The tsunamis only accelerated the human death statistic (100%) in one region.
    The amazing thing is not that rebels will die, but that they can be forgiven (see Romans 5:8).   Jesus did not provide a philosophy of suffering.  He did something about it: in his passion, He offered the way of escape from eternal suffering – an eventuality far worse than anything rebels might endure on earth.  On one occasion Jesus was asked about a terrible thing that had happened.  His response referred both to suffering by accident and suffering caused by evil.  He said, simply, “Unless you repent, you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13).  He also hinted that any given natural process is not specifically targeted at individuals, but runs according to natural laws, when He said in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 6:45), speaking of our Father in heaven, “He makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.”
    That is sufficient revelation for now.  We cannot expect to out-reason the greatest philosophers of history since Job on the question of evil and suffering.  We cannot know things of God not revealed to us (Deuteronomy 29:29).  There are things more urgent and worthwhile to do than philosophize.  Get your heart right with your Creator while you can, before it’s your turn (read Solomon, Isaiah, and Paul).  Then use this occasion of great need to grow in character and unselfishness: pitch in and help with your money, your prayers, and your hands.
Next headline on:  Geology • Theology

Henneberg still believes humans were evolving, but his analysis points out several important shortcomings in the “science” of paleoanthropology that should make the thoughtful reader wary of its practitioners.  (1) There is a huge range of variation possible within a single species.  (2) It is difficult to assign any human bone to one or another species.  Notice what this led Henneberg to state: “There is no precise way in which we can test whether Julius Caesar and Princess Diana were members of the same species of Homo sapiens” (emphasis added in all quotes).  Consider what that means when judging bones of alleged human ancestors.  You could tell any story you want.  (We like the one that Caesar and Diana were different species.)  (3) The article reminds everyone that paleoanthropologists often bicker about the meaning of their discoveries (see 12/21/2004 headline).  Geoffrey Harrison (Prof. emeritus, Oxford) said it best: “Clearly there is a need to be more aware of the possibility of variation – but that is not the inclination today.  It has been a problem because the discoverers have usually put so much effort into finding the evidence, so they want it to be important.”  (4) There are too few bones to make any conclusions.  Henneberg said there are fewer than 30 Neanderthal specimens available for study.  (5) Neanderthals could be considered fully human.  The article refers to Henneberg stating, in effect, that “What evidence there is, however, is consistent with Neanderthals being from the same species as modern humans.”  Christopher Stringer (Natural History Museum, London) adds that Neanderthals were not significantly different from us in skull or body size.  “The argument they are a different species is, of course, only a hypothesis...” (italics added).
Best quote from the story is the last paragraph:

He [Henneberg] added that the never-ending announcements of new species said more about those making the claims than about human evolution.  “The problem is there are far more palaeontologists than fossil specimens”.

Corollary: it also says more about the editors of National Geographic than about human evolution, too – both when they make never-ending announcements, and when they become strangely quiet about stories like this one.
Next headline on:  Early Man.

Chloroplasts are complex organelles comprising six distinct suborganellar compartments: they have three different membranes (the two envelope membranes and the internal thylakoid membrane), and three discrete aqueous compartments (the intermembrane space of the envelope, the stroma and the thylakoid lumen).  One of the consequences of this structural intricacy is that the internal routing of chloroplast proteins is a surprisingly complex process.  While envelope proteins may employ variations of the Toc/Tic import pathway to arrive at their final destination, proteins destined for the thylakoid membrane or lumen employ one of four distinct targeting pathways (Figure 1).  Thylakoid membrane proteins are targeted by the signal recognition particle (SRP)-dependent and spontaneous insertion pathways, whereas lumenal proteins are targeted by the Sec and Tat pathways....

1. The transit peptide needs to fit the receptor on the membrane, and another protein has to be ready to cleave it (remove it).
2. The transit peptides have to be precise to avoid having the protein arrive at the wrong organelle, like the endoplasmic reticulum, mitochondrion or peroxisome – organelles which also accept polypeptides with shipping labels.
3. Transit peptides are varied.  “One might therefore expect chloroplast transit peptides to share well-defined primary or secondary structural motifs,” they say.  “On the contrary, transit peptides are remarkable in their heterogeneity.  They vary in length from 20 to >100 residues, and have no extended blocks of sequence conservation.”
4. The transit proteins “do not seem to form secondary structure in aqueous solution” but once they arrive at their target membrane, they seem to take on a characteristic structure.
5. The polypeptides (precursor proteins) are threaded through the needle of specialized gates in the membrane.  There, additional molecular machines (chaperones) make sure they do not fold prematurely.
6. To get a polypeptide through a membrane involves three steps: contact, docking, and translocation, when the transit peptide is cleaved.  This requires energy: a high concentration of ATP must be present for the operation.
7. The Toc and Tic squads, like a delivery organization with a variety of employees skilled in particular tasks but working on common goals, is made up of multiple proteins, each with its own task to perform, all working in coordination.
8. Once inside the outer membrane, the polypeptide has to get past the inner membrane.  Another set of specialized proteins are available for that task.
9. A third import apparatus has to complete the task of getting the polypeptide to its final destination.  Many go to the thylakoid membrane, rich with light-harvesting structures and ATP synthase (see 08/10/2004 headline).
10. Those polypeptides bound for the thylakoid membrane have a secondary shipping label (transit peptide).  In addition, they may have a “stop-transfer” signal to indicate their destination.
11. Removal of the secondary transit peptide can occur by “one of two very different pathways,” called Sec and Tat.  Sec transports proteins in an unfolded state, but Tat can transport them in a folded state.  Each pathway involves multiple proteins working together.
12. In the Tat pathway, “There is even evidence that some proteins are exported in an oligomeric form” [i.e., several proteins bound together in a complex], “which points to a remarkable translocation mechanism,” they remark.  Is this like squeezing a completed sweater through the eye of a needle?  “...we currently know very little about this mechanism,” they say.  “Somehow, this system must transport a wide variety of globular proteins – some over 100 kDa [kilodaltons] – while preserving the proton motive force and avoiding loss of ions and metabolites.”  Their surprise at this indicates it is quite a feat.
13. The translocation process can expend 30,000 protons, “a substantial cost by any standard.”  According to current theory, a pH difference between inner and outer membrane provides the proton flow, but that pH balance must be carefully monitored and regulated.
14. Another pathway named SRP inserts proteins into the lumen.  The authors claim this pathway was “clearly inherited from the cyanobacterial progenitor of the chloroplast,” but admit that there are differences in the insertion pathways and events at the thylakoid membrane in chloroplasts.  “...it is fair to state that, while the major players in this pathway have been identified, their modes of action remain unclear and we do not understand how such highly hydrophobic proteins are bound by soluble factors, shuttled to the membrane and then handed over to membrane apparatus and inserted.”
15. Evolutionists who expected the SRP pathway from E. coli bacteria to act the same in chloroplasts, where homologous proteins were detected, learned otherwise: “Surprisingly, this is not the case.  In vitro assays for the insertion of a range of membrane proteins have shown that the vast majority of such proteins do not rely on any of the known protein transport machinery, including SRP, FtsY, Alb3 or the Sec/Tat apparatus, for insertion.”  Nor do they rely on nucleoside triphosphates or proton flow.
16. Speaking of the apparent spontaneous insertion of the thylakoid proteins, they comment, “This unusual pathway for membrane protein insertion appears to be unique to chloroplasts.”  Though the typical insertion components are not involved, they believe it would be “overly simplistic” to assume that this pathway requires no “complex insertion apparatus.”
17. Other pathways than those described above are used for other proteins to get inside the chloroplast.  Some are encoded by the chloroplast DNA, translated in the interior, then transported to their destinations.
18. Chloroplasts have to transport not only the essential light-harvesting proteins, but also “housekeeping” proteins for structural maintenance.  These must be imported at their own separate rates depending on the stage of development or the environmental conditions, and have their own specific transit peptides.

The Tat pathway manages the remarkable feat of transporting large, folded proteins without collapsing the delta-pH, and we currently know very little about this mechanism.  Most membrane proteins use a possibly ‘spontaneous’ insertion mechanism that just does not make sense at the moment – why do these proteins need so little assistance from translocation apparatus, when membrane proteins in other organelles and organisms need so much?  And how do these thylakoid proteins avoid inserting into the wrong membrane?  We have gone some way toward understanding the rationale for the existence of all these pathways, but the thylakoid may still have surprises in store.

If you survived this mind-numbing description of chloroplast protein transport, you probably gasped at the complexity of it all.  On a general level, getting a protein from one place to another sounds simple (that’s the way the authors of the second paper made it sound).  But look how many players are involved, how many checks and balances, how many protection mechanisms and signals are required to get the packages delivered accurately.  And this is all just to get the chloroplast to start to get ready to begin to commence doing its job: harvesting light for photosynthesis (and that’s another story: if this one was over your head, run for cover).
    You saw these scientists refer to the Darwinian tale that once upon a time, a bacterium engulfed a cyanobacterium that had learned somehow to harvest light.  Somehow overcoming their defense mechanisms, the couple learned to share their technologies, forming a glorious partnership that led to plants.  For this tall tale to be true, all these new protein transporting mechanisms had to arise to get the genes moved into the nucleus, and then to get their translated proteins back into the chloroplasts.  Why did some genes migrate, and others stay put?  The authors of the second paper had no answer – only three choices of just-so stories, their favorite one claiming that the other genes are on the way, but haven’t made it out yet (somehow avoiding the dangers of free radicals in the plastid for 500 million years).  But did they offer any plausible way an unpredictable series of accidents led to all this complexity?  Assuredly not.  Considering the difficulty in getting just one protein right by chance (see online book), it strains credibility, light-years beyond the breaking point, to think that these complexes of complicated proteins – all working like a company – arose by chance.  Nor would an unbiased person presume that time would suffice for thousands of beneficial mutations to occur for even one of the pathways to emerge, even assuming natural selection – that magic wand of the Darwinists – preserved them.
    But even then, one component would be useless if not part of a functioning system.  That is the power of the argument from irreducible complexity.  We’re talking about three thousand proteins needing special delivery to make a chloroplast work, and dozens of specialized transporter proteins.  Each one must have dozens or hundreds of amino acids arranged in the correct sequence.  Would one of the Toc proteins have any selective value if the other components were not present to help it get the polypeptide through the outer membrane?  Clearly not.  Even if all the Toc proteins emerged somehow, and managed to squeeze the polypeptide through the outer membrane, the polypeptide would just sit there uselessly without the Tic proteins to get it through the second membrane.  If it got past the inner membrane, it would be useless unless it folded correctly with the aid of chaperones, and then made it to the exact destination in the chloroplast, where, working together with other proteins, it could perform its spectacular feat: converting light energy to chemical energy.  But all the players in the system need that energy to do their jobs!
    It may be tedious to wade through some of these articles about cellular mechanisms, but take the time once in awhile, because the power of the the message – intelligent design – is in the details.  Hold this evidence up in the face of the Darwin Party and ask them some hard-hitting questions: how could such coordinated complexity arise by unguided, mindless, purposeless processes?  Did Fed Ex or UPS emerge from a tornado in a junkyard?  It’s details like this that convinced Antony Flew, the prominent (former) atheist, that the case for intelligent design was compelling, and over many years, convinced him to become a theist (see 12/09/2004 entry).  With some hard heads and hard hearts, overkill and persistence is necessary.
Next headline on:  The Cell • Intelligent Design • Amazing Facts

Imagine you are running a successful small business converting carbon dioxide into sugar.  Suddenly, you are taken over by a bigger company.  They commandeer your intellectual property, relocate it to head office, and – to add insult to injury – they ship your own tools back to you and expect you to keep making sugar. Such a business takeover is the perfect analogy for the endosymbiotic origin of plastids.  The small business is a photosynthetic cyanobacterium, the aggressive takeover merchant is the eukaryotic host, and the intellectual property is the cohort of genes encoding the machinery for photosynthesis, most of which have now been relocated from the endosymbiont’s genome to the host nucleus.   (Emphasis added.)

At least they admitted genes are “intellectual” property.  “Adding insult to injury” is also intelligent design, of the mischievous kind.  Encoding, machinery, synthesis; these words do not belong in the Darwin Dictionary.  They were plagiarized from the creationist world view encyclopedia.  Plagiarism is also intelligent design of the mischievous kind.
Next headline on:  Dumb Stories