“Darwinism is an exercise in creative bookkeeping for hiding that its explanatory debts far exceed its explanatory resources.  Think of the No Free Lunch principle, therefore, as an auditor’s tool for scrutinizing Darwinism’s inflated claims and showing its debts to be in default.  Fortunately, as recent corporate debacles have taught us, creative bookkeeping can at best postpone but not avoid an official declaration of bankruptcy.”
— William Dembski, The Design Revolution (IVP, 2004), p. 258.

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

Do Guppies Make Good Darwinian Grandmothers?   12/31/2005    
If a report on EurekAlert is right, some evolutionary biologists used lack of evidence for natural selection as confirmation for evolution.  They predicted guppies would show no evidence of a “grandmother effect” on life history after reproduction, and “that is what they found.”
    The question under study is why evolution keeps aging individuals living if it’s only reproductive fitness that matters in keeping a species going.  Perhaps the aging are worth keeping around if they contribute to the fitness of the offspring (see 07/23/2003 entry).  After admitting that the “granny effect” is not found in many mammals, even among sociable groups, the article said:

Since guppies are livebearers that provide no postnatal maternal care, Reznick et al. predicted the populations would show no differences in postreproductive lifespan--which is what they found.
    Though overall lifespan varied among the populations, these variations stemmed from differences in time allotted only to reproduction.  Postreproductive lifespan, in contrast, showed no signs of being under selection, and appeared to be what the authors called a “random add-on at the end of the life history.”  Random or not, this is the first demonstration of a postreproductive lifespan in fish.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

What kind of reasoning says, “we predict there will be no evolutionary natural selection” on a process, then uses the confirmation of the prediction as evidence for evolution?  You can’t have it both ways.  The article stated an evolutionary principle: “For natural selection to shape the twilight years, postreproductive females should contribute to the fitness of their offspring or relatives.”   Notice that word should.  If natural selection is the be-all and end-all of existence, and if nothing makes sense except in the light of evolution, and if most biologists expected there to be a granny effect, then Reznick’s study amounts to falsification.  Grandparents everywhere should be relieved that another evolutionary principle has been falsified, because now their self-worth does not need to be tied to their tubes.
    You can’t bet at the racetrack that an aging Charlie Horse will win because it is more fit, then claim his loss also confirms your prediction.  Charlie Horse is not just a loser; he’s a pain in the arm of science.  Charlie’s hoarse cries for his theory to get to the finish line, or even past the starting gate, are increasingly falling on deaf ears among those who know how to spot winners and losers (see 09/26/2005, 08/15/2005 commentaries).
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas

• Peruse Pyrrhus:  “Pyrrhic victory” is a phrase used by John West, Pat Buchanan on Real Clear Politics and others to characterize the completely one-sided decision by Judge John E. Jones.  (For those needing a history refresher, King Pyrrhus of Epirus won a battle against the Romans in 279 BC, but sustained such heavy losses it nearly ruined his kingdom, and eventually contributed to its downfall.)
• Hail Storm:  “Victors hail US evolution decision,” wrote the BBC News with a big portrait of Charles Darwin.  The article quoted the decision and echoed primarily the attitudes of the winners.
• Praise Be:  News@Nature similarly accentuated the positive attitude of the winners: “a complete victory,” said a lawyer representing the Dover parents who brought the ACLU lawsuit.  Kevin Padian, pro-Darwinist scientist who testified, called ID effectively dead, crowing, “The whole place here is saying that this is beyond our wildest dreams.”
• Straight Story:  Jeffrey Mervis at Science Now was a little more reserved at the celebration, at least giving one quote to John West who called this “government-imposed censorship” that “won’t work.”  He gave Judge Jones last word, though, with his attempt to head off at the pass claims he was an activist judge.
• Basking Sharks:  The two lawyers who won the Dover case are enjoying some fame, reports Law.com.  Their comments seem like verbatim duplicates of those by Judge Jones.  Tom Magnuson on Access Research Network, however, noted an irony in their views.  Their stated principle, “right to believe includes the right not to believe,” seems to fly in the face of the Dover decision: “The Darwinistic worldview will now be taught unchallenged.  While in school in Pennsylvania, you WILL be taught the state-sponsored worldview,” he commented.
• Slam-Dunk?  No.  Mortal Wound?  No.  Alan Boyle at MSNBC said the debate will move on to new grounds.  As much as it “pleased Darwin’s defenders,” it rankled intelligent design proponents at least as much.
• Networkers:  The ID Network went on offense, not defense.  They accused the ruling: “The decision in Dover today took evolution out of science and made it a religion.”
• Catholic Rebuttal:  Cardinal Schonborn answered his critics with a forthright response in First Things about the limits of science.  Tom Magnuson on Access Research Network called this “a MUST read to understand the current culture war between scientism (neo-Darwinism) and design theory.”
• Politically Incorrect:  Tom Bethell, author of A Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, wrote in The Washington Times that this is not even “remotely a setback for ID”  Making it “Banned in Boston” is only going to ignite the flames.
• Public Justice:  The Center for Public Justice denounced the ruling, calling it “largely philosophical and theological in character” and that Judge Jones was outside his domain, acting like a “court authority in the high Middle Ages.”  School choice was their recommendation.
• Neo-Orthodoxy:  Paul Campos in the Rocky Mountain News referred to the Spanish Inquisition in a satirical editorial about the irony of free-speech liberals embracing an intolerant orthodoxy.
• Judge in the Dock:  John West wrote a series of articles for EvolutionNews asking pointed questions about Judge Jones and his decision: #1 Is Judge Jones an activist judge?  #2 Did Judge Jones read the evidence submitted to him in the Dover trial?  #3 Did Judge Jones accurately report and describe the ID resources?  #4 Is Judge Jones a conservative Republican?
• No Waterloo:  ID leader William Dembski wrote in Science and Theology News that the Dover decision is no Waterloo, but merely one battle in a long culture war.
• Skittish:  A school in Fargo, ND won’t allow intelligent design as a debating topic.  It’s too awkward and controversial, reported the Bismarck Tribune and InForum.  Tom Magnuson quipped on Access Research Network that apparently schools don’t want to infringe on anyone’s Constitutional right to be comfortable.
• Museum Shrapnel:  MSNBC talked about ongoing efforts at museums, zoos and aquariums to help docents deal with evolution critics. 
• Sunday School for Scientists:  The AAAS is planning a special session at its annual meeting at St. Louis in February to deal with the teaching of evolution in American high schools.  “Evolution on the Front Line” will feature a series of presentations Sun. Feb. 19, including one by Vatican astronomer Rev. George Coyne.  “The Sunday evolution forum is considered especially important in light of events in neighboring Kansas and other heartland areas,” the announcement states.  Talking points: integrity of science, the best in science education for a knowledge-based, globally competitive economic future.
• Horn on the Cobb:  Skipping over from Dover to Cobb County, an article by Joseph Knippenberg appeared in The American Enterprise talking about the textbook sticker case in Georgia as a textbook case on religion in the public square.  Regarding the efforts to remove the stickers that merely called for critical thinking, he ended, “One begins to wonder whether liberal toleration is a sham, offered only to the most docile, and whether liberalism isn’t itself the very sort of orthodoxy it claims to eschew.”

Bluffing words, commotion, posturing, strategizing, politicking, grandstanding... science, please?  None of this matters, really; Darwinism has already been falsified (see next story).  Since evolution has failed “in a most spectacular way,” we ought to be concerned not with war but with clean-up.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Education • Politics and Ethics

The venue may have been a conservative rag, but the author knows what he is talking about.  Dr. Sewall is a mathematician and author with expertise in probability and the second law of thermodynamics.  He is right; tell a Darwinist about 2TD, and you will get little more than an “open system” brush-off.  This article pulls that rug out.  No more simplistic open-system answers, Darwin Party: fess up, you cannot get brains from matter in motion, open system or not.  Do the math.  Face the real world.  Just-so storytelling cannot help in the world of hard physical science.  It’s the ultimate Reality Check.  No federal judge can help you now.  What would you have him do: declare the second law of thermodynamics unconstitutional?  Rule it inadmissable because of separation of church and state?  Go ahead and try.  Your opponents will just appeal it to the court of last resort: the real world.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Physics

Collectively, these studies suggest that coevolution is a pervasive process that continually reshapes interspecific interactions across broad geographic areas.  And that has important implications for our understanding of the role of coevolution in fields ranging from epidemiology to conservation biology.  Many diseases, for example malaria, vary geographically both in parasite virulence and host resistance, potentially creating regions of coevolutionary hotspots and coldspots.  The spread of introduced species seems be creating new geographic mosaics of coevolution as some species become invasive and coevolve with native species in different ways in different regions or drive rapid evolution in native species, sometimes in less than a hundred years or so.  The results for Japanese camellia and camellia weevils reinforce the developing view that interactions coevolve as a geographic mosaic across landscapes, and it is often difficult for one partner to get ahead of the other (or others) everywhere.   (Emphasis added.)

This appears to provide more slippage on the evolutionary treadmill (see 03/17/2003 entry).  Though the word “evolution” is involved, don’t be confused; this has nothing to do with macroevolution, like bacteria evolving into people.  Coevolution leads to exaggerated traits between two interacting species, like the beaks of hummingbirds and the flowers they pollinate.  As with all other observed forms of microevolution, including Darwin’s famous finches, it involves the modification of existing traits – not the origin of new ones.
    Notice how quickly changes can result; Thompson referred to rapid “evolution” in native species in less than 100 years after an intruder was introduced.  Young-earth creationists could use such concepts to explain the rapid diversification of varieties and species within created kinds, and there would be nothing Thompson or the Darwinists could do to prove them wrong.  Studies like this do not establish that coevolution can be extrapolated endlessly into macroevolution.  In fact, the quote above seems to indicate otherwise: there are limits to the amount of change in the “coevolutionary arms race.”  World War II did not produce Superman.
Next headline on:  Plants • Terrestrial Zoology • Evolutionary Theory

It’s interesting that there are no supernova remnants claimed to be tens or hundreds of thousands of years old or older.  One of the most distended SNR's in our galaxy, the Veil Nebula, is believed to be only 5,000 years old (see 02/16/2001).  Even so, all things being equal, the light from such an event would be expected to take some 160,000 years to arrive at earth.  Why are there no older remnants reported?  Is the same true for novae?  Here is a good research project for someone who likes to catalog things and think about their implications.
Next headline on:  Stellar Astronomy • Dating Methods • Physics

Here on Earth, the molecules are believed to have arrived billions of years ago, possibly via comets or comet dust that rained down from the sky.  Acetylene and hydrogen cyanide link up together in the presence of water to form some of the chemical units of life’s most essential compounds, DNA and protein.  These chemical units are several of the 20 amino acids that make up protein and one of the four chemical bases that make up DNA.
    “If you add hydrogen cyanide, acetylene and water together in a test tube and give them an appropriate surface on which to be concentrated and react, you’ll get a slew of organic compounds including amino acids and a DNA purine base called adenine,” said Dr. Geoffrey Blake of Caltech, a co-author of the paper.  “And now, we can detect these same molecules in the planet zone of a star hundreds of light-years away.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Evolutionists and astrobiologists like to call anyone who questions their views “people of faith.”  You have just seen one of their stories use the words believed, thought to be, possibly and might.  OK students, what are the observations?  100 stars with dust disks, and only one with two poisonous substances in their spectra.  Another observation is that these substances, if mixed on earth in a test tube by intelligent chemists, who have provided an appropriate surface in the presence of water, at the right temperature and concentration, will form some amino acids and one purine that is part of one DNA base.  Does the word life jump out of these observations?  If not, where is your faith?
    Consider the need for water.  That constrains the boundary conditions to a small fraction of possible temperatures and pressures.  Consider the need for a surface.  That constrains the boundary conditions to the crust of a terrestrial planet.  So let’s be really generous and give these evolutionists a watery terrestrial planet.  Let’s say that a few molecules of acetylene and hydrogen cyanide (the simplest nitrile, just HCN) form naturally or survive crash landing from a comet.  So what?
    To begin to even think of imagining of starting to commence to conceive of hoping that something remotely resembling life is in the works, a lot more than two poisons with simple molecular structures is going to be required.  Like ribose.  Like phosphate.  Like a way to link the adenine, phosphate and ribose together to get a nucleotide.  Like a way to get different nucleotides to link together into polynucleotides.  Like a way to isolate amino acids into a mixture all of one hand.  Like a way to get the one-handed amino acids to link up into a polypeptide.  Like a way for the polynucleotides and polypeptides to interact in functional ways.  Like a membrane.  Like metabolism.  Like an information storage and retrieval system.  Like a stable solvent.  Like protection from radiation damage.  These are just the beginnings of gigantic high hurdles that teensy weensy simple molecules need to learn how, without guidance, to overcome.
    It is a shame for scientists to hide this logic and scientific information from uninformed readers of press releases, many of whom don’t even know how to spell DNA.  It is a disgrace to wildly and recklessly extrapolate one’s speculation far beyond what the data permit.  It is a crime to propagandize the public by taking rather dull, mediocre data and making it sexier by throwing in the “L” word life.  Don’t be suckered by the people of frothy faith.  Get real.  Get Creation-Evolution Headlines.
Next headline on:  Stellar Astronomy • Origin of Life • Dumb Ideas

“Aplysia packages these innocuous precursors separately and then releases them simultaneously into its mantle cavity at the precise time when they are needed,” explained [Charles] Derby.  “This mechanism insures the secretion’s potency against attacking predators to enable sea slugs to escape.”   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The evolutionary mythoid contributes nothing of substance to this story.  On grounds of intellectual honesty and scientific integrity, we need to call Darwinists on the carpet for simply claiming evolution blindly made irreducibly complex systems without telling us how.  This is more of the BAD strategy (bluffing assertions of dogmatism) that lets Darwinians escape while secreting a sticky dyed goo that obscures understanding.
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Amazing Stories

The Scopes trial was important to Science Service financially.  Newspapers paid for articles from the trial, and these funds helped support the struggling organization.
    Science Service also played a role behind the scenes, aiding Darrow’s defense team.  The Science Service staff helped coordinate the gathering of scientific experts on evolution to testify at the trial. It also distributed a series of articles, written by prominent scientists, explaining and defending evolution.

It’s important to know about the Scopes Trial because so much political hay was made out of it.  The hay machine grinds on to this day.  Maybe Science Service provided the eminent rhetorician Dudley Field Malone (see loaded words in the Baloney Detector), or the scholarly scientist Maynard Metcalf (see equivocation), or the logician Horatio Hockett Newman (see either-or fallacy).  Maybe Watson Davis helped provide boilerplate for The New Republic (see fear-mongering).  The reporting about evolution in Science News hasn’t changed much.  In this same issue, Bruce Bower, in an attempt at being funny, wrote a scathing satire against intelligent design, so biased and full of his own hot air it is not even remotely credible or amusing.
    The reality of the Scopes Trial was far different than most of the reporting on it.  This has come to light recently in several books by historians like Edward J. Larson and Marvin Olasky.  Worst of all was the parody Inherit the Wind, so factually inaccurate as to be evil (see The Monkey Trial).  Yet Inherit the Wind established the modern stereotype about what happened that hot summer in Dayton, Tennessee.  These photographs are valuable for helping visualize the setting, but the words spoken about the issue at hand are what matters.  One lesson of the trial is that a win in court can be a loss in the public arena.  Maybe that will work against the Darwinists this time in the case of Judge Jones’s Dover decision (see comments by William Dembski in Science & Theology News).
Next headline on:  Darwinism

RESULTS: The most frequent AERs were hemorrhage (n = 237) and infection (66).  Hemorrhages included 1 fatal, 42 life threatening, and 168 serious cases; 68 required transfusions.  Infections included 7 cases of septic shock (3 fatal, 4 life threatening) and 43 cases requiring parenteral antibiotics.  Surgical interventions were required in 513 cases (235 emergent, 278 nonemergent).  Emergent cases included 17 ectopic pregnancies (11 ruptured).  Second trimester viability was documented in 22 cases (9 lost to follow-up, 13 documented fetal outcome).  Of the 13 documented cases, 9 were terminated without comment on fetal morphology, 1 was enrolled in fetal registry, and 3 fetuses were diagnosed with serious malformations, suggesting a malformation rate of 23%.

The power of advocacy to trump ethics and safety has been seen in this case and in the recent stem cell flap.  How many anxious women have been reassured by abortion providers that RU486 is a safe and private way to end an unwanted pregnancy?  Why have not these reports caused the FDA to pull this dangerous drug from the market?  When desire runs science, watch out.  That would never happen with a materialist wanting to remove God from science now, would it?
Next headline on:  Health • Politics and Ethics

Science should not only help us understand the natural world, but find ways to improve the human condition.  Sir Francis Bacon echoed Jesus’ teaching that a tree is known by its fruit.  A good science will produce good fruit: in the case of science, increased health and prosperity for humans in ways that improve the environment (compare with the fruit of Darwinism: see 11/30/2005).  We should look at the world like a treasure hunt, the way George Washington Carver did.  Things that seem dangerous, ugly or boring sometimes prove to contain hidden treasures.
    These two stories owe nothing to Darwin.  Evolutionists would have us believe that everything is out for itself, trying to propagate its own genes at the expense of its neighbors.  Darwinism sees a world of fierce competition, with cooperation only useful occasionally, but with selfishness as the highest good.  Creationism sees a biosphere made for man and the other organisms.  Design-based science could scour the world for cures while adding to the store of human natural knowledge.  Design science sans Darwinism has the intellectual foundation to usher in a new scientific revolution.
Next headline on:  Health

The replicated experiment is a powerful tool for experimental science, but typically unavailable in the study of evolution.  Cave adaptations have evolved in many species independently, however, and each cave species can be considered a replicate of the same evolutionary experiment that asks how species change in perpetual darkness.  A frequent outcome is that the species lose pigmentation or become albino. Cavefish, therefore, are a rich source for the examination of the evolutionary process.   (Emphasis added.)

Here is a situation where “evolutionary theory” is compatible with intelligent design or creationism.  It’s not a case of evolution in the sense of new functional information being added; it’s a case of function being lost.  How this loss of information affects an organism is interesting, and it is worthwhile question to ask why two cave fish populations would get the same mutation to the same gene.  If one assumes that the fish began with fully-operational Oca2 genes (as in creation/design), then it follows that a reproducing population of fish with mutations in that gene will lead to a population of albinos, if the benefit of having color no longer matters in the cave environment.  This is downward evolution, not upward evolution.  The story differs from the just-so storytelling of Darwinian theory, because we have plenty of empirical evidence that mutations lead to loss of function, but no evidence that mutations can produce new function.  Darwinists try to call this “evolution” (in the sense of change over time), but it doesn’t do anything to help Charlie’s story that fish evolved from pre-fish, or ultimately, from one-celled organisms.  Creationists could just as well study loss mutations to investigate the extent of genetic load (deterioration) over time since the original perfect creation; convergent devolution, therefore, is non-controversial, but convergent evolution is what lacks empirical support.
Next headline on:  Marine Biology • Genetics • Evolutionary Theory

Cavorting in the wilderness with incomprehensible grunts – how did it come to this.  (We’re not talking about the actors in The Rise of Man; we’re describing figuratively the evolutionary anthropologists.)
    It’s superfluous to have to describe how dumb Gurvin’s theory is, but for those imprisoned in the mental concentration camps known as public schools, here are some suggested cerebral exercises to awaken one’s atrophied sensibilities.  What are the empirical observations?  Gurvin observed modern humans acting like human beings: understanding trade, and knowing how to give and care for the helpless.  Do the observations connect at all with a story of the evolution of generosity?  No.  (Chimpanzees don’t act this way; see 10/28/2005 story).  Did he establish any transitions from primate precursors to modern man?  No.  Did he explain the origin of true, unselfish giving?  No.  Did he tie altruism to a lucky random mutation?  No.  Does he have any way of proving that these non-market societies did not degenerate from advanced associations of highly-capable, intelligent human beings who were created with all their moral attributes?  No.  Does his theory destroy Christmas?  Yes.
    Gurvin approaches science like all Darwinists do: since evolution is already a fact in their own imaginations, research is just a metaphysical program for stuffing all data into their predetermined belief system.  If he had to prove his speculation against criticism, like a true scientist, he would come up as naked as the actors in The Rise of Man.  The Science Channel doesn’t debate the origin of humans; it just states as a matter of fact that this is the way it happened.  Any disagreement is only between Darwinists about the details.  That’s why we need to get the Darwin Party out of its cushy comfort zone of presumed authority and demand accountability.  (By the way, did you notice how the title The Rise of Man assumes the myth of progress?  Michael Ruse and Stephen Jay Gould would be appalled.)
    Darwinians have had free reign for too long, and this is the result: naked grunting actors, and scientists grunting with intellectually naked theories.  They need to be confronted with alternative scientific theories not woven out of materialistic cloth (the kind found in The Emperor’s New Clothes).  They need to be confronted with the soundest criticisms of philosophers and theologians who have not been contaminated with Darwinian LSD, that universal acid that dissolves sound reasoning into hallucinations.  Evolutionary storytelling in the journals and on TV only survives by being insulated from debate.  The Darwin Party faithful cannot tolerate confrontation, because they fear the survival of the fittest ideas.  The Science Channel doesn’t want confrontation, because it might jeopardize their agenda of pushing the envelope of prime-time prurience.  The actors don’t want confrontation or they might have to put their clothes back on and get a real job.  Isn’t it fun to slap on mud, make funny faces and grunt?  Only on The Science Channel.
    Tip: watch Survivorman instead; at least you’ll learn something that might come in handy on the next camping trip.  Here’s a suggestion for an episode that might prove too much even for tough guy Les Stroud – surviving as a creationist at the university.
Next headline on:  Early Man • Media • Theology • Dumb Ideas

In order for photosynthesis to occur, tall trees must supply their uppermost leaves with water, which is pulled up from the roots by evaporation.  Angiosperms such as oaks and willows accomplish this using a series of centimeters-long, tube-shaped cellular pipes.  Tiny valves made of cellulose membranes connect each “pipe” and help keep air bubbles out.  Christmas trees and other conifers have much shorter pipe cells, however, and therefore must use many more valves than angiosperms.  This should create more resistance and make it harder for them to transport water.  But they don’t have any trouble at all, says John Sperry, a plant biologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

The reason, says [Jarmila] Pittermann, has to do with key differences in the valves.  Angiosperm valves are simple membranes full of miniscule pores.  In conifers, the valves consist of a circle of impermeable tissue surrounded by porous tissue.  The conifer’s pores are 100 times larger than those in angiosperms and allow water to pass through relatively easily.  This efficiency more than makes up for the additional valves on the way to the tree top, Pittermann says.

The superior hydraulics of the conifer pit are crucial for minimizing sapwood resistivity.  If conifer tracheids had the pit resistance of angiosperms, their sapwood resistivity would increase by 38-fold.... This, added to the narrow diameter range of tracheids, would make it much more difficult for conifers to compete effectively with angiosperms.
    .... We conclude that the evolution of the torus-margo membrane within the gymnosperm lineage from homogenous pits was equivalent to the evolution of vessels within the angiosperms.  The towering redwoods and the sweep of the boreal coniferous forest exist in no small part because of this clever microscopic valve.

What did evolution have to do with this story, really?  Did it contribute anything of value, even an ornament to hang on the tree?  The results were not what evolutionists expected.  Conifers ruled the Jurassic forests, then along come angiosperms with superior plumbing, and there should have been no contest.  Those old, primitive conifers should have gone the way of the dinosaurs, and our Christmas trees would look very different.  Sweep away the Darwinian mythology, and what remains?  Two well-designed, highly successful groups of plants.  They may have different ways of lifting water, but so what?  From a design perspective, it would be just as productive a research program to find reasons for the difference.  Clearly the conifers are doing well.  The tallest trees in the world are conifers (see 04/22/2004).  Conifers seem to do even better than angiosperms in many locations, such as at timberline, where they survive numbing cold storms and snow without even having to drop their needles.  Nobody told them they were at a disadvantage against the new trees on the block.
    The gem of this story is the beautifully-designed valves in conifers that allow them to pump thousands of gallons of water straight up, hundreds of feet into the air, to fill our world with beauty and dignity (see photos #1, #2, #3) while adding to the life-giving oxygen in the atmosphere.  Pennisi jokingly entitled her article, “The Grinch Who (Almost) Stole Christmas” pitting angiosperms in a phony battle against their friends, the conifers.  Not funny.  The Grinch is Charles Darwin.
Next headline on:  Plants • Evolution • Amazing Stories

• Party Time:  Evolutionists were giddy with praise for the decision.  The National Center for Science Education listed a who’s who of “educational, scientific and civil liberties groups” who not only approved of the decision but opined that it would have far-reaching consequences.
• Breaking the Point:  Conservative Christian commentator Chuck Colson, on his Breakpoint radio commentary, said he was disappointed at the ruling, but not disheartened.  “Bad cases make bad law,” he said, agreeing that the Dover policy was ill advised.  Nevertheless, optimism is justified because “if we equip ourselves and do our job, truth will out,” he said. “We should not despair.  Our case is compelling if we frame it carefully, ask the right questions, and expose the claims of Darwinists.”
• Worry but Smile:  Michael Powell at the Washington Post (see reprint on San Francisco Chronicle) said that ID backers found the ruling worrisome, but vow to continue pushing the debate forward; William Dembski thinks the future looks bright, because it is going international and crossing metaphysical and theological boundaries.
• Charge Onward:  Rachel Zoll for Associated Press (see Yahoo News) acknowledged the ruling as a setback for ID, but quoted several ID and Christian leaders who seem more galvanized than ever over the decision.  She acknowledged that the legal ramifications of the ruling are limited to the Dover area.
• Farewell, Partner:  Fox News reported that U.S. Senator Rick Santorum is severing ties with the Thomas More Law Center that defended the Dover school board, because he thinks they “made a huge mistake in taking this case and in pushing this case to the extent they did.”
• Principle of the Thing:  The Discovery Institute also disagreed with the strategy of the school board, not feeling it proper to mandate the teaching of ID, but also strongly criticized the decision for attempting to institutionalize dogmatism.  John West said it may be over in Dover, but not for intelligent design: “Efforts to mandate intelligent design are misguided,” he clarified, “but efforts to shut down discussion of a scientific idea through harassment and judicial decrees hurt democratic pluralism.  The more Darwinists resort to censorship and persecution, the clearer it will become that they are championing dogmatism, not science.”  Listing himself as “former Discovery Institute attorney,” Seth Cooper issued a statement to set the record straight on his involvement in the case.
• Ohio Unaffected:  The Discovery Institute also issued a statement that the Dover ruling will have no effect on the Ohio program to allow for critical analysis of evolution.  Law professor David DeWolf explained that not only is Ohio outside the jurisdiction of Judge Jones, but Ohio’s program comports with Congressional laws and Supreme Court decisions.  Stephen Dyer agreed that the effect on Ohio is muted, but he wrote for the Ohio Beacon Journal, that there still could be ripple effects.  Opponents of ID will take the ball on Jones’ opinion that singling out evolution for criticism is wrong, and having even a voluntary program is wrong if instigated from religious motives.
• Iowa Debt to ID:  The Scotsman reported that ID will probably still come up for discussion in Iowa next year, even though board members disagree about the impact of the Dover decision on their opinions.
• Darwinism Corrodes Religion:  Columnist David Klinghoffer wrote in the Seattle Times that Judge Jones was wrong that Darwinism does not conflict with religious belief.  Klinghoffer quoted leading Darwinists that stated clearly how evolutionary theory is corrosive to religion and, by positing a materialistic philosophy, is antithetical to belief in God of any kind, and is therefore a religious philosophy in its own sense.
• Lawyer Blog:  Albert Alschuler gave his opinion of the case in the U of Chicago Law Blog.  He chided the court for its contempt for religious belief, saying that ID should be judged on its merits, not because of what the court felt the motives of the plaintiffs were.  “Freedom from psychoanalysis is a basic courtesy,” he said.

Can we all remember that Judge Jones is just one man?  His complete buy-in to the ACLU side, and complete rejection of all the pro-ID testimony, shows he is a sadly biased man at that.  Isn’t it just like liberal leftists to look to unelected judges to get their power.  In no way does this decision reflect the amount of strong support ID is getting all over the country, and even other nations.  If a vote were taken by most American parents of high school students, Charlie would be put out on a one-way ship to Christmas Island, along with his blood brother the Grinch.
Next headline on:  Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Education

Remember the optimistic claims that Opportunity had found evidence for long-lasting surface water?  Remember how the astrobiologists immediately jumped to the conclusion that Mars probably had good conditions for life?  (They’re still doing it; see the 11/29 JPL press release).  It was interesting to hear that the concretions or “blueberries” that seemed to clinch the argument for water have another explanation; they are apparently expected in an impact scenario, when a meteorite strike causes a short-term flood or “base surge” that can travel hundreds of kilometers from the impact site.  It may be possible that the H₂O on Mars is subsurface ice that might liquefy during an impact event, only to freeze or vaporize quickly afterward.  Whatever they eventually decide, Mars doesn’t have to be lively to be interesting.
Next headline on:  Mars • Geology

The big breakthrough, of course, was the one Charles Darwin made a century and a half ago. By recognizing how natural selection shapes the diversity of life, he transformed how biologists view the world.  But like all pivotal discoveries, Darwin’s was a beginning.  In the years since the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species, thousands of researchers have sketched life’s transitions and explored aspects of evolution Darwin never knew.
    Today evolution is the foundation of all biology, so basic and all-pervasive that scientists sometimes take its importance for granted.  At some level every discovery in biology and medicine rests on it, in much the same way that all terrestrial vertebrates can trace their ancestry back to the first bold fishes to explore land.  Each year, researchers worldwide discover enough extraordinary findings tied to evolutionary thinking to fill a book many times as thick as all of Darwin’s works put together.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Wait a minute, I hear you cry.  Hasn’t it been a trying year for evolution, considering the debates about teaching evolutionary theory in science classes in the United States and the headlines about Intelligent Design?  On the contrary; in the research community, it’s been a great year for understanding how evolution works, through both experiment and theory.  No single discovery makes the case by itself; after all, the challenge of understanding evolution makes multiple demands: How can we integrate genetics with patterns of inherited change?  How do new species arise in nature?  What can the new science of comparative genomics tell us about change over time?  We have to put the pieces together, and it could not be a more important challenge: As the evolutionary geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”

Pennisi ought to know better; she has reported on many an evolutionary crisis (e.g., 12/14/2004, 08/06/2004, 06/13/2003).  To hear these two reporters cackling like spring chickens over a scrambled Darwin egg is pathetic.  None of the “breakthroughs” listed bear any real support to the central claim of Darwin that all species descended from a single common ancestor in the dim, unrepeatable past.  Kennedy acknowledged that scientific challenges have been raised by intelligent design proponents, and that they invite answers, but look who gets to judge the answers.  It’s like the kid getting to grade his own paper, or the defendant getting to play judge and jury, or the corporate boss getting to set his own salary and benefits.  It’s even worse than that.  The Darwinists not only control the answers; they usually control the questions.  They even control the language and the definitions of words.  Small wonder that Charlie gets another medal.
    Also pathetic was that evolution won “Breakthrough of the Year” over more worthy competitors.  First runner-up was the “Planetary blitz” of dramatic space successes, including the Mars rovers and orbiters, Deep Impact, and the Cassini-Huygens achievements at Saturn.  In this golden age of planetary reconnaissance, there has been drama, adventure, engineering prowess, and real observational science.  Yet these were slighted by boisterous bluffing that a piece of data here, a controversial study there amount to vindication of Charlie as he lies a-moulderin' in Westminster Abbey.  Are you stimulated by the possibility that slight changes in stickleback fish promise to finally show us how humans came from bacteria?
    One can only guess that Donald Kennedy and the other Darwin Party hacks at the AAAS had to perk up the ears of their congregation in light of the uproar outside, and like the preacher’s sermon notes scribbled in the margin advised, “Point weak – pound pulpit harder here.”  Sorry, all you scientists who did great work on other subjects.  Priorities are priorities.  Now is the time for all good Darwinists to come to the aid of their theory.  That means strike up the band and roll it down the parade route, and conjure up the ghost of Emperor Charlie, so he can play his perennial role of Master of Ceremonies, wearing his customary robes.
Next headline on:  Darwin and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Statements

The phylogenetic relationships among most metazoan phyla remain uncertain.  We obtained large numbers of gene sequences from metazoans, including key understudied taxa.  Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.  In contrast, the same genes robustly resolved phylogenetic relationships within a major clade of Fungi of approximately the same age as the Metazoa.  The differences in resolution within the two kingdoms suggest that the early history of metazoans was a radiation compressed in time, a finding that is in agreement with paleontological inferences.  Furthermore, simulation analyses as well as studies of other radiations in deep time indicate that, given adequate sequence data, the lack of resolution in phylogenetic trees is a signature of closely spaced series of cladogenetic events.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Very interesting evolutionary stuff, indeed (but only to a demolition expert).  The Darwin Party knows that critics hammer the point that the Cambrian explosion falsifies evolutionary theory.  Oh, how the Darwinists would love to get around it!  These two papers and the news article show that they cannot.  Look at the bars on their timeline, representing the data: they stack nearly on top of one another.  To the left are fictional, imaginary dashed lines connecting them into a phylogenetic tree, with absolutely no data, fossil or genetic, to support the inference.  Should they be depriving students of these embarrassing findings?  Most textbooks glibly state that evolution is a fact, and the fossil record proves it.  This is a snow job if there ever was one.  Demand accountability.
Next headline on:  Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Fossils • Genes and DNA

Evolution is famously controversial, despite being as well established as any scientific theory.  Most people are familiar with the dismal statistics, showing how a large fraction of Americans at all educational levels do not accept the theory of evolution, how efforts to teach evolution often fail to have an impact, and how constant vigilance is required to keep evolution in the public school curriculum.  Even worse, most people who do accept the theory of evolution don’t relate it to matters of importance in their own lives.  There appear to be two walls of resistance, one denying the theory altogether and the other denying its relevance to human affairs.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

This requires a discussion of past threatening associations, even before the theory is presented.  Evolution has been associated with immorality, determinism, and social policies ranging from eugenics to genocide.  It has been used to justify racism and sexism. All of these negative associations must be first acknowledged and then challenged.  It’s not as if the world was a nice place before Darwin and then became mean on the basis of his theory.  Before Darwin, religious and other justifications were used to commit the same acts, as when the American colonists used the principle of divine right to dispossess Native Americans, and men claimed that women were designed by “God and Nature” for domestic servitude.  These beliefs are patently self-serving and it should surprise no one that an authoritative scientific theory would be pressed into the same kind of service.  It is the job of intellectuals to see through such arguments and not be taken in by them.  Moreover, the deep philosophical issues associated with topics such as morality, determinism, and social equality are increasingly being approached from a modern evolutionary perspective and are among the topics to be discussed in the course.  When these issues are discussed at the beginning of the course, students put their own threatening associations with evolution on hold and become curious to know how a subject that they associate with science (evolution) can shed light on a subject that they associate with the humanities (philosophy).  Students who indicate exceptional interest are referred to books that are both authoritative and accessible, such as Daniel Dennett’s Darwin’s Dangerous Idea.

Choosing the subject of infanticide, I say that superficially it might seem that organisms would never evolve to kill their own offspring, but with a little thought the students might be able to identify situations in which infanticide is biologically adaptive for the parents.  I ask them to form small groups by turning to their neighbors to discuss the subject for five minutes and to list their predictions on a piece of paper.
    After the lists are collected, I ask the students for some of their predictions to list in front of the whole class.  They are eager to talk, and reliably identify the three major adaptive contexts of infanticide: lack of resources, poor offspring quality, and uncertain paternity, along with less likely possibilities, such as population regulation, that can be set aside for future discussion.  I conclude by attempting to convey the simple but profound message of the exercise: How can they, mere undergraduate students, who know almost nothing about evolution and (one hopes) know nothing at all about infanticide, so easily deduce the major hypotheses that are in fact employed in the study of infanticide for organisms as diverse as plants, insects, and mammals?  That is just one example of the power of thinking on the basis of adaptation and natural selection.

One of the biggest tactical errors in teaching evolution is to avoid discussing humans or to restrict discussion to remote topics such as human origins.  The question of how we arose from the apes is fascinating and important, but is only one of any number of questions that can be asked about humans from an evolutionary perspective—including infanticide.  If evolutionary theory can make sense of this subject for organisms as diverse as plants, insects, and mammals, what about us?  If we operate by different rules than all other creatures for this and other subjects, why should this be so?  The most common answer to this question is “learning and culture,” but what exactly are these things?  Do they exist apart from evolution, or do they themselves need to be explained from an evolutionary perspective?  I raise these issues early in the course, not to answer them, but to emphasize how much is “on the table” as part of the course.

It might seem that boldly discussing subjects such as human infanticide (which the students quickly connect to the contemporary issue of abortion), along with other topics such as sex differences and homosexuality later in the course, is the ultimate in political incorrectness.  However, I have taught this material for many years in prior courses without a single complaint, and the assessment of “Evolution for Everyone” demonstrates an overwhelmingly positive response across the religious and political spectrum.  Clearly, there is a way to proceed that arouses intense interest without animosity or moral outrage.  In the case of infanticide, evolutionary theory doesn’t say that it’s right—it is used to make an informed guess about when it occurs.  All of the students want to know if the guess proves to be correct for humans in addition to other creatures, regardless of their moral stance on abortion.  Moreover, they see that the information can be useful for addressing the problem, whatever particular solution they have in mind.  The importance of culture is not denied, but becomes part of the evolutionary framework rather than a vaguely articulated alternative.  The picture that emerges makes sense of cases of infanticide that appear periodically in the news (typically young women with few resources and under the influence of a male partner who is not the father) and that previously seemed inexplicable.  Nearly everyone values this kind of understanding and thinks that it can be put to positive use, as demonstrated by the quantitative assessment. More generally, including humans along with the rest of life vastly increases students’ interest in evolution and acceptance to the degree that it seems to lead to understanding and improvement of the human condition.

If behaviors regarded as immoral in human terms are adaptive and “natural,” then aren’t all the fears about evolution justified?  No—because behaviors that are regarded as moral in human terms are also adaptive and “natural” under the right circumstances, which can be illustrated with the following exercise of the sort suggested by Nelson and Alters.  First, the class is asked to list the behaviors that they associate with morality.  The most common items include altruism, honesty, love, charity, sacrifice, loyalty, bravery, and so on.  Then they are asked to list behaviors that they associate with immorality, and respond with opposite items such as selfishness, deceit, hatred, miserliness, and cowardice.  With these lists in mind, the students are asked three questions: (1) What would happen if you put a single moral individual and a single immoral individual together on a desert island?  (The students quickly conclude that the moral individual would become shark food within days.)  (2) What would happen if you put a group of moral individuals on one island and a group of immoral individuals on another island?  (The students are equally quick to conclude that the moral group would work together to escape the island or turn it into a little utopia, while the immoral group would self-destruct.)  (3) What would happen if you allow one immoral individual to paddle over to Virtue Island?  (The answer to this question is complex because it is a messy combination of the straightforward answers to the first two questions.)

The important point is that evolutionary theory can potentially explain the evolution of behaviors associated with morality and immorality.  This is vastly different than the usual portrayal of evolution as a theory that explains immorality but leaves morality unaccounted for.  The average student is well aware that immoral behaviors usually benefit the actor, that human groups have a disturbing tendency to confine moral conduct to their own members, and so on.  When evolutionary theory is presented as a framework for understanding these patterns in all their complexity, including the good, the bad, the beautiful, and the ugly, it is perceived as a tool for understanding that can be used for positive ends, rather than as a threat.

At this point (about mid-semester), the students are told that they have acquired a conceptual framework that can be used to study virtually any subject in biology and human affairs, which will be used to study particular topics for the rest of the semester.  There is great flexibility in the topics that can be chosen, which is facilitated by having the students read, rather than a textbook, well-chosen articles from the primary scientific literature.

To summarize, “Evolution for Everyone” works by establishing a general conceptual framework through a sequence of ideas.  The framework is then strengthened and consolidated by applying it to a number of specific topics.  Virtually all students respond to the class because they cease to be threatened by evolutionary theory and begin to perceive it as a powerful way to understand and improve the world.  Once the theory becomes alluring, the only remaining obstacle to learning is the intrinsic difficulty of the subject.  That, it turns out, is not much of an obstacle either.  Almost anyone can master the basic principles of evolution and incorporate them into their own thinking, providing both a foundation and an incentive to advance their knowledge in subsequent courses.

In many ways, this type of experience approaches the ideal of a liberal arts education.  It should be especially appealing to small colleges that have difficulty achieving a critical mass in single subject areas.  Evolutionary theory is not the only common language, but it is a very good one that will eventually become part of the normal discourse for all subject areas relevant to human affairs and the natural world.

In James Clavell’s chilling tale The Children’s Story, (a must read before continuing this commentary), the New Teacher comes to class after the conquest (presumably a communist takeover).  She takes a frightened group of children and calms them into becoming compliant, trusting citizens.  In just 23 minutes, she has gently and effectively dismantled their patriotism, their faith, their family loyalty and their most cherished beliefs before they even know what hit them.  A well-trained, master manipulator, she is not a teacher: she is a facilitator, a guarantor of compliance with the new regime, an electrician who has cut off power from the resistance.  She is just as much an arm of the State as the soldier on the battlefield, and perhaps even more effective.  This is not education.  It is indoctrination with finesse.
    David Sloan Wilson is talking about college students, not children.  They are a more difficult lot to indoctrinate, but the parallels with the New Teacher are striking.  Consider a few:

1. Teach only one side.  Wilson’s method depends on carefully controlling what the students hear.  The New Teacher’s success depended on first removing Miss Worden, the Old Teacher, before she could say anything.  A debate with Miss Worden might have led to very unacceptable results, so it was essential to dispense with her quickly and quietly.  With EvoS, unlike with Verhey’s inoculation technique (11/01/2005), which at least gave the students a carefully measured taste of a contrary viewpoint, Wilson acknowledges that evolution is “famously controversial” but gives voice only to the Darwinist propaganda.  This is indoctrination by definition.  He prescribes “well-chosen articles from the primary scientific literature” (read: DODO, for Darwin-only, Darwin-only).  Notice his favorite recommended reading: Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, in which Daniel Dennett advocated putting creationists in zoos, or otherwise eliminating them, since they are a threat to the regime.
2. Eliminate the negative.  The New Teacher knew that the children were afraid and had heard bad things about the conquerors, so she was quick to allay their fears by distraction – singing, complimenting the children, disarming them with friendliness, and other tactics – while sidestepping the evils her regime was doing in the background.  Similarly, Wilson’s first step is to confront the students’ fears about the implications of evolutionary philosophy (including eugenics and genocide) by soft-pedaling the history and implying “we’re all in this together.”  Why look, Christians have done many bad things, too.  It’s not like the world was a nice place before Darwin came along.  EvoS tries to disconnect evolution from its historic disastrous consequences by selling it as only a neutral, objective, unbiased, useful, scientific, explanatory tool.  Sure, some people might misuse it, but that doesn’t make it bad now, does it children?
3. Euphemize.  Johnny’s daddy didn’t believe “bad” things, just “wrong” things.  Daddy and Miss Worden were not going to concentration camps (or worse), just to “school” (remember how the communists called this “re-education”?  A little brainwashing, a little torture, some mind-altering drugs – all very effective).  EvoS helps us understand “morality”.  It helps us understand how we are all a part of nature.  It helps us improve the human condition.  The new regime is nothing to be afraid of; why, it is just “a tool for understanding that can be used for positive ends, rather than as a threat.”
4. Confront.  The New Teacher stops them in the middle of the pledge and asks them, what does it mean?  What does pledge mean?  What does allegiance mean?  Those are good questions, but she didn’t define them like Red Skelton did in a famous monologue.  She asked the questions not to answer them, but to raise doubts about what they had been taught.  Wilson confronts the students with questions about abortion and infanticide, not to make them think critically, but to draw them into his net: it’s all about evolution.  Evolution explains infanticide.  Evolution explains abortion.  Evolution explains yawning.  Evolution explains everything.
5. Disarm.  The New Teacher did not charge through the door as the ogre or beast the children feared; she was dressed neatly, smiled, and greeted them by name.  She sang them a song.  She sympathized with their fears.  She gave them candy, demonstrating that prayers to “Our Leader” are legitimate prayers, but only if a human being actually answers.  Under the sweet surface was a hideous assault on their freedoms and values.  Similarly, Wilson’s “Virtue Island” game is a subtle form of mind control.  It simultaneously oversimplifies the issue of morality and teaches moral relativism, while denying any opportunity for rebuttal.  EvoS keeps the tone happy and positive by utilizing discussion groups, giving the students games to play, and rewarding compliant students with certificates for completing the brainwashing. 
6. Dismantle.  Clavell’s schoolchildren fondled their little pieces of the flag, oblivious to what The New Teacher had done in cutting it up and giving them each a piece of it.  Then, amidst shrieks of excitement, the children tossed the flagpole out the window with their own hands.  Wilson starts by saluting virtue and pledging allegiance to morality, but then he proceeds to cut it up and hand out the pieces by getting the students to slowly agree that it, too, is a product of evolution.  Since people evolved – since everything evolved – then, well, morality evolved, too.  Isn’t evolution a wonderful and powerful theory?
7. Think Big.  At 9:23, the New Teacher “was warmed ... by the thought that throughout the school and throughout the land all children, all men and all women were being taught with the same faith, with variations of the same procedures.  Each according to his age group.  Each according to his need.”  Utilizing techniques appropriate for college students, EvoS promulgates “the same faith” that children and adults will get.  While focusing in this article on the college age group, Wilson understands the big agenda of the regime.  He sees beyond EvoS to the entire intellectual program of the university, and of the world.  Evolution is to become the campus-wide “common language” the “conceptual framework” for the liberal arts and humanities, the lens through which all knowledge will be sifted.  Debate won’t have a chance, because the Ministry of Truth will control the dictionary and the history textbook.  There will be no controversy, for everyone will have completed the required brainwashing sessions, from freshmen to faculty.  It will be... Utopia.

If you were swayed by David Sloan Wilson’s article, and thought it sounded like a nice program, there might still be hope, but it will require desperate measures.  Brainwashing is a serious mental disorder.  Undoing its effects requires rescue and deprogramming.  The stakes in this intellectual takeover that the Darwinists are advocating could not be higher.  Wilson, PLoS Biology, the NCSE, and Big Science in general have their sights set on nothing less than totalitarian rule.  It is not a matter of debating peers, or winning in the free marketplace of ideas.  This is an agenda for wage and price controls, for one-party rule, and for dictatorial power over the means of idea production.  John Stuart Mill, the atheist-empiricist utilitarian philosopher (a friend of Darwin), the father of the “open marketplace of ideas,” would be appalled.  Pay him no mind; he was just a product of evolution, too, and his ideas have no external validity apart from evolution.  Evolution is all; all is evolution.
    Any view trying to encompass morality, philosophy, religion, anthropology, psychology, economics, history, sexual ethics, culture, eating disorders, video games and even yawning has long ceased to be just a biological theory.  Evolution for Everyone is a complete and total world view: “a powerful way to understand and improve the world” including “deep philosophical issues associated with topics such as morality, determinism, and social equality.”  Like a communist ideal State, it is the machine of history.  Students are expendable; they must be molded into obedient pawns of the regime.
    The first step in deprogramming is to realize you’ve been had.  If you still have some control of your rational faculties, consider that this evolutionary indoctrination program falsifies itself.  Wilson talks about morality, but makes morality a by-product of a mindless, relativistic, unguided process that succeeds by squashing the unfit.  What is “right” or “wrong” in such a world?  Obviously, it could be anything, including cruelty or genocide.  There is no such thing as a “Virtue Island.”  He cannot define groups of moral and immoral people without borrowing vocabulary from a religion or philosophy that believes in absolutes.  In philosophical dualism or pantheism, yin and yang are morally indistinguishable.  Moral categories are in the eye of the beholder.  The immoral group can call itself the moral group without any guilt or contradiction, because evolution is what evolution does.  Whatever it does is “good,” whatever that means.

Richard Weikart in From Darwin to Hitler underscored the chilling point that Hitler sincerely believed he was doing the right thing.  He was not amoral; he did what he did from a deeply held conviction based on what he believed evolutionary ethics demanded (and remember, he got willing compliance from the intellectual leaders an