Creation-Evolution Headlines
February 2005
photo strip
“And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the sky above, and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars forever and ever.  But you, Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book, until the time of the end.  Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.”
—Message to Daniel, Prime Minister of Iraq, c. 539 B.C. (Dan. 12:3-4)
AstronomyBotanyBirdsCell BiologyCosmologyDating MethodsDinosaursEarly ManEducationEvolutionFossilsGenetics and DNAGeologyHealthHuman BodyIntelligent DesignMammalsMarine LifeMarsMediaOrigin of LifePhysicsPolitics and EthicsSETISolar SystemTheologyZoology     Awards:  AmazingDumb
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Search Creation-Evolution Headlines
Cassini Shines in the Light of Saturn    02/28/2005
Since its arrival at Saturn last June (see
07/01/2004 entry), the Cassini orbiter has achieved a string of phenomenal successes, and these just 15% of the way into its tour of Saturn’s rings, moons and magnetosphere (see JPL press release).  The prize has been publication of initial science results in Nature1 and Science2 – the cover stories in both.  A few of the more surprising and significant results are listed here.  These papers focus on Saturn’s atmosphere and rings, and the moons Phoebe and Iapetus.  We’ll have to wait for official scientific results from the Huygens probe (see 01/21/2005 entry) and the flybys of Titan.
  • Aurora varialous:  Saturn’s auroras (picture) show unique spiral structures and persist unusually long.  Unexpectedly, they do not appear intermediate between those on Earth and Jupiter (see EurekAlert for summary).  Saturn’s aurora can brighten by a factor of 4, depending on solar wind activity.  Like the roar of a campfire in the wind, Saturn’s radio emissions increase when the solar wind blows harder (see explanation on EurekAlert).
  • Ring spokes (picture) that were discovered by Voyager and detected by Hubble have not yet been seen by Cassini.  Apparently the phenomenon is a function of low sun angle.  If so, it may be a couple of years before Cassini can detect them.
  • Ring irregularities:  At closest approach, Cassini was able to get the highest resolution scans across the rings ever taken (pictures).  These show unexplained irregularities in some narrow and broad rings.  Some may be due to non-Keplerian and non-resonance forces, such as shear stresses or undulations caused by meteoroid impacts (picture).
  • Click here to continue
Next headline on:  Solar System

Dating Disaster: Is Neanderthal the New Piltdown?    02/25/2005
We all know it by heart: Neanderthal Man was a big-boned, hairy cave-dweller that got pushed out of northern Europe 40,000 years ago by the smarter modern humans.  Could this all be wrong?  Did some bones actually belong to real people living in recorded history?
    The man who dated some of these bones, a carbon-14 dating specialist at Frankfurt University, Reiner Protsch von Zieten, has just resigned in disgrace after being investigated for fabricating data and plagiarizing the work of others, reports
World Net Daily.  Last August, the UK News Telegraph broke the news about the investigation of Protsch.  Growing skepticism over his dates for Neanderthals were causing concern that a “dating disaster” was going to force anthropologists to “rewrite prehistory,” because dates he published, that they all trusted, were way off the mark.  Some famous skeletons he had dated at 36,000 years old turned out with independent tests to be only 7,500 years old, and another claimed by Protsch to be 21,300 years old was only 3,300.  Another specimen Protsch claimed was the oldest early human found in a region of Germany, which he dated at 27,400 years old with radiocarbon, turned out to belong to an elderly man who died around 1750 A.D.  Professor Protsch, who was fond of Cuban cigars and Porsches, has also been accused of illegally selling university fossils to American buyers, and of shredding documents relating to “ gruesome scientific experiments done by the Nazis in the 1930s.”
    Apparently this professor has “forged and manipulated facts for 30 years.”  The president of Frankfurt University apologized for not curbing his misconduct for so long, admitting that “A lot of people looked the other way.”  Now that the perpetrator has resigned, what lies in the wake of this latest paleoanthropolical hoax?  Chris Stringer, the head of human origins studies at the London Natural History Museum, put it bluntly: “What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside.  We are having to rewrite prehistory.”  Robert Todd Carroll on The Skeptics Dictionary has a picture of Protsch and more details about his misdeeds.

The legacy of Darwinian paleoanthropology has been one of dating disasters, hoaxes and misinformation.  What did you expect?
    This story does not prove that every Neanderthal date is bogus (many more skeletons are known) but casts serious doubt on the whole evolutionary tale of modern humans in Europe.  We need to ask some hard-hitting follow-up questions.  Why did a lot of people look the other way?  Was it because the results provided by this dishonest man fit into their preconceived notion of human evolution?  Did some Neanderthals actually live among us in historical times?  If so, does this not throw the whole Neanderthal classification into disarray?  What other hoaxes are being promulgated right now by other dating labs and bone hunters?
    Carroll reminds us that, like Piltdown, this fraud was “discovered by scientists, reported by scientists, and it will be scientists who will work to correct the record.”  This is how science works, he preaches like a good positivist.  He understates, however, the fact that it took 50 years for Piltdown and 30 years in this case, and that the desire to believe in evolution had a lot to do with delaying the victory of the truth.
Next headline on:  Early ManDating Methods
Iraqi Marshlands on Slow Mend    02/18/2005
The ecological disaster wrought by Saddam Hussein’s policy of drying up ancient marshes along the Tigris and Euphrates (see
08/18/2003 and 05/01/2003 entries) is still severe, reports Science,1,2 but groups are working hard on restoration.  It may take many years and will probably never be the same.  About 20% has been reflooded, with portions coming back well, but other areas are suffering from salt and contaminated water.  Some bird and animal species that relied on these areas have gone extinct.  The human toll from Hussein’s ecoterrorism is incalculable.  Marsh Arabs and earlier people groups had lived in this rich ecological zone for at least 5000 years, and the rich land supported much of the population of southern Iraq.
    Although other factors, such as damming upstream, had contributed to the wetlands diminution for decades, Hussein had deliberately diverted water from the regions as a political move against his enemies, a coup-de-grace that resulted in the loss of 90% of the original marsh habitat.  Experts think that a sizeable portion of the area shows hope of restoration, provided the government works quickly and wisely.
1Andrew Lawler, “Reviving Iraq’s Wetlands,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5713, 1186-1189 , 25 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5713.1186].
2Richardson et al., “The Restoration Potential of the Mesopotamian Marshes of Iraq,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5713, 1307-1311 , 25 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1105750].
The before-and-after pictures are shocking, looking like the difference between the Everglades and a desert.  It wasn’t the Biblical Garden of Eden, but let’s hope most of this paradise can be restored.  The lovers of freedom seem to be the ones leading the effort: the authors of the main paper were three Americans, one expatriated Iraqi-American, and one Iraqi national. 
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics
Pot Shots at Hot Spots    02/18/2005
Say that title five times, and you’ll be as flummoxed as geologists reporting in Science1 last week that long-believed assumptions are wrong.  They looked at three seamount chains in the Pacific, long thought to provide evidence of tectonic plates moving across stationary hot spots, and found that current theory cannot account for them:
Our findings influence our views of oceanic intraplate volcanism and absolute Pacific plate motion: (i) The textbook explanation for intraplate volcanism by fixed hot spots is either entirely wrong or insufficient to explain these phenomena.  (ii) Hot spots are likely not to be stationary, but move with the convecting mantle.  (iii) Non-hot spot/plume models have to be considered for explaining intraplate volcanism, whereby local lithospheric extensions are likely to be an important candidate.  (iv) Furthermore, absolute Pacific plate motion, for the time period between 80 and 47 Ma, is extremely poorly constrained.  It is not clear if any of the three HEB-type bends on the Pacific plate are caused by a change in plate-motion direction, and it is similarly uncertain if the plate moved NW (along an extended Hawaiian trend) or NNW as indicated by the Emperor seamount trail.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Their three alternative explanations were only tentative: “Overall, plate extension is the strongest alternative among our three options, but there are very few arguments or clues that positively identify any particular explanation.
1Koppers and Staudigel, “Asynchronous Bends in Pacific Seamount Trails: A Case for Extensional Volcanism?”,
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 904-907, 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1107260].
What?  The textbooks are wrong?  But the pictures were so artistic, and the TV programs were so convincing, how could this be?  Take your pick: current theory is either entirely wrong or insufficient to explain the observations.
    See also the 04/02/2004 and 11/02/2002 entries about the hotspot paradigm shift going on.  What this one adds is that there is no good replacement theory, and the admission “there are very few arguments or clues that positively identify any particular explanation.”  So shouldn’t the geological community be open to some fresh out-of-the-mainstream perspectives?
Next headline on:  Geology
South American Dinosaur Find Modifies Theories    02/23/2005
A deinonychus-like dinosaur has been found in Argentina.  Representatives of this group, including velociraptor, had previously only been known in the northern hemisphere and Asia.  Since South America was supposedly on another land mass at the time, “The new discovery demonstrates that Cretaceous theropod faunas from the southern continents shared greater similarity with those of the northern landmasses than previously thought.”  The new species, named Neuquenraptor, was reported in Nature1 this week; see also the summary on
BBC News which says the bones are “probably implying a much more ancient evolutionary history” for this group of dinosaurs.
    The discoverers invoke “convergent evolution” (homoplasy) in their phylogenetic classification of this species, stating that it’s a common problem:
As prompted elsewhere, homoplasy is a common problem in coelurosaurian phylogeny.  In this regard, the arctometatarsalian metatarsus shows a complex evolutionary history, and the basal position of Neuquenraptor provides useful information to test the monophyly of arctometatarsalian theropods.  Our analysis is consistent with recent interpretations that evolutionary transitions between the arctometatarsal and non-arctometatarsal foot occurred multiple times both in basal Coelurosauria (for example, Tyrannosauridae, Ornithomimidae) and maniraptorans (for example, alvarezsaurids, some oviraptorosaurs, derived troodontids and basal dromaeosaurids).  The arctometatarsalian condition thus constitutes one of the homoplastic features most frequently evolved between Coelurosauria.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

1Fernando E. Novas and Diego Pol, “New evidence on deinonychosaurian dinosaurs from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia,” Nature 433, 858 - 861 (24 February 2005); doi:10.1038/nature03285.
“Convergent evolution” is a cop-out term, a non-explanation, that hides the ignorance of Darwin Party members behind jargon.  We see it all the time, whether talking about plants, vertebrates, bacteria, or what have you: the magic wand of convergence does the miracles.  Does it explain how similar features in very different groups converged on the same solutions?  No: it multiplies the improbability that these groups would all get the same lucky mutations to develop similar structures and functions independently.  This new find also pushes back the origin of this group of dinosaurs much farther back in their timescale, giving the Darwinists less time to evolve these mobile, agile hunters from their presumably less-capable ancestors.  The BBC News states, “Neuquenraptor argentinus is slightly different from its Northern Hemisphere relatives, having had several million years of isolated evolution.”  Can they tell this from a few foot bones?  The story, like a weak fence, is breaking down; don’t fall for linguistic tricks to whitewash the rotting timbers.
Next headline on:  DinosaursFossilsEvolutionary Theory.
Clutch Enables Your Motors to Achieve 100% Efficiency    02/23/2005
Those little ATP synthase motors (see
01/30/2005 entry) in your body and (in all living cells) made news again in Nature1 last week.  Scientists in Tokyo performed an ingenious set of experiments to measure the efficiency of the F1 synthesizing domain.  They attached a tiny magnet to the camshaft so that they could turn it with electromagnets at will, and they carefully measured the amount of ATP synthesized or hydrolyzed as the motor turned anticlockwise or clockwise under their control.  In the hydrolysis cycle, they found that the motor did not waste ATP; each molecule was successfully hydrolyzed with perfect efficiency, to the limits of their detection.
    A particular focus of their investigation was the role of the eta subunit, which is attached to the gamma camshaft.  During hydrolysis, the “downhill” function, it did not seem to matter whether eta was present or absent.  But in the “uphill” process (synthesizing ATP), it made a dramatic difference.  Without eta, each rotation produced, on average, only one product, but with it, they got three per revolution, with at least 77% efficiency.  The actual efficiency was probably higher, but was hard to measure for such small entities.  In best cases, it was 100%, they said: “Therefore our data point to an excellent mechanochemical coupling efficiency.  In the best cases, we observed the postulated value of three ATPs synthesized per turn.”
    “These results are consistent with the ubiquity of this strategic enzyme that fuels most of the energy consuming biological processes,” they said (emphasis added in all quotes).  “The present work reveals the unexpected importance of the eta-subunit in the synthesis of ATP.”  Though its precise function remains to be discovered, it was known to play a regulatory role; now, this team suspects it acts like a structural switch or clutch to lock the enzyme into synthesis mode.  Without it, the tiny motor undergoes wasteful slippage.
As a reminder to recent readers, you can find a wonderful animation of this molecular machine on the website of German biochemist Wolfgang Junge.  It is labeled “F0F1-ATPSynthase (animation)”  See also his Model Schematic.
1Rondelez et al., “Highly coupled ATP synthesis by F1-ATPase single molecules,” Nature 433, 773 - 777 (17 February 2005); doi:10.1038/nature03277.
By now, you expect our next observation: “The authors made no reference to evolution in their paper.”  They are treating these devices as actual mechanical motors, with stator, rotor, camshaft, and purposeful function, achieving performance stats beyond the dreams of human engineering.  Eat your heart out, David Hume.
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyAmazing Stories
State of the Cosmos Address Offered    02/21/2005
On the occasion of the centennial of Einstein’s theory of relativity, Alan Guth, the father of inflationary cosmology, with colleague David I. Kaiser of MIT, took stock of cosmological theories in the Feb. 11 issue of Science.1  How has inflation fared since its controversial but hopeful proposal in 1981?
    “Inflation was invented a quarter of a century ago,” Guth begins (emphasis added in all quotes), “and has become a central ingredient of current cosmological research.”  Advances in particle physics have led to a theory, the standard model, that can account for three of the four basic forces – strong and weak nuclear forces and electromagnetism – but not gravity.  String theorists, independently, have been working for their own unification of these forces.  Guth repeats that amidst all this ferment, “inflation continues to occupy a central place in cosmological research, even as its relation to fundamental particle physics continues to evolve.”  From there, he diverges into a primer on inflation.  What some had described as a bizarre, untestable, ad hoc invention to get around serious problems in big bang models, he unashamedly portrays as a great success:
Click here to continue
Next headline on:  Cosmology

Is Darwinism a Free Lunch Scam?    02/18/2005
Neurobiologist William H. Calvin commented at the AAAS meeting this week about the claim that modern humans lived much earlier than thought (see
02/16/2005 entry).  To him, it means that we need to rethink our assumptions that bigger brains are smarter, according to a report on EurekAlert.  If “Homo sapiens was walking around Africa 200,000 years ago with a brain of our size,” the article paraphrases his comments, “we spent – with a few exceptions – the next 150,000 years doing more of the same.”  Something must have happened that suddenly caused a “spectacular” burst of cultural innovation.  “This creativity probably marks the emergence of the whole suite of higher intellectual functions, each of which requires some structuring to fit everything together,” he said.  What could have triggered it?  Was it the evolution of syntax, multitasking, logical thinking, games with arbitrary rules, or fondness for discovering hidden patterns, or some combination of the above?  “It’s likely that they all are sharing some neural machinery for handling structure and judging coherence.  Improve one by natural selection, and you may improve the others too.  The free lunch is alive and well in biology.”

The very thing that should have made him realize Darwinism is so rotten it needs to be tossed overboard caused him, instead,to wave the magic wand of “emergence” and toss it into the salad bowl.  Now, he’s trying to sell this free lunch to his starving Darwin Party comrades.  There ain’t no such thing.  Let’s hope the attendees brought their own, with meat, and that it was intelligently designed.
Next headline on:  Early ManDarwinismDumb Stories
Mars Dry Most of Its Life    02/18/2005
If Mars had liquid water, it was only briefly early in its history.  Observations from the
Mars Express, which just celebrated its first year in orbit, show no hint that liquid water has existed any time recently, reports Nature Science Update.  It’s not that H2O is rare; it is abundant at the poles, for instance, but is locked in solid ice.  Apparently there was never much of a greenhouse to liquefy the water for long, despite the evidence of water-altered layers found by the Mars Exploration Rovers (see 12/03/2004 entry).
    Because many scientists had envisioned a warmer, wetter Mars that could have supported life until recently, the new findings were bad news.  Said one UK researcher, “In a sense, we’ve been barking up the wrong tree for 20 years.”  That leaves them with a sore throat but no coon.
    Early papers were released for Science1 this week.  In the Feb. 17 issue,2 Richard Kerr said that now the younger, dryer side of Mars is coming out.  The OMEGA spectrometer on Mars Express has detected no carbonates or clays, which should have been plentiful on a wet Mars.  Instead, it has found an abundance of minerals like olivine that show no water alteration or weathering.  “Sulfuric acid from volcanic eruptions apparently combined with water to corrode martian rock and produce sulfates around the planet,” Kerr pointed out – hardly a scenario for a thriving beachfront community of living organisms.  “All in all,” he concluded, “Mars since ancient times is looking awfully cold and dry.”
    That’s not stopping some from putting a positive spin on the findings, and continuing to claim life might still be found there: see Space.com stories from Feb. 16 and Feb. 17.
1See six papers published online Feb. 17 on Science Express.
2Richard Kerr, “And Now, the Younger, Dry Side of Mars Is Coming Out,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5712, 1025-1026 , 18 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5712.1025a].
Venus was supposed to be a tropical Jurassic paradise of swamps and dinosaurs, but now it is known as a lead-raining hell (see 11/26/2003 entry).  Mars was once envisioned as the home of intelligent beings who engineered advanced water projects.  Then it was demoted to a land of beachfront bacteria.  Now, it looks like an freezing-cold, desiccated, acidic, toxic waste dump (see 12/03/2004 entry).  Mission planners had better think of a new sales pitch to get the public interested in further exploration.  How about a non-evolutionary angle?  It would sure be a cool place to study catastrophism.  And it sure provides a nice foil to our own world, so that we appreciate and care more for our privileged planet.
Next headline on:  Mars
Introns Engineered for Genetic Repair    02/18/2005
Scientists at
Purdue University are using bacterial machines to treat cancer and other diseases.  These machines, called Group I introns, were thought to be useless:
Once thought of as genetic junk, introns are bits of DNA that can activate their own removal from RNA, which translates DNA’s directions for gene behavior.  Introns then splice the RNA back together.  Scientists are just learning whether many DNA sequences previously believed to have no function actually may play specialized roles in cell behavior.   (Emphasis added.)
Though the function of introns is still mysterious (see 02/02/2005 entry), they appear to be highly conserved in both archaea and eukarya, suggesting they are important.  Bacteria have Group I introns that do self-splicing.  Eukaryotes have Group II introns that are spliced by one of the most complex molecular machines in cells, the spliceosome (see 09/17/2004 entry).
Who was it that thought many DNA sequences had no function and were genetic junk?  It wasn’t creationists.  It was evolutionists who looked at treasuries of complex information with their distorted Charlie glasses and saw discarded leftovers of a slow, wasteful, careless evolutionary process.  Now they’re having to play catch-up as the truth sinks in.  Boot out the Darwin Party, the obstacles to scientific progress.
Next headline on:  Genetics and DNADarwinism
New Date for Edom Fits Biblical Record    02/18/2005
The critics were wrong, and the Bible was right, according to new dates established for the kingdom of Edom southeast of the Dead Sea.  This is the gist of a report from
UC San Diego that found evidence of extensive copper mining in the area much earlier than previously thought.  The area studied had “been ignored by archaeologists because of the logistical difficulties of working in this hyper-arid region,” but the UCSD team, cooperating with the kingdom of Jordan, succeeded in getting more accurate radiocarbon dates and archaeological evidence from this challenging area.
    The team found evidence of two extensive periods of copper production centuries earlier than the previous dates for the Edomite kingdom (8th to 6th century B.C.).  Now, as far back as the 9th to 12th centuries B.C., a new picture emerges:
In this period evidence was found of construction of massive fortifications and industrial scale metal production activities, as well as over 100 building complexes.....
    These results push back the beginnings of Edom 300 years earlier than the current scholarly consensus and show the presence of complex societies, perhaps a kingdom, much earlier than previously assumed.  Previous investigations in Edom had been carried out in the Jordanian highland zone and had put the rise of the Edomite kingdom during the 8th to 6th centuries B.C.  But the new work presents strong evidence for the involvement of Edom with neighboring ancient Israel as described in the Bible.
  (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
The results are published in the current issue of the British journal Antiquity.  Another article about this discovery can be found on South Bend Tribune.
Prominent archaeologists like William Dever and Israel Finkelstein had claimed that the Biblical record was inaccurate because no such Edomite kingdom existed back in the times of David and Solomon.  The Tribune article reminds us that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”  But why should not the Bible be considered evidence?  It has proven correct so many times and places, and proven critics wrong so often, the burden of proof should be on the critics who would deny its accuracy.  Dever himself (a friendly but vociferous rival with Finkelstein over Palestinian chronology) finds this revelation revolutionary, and says it supports the Bible’s credibility about the kingdoms of David and Solomon.  According to the Tribune, he still doubts the historicity of the Exodus, however.  He needs to doubt his doubt.
    This announcement is another blow to the “minimalist” school of archaeology (championed by Finkelstein) that considers the Bible just a religious text written much later, and not a reliable guide to the history of the Middle East.  If archaeologists would use the Scriptures as a guide, they might find a lot more out there.  Read the Old Testament for yourself and see: no other ancient book has such detail about events, names, and places.  Unlike the Koran and other religious texts, the Bible is loaded with them – names and events we know thoroughly from independent sources and observation, and some that haven’t been discovered yet.  These references can be considered on their own merits and put to the test of the spade, without making judgments about the spiritual lessons of the Bible.  Over and over again, as here, the Bible passes the test.  Its reliable historical record provides a foundation for the credibility of its other truth claims, because it was clearly written down by men with a high regard for accuracy.
Next headline on:  Bible and TheologyDating Methods
How Powerful Is Natural Selection?  “Biologists May Be Deluding Themselves”   02/16/2005
Andrew P. Hendry (McGill University, Montreal) is no creationist; Darwinian evolution is a given in his News and Views piece in Nature1 this week.  But he cautioned his fellow evolutionary biologists not to make overconfident claims about the power of Darwin’s most famous concept, natural selection:
Adaptation by natural selection is the centrepiece of biology.  Yet evolutionary biologists may be deluding themselves if they think they have a good handle on the typical strength of selection in nature.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Presumably, nobody does have such a handle.  Darwin himself thought it was slow.  Later biologists, like Kettlewell with his peppered moths, thought it was fast and strong, able to make substantial changes quickly.  Hendry gives historical examples of the pendulum swinging back and forth on this issue, to the point he is not sure what to think.  In 1998, Kingsolver et al. returned to the belief that selection was weak, and “most estimates of selection were non-significant and centred around zero.” A particularly worrisome finding, Hendry says, was that “most studies did not have sufficient statistical power to detect typical strengths of selection” even if it were present.
    But then Hereford et al. in 2004, using the same data, came to the opposite conclusion, finding “extremely strong selection overall.”  He based his ideas on a benchmark method: “selection estimates for individual traits are standardized to allow comparison with the expected strength of selection on fitness itself.”  Hendry is not convinced.  He repeats his warning:
These results raise some perplexing questions.  Principal among them is the apparent paradox that typical studies of selection do not have the statistical power necessary to detect selection that appears unrealistically strong.  Unfortunately, this paradox will not be resolved simply by accumulating more data of the same ilk, as all reviews identify problems with our current methodsHow, then, are we to obtain a good handle on the true power of selection in nature?
    Evolutionary biologists will have to resolve this uncertainty by determining how best to measure and judge the strength of selection, and by conducting more robust studies of selection.  Meanwhile, we are only deluding ourselves that we have a good handle on the typical power of selection in nature.  Once we do, we can begin to investigate how humans are changing selection pressures, and whether populations and species will be able to adapt accordingly.

1Andrew P. Hendry, “Evolutionary biology: The power of natural selection,”
Nature 433, 694 - 695 (17 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433694a.
A more damaging admission by a Darwin Party spokesman could hardly be found.  The entire spectrum of life, from the earliest reproducing sack of chemicals to modern human astronauts, is supposed to be the product of natural selection acting on numerous, slight modifications.  Natural selection is an icon in our civilization, the stuff of myth and legend.  The phrase Darwin grew to prefer, survival of the fittest (whatever fitness means; see 10/29/2002 entry) represents the most powerful force in the universe, a materialistic creator omnipotent enough to evolve not only an Earth filled with millions of diverse organisms – from sponges to penguins to dragonflies to dinosaurs to horses to mushrooms to petunias to oaks – but potent enough to fill unknown worlds with alien biology and weird life beyond our wildest imaginations.  Natural selection is the staple of science fiction movies; it is the cardinal doctrine of the state secular religion.  And now they tell us they don’t even know how to measure natural selection, or to tell if it is weak or strong, fast or slow, or even detectable by statistical methods.
    So if the centrepiece of evolutionary theory is this sickly, how do you like the rest of Charlie’s table?  Better not swallow anything he puts in front of you.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory
Jurassic Park Revision #76: Bonehead Dinosaurs Not Head-Butters   02/16/2005
Pachycephalosaurs, or bone-heads, were dome-headed dinosaurs with skulls nine inches thick.  Interpretation: they rammed each other like rams, or head-butted jeeps filled with hapless human tourists in the movies.  Wrong, reports National Geographic in the March 2005 issue: research by Jack Horner and Mark Goodwin has shown that the thick skulls, surprisingly, could not have survived hard impacts.  Moreover, the fossils show no signs of head-butting damage.  Since the skull didn’t make a very good crash helmet, maybe the boneheads used it for love.
“It may have helped in species recognition or for attracting a mate, the paleontologists speculate.”  Whatever works is cute by definition.  Speculation is fun.  It’s especially fun when it overturns the previous speculation.
Next headline on: 
DinosaursMedia and Movies
Age of Modern Humans Revised, “Depending on Whom You Believe”   02/16/2005
The official age of the oldest anatomically modern humans is now 195,000 years, some 65,000 years older than previously thought.  This announcement was made in Nature1 by Ian McDougall, Francis H. Brown and John F. Fleagle, based on revised radiometric dates calculated from sediments surrounding two human skeletons in Ethiopia.  These specimens, named Omo I and Omo II, were found in the 1967 by Richard Leakey, and were then dated at 130,000 years old.  The authors believe these are “the earliest well-dated anatomically modern humans yet described.”  The earlier record was about 160,000 years.
    Revisions sometimes have unintended consequences.  Timelines are tied with other events, so moving one date by a third is bound to shake up other calibration points.  A summary on
EurekAlert explains,
Brown says that pushing the emergence of Homo sapiens from about 160,000 years ago back to about 195,000 years ago “is significant because the cultural aspects of humanity in most cases appear much later in the record – only 50,000 years ago – which would mean 150,000 years of Homo sapiens without cultural stuff, such as evidence of eating fish, of harpoons, anything to do with music (flutes and that sort of thing), needles, even tools.  This stuff all comes in very late, except for stone knife blades, which appeared between 50,000 and 200,000 years ago, depending on whom you believe.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Fleagle agrees that there is a “huge debate” in the archaeological literature about the dating of the first cultural artifacts, though the accepted date hovers around 50,000 years.  “As modern human anatomy is documented at earlier and earlier sites,” it becomes evident that there was a great time gap between the appearance of the modern skeleton and ‘modern behavior.’”
    Another consequence is that inferences about modernity from appearance are more subjective.  Omo II was supposed to be a more primitive form, but appears from the newest dates to be nearly contemporaneous with Omo I.  The team interpreted the history of rock and ash layers to arrive at the dates of the fossils, and selected feldspar crystals for potassium-argon analysis.  Science Now has pictures of the skull caps.
1McDougall, Brown and Fleagle, “Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia,” Nature 433, 733 - 736 (17 February 2005); doi:10.1038/nature03258.
We already knew that judgments about who is primitive and who is not are highly subjective (see 01/01/2005 entry).  The labeling game amounts to a kind of paleoanthropological racism.  Primitive is in the eye of the beholder.  Since Mr. Omo II can’t show off his intellect, the Darwin Party racists are free to categorize him as “less highly evolved,” like the early Darwinians used to classify non-Englishmen.  Even with the new dates that make him a contemporary of Mr. Modern Omo I, Fleagle says, in effect, “well, what do you know; primitives and moderns lived at the same time.”
    The other inference about the culture gap is so incredible, so absurd, it calls into question the intelligence, if not the sanity, of anyone who would accept it.  They are claiming that human beings, virtually indistinguishable from us, went for up to 150,000 years without learning how to make a tool, catch a fish, harpoon a mammoth, ride a horse, plant a farm or drill holes in a reed to make even a simple flute.  What did these brethren do for amusement?  Look how much humans have accomplished in the 6,000 years of recorded history, from cuneiform to Saturn spaceships.  To think that fully-endowed humans could not think of even the simplest cultural advances for 25 times that length of time is patently ridiculous.  Even crows and chimps show more capability than these humans who are supposed to have walked the earth for eons without leaving a trace.  Pile this absurdity on top of that: “Brown says the fossil record of humans is poor from 100,000 to 500,000 years ago....”  Let’s build conclusions on evidence, not the other way around, OK?
    If it were not for the Darwin Party’s total commitment to millions of years of evolution, and their totalitarian control over the media, this claim would be laughed off the stage as the funniest thing since the Dean scream.  This is another one of the aspects of evolutionary theory that will some day make history students wag their heads in disbelief that so many educated people could be duped for so long by the teachings of a primitive-looking guru named Charlie.
Next headline on:  Early ManDarwinismDumb Stories
National Geographic Besieged by Letters Over Darwin Article   02/15/2005
“Was Darwin Wrong?” the cover teased in November.  Inside, printed in huge bold type, the answer was ruthless and final: “NO.  The evidence for evolution is overwhelming” – end of discussion (see
10/24/2004 entry).  Not everybody liked this treatment.  Over 600 letters poured in, and in the March issue, NG printed six samples “chosen to reflect the variety and weight of your opinions....”  Summarized, they took these positions:
  1. Pro:  delighted with the article, glad NG not “compromising its scientific objectivity to gain subscriptions from the religious right.”
  2. Con:  accuses article of being arrogant and condescending, yet providing no new evidence nor addressing “gaping holes in the theory that lead so many reasoned people to question evolution.”
  3. Compromise:  “I hope that in my lifetime the theories of evolution and creation will merge, because the truth in each is overwhelming.”
  4. Pro:  A science teacher commends the lucid writing about this “seminal concept of biological science.”
  5. Con:  Offended by NG claim that disbelief in evolution is due to ignorance; “I always considered by thoughts on the subject as based on facts and science.”  Reminds editor that Nazis “used evolutionary and survival-of-the-fittest arguments as justifications.”
  6. Con:  A father writes he is not surprised that half of Americans believe in God alone, and not evolution: “when I look at my three beautiful children, it is hard to believe they are the end result of evolving Eocene pond scum.”  He throws in a one-liner: “My father-in-law, on the other hand, may be the evidence you’ve been looking for.”  (Hopefully the relative is not a subscriber.)
The 600 letters were among “the most passionate... we’ve received within the past year,” the magazine stated.
    Also in the March issue, decade-long editor Bill Allen announced his retirement.  New editor-in-chief is Chris Johns, a photographer and author, who seems more interested in good photojournalism than confrontation.  The announcement of the Allen’s retirement says that, under his leadership, “the magazine has continued to evolve, bringing its unique perspective to ever more topical and timely stories–from global warming and the oil crises to obesity, evolution, and human slavery.”
    Chris Johns honors his predecessor but speaks vaguely of his own mission, only describing it as to make the magazine a “must read.”  He wants to bring the photography into the digital age.  In an interview on Poynter Online, he listed two of his principles as: “Always be honest and tell the truth.... Be humble, there is no room for arrogance.”
Without access to all the letters, we have to take it on faith that NG printed an honestly weighted sample.  If so, half were strongly opposed, one was wishy-washy, and only a third were supportive.  That’s impressive.  If any pro-evolution letters were sent in by scientists, they didn’t mention it.  The two printed seemed more dogmatic than informed.
    Only an insider to the boardroom discussions would know what impact, if any, these letters had on editorial policy, the choice of editor, and the new directions the magazine should take.  It seems entirely possible that the number of passionate letters to the editor on the subject of evolution have had some impact.  Consider the letter from Kelly Olson of Los Angeles:
I must congratulate you.  Your article on evolution manages to be confrontational, arrogant, inflammatory, and condescending, all without being particularly illuminating.  You surmise that an intelligent individual should quickly realize evolution’s veracity, yet you fail to provide any new evidence.  Worse, you do not address any of the gaping holes in the theory that lead so many reasoned people to question evolution.
If you were Chairman of the Board, what would you tell your Editor-in-chief after reading this?  Wouldn’t it be a picture of poetic justice to envision a board member reading Kelly’s letter, then glancing askance at Mr. Allen and saying, “Aren’t you the one that rushed to press that story about Piltdown Chicken a few years back that got us into so much trouble?” (see 09/27/2000 entry).  We’ll leave the look on Bill’s face to your imagination.  Good luck truck driving, Mr. Allen.
    A mere fictional flight of fancy, the above; the magazine honors Bill Allen and wishes him a fond farewell.  We are not privy to the reasons for his leaving.  (If Chris Johns sticks to his principles, the number of in-your-face evolutionary sermons should decline.)  But it bears repeating: never underestimate the power of a cogently-written letter to the editor.  We’d like to know if our coverage here at Creation-Evolution Headlines prompted you to join the ranks of the Brigade of 600, armed with the mighty pen.  Write here and share your letter.  If NG didn’t print it – and you think it was a finely crafted piece of work – maybe we can.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory
Honeybees Fly with Mental Maps   02/15/2005
You can tell a honeybee to get lost, but it can’t.  You can even take it off its flight path, but it will find its way back.  Scientists writing in PNAS1 this week described experiments by a European team that wanted to test their navigating abilities.  They marked bees at feeding stations, then took them way out of the path dictated by the “waggle dance” back at the hive.  (The waggle dance, performed by a scout, provides them with information about the direction to the food relative to the sun, the distance, and the food quality.)  How did a bee behave when put in strange country?  The team watched them with harmonic radar:
A sequence of behavioral routines become apparent: (i) initial straight flights in which they fly the course that they were on when captured (foraging bees) or that they learned during dance communication (recruited bees); (ii) slow search flights with frequent changes of direction in which they attempt to “get their bearings”; and (iii) straight and rapid flights directed either to the hive or first to the feeding station and then to the hive.  These straight homing flights start at locations all around the hive and at distances far out of the visual catchment area around the hive or the feeding station.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
That’s pretty amazing navigation for a fingernail-sized creature.  The scientists figured that the bees must form a map in their head to be able to choose between two goals after getting reoriented.  “This finding suggests a rich, map-like organization of spatial memory in navigating honey bees,” they concluded.
1Menzel et al., “Honey bees navigate according to a map-like spatial memory,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0408550102, published online before print February 14, 2005.
Look at how much ability is stored in a tiny bee brain.  If insects weren’t so small (most of them) we would certainly consider them some of the most awe-inspiring creatures on earth (see Bob Jensen Photography for incredibly beautiful insect photos).  Too bad some of them went bad after the initially harmonized creation.
    We rely on honeybees, our good friends.  Be nice to them.  They usually won’t resort to stinging unless they feel threatened, because for them it is a last resort.  Don’t swat at them if they are hovering over your picnic.  Relax and don’t panic; they are not after you.  Just wave your arms gently and continuously over the food, and eventually they will go somewhere else.  Let them be free to go pollinate flowers and get their own natural food.
    This article could stimulate a science project for an enterprising and fearless youngster, under proper care and supervision.  How long does it take the bee to realize it is off track?  How long does it take to find home?  What senses might it be using to re-orient itself?  Required introductory research should include the Moody Science classic, City of the Bees.  See also our 05/31/2001 entry about bee navigation.
Next headline on:  ZoologyAmazing Stories
Lichens: Two Designs Are Better than One   02/15/2005
A lichen is a symbiotic organism comprised of an alga and a fungus.  PNAS1 reported a study that showed that “antioxidant and photoprotective mechanisms in the lichen Cladonia vulcani are more effective by orders of magnitude than those of its isolated partners” (emphasis added in all quotes).  Kranner et al. found:
Without the fungal contact, the alga tolerates only very dim light and its photoprotective system is only partially effective; without the alga, the glutathione-based antioxidant system of the fungus is slow and ineffective.  In the lichen, this mutually enhanced resistance to oxidative stress and, in particular, its desiccation tolerance are essential for life above ground.  This lifestyle, in turn, increases the chance of dispersal of reproductive propagules and ensures their joint evolutionary success.

1Kranner et al., “Antioxidants and photoprotection in a lichen as compared with its isolated symbiotic partners,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0407716102, published online before print February 14, 2005.
Take out the word “evolutionary,” because the findings only show reproductive success.  Survivability does not necessarily imply advancement in complexity; it could just as well reflect good design.
    Lichens are often the pioneer organisms in a new habitat.  They contribute to the breakdown of rock and formation of soil.  Mosses, ferns and other organisms follow sometimes, and before long, a whole community of plants and animals can come to town.  In the fjords of New Zealand, for example, this happens on sheer cliff faces of rock.  After some years or decades of initial colonization by lichens, large trees can take root in the near-vertical cliffs.
    Lichens show tremendous variety in form and structure.  Some are beautifully colored.  The Dec. 2004 Creation Research Society Quarterly has a photo essay about lichens and their microscopic structure.  The internet has some nice photo galleries like this one at lichen.com.
Next headline on:  Plants and BotanyAmazing Stories
Fossil Record Reliable, Study Says    02/14/2005
A
University of Chicago press release declares that the fossil record is reliable.  Susan M. Kidwell studied the record of bivalves as a function of their fragility and deduced that preservability of shells was only a minor factor in their observed abundance.  “In fact, if anything, variations having shells that seemed least likely to be preserved actually survived longer than forms with the toughest shells,” she said.  This does not mean the fossil record is complete; it merely means that the record is not biased toward those with the toughest shells.  “And because the bivalves cover such a wide range of shell types,” the press release ends, “these results suggest that shelly mainstays of the fossil record, such as snails, sea urchins and corals, may have comparably unbiased records, Kidwell said.”  Her report is published in the Feb. 11 issue of Science.1
1Susan M. Kidwell, “Shell Composition Has No Net Impact on Large-Scale Evolutionary Patterns in Mollusks,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 914-917 , 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1106654].
Kidwell believes that this is good news for evolutionists, but only because it removes a possible source of sampling bias.  But how can it be good news?  It removes an excuse.  Evolutionists cannot claim that the gaps are due to harder shells surviving better in the rocks.  It means the gaps, the trade secret of paleontology, are real.
Next headline on:  Fossils
SETI Outreach Director: “Teach Evolution”    02/11/2005
Evolution is the foundation of biology, geology, and astronomy, claims Edna Devore, Director of Education and Public Education for the SETI Institute.  Writing in
Space.Com, she finds it hard to believe evolution is controversial (see 12/14/2004 and 11/30/2004 entries).  Why, just look out the airplane window; it’s obvious.  “Evolution is fundamental to modern biology, geology and astronomy.  Ignoring or discarding fundamental scientific understandings of the natural world does not prepare our children well for the future,” she concludes.  “As America strives to ‘leave no child behind,’ it’s time that evolution is not left behind in our science classrooms.”
She’s barking up the wrong tree.  No informed critic is advocating ignoring or discarding evolution.  Whether it can be classed with “fundamental understandings of the natural world” must not be merely assumed, but those on the design side of the controversy (see 01/24/2005 and 11/30/2004 entries and Evolution News blog) want evolution to be taught.  You can’t understand 20th century history or science without it.  Charlie’s little world cruise makes a nice story, and Haeckel’s little drawings make nice cartoons to get the teens to laugh.  Yes, teach evolution – all of it, the good, the bad, and the ugly (see 01/17/2005, 12/30/2004, 11/29/2004, 11/19/2004 and 12/14/2004 entries, and more going back 5 years in these pages).  Teach especially the parts the Darwin Party doesn’t want you to know.  Here; we’ll help.  Try our draft outline of a suggested eight-part comprehensive curriculum on evolution:
Click here to continue
Next headline on:  EvolutionEducationSETI
Is Science Acting Insane? AAAS President Bemoans Constraints of Societal Ethics, Advocates Diplomacy    02/11/2005
“...insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”   Alan I. Leshner, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, reminds readers of Science1 of this proverb in order to help them face the fact that ignoring the public’s values, or protesting against them, will not allow scientists to get what they want.
    Leshner isn’t looking forward to the next annual meeting.  The theme will be “Where Science Meets Society,” and from the way he wrote his editorial, he dreads having to come to terms with the fact that “the relationship between science and society is undergoing significant stress.... This disaffection and shift in attitudes predict a more difficult and intrusive relationship between science and society than we’ve enjoyed in the recent past.”  What’s causing the stress?  Two things:
  1. Cloning and Stem Cell Research: (see 02/08/2005 entry):  Leshner notes that “Some members of the public are finding certain lines of scientific research and their outcomes disquieting” (emphasis added in all quotes).  He elaborates:
    Examples of these strains in the relationship include sharp public divisions about therapeutic or research cloning and stem cell research.  Although many understand the potential benefits of such research, they also are troubled about scientists working so close to what they see as the essence and origins of human life.  Last year, ideology came dangerously close to publicly trumping science when the U.S. Congress failed by only two votes to defund a set of grants from the National Institutes of Health on sexual behavior, HIV/AIDS, and drug abuse that made religious conservatives uncomfortable, even though the research was critical to solving major public health problems.
    Speaking in the collective first person, Leshner apparently sympathizes with the attitude of many scientists: they should be able to do whatever they want....
    For many scientists, any such overlay of values on the conduct of science is anathema to our core principles and our historic success.  Within the limits of the ethical conduct of science with human or animal subjects, many believe that no scientifically answerable question should be out of bounds.  Bringing the power of scientific inquiry to bear on society’s most difficult questions is what we have done best, and that often means telling the world things that it might not initially like.
    What “ethical conduct” is, and what its limits are, Leshner seems to assume are common knowledge and need no definition.

  2. Intelligent Design:  Since Leshner deems this subject hardly worth discussing, he dismisses it with a wave of the rhetorical hand:
    And, of course, the scientific community is enmeshed in a continuing battle to keep the nature of science clear in debates about whether schools should be allowed to teach non-science-based “intelligent design theory” [quotes in original] alongside evolution in science classrooms.
Leshner explains what these two examples reveal:
The common thread linking these examples is that science and its products are intersecting more frequently with certain human beliefs and values.  As science encroaches more closely on heavily value-laden issues,  members of the public are claiming a stronger role in both the regulation of science and the shaping of the research agenda.
So what does he recommend?
Independence and objectivity in the shaping and conduct of science have been central to our successes and our ability to serve society.  Still, our recent experiences suggest that the values dimension is here to stay, certainly for a while, and that we need to learn to work within this new context.  Protesting the imposition of value-related constraints on science has been the usual response, but it doesn’t work because it doesn’t resonate with the public.
    An alternative is to adopt a much more inclusive approach that engages other communities assertively in discussing the meaning and usefulness of our work.  We should try to find common ground through open, rational discourse.  We have had some success with programs such as the National Human Genome Research Institute’s Ethical, Legal and Social Implications program.  Another example is the AAAS’s Dialogue on Science, Ethics, and Religion, which brings scientists together with religious leaders and ethicists to discuss scientific advances and how they relate to other belief and value systems.
He continues his advice: “Simply protesting the incursion of value considerations into the conduct and use of science confirms the old adage that insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.”  Instead, “Let’s try some diplomacy and discussion,” he says, “and see how that goes for a change.
1Alan I. Leshner, “Where Science Meets Society,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 815, 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1110260].
For fun, reread his comments, and replace each instance of science and scientists with elitism and elitists.
    Leshner’s attitude toward his fellow citizens, and toward his fellow members of the human race, is disgusting.  He assumes what he thinks is sensible makes sense to everybody else.  He assumes that whatever he believes is science, and what anyone else believes is stupidity.  Irritated by having to spend an ounce of energy considering what anyone else thinks, he feels obligated to patronize them briefly enough to appease them, then get back to the business of “science” – i.e., complete freedom to do anything he wants, at taxpayer expense.  He has no idea what the “limits of ethical conduct” are, other than perhaps a vague recollection that some guy named Mengele did a few things he maybe should not have, a long time ago.
    Instead of talking about Mengele, let’s look at what is going on in North Korea, as reported by Priya Abraham in World Magazine Feb. 5.  Read and shudder at the horror of science gone berserk:
For one experiment, officials told her to hand out liquid-soaked cabbage in white buckets to 50 women.  “After the women ate it, blood came out from their mouths and their rectums,” she wrote.  “It looked like something had exploded inside them.  In just a few minutes, they were all kneeling and falling forward.  The blood that came out of them went for five to six feet.  There was pandemonium and screaming.”
    Officials did similar tests on other men and women, in all about three times a year, Ms. Lee said.  Other experiments involved poisonous gas once or twice a year.  Officials donned protective suits and threw what looked like paintballs on the ground, forcing 30 to 200 prisoners to walk through the gas they emitted.  The prisoners fell over and cramped up.
    Eventually the death toll from the experiments was killing off too many prisoners and hampering camp officials’ ability to meet work quotas.  When the director complained to the state security bureau, they sent a terse reply, Ms. Lee said: “‘It is a Kim Jong Il directive: The chemical and biological weapons are needed for the battlefield.  It is meaningless to conduct these experiments on animals.’  The head of the camp was left speechless.”
Undoubtedly, such science would cross the ethical line in Leshner’s mind.  But how so?  Are not humans just animals?  What’s the essential difference between experimenting on fully-grown humans and on human embryos that have the full complement of human genes?  Where in the continuum of life and growth do you draw the arbitrary line?  To think that “science” knows but “religious conservatives” do not is the height of arrogance.
    What might “resonate with the public” is a little humility, for a change.
Next headline on:  Politics and EthicsDarwinism and Evolutionary TheoryIntelligent Design
Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week    02/10/2005
This week’s entry goes to John S. Mattick and Michael J. Gagen (U. of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia), writing in Science1 about the mathematical dynamics of networks.  Notice the seamless transition from discussion of intelligently-designed human engineering to chance-based, mindless, directionless processes of evolution:
Consider, for instance, the proliferation of digital programming in such domains as computing and aviation.  The increased sophistication of modern aircraft has been enabled not so much by advances in their analog components, but rather by transitions from mechanical to computational control systems, including software and optical fibers, which now constitute much of the cost.  Indeed, the transition to digital technologies is a generic solution to previous limitations of analog communication and control technologies.  In virtually all systems, it has been observed that explosive increases in complexity occur as a result of more advanced controls and embedded networking, most of which is invisible to the observer.  In the case of biology, we suggest that the transition from an analog protein-based regulatory system to a digital RNA-based control architecture was the critical platform that enabled the evolution and development of complex organisms.   (Emphasis added.)
Presumably, just because the development of analog-to-digital converters in cells was invisible to the observer, an explosion in complexity resulted, transforming bacteria into whales, dragonflies, sharks, card sharks, computer programmers and aircraft pilots.
    Too bad the following entry didn’t make the judging in time, or it would have won: John Bohannon in
Science Now opened a piece about platypus ears (see 02/10/2005 entry) with this jingle: “The middle ear that endows mammals with their sense of hearing is one of the masterpieces of evolution.  And it now seems that this is an instrument so nice, nature invented it twice.
1John S. Mattick and Michael J. Gagen, “Mathematics/Computation: Accelerating Networks,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 856-858, 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1103737].
Don’t let the Darwin Party charlatans get away with hiding their personification fallacies in passive-voice verbs and subjunctives.  Who transitioned the cellular technology from analog to digital?  How did this entity do it?  Who enabled the evolution of complex organisms?  Who designed the A-to-D converter?  How was the digital programming done, without a Programmer?  Who designed the advanced controls, to control what?  Who embedded the networking?  Were advances in aviation brought about by mutations and natural selection?
    This quotation is so utterly silly it defies comprehension, yet Science printed it, while permitting another Priest of Charlie to vituperate against intelligent design theory (see 02/11/2005 entry)  This shows that the Darwin Party network dynamics result in signal degradation.  Their closed infrastructure doesn’t need an upgrade; it is hopelessly outdated and broken.  The signal-to-noise ratio has gotten worse than TV snow.  Donate the hardware to the Cartoon Network; maybe they can have fun with it.  Plug into ID Net for state of the art, high-definition, crystal-clear viewing.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary TheoryDumb Stories.
Can Evolution Repeat Itself?    02/10/2005
A press release from
University of Chicago reported today that “115-million-year-old fossil of a tiny egg-laying mammal thought to be related to the platypus provides compelling evidence of multiple origins of acute hearing in humans and other mammals” (emphasis added in all quotes).  The fossil apparently shows inner-ear bones in the monotreme lineage that supposedly diverged from the reptile-like ancestors of both marsupial and placental mammals.
Many paleontologists have doubted that such a seemingly complex adaptation could have originated more than once in mammals, but according to the authors of the paper, the evidence of T. trusleri [the reported shrew-size fossil] indicates that it did.
    “Nothing like that has ever been found before,” said Tom Rich, PhD, lead author of the paper and curator of vertebrate paleontology at Museum Victoria in Melbourne, Australia.
They are claiming that the middle ear bones needed for acute hearing arose twice, independently, within mammals.  “How can this supposedly rare and unexpected evolutionary change have occurred so commonly in early mammals?” the press release asks.  James Hopson, one of the authors of the paper in Science,1 describes how this might have unfolded:
“Recent studies of jaw and ear function in primitive mammal-like reptiles indicate that the larger angular bone may have supported an eardrum while still part of the lower jaw,” Hopson said.  But once the dentary bone made a new jaw hinge with the skull in the immediate predecessor of mammals, the accessory jawbones may have abandoned their job of supporting the jaw and evolved exclusively into the middle ear sound-transmitting function.
Hopson adds that “Only the evidence of fossils has been able to unravel this tangled history of a complex adaptation.”  The only fossil evidence alluded to, however, is T. trusleri and extinct “mammal-like reptiles” without the adaptation, compared with living mammals and the platypus.  The scientific paper itself is not sure the transition is clear: “because of the uncertain phylogenetic positions of these taxa with respect to true mammals (monotremes and theriiforms), none provides unequivocal support for the multiple origin of the definitive mammalian middle ear bones” – they only “suggest” the “possibility” of the idea.  The paper also discusses uncertainty about the phylogeny of all these groups, and only provisionally builds its case based on one expert’s opinion, “because it is in accord with the polyphyletic origin of the definitive mammalian middle ear but requires the least amount of homoplasy in comparison with other proposed phylogenetic placements of monotremes.”
    Martin and Luo in Science2 call this a “remarkable example of homoplastic evolution” (another term for convergent evolution, or the supposed independent evolution of similar structures).  They call homoplasy a “major feature of evolutionary morphology.”  This find, they say, answers a “fascinating but very difficult question facing evolutionary biologists” – that is, “whether a complex structure would be less likely than a simple structure to undergo independent homoplastic evolution.”  From the tone of these articles, the only thing not in question by this find is evolution itself.
1Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 910-914 , 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1105717].
2Thomas Martin and Zhe-Xi Luo, “Homoplasy in the Mammalian Ear,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 861-862, 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1107202].
As always, the independent variable in this equation is Darwinian evolution.  Everything else must adjust to keep the story going.  Improbabilities?  No problem; just create new words like homoplasy that sound scientific, and toss a little pixie dust of natural selection to corral the lucky mutations for engineering complex systems as required. 
    This story looks uglier and uglier the more you peer below the surface to see the shenanigans the Darwin Party is pulling to make their pet theory look good in the face of monstrous problems.  Take away the assumption of evolution and they have no leg to stand on.  Time to blow the whistle on this scandal.
Next headline on:  FossilsMammalsDarwinism and Evolutionary Theory.
Loss of Mangrove Forests Exacerbated Tsunami Damage    02/10/2005
Many seashores have a natural defense against the onslaught of a tsunami: the mangrove forest.  Dense thickets of these trees that tolerate salt water and line the coasts of many subtropical islands and continents can absorb much of the energy of killer waves.  It is entirely plausible that the enormity of the human death toll can be traced in large part to the destruction of large tracts of native mangrove, caused by the lure of beachfront property for hotels, fisheries and industry.
    Mangrove forests “help protect coastlines from erosion, storm damage and wave action by acting as buffers and catching alluvial materials,” writes Nigel Williams in Current Biology.1  “They also protect reefs and sea grass beds from damaging siltation and pollution.”  It appears that the hardest hit areas by December’s devastating tsunamis were those with the least mangrove protection.  Williams quotes Indian sources that reported that wherever mangrove forests were intact, “the impact was mitigated and the lives and property of the communities inhabiting the region were saved.”
    Unfortunately for coastal communities, the rush to clear coastlines for industry and recreation is causing these unique ecosystems to disappear faster than the rain forests.  Years ago, 75% of the coastlines of tropical and sub-tropical countries were lined with mangrove forests; now, less than half remains.  The devastation of the recent disaster has awakened a new interest in this “neglected yet vital marine ecosystem.”
1Nigel Williams, “Tsunami insight to mangrove value,”
Current Biology, Volume 15, Issue 3, 8 February 2005, Page R73, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.015.
The mangrove has an amazing capacity for regeneration with its floating seed pods that can cross continents like rafts, then orient themselves upright and plant themselves in shallow water.  The story is told in an excellent family film about seed dispersal, Journey of Life.  Mangrove forests create lush habitats for many species of animals and birds.  Now, we find that they also create safety nets for humans.
Next headline on:  Plants and BotanyAmazing Stories
Watch for Falling Ants   02/09/2005
Did you know some ants are gliders?  When Stephen Yanoviak (U. of Texas) was studying insects in the rain forest canopy in Peru, he was struck by the fact that ants kept landing on his arm.  This launched his team’s investigation into gliding ants.  They took video cameras into the jungle and documented their unique mode of locomotion.  They found that the bugs could rotate around and change direction in midair, even when falling like a rock.  Most of the time (about 85%) the ants landed back on the tree trunk, able to crawl back up to home.  They published their work on “directed aerial descent” in Nature,1 unsure whether the ants were escaping predators or just having fun.
    “This is the first study to document the mechanics and ecological relevance of this form of locomotion in the Earth’s most diverse lineage, the insects,” they wrote.  A press release on
UC Berkeley News tells more about the study, with photographs of the ants and interviews with the research team.  How the ants turn around in midair and control their landings is still unknown, but like many insects, they have sticky feet that enable them to cling to many surfaces.  “It’s an amazing discovery,” said Robert Dudley of the team.  So ants join certain species of squirrels, lizards, frogs and even some snakes (and humans) as gliding champions – this time, in the ultralight class.
1Yanoviak, Dudley and Kaspari, “Directed aerial descent in canopy ants,” Nature 433, 624 - 626 (10 February 2005); doi:10.1038/nature03254.
It seems unlikely that ants would lose their wings through evolution, then re-evolve this behavior as a poor substitute.  Surely the power of natural selection would have favored wings evolving again to let the ants fly back home rather than forcing them to walk straight up against gravity.  Why select lucky mutations for controlled descent when wings were so easy to evolve?  It must have been a piece of cake if they showed up in reptiles, mammals, birds and insects.  Didn’t these ants have Haeckel’s recapitulation memory for how to evolve wings all over again?  After all, walking sticks did, we are told (see 05/28/2003 entry).  “Ah,” young disciples,” Exalted Master Charlie gently scolds, “One must not presume on the path Mother Nature will take.  A bumbling tinkerer is She.”  So in her toyshop, she apparently forgot how to produce rubber-band airplanes, and decided to make miniature Buzz Lightyears, who mastered the art of “falling with style.”
Next headline on:  Terrestrial AnimalsEvolutionary TheoryPhysicsAmazing Stories
Octopus Arms Have Optimal Design   02/09/2005
The tentacles of an octopus are soft and flexible, whereas bony creatures like us have joints that, while good for moving objects around, limit our freedom of movement.  Wouldn’t it be cool to have both?  An international team of neurobiologists, publishing in Nature,1 watched an octopus snare its food, using the flexibility of its tentacles, as expected.  But then they noticed, when it needed to transfer its prey from one place to another, it employed a “vertebrate-like strategy, temporarily reconfiguring its arm into a stiffened, articulated, quasi-jointed structure.”
    This gave them an idea.  Maybe the octopus has hit on something.  While the flexible arm provides a benefit for snaring objects, “an articulated limb may provide an optimal solution for achieving precise, point-to-point movements,” they wrote (emphasis added in all quotes). 
National Geographic News adds, “scientists studying octopus arms conclude that they may represent the optimal design for robotic arms.”  Maybe the next-generation robotic arm on the Space Shuttle will resemble something from the ocean depths.  One researcher remarked that a stiff arm would be likely to push a floating object away, but “an arm you could use to gently wrap around an object and retrieve it, that would be useful.”  How to build such a device is the challenge.
1Sumbre et al., “Neurobiology: Motor control of flexible octopus arms,” Nature 433, 595 - 596 (10 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433595a.
Copying animal designs – biomimetics – is one of the hottest topics in engineering, for good reason.  Here is a creature that has the capabilities of a comic book superhero.  Sadly, both articles attribute this feat to evolution: “octopuses have evolved the optimal design,” says National Geographic, and the neurobiologists say in a wordier way,
Fetching seems to be an example of evolutionary selection of solutions that are similar even though they are based on quite different mechanisms – on morphology in arthropod and vertebrate limbs, and on stereotypical motor control in the octopus.  This functional convergence suggests that a kinematically constrained, articulated limb with two segments of almost equal length is the optimal design for accurately moving an object from one point to another.
This illustrates again how many countless times the scientific community and news outlets merely assume evolution is capable of any miracle needed, without telling us how the blind forces of nature could ever produce engineering design that humbles our best robotics experts.
    Some amazing footage of a particular octopus that can mimic many other animals can be found in a recorded lecture by Carl Kerby, “What is the best evidence God created?”, available on DVD from the Answers in Genesis bookstore.  The new film Incredible Creatures that Defy Evolution III has startling footage of a similar marine creature, the cuttlefish, with some other fantastic capabilities.
Next headline on:  Marine LifePhysicsAmazing Stories
Stem Cell Research Launches into the Ethical Unknown, Full Steam Ahead   02/08/2005
No one knows where stem cell research will lead.  Some hope for miracle cures.  Some fear horrendous abuses and ethical nightmares.  But states and nations, apparently more concerned over priority and prestige, are fighting to the head of the pack after the California Proposition 71 gun fired last fall.
    With $3 billion in taxpayer loans at their disposal, the stealthily-named new California Institute for Regenerative Medicine is beginning to take shape, apparently unconcerned that “the debate has shifted from ethics and costs to how the enterprise will operate,” wrote Constance Holden in the 14 January issue of Science.1  In last week’s issue,2 she added that Prop. 71 has had a “seismic effect” on other states.  “Wait for me!” seems to be the attitude of Wisconsin, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Maryland and Illinois, while other states are trying to ban research on stem cells (
Science Now reports that governor Mitt Romney is trying to stop the advance in Massachusetts).  The rivalry for stem cell funding is having a major shakeup on the role of the National Institutes of Health, comparable to the “breakup of the Roman Empire,” Holden writes. 
    Much of the hurry comes from a desire to beat the Asians, wrote Dennis Normile and Charles C. Mann in the same issue last week.3  “Less encumbered by societal restrictions on embryonic stem cells,” they remarked, “scientists in the developing countries of Asia are giving Western researchers a run for their money.”  In Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China – indeed, across all Asia – “there is little of the conflict with prevailing religious and ethical beliefs that has Western countries hesitating.”  No one seems to be asking whether to do it, but only how to do it.  The mood in Asia is described by Normile and Mann:
Governments are ramping up funding for both basic and applied stem cell work, setting up new institutes, programs, and grant schemes, and providing incentives for private companies to join the effort.  Giving these efforts a further boost, the region also has legions of lab workers willing to log long hours, and increasing numbers of expatriate scientists are returning home to work in the flourishing environment.
With that kind of money and competition driving stem cell research, the concerns of a few ethicists are unlikely to be given the time of day.  Although some of these enterprises specifically ban human cloning, the creator of Dolly the sheep, Ian Wilmut (Kings College, London) has been granted a license in the UK to clone early stage human embryos for medical research, reports the BBC News.  “Those opposed to the research said the work is unethical, unnecessary and a step toward full blown human cloning,” the article says, and the ProLife Alliance stated emphatically, “All human cloning is intrinsically wrong and should be outlawed.”  But it’s hard to beat the emotional appeal of proponents who argue that the procedure might help cure motor neuron disease.  Meanwhile, other possible nightmare scenarios with the new biotechnology make occasional headlines, like this debate over human-animal hybrids in National Geographic News.  The technology is outpacing any consensus on where to draw the line.
    Ongoing successes with adult stem cells, which have no ethical problems, are getting drowned out in the fanfare over embryonic stem cells.  EurekAlert reported that a new source of stem cells in umbilical cord blood shows promise for bone marrow transplants and tissue repair, for instance, and Nature Science Update just reported that in heart tissue, long thought irreplaceable, certain “cardiac progenitor cells” are capable in fact of regrowing heart muscle, promising hope for heart-attack survivors.  A heart-warming yet heart-breaking report in World Magazine Feb. 5 describes near-miraculous cures being made with adult stem cells; trouble is, such proven advances are being passed over in the rush to fund embryonic stem cell research.  “The NIH, which bankrolls innovative medical research in the United States, has funded only 30 projects involving stem cells from umbilical cords,” reports Lynde Langdon.  “In contrast, it has funded 634 projects involving embryonic stem cells.”  This lopsided funding of embryonic stem cell research has yet to show one successful medical benefit.
1Constance Holden, “California’s Bold $3 Billion Initiative Hits the Ground Running,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5707, 195 , 14 January 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5707.195].
2Constance Holden, “U.S. States Offer Asia Stiff Competition,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 662-663 , 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5710.662].
3Dennis Normile and Charles C. Mann, “Asia Jockeys for Stem Cell Lead,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 660-664 , 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5710.660].
If you thought abortion was bad, and should have been stopped at the starting gate, wait till you see what the mad scientists might do with their latest tinker toys, genetically modified human embryos.  What started as moral compassion for poor women in the early debates over abortion has turned into a multibillion dollar industry, replete with lawyers and SIGs who fight any attempt to restrict their business, as concerned citizens gasp at bags full of unborn babies in trash bins, and senators investigate black markets for body parts.  How many of you believe that, this time, the proponents of this new crusade really have the interests of the suffering in mind?  Oh – and which religious tradition, did they say, is the only one “hesitating” at the sight of the leaking dike?
How will we explain this to our children?  Will they even care?
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics
ID. Article Makes N.Y. Times    02/07/2005
Michael Behe got a full-length column in the New York Times (reproduced at
Discovery.com) to present the case for intelligent design.  The EvolutionNews blog says it is the second most emailed article from that day’s edition, and asks, “Who says there’s no controversy?”
Which side wants to air the debate?  Which side wants to shut off debate?  What does that tell you?
    Sample line from Behe’s op-ed: “Still, some critics claim that science by definition can’t accept design, while others argue that science should keep looking for another explanation in case one is out there.  But we can’t settle questions about reality with definitions, nor does it seem useful to search relentlessly for a non-design explanation of Mount Rushmore....”
Next headline on:  Intelligent Design
Scientist Preaches Integrity to Fellow Scientists   02/06/2005
Patrick Bateson (U. of Cambridge), concerned over reports of malpractice by scientists, wrote an essay in Science1 Feb. 4 to remind his fellow researchers about “Desirable Scientific Conduct.”  One mustn’t allow his or her affiliations or biases to influence results.  Performing tainted research feeds the postmodern conception that science is a cultural construct, for one thing, and can overlook important leads.  “Treasure your exceptions!” he says, providing a couple of examples of insights overlooked because of bias.  “The data point lying under the researcher’s thumb might be the most interesting result of the whole study.”  He refers to an actual incident where a Nobel Prize winner placed his thumb on a slide to cover a data point that was off the line.
    Bateson’s advice comes down to good old-fashioned values: “Desirable modes of scientific conduct require considerable self-awareness as well as a reaffirmation of the old virtues of honesty, scepticism, and integrity.”
1Patrick Bateson, “Desirable Scientific Conduct,”
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 645, 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1107915].
Bateson quotes someone who thought the results of Gregor Mendel were too good to be true, but for research done with the integrity and care he exercised, maybe it was too good for the typical Darwin Party scientist who trades in myths and stories.  It’s hard to know if Mendel was careless with exceptions or not; one thing is for sure, his laws of genetics have stood the test of time.
    Good advice, but can one get “old virtues” out of Darwinism?  Did honesty evolve?  Does integrity correlate with fitness?  We know who followed the values that sprang from Darwinism (see 02/03/2005 entry).  Science gained nothing ethical from the Darwinian revolution and the totalitarian regime that followed.  On the contrary, Darwinism liberated scientists to maintain their philosophy in spite of the evidence.  It allowed them to cover up the data of design with the thumb of imagination.  Most of their data are exceptions (Cambrian explosion, complexity of the cell, inadequacy of natural selection), such that their thumb covers the whole slide.  Even the thumb is an exception.  Scientific integrity would mean abandoning Darwinism; it’s amazing Science would print such a sermon.
    The scientific method is essentially codified integrity.  The study of any natural phenomenon presupposes a love of the truth, a desire to avoid bias and carelessness, and a commitment to follow the evidence where it leads.  Honesty, skepticism and integrity are just as necessary for any intellectual endeavor, whether history, theology, research, journalism, leadership, and dealings with oneself and others.  These values derive from the Bible, not The Origin of Species.  Bateson should reference his sources.
Next headline on:  Politics and Ethics
Survival of the Fittest – or the Luckiest?   02/06/2005
Evolutionists assume that bacteria spread because they evolve resistance to antibiotics and become more fit to survive.  That’s apparently not true, says a story in
EurekAlert about a study from Imperial College, London: the spread of bacteria appears to be due to chance alone.
    Here are two quotes from the article by team members explaining the finding:
Dr Christophe Fraser, from Imperial College London, a Royal Society University Research Fellow and one of the authors, says: “Microbiologists have assumed for some time that some disease strains spread more successfully than others.  In fact we found that the variation in the communities we studied could be explained by chance.  This was surprising, especially considering all the potential advantages one pathogen can have over another, such as antibiotic resistance and differences in host immunity.”
    Dr Bill Hanage, from Imperial College London, and also one of the authors, says: “When we look at a sample and see that some strains are much more common than others, it’s tempting to think that there must be something special about them.  In fact, they could just be the lucky ones, and that’s what it looks like here.  Most of the variation in the spread of these pathogens can be explained by chance alone.
  (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
The team studied three pathogenic bacteria and followed the social patterns of the humans they infected.  There was no clear association between success at spreading and fitness for spreading .
    A related commentary by Dan Ferber in Science1 had another surprise about bacteria: they are not immortal.  Reproducing strains in a culture apparently show their age.  What does this mean?  For one thing, the results “make it unlikely that natural selection produced an immortal organism.”  For another, “It’s one of those exciting results that makes you take a fresh look at what you think you know.”  One observer is not sure the populations that stopped growing were aging; maybe they were taking a break for repairs.  But another said the new findings “put the onus of proof on anyone who claims that cells can be immortal.”
1Dan Ferber, “Immortality Dies as Bacteria Show Their Age,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 656 , 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5710.656a].
Would survival of the luckiest generate all the richness and complexity of the living world?  This seems to be a very non-Darwinian way of looking at biology.  It also seems to undermine one of the key evidences of evolution in the Darwin Party’s debate arsenal: the evolution of antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
    The second story reminds us that if biologists are still surprised by things happening right under their noses that have been studied for over a century, how can we trust their confidence about millions of years ago?
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyDarwinism and Evolutionary Theory
Molecular Machine Parts Stockpiled in Readiness for Assembly   02/06/2005
A team from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory has done a “4D” time-and-materials study of molecular machines, analyzing the process of assembly, reports
EurekAlert.  They found that the cell stockpiles some parts and holds them in storage, but adds the crucial elements just in time.
The researchers discovered that in yeast, key components needed to create a machine are produced ahead of time, and kept in stock.  When a new machine is needed, a few crucial last pieces are synthesized and then the apparatus is assembled.  Holding off on the last components enables the cell to prevent building machines at the wrong times.  That’s a different scenario from what happens in bacteria, which usually start production of all the parts, from scratch, whenever they want to get something done.
    “We saw a clear pattern as to how the complexes are assembled,” says Søren Brunak from DTU.  It’s unusual to find such concrete patterns in biology, compared to physics for example, due to the evolutionary forces that change living systems.  But using this new model, the underlying principle became very clear.”
  (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
The authors next want to find out how long components stay around after use.  Their results were published in Science1 Feb. 4; see also the brief on EurekAlert.
1Lichtenberg et al., “Dynamic Complex Formation During the Yeast Cell Cycle,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 724-727, 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1105103].
What would you want to bet that they will find out bacteria have assembly processes just as complex as those in eukaryotes?  Planning ahead for future need, machinery, assembly; that doesn’t sound like the language of chance.
Next headline on:  Cell BiologyAmazing Stories
Will “Top-Down” and “Bottom-Up” Meet in the Middle?   02/06/2005
Some difficult problems can be approached from opposite ends.  Engineers needing to build a shaft through a mountain, for instance, might start digging from the bottom and the top, trying to find each other in the middle.  But what if the mountain has an unanticipated impregnable layer?  Or what if there is no mountain, but a lowland here, and a peak over yonder, with a canyon between them?  When the middle is hypothetical, it takes faith to believe it even exists.
    The origin of life is such a problem.  Chemists know about chemicals, and biologists know about living cells.  Is there a middle ground in which chemicals became cells?  Evolutionists are convinced there is.  “But living systems are products of evolution,” Eörs Szathmáry (Collegium Budapest), confidently states in Nature,1 “and an answer in very general terms, even if possible, is likely to remain purely phenomenological: going deeper into mechanisms means having to account for the organization of various processes, and such organization has been realized in several different ways by evolution.”  (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
    The idea is that if evolution scaled the mountain in the past, biologists should be able to find the trail by starting from both ends.  The meeting point would converge at a theoretical “minimal cell” – that is, a chemical entity satisfying three requirements for life: metabolism, a template or genetic code, and a boundary or membrane (see
08/26/2003 and 12/30/2002 entries).  Szathmáry attended a meeting in Sicily this past December on Towards the Minimal Cell.  A veteran theoretical biologist himself (see 02/20/2004 entry), he enjoyed the discussions by teams of biologists tackling this problem from both ends.  Hints of a possible convergence were tantalizing:
Basically, there are two approaches to the ‘minimal cell’: the top-down and the bottom-up.  The top-down approach aims at simplifying existing small organisms, possibly arriving at a minimal genome.  Some research to this end takes Buchnera, a symbiotic bacterium that lives inside aphids, as a rewarding example (A. Moya, Univ. Valencia).  This analysis is complemented by an investigation of the duplication and divergence of genes (A. Lazcano, Univ. Mexico).  Remarkably, these approaches converged on the conclusion that genes dealing with RNA biosynthesis are absolutely indispensable in this framework.  This may be linked to the idea of life’s origins in an ‘RNA world’, although such an inference is far from immediate.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Szathmáry knows to be cautious because of the problems involved in the RNA World scenario (see 02/14/2004 and 07/11/2002 entries).  Functioning RNA in living cells does not necessarily imply ancestry from non-living RNA molecules.
    The top-down teams believe that 200 genes is the lower limit for a minimal cell.  Szathmáry cautions again, however, that the minimum number could well be much higher.  The conferees were not sure the top-down approach could prove fruitful:
There was general agreement that a top-down approach will not take us quite to the bottom, to the minimal possible cells in chemical terms.  All putative cells, however small, will have a genetic code and a means of transcribing and translating that code.  Given the complexity of this system, it is difficult to believe, either logically or historically, that the simplest living chemical system could have had these components.
Well, then, how is the other team doing?  They are getting frustrated: 
The bottom-up approach aims at constructing artificial chemical supersystems that could be considered alive.  No such experimental system exists yet; at least one component is always missing.  Metabolism seems to be the stepchild in the family: what most researchers in the field used to call metabolism is usually a trivial outcome of the fact that both template replication and membrane growth need some material input.  This input is usually simplified to a conversion reaction from precursors to products.
    Even systems missing one or the other component can, of course, advance our understanding.  Such systems could be called ‘infrabiological’, because they are not quite biological but are similar to living systems in some crucial respects: elementary combinatorics suggests that out of metabolism (M), boundary (B) and template (T) three dual systems can be built – MT, MB, TB.  In particular, coupling of compartment formation with some form of template replication (TB) is the subject of many experiments.
Unfortunately, without all three – as with the “combustion triangle” of fuel, oxygen and heat – two factors are not enough to ignite the spark of life.  Furthermore, not all are convinced that the reactions termed metabolism, template or boundary in lab experiments can be compared to those occurring in real living cells.  Szathmáry briefly considers “computational investigations” (i.e., computer models), such as the “lipid world” scenario (the idea that fatty acids came first: see 04/15/2002 entry and 01/17/2002 commentary) but he finds it difficult to assess the importance of their results.  So are top-down and bottom-up approaches making headway toward a grand confluence?  Too early to tell, he concludes:
Clearly, there is a divide between the top-down and bottom-up approaches, and between theoretical and experimental investigations.  In the future, for example, one would like to see more realistic models of the primordial genome and, conversely, an experimental approach to the lipid world.  An aim in the coming years will be to bridge those gaps — hence the great value of meetings such as this.

1Eörs Szathmáry, “Life: In search of the simplest cell,” Nature 433, 469 - 470 (03 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433469a.
In the movie Back to the Future, Doc had mere seconds to connect two ends of an electrical cable before Marty hit the wire.  When they became accidentally disconnected, he slid down the cable in a desperate attempt to reconnect them, only to find they didn’t quite meet.  At the climactic moment, when the predicted lightning bolt sent 1.21 gigawatts of power through the wire, Doc himself momentarily became the conductor: the circuit was closed, and all lived happily ever after.  How he survived to celebrate by dancing in the street – well, that’s Hollywood.
    Anything is possible at the Universal Studios back lot, but biologists have to live in the real world.  Doc Szathmáry is dealing with two ends that are not inches apart, but light-years apart.  To make up for it, he has the long arms of imagination to promise a happy ending back in the future, where the story always ends, “To Be Continued....”  But as the plot becomes increasingly convoluted and implausible, how many sequels will the spectators tolerate?  They’ll go watch Rudyard Kipling’s action adventure drama instead: “East is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet” – except by intelligent design.
Next headline on:  Origin of LifeDumb Stories
“Darwinian Funding” Makes Losers Angry   02/04/2005
Evolutionists love Darwinism – except when it threatens their funding.  Daniel Clery complained in Science1 this week that it means the demise of physics and chemistry in UK universities.  “Survival of the fittest” seems to be favoring the departments that provide lucrative careers.  The funding shortfall for traditional chemistry and physics is due partly, of course, to the perpetual mismatch between government stinginess and scientists’ insatiable appetites...
But other forces are at work, too.  Demand for physics and chemistry classes has been steadily falling as students are lured into more career-specific courses such as sports science, forensic science, and media studies.  And the once cozy world of British academia is now a competitive marketplace in which universities must vie with each other for government research money and attract as many students as possible to maintain their income.  Some researchers suspect that current funding policies are designed to weed out the weak and concentrate resources in a smaller number of superdepartments.  “It’s a Darwinian exercise,” says [Philip] Kocienski [Leeds U. School of Chemistry].   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
Clery suggests that university departments need to stop competing and start cooperating.
1Daniel Clery, “‘Darwinian’ Funding and the Demise of Physics and Chemistry,”
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 668-669, 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.307.5710.668].
Sorry, Charlie, you can’t have it both ways.  If the law of the jungle is right for biology, then what is, is right.  After all, don’t the physicists say nature selected the universe we were born in?  And don’t the chemists say nature selected the building blocks of life?  So even if it means philosophical suicide, you can choose your path, but you can’t choose the consequences.  You can’t appeal to the nobler motives, because they are illusions in your view, so give it your best shot on the Malthusian dogpile (see 02/03/2005 entry).
Next headline on:  DarwinismPolitics and Ethics
Selecting Corn Oil Genes Produces More Corn Oil, but What Else?   02/04/2005
Breeders have been trying to squeeze more corn oil out of corn for over a century, one of the longest-running scientific experiments ever.  They have made pretty dramatic gains in yield, from 5% to 20%, in 100 generations, says William G. Hill in Science.1  Now also, geneticists have the tools to look for which genes are evolving.  The story is not all that clear, however, both for corn and for similar studies trying to beef up poultry (if you’ll pardon the expression).
    Do lots of small genetic changes add up (the “infinitesimal model” suggested by Darwin), or do single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNP) produce dramatic changes?  Maybe both, maybe one or the other, or maybe something else.  It’s not clear how to define a small genetic change, for one thing, or how to isolate one change from effects on other genes.
The continuing responses to selection, therefore, are not likely to be due mainly to continuing tiny changes in gene frequency predicted by the infinitesimal model; instead they may be due to the fixation of genes, including those arising by mutation after selection started, which have appreciable effects while segregating.  The biological processes leading to oil concentration or chicken growth are obviously highly interactive, but genes that contribute to selection response must differ in effect when averaged over all other segregating genes.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
The experiments to which Hill refers did not provide unambiguous evidence that small genetic mutations (quantitative trait loci, or QTLs) added up, even in this clear-cut case of artificial selection.  He leaves it as an exercise: “We have yet to discover how such QTLs work, but several of the SNPs associated with oil concentration were at candidate loci, so there are opportunities to find out.”  So this is an ongoing challenge for geneticists: “identify the genes and the molecular changes in them that cause these many small but important differences in quantitative traits.”  Nevertheless, he is sure that this century-long experiment will illuminate how evolution works: “It is these small differences that generate variability in populations, providing fuel for change through the action of natural and artificial selection.
1William G. Hill, “A Century of Corn Selection,”
Science, Vol 307, Issue 5710, 683-684, 4 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1105459].
Excuse me, but after a hundred years of forcing selection to go one way, which nature does not do, are you saying that corn still only produces corn oil, and not something else?  Are you hinting that breeders have hit a plateau at 20%?  That with all the tools of genetics to look for a known effect, they are not sure which genes are producing it?
    Corn with more oil is still corn, and chickens with more meat are still chickens, but natural selection is very different from artificial selection.  You can’t claim that these experiments are going to fuel “natural” selection.  Let’s put these hyper-specialized breeds out into the wild to compete, and see if they keep getting oilier and meatier.  That would be like expecting a poodle to become more poodly in the dog-eat-dog world of the Yellowstone wolf-pack ecosystem.  Stop equivocating with the word selection.  Artificial selection is intelligent design.
Next headline on:  BotanyGenetics and DNADarwinism and Evolutionary Theory
Book Review    02/03/2005: From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart, reviewed by Johannes L. Jacobse at TownHall.com:
Jacobse puzzles over why so many intellectuals in Germany allowed Hitler to rise to power with so little objection.  The answer, Weikart’s book explains, is that Darwinian ethics had so permeated German thinking by that time that the Nazi platform of promoting fitness and weeding out the unfit did not seem all that unusual.  Neither Weikart nor Jacobse blame all the Nazi atrocities on Darwinism, yet believe the connection is incontrovertible:
Why were the Jews the target of Nazi genocide?  Weikart says the historical evidence is inconclusive, although it appears that Hitler drew more from a popularized street Darwinism than from the scholarly tracts of intellectuals.  Although anti-Semitism was always a feature of Darwinian social dogma, Hitler made it the centerpiece of Nazi social policy.
    Weikart concludes by reiterating that Darwinism alone does not explain the German descent into Nazi darkness.  Political and social factors come into play, as well as the nihilism of Nietzsche and others.  Nevertheless, the dependence of the Nazi social vision upon Darwinian ethics is so great that Hitler cannot be properly understood apart from it.
  (Emphasis added.)
The book review explains in more detail how the Darwinian world view “took over” Germany, and how Darwinian ethics fed directly into the German social and intellectual scene leading up to Hitler.  Richard Weikart is a professor of history at California State University.
In an online article by professor Weikart, Does Darwinism Devalue Human Life?, he discusses Darwinian ethics in relation not only to Hitler, but to modern trends in medical research and social policy.  Read the first two paragraphs to get hooked.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary TheoryPolitics and Ethics
Age Estimate for Oldest Glacier Revised Way Down    02/02/2005
Deposits from Antarctic glacial ice thought to be 8.1 million years old have been re-dated at not more than 310,000 years old, and maybe as little as 43,000, reports a team writing in the Feb. issue of Geology.1  Ng (MIT), Hallet, Sletten and Stone (U. of Washington) analyzed cosmogenic helium-3 and calculated the rate of sublimation of the ice to arrive at the new age estimate for glacial till (leftover rock debris from glacial melt or ice evaporation).  “Such rapid recent growth of the till contradicts previous interpretations that it is older than 8.1 Ma at an adjacent site, where it encloses volcanic ash of this age,” they say (emphasis added in all quotes).  “We question whether the ash provides a valid age constraint for the ice.”  Earlier geologists had dated the ash fall as a time constraint on the glacial till, but this team says it may accumulate much more rapidly than assumed.  “Our results show that the ash may not be a reliable stratigraphic indicator.”
1Ng et al., “Fast-growing till over ancient ice in Beacon Valley, Antarctica,”
Geology, Vol. 33, No. 2, pp. 121–124, doi: 10.1130/G21064.1.
This team may not have the last word, either.  Readers should learn from this story that even among secular geologists, interpretations can contradict one another by orders of magnitude.  This is not just a story about dating methods, but also feeds into the debate about global warming.  Their paper begins, “The recent history of East Antarctica is key to understanding the response of large ice sheets to climate forcing.”  Beware political decisions based on advice from geologists who read present data and weave stories about things that happened millions of years ago, as if it will help forecast future events.  Considering revisions this large, politicians might be better off forecasting climate from analysis of layers in a calf’s liver.
Next headline on:  GeologyDating Methods
“Bird Brain” No Longer an Insult    02/01/2005
“Birds can perform amazing tasks beyond the reach of cats and dogs,” begins an article in the
BBC News.  So pay a little respect.  You can still call your boss a bird brain, but had better quickly explain why that is a compliment.  See also the longer article on MSNBC News.
    In a related article, Jessica Ebert wrote in Nature1 that “bird-brain terminology” is undergoing a reformation.  The century-old naming convention of brain parts in birds resulted from a belief that birds were primitive, possessing simple brains capable only of instinct.  The distinction between bird and mammal brain capabilities is artificial, scientists now realize: “Signalling molecules and neurotransmitters operate similarly in the brains of birds and mammals.  And researchers agree that birds can learn: crows can pass on tool-making skills, for example.”  A consortium of neurobiologists has revamped the nomenclature to give bird brains the respect they deserve.
1Jessica Ebert, “Reformation of bird-brain terminology takes off,” Nature 433, 449 (03 February 2005); doi:10.1038/433449b.
Can your pet cat or dog sing?  Fly?  Talk?  Migrate across the world?  Solve a puzzle as fast as a bird?  Don’t let the small size fool you.  Birds are compressed packages of extreme design that are a wonder to behold.  The diversity of skills found among birds is mind-boggling.  A dinosaur couldn’t figure all this out if it wanted to, even if it knew how to select those rare lucky mutations.
Next headline on:  BirdsAmazing Stories
Genes Evolving Downward    02/02/2005
Those assuming the evolution of eukaryotic genomes has progressed upward in complexity may find the following abstract from PNAS1 startling:
We use the pattern of intron conservation in 684 groups of orthologs from seven fully sequenced eukaryotic genomes to provide maximum likelihood estimates of the number of introns present in the same orthologs in various eukaryotic ancestors.  We find: (i) intron density in the plant-animal ancestor was high, perhaps two-thirds that of humans and three times that of Drosophila; and (ii) intron density in the ancestral bilateran was also high, equaling that of humans and four times that of Drosophila.  We further find that modern introns are generally very old, with two-thirds of modern bilateran introns dating to the ancestral bilateran and two-fifths of modern plant, animal, and fungus introns dating to the plant-animal ancestor.  Intron losses outnumber gains over a large range of eukaryotic lineages.  These results show that early eukaryotic gene structures were very complex, and that simplification, not embellishment, has dominated subsequent evolution.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)
In their paper, Harvard biologists Scott Roy and Walter Gilbert used the maximum-likelihood phylogenetic method instead of maximum parsimony, and feel it provided a better ancestral tree.  In fact, they used the same data as other scientists who used parsimony, and got very different results.  They are emphatic about their conclusions:
These results push back the origin of very introndense genome structures over a billion years to the plant-animal split.  Indeed, ancestors at the divergences between major eukaryotic kingdoms as well as the ancestral bilateran appear to have harbored nearly as many introns as the most intron-dense modern organisms.  This is a sharp repudiation of the common assumption that intron-riddled gene structures arose only recently.
    In addition, our analysis shows that the majority of introns are themselves very old.  Two-thirds of bilateran introns were present in the bilateran ancestor; 40% of opisthokont introns were present in the opisthokont ancestor; and 40% of plant, animal, and fungal introns were present in the plant–animal ancestor.  This is quite different from what is commonly assumed and surprising in light of relatively fast rates of intron turnover observed in nematodes and flies.
This bias toward intron loss instead of gain appears to be a general trend among eukaryotes, they conclude.  What does this mean?  The only way to rescue an evolution toward “improvement” with these results is to suggest that introns are bad, like parasites, and that over time, eukaryotes got better at ridding themselves of them.  They reject that and other notions, assuming instead that “It seems much more likely that different selection or mutation regimes for introns along different lineages are driving the observed instances of gene streamlining.”  Although intron function and evolution is still largely unknown, they leave only an admission of ignorance of what their results mean – only that geneticists had better re-examine their assumptions:
These results contradict the assumption that genome complexity has increased through evolution.  Instead, species have repeatedly abandoned complex gene structures for simpler ones, questioning the purpose and value of intricate gene structures.  These results suggest a reconsideration of the genomics of eukaryotic emergence.

1Scott W. Roy and Walter Gilbert, “Complex early genes,”
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0408355101, published online before print February 1, 2005.
Introns and the complex molecular machines that process them (spliceosomes – see 09/12/2002 and 09/17/2004 entries) are still mysterious, but does anyone see a neat picture of evolution here?  Why would some introns be ultra-conserved (see 05/27/2004 entry), and others be removed?  Evolutionary theory is not helping explain introns or spliceosomes, and may be missing entirely the picture of what is going on.  Why not approach the data from the perspective of intelligent design and entropy?  The complexity was apparently present from the start.  Where did it come from?  The notions of ancestry in this picture are fictional.  The assumed trees are filled with gaps.  What seems apparent is devolution, not evolution.
    Some have suggested that introns provide opportunities to expand the genetic code through alternative splicing, so that more information can be gleaned out of a compact code.  Others have pointed to robustness and repair as possible functions.  Let a new generation of geneticists approach this problem without fogged-up Darwinian glasses on.  They certainly cannot see things any worse than the Darwin Party has done so far.
Next headline on:  Genetics and DNA
Teachers Getting Reluctant to Teach Evolution    02/01/2005
Cornelia Dean in the
New York Times worries that, to stay out of trouble, more and more biology teachers are avoiding the discussion of evolution.
Dean quotes someone who claims “the practice of avoiding the topic was widespread, particularly in districts where many people adhere to fundamentalist faiths.”  But why would teachers fear discussing it because of that?  It’s open season on “fundamentalist” faiths (loaded words for Bible-believing Christians).  Most teachers have no problem with attributing everything bad in the world to Christianity.  Maybe the students from those districts are better at asking the hard questions that give Darwin Party biology teachers stomach aches (see 06/14/2004 commentary).
    Most creationists support the teaching of evolution, as long as the problems and controversies are taught instead of one-sided indoctrination.  Teaching evolution can be a valuable lesson on how smart people can believe dumb things.  So don’t avoid it; let’s open the Darwin Hall of Shame and talk about Piltdown man, pigtooth man, peppered moths, doctored drawings of embryos, National Geographic misinfomercials and all the rest.  Students need a little humor to break up the day.  Be creative; with February 12 coming, you can celebrate Darwin Day with games and contests, and even sing some evolution songs.  Evolution teaching can be fun!
    Sweeping such an important controversy under the rug is not a healthy educational policy.  Like it or not, evolution has had a major influence on the world for 140 years.  Today, the subject is in a state of major ferment and reconsideration.  The teacher doesn’t have to take sides.  Many bright young people will actually wake up to science if evolution is taught as a controversial subject: that is, if they get a chance to exercise critical thinking about the evidence for and against it, and can debate the issues in class openly without ridicule, rather than hearing a borrrrrring one-sided sales pitch.  It’s only the teachers on a mission to indoctrinate blank slates into the Cult of Charlie that have anything to fear.
    For those teachers still afraid, we have a simple solution; get the film Where Does the Evidence Lead? and show it as a six-part series (10 minutes each).  It will take you off the hook, and teach the students sufficient information to cover the curriculum requirement, without worries about religion in the biology class.
Next headline on:  EducationDarwinism and Evolutionary Theory
Initial Science Results from Cassini, cont.
  • Wake up call:  The moon Pan sets up wakes along the edge of the Encke gap that persist long after it has passed, and interact with other wave trains in complex ways.  The image shows a sort of “corduroy” pattern that results (picture).  “The persistence of the wakes far from Pan and the inferred lack of damping may signify the importance of collective effects and self-gravity in maintaining coherent structure far from the moon,” because there is less wave damping going on than dynamical models predict.
  • Straw poll:  A new ring phenomenon called “straw” was observed at fine scales in some A ring regions (picture).  It consists of narrow, quasi-parallel variations in brightness that “may be evidence of different physical manifestations of particle aggregation, caused by either gravitational instabilities or kinematical effects or both.”  In addition, “mottled” and “ropy” features were observed in the A ring and on the outer edge of the Encke gap, respectively (picture).  “We surmise that the straw and ropy features are a product of enhanced kinematical and self-gravitational effects associated with passage of ring particles, and the consequent squeezing of their streamlines, through the crests of density waves or wakes.”  The mottled features may be traffic jams among particles that spread into the straw and ropy features.  More pictures
  • Prometheus steals ring fire:  the potato-shaped moonlet Prometheus, just inside the F-ring, causes some of the kinks and clumps seen by Voyager, and steals fine material from the ring (picture).  “These observations indicate that Prometheus has swept material from the region occupied by its orbit.”
  • Phoebe jeebies:  The outermost retrograde moon Phoebe is dirty with a layer of dark material over ice (pictures).  The big crater, recently named Jason (picture), shows landslides of the dark material uncovering bright ice.  The dark regolith (soil) is more porous than that on Jupiter’s moons.  No eruptions of material were detected in UV (picture), as would have been expected if Phoebe used to be a comet. 
  • Iapetus myopitus:  Whatever darkened the leading side of Saturn’s third largest moon happened after the craters formed, because it left a thin dark layer on them without disturbing them.  The bright side looks the same age.  Feathery edges on the transition zone suggest the dark material is less than 1 km thick, and appears emplaced by ballistic transport.  The fact that the transition is equidistant from the equatorial ridge suggests a connection; did dark material eject from it?
        Its equatorial ridge stretches for 110 degrees in longitude and reaches 20km (12 mi) and more in height, with steep walls and parallel ridges in places (gallery; see also 01/07/2005 entry).  Parts of it show impact craters, meaning it is not the most youthful feature on the moon.  If the dark material erupted from this ridge, why are the walls so steep, and where did the heat come from?  Since “there is no presently known heat source (such as conventional tidal heating) large enough for such extensive resurfacing of an entire hemisphere postdating the cratering epoch,” scientists favor a source outside the moon.
  • Winds of change:  Saturn has slowed by 1% since Voyager flew by, for unknown reasons.  Its equatorial winds are also 20 to 45% slower.  This might be due to extreme seasonal changes caused by varying shadows from the rings, that leads to vertical wind shear.  Scientists cannot account for the high winds in terms of Saturn’s angular momentum.  No one predicted that Saturn’s rotation period could slow down due to storm activity, and “the physics involved are far from understood.”
  • Saturn and Thor:  Saturn has cyclonic storms with powerful lightning discharges that last for 5 hours or more (diagram).  Big storms spin off little storms, and little oval-shaped storms can merge together (picture).  Saturn’s lightning is a million times more intense than Earth’s biggest thunderbolt.
  • Sooty air:  Saturn has twice the carbon as Jupiter in its atmosphere, and seven times that of the sun, in the form of methane.  Scientists feel this is consistent with the core accretion model of the formation of the giant planets, but without knowing Uranus and Neptune better, it might be coincidence.
  • Thick, bright rings are cool:  Surprisingly, the denser rings were cooler than the thinner ones (picture).  One would expect more collisions, and higher temperatures, in the thicker regions.  The infrared instrument scientists could not figure out, also, why the lit side of the rings were cooler than the unlit side, compared to Voyager measurements.
  • Ring dirt:  Fine radial structure in the rings, seen in UV (picture), indicate “collisional transport and recent renewal events” within the last 10 to 100 million years, a tiny fraction of the assumed age of Saturn.  The scientists suggest that bright ringlets are formed when small moonlets with fresh ice inside are shattered by impacts.  The bright rings then gradually darken and spread out.
  • Age limit of E-ring:  The amount of oxygen lost in the E-ring during late 2003 and early 2004 measurements (see 07/02/2004 entry and diagram) imply an upper limit for the age of the ring: “Over a period of 100 million years, the loss rate inferred from these observations would consume the entire E-ring mass, even including postulated parent bodies” (italics added).  This limit would be much lower without the parent bodies.  The mass loss rate is 10 times higher than earlier estimates.
  • Energy punch:  Saturn’s magnetosphere is smaller than Jupiter’s, but the UV instrument showed a surprise:
    The UVIS data show that the neutral gas in the magnetosphere is subject to transient phenomena that insert large amounts of icy ring material into the central plasma and deposit a large amount of energy into the plasma.  Our results emphasize the completely different states of the Jupiter and Saturn magnetospheres: Saturn’s neutral/ion mixing ratio is 30,000 times greater.  The energy-deposition rate in the Saturn inner magnetosphere that is required to maintain the state of the system in the 3 to 6 RS region is estimated at 1.4 x 1010 W.  This energy is mainly consumed in removing mass from the system. (Emphasis added.)
  • Radio Saturn:  Saturn whistles and hisses in radio waves, indicating powerful electrostatic effects in the rings and atmosphere.  Radio and plasma wave scientists (website) listened to impacts during the ring plane crossings (audio).  Microscopic particles hit the spacecraft at rates of 2000 per second or more, depending on the sizes of the particles.  To listen to Saturn radio on the air, go to the team’s audio library at U of Iowa.
  • Ring air:  The mass and plasma spectrometers sniffed neutral oxygen around the rings.  This means the ring system has a persistent oxygen atmosphere of its own.  The oxygen forms from the dissociation of water in the icy ring particles; ions tend to stick to the ring particles, but neutral oxygen does not.  This proves that oxygen alone cannot be an unambiguous biomarker (i.e., a sign of life) when astrobiologists probe the spectra of nearby stars and planets; see EurekAlert and SaturnDaily articles.  The plasma spectrometer scientists remarked, “We have observed important features in the plasma distributions, dynamics, and composition of Saturn’s magnetosphere that challenge current models.”
  • Dust fling:  The dust analyzer (picture) found large amounts of 20-nanometer particles streaming away from Saturn at 100 km per second (216,000 mph).  They seem to be made up of carbon, silicon, oxygen and iron impurities from the rings, mainly the A ring.  Collisions create the dust particles.  They are accelerated by Saturn’s magnetic field and flung out of the system.

1Nature Vol 433 No 7027 pp669-784, 17 Feb 2005; 3 papers, 1 review article.
2Science, 307:5713 (25 Feb. 2005); 11 papers, 3 review articles.
For anyone who was intrigued by the Voyager discoveries back in 1981, these are great days indeed.  The Saturn system is a far more dynamic and complex panorama than anyone could have expected.  Did you enjoy getting this much detail in this entry?  If so, write us and let us know whether the effort to summarize all this material was helpful and interesting; thanks to those who have written in already.
Next headline on:  Solar System
Back to beginning of article
State of the Cosmos, cont.
According to inflationary cosmology, the universe expanded exponentially quickly for a fraction of a second very early in its history—growing from a patch as small as 10–26 m, one hundred billion times smaller than a proton, to macroscopic scales on the order of a meter, all within about 10–35 s—before slowing down to the more stately rate of expansion that has characterized the universe’s behavior ever since.  The driving force behind this dramatic growth, strangely enough, was gravity.... Although this might sound like hopeless (or, depending on one’s inclinations, interesting) speculation, in fact inflationary cosmology leads to several quantitative predictions about the present behavior of our universe—predictions that are being tested to unprecedented accuracy by a new generation of observational techniques.  So far the agreement has been excellent.
One such prediction, he claims, is that the universe should be nearly perfectly “flat,” or balanced between expansion and contraction.  Guth points to the WMAP measurements (see
02/14/2003, 03/06/2003 and 05/02/2003 entries) as confirming this prediction that solved the “flatness problem” (the observation that the universe was very nearly flat), a conundrum of pre-inflationary models.  Another prediction is that the universe should be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales, which again, he says, is found to be the case.  Before inflation, cosmologists had to reckon with the “horizon problem”:
Without inflation, this large-scale smoothness appears quite puzzling.  According to ordinary (noninflationary) big bang cosmology, these photons should never have had a chance to come to thermal equilibrium: The regions in the sky from which they were released would have been about 100 times farther apart than even light could have traveled between the time of the big bang and the time of the photons’ release.  Much like the flatness problem, inflation provides a simple and generic reason for the observed homogeneity of the CMB: Today’s observable universe originated from a much smaller region than that in the noninflationary scenarios.  This much-smaller patch could easily have become smooth before inflation began.  Inflation would then stretch this small homogeneous region to encompass the entire observable universe.
Guth points to small-scale perturbations, or ripples, in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) as also supportive of his inflation idea, mainly because other proposals have been ruled out.  While “full class of inflationary models can make a variety of predictions,” he says, the simplest model “fits the data beautifully” (see 06/18/2003 and 06/12/2001 entries for contrary views).
    With such an admirable track record behind him, Guth turns to how research on inflation has progressed.  Some have questioned that, once started, inflation could have ever stopped again: the “eternal inflation” problem.  Others wonder how ordinary matter would have arisen when inflation effectively dropped the temperature to zero and diluted the density of ordinary matter to negligible quantities.  Particles were created, he explains by oscillations that set up resonances between quantum fields: “Large numbers of particles would be created very quickly within specific energy-bands.... This dramatic burst of particle creation would affect spacetime itself, as it responded to changes in the arrangement of matter and energy.”
    Guth also discusses how inflation fits in with brane cosmology (see 04/26/2002 entry) and string theory, insisting it is compatible with either.  He seems to like the latter, because it produces a story of two lovers who need each other:
The union of string theory and cosmology is barely past its honeymoon, but so far the marriage appears to be a happy one.  Inflation, from its inception, was a phenomenologically very successful idea that has been in need of a fundamental theory to constrain its many variations.  String theory, from its inception, has been a very well-constrained mathematical theory in need of a phenomenology to provide contact with observation.  The match seems perfect, but time will be needed before we know for sure whether either marriage partner can fulfill the needs of the other.  In the meantime, ideas are stirring that have the potential to radically alter our ideas about fundamental laws of physics.
In fact, with brane theory, there seems to be a happy threesome in the offing.  The milieu of proposals, each with its suite of variables (some 10500 possible inflating/vacuum states in string theory, for instance) leaves the reader with a sense of an infinite combination of possibilities with little hope for picking the right one to build the universe we know: 
Although the rules of string theory are unique, the low-energy laws that describe the physics that we can in practice observe would depend strongly on which vacuum state our universe was built upon.  Other vacuum states could give rise to different values of “fundamental” constants, or even to altogether different types of “elementary” particles, and even different numbers of large spatial dimensions!  Furthermore, because inflation is generically eternal, one would expect that the resulting eternally inflating spacetime would sample every one of these states, each an infinite number of times.  Because all of these states are possible, the important problem is to learn which states are probable.  This problem involves comparison of one infinity with another, which is in general not a well-defined questionProposals have been made and arguments have been given to justify them, but no conclusive solution to this problem has been found.
Guth explains that no one has been able to explain why our universe took the initial state it did: i.e., whether its state was determined or random.  Maybe the escape clause is to believe that all possible states exist, and we observe the one that produced observers (the anthropic principle).  Guth seems surprisingly warm to this idea that produced a “privileged planet” by chance:
Another possibility, now widely discussed, is that nothing determines the choice of vacuum for our universe; instead, the observable universe is viewed as a tiny speck within a multiverse that contains every possible type of vacuum.  If this point of view is right, then a quantity such as the electron-to-proton mass ratio would be on the same footing as the distance between our planet and the sun.  Neither is fixed by the fundamental laws, but instead both are determined by historical accidents, restricted only by the fact that if these quantities did not lie within a suitable range, we would not be here to make the observations.  This idea—that the laws of physics that we observe are determined not by fundamental principles, but instead by the requirement that intelligent life can exist to observe them—is often called the anthropic principle.  Although in some contexts this principle might sound patently religious, the combination of inflationary cosmology and the landscape of string theory gives the anthropic principle a scientifically viable framework.
(See also 02/05/2002 entry on multiple universes.)  One particularly shocking example of anthropic parameters is the energy density of the vacuum (see 09/30/2004 entry) which, according to naive estimates, could be up to 10120 times as high as that which is observed, even with dark energy (see 02/28/2004 entry).  Puzzles like the anthropic principle reinforce the necessity of asking cosmological questions:
There are both positive and negative contributions, but physicists have been trying for decades to find some reason why the positive and negative contributions should cancel, so far to no avail.  It seems even more hopeless to find a reason why the net energy density should be nonzero, but 120 orders of magnitude smaller than its expected value.  However, if one adopts the anthropic point of view, it was argued as early as 1987 by Weinberg that an explanation is at hand: If the multiverse contained regions with all conceivable values of the cosmological constant, galaxies and hence life could appear only in those very rare regions where the value is small, because otherwise the huge gravitational repulsion would blow matter apart without allowing it to collect into galaxies.
    The landscape of string theory and the evolution of the universe through the landscape are of course still not well understood, and some have argued that the landscape might not even exist.  It seems too early to draw any firm conclusions, but clearly the question of whether the laws of physics are uniquely determined, or whether they are environmental accidents, is an issue too fundamental to ignore.
Guth repeats the usual “precision cosmology” rhetoric that our instruments are nailing down the values of fundamental cosmic properties (see 09/20/2004 entry).  But inflation is not such a precise quantity; in his conclusion, he admits that much work needs to be done (see 12/21/2000 and 05/30/2001 entries):
Even with the evidence in favor of inflation now stronger than ever, much work remains.  Inflationary cosmology has always been a framework for studying the interconnections between particle physics and gravitation—a collection of models rather than a unique theory.  The next generation of astronomical detectors should be able to distinguish between competing inflationary models, whittling down the large number of options to a preferred few.
Hopefully, those detectors will also solve some remaining “major puzzles” such as the nature of dark matter and dark energy, which combined are said to make up 96% of the universe, leaving a mere 4% that we observe (see 06/20/2003 and 12/17/2003 entries).  “Whatever its origin, dark energy, much like dark matter, presents a fascinating puzzle that will keep cosmologists busy for years to come.”  (See also 06/04/2002 entry, and 11/02/2002 entry and commentary.)
1Alan H. Guth and David I. Kaiser, “Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the Smallest to the Largest Scales,” Science, Vol 307, Issue 5711, 884-890, 11 February 2005, [DOI: 10.1126/science.1107483].
We had to show you in their own words what these MIT eggheads are saying.  Guth, whose name stands for Grand Unified Theory Huckster, has been propounding his “framework” for 25 years now, and has become famous for it.  But what is inflation, other than an untestable, ad hoc proposal invented to get around insurmountable obstacles in the Big Bang cosmology of the 70s?  Astronomers were well aware of the flatness problem and the horizon problem; with a sweep of the hand and some abstruse math, con artist Guth in his magic show wagon said “no problem,” we’ll just stretch the universe and the problems will no longer be visible.  A viewer objects that he has just diluted the particles to negligible density.  “No problem” again; we’ll pick the right vacuum state to make quantum fields resonate, such that their energy produces new particles out of nothing.  Another viewer objects that one cannot determine the conditions by chance to rig the outcome.  ”Well, then,” the huckster chimes, “if it were not so, we would not be here arguing about it now, would we?  Hmmmmm?”
    Don’t be fooled by Guth’s shameless claims that observations are confirming his little something-from-nothing trick (see 06/23/2001 entry).  When he invented inflation to get around known problems, he cannot turn around and say that his trick predicted that it would solve them.  The fact that he turns to the “patently religious” anthropic principle is a clear sign of desperation.  His model does not account for the finely-tuned parameters of the universe that permit galaxies, stars and life, and invoking an infinity of universes to keep chance in the running is patently unscientific.  Don’t be fooled by the math, either; it just means he got good grades in calculus and knows how to move Greek symbols around according to some rules.  No amount of mathematical manipulation can save a proposition from bad assumptions.  When your math is off by 120 orders of magnitude and forces you to compare infinities, you have lost all contact with reality; you’re just playing games.
    Guth and Kaiser need to take up truck driving.  That would get them out of their ivory towers at MIT and into the real world, where they would be forced to look at trees, mountains, weather, ecology and all the other observable things on our privileged planet that are inexplicable by chance: realities that proclaim design, purpose, intention.  While driving down the road, Guth should pop in a cassette of Bob Berman’s hellfire sermon (see 10/06/2004 entry).
Next headline on:  Cosmology
Back to beginning of article
Teach Evolution, cont.
  1. Rules of Science:  Must science be naturalistic?  Great scientists who were religiously motivated and believed in creation and design (Newton, Kepler, Maxwell, Leeuwenhoek, Boyle, Herschel, Faraday, Maxwell, etc. etc.).  How Charles Darwin changed the rules of science from a search for truth to the search for a good story.  Is having “one long argument” based on disconnected and irrelevant inferences a reliable method for arriving at a true description of the world, or can it lead astray?  Limitations of science.  The history and fallacy of positivism.  Prediction and falsification; is evolution falsifiable?  The art of just-so storytelling.  Endless appeals to future discoveries.  Adding to the plot line vs. using Occam’s razor.  Differences between observable, repeatable science and forensic science.  Discussion: is any criticism of evolution inherently religious?  Are students capable of examining evidence on controversial questions, or must they be taught only the “accepted” theory?  Is science about arriving at a consensus, or about being right?
  2. Icons of Evolution:  A critical examination of the most famous “proofs” of evolution, including historical claims (such as the recapitulation theory, the horse series and vestigial organs) that have since been overturned.  Differences between artificial selection (guided) and natural selection (unguided).    Examples of phenomena unexplainable by evolution.  Unlike prior lesson plans, this one considers problems with the Darwinian explanations, and offers alternative explanations for the same evidence.
  3. Frauds, Hoaxes and Fallacies:  Baloney detecting: watching out for circular reasoning, card stacking, personification and other logical goofs.  What lessons have we learned from Piltdown Man, Haeckel’s embryos, Nebraska Man, Java Man, Peking Man, peppered moths, Margaret Mead’s Samoa, the Miller experiment, the Martian meteorite, Archaeoraptor and other classic evolutionary mistakes?  Theme: even the experts can be fooled, and can be led astray by their own biases.
  4. Critical thinking:  Information theory and design detection.  Is biological design (which is universally acknowledged) real or apparent?  Are undirected processes of chance capable of producing complex, functioning, self-replicating systems?  Is a theory without a proven mechanism really a theory at all?  Can a theory that explains everything explain anything?  Is evolution self-refuting: i.e., can a theory that denies absolute truth make truth claims?  Is it legitimate to assume one’s conclusion and force uncooperative data to fit it?  Is evolution an observation or a dogma?  (Unlike earlier curricula, this one doesn’t hide claims by leading scientists who deny that natural selection is capable of generating new information and complex, indispensable, interacting parts.)
  5. The fossil record:  If all animals and plants had a common one-celled ancestor, the record should be preserved in fossils.  This segment seeks for a non-dogmatic, open-minded evaluation of the evidence.  Techniques of forensic science are considered, including ways bias can lead to erroneous conclusions based on circumstantial evidence.  Students are shown how any set of objects, including tools and automobiles, can be fit into an ancestral sequence if that is the presupposition.  How dating methods contain built-in evolutionary and uniformitarian assumptions.
  6. The origin of life:  Early beliefs in spontaneous generation and how they were disproved.  Leeuwenhoek; Spallanzani; Pasteur and the Law of Biogenesis.  Review of Darwin’s “warm little pond” suggestion, Oparin, Miller, Sagan, SETI, exobiology and modern astrobiology.  Why Dean Kenyon abandoned chemical evolution.  Why Francis Crick considered panspermia.  Mathematical challenges to evolution by Fred Hoyle and the Wistar Institute.  Three requirements for a hypothetical living entity: information storage, metabolism and containment.  How living cells use molecular machines to fulfill these requirements.  The extent of the gap between chemistry and biology.  Problems with the leading “RNA World” scenario.  Why natural selection is helpless without autonomous, accurate replication.  The level of information required for such replication.  Problems with chirality, thermodynamics, cross-reactions, radiation, dilution, association, half-lives of components, and complexity.  Are evolutionists getting closer to an explanation?  Is chemical evolution falsifiable?  Should non-evolutionary explanations get a hearing?  Discussion: what would be the philosophical impact of discovering discontinuities in the molecules-to-man evolutionary story of the universe?
  7. History of evolutionary thought:  How evolutionary speculations go back to the Greeks and before; the history of design arguments from ancient times to the present.  How Charles Darwin, whose only degree was in theology, lost his faith on flawed evidence from Lyell.  Did Darwin plagiarize others?  Mendel and Darwin.   Controversies that led to the truce of neo-Darwinism.  Darwin’s bulldog and the Four Musketeers.  Propaganda tactics: the Scopes Trial, Inherit the Wind and TV animations that gloss over gaps in the evidence.  Glittering generalities.  Modern conflicts between evolutionists: gradualists vs. punctuationists, individual selectionists vs. group selectionists, sympatric vs. allopatric speciationists, believers and deniers of sexual selection, paleoanthropologists who deny the validity of each other’s finds.  Doubts about the validity of evolutionary psychology and sociology.  Evolutionary religion (Michael Ruse).  The tactics of modern Darwinists (NCSE, ACLU) to preclude debate.
  8. Ideas and their consequences:  Marx and Darwin.  From Darwin to Hitler.  From Darwin to Lenin, Stalin and Mao.  Social Darwinism.  Eugenics.  The rise of Big Science and the forced exclusion of non-naturalistic explanations.  Darwinism and abortion.  Darwinism and religion.  Darwinism and historical interpretation.  Darwinism and relativism.  Darwinian medicine.  Darwinism and entertainment (movies, etc.).  Darwinism and the rise of despair in arts and literature (Tennyson, H. G. Wells, etc.).  Darwinism and euthanasia (à la Peter Singer).  Darwinism’s influence on human cloning and other modern ethical debates.  Darwinian legal philosophy (the law evolves, etc.)  Evolution’s effect on criminal law.  Darwinian economics, politics, foreign policy and education.  Discussion: Why are so many Darwinists also Democrats?  Darwin-based totalitarian regimes today (North Korea, Cuba, China).  Darwinism’s effect on young people: sexual behavior, suicide, depression, and meaninglessness.  Why the Columbine teen-age killers wore T-shirts shouting Natural Selection.  The design alternative.
How’s that?  Teachers can have this for free.  Supporting material for all the above can be found right here in these pages (use the Search feature or backtrack through the chain links on Evolution).  Anyone learning about all this material will get a far superior education about evolution than the one-sided indoctrination provided by the average watered-down, sanitized, filtered high school textbook.  Yes, teach evolution!  Teach more of it.  Teach all of it.  Teach it fair and balanced.  Ignorance is not bliss.  Get informed about the arguments on both sides.  No child, no adult, no one should be
Left Behind.
Next headline on:  EvolutionEducationSETI
Back to beginning of article


Scientist of the Month

Click on Apollos, the trusty
Guide to Evolutionary Theory
Feedback
Write Us!

“The IDEA Center also highly recommends visiting Creation-Evolution Headlines... the most expansive and clearly written origins news website on the internet!”
(endorsement on Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center)

“Hey Friends, Check out this site: www.creationsafaris.com.  This is a fantastic resource for the whole family.... a fantastic reference library with summaries, commentaries and great links that are added to daily—archives go back five years.”
(a reader who found us in Georgia)

“I just wanted to drop you a note telling you that at www.BornAgainRadio.com, I’ve added a link to your excellent Creation-Evolution news site.”
(a radio announcer)

“I cannot understand why anyone would invest so much time and effort to a website of sophistry and casuistry.  Why twist Christian apology into an illogic pretzel to placate your intellect?  Isn’t it easier to admit that your faith has no basis -- hence, ‘faith’.  It would be extricate [sic] yourself from intellectual dishonesty -- and from bearing false witness.”
Sincerely, Rev. [name withheld] (an ex-Catholic, “apostate Christian” Natural/Scientific pantheist)

“Just wanted to let you folks know that we are consistent readers and truly appreciate the job you are doing.  God bless you all this coming New Year.”
(from two prominent creation researchers/writers in Oregon)

“Thanks so much for your site!  It is brain candy!”
(a reader in North Carolina)

“I Love your site – probably a little too much.  I enjoy the commentary and the links to the original articles.”
(a civil engineer in New York)

“I’ve had your Creation/Evolution Headlines site on my favourites list for 18 months now, and I can truthfully say that it’s one of the best on the Internet, and I check in several times a week.  The constant stream of new information on such a variety of science issues should impress anyone, but the rigorous and humourous way that every thought is taken captive is inspiring.  I’m pleased that some Christians, and indeed, some webmasters, are devoting themselves to producing real content that leaves the reader in a better state than when they found him.”
(a community safety manager in England)

“I really appreciate the effort that you are making to provide the public with information about the problems with the General Theory of Evolution.  It gives me ammunition when I discuss evolution in my classroom.  I am tired of the evolutionary dogma.  I wish that more people would stand up against such ridiculous beliefs.”
(a science teacher in Alabama)

“If you choose to hold an opinion that flies in the face of every piece of evidence collected so far, you cannot be suprised [sic] when people dismiss your views.”

(a “former Christian” software distributor, location not disclosed)

“...the Creation Headlines is the best.  Visiting your site... is a standard part of my startup procedures every morning.”
(a retired Air Force Chaplain)

“I LOVE your site and respect the time and work you put into it.  I read the latest just about EVERY night before bed and send selection[s] out to others and tell others about it.  I thank you very much and keep up the good work (and humor).”
(a USF grad in biology)

“Answering your invitation for thoughts on your site is not difficult because of the excellent commentary I find.  Because of the breadth and depth of erudition apparent in the commentaries, I hope I’m not being presumptuous in suspecting the existence of contributions from a ‘Truth Underground’ comprised of dissident college faculty, teachers, scientists, and engineers.  If that’s not the case, then it is surely a potential only waiting to be realized.  Regardless, I remain in awe of the care taken in decomposing the evolutionary cant that bombards us from the specialist as well as popular press.”
(a mathematician/physicist in Arizona)

“I’m from Quebec, Canada.  I have studied in ‘pure sciences’ and after in actuarial mathematics.  I’m visiting this site 3-4 times in a week.  I’m learning a lot and this site gives me the opportunity to realize that this is a good time to be a creationist!”
(a French Canadian reader)

“I LOVE your Creation Safari site, and the Baloney Detector material.  OUTSTANDING JOB!!!!”
(a reader in the Air Force)

“You have a unique position in the Origins community.  Congratulations on the best current affairs news source on the origins net.  You may be able to write fast but your logic is fun to work through.”
(a pediatrician in California)

“Visit your site almost daily and find it very informative, educational and inspiring.”
(a reader in western Canada)

“I wish to thank you for the information you extend every day on your site.  It is truly a blessing!”
(a reader in North Carolina)

“I really appreciate your efforts in posting to this website.  I find it an incredibly useful way to keep up with recent research (I also check science news daily) and also to research particular topics.”
(an IT consultant from Brisbane, Australia)

“I would just like to say very good job with the work done here, very comprehensive.  I check your site every day.  It’s great to see real science directly on the front lines, toe to toe with the pseudoscience that's mindlessly spewed from the ‘prestigious’ science journals.”
(a biology student in Illinois)

“I’ve been checking in for a long time but thought I’d leave you a note, this time.  Your writing on these complex topics is insightful, informative with just the right amount of humor.  I appreciate the hard work that goes into monitoring the research from so many sources and then writing intelligently about them.”
(an investment banker in California)

“Keep up the great work.  You are giving a whole army of Christians plenty of ammunition to come out of the closet (everyone else has).  Most of us are not scientists, but most of the people we talk to are not scientists either, just ordinary people who have been fed baloney for years and years.”
(a reader in Arizona)

“Keep up the outstanding work!  You guys really ARE making a difference!”
(a reader in Texas)

“I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that ‘science’ is not hostile towards ‘religion’.  It is the dogmatically religious that are unwaveringly hostile towards any kind of science which threatens their dearly-held precepts.  ‘Science’ (real, open-minded science) is not interested in theological navel-gazing.”
(anonymous)
Note: Please supply your name and location when writing in.  Anonymous attacks only make one look foolish and cowardly, and will not normally be printed.  This one was shown to display a bad example.

“I appreciate reading your site every day.  It is a great way to keep up on not just the new research being done, but to also keep abreast of the evolving debate about evolution (Pun intended).... I find it an incredibly useful way to keep up with recent research (I also check science news daily) and also to research particular topics.”
(an IT consultant in Brisbane, Australia)

“I love your website.”
(a student at a state university who used CEH when writing for the campus newsletter)

“....when you claim great uncertainty for issues that are fairly well resolved you damage your already questionable credibility.  I’m sure your audience loves your ranting, but if you know as much about biochemistry, geology, astronomy, and the other fields you skewer, as you do about ornithology, you are spreading heat, not light.”
(a professor of ornithology at a state university, responding to the 09/10/2002 headline)

“I wanted to let you know I appreciate your headline news style of exposing the follies of evolutionism.... Your style gives us constant, up-to-date reminders that over and over again, the Bible creation account is vindicated and the evolutionary fables are refuted.”
(a reader, location unknown)

“You have a knack of extracting the gist of a technical paper, and digesting it into understandable terms.”
(a nuclear physicist from Lawrence Livermore Labs who worked on the Manhattan Project)

“After spending MORE time than I really had available going thru your MANY references I want to let you know how much I appreciate the effort you have put forth.
The information is properly documented, and coming from recognized scientific sources is doubly valuable.  Your explanatory comments and sidebar quotations also add GREATLY to your overall effectiveness as they 1) provide an immediate interpretive starting point and 2) maintaining the reader’s interest.”
(a reader in Michigan)

“I am a huge fan of the site, and check daily for updates.”
(reader location and occupation unknown)

“I just wanted to take a minute to personally thank-you and let you know that you guys are providing an invaluable service!  We check your Web site weekly (if not daily) to make sure we have the latest information in the creation/evolution controversy.  Please know that your diligence and perseverance to teach the Truth have not gone unnoticed.  Keep up the great work!”
(a PhD scientist involved in origins research)

“You've got a very useful and informative Web site going.  The many readers who visit your site regularly realize that it requires considerable effort to maintain the quality level and to keep the reviews current....  I hope you can continue your excellent Web pages.  I have recommended them highly to others.”
(a reader, location and occupation unknown)

“As an apprentice apologist, I can always find an article that will spark a ‘spirited’ debate.  Keep ’em coming!   The Truth will prevail.”
(a reader, location and occupation unknown)

“Thanks for your web page and work.  I try to drop by at least once a week and read what you have.  I’m a Christian that is interested in science (I’m a mechanical engineer) and I find you topics interesting and helpful.  I enjoy your lessons and insights on Baloney Detection.”
(a year later):
“I read your site 2 to 3 times a week; which I’ve probably done for a couple of years.  I enjoy it for the interesting content, the logical arguments, what I can learn about biology/science, and your pointed commentary.”
(a production designer in Kentucky)

“I look up CREV headlines every day.  It is a wonderful source of information and encouragement to me.... Your gift of discerning the fallacies in evolutionists interpretation of scientific evidence is very helpful and educational for me.  Please keep it up.  Your website is the best I know of.”
(a Presbyterian minister in New South Wales, Australia)

“I’ve written to you before, but just wanted to say again how much I appreciate your site and all the work you put into it.  I check it almost every day and often share the contents (and web address) with lists on which I participate.  I don’t know how you do all that you do, but I am grateful for your energy and knowledge.”
(a prominent creationist author)

“I am new to your site, but I love it!  Thanks for updating it with such cool information.”
(a home schooler)

“I love your site.... Visit every day hoping for another of your brilliant demolitions of the foolish just-so stories of those who think themselves wise.”
(a reader from Southern California)

“I love to read your website and am disappointed when there is nothing new to read.  Thanks for all your hard work.”
(a missionary in Japan)

“I visit your site daily for the latest news from science journals and other media, and enjoy your commentary immensely.  I consider your web site to be the most valuable, timely and relevant creation-oriented site on the internet.”
(a reader from Ontario, Canada)

“Keep up the good work!  I thoroughly enjoy your site.”
(a reader in Texas)

“Thanks for keeping this fantastic web site going.  It is very informative and up-to-date with current news including incisive insight.”
(a reader in North Carolina)

“Great site!  For all the Baloney Detector is impressive and a great tool in debunking wishful thinking theories.”
(a reader in the Netherlands)

“Just wanted to let you know, your work is having quite an impact.  For example, major postings on your site are being circulated among the Intelligent Design members....”
(a PhD organic chemist)

“It’s like ‘opening a can of worms’ ... I love to click all the related links and read your comments and the links to other websites, but this usually makes me late for something else.  But it’s ALWAYS well worth it!!”
(a leader of a creation group)

“I am a regular visitor to your website ... I am impressed by the range of scientific disciplines your articles address.  I appreciate your insightful dissection of the often unwarranted conclusions evolutionists infer from the data... Being a medical doctor, I particularly relish the technical detail you frequently include in the discussion living systems and processes.  Your website continually reinforces my conviction that if an unbiased observer seeks a reason for the existence of life then Intelligent Design will be the unavoidable conclusion.”
(a medical doctor)

“A church member asked me what I thought was the best creation web site.  I told him CreationSafaris.com.”
(a PhD geologist)

“I love your site... I check it every day for interesting information.  It was hard at first to believe in Genesis fully, but now I feel more confident about the mistakes of humankind and that all their reasoning amounts to nothing in light of a living God.”
(a college grad)

“Thank you so much for the interesting science links and comments on your creation evolution headlines page ... it is very informative.”
(a reader from Scottsdale, AZ)

“I still visit your site almost every day, and really enjoy it.  Great job!!!  (I also recommend it to many, many students.)
(an educational consultant)

“I like what I see–very much.  I really appreciate a decent, calm and scholarly approach to the whole issue... Thanks ... for this fabulous endeavor–it’s superb!”

“It is refreshing to read your comments.  You have a knack to get to the heart of the matter.”
(a reader in the Air Force).

“Love your website.  It has well thought out structure and will help many through these complex issues.  I especially love the Baloney Detector.”
(a scientist).

“I believe this is one of the best sites on the Internet.  I really like your side-bar of ‘truisms.’  Yogi [Berra] is absolutely correct.  If I were a man of wealth, I would support you financially.”
(a registered nurse in Alabama, who found us on TruthCast.com.)

“WOW.  Unbelievable.... My question is, do you sleep? ... I’m utterly impressed by your page which represents untold amounts of time and energy as well as your faith.”
(a mountain man in Alaska).

“Just wanted to say that I recently ran across your web site featuring science headlines and your commentary and find it to be A++++, superb, a 10, a homerun – I run out of superlatives to describe it! ... You can be sure I will visit your site often – daily when possible – to gain the latest information to use in my speaking engagements.  I’ll also do my part to help publicize your site among college students.  Keep up the good work.  Your material is appreciated and used.”
(a college campus minister)

 
Featured Creation Scientist for February

Isaac Newton
1642 - 1727

This month we reach for the top.  Sir Isaac Newton is the scientist par excellence, and he was strongly motivated by his Biblical beliefs.  In fact, he felt he was personally involved in fulfilling the prophecy of Daniel quoted at the top right of this page.

That the greatest scientist of all time was a Christian and a creationist should give any Darwinian pause.  Co-inventor of the calculus, discoverer of the law of universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, analyzer of white light split into colors by means of a prism, inventor of the reflecting telescope and author of the most important book of the scientific revolution (the Principia Mathematica), Sir Isaac Newton is unexcelled in the roll call of great scientists.

But did your history books forget to tell you that Newton wrote more on theology than on science?  A recent article in Nature confirms this (see 08/19/2004 entry): he approached the study of the Bible with as much rigor and planning as he did physics.  Even more important, “Newton’s religion and science may have been tied together by belief in absolute truth.”  To him, the Bible revealed the truth about God just as much as scientific inquiry uncovered truth about nature.

Newton was an unlikely scientist, coming from a poor family, cared for by two women who did not care much for the job.  He was a loner and eccentric, and proved later in life to be personally vindictive against those he disliked (particularly Robert Hooke, whose memory he tried to virtually erase).  Some have questioned the orthodoxy of his theological views about God and Jesus Christ, while others have defended them.  Newton seems to have wasted much time exploring alchemy and some obscure theological views.  For these reasons we cannot appraise Newton as a gold medalist in this series (judging orthodoxy, personal integrity and advancement of creation thought in addition to scientific achievement), but he certainly demonstrates the fundamental themes that creation-based science is the best, and the best scientists believed in God, honored the Bible and were motivated by their theological views.

It should be recognized that Newton was not a “Newtonian” in the sense of being a Deist.  Subsequent disciples of Newton’s laws interpreted them to mean the universe ran like a clock, subject to mechanical regularities that could not be altered.  This made it seem the Creator wound up the clock at the creation and then left it to run on its own.  In the extreme, this view would deny any active involvement by God in His creation.  But God cannot be put in a Newtonian box, and Newton himself, certainly, did not think of God in this way in the least.  A recent biography by James Glieck, reviewed in Science (see 08/15/2003 entry), makes this clear.  Newton considered the Lord Jesus Christ the Savior of the world, and trusted and believed in the Biblical miracles.  He wrote strong papers refuting atheism and defending creation and the Bible, said Henry Morris (Men of Science, Men of God).  Let Newton tell us himself what he thought: “I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired.  I study the Bible daily.”

To be able to claim credit for discovering the basic laws of nature – gravitation, optics, the laws of motion – would that not provide a resume to boast about?  Here’s what this supreme scientist had to say about that: “All my discoveries have been made in an answer to prayer.”


If you are enjoying this series, you can learn more about great Christians in science by reading our online book-in-progress:
The World’s Greatest Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K.
Copies are also available from our online store.

A Concise Guide
to Understanding
Evolutionary Theory

You can observe a lot by just watching.
– Yogi Berra

First Law of Scientific Progress
The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.
Corollaries:
1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.

Darwin’s Law
Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.
Bloch’s Extension
So will Darwinists.

Finagle’s Creed
Science is true.  Don’t be misled by facts.

Finagle’s 2nd Law
No matter what the anticipated result, there will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c) believe it happened according to his own pet theory.

Finagle’s Rules
3. Draw your curves, then plot your data.
4. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
6. Do not believe in miracles – rely on them.

Murphy’s Law of Research
Enough research will tend to support your theory.

Maier’s Law
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
Corollaries:
1. The bigger the theory, the better.
2. The experiments may be considered a success if no more than 50% of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence with the theory.

Eddington’s Theory
The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given biological phenomenon is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.

Young’s Law
All great discoveries are made by mistake.
Corollary
The greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake.

Peer’s Law
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.

Peter’s Law of Evolution
Competence always contains the seed of incompetence.

Weinberg’s Corollary
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.

Souder’s Law
Repetition does not establish validity.

Cohen’s Law
What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts – not the facts themselves.

Harrison’s Postulate
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.

Thumb’s Second Postulate
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.

Ruckert’s Law
There is nothing so small that it can’t be blown out of proportion

Hawkins’ Theory of Progress
Progress does not consist in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is right.  It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is more subtly wrong.

Macbeth’s Law
The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.

Disraeli’s Dictum
Error is often more earnest than truth.

Advice from Paul

Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge – by professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.

I Timothy 6:20-21

Song of the True Scientist

O Lord, how manifold are Your works!   In wisdom You have made them all.   The earth is full of Your possessions . . . . May the glory of the Lord endure forever.   May the Lord rejoice in His works . . . . I will sing to the Lord s long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my being.   May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord.   May sinners be consumed from the earth, and the wicked be no more.   Bless the Lord, O my soul!   Praise the Lord! 

from Psalm 104

Maxwell’s Motivation

Through the creatures Thou hast made
Show the brightness of Thy glory.
Be eternal truth displayed
In their substance transitory.
Till green earth and ocean hoary,
Massy rock and tender blade,
Tell the same unending story:
We are truth in form arrayed.

Teach me thus Thy works to read,
That my faith,– new strength accruing–
May from world to world proceed,
Wisdom’s fruitful search pursuing
Till, thy truth my mind imbuing,
I proclaim the eternal Creed –
Oft the glorious theme renewing,
God our Lord is God indeed.

James Clerk Maxwell
One of the greatest physicists
of all time (a creationist).

Disclaimer: Creation-Evolution Headlines includes links to many external sites, but takes no responsibility for the accuracy or legitimacy of their content.  Inclusion of an external link is strictly for the reader’s convenience, and does not necessarily constitute endorsement of the material or its authors, owners, or sponsors.