“There are also warrants for believing that the design feature, the nomic necessity, all of those things that allow one to negotiate space and time... offer ample evidence of design, intention, plan, intelligence.... There are good arguments for assuming that the whole thing has a point, and that that point points ultimately to a divine and providential source.... I choose that one.”
—Dr. Daniel J. Robinson (Oxford), conclusion of 60 lectures on The Great Ideas of Philosophy, The Teaching Company.

To send a link to one of our stories, use our permalink feature; paste the push pin URL into your email or website.
• Remember the shortcut URL: CREV.INFO.
• Got a response to something you read here?  Write our Feedback line.

Scientist of the Month: Better late than never – the November Creation Scientist of the Month is finally published in the right hand column.  Click here for a short biography of a medieval prof worth getting to know.  “Dark Ages”?  Hardly.

Mao Tse-Tung Killed 77 Million for Darwin   11/30/2005    
World Net Daily reported that the body count from Mao’s reign of terror in China has been revised upward to 77 million by R. J. Rummel, a Nobel Peace Prize winning political scientist who had earlier estimated it at half that (38 million).  This augments Mao’s Guinness reputation as the worst mass murderer in history.  His intentional killings, including policies that intentionally starved tens of millions of Chinese people, exceeded those of Hitler and Stalin.  Deaths attributed to Mao’s democide (death by government) amount to over twice the total combat deaths in all wars between 1900 to 1987, including World Wars I and II.  Of 174 million killed in 20th-century incidents of democide, 148 million fell victim to Marxist regimes – four times the deaths by combat, estimated at 34.1 million.
    Rummel, who has chronicled 20th century democides, said, “I’m now convinced that Stalin exceeded Hitler in monstrous evil, and Mao beat out Stalin.”  All three dictators were committed to scientific materialism congruent with the Darwinian principles of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest.  According to an article by Answers in Genesis, Mao listed two of his favorite authors as Darwin and Huxley.  In a quote attributed to the Chinese communist leader on Coral Ridge Ministries, Chairman Mao said, “Chinese socialism is founded upon Darwin and the theory of evolution.”  Stalin became an atheist after reading Darwin, and Hitler, though from a different end of the political spectrum, based Mein Kampf on Darwinian principles of struggle and fitness.  Such ideas had become very popular among leading German thinkers in the decades after Darwin’s Origin, as documented in historian Richard Weikart’s book, From Darwin to Hitler (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004).
    Visualize how long it would take to read the names of 77 million people.  At one every five seconds, day and night, it would take over 12 years just to read their names, without even knowing who they were or the nature of their hopes and dreams – dreams that were strangled in prison, brutal work camps, torture or policy-induced famines.  Add another 12 years for those killed under all the other communist leaders, and 3 years 4 months for Nazi deaths – a total of almost 28 years of reading name, after name, after name, day and night.  By contrast, reading the names of the 9/11 victims at this rate would take a little over four hours.
    Some historians have speculated that Charles Darwin’s mysterious illnesses derived at least partly from stress and depression over the possible impact of his radical ideas (see Russell Grigg article).  He once wrote, “It is like confessing to a murder.” (See PBS).

Darwinism was to Nazism and communism like fuel and spark to fire.  Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, Pol Pot, Castro, Kim Jong Il and all communist despots past and present have been committed scientific materialists.  They shut down churches and promoted atheism, exalted Darwinism and promoted evolutionary theory as the scientific rationalization for the state and the ethical justification for their brutal policies.  John West on Evolution News reminded readers about Darwin’s own support of eugenics and racism, and accused the American Museum of Natural History of sanitizing this aspect of his life in their multi-million dollar Darwin exhibit (11/21/2005).
    This is a stern reminder why the debate over creation vs. evolution matters.  We are not talking about some minor issue for scientists and egghead philosophers to speculate about.  Ideas have consequences, and as Richard Weikart demonstrated in a lecture worth watching (available from Access Research Network), the same Darwinian principles that motivated Hitler and the communists are alive and well among prominent evolutionary biologists today.  Many university professors and evolutionary biologists are avowed Marxists.  Let them ponder the horrible results of their belief system, and then ponder the warning of Jesus, “every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit.  Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  Therefore by their fruits you will know them.” (from the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7).
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Politics and Ethics

This will be a good test of the scientific values of the Darwinists.  They always claim to be skeptical of any finding, never taking anything on “faith” like those religious-right fundies.  OK, Darwinists, you’ve got a problem.  Show us some rationality and objectivity.  We seem to recall that creationists quickly withdrew claims of Paluxy human tracks on the first hint of a problem with the data, and have been very cautious ever since.  In their case, however, the find was not a necessary piece of evidence, just a tantalizing one.  In this case, if humans or advanced hominids were in Mexico over a million years before the famed “out of Africa” story, there is a lot of Darwinian storytelling at risk of unraveling.  Either evolutionists cannot trust their fossil skills, or their dating methods (see 11/05/2005), or both.  What would it take to falsify human evolution?  If nothing – no amount of contrary evidence or logic – could ever dislodge the idea that humans slowly emerged from primitive ancestors, then your critics are going to stick a note on the seat of your pants: “Kick me; I’m a fighting fundamentalist.”
Next headline on:  Early Man • Fossils • Dating Techniques

• Define the Opposition Out of Science:  Another University of Kansas professor is offering a class that will maintain that ID is pseudoscience, according to Lawrence Journal-World.  (For the other “ID as mythology” class, see the 11/29/2005 story.)  Anthropology professor John Hoopes will associate ID with belief in alien crop circles, ESP and pyramidology.  Brian Sandefur, an engineer at the university, said this is just an attempt to box ID into inappropriate areas; it’s about chemistry and molecular biology, he argues, so it belongs in science classes.
• Sue Me, Sue You:  That the pro-evolution ACLU is quick to sue what they perceive as violations of separation of church and state is old news, but evolutionists are on the receiving end of church-state litigation this time.  According to Mercury News, and Associated Press (MSNBC), Larry and Jeanne Caldwell are suing two biologists and an official from the National Science Foundation for using $400,000 in federal funds for a pro-evolution website that promotes religious ideas.  In their suit, they claim that the Understanding Evolution website strays into religion, and is geared “to modify the beliefs of public school science students so they will be more willing to accept evolutionary theory as true.”  Casey Luskin in EvolutionNews diagnosed the AP article as infected with inaccuritis and false facts syndrome.
• Voodoo Hex:  When the San Diego Union-Tribune called ID “Voodoo Science” the students at the IDEA Center fired back with evidence instead of pins.  So did Evolution News with links aplenty to denounce the ridicule.
• Dark Ages Ahead:  Lord May of Oxford, in an outgoing address as president of the Royal Society, warned that science faces dangerous times ahead.  He claimed that fundamentalism from East and West is creating a “denial lobby” that is making it harder for scientists to deal with global problems like climate change; according to Lord May, their “response is to retreat from complexity and difficulty by embracing the darkness of fundamentalist unreason.”  The article did not make it clear if he meant by Eastern fundamentalism radical Islam, but there was no such delicate treatment of those on the other side of the globe.  The Western fundamentalists, he said, are the ones promoting creationism and intelligent design.  He claimed these have a “wider agenda which is to replace scientific materialism by something more based on faith.”  He called on scientists to become more active in speaking out against ID and other “threats” to “modern scientific values.”
• What Controversy?  Russell Jacoby wrote in the LA Times that some controversies are not worth teaching about, like ID.  Tom Magnuson wrote for the Discovery Institute to correct Jacoby’s errors and defend the grand liberal tradition of engaging controversial issues.
• Spectrum Narrows:  In USA Today, both the liberal Bob Beckelis and the conservative Cal Thomas agreed that ID should get a hearing, but for different reasons.  Interestingly, Beckelis, a liberal Democratic strategist, agreed that ID is a scientific concept and that the way scientists are attacking it as religion is wrong: “Not only are there still gaping holes in the evolutionary chain from single cells to man, the science crowd hasn’t come close to explaining why only man among all living things has a conscience, a moral framework and a free will,” he said, and later added, “...these scientists will say the overwhelming body of evidence supports evolution, and no other theory comes close.  Well, of course it doesn’t because no other theory has been studied seriously.  This crowd has a vested interest in proving Darwin correct, and anything else is dismissed out of hand.”  He thought the ID scientists had a strong case but have been denied a forum.
• Fights Are Good for Sales:  Like vendors at the gladiatorial arena, merchants are finding a new market for niche products related to the evolution wars, reports KansasCity.com.  Books, videos, Darwin fish, bumper stickers and anything having to do with Darwinism or intelligent design are hot sellers.

We need an army of Diogenes disciples with updated baloney-detecting lanterns.  Notice how Lord May and his other Darwin Party insiders equate Big Science with materialism, and label anything else than that with the emotionally-charged labels fundamentalism and faith.  “Darkness of fundamentalist unreason”?  How’s that for a classic mudsling.  Come on, Lord May, just show us all that alleged evidence for the arrival of cellular machinery and human rationality by mindless, undirected processes, or else the shoe fits your own foot.  Robert Boyle, your eminent predecessor and founding father of the Royal Society, would be ashamed of you.
    The ones who can only come up with ridicule, fear-mongering and loaded words show themselves to be intellectually unarmed in the dark.  Keep the light on; when there’s enough light for everyone to see Emperor Charlie’s new clothes, he will go running embarrassed into the woods.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design • Education

Great idea, but they seem to be lacking a theory to explain it.  Here’s one: meditating on creation brings our hearts closer to the Creator, the Wonderful Counselor and Prince of Peace.  This theory was proposed many places in the Bible.  Read, for example, Psalm 104, Psalm 111, and Psalm 148.  Many pioneers of science tested this theory and found it solid: Johannes Kepler, Robert Boyle, and Antony van Leeuwenhoek, to name a few.  Here’s a practical theory everyone can test.
Next headline on:  Health

There you have it, folks.  Parents, when you sent your precious sons and daughters to college, with visions of enlightenment, scholarly advancement and the contemplative life, is this what you had in mind?  Were you aware the devil was head of the religion department?  Do you accept his apology for half a second?  Do you believe for a moment this wrist-slap is going to stop his face-slapping intentions?  Better wake up; this is not an isolated case.   This was the university that took up arms against the Kansas school board in their attempt to de-dogmatize Darwin and permit (not mandate) critical discussion of his views, but attitudes like Mirecki’s are rife in today’s radical-leftist academic institutions.
    Now you know why a fair and honest discussion of intelligent design is hard to come by in most universities.  One can only hope enough people are repulsed by this venomous behavior enough to drive the vermin out, open the windows, clean out the garbage, and let in some fresh air and sunshine, to recreate that once-sacred environment for the free exchange of ideas among scholars motivated by a love of the truth.
Next headline on:  Intelligent Design • Bible and Theology

Here is prima facie evidence that Enceladus is young.  The burden of proof is on the moyboys (09/16/2005 commentary) to prove otherwise.  The E ring has been known for over 20 years and is composed of particles so small (micron sized), it must be continuously replenished or it would disappear within decades.  Does this mean that these Enceladus geysers have been erupting continuously for decades, centuries, millennia?  How can it be credible to believe this kind of process can run for millions or billions of years?  Everyone can enjoy the discovery of a new Yellowstone.  Those open-minded to allow for far younger ages of solar system objects have the added entertainment of watching the moyboys scramble with each new eruption.  Maybe the new plume should be called the Fountain of Youth.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Dating Methods • Geology

• My Rhea Lies Under the Spacecraft:  Cassini added another trophy to its moon collection Saturday, skimming just 300 miles above the surface of Saturn’s large moon Rhea.  (Saturday is named after Saturn, hey).  Rhea is the largest moon after Titan, and one of two (along with Dione) remembered from Voyager days as having wispy or feathery streaks on its leading hemisphere.  Now that Cassini has gotten in for a closer look, scientists found that the streaks are not frost deposits as formerly thought.  Instead, they are regions of sharp cliffs exposing bright water ice.  Rhea also has a prominent fresh-looking rayed crater.  Though made of ice, the surfaces of Saturn’s moons are frozen so hard, the ice has the properties of hard rock.  Impacts produce craters, therefore, very similar to those on our moon, complete with central peaks, rays and ejecta blankets.  The Cassini Imaging Team has put together a gallery of the best raw images; the complete set is available on the Cassini Raw Image Database.
• Spiral Ring:  Saturn’s F-ring is one long spiral, according to an international team that proposed the new theory in Science (see report on Space.com and click link to the artist’s conception).  If so, this raises lots of new questions.  Prometheus and Pandora, long thought to shepherd the ring particles into the narrow ringlets, may actually act more like attack dogs.  The ring appears tenuous and dynamic.  The spiral structure appears unique, with no clear explanation leaping out of the data about how the spiral is generated and maintained.
• Japan Mines an Asteroid:  The Falcon (Hayabusa) successfully gathered samples of asteroid Itokawa (see Planetary Society report).  This gives the fledgling Japanese space agency a first, especially if the samples are successfully returned in 2007 at The Outback (not the restaurant, but the real Aussie wasteland, out back and down under).  The asteroid appears to be a rubble pile of loosely-cohering material with few craters.  Though it visited a different type of object – a comet – Stardust will hit the tape first on January 15 when its samples parachute into the Utah desert.  Hopefully it will not make a crater like Genesis did.
• Mars with Spirit:  The Mars Exploration Rover imaging team released a blockbuster to celebrate Spirit’s first “Martian Year” anniversary in Gusev Crater, complete with special effects.  If you wonder how Spirit was able to take a picture of itself in the distance, well, that’s Hollywood.
• Next Mars Champ Doing Fine:  The hefty Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, affectionately known as “Mr. O,” is halfway there.  Already, Mars Express seems a hard act to follow, but when MRO goes into orbit next March, its best-ever cameras and instruments are slated to send back more data than all previous missions combined.  Till then, we hear Opportunity, Mars Odyssey, and Mars Global Surveyor hollering, “Hey, don’t forget me!”

These are great days of exploration.  At this time 200 years ago, Lewis and Clark were settling in at Fort Clatsop for a long winter.  At this time 100 years ago, Percival Lowell was squinting eagerly through his Lowell Observatory eyepieces, imagining cities and exotic inhabitants on Mars.  In such a short time, look what their country – their world – has done.  Space exploration did not evolve.  It is a demonstration of the power of intelligent design to order and direct natural materials toward purposeful ends.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Mars

1. Iguanas Promoted:  A “radical reorganization” of the tree of reptiles was reported by Science Daily based on work by two Penn State biologists.  Iguanas, for instance, had long been placed near the bottom of the tree due to their “primitive” appearance.  Now, the molecular tree graduates them to the top.  The new study compared 19 genomes from all the major reptile lineages.  So many anomalies were found, the researchers had to invent entirely new categories of classification.  In addition, most of the branches appeared to start early and remain relatively unchanged over vast periods of time.  Toxic venom, for example, was thought to be a recent innovation, but now appears rooted at the time of the earliest dinosaurs.  Reptiles with two egg teeth appear to precede those with one egg tooth – a step toward simplicity, not complexity.  These and other findings are inverting a family tree of reptiles accepted by evolutionary biologists for over a century.  One of the team members said, “If this new tree is correct, all the morphological characters that traditionally have been used to identify similarities between species will need to be reevaluated to understand how these traits evolved” (emphasis added in all quotes).
2. Slow Humans:  Another startling finding reported in Science Daily started with the title, “Early Animals Had Human-Like Genes.”  If humans are the late-comers, why and how did early-Cambrian roundworms produce innovations that would persist unchanged for hundreds of millions of years?  The team compared human and fruit-fly introns with those of a roundworm thought to be 600 million years old, close to the period of the very first multicellular organisms.  Contrary to earlier expectations, introns – those spacers in the DNA cut out by the transcription machinery – were already present in the worms and have persisted all the way to the human line, while other branches, like insects, lost many of them quickly.  To save the evolutionary tree, researchers are speaking of “fast-evolving” and “slow-evolving” branches.  “The worm’s genes are very similar to human genes,” said one.  “That’s a much different picture than we’ve seen from the quickly-evolving species that have been studied so far.”  Another remarked, “Now we have direct evidence that genes were already quite complex in the first animals, and many invertebrates have reduced part of this complexity.”  Not only were the introns the same, but their positions within the genome “have been preserved over the last half a billion years.”

What’s most amazing about both these stories is not the genes.  It is the psychology of Darwinists.  They can hang on to a theory no matter how much contrary evidence comes to light.  Invented terms like “conserved genes” and “slow-evolving species” mask their desperation.  They are clinging to a dogmatic evolutionary position in spite of evidence that looks like creation: abrupt appearance, stasis, and loss of original complexity.  Simultaneously, they accuse creationists of accepting their view on “faith” while bluffing that “there is no controversy among scientists about evolution.”  Yet how would an impartial jury rule, based on the empirical evidence alone, with no evolutionary presuppositions?
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Genetics

When you watch a music video you are inundated with a seemingly incoherent and rapid stream of visual scenes, changing on average every 2.3 seconds.  Such a rate of change may appear fast to an old fashioned television consumer, but it is still about seven times slower than the rate of scene change imposed by rapid eye movements on the visual system.  While the former may be tiring, the latter goes seemingly unnoticed.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Of particular importance for such adjustments may be neurons in the lateral intraparietal, frontal, and even early visual areas which shift their receptive fields shortly before the occurrence of a saccadic eye movement, causing an internal re-mapping of visual space.  These neurons signal that a saccade will bring an object into their field of view, even if that object has been removed from sight just before or during the saccade.  Such a re-mapping could result in predictive adjustments in early cortical areas that prepare for scene changes, thereby minimizing their negative impact, and maximizing rapid information processing following a saccade.  This requires a substantial amount of trans-saccadic integration.

Just set aside that little piece of evolutionary fat, so you won’t lose your appetite.  As you visually scan that plate full of colorful, fragrant, tasty food, think about this one of all those senses taking in those cues.  You have a high-tech, integrated, super-fast, high-resolution video recording, processing, and display system, and it even has image stabilization.  “The hearing ear, and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both” (Proverbs 20:12).  Give thanks, and enjoy.
Next headline on:  Human Body • Amazing Stories

Nature Cover Exploits Intelligent Design While Inside Attacks It   11/24/2005    
The 11/24 issue of Nature included two very caustic letters attacking intelligent design, yet its cover story highlighted the promising new field of Synthetic Biology.  In one of the leading papers,¹ David Sprinzak and Michael B. Elowiz of Caltech (see 06/25/2005 entry) described the synthetic approach in terms reminiscent of William Paley’s old Divine Watchmaker:

By taking apart an old clock, you could probably come up with a pretty good guess at how it works.  But a more concrete understanding of the clock mechanism might be obtained by designing and building one’s own clock out of similar parts.  Contemporary biology presents us with similar reverse-engineering problems.  For example, Drosophila [fruit fly] cells contain a circadian clock that oscillates with a 24-h rhythm and self-synchronizes to the day/night cycle.  Using genetic and biochemical techniques, researchers have isolated genes and proteins involved in interlocked feedback loops of gene expression...that are necessary for clock function.  However, many fundamental questions remain difficult to answer: what sets the period of the oscillation, how does the clock operate reliably in diverse cellular conditions, and what features of its design are responsible for its reliable operation?  To gain insight into such questions one could design and build new clock circuits, using similar genes and proteins, and study their dynamics in the organism.  In fact, several synthetic genetic clocks have now been constructed in bacteria.... These circuits are much simpler than the Drosophila clock.  They fail to operate as reliably, but they provide a proof of principle for a synthetic approach to understanding genetic circuits.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Today, four challenges that greatly limit the engineering of biology are (1) an inability to avoid or manage biological complexity, (2) the tedious and unreliable construction and characterization of synthetic biological systems, (3) the apparent spontaneous physical variation of biological system behaviour, and (4) evolution.  In considering how best to address these engineering challenges, one practical starting point is to consider past lessons from when other engineering disciplines emerged from the natural sciences.  Are any past lessons relevant to the engineering of biology today?  For example, could we usefully consider adapting or extending ideas from structural engineering to synthetic biology?⁶

Let’s do a little thought experiment (pardon the oxymoron).  Let’s say a grad student at the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich succeeds in remodeling some E. coli such that the colony swarms into a photograph image of whatever shadow falls on them.  Let’s also imagine that she surreptitiously watermarked her invention by encoding her name in the DNA of the new synthetically-engineered species.  Question: How would an independent researcher detect the intelligent design of the student?  Let’s proceed further in our story.  A biologist ignorant of the history of this bacterial species discovers it, and writes it up with a brief Darwinian just-so story about how the bacterium evolved this capability, and how the function might confer fitness.  Another scientist suspects the engineering and writes a paper rigorously defending his reasons for inferring this particular species was modified by an intelligent agent.  Question 2: which paper would Nature publish?
    This entry is extremely important to comprehend.  It basically illustrates that intelligent design is the future of biology.  Oh, they may not use the loaded words “intelligent” and “design” together, but the authors saturated these articles with de facto ID principles.  We might call it Lab-Implied Intelligent Design (LIMPID) or Virtual in vivo Intelligent Design (VIVID).  Enthusiasm will grow when AVID (Ardent Voices for Intelligent Design) stimulate a new generation of Fit, Energetic Researchers Vindicating Intelligent Design (FERVID).  When synthetically engineered biological products hit the market some day, we might call them Canned Intelligent Design (CANDID).  Most will think this is splendID, except for the remaining critics who will be seen for what they are: miserable, ornery, rancid badmouthers of ID (MORBID).  Like slobbering drunks, they have nothing to offer but froth and spit (11/21/2005).  Get them off the tracks before they get hurt by the new bullet train of design-inspired science.
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Intelligent Design • Amazing Stories

On the Origin of Hee-Hees by Natural Selection   11/22/2005    
From slime to smile in 200 million years: some Darwinists feel they have explained the evolution of laughter.  In all seriousness, EurekAlert announced, “The first laugh: New study posits evolutionary origins of two distinct types of laughter.”  The story is about a new hypothesis by Matthew Gervais and David Sloan Wilson.  The origin of comedy, they explain, was no laughing matter:

Using empirical evidence from across disciplines, including theory and data from work on mirror neurons, evolutionary psychology, and multilevel selection theory, the researchers detail the evolutionary trajectory of laughter over the last 7 million years.  Evolutionarily elaborated from ape play-panting sometime between 4 million years ago and 2 million years ago, laughter arising from non-serious social incongruity promoted community play during fleeting periods of safety.  Such non-serious social incongruity, it is argued, is the evolutionary precursor to humor as we know it.
    However, neuropsychological and behavioral studies have shown that laughter can be more than just a spontaneous response to such stimuli.  Around 2 million years ago, human ancestors evolved the capacity for willful control over facial motor systems.  As a result, laughter was co-opted for a number of novel functions, including strategically punctuating conversation, and conveying feelings or ideas such as embarrassment and derision.   (Emphasis added.)

What spoilsports the evolutionists are.  They take everything from the most sacred to the most enjoyable and turn it into ancestral ape antics.  Did you know that Darwin himself wrote a book on this in 1872?  (See the somewhat flawed, somewhat balanced Newsweek cover story on Darwin this week).  On the Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals was published 13 years after The Origin.  To a certain degree, this could be a somewhat worthwhile subject to study, but Charlie got some of his suckers to photograph themselves making all kinds of funny faces (see plates).  According to Janet Browne in Charles Darwin: The Power of Place (Princeton, 2002, p. 367), for instance, photographer Oscar Rejlander [see photos]...

struck histrionic attitudes—grief, pleasure, disgust, and so on—and either photographed himself with a timelapse device or got his wife to aid him.  The resulting pictures depended as much on comically exaggerated gesture and body position as on facial expression.  On the back of one picture he scribbled in pencil, “My wife insists upon me sending this for you, that your ladies may see that I can put on a more amiable expression.”  Rejlander’s wife posed for a photograph of a sneer (Darwin thought that sneering evolved from the expression of disgust).  Gamely, she allowed herself to be reproduced thus in Darwin’s volume.   (Emphasis added.)

All in the service of science, of course.  (Who knows; maybe Mrs. Rejlander was expressing her emotions at Darwinism—picture.)  This was all in the post-Origin period when Darwin’s new fan club was trying to evolutionize everything: the evolution of romance, the evolution of music, the evolution of religion, the evolution of grooming, the evolution of nose-picking, etc., doing their best to unite their eminent British fellow-citizens with their monkey past.  Science marches on.
    And so the tradition continues, with Gervais and Wilson looking for the first laugh in mythical serious-minded primates just beginning to discover what to do with their leisure time.  We don’t care who got the first laugh.  We want the last (see next story).
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Early Man • Dumb Ideas

1. Party Hardy Against the Bible, Bush, Propriety and Aesthetics:  The New York Daily News Daily Dish depicted a bizarre portrait of the opening gala for the new “Darwin” exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History.  The event seemed more an odd concoction of anti-Bush politics, celebrity low-cut gowns, blasphemous rock, Bible bashing, gay advocacy and Saturday Night Live comedy than support for Darwin’s theory.  One of them even mocked Jesus.  Was this supposed to help attract visitors?
2. Teach ID?  OK, We’ll Teach ID:  Kansas has acquiesced, and yes, will now teach intelligent design – as mythology.  LiveScience and MSNBC News continued their long series of anti-ID reporting with an A.P. story about professors at the University of Kansas who have added a new course to the Religious Studies Department, entitled, “Special Topics in Religion: Intelligent Design, Creationism and other Religious Mythologies.”  Paul Mirecki, the department chairman said, “The KU faculty has had enough.  Creationism is mythology.  Intelligent design is mythology.  It’s not science” (emphasis added in all quotations).  John Calvert, the pro-ID Kansas attorney, is not flustered.  He thinks the tactic will backfire and Mirecki will go down in history as a laughingstock.
3. Hmmmph:  John Brookfield (U of Nottingham), wrote a book review of The Plausibility of Life by Gerhart and Kirshner in Current Biology (Volume 15, Issue 22, 22 November 2005, Pages R908-R910).  The book, as explained in the 10/31/2005 entry, raises some serious questions about the standard view of Darwinian evolution.  After exploring puzzles about adaptive variation, Brookfield chided the authors for questioning the standard paradigm, and gave his recommendation for how to scientifically deal with critics:

   Depressingly often, the alternative that the authors rule out is not a view of organisms coming from other evolutionary scientists, but a view that exists only in the imaginations of those determined to believe that evolution is impossible without intervention from an intelligent designer.  Some of the tone of the book flows from the authors regrettably living in a social milieu where they are forced to specifically refute claims from advocates of ‘creation science’ and ‘intelligent design’, rather than contemptuously ignoring them as we British tend to do.

4. Dilbert Fans Turn Against Author:  Scott Adams is not your typical religious nut – quite the opposite.  All this usually irreverent icon-basher did was suggest on his Dilbert Blog recently that Darwin might have feet of clay, and was he in for a surprise.  The mud flew on P.Z. Myers’ Pharyngula blog, with words like idiotic, creepy, worthless, scary, kook, and ridiculous the most printable epithets from his erstwhile cartoon fans.  Myers’ last comment must have stung: “Maybe Adams isn’t a Wally.  He actually sounds more like a pointy-haired boss.”
       Scott Adams clarified his position with “Intelligent Design, Part 2” on Dilbert Blog.  He wasn’t espousing intelligent design, he said, but just exercising the freedom to doubt the Darwinists: “The people who purport to have evidence of evolution do a spectacular job of making themselves non-credible,” he said.  “To me, it’s like hiring a serial cannibal as a babysitter based on the fact that he PROMISES not to eat your kids despite having eaten all the other kids on the block. It might be a fact that he’s telling the truth.  The problem is that he’s not credible.”
5. No More Mr. Nice Guy; Let’s Kick Some Butt:  According to Jonathan Witt writing for Discovery Institute, some evolutionists are getting downright gladiatorial.  Here’s what P.Z. Myers (U of Minnesota) recommended:

   Our only problem is that we aren’t martial enough, or vigorous enough, or loud enough, or angry enough.  The only appropriate responses should involve some form of righteous fury, much butt-kicking, and the public firing and humiliation of some teachers, many school board members, and vast numbers of sleazy far-right politicians.

   Sounds like the Darwinists are sending in their champion, Gluteus Maximus.  Jonathan may have proved the Survival of the Wittest with this line, however: “Modern evolutionary theory is less a cornerstone and more the busybody aunt – into everyone’s business and, all the while, very much insecure about her place in the home.”

Do the Darwinists really think this kind of out-of-control behavior is going to help their cause?  We’re all taking notes for the historians.  When the Charlie idol collapses, we’re going to resurrect some of these braggadocio episodes as entertainment, or as lessons to would-be mockers of the 21st century.
    To informed observers, this all resembles one last drinking binge on a sinking ship.  Belshazzar, recall, drank wine out of the sacred golden vessels with a lot of laughter and chutzpah, but not for long.  The handwriting is on the wall again.  Darwinism has been weighed in the balances, and found wanting.
    The Babbleonians may soon see their downfall.  Perhaps their kingdom will be divided among the Mediators and the Perversions.  No matter what comes next, if you want to stand tall through it all, dare to be a Daniel.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Intelligent Design • Bible and Theology • Politics and Ethics

These folks need to read the RATE book (see 11/05/2005 entry).  They built their interpretation on a foundation of sand; their dating method cannot be trusted.  It won’t help the origin-of-life crowd anyway (09/15/2005).
Next headline on:  Dating Methods • Geology

1. You Are What You Get High On:  Michael Balter in ScienceNow asked, “Did endorphins make us more human?”  Pondering that question is a photo of a chimp and a naked ape (i.e., man) facing opposite one another in the pose of Rodin’s The Thinker.  Balter reported on research by Duke University scientists who found a large difference between apes and humans in the expression of an endorphin-precursor gene.  Endorphins are “opiatelike molecules involved in learning, the experience of pain, and social attachment and bonding.”  Presumably this implies our chimp brethren are less endowed in those areas.  “The team concludes that the pattern is a solid example of natural selection acting on the human lineage after it split from the chimp line from 5 million to 7 million years ago” [emphasis added in all quotations].  Some critics counter that it is “not yet clear what mental or behavioral traits were favored by selection.”  Bruce Lahn (U of Chicago) gave only mild criticism: “It is a bit early to say that these changes were key to what makes us human.  But it seems like a reasonable hypothesis.”  Balter left it at that.
2. Patriotic Genes:  EurekAlert announced matter-of-factly, “Genes contribute to patriotism and group loyalty.”  J. Philippe Rushton of the Charles Darwin Research Institute has found a correlation between genetic similarities and group behavior.  At the lowest level, he thinks, this explains kinship behavior between identical twins and family members, but extends all the way up to clans, tribes, races and nationalities.  Rushton, a psychology professor at the University of Western Ontario, believes this is all clear if we look from the gene up.  The article explains: “Human social preferences, like mate choice and ethnic nepotism, are anchored in the evolutionary psychology of altruism.  Adopting a ‘gene’s eye’ point of view allows us to see that people’s favoritism to kin and similar others evolved to help replicate shared genes.”  Rushton’s article in the October issue of Nations and Nationalism was, according to EurekAlert, about “how genes affect group loyalty and patriotism.”

Is there any doubt left about why we need to “teach the controversy” about Darwinian evolution?  Look at what these Darwinists did.  Like dispassionate gods on Mt. Olympus, they reduced everything about you and me to our genes, but exempted themselves.  Pretentiously and arrogantly, they explained some of the deepest ideals of human behavior in terms of chance consequences of molecular happenstance in some dim evolutionary past.  If that were true, their own rationality would be worthless.  It’s hypocritical and logically impossible to proffer rational explanations for why rationality is a phantom.  If rationality is reducible to molecules in motion, it is not rationality at all.
    We don’t need intelligent design moved out of the science class into the philosophy class, we need some philosophy moved into the science class.  We need cogent thinkers and logicians to interrupt Darwinists when they make foolish, self-refuting statements.  We need them to distinguish between observable science and religious or philosophical pronouncements made in the name of science that go far beyond the evidence.  Now read the next entry.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Early Man • Genetics • Dumb Ideas

One of his contentions is that the concept of information flow in biology is problematic.  Sarkar repeatedly mentions the incompleteness or inadequacy of the central dogma of molecular biology.  Although the idea of a genome as a program that spontaneously unfolds to produce a living organism is clearly too simplistic, that hardly renders the notion of information flow without value.  A computer program, too, is totally dependent on its physical context in hardware and an operating system that can interpret it; its output is only as predictable as its input and can be rendered seemingly unpredictable by a temporary power surge or a scratch across a magnetic disk.  We can recognize different inputs--including chance, environmental influences, and developmental context (e.g., maternal cytoplasmic effects)--in the interpretation of the genetic program, and we can even accept that some lines of that program (introns, intergenic regions) are of unknown function, without forgetting the program’s key role in development.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Perhaps because of his bleak outlook on the nature of information flow, Sarkar considers the Human Genome Project somewhat of a worthwhile failure.  He notes how controversial the idea was even among geneticists and how tenuous the prospects for a full understanding of human biology and an incredible ability to cure diseases were.  In retrospect, the project’s early proponents may be forgiven their exaggerated promises.  Few geneticists have ever proclaimed that day-to-day human behavior could be explained simply by gene interactions, and many have argued against attempts to connect behavioral traits and genetics.  Nor, as Sarkar points out, did we imagine that there were so few genes, such a complex relation between genes and the protein forms they encode, and so much genetic material of unknown function.  Nonetheless, we must understand that we can gain valuable insights from reading the human genome in all its variety.

“Today the claim seems laughable.  None of the promises of Gilbert’s radical genetic reductionism has been borne out.  Proponents of the HGP promised enormous immediate medical benefits.  Arguably, at least, there have not been any.  Gilbert routinely promised the birth of a new theoretical biology.  Instead, the emphasis now is on informatics....”  On the upside, Sarkar notes that at “the very least, the HGP has killed the facile genetic reductionism of the heyday of developmental genetics.”  His dim view contrasts sharply with Robert Sinsheimer’s recent proclamation that the project “succeeded even beyond our hopes.”

So two millennia of debate about reductionism and determinism have come to this.  If human biology cannot be reduced to terms of its basic physical components, but rather must be understood as information flow comparable to a computer program, and if that program can only be understood in its context of the hardware and operating system needed to interpret it, well then – it seems like stock in the intelligent design movement is about to skyrocket.  Obtain your intellectual shares now.
Next headline on:  Health • Human Body • Genetics • Intelligent Design

We’ll award that line Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week.  To interpret stories like this, you have to understand that it is all just a game.  The object is to get mentioned in National Geographic, preferably on the cover, by saying something just controversial enough to draw attention to oneself without ever throwing the whole enterprise of evolutionary paleoanthropology into doubt.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Dumb Ideas

Observing systems in nature has inspired humans to create technological tools that allow us to better understand and imitate biology.  Biomimetics, in particular, owes much of its current development to advances in materials science and creative optical system designs.  New investigational tools, such as those for microscopic imaging and chemical analyses, have added to our understanding of biological optics.  Biologically inspired optical science has become the emerging topic among researchers and scientists.

Imitating nature is a complex endeavor, and a blind biomimetic approach is not the best methodology.  Instead, molecular-level studies of the biological development of natural vision systems are key.  For example, current infrared sensors can distinguish more than what human eyes can see, but they require a sophisticated cooling system to work.  Somehow, insects have this same ability without the limitation of temperature control. This is but one example of how it is primarily nature’s designs that are superior to man-made equivalents.  However, if we are able to decode the designs, then the combination of our creativity in materials and nature’s wisdom is [a] synergistic one with incredible potential.

There was no mention of evolution in thess papers; not even of natural selection, Darwin, or millions of years.  Who needs it?  This is the cutting-edge of science and technology for the 21st century: a design-inspired approach to science that not only will bring exciting new benefits to society but will help us “understand and imitate biology.”  This is exactly the kind of “methodological engineering” that William Dembski predicted in The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004, p. 312) would show that ID has the power to generate fruitful research.
    If you are a tired Darwinist reading this, here is your way out.  Kick the Charlie habit and get in on the leading edge of biomimetics.  No more need for storytelling or fantasizing – just real-world research with “incredible potential” – and it looks incredibly fun, too.  It will push technology to the limit.  Field biologists can still go out and collect species for study, but now with a new vision instead of force-fitting everything into imaginary phylogenetic trees.  Lab technicians can devise new ways to measure and study phenomena.  Profs and grad students can stay gainfully busy.  It’s the cure for overspecialization: think of the new interdisciplinary labs that could be built (10/29/2005).  Dollars and research papers will flow.  The government would love to fund this kind of research.  If you can propose spin-offs for the military, antiterrorism, medicine, or “green” technology, your future is secure.  It will take the pressure off the origins battle.  Politicians, theologians, teachers and the public will love you for it.  It’s a complete win-win situation for science and for humankind, while old worries about Darwinism, like dead autumn leaves, will simply drop off and wither away for historians to sweep up.
Next headline on:  Intelligent Design • Biomimetics • Mammals • Terrestrial Zoology • Marine Biology • Amazing Stories

• Bio-Advocacy:  The journal BioScience contained two articles and an editorial attacking intelligent design and strategizing ways to defeat it in science classrooms (see 11/01/2005 entry for one of the articles).
• Cornell Students vs. Their President:  The senior editor of the Cornell Sun responded to the President’s anti-ID speech by reporting about the ID debate on campus, listing faculty members supporting and opposing the new ideas.  Xiaowei Cathy Tang found that it’s not just students, but some “faculty members urged the University and the nation to view I.D. as a valid challenge to some aspects of evolution.”
• Conservatives for Darwin:  CEH readers wrote in about anti-ID articles in the Washington Post by noted conservative columnists George Will and Charles Krauthammer, who pulled no punches with, “Let’s be clear.  Intelligent design may be interesting as theology, but as science it is a fraud.”  He called it “ridiculous to make evolution the enemy of God.”  He finds it “more elegant, more simple, more brilliant, more economical, more creative, indeed more divine” to picture, in the beginning, “a single double-stranded molecule, pliable and fecund enough to give us mollusks and mice, Newton and Einstein” even if it also produced the Kansas State Board of Education, he ended with a smirk.  Jonathan Witt on EvolutionNews claimed all Krauthammer did was knock down a straw man.
• Whose Claptrap?:  Tennesseean Tom Bohs wrote a torrid anti-ID editorial for the Jackson Sun, but his litany of ridicule, straw man tactics and ad hominems might backfire for some readers.  Sample: “If you believe the Earth is flat, well, I have a theory of evolution for you: intelligent design.  This is the pseudo-scientific claptrap some Christian fundamentalists are trying to foist off on society and have taught in our public school biology classes.  Don’t fall for the sales pitch.  It isn’t science.”
• Toe-Dipping in Indiana:  Mary Beth Schneider wrote in the Indianapolis Star about GOP state assemblymen who are testing the waters about intelligent design.  “We were trying to see if this is a hot-button issue for people,” said Bill Friend, Indiana House Majority Leader, and one of 36 Republican legislators who included the issue on a survey.
• UI no ID:  The Tribune reported on over 150 University of Iowa faculty who have signed a statement opposing intelligent design.
• The Sun Will Come Up, Tomorrow:  In a Malaysia newspaper, Dr. Stefan Tan claimed that Darwinism is dying.  He ended, “As one who believes that the universe is not an accident (the probabilities weigh against it), I believe it is a matter of time before macro-evolution will be nailed down in the coffin by an ever-increasing preponderance of evidences now trickling in.  Some might prefer to wait all night for the sun to rise but do we have that much time before we believe?”
• Get It Right, Reporters:  Frustrated at repeated misrepresentations in the media about the Kansas science standards, Evolution News listed the definitions of science in the standards of all 50 states.  The New York Times and other newspapers had claimed that Kansas made a dangerous change to its definition of science by robbing it of “natural explanations” for phenomena; Ker Than in LiveScience accused Kansas of bringing “supernatural explanations” into science, while MSNBC News portrayed it as a “subtle” but “brilliant” tactic to “open the door for divine interventions.”  The record shows that, prior to the vote, Kansas had been the only state embedding methodological naturalism into the definition of science.  The new definition actually is closer to the definition in 40 other states, while 9 states did not even specify a definition.

When you look at who acts cool and rational, and who strives for honesty and accuracy in reporting, and who thinks instead of repeating sound bites, there really is no contest.  That the Darwin Party must resort to constant mudslinging and power plays can only mean one thing: they are running scared.
    As to the Vatican astronomer, we’ll have to wait and see how that battle plays out.  Father Coyne fails to see the contradiction in what he said.  Everything characteristic of the Catholic faith involves God’s actual intervention in the affairs of mankind: the Creation, the Fall, the virgin birth, and the resurrection, to name a few.  The Darwinists want unguided, directionless, purposeless evolution; how can that possibly be reconciled with Catholicism without schizophrenia?  It appears that Coyne is more wedded to his scientific reputation than his faith, and more loyal to Pope Charlie (02/13/2004) than to Pope Benedict.  Press coverage of their disparate views may force a confrontation.  Does it matter?  Only to Catholics, and to Darwinists desperately seeking quotes from religious celebrities to shield their naked materialism.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Theology

There was little mention of evolution in any of the papers, except that the BBC article stated that the butterflies “had been using this method for 30 million years,” and News@Nature mentioned in passing that the system had “evolved to direct the emitted light outwards” without venturing to say how.  All the evolutionists seemed so amazed that a butterfly figured this out.  Even Ker Than, Mr. Dogmatic Darwinist and ID-Basher, didn’t dare speculate about how this precision optical system evolved.  To top that, Nature, that Darwinese foghorn, actually subtitled their piece, “Butterflies shine brighter by design.”  Cowabunga!  Are they beginning to see the light?
    Think about the fact that a butterfly goes through an egg, caterpillar, and chrysalis stage.  In that last stage, all its guts are transformed into precision LEDs, flight software and hardware, vision, incredibly-sensitive olfactory systems and much, much more.
    Kids should get out with their butterfly nets and learn some creation science like they always have.  Only now, they should learn some physics and optical electronics, too.  Sounds like some good Science Fair material here.
Next headline on:  Physics • Terrestrial Zoology • Amazing Stories

Speak for yourself, babe.  This oft-repeated line suggests a modification of the old distinction between stuff and junk.  Junk is the stuff natural selection throws away, and stuff is the junk natural selection keeps.
    Aside from the fact that it is hard to envision any teenager getting excited over being told he or she is star stuff – unless they think their talent has finally been recognized – the reductionist, naturalistic philosophy inherent in this epigram betrays profound ignorance of western philosophy going back millennia.  Only recently have materialists gained ascendency in intellectual circles, and atheistic materialism permeates SETI through and through.  Their forefathers are Democritus, Lucretius and Epicurus, with few takers till John Locke and David Hume built their systems on sense experience alone.  Others dabbling with atheistic materialism were shunned or outmaneuvered with trenchant rational arguments by philosophers as varied as Thomas Aquinas, Rene Descartes, Thomas Reid, and Immanuel Kant.  Even most Enlightenment deists did not deny a rational design principle in the universe.  The early Newtonians and proponents of the mechanical philosophy were nearly all Christians to various degrees.  They never would have suggested that “star stuff” gave rise to the rational human soul.
    Without even considering the long history of theological arguments for natural theology, great philosophers have long debunked atheism with finesse.  Thomas Reid and Kant, for example, undermined the empiricist viewpoints of the materialists from first principles.  They argued forcefully that such views are reductionist and self-refuting.  To even speak about observation and empiricism presupposes a rational power that is not reducible to sense experience.  In addition, nothing inherent in the physical mechanisms of the body can account for the operation the mind or grant its rational arguments legitimacy.  The same arguments can be wielded just as effectively today against the modern materialists.  Unfortunately, they rarely get a hearing.  Atheists routinely run amok in the science journals with tall tales about game theory producing human morals, DNA developing into souls, and collections of neurons generating the mind.  The peer review process fails to call them on the carpet for illogic or carelessness, and so they get away with it; why?  Because Darwin’s bulldogs succeeded long ago in gaining control of the scientific institutions and codifying their world view into the very definition of science.
    SETI is part and parcel of a conspiracy to create a culture of materialists.  If it were not so, they would engage their critics and opponents in serious debate.  Instead, just like the astrobiologists and evolutionary psychologists, they shun scrutiny and usurp authority by co-opting the banner of “science” and conflating their materialism with the otherwise worthy goals of scientific research.  To a person, they idolize Father Charlie, because he liberated them from the need for both scientific and philosophical rigor.  Without apologies to Dawkins, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-foolfilled atheist.
    Now that the Intelligent Design Movement has mounted the first volleys against the Darwinist naturalistic empire, the materialists are resorting to subterfuge instead of honorably engaging their opponents on the intellectual battlefield.  Pamela Harman has revealed that a huge educational program for the recruitment of young minds into philosophical materialism is underway: the Search for Educational Targets to Indoctrinate.  All that is necessary for foolishness to triumph is for good philosophers to think nothing.
Next headline on:  SETI • Origin of Life • Evolution • Education

We haven’t heard from the opponents yet whether they will be able to support their view and shoot holes in the core accretion model.  When you think about it, diffuse gas and dust have a lot to overcome in forming a star.  Gravity and shock waves are the only formative forces.  On the way in, the dust heats up, pushing outward, magnetic fields and turbulence oppose collapse, and increasing pressure, increasing rotation, and angular momentum fight the formation process.  Getting the supermassive stars is hard for both models, and why do so many binaries form?  Many articles glibly speak of “regions of active star formation” with confidence vastly exceeding theoretical and observational understanding.  If scientists would just learn to admit more often what they don’t know and speak a little more humbly, it would be a worthy development.
Next headline on:  Stellar Astronomy

First, they tracked the spadix [central stalk] temperatures of two wild populations of skunk cabbage over time and compared them to the air temperature.  After making sure the fluctuations were not just random noise, the team determined that the plant used only two or three pieces of information, or variables, to regulate its internal temperature.  That meant the plant‘s thermostat had to follow a fairly simple rule, perhaps like the oven in your kitchen.  If a high-end oven gets too hot, it turns itself off; it may also track how fast its temperature is rising or falling and the temperature of the kitchen outside, making adjustments accordingly.

Plants are better at math than some scientists.  Even if we uncover the mechanism in detail, it would beg the question of how this ability got there in the first place.  Scientists who don’t want to think about that could at least work on emulating the clean, efficient source of energy derived from sunshine, air and water.
Next headline on:  Plants and Botany • Amazing Stories

• Darwin on Display:  Ker Than got a private tour of the new “Darwin” exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History and reported his experiences on LiveScience.  “‘Darwin’ will be the most comprehensive exhibit ever mounted on the British naturalist, whose ideas transformed biology and sparked a religious debate that is playing out in courtrooms, statehouses and school board meetings across the United States,” he wrote, filling the article as usual with attacks against ID.  Than’s second article on LiveScience described his preview before the exhibit opens Nov. 19.  A portrait of “the white-bearded sage” is prominently placed at the top of both articles.
• The Nature of Darwin:  Nature this week highlighted Darwin alongside its news entry, “Day of judgment for intelligent design,”¹ that compared the results in Kansas and Dover, Pennsylvania.  Also included in this issue were book reviews of two new anthologies of Darwin’s four major books, and a review of a book about the evolution of human language that begins with a discussion of Darwin’s views on the subject.  There was also a review of an art exhibit in Amsterdam about animals, with the comment, “Charles Darwin changed the way animals were viewed in art.”
• Implied Darwin:  Science² had no Darwin portraits this week, but discussed “teaching evolution” in a news item contrasting Dover and Kansas.  Constance Holden noted that the margin of victory for the slate of 8 Democrats who defeated the Dover incumbents was extremely narrow.  A photo contrasted two billboards, one for the incumbents and one for the challengers, neither of which mentioned the evolution issue.  She quoted a pundit who said, “The bottom line is that nearly half of the community still feel that an alternate perspective to evolution should be presented to high school students.”  The new board members are aware of that, and are apparently not making evolution a frontline issue.  Meanwhile, back in Kansas, board member Steve Abrams faced his critics in what Tom Magnuson called an “absolute must read” – an editorial in Education News explaining why the critics have no case.

Dear Old Darwin is more than just a historical figure to the Darwin Party.  He is part father figure, part exalted leader, and part god.  The various tribes are gathering in earnest, doing the Ghost of Charlie Dance to drive out the ID invaders.  The invaders, however, are not trying to deprive them of their heritage.  They just want an honest powwow instead of terrorism.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Education

Creationism in Camouflage: The “Intelligent Design” Deception
Dr. Keith Lockitch
Free Public Event
For decades creationists have sought to replace evolution with the Book of Genesis.  But defenders of evolution have consistently prevailed in the schools and the courts of law.  This struggle for intellectual survival has led to the evolution of a new “species” of creationist, better adapted to its inhospitable environment.  The new Creationism goes by the name of “Intelligent Design” and poses a greater danger than old-style Creationism.  In this talk Dr. Lockitch will examine the Intelligent Design movement focusing on its similarities and differences with standard creationism.  By hiding its religious nature in a cloak of pseudo-science, the movement seeks to make itself more palatable to intellectuals and the general public.  And because the collapse of philosophy has left today’s academics—including the most passionate and vocal defenders of evolution—incapable of answering its most fundamental arguments, the doors of our colleges and schools are ominously open to primitive mysticism masquerading as science.

Atheism in Camouflage: The “Natural Selection” Deception
Dr. Key Unlocker
Free Public Event
For decades atheists have sought to replace natural theology with naturalistic stories of evolution.  But defenders of creation have consistently prevailed in the schools and the courts of law.  This struggle for intellectual credibility has led to the creation of a new “kind” of atheist, better skilled at subterfuge.  The new Atheism goes by the name of “Natural Selection” and poses a greater danger than old-style Atheism.  In this talk Dr. Unlocker will examine the Natural Selection movement focusing on its similarities and differences with older varieties of evolutionism.  By hiding its atheistic nature in a cloak of unproved generalizations, the movement seeks to make itself more palatable to intellectuals and the general public.  And because the collapse of strong churches has left today’s academics—including the most passionate and vocal defenders of natural theology—incapable of answering its most fundamental arguments, the doors of our colleges and schools are ominously open to unrestrained speculation masquerading as science.

Does Gene Expression Evolve?    11/17/2005  
“Mutation is the ultimate source of biological diversity because it generates the variation that fuels evolution,” wrote four scientists in Nature November 10.¹  Conventionally, theorists have focused on gene mutations for that fuel; what about mutations to gene expression?  That’s what they set out to discover.
    One would think that positive natural selection would drive gene expression.  If nothing else, neutral mutations would be expected to accumulate over time.  Looking at fruit flies and worms, however, they found less than anticipated.  This was a surprise to them, “suggesting that stabilizing selection has a larger role than drift in shaping the evolution of gene expression.”  Stabilizing selection is a conservative effect.  A perturbation in one part of the gene expression network might be counterbalanced by another, such that the overall developmental pattern is unchanged.  This leads to phenotypic stability called canalization.  Though their title and conclusion hyped plasticity, they discovered stability:

In summary, D. melanogaster has a broad mutational capacity for changes in gene expression, in both magnitude and genomic extent, that could potentially provide ample raw material for evolutionary diversification.  However, although they vary among closely related species, gene expression patterns are relatively stable.  In Caenorhabditis elegans, genetic variances of gene expression are likewise much less than the neutral expectation.  The convergence of this observation in two groups of organisms that diverged in the Precambrian and have different reproductive and life-history strategies indicates that stabilizing selection and structural processes, including canalization, physical and developmental constraints, and correlated responses, govern gene expression evolution.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Anyone see evolution here?  Stabilizing selection is not the kind Darwin wanted.  It’s like those displays in appliance stores where a beach ball is suspended above a blower.  The ball spins and gyrates, but the higher pressure around the flowing air holds the ball in place.  The evidence suggests that organisms are robust against perturbations in gene expression.  Two similar species of fruitflies and worms maintained very stable patterns of gene expression despite these evolutionists’ claim the creatures diverged in the Precambrian.  That’s a lot of un-evolution for 200 million years.  The rest of the bluff about “mutational capacity” providing “raw material” for evolution was just verbal turbulence flowing past a Darwinian beach ball suspended in mid-air. 
Next headline on:  Genetics • Evolution

1. T. Rex Smelled Good:  A story in Science¹ listed evidence that Tyrannosaurus rex had a large olfactory bulb, giving it a good sense of smell.  Analysis of the visual and auditory parts of the skull suggest that it also excelled at sight and hearing: “new studies show that the tyrant lizard’s sensory apparatus was indeed fit for a king,” wrote Erik Stokstad.  Phillip Currie (U of Alberta) was impressed: “The more we look at T. rex, the more sophisticated it is.”  There was no mention of evolution in the article.
2. It’s a Bird – It’s a Plane:  After researchers suggested last month that the odd Chinese feathered fossil Microraptor gui flew like a biplane (10/24/2005), a fight broke out in Nature.²  Kevin Padian and Ken Dial gave seven reasons why the evidence does not support the idea, and complained that the researchers should not have claimed it supported the arboreal (tree-down) theory for the origin of flight.  “It is recognized that the arboreal versus cursorial dichotomy of models for the origin of bird flight is not capable of resolution,” they said, “and should have been abandoned long ago.  Rather, the origin of the flight stroke is the central problem in the origin of flight, and so far nothing has been brought to light to indicate that Microraptor has any bearing on this question.”  The Chinese are sticking to their story and deny the debate is dead.  They believe that Microraptor argues against the cursorial (ground-up) theory.  They also said that Microraptor had the same flight capabilities as Archaeopteryx.
3. Missing Mosasaur Link?  A press release from Southern Methodist University told about a fossil find by an amateur of a mosasaur-like animal with short stubby legs.  LiveScience reprinted the claim that it represents a missing link between limbs and fins.
4. The Early Turtle Gets the Limb:  BBC News reported a fossil leg of an “early turtle” claimed to be 120 million years old.  They think the new species was partly adapted to land and partly to sea.
5. Prairie Dinosaurs:  There wasn’t supposed to be grass when the dinosaurs roamed, but now it’s been found in their droppings, reported LiveScience.  Titanosaur coprolites showed phytoliths that indicate the presence of grasses in their diet.  “This discovery could also cause a major shake-up in dinosaur dioramas around the world,” the article says.  Perhaps vistas of sauropods grazing alongside the buffalo?

In most of these stories, the researchers delved beyond the data into imagination.  Creatures adapted to their many and varied environments do not necessarily imply common ancestry.  If we must assume the mosasaur-like animal was evolving into a sea creature, for instance, does this mean beaver paws are evolving into fins?  Many animal groups have representatives that live on either sea or land, or both.  There are sea snakes, sea turtles, sea lions, sea otters, sea iguanas, sea spiders, sea birds and Sea Peoples (that’s what historians call the ancestors of the Philistines).  Biodiversity does not presuppose Darwinism; it is what Darwinism needs to explain.  None of these stories explain how the highly-adapted, complex structures of the creatures arose in the first place.
    The fun part was the spat between the Chinese and Kevin Padian and Ken Dial (Mr. Aerofoil-Partridge; see 12/22/2003) over whether the lizard flapped its arms on the way up the hill, or on the way down from the tree limb.  Come back when you get it all worked out, guys.  Solve the power stroke, too.
Next headline on:  Dinosaurs • Birds • Fossils • Marine Life • Terrestrial Zoology

There is no mention of evolution in this article.  This “motor-driven active transport” bears the hallmark of intelligent design and coordinated function.  Darwinism is utterly useless for this cutting-edge scientific work that holds promise for spinoff technologies that could greatly improve our lives and understanding of nature’s workings.  Compare that with the next entry below.
Next headline on:  The Cell • Biomimetics • Amazing Stories

The central claim of the theory of evolution as laid out in 1859 by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species is that living species, despite their diversity in form and way of life, are the products of descent (with modification) from common ancestors.  To communicate this idea, Darwin developed the metaphor of the ‘tree of life.’  In this comparison, living species trace backward in time to common ancestors in the same way that separate twigs on a tree trace back to the same major branches.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

At the outset, it is important to clarify that tree thinking does not necessarily entail knowing how phylogenies are inferred by practicing systematists.  Anyone who has looked into phylogenetics from outside the field of evolutionary biology knows that it is complex and rapidly changing, replete with a dense statistical literature, impassioned philosophical debates, and an abundance of highly technical computer programs.  Fortunately, one can interpret trees and use them for organizing knowledge of biodiversity without knowing the details of phylogenetic inference.  The reverse is, however, not true.  One cannot really understand phylogenetics if one is not clear what an evolutionary tree is.

Tree thinking belongs alongside natural selection as a major theme in evolution training.  Further, trees could be used throughout biological training as an efficient way to present information on the distribution of traits among species.  To this end, what is needed are more resources: computer programs, educational strategies, and accessible presentations of current phylogenetic knowledge.
    Phylogenetic trees are the most direct representation of the principle of common ancestry--the very core of evolutionary theory--and thus they must find a more prominent place in the general public’s understanding of evolution.  As philosopher of science Robert O’Hara stated, “just as beginning students in geography need to be taught how to read maps, so beginning students in biology should be taught how to read trees and to understand what trees communicate.”  Among other benefits, as the concept of tree thinking becomes better understood by those in the sciences, we can hope that a wider segment of society will come to appreciate the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry and the scientific rigor of evolutionary biology.

This article is very revealing.  The best way to understand it is to imagine oneself in ancient Babylonia, listening to some wizards of hepatoscopy (divination by reading the liver) lamenting the paucity of awareness of their craft among the astrologers and the general public.  They make a pitch in the Chaldean Journal about how useful hepatoscopy is to the general science of divination.  While admitting that their charts and diagrams are difficult to devise, they nevertheless argue that the charts are useful representations of fundamental insights, and took an awful lot of hard work to produce.  Their recommendation is to print more copies of their liver diagrams and instruct the young in the basic concepts of interpreting livers until the concept of liver-thinking becomes better understood and appreciated.
    Far off?  Not by much.  Look what they admitted: phylogenetic inference from the actual data of biodiversity is “fraught with challenges.”  The field is “complex and rapidly changing.”  It has its own “dense statistical literature” impenetrable to those “outsiders” of the art.  It is an arena of “impassioned philosophical debates.”  One can imagine Babylonian hepatomancers in similar circumstances, adjusting their charts each time the king loses a battle despite their prognostication.  No problem; it’s all part of the “scientific rigor” of The Craft.
    Notice also that tree-thinking is an a priori stance one takes before looking at the data.  It’s a world view: “the main framework within which evidence for evolution is evaluated.”  But what is being evaluated: the evidence, or the framework?  Since everything must fit into The Framework from the outset, no amount of change, debate, challenge or complexity endangers The Framework.  It is the grid through which all data must be sifted, the colored glass through which all wavelengths must be filtered.  This is very different from a geographical map with which they compare it (see analogy in the Baloney Detector).  A map represents visible data that can be corroborated in the present; a phylogenetic tree infers relationships in the unobservable past.  We do not conform the data to the map, but the other way around.  Not so with the Darwin Tree of Life.  Evidence is really secondary, because The Framework is already established.  Branches may shift here or there, but The Tree, as Platonic form, remains sacrosanct.  (You’ll notice that these wizards only bluffed about the “overwhelming evidence” for common ancestry and the “scientific rigor” of evolutionary biology; see 08/11/2003 and 06/13/2003 entries).
    Rightly did Jonathan Wells classify Darwin’s tree of life as an Icon of Evolution.  An icon is a symbol, a representation of an article of faith.  The early icons of Jesus were not evidence for his divinity; they were reminders and representations of what the faithful already believed about him.  Proof of his divinity came not from the icons, but from the historical facts and eyewitness accounts of his miracles and resurrection.  As such, “icon-thinking” and meditation on the artistic representations would have constituted a weak apologetic.  The iconoclasts of early Christendom did not deny the object of the icons, but argued that the icons became idols, mere graven images that distracted one’s attention from the real person of Jesus Christ.  How much more an icon based on false premises and absent evidence will mislead a scientist and obscure honest investigation.  Like the icons of pagan gods adorning ancient temples, it substitutes a fantasy for the real world.
    These three Darwin Party soothsayers want to short-circuit the proof from evidence and train novitiates by having them meditate on the icons.  They want computer programs, educational strategies and accessible representations of the products of their divination; they want to say, “believe, then interpret.”  They want to push this Framework, this faith – indeed, this religion – in the schools, to raise a new crop of devotees and practitioners of The Craft.  Such flagrant advocacy built on such shallow premises deserves a response in kind, from an iconoclast on that level.  We quote the noted philosopher Biff: “Make like a tree, and get outta here.”
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Education

These are the times that try psychotherapists’ souls.  Federal and state mental-health budget cuts have reduced the number of people who can afford one-on-one psychotherapy sessions to address their problems. Managed care companies demand to see proof that various psychological treatments work, and even then, they reimburse the cost of 2 or 3 months of psychotherapy at most....
    Today, the financial survival of any medical treatment or procedure rests on published evidence for its effectiveness.  In that environment, the science of psychotherapy has assumed special urgency.  Psychologists with backgrounds in both research and treatment stand at ground zero of efforts to conduct psychotherapy studies and then integrate the findings into clinical practice.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The list of science-backed psychotherapies emphasizes a handful of approaches grounded in concrete procedures that are described in training manuals.  For instance, in cognitive therapy for depression, a therapist assists patients in identifying and correcting faulty beliefs, such as a tendency to regard any setback as confirmation of one’s failure as a person.  Cognitive therapy includes homework assignments, for instance, a patient trying out a challenging new hobby and monitoring negative thoughts as they crop up.

Rare comparisons of patients receiving either of two forms of genuine psychotherapy have yielded no clear winners, [Drew] Westen [Emory U] notes.  In head-to-head comparisons, for example, a few months of cognitive therapy for depression works about as well as the same amount of interpersonal therapy does.  The latter form of one-on-one talk therapy, which is also outlined in a training manual, focuses on helping the patient find ways to resolve conflicts with others, to adjust to new roles in life, and to foster better relationships.
    Psychologist Bruce E. Wampold of the University of Wisconsin-Madison has combed through data from psychotherapy studies and concludes that a good working relationship between therapist and patient plays a larger role in sparking psychological progress than any particular treatment technique does.

In a 2002 paper that Ablon calls “a shocker,” clinicians and psychology graduate students rated videotaped sessions of therapists practicing what they considered either cognitive or interpersonal therapy.  The researchers found that, at least in the sessions with depressed patients, both treatments fit the definition of cognitive therapy, suggesting that a single therapy had been compared with itself.  The two sets of therapists were similarly effective....
Many proponents of randomized controlled trials regard Q-set studies as a swamp of correlations that can’t establish what actually helps a patient.  Moreover, many psychoanalysts frown on what they consider to be superficial attempts to measure what they do.

Brent D. Slife stood before an audience at the annual APA meeting held in Washington, D.C., in August, and filed the equivalent of a philosophical antitrust suit against psychotherapy researchers.  Slife, a psychologist at Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, bemoaned what he called “the almost dogmatic status” of the philosophy of empiricism in guiding examinations of psychotherapy.

In the quarrelsome world of psychotherapy studies, there’s one issue that everyone agrees on: Psychotherapists are fighting an uphill battle to procure more than minimal health insurance coverage for their services.  Norcross remarks, “The sad reality is that insurance companies largely respond to financial considerations, not psychotherapy research.”

In psychiatry, the cost of erroneous scientific theories can be incalculable.  Get things wrong (or even only half right) and once adopted by the profession it can take years to weed them out.  The result can be millions of shattered lives.
    Some of the world’s leading psychiatrists believe that this is just what has happened in their craft today.  Poor diagnosis, shaky science and drugs with costly side effects all point to the same conclusion: psychiatry is badly in need of a radical overhaul.

For those who didn’t already know that psychotherapy is a sickman fraud, this should be a real eye-opener.  Put up or shut up, the insurance companies rightfully ask: let’s see some evidence that psychotherapy actually works before we dole out millions of dollars for it.  What do they reply?  “Well, it’s just too complicated to measure.  You can’t treat it like uniform circular motion or gravity; but trust us, it’s scientific, and we know what we are doing.”  Anybody who trusts a psychotherapist should get his head examined.  You’d be better off seeing a real head-shrinker.  You could save a lot of money by employing the Lucy in Peanuts fame, at her “Psychological Help: 5 Cents” booth.  It appears her standard reply, “Snap out of it!” would prove as successful as anything the psychological charlatans come up with.  It might even be less harmful.  How many psychotherapists have irreparably damaged patients by “helping” them with their sex problems?  If the truth were told, they would, in fact, be booted out of the health care system.
    It’s no secret that Sigmund Freud was a worshiper of Darwin.  Psychology has always followed the tradition of building on the Darwinist foundation, treating the human mind as a concourse of molecules molded by natural selection.  Psychotherapy is a secular religion masquerading as science, intended to replace the pastor of the local church.  Here we see that after all these years the Charlietans have nothing to show for it.  Don’t waste your time; they are wells without water, clouds without rain.^*
    Need healing?  There is hope for those who hurt.  The secret is to follow the Manufacturer’s Manual.  No one could ever figure out the complexities of the human mind but the one who made it.  Need evidence-based healing?  “Come unto me, all you who are weak and heavy laden,” said the Good Shepherd, “and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly of heart, and you will find rest for your souls” (Matthew 11:28-30).  There are millions who will vouch for that.  When God’s spirit takes control of a mind, a host of therapeutic agents are included: faith, hope, love, confidence, unselfishness, forgiveness, peace, thanksgiving, joy, and self-control.  See our list of Bible verses on the subject.  For some “evidence-based” illustrations of the power of God to change lives and heal sorrows, watch this film.
Next headline on:  Evolutionary Theory • Politics and Ethics

---

^*There are physical conditions that can cause mental illness or depression due to physiological causes, like hormone imbalances (ask any pregnant woman), but these are not psychological problems (psyche, Gr.: the soul).  Special help and medication is legitimate for these medical conditions; the services of a careful psychiatrist with an M.D. might be essential.  If the problem has no physical symptoms or genetic causes, however, watch out.
    None of this commentary should demean the seriousness of emotional problems.  Some problems are caused by circumstances beyond one’s control, some by sin, and some by the sins of others.  Dealing with the effects of abuse or trauma can be a huge challenge.  Spiritual problems, such as anger or guilt, can dramatically influence the body and the mind.  The question is, who is more qualified to help with these – a Darwinist secularist mortal who can’t possibly grasp all the intricacies of the mind, or the mind’s Creator?  Spiritual problems cannot be addressed by a reductionist practitioner who denies the existence of soul or spirit.  Many secular therapy fads have come and gone; some of these have been far worse than the disease.  In the final score, as the above article shows, none – even the most popular – has any uncontested claim to validity.
    Don’t trust your mind to the cult of psychotherapy.  Go to a godly Biblical counselor who knows and trusts the Word of God, and he can refer you if medical assistance is needed.  Avoid religio-pop-psych like Norman Vincent Peale and other purveyors of fuzzy theology; get the real thing from the source.  Peale is appalling, but Paul is appealing.  The National Association of Nouthetic Counselors is one resource committed to Biblical integrity, and there are others; but the Wonderful Counselor himself is just a prayer away, free of charge.

1. A Is for Aleph:  A stone abecedary, or alphabet tablet, has been unearthed in the hill country south of Jerusalem.  It is dated to the 10th century BC, the time of David and Solomon.  See MSNBC News for a summary.  The New York Times says this indication of early writing will undoubtedly fire up the squabble over the minimalist interpretation of archaeology, which assumes David and Solomon were minor tribal chieftains rather than the glorious kings as described in the Bible.  An alphabet from this time period would indicate that literacy was already well established.  Scholars say the script is early Hebrew.  See also a report in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
       In addition, according to Biblical Archaeology Review, proof of writing from this period would also weigh in on debates over whether the Bible was passed on by oral tradition or through written records.  Unlike Egypt, Palestine has a paucity of stone inscriptions.  Perhaps official records were inscribed on less durable media; in King Josiah’s day, the priests rejoiced to find a lost scroll of the Law of Moses, and by Jeremiah’s time (6th century BC), King Jehoiakim cut up the prophet’s writings and burned them in the fire (Jeremiah 36).  Few such ancient combustible manuscripts could be expected to survive the repeated conflagrations the Holy Land has suffered, but the Jewish scribes were masters at preserving their sacred texts, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls.
2. The Early Church:  A mosaic floor of a church dating from the third century was uncovered by surprise by prisoners working for the Israeli Antiquities Authority in an Israeli high-security prison at Megiddo, reported MSNBC, National Geographic News and the Biblical Archaeological Society.  Dating from a period when Christians were persecuted, this marks one of the earliest known Christian churches.  The mosaic clearly shows the fish symbol and some inscriptions, one crediting a Roman official for funding the mosaic.  Another clearly establishes the belief of the worshipers in the deity of Christ.  It says, “The God-loving Aketous has offered this table to the God Jesus Christ as a memorial.”
3. Goliath Found:  Sling my stones!  An inscription similar to the name Goliath was discovered on pottery dating from the period of the Philistine giant David made famous (by killing him), according to MSNBC News.  A definitive link to the giant cannot be established, but it shows the etymological equivalents of the name existed at the time Goliath lived.  It was, moreover, discovered at the site believed to be his hometown – Gath.  The Jerusalem Post has a picture, and explains that the inscription contains two names that are “remarkably similar” to Goliath.
4. Destroying History:  Tragically, the Muslims are destroying Jewish history in Jerusalem and getting away with it.  Ryan Jones reported in Jerusalem NewsWire that Temple Mount destruction continues, as Muslims perform illegal construction work to turn the sacred site into a mega-mosque and remove all traces of Jewish history where their famed Temple once stood.  “To date, 12,000 tons of earth and debris rich in Jewish artifacts has been removed from the Mount and dumped unceremoniously at garbage dumps outside Jerusalem’s Old City,” Jones writes.  “Several historical treasures have been reclaimed from the dump sites.  Untold others have been lost, possibly forever.”  The Jewish authorities are fearful of intervening because of Muslim threats of violence if they try.  See earlier entries from 08/23/2004 and 04/17/2005.
5. Tourist Trap:  Should the north shore of the Sea of Galilee become a theme park?  The Christian Science Monitor has mixed feelings about it.  Evangelicals are working with Israeli authorities on plans for a “sprawling Holy Land Christian Center” to accommodate the flood of pilgrims to the lands where Jesus walked.  They want to prevent kitsch and commercialism from distracting from the seriousness of the subject.  Facilities of the proposed “Galilee World Heritage Park” might include a large auditorium, amphitheater, a garden of Bible plants, and quiet sites for prayer and reflection.

Pat Robertson’s indiscretions aside, the archaeological findings listed here are tremendously interesting and important.  They coincide with dates and times mentioned in the Old Testament and gird up confidence in the historicity of the Bible.  That is the ongoing record of Biblical archaeology.
    How the Muslims can get away with their illegal and unconscionable actions on the Temple Mount in the most important religious site on earth is unbelievable.  Where is the outrage by all the liberals, who are quick to condemn America any time there is destruction of artifacts in Iraq, even if not the military’s fault?  Where is the United Nations, with their protection of World Heritage Sites?  Why aren’t they bringing international pressure to bear against these criminals?  Where are the academics?  To see how asymmetric today’s virtue of “tolerance” is, just imagine world reaction if Jews destroyed Islamic holy sites.  Remember the violence and death sparked by just a rumor that American soldiers had desecrated a copy of the Koran?  Appeasement as a policy has a bad history.  Dads used to teach their kids the correct way to deal with bullies.
    As to a theme park on the Sea of Galilee, bad idea.  Galilee is too important historically for attempts at gilding the lily.  The best experience for modern day pilgrims is to see it like Jesus and his disciples saw it, unvarnished with 21st century theatrics.  Despite their claims that this will not become a Disneyland, just wait.  You can visualize it already, can’t you?  Contemporary music concerts blaring out from the amphitheater over the waves where Jesus commanded, Peace: be still.  Vendors are sure to follow the dollar and line the tourist avenues with Jesus trinkets, souvenir fishnet stockings and boat rides where you can try your skill at walking on water.  Ugh!  Let’s bomb this idea (figuratively) before the Palestinians do (literally).
Next headline on:  Bible and Theology

We get excited about the big finds, but the fossil record is full of extinct creatures of all sizes and shapes.  Our world is species-poor compared to the diversity of creatures that have inhabited this planet’s lands and seas, as revealed in the fossil record.  Was this a missing link?  Apparently not; one researcher said, “This [animal] forms a very distinct lineage that appears early on in the evolutionary history of crocodiles—invading the sea and showing outstanding adaptation to the marine environment.” (Emphasis added in all quotes.)  He also said that it represents “the most drastic evolutionary change in the history of marine crocodiles.”  They are not even quite sure how to classify the creature.  There appear to be more questions than answers: NG News said, “The researchers don’t yet know what events triggered the relatively sudden emergence of Dakosaurus, nor do they know what caused it to go extinct.”  Like ichthyosaurs, then, the creature appeared suddenly in the record, flourished for a time, and just as suddenly vanished (see 04/20/2005 story).  What a world.
Next headline on:  Marine Life • Fossils • Amazing Facts

The Pope does not speak for all Christians, of course, and his comments could still be construed as permitting belief in theistic evolution.  Still, this speech must be a blow for Darwinists hoping to soften religious opposition to evolution in general.  They know the Pope commands the allegiance of many millions of Catholics.  They had been able to twist Pope John Paul’s ambiguous statement that evolution was “more than a hypothesis” into ammo for their cause.  Pope Benedict’s more distinct words are sure to stir up even more controversy and opposition to atheism and unguided evolution.  Key to the Darwinist interpretation of evolution is that it is uncaused, unguided, and directionless.  The Pope not only defied this belief, but actually used the phrase “intelligent plan” which is synonymous with ID.  What will Sr. Lazcano do with that? (see 11/04/2005 story).
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Bible and Theology

Notice this excerpt from the MSNBC article: “One surprising finding was that there wasn’t much genetic variation between different penguin colonies.”  And their point is?  The article was filled with evolution lingo, but they found less variation than expected – either a blending of genetic traits, or convergence.  What’s more, the study only traced DNA back to 6,000 years.  Isn’t that interesting.
    These studies could have been done by creationists.  Even the most ardent Biblical creationists allow for significant genetic variability within kinds.  Studies like this can be useful; they can help untangle the history of shifting populations of the same species.  We do that with human population genetics – tracing, for example, the migration patterns of Asiatics into the New World via the Bering Strait.  But this new penguin study cannot offer any substantive support for Darwin’s prime thesis, that penguins had bacteria ancestors.  None of the actual data show penguins evolving from pre-penguins.
    Microevolution is not macroevolution.  It’s misleading that both terms include the word evolution, because they do not necessarily have anything to do with each other, except in the imagination of Darwinists.  (Notice that the MSNBC article referred to the old peppered myth as a “classic example” of microevolution.)  Darwinists are convinced that micro can be extrapolated to macro, given enough time, and that horizontal variations can add up to vertical gains in information and function, given no fossil evidence.  Their a priori commitment to Darwinist thinking determines how the data will be interpreted.
    There seem to be more attempts by pro-Darwin science reporters to get the E word before the public eye, hoping to procure for embattled Darwinian theory an air of scientific legitimacy it struggles to obtain and maintain.  Don’t let them get away with trying to use this study as evidence for evolution, or as propaganda against the ID movement.  The subjects were Adelie penguins all through the timeline – no macroevolution occurred, only sorting of existing traits.
    Penguins should be viewed, like all other living things, as testimonies to intelligent design.  The design is evident at all levels, from the molecular, to the cellular, up through the tissues and organs and systems, all the way up to the complete bird and its interaction with other animals and with its environment (see 10/27/2005 story).  Microvariation, yes; macroevolution, no.
Next headline on:  Birds • Genetics • Evolution

Beware the spin in stories like these.  ScienceNow called this result a “victory” in Dover but a “setback” in Kansas – it clearly depends on which side of the battle one is on.  LieScience continued its biased reporting by saying “Pennsylvania voters reject ‘intelligent design.’”  Good grief; not all Pennsylvania voters did, just those in Dover.  And whether they rejected ID is not clear; the majority clearly was upset at the tactics of the board, but it is a non-sequitur to assume the voters rejected ID itself.  Remember that the controversial policy only asked for a short statement to be read in the science classrooms that Darwinism is not a fact, and that alternatives exist, and resources are available if a student is interested – that’s it!  No teacher had to teach ID, no student had to look at the materials, and there would be no test questions about it.  But that was enough to give the ACLU fits and arouse the attention of the country over its lawsuit.
    Before assuming that the Dover area voters “rejected” ID, one must remember that even the pro-ID Discovery Institute did not approve of the board’s actions and refused to participate in the defense.  So we need to ask some pertinent questions in order to interpret the election results.  How many of the voters agreed with the Discovery Institute and felt the board had engaged in an unwise strategy?  How many were simply embarrassed by all the media attention over the trial?  How many were concerned primarily about the cost of defense against the lawsuit?  How many voted on emotion instead of facts? (look what happened in California).  How many can’t even spell ID, let alone explain what Darwinism teaches, but were influenced by fast-talking CARES reps?  Which side outspent the other, and which was more successful getting out the vote?
    The PhillyBurbs article, closer to the action, said that the newly-elected board members are not planning to act rashly, or quickly overturn the policy.  Everyone has a wait-and-see attitude to see how Judge John E. Jones rules on the case.  There could well be an appeal regardless of who wins.  Maybe the new board will favor a more Kansas-style strategy, or will teach ID in history or social studies, or will just move on to other priorities.  It doesn’t appear the winners are going to the opposite extreme and calling this a great victory for Darwinism, to be celebrated with a Tinker Bell Parade and fireworks for Darwin Day.  One thing is clear; intelligent design vs. Darwinism is in the consciousness of people around the country, and the world.  That’s why it is more important than ever to separate the facts from the spin.
Next headline on:  Education • Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Politics and Ethics

Everybody seems to be claiming the other side is generating more heat than light.  Don’t they know that heat is a form of light?  That’s basic physics, and so is Newton’s 3.5th Law: every action has an equal and opposite criticism.  Heat feels good on a freezing day.  It’s about time things thawed out a little since the wicked witch Tinker Bell (09/22/2005) turned the animals to stone and made it always winter and never Christmas.  Fear not the warming rays, but rather the bluster and howls of rhetorical witchery that blankets the landscape with lies and hate.  At the end of the long Darwinian ice age, seeing the sun again finally, with both heat and light, is making the world come alive.
Next headline on:  Darwin • Education

1. Does this add up?  Reporting on experiments suggesting monkeys have the rudiments of math skills, at least in the ability to compare sizes of things, MSNBC News writer Bjorn Carey wanted to emphasize how similar they are to us.  He said, “This finding is the most recent in a series of discoveries that indicate our primate cousins display humanlike characteristics.  Monkeys like to gamble and enjoy looking at other monkeys’ bottoms.  Chimpanzees have been found to crack under social pressures.”
2. On the Origin of Humor by Sexual Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Jokes in the Struggle for a Wife:  Science Now laughed with, but not at, a study that showed differences in the way men and women respond to humor.  There must be a Darwinian angle in here somewhere:  “There are a variety of ways to interpret the findings, says neuroscientist Gregory Berns of Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, one of the more politically incorrect being that women are more easily entertained than men.  Another is that women find humor more important in behavior than men do, consistent with ideas that humor evolved differently between the sexes as a mating strategy--men act the comics and women respond by laughing at them. Er, with them.”  But ScienceNow left us hanging without a punch line for the title, “Y Did the Chromosome Cross the Road?”
3. Are humans still evolving?  Reporting on a comparative genomics study between humans and chimpanzees, Ker Than on Live Science started by praising the power of natural selection:  “The evolutionary process that Charles Darwin discovered almost 150 years ago, responsible for transforming dinosaurs into birds and allowing the walking ancestors of whales to take to the seas, is still quietly at work in humans today.”  In the next paragraph he called DNA the “software of life.”

So if you are a gambling butt-gazer with a nervous breakdown, you can take comfort in the fact that macaques empathize with you.  Supposedly if the macaques keep up such antics they will become philosophers in due time.  Didn’t Kipling say that to be a man requires keeping your head while all around you are losing theirs?  Macaque antics reveal no special human propensities.  Parrots and dolphins exhibit better intellectual skills than monkeys, but no Darwinist considers either of them our “closest living relative.”  Why not turn the idea around, and say that any man who dwells on derriere jokes is devolving into a macaque, or any human who swims is devolving into a whale?  After all, Michael Ruse has forcefully warned against embedding any ideas of progress into Darwinian theory.
    Ker Than has been a malicious demagogue against intelligent design throughout the Dover trial, worse than Antonio Lazcano (see 11/04/2005 entry).  These two quotes show that nothing he says about Darwinism or ID can be trusted.  In promoting Darwinism, he erred with his definition of natural selection: “Darwin’s natural selection is the process by which nature rewards those individuals better adapted to their environments with survival and reproductive success.”  In addition to slipping an embedded personification fallacy about rewards into his definition, he blindly slipped into the tautology trap: if fitness is defined in terms of reproductive success, it loses all independent meaning: the fit survive because the survivors are fit.
    In attacking ID, Ker Than linked it to belief in a “higher being”.  ID makes no claims about the nature or source of the designing intelligence, but only that the effects of intelligent causes are detectable.  But then he also borrowed ID vocabulary in defining DNA as software, which always has an intelligent cause.  He also erred historically in giving Charlie credit for “discovering” natural selection.  If he can’t even define the most basic terms right or keep his concepts consistent, how can his opinions be worth anything?  Such reporting is better suited to a job at LieScience.com.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Dumb Ideas

1. Helium residuals:  Radiogenic helium from zircons, extracted from granitic cores three miles deep at high temperatures, was still present in the biotite.  Conventional wisdom would have expected all the “slippery” helium atoms to have escaped long ago.  The team made predictions about how the helium measurements would fit a young-earth model and a uniformitarian model.  They calibrated the escape rate as a function of temperature and graphed their results; the data lined up exactly on the young-earth prediction of 6,000 years plus or minus 2,000 years.
2. Radiohalo signatures:  The team followed up on earlier work by Robert Gentry on radiohalos, the spherical scars in granites resulting from alpha-particle ejections from the decay of uranium.  Polonium halos adjacent to uranium halos were ubiquitous.  Because of their extremely short half-lives, they would have had to have formed within months, minutes or even milliseconds (in the case of Po-214).  The researchers took this to mean that to have migrated from the zircons, the polonium halos would have to be same age as the fully-developed uranium halos, yet the uranium halos appear to show millions of years’ worth of decay if measured at present rates.
3. Discordant isochrons:  Igneous rock samples from multiple sites in the Grand Canyon, judged ideal for radiometric dating, were sent to leading test labs and cross-checked by four independent isochron methods with multiple data points and good statistics.  The tests were double-blind; ICR had no control over the analysis, and the lab had no knowledge of the expected ages.  If the methods were reliable, all the dates should have been the same, but even though ages in the billion-year range were obtained, all the techniques differed radically from each other, some by 200% or 300% for the same rock.
4. Carbon-14;  Samples from coal beds in multiple locales yielded measurable amounts of carbon-14.  According to conventional wisdom, it would be “unthinkable” for any radiocarbon to be present, because it would be undetectable in just 100,000 years, but the coal beds are assumed to be hundreds of millions of years old.  The team also found intact carbon-14 in diamonds, thought to have formed over a billion years ago.
5. Genesis 1:  A statistical analysis of the verbs in the Hebrew text of Genesis 1 showed that it falls solidly in the genre of narrative, not poetry.  The meaning of “day” in the six-day creation account, therefore, cannot be properly interpreted in a poetical or allegorical sense.  This means that the writer intended the word day to mean ordinary days, not long ages.

This is very much a work in progress.  While interesting and important, these findings still need to withstand the critics.  Radiometric dating is one of the pillars of evolution.  It provides the deep time needed for naturalistic accounts of the formation of the earth and the evolution of life.  Hard-core Darwinists will not yield any ground on this stronghold without a fight, and neither will old-earth creationists or theistic evolutionists.  But even young-earth creationists should give it a thorough shake-and-bake test.  All the hard questions should be asked by the friends of ICR first.  The findings are mostly a collection of anomalies rather than a coherent theory that accounts for all the observations.  The admitted problems with accelerated nuclear decay – heat dissipation and abundance of decay products – seem serious; the burden of proof will be on ICR to maintain what will look to critics like an ad hoc suggestion.
    It’s important to note that long-agers have their own formidable problems.  They should examine their own vulnerabilities before doing battle with ICR.  These carefully-performed isochron measurements, cross-checked by four independent methods, reveal that the validity of radiometric dating can no longer be assumed.  Discordant results of this magnitude, indeed, call the entire procedure, including its assumptions and theoretical underpinnings, into question.  The fission-track analysis, in addition, makes it hard to believe that the samples could have remained below the annealing temperature for hundreds of millions of years, throughout multiple episodes of plate tectonics, volcanism and impacts.  The radiogenic helium from deep-earth cores should have escaped long ago.  Let the uniformitarians deal with these, while ICR gives more attention to their own difficulties.
    Nevertheless, ICR is to be commended for the rigor of their sampling and analysis.  They have thrown down a serious challenge to believers in deep time.  Icons are for religion, not science, and radiometric dating has been immune from challenge for too long.  Many do not realize that radiometric dating is one of the few techniques that produces millions and billions of years; many others produce much younger ages.  Long touted as an impregnable bastion against the young-earth interpretation, radiometric dating is now under siege.
    In an ideal engagement, neither side will attack the others’ motives or qualifications, but will respect the empirical data and test the interpretations from all angles.  This can turn a battle into a parley, a debate into a scientific conference.  There are mysteries in the RATE results that will require rigorous and critical study with the highest standards of integrity.  ICR has set a new pace of empirical honesty and constructive engagement.  Some fundamental new insights into the nature and behavior of radioactive decay – perhaps even with practical applications – may lurk in the data.  It remains to be seen how all this will play out, but even if there is a deadlock, all parties may have to concede that no human can know with certainty what happened in the pre-observational past, without faith.  Even that would be progress.
Next headline on:  Dating Methods • Physics • Geology • Media • Bible

• How the Brown Dwarf Sowed Planet Seeds:  Apai et al. in Science found magic crystals, hidden by the six brown dwarfs, that turn into planets over time.  “These results indicate that the onset of planet formation extends to disks around brown dwarfs,” they said, “suggesting that planet formation is a robust process occurring in most young circumstellar disks.”  Now in paperback at JPL.
• The Ancient Tunnel that Led to Life:  Scientists found a secret passageway into the ribosome where all of life’s proteins are made.  ScienceDaily said, “In developing the project, the team identified a corridor inside the ribosome that the transfer RNA must pass through for the decoding to occur, and it appears to be constructed almost entirely of universal bases, implying that it is evolutionarily ancient.”
• How the Animals Learned Fairness:  Nowak and Sigmund continued their long-running Game Theory Tales with the next sequel, published in Nature, on the “Evolution of direct reciprocity.”  Their attention-grabbing intro asked, “How can natural selection promote unselfish behaviour?”  It’s all in how you play the game called, “I help you and somebody else helps me,” they say.  The rest is human history: “The evolution of cooperation by indirect reciprocity leads to reputation building, morality judgement and complex social interactions with ever-increasing cognitive demands.”
• How the Shark Kept Warm During Workouts:  A cold-water shark with tuna-like muscles?  How could this be?  They belong to different evolutionary families.  The Knight of Convergent Evolution to the rescue: Bernal et al. writing in Nature 10/27 found that salmon sharks and tunas both independently discovered the secret to keeping their body temperatures elevated enough in cold water to power their strong muscles.
• How the Molecule Developed a Sweet Tooth:  Michael Yarus wrote a story about how an ancient RNA molecule learned the secret of the aldol reaction, essential for sugar metabolism.  “Could this be similar to an ancestral catalyst that existed billions of years ago?” he asked in Nature 11/03.  Watch for the next exciting episode.
• How the First Stars Lit Up the Sky:  We can’t see them, but they must have been there, because there is a faint infrared echo of the first stars in the universe.  Kashlinsky et al. followed the invisible light and the reporters told the world the glad tidings of their success (BBC, Space.com).
• How the Early Peoples Learned to Share:  “The question of the coexistence and potential interaction between the last Neanderthal and the earliest intrusive populations of anatomically modern humans in Europe has recently emerged as a topic of lively debate in the archaeological and anthropological literature,” said scientists in Nature.  In the darkness of the cave, radiocarbon light revealed a surprising mystery: “The implication is clear that the site shows either a directly interstratified sequence of Neanderthal and anatomically modern human occupations, or at least a very close contact and interaction between these two populations within this particular region of France.”
• How the Frog Women Decoded the Music:  New species of frogs arose in less than 8,000 years in Australia, which is lightning-fast, said the storyteller in UC Berkeley News.  The frog women learned to distinguish calls in the dark and split into various tribes by “reinforcement,” an evolutionary mechanism that “has been controversial since the time of Charles Darwin” and was considered “too complicated” and “unnecessary,” according to critics.  But ah, the frog women have free will, and free will is unpredictable.  “Because the frogs in the isolated contact area had a distinctively different call, and because they were effectively isolated from surrounding populations by mating preference, Hoskin and colleagues concluded that female choice led to this new species.”  It’s “kinda cool,” said one storyteller.  “It gives us a mechanism for very rapid speciation.”
• How the Stem Cells Lost Their Pedigree:  “Forgotten by evolution?” asked the Max Planck Society about stem cells.  Assigned to the slavish work of repairing organs, adult stem cells seemed destined for drudgery.  But scientists may have found their long-lost royal blood: “at least some adult stem cells could be the mere remnants of former embryonal differentiation processes, or, in other words, ‘footprints’ of evolution,” reported the short story.
• How the Play-Dough Gave Birth:  The womb of the earth mother lay deep in the ocean depths, with a placenta of clay.  Billions of years ago, this protective layer brought forth molecules destined for fins, wings, brains and philosophers.  Read this fascinating tale in News@Nature.

Nighty-nite, children.  No questions, now; just close your eyes, and sweet dreams.  Good-night, sleep tight, and don’t let the Creationist Monsters bite.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Dumb Ideas

I am always amused when I am asked by my American colleagues about the problems and pressures they imagine I face in Mexico because of my interest in life’s beginnings.  However, pressure to include creationism in public pedagogical and research settings has been primarily a phenomenon in the United States.  Only twice during my 30 years of teaching about evolutionary biology and research into the origins of life, have I encountered religious-based opposition to my work.  In both cases, it came from evangelical zealots from the United States preaching in Mexico.  One of the little recognized U.S. imports into Mexico is a small flow of creationists, who, through religion, are trying to impose their fundamentalist beliefs and hinder the teaching of Darwinian evolution in all levels of schooling.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Scientists from other countries could take a certain solace in the fact that the creationist movement appears to be largely confined to the United States.  I find it extremely encouraging that Mexican students, for the most part, are not driven by gaps in the scientific view of life to search for religious explanations or to vitiate evolutionary theory by advocating intelligent design.  Our teachers and pupils alike generally view the framework of intelligent design as a thinly disguised attempt to introduce religious preconceptions into the classroom.  Even so, it would be unwise to simply sit back and watch with incredulity as our American colleagues struggle against intelligent design creationists and other fundamentalisms.  There are, in fact, manifold indications that the creationism movement has been flexing its muscles and looking to proselytize far and wide.  Its potential threat to science education in Mexico and other Latin American countries should not be underestimated.

Since we can never know in full detail how the origin of life took place, it is not surprising that it is becoming a target for intelligent design creationists.  The geological and chemical evidence required to understand life’s beginnings remains insufficient and difficult to understand.  For creationists, that evidentiary gap provides an opportunity to erect a framework of controversy and endless discussion around the study of prebiotic evolution and the origin of life, which they assume are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than by an undirected process like natural selection.
    It is true that there is a huge gap in the current descriptions of the evolutionary transition between the prebiotic synthesis of biochemical compounds and the last common ancestor of all extant living beings [02/29/2004]  Even the unanticipated discovery in 1982--by the research teams directed by Thomas Cech and Sidney Altman--of catalytic RNA molecules (ribozymes), which can be loosely described as nucleic acids that simultaneously have characteristics of DNA and enzymes, has not closed this gap.  Instead, that and related discoveries have led to a more precise definition of what should be understood as the origin of life.  The origin of protein synthesis is still not understood, but the surprising conservation of widely distributed polypeptide sequences related to RNA metabolism has led my group and others to suggest that these sequences provide insights into an RNA/protein world that may have resulted from the interaction of ribozymes with amino acids, and that very likely preceded our familiar DNA/RNA/protein world.  Our understanding of the origin and early stages of biological evolution still has major unsolved problems, but they are recognized by the scientific community as intellectual challenges, and not as requiring metaphysical explanations, as proponents of creationism would have it.

Anyone who has been watching the intelligent design controversy against evolution must surely wag his head over this adult tantrum.  It’s articles like this that reinforce Phillip Johnson’s observation that certain Darwinists are so incorrigible, society will likely have to wait till they retire and die off before a rational discussion can be had.  But that will never happen as long as Lazcano’s type take impressionable elementary school children, who cannot discern their left hand from their right, and indoctrinate them early into the Church of Darwin with celebrations of Darwin Day (02/13/2004) and worship of a Padre Carlos Darwinez they don’t even know.  Maybe a little more free trade and removing of export controls is in order.
    Lazcano is a hopeless demagogue, like Barbara Forrest, who cannot be trusted, because the search for truth is not their motive.  They are at war; any lie is fair game if it advances the cause.  Their arsenal includes the tactical weapon B.A.D. (Bluffing Assertion Dogma), which communicates, “anything I say is true because I said it with feeling.”  They also use the M.A.D. bomb (Most Accept Darwin) and fuel their propaganda firebombs by drawing the starkest black-and-white distinctions: science vs. “creationism and other fundamentalisms,” so that the little children envision their alleged enemies as bomb-vested terrorists disguising their shifty eyes with smiling Phillip Johnson masks.
    This is really S.A.D. (silly antiquated Darwinism).  And so, we ask, what warrants this unquestioning allegiance to the cause, this eternal Love Affair with Darwin?  Tell us about your specialty, Señor Lazcano, the origin of life.  Here, we are told that yes, there are major gaps, even in the favored RNA World scenario, BUT don’t you think for a moment of exploiting that little vulnerability in the wall of our Jericho with your ID trumpets.  Sooner or later we will find a brick that won’t fall down flat at the slightest shout of “intelligent design.”
    The shame of this bluff, wroth, fluff and froth by a modern Darwin Bulldog is only exceeded by Science having printed it.  No opportunity for debate or rebuttal, just a temper tantrum by a man who cannot even use his own field to prop up his idol.  Instead of blushing over his paucity of scientific evidence, he is determined to shove his idolatry and intolerance down the throats of poor Mexican children.  Undoubtedly the editors were shouting “Hear, hear!” as they read this, gleefully giving it prominence in their liberal-leftist propaganda rag (speaking of the editorial positions, not the legitimate research papers by practicing scientists).
    Notice the arrogance.  Lazcano and his cheering buddies have basically set themselves up as the intellectual superiors of generations of the world’s greatest thinkers.  As one example, consider the quote at the top right of this page.  Dr. Daniel J. Robinson is a scholar par excellence at Oxford, a professor’s professor, a man who could run intellectual marathons around Lazcano.  Conversant in several languages, he is able to ad lib on the intricacies of Stoicism, the mind-body problem, Cicero, David Hume, scholasticism, the history and philosophy of science, psychology, ancient literature, Turing machines, Greek philosophy – practically any subject from the Babylonians to E. O. Wilson.  Robinson ended 30 hours of profoundly deep and enlightened lecturing with that quote.  After surveying the grand sweep of intellectual history from ancient times to the present, when all was said and done, he found the evidence for intelligent design convincing.  His winsome manner allowed for all good arguments to be heard, but from his own broad base of knowledge and experience, he chose that one – the conclusion that a benevolent, provident, all-wise, all-knowing Creator, yes indeed “God, really?  Yeah; really,” designed this world for a purpose.  Lazcano and Science have just called Dr. Robinson a know-nothing.  They have consigned all others who have doubts about Padre Carlos, anyone who thinks the arguments for design have merit, from David Berlinski to President Bush, from Antony Flew to Scott Minnich, no matter how much expertise, experience and knowledge, to the party of dangerous enemies who must be stopped before they corrupt the childlike faith of students.  They have consigned millennia of great thinkers, scientists and educators to oblivion, now that Messiah Carlos has come and brought the great enlightenment.
    Sorry, Antonio, we tried to help.  May you someday rest in peace.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Politics and Ethics • Education

1. Clock Conductor:  The brain is a “time machine,” reports EurekAlert on research at Duke University about the human biological clock.  Each structure in the brain has a resonant frequency of oscillations, like the ticking of a clock.  How do they get coordinated?  Think of the tune-up at the beginning of a concert, says Catalin Buhusi of Duke: “It’s like a conductor who listens to the orchestra, which is composed of individual musicians.  Then, with the beat of his baton, the conductor synchronizes the orchestra so that listeners hear a coordinated sound.”
2. Molecular Scissors:  MicroRNAs (miRNA) have been implicated in recent years with the regulation of genes (09/08/2005), including silencing genes that need to be slowed down or stopped.  EurekAlert reported on work by Wistar Institute that detected a “molecular scissors”action involving three independent parts: “The two enzymes in the complex are like two scissors working together in a concerted fashion, connected and coordinated by the third member of the complex,” said Ramin Shiekhattar.  The activity apparently occurs without any expenditure of ATP energy.
3. Nerve Code:  Scientists at Howard Hughes Medical Institute were surprised at an unexpected discovery: neuron development follows a code – “an organized relationship between Hox proteins, their chromosomal organization, and the differentiation and connectivity of motor neuron pools.”  The discovery of a combinatorial code, which governs three levels of motor neuron organization, “shows how the nervous system can generate the huge diversity of neurons necessary for a complex task like locomotion.”  Song and Pfaff of the Salk Institute reported on this surprising find in Cell, titling their article, “Hox Genes: The Instructors Working at Motor Pools.”
4. Sprinting Motor:  Like a sprinter crouching at the block before sprinting, kinesin stores up energy before its 7.8 nanometer leaps, reported Fisher and Kim in PNAS last month.  And like a strong sprinter, it’s not a pushover: “sideways lurching is not supported.”
5. Give Me Iron, or Give Me Death:  Taylor et al., writing in PNAS, studied the structure of a yeast enzyme named Fet3p essential to oxidizing both iron and copper.  The regulation of these metal ions is essential; Taylor et al. said, “Loss of the Fe(II) oxidation catalyzed by these proteins results in a spectrum of pathological states, including death.”
6. Gecko Rain Dance:  Geckos have a billion spatula-shaped structures at the ends of the hairs on their feet that allow them to “adhere to nearly all surface topographies.”  Huber et al. in PNAS explored the capillary action on a single spatula and found that “humidity contributes significantly to gecko adhesion on a nanoscopic level.”  They were interested in learning about gecko feet “for the development of artificial biomimetic attachment systems.”
7. Packaging into the Cell:  Some cargoes get wrapped in membrane and are delivered right through the cell exterior; this is called clathrin-mediated endocytosis.  Kaksonen, Toret and Drubin at UC Berkeley found that “four protein modules that cooperate to drive coat formation, membrane invagination, actin-meshwork assembly, and vesicle scission during clathrin/actin-mediated endocytosis.”  The clathrin itself (an interesting three-pronged protein that forms geodesic structures around the vesicle) “facilitates the initiation of endocytic-site assembly but is not needed for membrane invagination or vesicle formation.”  The work was reported in Cell; see also EurekAlert summary.
8. Not Just a Recycle Bin:  The proteasome is getting more respect.  This “large multiprotein complex” is critical to the degradation of proteins tagged for recycling.  Baker and Grant reported in Cell that the proteasome was found involved in gene activation, adding to a “growing body of evidence indicating that the proteasome has nonproteolytic functions.”
9. Sharper Image:  Peter Moore in Science was glad about the “ribosomal coup” performed by Schuwirth et al. in the same issue, who imaged the bacterial ribosome at 3.5 angstrom resolution.  This molecular machine, the protein assembly factory, has moving parts.  Moore said, “The two subunits of the ribosome not only communicate during protein synthesis, they also engage in coordinated, relative motions.”
10. Bacterial Centipedes:  Did you know that bacteria can walk?  They project little feet called pili that adhere to surfaces; as the bacteria retract them, they pull the bacteria along in a crawling motion.  Researchers at UC Berkeley reporting in Science found a signaling molecule that they watched traveling from one end of the bacterium to the other when the organism needed to change directions.  They figured that this enzyme, FrzS, constituted a chemosensory system that hops onto the intracellular highway and orchestrates the formation of the pili.
11. Mr. Peabody Gains Respect:  Little specks called P-bodies near the nucleus never had so much limelight.  Jean Marx, writing in Science, told how scientists used to think they were just trash cans for used messenger RNAs (mRNA), a dead-end job.  Now, it appears that these “tiny speckles at the heart of the cell’s machinery” are active, critical players in the regulation of protein synthesis.  They act like routers, holding onto mRNA transcripts while deciding which get used or recycled.  Are they important?  When they go awry, cancer and autoimmune diseases can result.
12. Bees Under the Floodlights:  Humans can distinguish red, yellow and other colors under different lighting conditions, an ability called color constancy.  Bees have this talent, too.  To prove that weird lighting in a natural setting doesn’t throw them off, two London scientists put bumblebees in a specially-lit chamber.  All the flowers had black backgrounds, and four colored lights could alter the ambience.  They found that “bees can generate color-constant behavior by encoding empirically significant contrast relationships between statistically dependent, but visually distinct, stimulus elements of scenes” – spoken like a scientist, but the bees get the applause.

These 12 brief glimpses at recent science literature hint at the stream of discoveries being made that uncover more and more complexity and coordinated design.  Most of these papers don’t even mention evolution; none of them try to account for the origin of the complex structures they studied.  On the contrary, if the reports had been written by members of the intelligent design movement, no one would be able to tell the difference.  Both groups would express astonishment – but for different reasons.
Next headline on:  Cell Biology • Terrestrial Zoology • Human Body • Biomimetics • Amazing Stories

Padian:  It’s an opportunity when it really counts.  One person can’t be everywhere around the country talking to every school board and every parent group.  But this is a case where, ultimately, these decisions are going to clarify things in a formal setting.
Miller:  It is the right thing to do.  The battle in Dover is just one example of local battles for scientific education all over the country.  If people in the scientific community turn their backs on people in the front lines, then ultimately the cause of science in public education is doomed.
(Bold added in all quotations.)

This entry should clear up any lingering doubts whether Nature is a Darwin propaganda outlet.  Not only did they ignore the testimony of the other side completely, they treated these hard-core Darwin defenders like the home team.  Like a slobbering toady, Brumfiel sat at their knees for news, accepting anything they said as gospel truth but asking no hard questions.  So much for fair and balanced reporting in the journals.  Let’s examine their sample quotes from the Dover testimony:

Miller:  If you invoke a non-natural cause, a spirit force or something like that in your research and I decide to test it, I have no way to test it.  I can’t order that from a biological supply house, I can’t grow it in my laboratory.  And that means that your explanations in that respect, even if they were correct, were not something I could test or replicate, and therefore they really wouldn’t be part of science.

Great.  I’d like to order some Convergent Evolution, a few pieces of Sexual Selection, some Game Theory and a few stocking stuffers of Just-So Stories for my kids in science class.  Clever, Ken, but we’re up to your chicanery.  Intelligence is not always non-natural.  You are intelligent, aren’t you?  When a scientist publishes fraudulent work or falsifies evidence, does this mean we have to explain his actions in terms of physical laws and chemical reactions, or parts we can order from Carolina Biological Supply House?  Does your criterion mean we can no longer look for murderers as suspects when we find a body on the sidewalk, or lost tribes to explain archaeological artifacts?  What about the stone tools Morwood found in that Indonesian cave?  Did they just emerge from the cave floor by erosion?  Scientists test intelligent causes all the time.  SETI is built on the assumption that intelligent causes can be distinguished from “natural” causes.  Unless you are prepared to scratch archaeology, cryptology, intellectual property law, anthropology, paleoanthropology, criminology, sociology and SETI off the list of legitimate scientific investigations, better loosen up.  ID revolves around the concept of information.  Information is just as real as physics and chemistry, and yes, you can buy information, and sell it, too.  You can even grow information – isn’t that what we call teaching, or the process of science itself?  It didn’t escape our notice that you said even if [design explanations] were correct... they wouldn’t be part of science.  Well, then, kiss the search for truth good-bye as you wander forever in Darwin Storybookland.

Padian:  We’ll be the first people to admit that science doesn’t know everything and can’t know everything.  But on the other hand, we would like a fair and accurate representation of what we do know.

And your point is? 

Padian:  It worries me that students would be told that they have to make a conclusion in advance of all the evidence that you can’t get from A to B, essentially, by natural means.

Your Honor, allow me to display Exhibit A, the Explanatory Filter described by William Dembski, PhD mathematician and author of The Design Inference.  Mr. Padian, where on the diagram is the design inference made?  Right, at the very bottom, after the chance and natural law explanations have been exhausted.  In other words, a design inference is a last resort – not a first resort.  No scientist is asked to make a design conclusion in advance, as you allege.  The ID strategy is very similar to existing scientific endeavors in that regard: explanations should first examine whether chance and natural law can account for the phenomenon under investigation.  They should be rigorous and exhaustive and not jump to design conclusions prematurely.  The criterion of specified complexity is an objective, mathematical measure for eliminating chance by small probabilities before making a design inference.  This eliminates the God-of-the-gaps problem that anti-ID people bring up so often.  Trouble is, you want to short-circuit this last step in the flowchart and create an infinite loop.  If no chance or natural-law explanation is found, you want to go to top and start over, then over, then over again, ad infinitum.
    Your Honor, allow me to display Exhibit B [a quote by Richard Lewontin in the Baloney Detector].  This statement proves that Mr. Padian and his Darwinist colleagues are the ones requiring a conclusion in advance.  By ruling out the design inference, they want scientists to go round and round on the merry-go-round that will never find the answer even if, as his partner Miller said, the design explanation is correct.  As we know from over a century of Darwinian attempts at explanations, this spins off an endless train of speculative scenarios that become more improbable with the revising (see 10/26/2005 example) as the evidence for biological design mounts (see next story, for instance).
    Readers of Nature will never hear this kind of cross-examination from the Darwin Party mouthpiece journals.  Thankfully, there are other sources that don’t mind getting the story from both teams.  You’re reading one of them.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Intelligent Design • Education

This film makes a terrific follow-up to Unlocking the Mystery of Life for those interested in additional technical details of how the flagellum works.  The animations are superb.  Nobody would be able to look at this system and say it wasn’t designed – it looks for all the world like finely-crafted machinery.  The researchers are in awe of the precision of the parts and the efficiency of the motor.  Is it any wonder that there is no mention of evolution?  On the contrary, the word design is key: “Looking at the shape of the flagellar basal body,” said Keiici Namba, the interviewee, “it is obviously designed to rotate.”
    Dr. Namba also said something that shows how biological design can stimulate a Darwin-free research program: “Looking at a picture of the flagellar motor on the wall every day,” he said in Asianized English, “I feel up towards revealing the mystery by any means.”  How it works – and what we can learn from the design – those ideas borrow nothing from Darwinian theory, and sound remarkably similar to the motivations of Robert Boyle, James Joule and many other creation scientists throughout history.  None of the People of Froth (the Anti-ID crowd) could claim that these Japanese researchers had a religious motivation for making this film or for doing their cutting-edge research.  School boards can show this film as proof that design-based science is powerful and productive.  The end of science?  Bringing science to a halt?  Taking us back to the Dark Ages?  Bosh—this is the future of active, fruitful, motivating research that will inspire young scientists and bring the best technology to bear on understanding biological realities (see 10/29/2005 story).
    Intelligent design is not so much about making additions to science, but rather some blessed subtractions: removing the useless fluff of Darwinian speculation and storytelling (12/22/2003) that produces nothing but vaporware on back order.  Throughout history (see online book), the design perspective has mastered the machinery of science that produces the goods.
Next headline on:  Media • Cell Biology • Intelligent Design • Amazing Stories

Verhey’s study was inspired by an influential theory of cognitive development advanced in 1970 by William G. Perry.  Perry’s theory holds that students pass through distinct modes of thinking.  Verhey’s intervention was designed to support students as they progressed toward a more sophisticated cognitive mode by engaging them at the level of their initial understanding--including their initial ideas about creationism.  Although alternative explanations are possible, Verhey maintains that his results suggest engaging prior learning “was an effective approach to evolution education.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Good grief; now the Darwin Party wants to treat creationism like a disease.  They’re looking at students like lab rats and studying their cognitive development, as if creationism is just a developmental abnormality.  Presumably creationism is a bug some students pick up in their youth, like chicken pox.  Since cold turkey doesn’t appear to work, maybe injecting them with a weakened form of the disease, followed by antibiotics, will cure them and help them get on with a “more sophisticated cognitive mode” that appreciates the truth of evolution.
    For this therapy to work, the experimental conditions must be carefully controlled.  Jonathan Wells must not be given a chance to rebut the rebuttals, for instance (see ARN).  The Darwinist doctor must be careful not to give more toxin than the student can handle.  As long as the Darwinist facilitator always gives Charlie the last word, and reassures the class with the MAD strategy (Most Accept Darwin), this new method might help contain the growing pandemic.  Hopefully the virus will not mutate and start spreading from birdbrains to humans.
    These are methods the communists made famous.  To them, religious people who did not accept their atheism and political philosophy were mentally ill, and needed treatment.  There was no open marketplace of ideas; just analysis of the best psychological means to achieve conformity.
    The anti-evolutionists believe in a more benign approach toward their opponents.  They don’t want to put them in cages and experiment on them; they want to talk.  They want all the evidence out there on the table for rational discussion and evaluation.  They want to remind their opponents of a reasonable strategy suggested by their own Pope Charles, who said, “A fair^* result can only be obtained by balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.”
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolution • Intelligent Design • Education

---

^*This presents a conundrum to anti-evolutionists.  Darwin’s extreme disciples have gone far beyond the Mosstuh and now feel that fairness itself evolved.  They believe that fairness, altruism, and all forms of moral behavior are artifacts of social evolution.  They actually invoke Game Theory to explain the origin of moral motions.  As such, fairness cannot have intrinsic validity.  How does one have a fair intellectual discussion with people of this persuasion?
    Answer: catch them in their own trap.  Tell a Darwinist he has become his own nemesis: a social constructivist, where everything is about power (in their parlance, fitness).  The only way to deal with such people, after knocking on their head while saying, “Hello; anybody home?”, is to point out the self-refuting nature of their position, and remind them that it undermines their very claim that evolution is science.  No coherent ontology can be built on the self-refuting premise, “I think, therefore thinking evolved.”  Ponder, instead, a living fossil – Paley ontology.