Watch for the Recycle logo to find gems from the back issues!
Feb 28, 2011 Three recent articles about amazing animals and fossils deserve entries of their own,
but due to lack of time, will be corralled here lest, like strays, they wander off.
Evolution was largely ignored in these stories. None of the popular articles on turtle navigation mentioned it,
but the source paper in Current Biology1 only mentioned it in passing
These results are consistent with the interpretation that birds, like
turtles, have evolved a way to assess longitude that is independent of time-keeping.
- Turtle navigation: Wired Science has
a beautiful photo of a marine turtle in an article about how they achieve a difficult navigational skill: determining longitude
from the earths magnetic field. By varying magnetic fields in research ponds with hatchlings, researchers at the University
of North Carolina determined that, Against reasonable expectation, the turtles clearly sensed differences in geomagnetic angle.
See also New Scientist and
Human efforts to determine longitude required accurate clocks.
The researchers didnt explain precisely how the turtles do it, other than to rule out biological clocks.
They were clearly astonished by animal navigation in general: That turtles and other migratory animals
could detect such a small change was considered unrealistic, but experiments on animals released in out-of-the-way locations
repeatedly described them finding home with unerring accuracy and efficiency, explicable only as a product of both longitudinal
and latitudinal awareness.
- Cat bite: The BBC News
reported on new findings about how sabretooth cats like Smilodon were able to close their mouths with those long, dagger-like teeth.
Studies of the bones and neck muscle insertion points by a team at Aalborg University in Denmark revealed how the cats
jaw muscles were aligned to pull its jaws closed, very directly and efficiently. The article ascribed all
this efficiency to evolution.
- Charismatic behemoth: A new sauropod species described on
Science Daily had legs like bars of iron, by Job.
Brontomerus mcintoshi, or thunder-thighs after its enormously powerful thigh muscles, found in Utah,
may have kicked its attackers to kingdom come. Brontomerus mcintoshi is a charismatic dinosaur and
an exciting discovery for us, said first author Mike Taylor, a researcher in the Department of Earth Sciences at University College London.
Less emphasized in the article was the worry that this discovery undermines previously-held beliefs about sauropods i.e., that they
were disappearing by the Cretaceous. It now seems that sauropods may have been every bit as diverse as they were
during the Jurassic, but much less abundant and so much less likely to be found.
Similarly, most of the dinosaur articles did not mention evolution. A researcher quoted
in Live Science speculated,
We think the most likely reason this evolved was over competition for mates, but once it evolved,
it would be bizarre if it wasnt also used in predator defense. This makes it clear that
the bones did not give a definitive answer to how thunder-thighs grew a thighs size to kick enemies asunder.
The BBC article on
sabretooth cats mentioned evolution the most. There, however, evolution was merely assumed: e.g.,
the cats jaw muscles evolved into a specialised pattern, which allowed them to open their mouths so wide.
The article talked about how Smilodon evolved and how the researchers drew an evolutionary map
to show how sabretooths evolved longer canine teeth under evolutionary pressure to kill prey with a deep and
efficient stab to the throat.2 Even if there was variation among cats and their fangs, the fangs already existed in cats,
and the cats and all their musculature already existed in the cat family. Even young-earth creationists would not
disagree that variation in existing genetic information could lead to adaptations in particular environments.
1. Putnam et al, Longitude Perception and Bicoordinate Magnetic Maps in Sea Turtles,
24 February 2011, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2011.01.057.
2. Note: evolutionary pressure is a misnomer. Natural selection may constrain variation by preventing survival of
mutants, but provides no pressure, impetus, guidance, force or direction (see 01/24/2008).
Evolution was tacked-on to some of these stories like hot sauce on ice cream.
It had nothing to do with the facts of the story and created a bad aftertaste to otherwise interesting stories
about amazing creatures. Scrape off the hot sauce best you can. (Dont stir it.)
Why your inner ear looks like a snail shell: from 02/28/2006.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Feb 27, 2011 Philosophy of science is a broad discipline incorporating many sub-disciplines such as intellectual
history, sociology, ethics, rhetoric, logic, demarcation of science from pseudoscience,
classification, discovery, verification, explanation and more. A dozen recent news
stories discussed some of these topics.
For a look at some of these issues from proponents of intelligent design, see an examination of Freeman Dysons article by Denyse O'Leary on
Descent, another O'Leary article on
about origin-of-life science, a treatment of Beddingtons outrage against pseudoscience on the blog
Darwins God by Cornelius Hunter and
In a subsequent post on Uncommon
Descent, O'Leary quoted Frank Furedi who views Beddingtons intolerance as a fast-backward to the Middle Ages.
- Medical ethics: PhysOrg
reproduced an AP story about medical research on humans in the US in the 1940s to 1960s. The details are
quite shocking and were unusually unethical, even at the time. They included giving diseases to
prisoners and the disabled. The news media largely ignored these stories, the article said. This entry
touches on the need to set ethical limitations on scientific inquiry.
- Futurism, ethics, and health: Should genetic interventions be used to create healthy babies? This sensitive
question, behind which lurks the ghost of positive eugenics, was discussed cheerfully in
Science Magazine (25 February 2011: DOI: 10.1126/science.1204088)
on the 10th anniversary of the
Human Genome Project.
Genetics is a way of thinking. Genomics is a set of tools, Mary-Claire King wrote,
glossing over the potential for abuse of thinking and tools. If we think rigorously about genetics and use these tools well,
she said, the resolution of inherited disorders on behalf of our patients will
be bounded only by our imaginations. One healthy infant at a time is not a bad way to begin.
But how will babies born without genetic intervention be treated by society? King assumed universal agreement on the meaning of well
and spoke of rigor, good and bad as if bounded only by human imagination.
A quick look back at the 20th century shows some not-so-cheerful ways our predecessors applied their imaginations using thinking and tools.
- Philosophy of discovery: A story on PhysOrg
exemplified how, in the philosophy of science, discovery is distinct from explanation. Some mathematicians at Emory
University were on a nature hike when a Eureka! moment hit them. So what is an aha moment?
the article asked. The way I see it, its not something that happens to you instantly, said Ken Ono.
It just happens to be the moment that you realize the fruits of all your hard work. Article includes a video clip
of Ono telling his story on the trail.
- Paradigms and models: Some European philosophers have tried to put Thomas Kuhn on a chip.
In Emergence and Decline of Scientific Paradigms described on
PhysOrg, they produced a mathematical model showing
how scientific paradigms rise and fall. Although many factors influence the emergence and decline of such scientific paradigms,
the article said, a new model has captured how these ideas spread, providing a better understanding of paradigm shifts and the culture
Like some meta-theory on theories, or observation of observers,
their mathematical model had all the coldness of monitoring bacteria in a Petri dish. Paradigms mentioned included climate change,
nanotechnology and chaos theory. Not apparent was how their model intersected any
conception of validation, verification, or truth.
- History of science: An article at PhysOrg
might be enough to make a modern scientist scream. Dr. Lawrence Principe, historian of science at Johns Hopkins, is defending
alchemy as legitimate research for its time. In Why many historians no longer see alchemy as an occult practice,
Phillip Schewe wrote that the scholars who write the history of science and technology no longer lump alchemy in with witchcraft
as a pseudo-science. Instead they view it as a precursor to chemistry.
Alchemists, they said, should not be dismissed solely for failing
their main mission to turn base metals into gold; Alchemists ... were active in assaying metals, refining salts, making dyes and pigments,
making glass and ceramics, artificial fertilizers, perfumes, and cosmetics i.e., skills useful for the emerging science of chemistry.
Famous practitioners of alchemy included Robert Boyle and Isaac Newton.
- Design detection: How natures patterns form was the headline of a short article on
PhysOrg. With an image of a Fibonacci spiral pattern
leading the story, the article mentioned how many universal patterns, seen in sunflowers, galaxies, animal coloration or sand dunes are the
result of some kind of stress, applied stress. Alan Newell at the University of Arizona was telling a meeting of the AAAS that
biological forms are controlled more by the laws of physics than by evolution, i.e., the products of physical forces,
rather than evolutionary ones.
Further, Patterns arise when the symmetry of a system is broken, Newell said.
The similarity in patterns from system to system occur when the systems have similar symmetry, rather than because the systems are
made from the same materials. Newell believes patterns are impressed on nature
mechanically, but as a consequence of biochemically and mechanically induced pattern-forming instabilities that
can be described in mathematical models.
The short article did not address why natural laws and instabilities should be symmetric, or finely tuned to reproduce a
Fibonacci series, or why the human mind finds these patterns beautiful. Newell did end, though, on a poetic note:
Mathematics is like a good poem, which separates the superfluous from the essentials and
fuses the essentials into a kernel of truth.
- Verification and falsification: Nature News
reported that the Apex Chert in western Australia, thought to be evidence for the oldest life on the planet, may have formed
by inorganic processes. This incident touches on several areas in philosophy of science: verification, interpretation of
evidence, ethics, and history of science: Twenty years ago the palaeontological community gasped as geoscientists revealed evidence
for the oldest bacterial fossils on the planet, the article said. Now, a report in Nature Geoscience
shows that the filament structures that were so important in the fossil descriptions are not remnants of ancient life,
but instead composed of inorganic material.
This appears to be a case of scientists who wanted to find life so badly
that they ignored the obvious, the article said. Olcutt Marshall opened some philosophical cans of worms with his remark,
There is a willful blindness about these structures that sometimes has more to do with local politics than global truth.
See also the PhysOrg write-up.
- Paradigm backlash: As successful as Newtonian mechanical philosophy was in the 17th and 18th centuries, it produced a backlash,
wrote George Rousseau in a book review in Nature
(24 Feb 2011, doi:10.1038/470462a). Commenting on Stephen Gaukrogers new book The Collapse of Mechanism and the Rise of Sensibility:
Science and the Shaping of Modernity 1680–1760, Rousseau noted that while most scientists are aware of Newtons achievement,
Less familiar is the philosophical phase that followed sensibility, the view of humans as organic creatures, incapable of reduction
to the sum of their mechanical parts, especially in the affective, moral and political realms. Accordingly,
Stephen Gaukroger explains how the philosophies of mechanism collapsed over eight decades, to be replaced by a more sensory view of nature.
The review warned of simplistic views of mechanical philosophy (sometimes abbreviated mechanism): Mechanism was never a single set of principles
about machine-like systems, he said. It comprised an array of disparate beliefs, experiences and practices that were followed in
far-flung places and presided over by its principal architects: René Descartes, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Newton.
Sensibility, likewise, is a vague term, he said. According to Gaukroger, sensibility allows connections to be made between
natural-philosophical and moral, political, and psychological theories in a new way, shaping a new field of the moral sciences.
While a strict mechanist or 20th-century positivist might take issue with that phrase as an oxymoron, the definition points out the
necessity of philosophical judgments on the nature of science.
The 1760s, the review said, was a watershed decade and the start
of the so-called Romantic era with roots in sensibility stretching back a century or more:
Imaginative literature, later codified as Romantic, also drove nails into mechanisms coffin by postulating
that matter was more complex than the mechanical natural philosophers thought. A human is not a mere machine; a fly is much
harder to study than a pebble. By focusing on human nature rather than physical matter, the language of the new literature
helped to alter the way scientists conceived their models, and enabled modernity to commence its work.
It is ironic that the reviewer shares a surname with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), an icon of Romanticism.
- Search for extra-terrestrial science: Can scientists justify their work based on what they expect to find, rather than
what they have found? Rowan Hooper on New
Scientist recouped the latest scoop on planet counts from the Kepler spacecraft, then launched into some philosophy:
Exoplanet findings spark philosophical debate, he titled his article, noting that What were once speculative and philosophical
questions are now being tackled with real data, generated by NASAs planet-hunting space telescope, Kepler.
The word data is a philosophically-loaded question. To what extent does data about extrasolar planets apply to
the question of extraterrestrial intelligence?
Hooper heard two speakers at the recent AAAS meeting discuss how Christians and Muslims might respond positively
to detection of aliens. Both their arguments amounted to the (to my mind) rather dubious claim that the discovery of
extraterrestrial life would pose no challenge or crisis to terrestrial religion.
Then he heard talks about the
possibility of life detection by a pessimist, Howard Smith [Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics] and an optimist,
Seth Shostak [SETI Institute]. Worried that it might take 100 generations to get in touch with aliens, Smith coined a new
phrase: the misanthropic principle says that intelligent life is so unlikely to evolve that we might as well accept that
well never know if we are unique or not. Hooper seemed to prefer Shostaks enthusiastic prediction of successful
detection within 24 years, even though it was couched in a philosophical statement, Believing there arent ETs is believing in miracles.
- Demarcation: According to Research Professional
John Beddington, the Presidents science advisor, made waves by calling for scientists to be grossly intolerant
of what he perceives as pseudoscience. As for what constitutes pseudoscience,
Beddington referred to the building up of what purports to be science by the cherry-picking of the facts
and the failure to use scientific evidence and the failure to use scientific method. Particularly, he had in mind
politically or morally or religiously motivated nonsense.
Beddington apparently does not realize that the demarcation problem and the scientific method are issues that loom large
in philosophy of science. The assumption that science can be reduced to a bias-free method apparently motivated his sermon for scientists to be as
grossly intolerant of that sort of thing as they are of racism or homophobia. He views religious or political
influence as pernicious, but he left begging the question of whether secular consensus science itself is free of such influences.
Sensing a little unease with his own moral plea, Beddington told his audience, Id urge you, and this is a
kind of strange message to go out, but go out and be much more intolerant That is clearly a moral judgment, not a scientific
finding. Beddington also did not distinguish morally ... motivated nonsense from his own moral judgments. Whether or not one
agrees with his opinions, the story illustrates how science is inextricable from moral values.
- Sociology of OOL: As a reporter at a recent conference of origin-of-life researchers, Dennis Overbye, writing for the
New York Times, seemed amused by the curious sociology of his subjects:
Two dozen chemists, geologists, biologists, planetary scientists and physicists gathered here recently to ponder where and what
Eden might have been. Over a long weekend they plastered the screen in their conference room with intricate chemical diagrams
through which electrons bounced in a series of interactions like marbles rattling up and down and over bridges through one of
those childs toys, transferring energy, taking care of the business of nascent life. The names of elements and
molecules tripped off chemists tongues as if they were the eccentric relatives who show up at Thanksgiving every year.
While not unkind to their ramblings, Overbye found plenty of confusion, disagreement, and ignorance to showcase. His last
quip was about Craig Venters intelligent design project to create synthetic life: And so his genome is now in the process
of acquiring its first, non-Darwinian mutation.
- Science and Meaning What does science mean? In the
New York Review of Books,
Freeman Dyson discussed information theory and the history of science under the headline, How We Know.
In the body of his book review of The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood by James Gleick, Dyson, while trying to
clear up some misinformation, exposed some embarrassments in science that call into question not only how we know, but what we know:
The public has a distorted view of science, because children are taught in school that science is a collection of firmly established truths.
In fact, science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries. Wherever we go exploring in the world
around us, we find mysteries. Our planet is covered by continents and oceans whose origin we cannot explain. Our
atmosphere is constantly stirred by poorly understood disturbances that we call weather and climate. The visible matter
in the universe is outweighed by a much larger quantity of dark invisible matter that we do not understand at all. The
origin of life is a total mystery, and so is the existence of human consciousness. We have no clear idea how the electrical
discharges occurring in nerve cells in our brains are connected with our feelings and desires and actions.
Scientists get a kick out of the endless quest: The vision of the future as an infinite playground, with an unending sequence of mysteries
to be understood by an unending sequence of players exploring an unending supply of information, is a glorious vision for scientists, he said, but
not to artists, writers, and ordinary people. Dyson worried about the flood of information around us being separated from meaning.
Now we can pass a piece of human DNA through a machine and rapidly read out the genetic information, Dyson noted, but
we cannot read out the meaning of the information. We shall not fully understand the information until we understand
in detail the processes of embryonic development that the DNA orchestrated to make us what we are.
Even physics, the most exact and most firmly established branch of science, is still full of mysteries....
Claude Shannon, who felt Meaning is irrelevant to his information theory, started a flood of information in which we are drowning,
Dyson said. Is our fate to look out upon, as Jorge Luis Borges portrayed the universe in 1941, a library, with an infinite array of books and shelves
and mirrors, never knowing what it all means? It is our task as humans to bring meaning back into this wasteland, Dyson concluded.
As finite creatures who think and feel, we can create islands of meaning in the sea of information.
While Dyson examined the definition of information in detail in his review, he left dangling an even more important definition:
the meaning of meaning. Is meaning defined by the individual artist, writer, or ordinary person? Who decides when something
is meaningful? Are islands of meaning grounded on a continent of truth, or are they adrift in an infinite sea of meaningless information?
Theres a new anthology of essays by creationists that calls into question the objectivity of science.
The description of Sacred Cows In Science: No Objectivity Allowed, Norbert Smith (ed.) on
Science was at one time defined by its method. Carefully controlled experiments, provisional conclusions, and considered
debate once defined the field. But those days have passed. Today, science is defined by public policy statements,
consensus, and a set of metaphysical assumptions that cannot be directly tested. Students are told that science is in conflict
with faith or, worse yet, that faith operates in a different magisterial [sic]with no real application
to the world we inhabit.
Chapters include material on life sciences, physical sciences, and behavioral sciences. The first reviewer agreed,
Science should be a discipline based on dissent, but as more and more science becomes publicly funded, ideas become entrenched, and
outside ideas are no longer heard.
This is all interesting material with too much to comment on in each article. Readers are encouraged to become knowledgeable
about these controversies with the Baloney Detector in good working order and refine their philosophy of science
in light of these real-world issues. Science is what scientists do unless they can defend aspiring to an unattainable goal.
Habitable Zones Constrained by Tides
theme in all the above is how science and philosophy are both human enterprises, subject to all the biases, assumptions, limitations,
mistakes, and changes of mind connected with any other human activity. One can hope to approach limitations with
more clarity in a systematic way, but they are still limitations.
One thing we need more than science or philosophy is wisdom. The writer of
Psalm 119 offered a way up:
I have more understanding than all my teachers, for your testimonies are my meditation. (verse 99).
Indeed, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Proverbs 9:10),
and of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7).
Why is the fear of the Lord essential? Why is it the beginning of wisdom and knowledge?
Because without it, science is impossible. The Lord is the source of the morality, integrity, and wisdom
needed to even hope for a clear scientific understanding about any subject or a philosophy of anything.
Atheists may do science, but they cannot justify what they do. When they assume the world is rational, approachable, and
understandable, they plagiarize Judeo-Christian presuppositions about the nature of reality and the moral need to seek the
As an exercise, try generating a philosophy of science from hydrogen coming out of the big bang. It cannot be done.
Its impossible even in principle, because philosophy and science presuppose concepts that are not composed of particles and forces.
They refer to ideas that must be true, universal, necessary and certain.
Its time science gets back to the beginning of wisdom. You can help by rapping a scientists
knuckles every time he steals from the Christian smorgasbord of presuppositions. While bandaging his knuckles,
encourage him with the upside of a scientific revolution based on the Bible: it makes genuine scientific knowledge, if not exhaustive, at least possible.
Next headline on:
Philosophy of Science
Mind and Brain
Origin of Life
Politics and Ethics
Feb 26, 2011 The idea of a circumstellar habitable zone a radial range around a star where
an earth-like planet could support life may be too simplistic.
Science Daily reported that
Tides can render the so-called habitable zone around low-mass stars uninhabitable.
Astronomers at the Astrophysical Institute Potsdam studied the effects of tides on planets around low-mass stars
(the most numerous stars in the galaxy) and found that the lack of seasons, the increased heat (and
volcanism) and synchronous rotation make them uncomfortable at best, and perhaps uninhabitable.
I think that the chances for life existing on exoplanets in the traditional habitable zone
around low-mass stars are pretty bleak, when considering tidal effects, lead researcher Rene Heller
remarked. If you want to find a second Earth, it seems that you need to look for a second Sun.
So far we have narrowed the habitable zone to:
Galactic Habitable Zone, where a star must be located (09/29/2009);
Circumstellar Habitable Zone, the right radius from the star (10/08/2010);
Continuously Habitable Zone, because too much variety can be lethal (07/21/2007);
Temporal Habitable Zone, because habitable zones do not last forever (10/27/2008);
Chemical and Thermodynamic Habitable Zone, where water can be liquid (12/30/2003);
Ultraviolet Habitable Zone, free from deadly radiation (08/15/2006);
Tidal Habitable Zone, which rules out most stars that are small (02/26/2011).
Evolutionists Turn Misses into Wins
Other constraints are bound to be realized from time to time, emphasizing the rarity of the sweet spot
we inhabit. This would be, of course, predicted from the Architects message that he
formed the Earth to be inhabited (Isaiah 45:18),
but todays scientists have a bad habit of ruling out Architects from their master plan. Make a good habit
of studying the Architects plans whenever starting life construction on our habitable
Next headline on:
Stars and Astronomy
Origin of Life
Feb 25, 2011 Evolutionists have evolved a skill by design the ability to turn
falsification into confirmation. Its a kind of philosophical judo, or parry, that
can turn the energy of a criticism into a win for Darwin.
Darwinians appear very adept at turning criticism into praise. Whether this neat trick
justifies evolution as a scientific theory is a different question. Does it really lead to deeper understanding of
evolution, or is it sophistry?
- Convergent turnarounds: A good example of an evolutionary parry can be seen in a post on
entitled, Homoplasy: A Good Thread to Pull to Understand the Evolutionary Ball of Yarn.
Homoplasy is a jargon term for convergent evolution the idea that unrelated organisms can
converge on the same solution to a problem via evolution. Three evolutionists funded by
the National Science Foundation came up with these whoppers:
The authors provide many fascinating examples of homoplasy, including different species of salamanders
that independently, through evolution, increased their body-length by increasing the lengths of individual vertebrae.
By contrast, most species grow longer by adding vertebrae through evolution.
If evolving eyes one time is spectacularly hard for a random process, it would seem that multiple independent cases
would falsify evolution big time. Instead, these authors, with taxpayer funding, decided that the damaging
evidence was really a triumph for Darwin: These kinds of examples of genetic and developmental biology help
scientists elucidate relationships between organisms, as well as develop a fuller picture of their evolutionary history.
The authors also explain how petals in flowers have evolved on six separate occasions in different plants.
A particularly striking example of homoplasy cited by the authors is the evolution of eyes, which evolved many
times in different groups of organismsfrom invertebrates to mammalsall of which share an identical genetic code
for their eyes.
- Victory in defeat: Even when admitting mistakes, evolutionists are never ready to give up on their theory.
An example of unfeigned faith is seen in Live
Science, where reporter Natalie Wolchover told how two headline-making fossils touted by their discoverers as
human ancestors have turned out to have nothing to do with humans: theyre probably just non-hominin ape bones.
Readers might recall how headlines blared in recent years that Orrorin tugenensis,Sahelanthropus tchadensis and Ardipithecus ramidus
were shedding light on human evolution (03/05/2004, 10/02/2009,
11/25/2009) Now that Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison have debunked these claims
(02/16/2011), is evolution in trouble? Not according to them:
Skepticism regarding these famous primate fossil finds seems to call into question the rigor of the scientific process
within the field of paleoanthropology. Woods and Harrisons paper certainly makes one wonder: Are these
isolated incidents of misinterpretation followed by media hype, or does the problem pervade the whole branch of science?
Is the human evolutionary fossil record a crapshoot?
Harrisons firm response to Wolchovers worries recalls the cover story of National Geographic in Nov 2004,
Was Darwin Wrong? with its confident NO inside (see 10/24/2004 and
the resulting letters to the editor, 02/15/2005).
No, said Harrison. There are reasons why this branch of science may seem messier than most,
he said, but all things considered, it is doing extremely well.
- Polygamy games: A particularly bizarre twist on evolutionary parrying was reported in
PhysOrg about Mormon
history: Polygamy hurt 19th century Mormon wives evolutionary fitness. After stating
that fitness of sister wives decreased in polygamous households (measured by number of children produced),
the researchers at Indiana University were left with the conundrum of why evolution would produce polygamy in the
first place, whether among human beings or bacteria. Michael Wade was ready with a ring buoy for Darwin:
So if polygamy (or the female equivalent, polyandry) is disadvantageous to most of the sequestered sex
and most of the mate-sequestering sex, why should such systems survive?
Aside from equating Mormons to fruit flies, Wade seems to have just said that natural selection can drag a species
away from increased fitness. WWDD? What would Darwin do about that idea?
The complete answer is still forthcoming, Wade said. One thing we know now,
based on rigorous studies in many species, particularly the fruit fly, is that selection can be so strong
on males that it can drag the entire species off of a naturally selected viability optimum.
Its sophistry. See? Our commentaries are not always verbose.
How strong is natural selection? Darwinists may be deluding themselves, a Canadian evolutionist
said in the 02/16/2005 entry; in fact, the AAAS president almost called some
of his fellow scientists insane (02/11/2005).
Aside: Apparently the irony of #1s headline was lost on the reporters:
...the Evolutionary Ball of Yarn. Apt description.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Racial Evolution Education Proposed
Feb 24, 2011 Skin color provides a handy tool for teaching evolution,
says a anthropologist at Penn State. PhysOrg
reported that professor Nina Jablonski believes The mechanism of evolution can be completely understood from skin color.
She proposes using the easily-observed trait in humans to teach evolution to students. People are really socially aware
of skin color, intensely self-conscious about it, she told the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The nice thing about skin color is that we can teach the principles of evolution using an example on our own bodies and
relieve a lot of social stress about personal skin color at the same time. PhysOrg did not elaborate on how
evolutionary theory would relieve stress about skin color.
It is typical of Darwinists to try to prove their theory with simple examples of horizontal variation
that are not controversial, then extrapolate the examples to say
brains evolved from a primordial soup. Perhaps professor Jablonski should take note of the fact
that young-earth creationist Ken Ham uses Scripture and science to explain the human races (actually,
just variations on the single human race) from a Biblical viewpoint (see
AiG), and also shows the disastrous history
of racial politics in of Darwinian thought (AiG).
Busted! Planet-Making Theories Dont Fit Extrasolar Planets
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Politics and Ethics
Feb 23, 2011 Famed planet-hunter Geoff Marcy is giving theorists headaches. The
leading theories of planet formation wont stand up to observations of hundreds of planets
we know. In National
Geographic News reporter Richard Lovett lamented, The more new planets we find, the less we seem to know about how planetary systems are born,
according to a leading planet hunter. We cannot apply theories that fit our solar system to other systems:
In theory, other stars with planets should have gotten similar starts. But according to Marcy, theory has
implications not born out in reality.
Specifically, planetary orbits should be circular, but many extrasolar planets have elliptical orbits.
Everything should orbit in the same plane and direction, but many have highly inclined or even retrograde orbits;
Orbital inclinations are all over the map, Marcy said. And Neptune-sized planets should be rare,
since models of our water giants require highly unusual starting conditions; there are too many out there, Marcy
noted; Theory has struck out, he told the American Astronomical Society last month.
His critics complained that modeling is complicated and difficult. Hal Levison said that
simplifying them leads to crappy models. Marcy thought that without taking into account
planetary interactions, future discoveries, as they multiply, will give the theoreticians yet more reasons to
tear out their hair. For more on Geoff Marcy, see 02/02/2011.
Maiers Law says, If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
(see corollaries, right sidebar). A science that cannot fit observations to theory does not win the honor
of being called a science. It may be a job, a profession, an avocation, a hobby; but to be a science, there should be
some concordance between theory and observations. Has planetary cosmogony done any better than alchemy yet?
Let them play but come back later when they have something. One theory they never consider is the top-down
theory; that planets were created with stars, but have been fragmenting and interacting since then.
This theory has the advantage of fitting the observations of providential fine-tuning for our own
New Cambrian Fossil: Missing Link?
Next headline on:
Feb 23, 2011 A weird animal from Chinese Cambrian strata looks like a worm with legs, the whole
body studded with spines. Was it on the way to becoming an arthropod? The authors think
so, but other members of its group were already known from the Cambrian fossil record.
The walking cactus with ten pairs of legs was named Diania cactiformis by the
discoverers from China and Germany, publishing in Nature.1
discussed it briefly and National
Geographic News included an artists conception.
Nature said it was already derived (advanced) on the arthropod lineage.
The editors summary stated, The possession of what seem to be the beginnings of robust, jointed and spiny legs
suggest that this bizarre animal might be very close to the origins of the arthropods. This was based on
phylogenetic analysis, though, not on dating or genetics. It seems similar to other creatures known as
Lobopodia, a group of poorly understood animals according to Wikipedia, which evolutionists feel might be
ancestral to both onycophorans and arthropods; however, precise classification is still in flux.
As for its place in the Cambrian explosion, National Geographic said, It would have lived about
500 million years ago during a period of rapid evolution called the Cambrian explosion.
It was not, therefore, a missing link leading up to the explosion. The authors in Nature said,
How close Cambrian lobopodians are to the ground plan of the arthropod common ancestor remains a point of debate,
and as for its ancestry to arthropods, admitted, Our new fossils cannot resolve this question in its entirety,
but they do demonstrate that appendage morphology was more diverse among Cambrian lobopodians than is sometimes realized.
They emphasized that, to our knowledge, Diania has the most robust and arthropod-like limbs found in any lobopodian until now.
But added doubt by saying, However, we should caution that dinocaridids, Diania and other potential stem-arthropods
typically express mosaics of arthropod-like characters, which makes resolving a single, simple tree of arthropod origins problematic.
In fact, their own phylogenetic analysis of Diania put it in a surprising position in the evolutionary
tree. They entertained the option that it might represent a secondary reduction of more advanced animals like the large
predator Anomalocaris; whatever it was, all could agree it was a highly unusual creature.
1. Liu, Steiner et al, An armoured Cambrian lobopodian from China with arthropod-like appendages,
470 (24 February 2011), pp. 526–530, doi:10.1038/nature09704.
It was a highly unusual creature among many highly unusual creatures, to the
extent that the unusual was usual. Simultaneous diversity and morphological disparity is not evolution.
Diania is no more advanced or primitive than any of the many other animal body plans from the Cambrian
explosion, so this fossil is not going to help solve the evolutionists magic act (see
especially with vertebrates already present in the early Cambrian (01/30/2003).
Remember, its whats inside that counts. This creature may have look primitive through Darwinian
eyes, but it had the ability to move its limbs, detect food, eat, digest, and reproduce its body.
Such things do not happen without a body plan.
How to get a genetic code by chance: Current Biology made it sound so simple in the
02/19/2004 entry. What could be simpler than a frozen accident?
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Is Star Formation Understood?
Feb 22, 2011 Astronomers often speak with apparent confidence about regions of active
star formation in nebulae or galaxies. A look at the fine print, however, shows plenty
of wiggle room when observations dont quite match theory.
We cant even understand our own universe, but some astronomers are talking about imaginary universes.
Amanda Gefter at New
Scientist, for instance, gave a positive review of Brian Greenes new book The Hidden Reality, which
purports to give a tour of the multiverse. She described the book as Arcane yet exciting physics, wrapped up in effortless prose.
The multiverse concept has become fashionable, she said, even though critics deride it as untestable metaphysics.
Even Greene called it a battleground for the very soul of science.
- Flocculent anomalies: Astronomers expected more star forming regions in one of the
flocculent spiral galaxies (spirals without large arms), NGC 2841. But when the
Hubble Space Telescope took its picture, Science
Daily said it currently has a relatively low star formation rate compared to other spirals.
Several revelations in the next paragraphs indicated astronomers are not so confident about star formation:
Star formation is one of the most important processes in shaping the Universe; it plays a pivotal role in the evolution
of galaxies and it is also in the earliest stages of star formation that planetary systems first appear.
It would seem that if astronomers dont understand what triggers star formation, or how it varies from place to place,
they dont understand it very much at all.
Yet there is still much that astronomers dont understand, such as how do the properties of
stellar nurseries vary according to the composition and density of the gas present, and what triggers star formation
in the first place? The driving force behind star formation is particularly unclear for a type of
galaxy called a flocculent spiral, such as NGC 2841 shown here, which features short spiral arms rather than prominent and
well-defined galactic limbs.
- Dark matter anomalies: Dark matter sometimes appears like a kind of cosmic flubber an unknown
quantity that is useful in various amounts (sometimes none at all) when theories need fixing. Take this
article from Science Daily about recent
results from the Herschel Space Telescope as an example:
Most of the mass of any galaxy is expected to be dark matter, a hypothetical substance that has yet to be detected
but which astronomers believe must exist to provide sufficient gravity to prevent galaxies ripping themselves apart as they rotate....
And yet with these uncertainties, the article was confident that the star formation rate in this starburst galaxy
had hit a sweet spot for star formation, even though the opening paragraph was puzzled that the region observed
appeared too small for such luck: The size challenges current theory that predicts a galaxy has to be more than ten times larger,
5000 billion solar masses, to be able form [sic] large numbers of stars.
Herschel is showing us that we don't need quite so much dark matter as we thought to trigger a starburst," says Asantha Cooray,
University of California, Irvine....
Analysis of the brightness of the patches in the ... images has shown that the star-formation rate in the
distant infrared galaxies is 3-5 times higher than previously inferred from visible-wavelength observations of similar,
very young galaxies by the Hubble Space Telescope and other telescopes.
- Computers as alternate reality: Meanwhile, in the computer center at Heidelberg University,
astronomers concluded that The first stars in the universe were not as solitary as previously thought.
According to PhysOrg, whatever they programmed into
their computer models was a blockbuster: it cast an entirely new light on the formation of the first stars
after the Big Bang. The next sentences described in graphic detail how a star is born. Given the
uncertainties in the first two entries, however, it appears their computer universe was a figment of the programmers
imagination rather than a finding about nature. The article contained at least six instances of may have,
could have and other speculations: e.g., It is also conceivable that some of the first stars may have
been catapulted out of their birth group through collisions with their neighbours before they were able to
accumulate a great deal of mass.
Whoever wins the battle should be able to do the Macarena to make Gefter happy. Thats what Brian Greene
did in front of an audience, she described, as he pondered a hypothetical holographic universe that made him literally dance for
joy at the thought. Gefter also was enraptured by the possibility that reality is not what it seems.
While speculating about hidden realities that are not what they seem, might as well go all out:
Greene doesnt shy away from important nuances or profound philosophical questions, she ended,
winking, I suspect that this will be a hugely popular book in this universe and many, many others.
See the 04/11/2009 for Gefters previous reaction to
cosmologists speculations about imaginary universes.
OK, lets take stock. Weve got star formation, about which we dont understand how it gets triggered or
why it varies from place to place, but somehow dark matter flubber has something to do with it an ingredient that
uses Skinners Constant.* However it works, star formation, which no one has watched, bursts forth in galaxies 1/10
the size they should be for it to burst in, producing sociable stars after the Big Bang, in computers at least, contrary to
expectations. Are we still in the science lab? (cf. 04/13/2007).
Astronomers are very smart people in terms of their ability to speak jargon and manipulate equations.
Whether they have a grasp on reality is a very different matter (01/15/2008) a
dark matter of a different sort.
Its worth rereading Prophet Bermans sermons every once in awhile
to avoid being swept up into the cosmic euphoria that ensnared poor Amanda Gefter in Brian Greenes
fantasy bladderwort (02/17/2011).
Next headline on:
Stars and Astronomy
Philosophy of Science
*Skinners Constant: That quantity which, when added to, subtracted from, multiplied by or divided by the answer you
got, gives you the answer you should have gotten.
A photo from Messenger (see PhysOrg; also
APOD) shows the
solar system from the inside out. Its a nice complement to the historic Voyager image from the outside in
(APOD). These actual photos underscore how tiny the planets
are relative to their distances from the sun.
Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin
Feb 21, 2011 Science magazine last week had a special series of articles on the 10-year anniversary
of the Human Genome project. Most of the articles expanded on how different the findings were from predictions.
The publication of the genome did not identify our evolution; it did not lead to miracle cures. What it did
most of all was upset apple carts, and show just how complex the library of information behind our smiling faces really is..
A couple of excerpts are characteristic.
John Mattick of the University of Queensland commented about how The Genomic Foundation is Shifting
in his brief essay for Science.1 For me, he began, the most important
outcome of the human genome project has been to expose the fallacy that most genetic information is expressed as proteins.
He spoke of the Central Dogma of genetics the principle that DNA is the master controller of heredity, translating its
information into proteins that create our bodies and brains. For one thing, the number of genes is far smaller than
expected (only 1.5% of human DNA contains genes), and is overwhelmed by non-coding DNA (earlier assumed to be genetic junk)
that generates RNA, that regulates the expression of genes, especially during development. The histone code and other
revelations have generated aftershocks to the initial tremor that undermined the Central Dogma. He concluded,
These observations suggest that we need to reassess the underlying genetic orthodoxy, which is deeply ingrained and
has been given superficial reprieve by uncritically accepted assumptions about the nature and power of combinatorial control.
As Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock wrote in 1950: Are we letting a philosophy of the [protein-coding] gene control [our]
reasoning? What, then, is the philosophy of the gene? Is it a valid philosophy? … There is an
alternative: Human complexity has been built on a massive expansion of genomic regulatory sequences, most of which are
transacted by RNAs that use generic protein infrastructure and control the epigenetic mechanisms underpinning embryogenesis and
brain function. I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning
of a conceptual enlightenment in biology.
In another essay in the 18 February issue of Science, Maynard Olson [U of Washington, Seattle] asked,
What Does a Normal Human Genome Look Like? Olson did not wish to get embroiled
in old debates about nature vs. nurture other than to acknowledge that they still exist despite the publication of
the human genome. Instead, he asked what factors are minor players in human variation. One of them, he said,
in a statement that might have raised Darwins eyebrows, is balancing selection, the evolutionary process
that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single best variant; instead, he continued, this
appears to play a minor role outside the immune system. Another also-ran are the variations we most often
notice in people: Local adaptation, which accounts for variation in traits such as pigmentation, dietary specialization,
and susceptibility to particular pathogens is also a second-tier player. The primary factor is another
eyebrow-raiser for Darwinists:
What is on the top tier? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are deleterious by
biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly
make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. A model for human genetic individuality
is emerging in which there actually is a wild-type human genomeone in which most genes exist
in an evolutionarily optimized form. There just are no wild-type humans: We each fall short of this
Platonic ideal in our own distinctive ways.
1. John Mattick, The Genomic Foundation is Shifting, Science,
18 February 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 874, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203703.
2. Maynard V. Olson, What Does a Normal Human Genome Look Like?, Science,
18 February 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 872, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203236.
Did you catch that? These are phenomenal admissions in a secular science journal.
Mattick showed how many ways the evolutionary geneticists were wrong. They expected to find the secret of our humanness
in DNA the master controller, honed by evolution, that made us what we are. Instead, they were astonished to find
complexity in a vast array of regulatory sequences beyond the genes (epigenetic, above the gene), including codes upon codes.
They appear to make DNA just a side show in a much more complex story that will require a conceptual enlightenment
in biology. This implies that pre-Human Genome biology was unenlightened. By quoting McClintocks
prescient questions, he declared that the philosophy of biology that has ruled the 19th and 20th centuries is invalid.
Scientists Are Studying Your Garden for Ideas
Olsons revelations are even more shocking, and, in a way, delightful for those who believe that the
Bible, not Darwin, tells where man came from. Olson essentially said that Darwinists should pack up and go home, because the factors
that they have counted on to explain human complexity are minor players. Then he said that most mutations are harmful,
bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person. For the coup-de-grace, he said that there seems to be a Platonic ideal
of the human makeup (wild-type referring to natural) from which we all fall short. This is the
opposite of Darwinian evolutionary ascent from slime; it is descent with modification downward from an initial ideal state.
Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam!
Paul the Apostle explained in the classic statement about Adam that the first man was the wild type after which
things went terribly wrong when he sinned: Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death
spread to all men because all sinned for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.
Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type
[i.e., wild type, Platonic ideal in real human flesh] of the one who was to come
(Romans 5:12-14). Isnt
that exactly what we see around us?
Not to leave us
in despair, Paul continued with the joyful good news about the second Adam, Jesus Christ who by solving the
sin problem through his death and resurrection, became the progenitor of all who could become righteous and inherit eternal life:
But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one mans trespass, much more have the grace of God
and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that
one mans sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses
brought justification. For if, because of one mans trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those
who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
To be sure, Mattick and Olson were probably not intending to agree with the Bible in their revelations about
the Human Genome, but everything they said is consistent with Scriptural teaching, but is not consistent with what the
Darwinists teach. Their expectations have been falsified; their philosophy has been found wanting. The Bible had it
right all along! If you are fallen from the ideal of Adam, Jesus Christ (not Darwin, not Plato) provides the pathway to a return to the Makers
ideal. It is a gift, through faith, thanks to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
Paul, an early persecutor of Christians, who was transformed by seeing the risen Christ on the Damascus road, speaks to
us all today: We urge you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God
(II Corinthians 5:14-21).
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and
life for all men. For as by the one mans disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one mans obedience
the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all
the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ
Next headline on:
Philosophy of Science
Bible and Theology
Feb 20, 2011 Your garden plants are visited by a butterfly and various insects as you sip tea
in a lawn chair. Did you have any idea that inventors are watching the same things with an eye
to making money? Or that military officers are getting ideas from the garden to use against the
enemy? Biomimetics the imitation of natures designs is on a roll,
because some of the best design ideas are right in your yard.
Chang Liu had one of the best recent summations of why biomimetics is such a hot trend: Using a bio-inspired approach
is really important, he said. Nature has a lot of wonderful examples that can challenge us.
No matter how good some of our technology is, we still cant do some of the basic things that nature can.
Nature holds the secret for the next technology breakthrough and disruptive innovation. We are
on a mission to find it.
- Its a bird; its a plan: Watch the video clip of Matt Keennons ornithopter at
Its a robotic mimic of a real hummingbird size, shape, wings and all. Like the real thing, it can hover and
move in all directions. The military wants to use such devices as spybots to enter
buildings with tiny cameras.
The hummingbird makes it look easy: Manager of the project, Matt Keennon,
said it had been a challenge to design and build the spybot because it pushes the limitations of
- Moving plants: Schoolkids are often delighted with touching the leaves of the
sensitive plant, Mimosa, and watching how they instantly fold up.
that University of Michigan researchers are sensitive, too: they are leading studies of moving
plants that are inspiring a new class of adaptive structures designed to twist, bend, stiffen
and even heal themselves.
Where could these efforts lead? When this technology matures, [Kon-Well] Wang
said it could enable robots that change shape like elephant trunks or snakes to maneuver under a
bridge or through a tunnel, but then turn rigid to grab a hold of something, the article ended.
It also could lead to morphing wings that would allow airplanes to behave more like birds, changing
their wing shape and stiffness in response to their environment or the task at hand.
- Solar plants: What uses sunlight better than a leaf? Penn State researchers
are trying to copy photosynthesis, reported PhysOrg,
in order to make efficient fuels. Inexpensive hydrogen for automotive or jet fuel may be possible
by mimicking photosynthesis, the article said, ...but a number of problems need to be solved first.
Thomas Mallouk at the university has only achieved 2-3% hydrogen so far. He needs to aim for 100%.
His team is trying to figure out how to handle the wrecking ball of oxygen produced by his
experimental solar cells, and how to channel electrons so they stop recombining. Plants make it look so easy.
- Hear thee: Chang Liu at Northwestern is fascinated by the hair cells of the inner ear.
Like many researchers with the biomimetics bug, he is using insights from nature as inspiration
for both touch and flow sensors areas that currently lack good sensors for recording and communicating the senses.
Hes not all ears; Hair cells provide a variety of sensing abilities for different animals:
they help humans hear, they help insects detect vibration, and they form the lateral line system that allows fish
to sense the flow of water around them.
This multi-application potential of natures design particularly impressed him:
The hair cell is interesting because biology uses this same fundamental structure to serve
a variety of purposes, Liu said. This differs from how engineers typically design sensors,
which are often used for a specific task. Synthetic hair cells might be useful for anything from
robots to heart catheters.
- Fly me a computer: Last weeks Science (Feb 11) had an article by Jeffrey Kephart
about Learning from Nature to build better computer networks.1
What, in nature, did he have in mind? Fruit flies. Studying the development of a fruit flys
sensory bristles provided insight into developing a more practical algorithm for organizing networked computers,
the caption said on a photo of the little bugs bristly head.
Kephart explained that biomimetics has a long history. The tradition of biologically inspired
computing extends back more than half a century to the original musings of Alan Turing about artificial intelligence
and John von Neumann's early work on self-replicating cellular automata in the 1940s, he noted. Since then, computer scientists
have frequently turned to biological processes for inspiration. Indeed, the names of major subfields of
computer sciencesuch as artificial neural networks, genetic algorithms, and evolutionary computationattest
to the influence of biological analogies. (Note: evolutionary computation is a form of intelligent design,
in which a scientist or computer selects outcomes from randomly varying inputs according to purpose-driven goals.)
- Crawl me a network: Speaking of IT, ants are inspiring new ideas for computer networks.
According to PhysOrg,
Ants are able to connect multiple sites in the shortest possible way, and in doing so, create efficient transport networks,
scientists at the University of Sydney are finding. Even without leaders, they solve this complex problem
by making many trails and pruning them back to the best ones.
Ants are not the only inspiration for the next generation of networks: The findings sheds light on
how other simple natural systems without leaders or even brains such as fungi, slime molds and mammalian
vascular systems are able to form efficient networks, and can help humans design artificial networks in situations
lacking central control, Dr. Tanya Latty said.
- Firefly probe: Science Daily
told how scientists at Lawrence Berkeley National Labs have made a probe of hydrogen peroxide levels in mice
based on the chemical that makes fireflies glow: luciferin. Their device seems reminiscent of Doc Bones
hovering probe that could detect problems non-invasively: the new probe enables researchers to monitor hydrogen
peroxide levels in mice and thereby track the progression of infectious diseases or cancerous tumors without harming
the animals or even having to shave their fur.
How did Christopher Chang come up with this neat idea? The fact that in nature fireflies use
the luciferin enzyme to communicate by light inspired us to adapt this same strategy for pre-clinical diagnostics,
he said. Their PCL-1 probe has already passed a milestone and has found that hydrogen peroxide,
natures disinfectant, is continuously made even in a healthy body. Now they are working
to improve the sensitivity of the probe.
- Roach model: Hopefully your garden experience was not interrupted by seeing a cockroach in the
kitchen when getting your tea out of the refrigerator. Even so,
Israeli scientists at Tel Aviv University are finding things to admire in the beasts:
said, Ask anyone who has ever tried to squash a skittering cockroach theyre masters of quick and precise movement.
Thats why Tel Aviv University is using their maddening locomotive skills to improve robotic technology too.
While wes getting grossed out with bugs, the article added, Cockroaches are not the only insects that have captured the
scientific imagination. Projects that highlight both the flight of the locust and the crawling of the soft-bodied
caterpillar are also underway. Good. Get them out of the house and yard and give them to the scientists.
1. Jeffrey O. Kephart, Computer science: Learning from Nature,
11 February 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6018 pp. 682-683, DOI: 10.1126/science.1201003.
As stated before, biomimetics provides a breakthrough that can bring scientists together.
Evolutionists do not have to worry about how these things evolved, nor waste time and energy making up
stories or building their shrines to the Bearded Buddha. Creationists do not have to mention God and
risk alienating their colleagues who dont want to hear the design argument for Gods existence.
Everyone can agree that the designs in nature, however they arose, are fascinating, important, and worth imitating.
The public will benefit from the inventions that result.
Last year at this time we presented eight candidates for masters degrees in physics plants, beetles,
human ears, and bacteria among them (02/10/2010.
Follow the biomimetic research lead, and
pretty soon Eugenie Scott will be out of a job, because all scientists will be marching together
away from Darwinland and into the promised land of nature-inspired technology, talking design without
any need for help from those who already knew intelligent design is the inference to the best explanation.
The ranks of the Darwinists will shrink by attrition. Why? Nobody will be looking to them
for answers (re: stories), when practical science based on design is winning the hearts and minds of everyone.
Books and lectures on garden-variety intelligent design will, by then, seem perfectly natural.
Next headline on:
Titans Methane Lakes Shallow, Dynamic
Feb 19, 2011 Strange things are happening on Titan, Saturns largest moon: lakes are
appearing and disappearing. This can only mean that the lakes are shallow and the
liquid hydrocarbons in them are moving around.
Lakes were discovered a few years ago in the northern regions of the Mercury-size moon.
They consist predominantly of methane (CH4) and ethane (C2H6).
Another large lake called Ontario Lacus (Lake Ontario, because of its similarity to Earths counterpart) was
discovered near the south pole. Then, in Oct 2004, new dark areas appeared in Arrakis Planitia near the south after a presumed
cloudburst of liquid methane
the lakes in this area have also shrunk considerably in 44 months between observations.
A new paper in Icarus1 presented observations in visible light, infrared and
radar covering the period 2004-2009. They indicate that Ontario has been shrinking rapidly between 2005 and 2009
The southwest shoreline has retreated by 9-11 kilometers (5.5 to 7 miles).2 Though estimates are difficult due to the
distance and resolution of some measurements, the authors best guess is that The observed retreat represents
a decrease in area of ~500 km2 over almost 4 years.
Estimating volume loss is more difficult. While impossible to calculate Ontarios volume loss
directly, they estimated how much Arrakis gained and lost as a proxy. Based on estimates of methane-carrying capacity of the 2004
cloud system (about a million square kilometers), the cloudburst must have dropped 2.4 to 14 cm of methane rain into the Arrakis
basin (upper limit 4.2 m). This yields estimates that between 24 to 140 km3 of liquid was lost at Arrakis
in 4 years from a combination of evaporation and infiltration; probably similar amounts at Ontario.
There are clues that the lake bottoms might be impermeable. The northern lakes are in Titan spring and have
not shrunk between observations. Earlier estimates expected one meter of seepage into the interior per year.
The rapid shrinkage at Arrakis and Ontario over a timescale of several months strongly suggests either a shallow
impermeable layer or that the local methane table lies close to the surface. It will be interesting to watch
what the methane cycle does to the southern and northern lakes as the seasons change and more sunlight hits the north.
One other interesting observation was that the exposed lake bottom is not dark, as might be expected from
sedimentation of hydrocarbons. Either wave action cleansed the bottom as the shoreline retreated, or any sediments
are light colored. The authors favor the latter, saying that bright organic condensates may be deposited
within the lakes and exposed as the liquid level drops (Barnes et al., 2009). This view is strengthened by
the fact that the Cassini orbiters cameras saw numerous dark features in the south in 2004-2005, but light material
as Ontario retreated. It is not possible to know from albedo (reflected brightness) alone the composition of
the bright sediments.
1. E.P. Turtle, J.E. Perry, A.G. Hayes, A.S. McEwen, Shoreline Retreat at Titan’s Ontario Lacus and Arrakis Planitia from Cassini
Imaging Science Subsystem Observations (accepted manuscript; final pending),
Icarus, Feb 2011, S0019-1035(11)00054-6, DOI: 10.1016/j.icarus.2011.02.005.
2. Highest resolution was possible at the southern parts of the lake; more uncertainty exists at the northern boundaries.
Radar altimetry suggests that the southwest shore has a gradual slope, while the eastern shore is steep.
The study of Titan is a work in progress, so any conclusions drawn at this time
are subject to revision as more data come in. We can, however, step back and consider what planetary scientists
expected to find and what they have found so far. In the decades after the Voyager visits (1981), when
scientists realized an irreversible erosion of atmospheric methane was precipitating hydrocarbons onto the
surface (especially ethane, which has no way to get back into the atmosphere), scientists expected to find, over
the course of 4.5 billion years, an accumulation of half a kilometer or more of liquid ethane in a global ocean.
That was a clear prediction that has been spectacularly falsified by Cassini observations (see
list of previous articles). In fact, the
Huygens probe was designed to float on that ocean that failed to materialize.
But Is it Evolution?
Instead, we found Titan to have paltry accumulations of liquid in scattered lakes near the poles,
while the equatorial regions are largely covered in icy sand dunes.
Now we are learning that the polar lakes are probably shallow, could have impermeable bottoms, and move around so
rapidly that they dont deposit sediment on the lake floors (or else they deposit bright sediments).
But if the sediments are bright, which would be surprising in itself, is there enough sediment to account for
4.5 billion years of deposition? In addition, Titan, the largest moon with the greatest gravitational attraction,
has few craters (three to five) after all that time.
You have to ask yourself whether it is credible these processes have been going on for billions of years.
Did 4.5 billion years ever exist? Is it a fiction? In order to save the blessed timescale so precious to planetary scientists
(because Darwin depends on it), all kinds of evidence-free theory-rescue devices are being rigged: maybe
the ethane seeped into the interior where no one can find it; maybe the interior has a methane reservoir
that erupts through cryovolcanoes, replenishing the atmosphere; maybe this, maybe that. If scientists
stuck to the observations and drew reasonable conclusions from data alone, they would have to conclude that
there are severe upper limits on how long Titan has been acting this way. Let facts be submitted to a
Next headline on:
Feb 18, 2011 Scientists have been noticing some things that seem contrary to Darwins
predictions but they give Darwin credit anyway.
Gene comparisons underlying tree-of-life stories may have suffered a setback.
Nature News reported that Around a fifth of non-primate genome
databases seem to be contaminated with human DNA sequences, according to a study. The finding represents a
failure of the filter in software that was supposed to weed out contamination. In a few cases,
stretches of more than a thousand human bases were seen in assembled non-primate sequences.
The article did not elaborate on what this means for previously-published phylogenetic studies.
- Not till us: The chambered nautilus is a living fossil, that uses jet propulsion,
Scientist said, with origins way back in the Cambrian. Has its fitness improved over all that time?
Its movement is ungainly and slow, but it has survived virtually unchanged for at least 450 million years,
so it must be doing something right, reporter Michael Marshall remarked. Its relatives the ammonoids
dominated the oceans for millions of years before going extinct along with the dinosaurs 65 million years ago
but the nautilus came through that disaster and is still with us today, despite having
much simpler brains than other cephalopods. They also have weaker eyes and take longer to
mature, and are currently endangered by overfishing. Wouldnt evolution get rid of adaptations that
are inferior? Such jet power is a cumbersome way of getting around the seas, and most modern cephalopods
have largely abandoned it, Marshall explained in a personification of
negative selection. Despite its primitive way of getting around, however, the nautilus is no mental slouch.
- Debunking neo-Darwinist genetics: According to neo-Darwinism, beneficial genetic mutations become
established by selective sweeps in a population. The selective sweep model was introduced in 1974 and has
pretty much been the central model ever since, Molly Przeworski [U of Chicago] said. In an article posted by
PhysOrg. It is fair to say that it is
the model behind almost every scan for selection done to date, in humans or in other organisms.
Unfortunately, the model doesnt fit the DNA. Looking at the human genome in more detail,
the article concluded, The result suggests that classic selective sweeps could not have been the most common cause of
these low diversity troughs, leaving the door open for other modes of evolution. Unfortunately again,
no other mode was provided:
Phenotypic variation in humans isnt as simple as we thought it would be, [Ryan] Hernandez [UC San Francisco] said.
The idea that human adaptation might proceed by single changes at the amino acid level is quite a nice idea, and its great that we
have a few concrete examples of where that occurred, but its too simplistic a view....
Przeworski said... These findings call into question how much more there is to find using the selective sweep approach,
and should also make us skeptical of how many of the findings to date will turn out to be validated.
- Mystery of Mysteries: What was Darwins mystery of mysteries? Believe it or not,
it was the thing his famous book set out to explain. Although Charles Darwin titled his book On the Origin of Species,
speciation was one thing he could not explain, wrote Bob Holmes in
He called it the mystery of mysteries, and even a century-and-a-half later the mechanism by which two groups
of animals become genetically incompatible remains one of the greatest puzzles in biology. That is a surprising statement,
because in popular understanding, it was Darwins mechanism of natural selection that promoted evolution into a scientific
theory over earlier speculations about common ancestry.
Holmes went on to describe suggestions that a speciation gene named Prdm9 might be evolutions
missing X factor to solve the mystery. Its a rapidly evolving gene, he claimed a virtual evolutionary
sprinter on the basis of sequence dissimilarities between humans and chimpanzees. After a convoluted tale about how this
gene blinks on and off, and incompatible mutants make mice sterile, he proposed an intriguing idea that
Variation in this gene could be driving a wedge between different parts of our human population.
But alas, the evidence to date seems not to corroborate it. Evidence, however, should never be allowed to
get in the way of a good story. One expert he quoted said, We can speculate
that this could be some sort of universal reproductive-isolation gene in animals, which would be beautiful,
but, alas again, we shall have to wait, after waiting 150 years already since Darwin, to find out If that turns out to be the case.
- Feathery evolution: Ken Dial, the Montana man who watches the partridge family run up ramps
(12/22/2003), got notoriety again
in National Geographics story on the evolution
of feathers. Writer Carl Zimmer could never quite figure out if feathers arose for sexual display, or for insulation, or for
flight, but they evolved somehow, he is sure. Dinosaurs with imaginary feathers also made the final cut of the Darwinian script.
The origin of this wonderful mechanism is one of evolutions most durable mysteries, Zimmer said.
Whatever happened, or why, there is one natural wonder that just about all of us can see, simply by stepping outside,
he teased: dinosaurs using their feathers to fly. From there he went on to describe the marvelous design
Airplane wings exploit some of the same aerodynamic tricks. But a bird wing is vastly more sophisticated than anything
composed of sheet metal and rivets. From a central feather shaft extends a series of slender barbs, each
sprouting smaller barbules, like branches from a bough, lined with tiny hooks. When these grasp on to the
hooklets of neighboring barbules, they create a structural network thats featherlight but remarkably strong.
When a bird preens its feathers to clean them, the barbs effortlessly separate, then slip back into place.
Most people believe airplane wings came from intelligent design, but all Zimmer could propose for the origin of those vastly more sophisticated
feathers from simple scales were suggestive analogies.
The long, hollow filaments on theropods posed a puzzle, he said of the barbs on some dinosaur skins that lack the complex
interlocking structures of flight feathers. If they were early feathers, how had they evolved from flat scales?
Fortunately, there are theropods with threadlike feathers alive today: baby birds. He then said that reptiles
and birds both have tiny patches in their skins called placodes that produce bristles. Did reptile placodes evolve into
feathers via a simple switch in the wiring of the genetic commands inside placodes? If so,
Once the first filaments had evolved, only minor modifications would have been required to produce increasingly elaborate feathers.
Obviously. Stuff happens all the time in evolution. Voila, said the viola: In other words, feathers were not merely a variation on a theme:
They were using the same genetic instruments to play a whole new kind of music. Unmixing of metaphors is left
as an exercise. Complete that exercise before tackling the more difficult assignment: understanding the evolutionary significance
of another of Zimmers evidence-challenged plot lines: So perhaps the question to ask, say some scientists, is not how birds got their
feathers, but how alligators lost theirs. (Caution: do NOT visualize a magic dragon.)
It would seem that if the ancestor of all these animals already had feathers,
the origin of feathers has just been pushed back into the unknown. Ken Dials partridge family (05/01/2006,
01/25/2008) got the final exit pun, complete
with an apparition of Haeckels friendly ghost: Perhaps, says Dial, the path the chick takes in development retraces the one its lineage
followed in evolutionwinging it, so to speak, until it finally took wing. So to speak.
We could go on and on. This borders on the criminal. Taking data that
falsifies evolution and using it to praise Charlie is like election fraud. Unlike Dawkins, though, we will
not stoop to calling our opponents ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked just deceived. So deceived,
in fact, that they cannot even receive the sight to conceive their own deception. The only remedy for the
self-deceived is truth given with tough love.
Youngs Law confirmed
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
By accident, researchers at UCLA seem to have found a cure for baldness, at least in mice
Now they are seeking funding to study it further. See Youngs Law,
Plant Accelerates 600 G's
Feb 17, 2011 Among the fastest organisms in the world is a plant. The bladderwort Utricularia,
a carnivorous plant that lives in the water, sucks in its prey in a thousandth of a second with an
acceleration 600 times the force of gravity.
Scientist and Science Daily reported
on work by the University of Freiberg, where scientists filmed the action with a high-speed camera because
the motion is too fast to observe with the naked eye.
BBC News included a video
clip showing the action in slow motion. The remarkable door that acts like a
flexible valve operates by glands in the plant that continually pump out water, creating a depression inside the tiny bladder,
the BBC News explained. When a passing creature stimulates microscopic, super-sensitive hairs, this trapdoor buckles inward and opens,
allowing the bladderwort to suck in water and any unsuspecting creature it contains. Science Daily said there
are four trigger hairs. The resulting response ranks among the fastest plant movements known so far.
The BBC explained the scientists reaction to this phenomenon: The plants tiny suction trap was
much faster and more efficient than the scientists had predicted. Dr. Philippe Marmottant exclaimed,
The same trap can fire hundreds of times. It is an amazing piece of mechanics.
Science Daily explained, Prey animals are sucked in with an acceleration of up to 600 times that of gravity, leaving them no chance to escape.
The door deformation involves a complete inversion of curvature which runs in several distinguishable intermediate steps.
Marmottant and the other
researchers would like to reverse-engineer this marvel: the plant could provide a template to design miniature medical devices,
such as a lab-on-a-chip, which samples tiny amounts of blood that could be used in diagnostic tests.
None of the articles speculated on how this high-speed trap mechanism might have evolved, but Science Daily mentioned,
These so-called bladders have fascinated scientists since Darwins early works on carnivorous plants.
It also shielded the question of origin of the bladderworts amazing design with the indirect, passive-voice statement, This ultra-fast,
complex and at the same time precise and highly repetitive movement is enabled by certain functional-morphological adaptations.
The wonders of nature should inspire design and lead to appreciation of design
not to storytelling about how stuff happens by mistake (01/26/2011). Logic quiz:
what do you get when you add mistakes to mistakes, or multiply mistakes by mistakes? Mistakes. What do you
get when you add or multiply mistakes to design? Broken designs. Where, then, do good designs come from?
Design that minimizes mistakes i.e., intelligent design.
Evolutionists hunger and thirst for righteousness at the empty market of natural selection
(02/09/2009), and leave empty-handed.
Next headline on:
New Ediacaran Fossils: Do They Ignite the Cambrian Explosion?
Feb 17, 2011 Well-preserved fossils of seaweed-like colonies have been reported from China.
They are dated by the scientists at 600 million years old, from the Ediacaran period.
Can these be missing links, lighting the fuse of biodiversity that culminated in the Cambrian explosion?
summarized the findings published in Nature.1
In addition to perhaps ancient versions of algae and worms, the Lantian biota named for its location
included macrofossils with complex and puzzling structures, the article said. In all, scientists
identified about 15 different species at the site. Pictures of the seaweed-like fossils show fronds
with a distinctive holdfast, like modern seaweed use to cling to the seafloor.
The paper in Nature shows pictures of frond-like and tube-like organisms with uncertain phylogenetic
affinities, but no clear Cambrian-like body plans. A couple of them, Guy Narbonne speculated in the same issue of
are probable ancestors of radial and bilaterian animals. The discoverers mentioned a hopeful case:
The axial structure in Types D and E is puzzling and it could represent the digestive structure of worm-like animals,
they hinted; In an animal model, the holdfast and stalk of Type D would be alternatively interpreted as the proboscis of
an early worm-like organism. The photos are not compelling.
Both papers spent much of their space discussing
what effects varying levels of oxygen in the oceans might have had on the evolution of life. For instance,
To reconcile the conflicting geochemical and palaeontological indicators of palaeoredox conditions, we
propose that the Lantian basin was largely anoxic but punctuated by brief oxic episodes, the original
paper said, harking back to the jargon of punctuated equilibrium, if that somehow helps evolution.
These oxic episodes were opportunistically capitalized on by benthic macroeukaryotes
that were subsequently killed and preserved by frequent switch-backs to anoxic conditions.
Evolution did not seem to be going in any particular direction toward complex animal life.
The paper claims the Lantian biota is probably older than and taxonomically distinct from the Avalon biota,
the previous record setter for earliest-known fossil assemblage with macroscopic and morphologically complex life forms
at 579-560 million years old. That suggestion, however, does not create any evolutionary linkage between the two independent
groups. Even so, neither fossil beds show any of the complex organs seen in Cambrian phyla.
The paper calls them multicellular eukaryotes. The focus of the research was not so much on evolution upward and onward from these seaweed-like
impressions, but suggests that morphological diversification of macroscopic eukaryotes may have occurred
in the early Ediacaran Period, perhaps shortly after the Marinoan glaciation, and that the redox history of Ediacaran oceans was more complex
than previously thought.
1. Yuan et al, An early Ediacaran assemblage of macroscopic and morphologically differentiated eukaryotes,
Nature 470 (17 February 2011),
pp. 390–393, doi:10.1038/nature09810.
2. Guy Narbonne, Evolutionary biology: When life got big,
Nature 470 (17 February 2011),
pp. 339–340, doi:10.1038/470339a.
Even with the most generous concessions to Mr. Darwin, these fossils do
not help explain the Cambrian Explosion. They are simple frond-like colonies of eukaryotic algae,
with no clear differentiation or body plans typical of Cambrian animals. No amount of acquiescence to
the evolution-incestuous dating methods can link these imprints with trilobites and vertebrates by an
Anthropology: a Science in Crisis
Thats why they changed the subject to talking about rising and falling
oxygen levels in the oceans. Its a distraction and a
red herring, intended to give a false impression that they are making
some kind of progress solving this super-falsification of evolutionary predictions
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Feb 16, 2011 Students memorize the different -ologies of science geology, biology,
paleontology and others often without knowing the history of the fields. An impression
is sometimes given that each branch of science has equal validity. Some recent articles
indicate that anthropology (the study of man) is struggling with internal squabbles and
Anthropology includes a number of subfields, such as paleoanthropology
(fossil man), cultural anthropology, biological anthropology, linguistic anthropology, and
archaeology, but it also overlaps with psychology, sociology, evolution, political science,
economics, history, and more making it distinct by having roots in science and the humanities.
Perhaps that is a source of its struggles. By including too much in its big tent, with varying
degrees of epistemic support among its sub-branches, anthropology has always been poised for
Man is undoubtedly a dauntingly complex subject of study. To be sure, it is not easy to make general statements about human nature,
or even to define it, Kuper and Marks said, especially when human biology has been co-evolving with technology for millions
of years. The most fundamentally hard-wired human adaptations walking and talking are actively learned
by every person, in each generation, they noticed. So whatever human nature may be, it clearly takes a variety of
local forms, and is in constant flux. Maybe anthropologists should study fluid dynamics or chaos theory if they want to be scientists.
- Inside out: Too simple and not so fast were complaints made
about alleged human ancestor fossils by biological anthropologists from George Washington University
and New York University. According to PhysOrg,
the anthropologists question the claims that several prominent fossil discoveries made in the last decade
are our human ancestors. Instead, the authors offer a more nuanced explanation of the fossils place in the
Tree of Life. They conclude that instead of being our ancestors the fossils more likely belong to extinct distant cousins.
Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison chided fellow paleoanthropologists for their jumping to conclusions:
to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is naďve.
Their article is published in this weeks Nature.1 It should be kept in mind
when evaluating the latest claim about human ancestry, such as the claim that a foot bone puts Prehuman Lucy on a Walking Path
to humanity (e.g., Live Science), or that
Lucy, a human ancestor, was no swinger but walked like us
Geographic News). Even in the most favorable possible light (e.g., that Lucy did walk upright), Bernard Wood says it is naďve
to jump to conclusions that Australopithecus afarensis had anything to with human ancestry an assertion the
media invariably make (cf. 06/22/2010).
- Upside down: Science Dailys
coverage of the Nature article included a picture of an orangutan as an instance of false identification of
human ancestry. Ramapithecus, a species of fossil ape from south Asia, was mistakenly assumed to be an
early human ancestor in the 1960s and 1970s, but later found to be a close relative of the orangutan.
A mistake like that could certainly not be made today... could it?
The debunkers do not question human evolution itself,
but their own more nuanced explanation requires believing that sister groups acquired human-like characteristics in parallel.
The authors suggest there are a number of potential interpretations of these fossils and that being a human
ancestor is by no means the simplest, or most parsimonious explanation. That would seem to leave a lot of
room for speculation, to say nothing of upsetting textbook explanations that have been like gospel truth for decades.
- In their own blurs: The paper in Nature1 behind the above two entries contains a strange mix of
confidence in human evolution with diffidence about the details:
The relationships among the living apes and modern humans have effectively been resolved, but it is much
more difficult to locate fossil apes on the tree of life because shared skeletal morphology does not always mean shared
recent evolutionary history. Sorting fossil taxa into those that belong on the branch of the tree of life that leads to
modern humans from those that belong on other closely related branches is a considerable challenge.
A gaping question, though, is how, if the fossils cannot easily be sorted into a tree-like pattern, that one could
know that a tree of life exists, without assuming it. Subtitles in the paper indicative of trouble include Shared morphology need not mean shared history,
Simplicity or complexity in phylogeny, Scale in phylogeny reconstruction, Cautionary tales from South Asia and Tuscany,
and Implications for palaeoanthropology.
Moreover, in the conclusion, they stated, There is no reason why higher
primate evolution in Africa in the past ten million years should not mirror the complexity observed in the evolutionary histories
of other mammals during the same time period, thus casting the same doubts on other evolutionary stories as well.
- The Geico fallacy: Another PhysOrg
had a paradigm-debunking headline, Earliest humans not so different from us, research suggests.
The subtitle reads, That human evolution follows a progressive trajectory is one of the most deeply-entrenched assumptions about our species.
This assumption is often expressed in popular media by showing cavemen speaking in grunts and monosyllables (the GEICO Cavemen
being a notable exception). But is this assumption correct? Were the earliest humans significantly different from us?
The rhetorical answer is: negative.
Indeed, John Shea of Stony Brook University says his colleagues have all been wrong
about the measurement of behavioral modernity, the assumed identifier of when Homo sapiens emerged
from animal to thinking man. There are no such things as modern humans, Shea argues, just Homo sapiens
populations with a wide range of behavioral variability, the article ended, casting doubt on the epistemic foundations
of human evolution theories. Whether this range is significantly different from that of earlier and other hominin species
remains to be discovered.
- Demotion from science: In a kind of manifesto, Anthropologists, unite!, an appeal went out from
Adam Kuper and Jonathan Marks to rescue anthropology as a science in last weeks Nature.2
They were responding to a change of mission announced in December:
In December 2010, The New York Times reported that the term science had been dropped in a new long-range plan of
the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Where once the association had dedicated itself to advance anthropology
as the science that studies humankind in all its aspects, it now promised rather to advance public understanding of humankind in all its aspects.
Clearly, Kuper and Marks did not like this development. Anthropology isnt in the crisis that parts of the media
would have you believe, Nature assured readers in damage control mode, but it must do better.
One internal memo stated, we evolutionary anthropologists are outnumbered by the new cultural or social anthropologists,
many but not all of whom are postmodern, which seems to translate into antiscience. So it appears the
evolutionary anthropologists are the most concerned about appearing to be scientific. Within the ranks, some are asking all over:
What is anthropology? The authors observe that anthropology is a nineteenth-century discipline that
fragmented, spawning a variety of specializations with relationships [that] are often distant.
The evolutionary anthropologists are miffed at their postmodern cousins: Some do seem to feel that if only they could spare the time
they would be able to knock some evolutionist sense into cultural anthropology, Kuper and Marks complained, But they are too busy.
Busy doing what might be a good follow-up question: busy doing science? The authors roster of embarrassing studies, from
Margaret Meads Coming of Age in Samoa (1928) to later questionable depictions of the Yanomami as sex tyrants, and ostensibly
racist theories about intelligence, have marred the field. Recent interdisciplinary efforts, they said, have left anthropologists in a
sadder but wiser default position, in a head-down posture, afraid to embarrass the field further. Human evolution suffers the most:
Only a handful still try to understand the origins and possible connections between biological, social and cultural forms,
or to debate the relative significance of history and microevolution in specific, well-documented instances.
1. Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison, The evolutionary context of the first hominins,
470 ( 17 February 2011), pp. 347–352, doi:10.1038/nature09709.
2. Adam Kuper and Jonathan Marks, Anthropologists, unite!,
470 (10 February 2011), pp. 166–168, doi:10.1038/470166a.
Kuper and Marks made some pretty damaging admissions in their piece that was intended to shore up the scientific status
of anthropology. They thought that interdisciplinary programs might help; but can shared ignorance rise above
ignorance? Look at what they admit:
Critical Thinking Needed in Science Education
The obvious conclusion is that interdisciplinary research is imperative. Yet too few biological anthropologists
attend to social or cultural or historical factors. A minority of cultural anthropologists and archaeologists
do apply evolutionary theory, or cognitive science, or adopt an ecological perspective on cultural variation,
or play about with the theory of games, but they feel that they are isolated, even marginalized. And they do not
feature in the front line of current debates about cognition, altruism or, for that matter, economic behaviour or
environmental degradation, even though these debates typically proceed on the basis of very limited reliable information
about human variation.
So where is the science in anthropology? Is there anything in the above articles that points to something objective,
true, and credible? No; it is a hodgepodge of debunked ideas, ignorance masquerading as explanation,
embarrassing episodes, and complex questions evading simplistic answers. It is clearly a fallible human activity prone
to category errors and misplaced priorities.
If anthropologists were consistent, they should study themselves as a cultural tribe in evolutionary terms.
That would lead to a quick implosion of any pretences to being objective scientists on some
higher plane than the rest of us. To gain credibility, they should ditch evolution, which tries to explain walking and language
emerging by mistake (01/26/2011), and study the
Anthropology chapter in a good text on systematic theology, as long as it
is consistent with the Operations Manual that came from the Manufacturer.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Mind and Brain
Philosophy of Science
Feb 15, 2011 Several recent articles noted that students are being dumbed down in science
education. Can this be applied to their learning about evolution?
PhysOrg reported that
critical thinking has been called into question at the university level of education.
A post-secondary education wont necessarily guarantee students the critical thinking skills
employers have come to expect from university grads, the article said of a recent study from
New York University. Other academics were surprised at the findings; they said students are
motivated and curious as ever, spending a great deal of time on their studies. But Richard Arum
was not speaking of time spent or motivation, but of critical thinking ability. His book
revealed 45 per cent of students made no significant improvement in critical thinking, reasoning or
writing skills during the first two years, and 36 per cent showed no improvement after four years of schooling.
Science educators sometimes conflate knowledge with acceptance.
Jon Miller, from the University of Michigan, has tracked scientific literacy from 1998 to 2008, and found that it
has actually improved, according to PhysOrg.
Only 37 percent of American adults accepted the concept of biological evolution in 2008, the article
noted, and the level of acceptance has declined over the last twenty years. It would seem,
though, that understanding of evolution should be distinguished from acceptance of evolution
if critical-thinking students are able to judge the evidence and accept or deny the theory on the
basis of sound reasoning. According to his statistics, scientific literacy has grown while
acceptance of evolution has declined.
If applied uniformly, critical thinking should include evaluating claims of religion and science.
Religion is already routinely criticized, of course, but two recent articles on philosophy and history of science
show how it might be applied to the latter.
Scientist posted a short eyebrow-raising article by Jonathon Keats about how a group of four Victorian Englishmen,
John Herschel, Charles Babbage, William
Whewell and Richard Jones invented modern science over eggs and bacon (and ale).
Meeting at the Philosophical Breakfast Club, they reasoned how to take Sir Francis Bacons
ideas on induction to create a new path to natural knowledge. While admiring their boundless curiosity,
Keats recognized that their vision was visionary: they envisioned a future for science as visionary and elusive as Utopia.
Whats more, their efforts led to a Big Science that became increasingly divorced from the humanities, he argued.
Ken Conner, writing for Town Hall
Magazine applied even more critical thinking to science. The paradigm of the brave scientist as unbiased seeker of the truth,
using an objective method, with unimpeachable motives, personal integrity, and the best interests of mankind at heart,
is beginning to crumble, he said. As it turns out, scientists are just as fallible and flawed as the
rest of humanity, and this fallibility impacts their work. Conner argued against the
false dichotomy of science and faith, pointing out with examples that one needs
faith to do science. After centuries of hegemony in an increasingly secular world, it is ironic that faith
faith in the right thing may be the only thing that can restore credibility to the world of science.
Case Study: Having a BLAST
An educational tool proposed in PLoS Biology can be evaluated for its effectiveness at
teaching critical thinking. Cheryl A. Kerfeld (Joint Genome Institute, Walnut Creek, California) and Kathleen M. Scott
(UC Berkeley) wrote on how to use software to teach evolution: Using BLAST to Teach E-value-tionary Concepts,
they titled their paper.1 BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) is a common genome-comparison tool
used by geneticists and evolutionists. Kerfeld and Scott described ways students can learn evolutionary concepts,
such as molecular evolution (e.g., gene duplication and divergence; orthologs versus paralogs) using the software.
As for what E-value-tionary concepts are, BLAST makes use of E-values, defined as the number of subject sequences
that can be expected to be retrieved from the database that have a bit score equal to or greater than the one calculated from the
alignment of the query and subject sequence, based on chance alone. E-values calculated from program runs can help students
see homologies as evidence of common ancestry, they argued. In addition, BLAST has a pedagogical benefit, they argued, by providing
an opportunity to illustrate how mathematics functions as a language of biology.
But does their teaching tool illustrate or obfuscate? Does their method teach students to be critical
of the method? Apparently not, because when E-values show common ancestry, the authors assume it supports evolution,
but when they do not, critical thinking must be suspended by tweaking the inputs:
Sometimes it is helpful to mask parts of the query sequence to prevent them from being aligned with subject sequences.
Masking is helpful when the query sequence has low-complexity regions, such as stretches of small hydrophobic amino acids that
are commonly present in transmembrane helices of integral membrane proteins. Because these features arose from convergent evolution, and their
inclusion in BLAST searches could result in spurious hits, it is best to set the BLAST search parameters to eliminate these sorts of regions from
word generation, as well as alignment scoring.
So in this case, because the authors somehow know that certain features are due to convergent evolution, the data
have to be masked when they would otherwise falsify evolution. Evolution itself is protected from critical analysis; it must
be assumed. E-values that seem to indicate divergent evolution, by contrast, are not masked; they are accepted at face value
A meaningful alignment will facilitate the comparison of two sequences with a shared evolutionary history by
maximizing the juxtaposition of similar and identical residues. Sequences with a recent shared ancestry will have a
high degree of similarity; their alignments will have many identical residues, few substitutions and gaps, and tiny E-values.
Conversely, sequences with an ancient common ancestor will be deeply divergent, with few shared sequence identities,
many gaps, and larger E-values. Furthermore, an alignment of two sequences can clarify which portions are conserved
(e.g., active sites), and which are divergent, which helps cultivate students understanding of protein structure and function.
They seem to be saying is that sequence comparisons demonstrate common ancestry by evolution, except when they show convergent
evolution or conservation. The search for homologies can therefore whiz right past the genetic evidence that might falsify
These scientist-educators seemed oblivious to the fact that homology as evidence for common ancestry is a
circular argument. Even creationists accept a hierarchical order of their created kinds, and would expect more divergent
traits the more two organisms are distant within the hierarchy, without assuming those differences are due to common ancestry.
Yet Kerfeld and Scott seemed to insist that students be guided against falsifying evolution in the data:
Students (and researchers as well) tend to draw an arbitrary line below which they consider E-values to provide convincing evidence
that two sequences are homologs (e.g., E<0.00001). It is informative to scrutinize this assumption, and ask the students
to consider whether and when more stringent E-values might be appropriate (e.g., to assist in sorting paralogs from orthologs), or
when larger E-values do not provide definitive evidence of evolutionary independence (as is the case when two sequences share an ancient ancestor).
While the authors appear in this quote to support critical thinking, they have constructed their teaching method to guarantee that evolutionary
theory itself is protected from criticism. Basically, they want students to have a more nuanced way of manipulating the data
to ensure evolution wins. Their concluding paragraph raises disturbing questions about the power of mathematics to give the
illusion of credibility (see statistics):
It is also informative for the students to discuss what their alignments mean, and whether the pairwise alignments
between their query sequence and the subject sequences prove whether the sequences are homologs. Indeed, it can catalyze a
larger discussion of whether it is possible to prove that two sequences are homologs, and what other approaches
(e.g., protein structure, gene context) might be used to strengthen or refute such an assertion.
In summary, deconstructing the BLAST algorithm and manipulating parameters systematically and evaluating the results
with students helps them understand not only what the scores mean but also how to manipulate parameters to optimize their searches....
Finally, explicating the algorithm in this way allows students to explore research databases thoughtfully and illustrates
the critical connection between mathematics and science, showing how numbers can be used to quantify biological relationships
from the level of gene to organism....
Dr. Cornelius Hunter, by contrast, had a good laugh over what he perceived as simplistic homology arguments being used to support evolutionary
theory at another educational website, Understanding Evolution
(produced by UC Berkeley, the same institution where Scott teaches). This Just In: Plants Have LeavesEvolution
Must Be True. his headline quipped. As if evolution was not silly enough already evolutionists are now claiming that the fact that
different plants all have leaves is a compelling evidence for their belief that all of nature just happened to spontaneously arise, all by itself,
he said. I occasionally enjoy a good spoof, but this is no joke. Readers can compare Hunters view with
that of the Understanding Evolution website.
Students wanting a course on evolution that will teach both sides might look at summer seminars on intelligent design
presented by the Discovery Institute.
1. Cheryl A. Kerfeld and Kathleen M. Scott, Using BLAST to Teach E-value-tionary Concepts,
9(2): e1001014. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001014.
Kerfeld and Scott provide another example of manipulating students impressionable heads with
the illusion of scientific credibility in order to indoctrinate them into the cult of Charlie worship (cf. David Sloan Wilsons
Evolution for Everyone curriculum, 12/21/2005). Evolution itself is
never to be questioned; the objectivity of science itself is never under scrutiny. This entry provides an opportunity
for you to hear several points of view and evaluate which are credible with the fewest fallacies.
In the 02/11/2008 Darwin Day entry, we
critically examined Kevin Padians 10 reasons why Darwin, but not Newton or Einstein,
should be honored with a special celebration each year.
Exercise: Apply your critical thinking skills to the following evolution articles:
Next headline on:
Philosophy of Science
Darwin and Evolution
- Science Daily: New Research Changes Understanding of C4 Plant Evolution.
- Science Daily: Molecular Link Between Reproduction in Yeast and Humans.
- Science Daily: New View of Human Evolution? 3.2 Million-Year-Old Fossil Foot Bone Supports Humanlike Bipedalism in Lucys Species.
- Live Science: How Dinosaurs Handed Down Their Fingers to Birds.
Bubble Life Could Have Had Armor
Feb 14, 2011 A headline posted by Science
Daily is self-explanatory: Clay-Armored Bubbles May Have Formed First Protocells: Minerals Could Have Played a
Key Role in the Origins of Life. The operative words are may have and could have, which,
being mere suggestions, are unfalsifiable. If it didnt happen here, it may have or could have
happened on the planet Zorx in Sector 1906523-A.
The claybubble theory of life is a new twist on Jack Szostaks old fatbubble theory (see
(09/03/2004). That story also had plenty of mays and coulds.
This version by Howard Stone and Anand Bala Subramaniam (Harvard) imagines air bubbles armored with montmorillonite, a clay mineral.
The advantage of claybubbles is one-way osmosis, allowing small building block molecules to get in, but keeping the complex molecules
evolving inside protected, assuming they could self-organize into life somehow (10/08/2010).
If there is a benefit to being
protected in a clay vesicle, this is a natural way to favor and select for molecules that can self-organize,
Stone said. He did not explore whether selection can operate without accurate replication (see online book).
He also did not speculate on how the building blocks became one-handed (see online book and 01/10/2011), or
what might happen if a deadly toxin happened to grab the one-way key to the interior.
Grad student Subramaniam hedged his bets with a few more could words: Whether clay vesicles could have
played a significant role in the origins of life is of course unknown, but the fact that they are so robust, along with the
well-known catalytic properties of clay, suggests that they may have had some part to play. It does
not appear either of them speculated on whether sand grains, soap bubbles, or lava might also qualify for the suggestion that they
may have had some part to play.
Remember, these guys get paid for this. Lets sing verse 2 of the chorus
introduced back in 09/03/2004 (read that whole commentary again, too):
Tipping Point for Embryonic Stem Cells?
Surrounding them with armor of clayNext headline on:
Origin of Life
Gets building blocks in trouble;
Theyre stuck inside forever to stay,
Flop goes the bubble.
Feb 13, 2011 At any time, courts could rule on whether funding of embryonic stem cell research can continue or must be halted.
Whichever way a decision is rendered, whether by Judge Lamberth on the legality of the NIH guidelines, or by the
Court of Appeals for DC, the issue will probably wind up before the Supreme Court. Passions run high on both
sides. A crusader for adult stem cells, profiled in Nature this past week,1
was surprised by how many scientists support her antagonism to the use of human embryos for research. More
on that later; first, some news highlights:
- Cooling the flame: Science Daily
told how adult stem cell therapy can reduce inflammatory damage from stroke. We are seeing a paradigm shift in the way some
types of stem cells may enhance recovery from stroke, an excited researcher at the University of Texas said. The adult stem
cell therapy appears to dampen inflammation involving the spleen. This new treatment holds promise to improve clinical care,
reduce long-term health care costs, and improve the quality of life for millions of people.
- iPS momentum: PhysOrg reported
that researchers at Harvard and Columbia have demonstrated that many iPS cells are the equal of hESCs in
creating human motor neurons, the cells destroyed in a number of neurological diseases, including Parkinsons.
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS) are a form of adult stem cell that does not involve the destruction of embryos (11/20/2007),
as in human embryonic stem cells (hESC). The article says that iPS cells meet the gold standard
of pluripotency. In addition, new methods are speeding the tests for pluripotency of iPS cells.
- Hearty iPS: Another story on PhysOrg
highlighted research at Stanford that shows iPS cells can generate beating heart cells that carry a genetic defect under study,
allowing for the first time to examine and characterize the disorder at the cellular level.
- ESC economics: PhysOrg
also discussed the current disarray of patent laws surrounding stem cell lines, data, and treatments.
Some scientists warn of a potential stifling effect of widespread patenting in stem cell field.
Bioethicist Debra Matthews (Johns Hopkins) said, Pervasive taking of intellectual property rights has resulted in a
complex and confusing patchwork of ownership and control in the field of stem cell science.
Although the article was unclear whether the dispute includes adult stem cell research, it mentioned one recommendation
being a centralized portal for access to existing databases, such as the UK Stem Cell Bank and the Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry.
- Mixed bag: Another article on PhysOrg
discussed the new Massachusetts Medical School Human Stem Cell Bank, which opened with seven high-quality stem cell lines (5 embryonic,
2 iPS, with more to follow), and how they are being preserved in liquid nitrogen and made available to researchers around the world.
The article mixed these two sources of stem cells with no mention of ethics: e.g., The Registry includes information on the derivation,
availability and characteristics for more than 1,200 hESC and iPS cell lines developed in over 22 different countries, including more than 200
cell lines with genetic disorders.
- Sex cells: Parthenogenetic stem cells are taken from reproductive cells (03/12/2005).
Lacking the full complement of chromosome pairs, they might contain a good or bad copy of a gene implicated in a disease like tuberous sclerosis or Huntington's disease.
Science Daily discussed how work at
Nationwide Childrens Hospital is constructing good embryonic stem cells from parthenogenetic cells.
These single-parent/patient-derived embryonic stem cells can theoretically be used for correction of a diverse number of
diseases that occur when one copy of the gene is abnormal, a research at the hospital said.
With the decision by Judge Lamberth last September prohibiting federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
(09/03/2010) still under an injunction (09/26/2010),
researchers and bioethicists are waiting to see what the next court ruling will bring. Nature published the
story of The Crusader, Theresa Deisher, one of the two remaining plaintiffs who won in the September case.1
Reporter Meredith Wadman presented Deisher in a fairly positive light as an intelligent, confident, persistent, self-sacrificing, hard-working
PhD in cell biology, respected by her enemies, a Roman Catholic who once shunned religion for science but regained her faith when realizing
that fetuses were not just clumps of cells, but human beings (cf. 11/07/2002).
Deishers politics in college were very left-wing, after she ditched her mothers religious faith.
I was in science, and science was much more interesting than religion, she said. I encouraged a couple of friends
to have abortions. Her return to faith came by degrees: first, the sight of an adult cadaver preserved in formalin made her
realize that a fetus preserved in a jar only looks alien because of the preservation method. Second, she encountered
first-hand the passions of those bent on researching human embryos; And the vehemence with which colleagues resisted made me open my eyes,
Deisher says, to the very real and, she says, unscientific passions that can infect defenders of scientific orthodoxy,
Wadman wrote. Science, she reasoned, was not so objective after all. Third, Deishers growing antipathy
to embryonic stem cell research got an emotional kick when speaking to Republican state lawmakers in Washington state in 2007.
One of the other speakers was a mother who had adopted a frozen embryo from a fertility clinic, Wadman continued.
The resulting child, a girl then four years old, stood beside her.
Deisher sold her house and used her retirement savings to start an institute for the advancement of adult stem cell
therapies. She is not, thereby, antagonizing scientists by opposing them through the political process; when asked, she reluctantly
signed on as a plaintiff in the lawsuit that resulted in Lamberths ruling: It is frightening to speak out, she said;
I dont care for the notoriety. Instead, her AVM Biotechnology company seeks to provide positive alternatives:
The companys mission, in part, is to eliminate the need for embryonic-stem-cell therapies and enable adult-stem-cell companies
to succeed by developing, for instance, drugs that promote stem-cell retention in target organs, It is also working on alternatives
to vaccines currently produced using cell lines derived from fetuses that had been aborted decades ago.
Unlike the institutes in California that have $3 billion in taxpayer-approved bonds at their disposal, Deisher runs her company
in a dormitory with five unpaid staff.
A lot rides on the courts next move. If the court agrees with Deisher, Wadman ended,
it will shut down hundreds of human-embryonic-stem-cell experiments once more possibly for good.
One of the most interesting things Deisher learned from the lawsuit indeed, the biggest lesson, Wadman
called it was, in Deishers words, how many scientists are against [human-embryonic-stem-cell research].
I did not know that. I did not expect the level of support and encouragement that I have received.
1. Meredith Wadman, The Crusader, Nature
470, 156-159 (Feb 9, 2011) | doi:10.1038/470156a.
That Nature would print this story about Deisher is an encouraging sign that the
momentum may be turning away from embryonic stem cell research. Nature used to wield its editorial pen against
the opponents the way it does against creationists, calling them ignorant moralists standing in the way of progress
Dr. Tracy Deisher certainly does not fit that description, nor does Dr. James Sherley, an adult stem cell researcher at Boston
Biomedical Research Institute, the other remaining plaintiff in the lawsuit. For sure, Wadman snuck in enough jibes about Deisher
to titillate Natures leftist readers (calling her a bundle of contradictions, pointing out that she never applied for a
NIH grant, pointing out that she studies the pernicious and disproven hypothesis that autism might be triggered by
vaccines, quoting people who call her polarizing, remarking in a callout box that shes kind of the Sarah Palin of stem cells,),
but she gave Deisher a lot of room to respond, too.
Chernobyl Mutation Experiment Fails to Support Darwinism
What was not said may be more telling. Wadman did not point out any benefits of embryonic stem cells
over adult stem cells. She did not quote any leading ES researchers making a good case for cutting up embryos.
And she did not even attempt to defend ES research on ethical grounds. Instead, she gave Deisher space to make two
striking blows: (1) that many scientists are opposed to human embryonic stem cell research, and (2) that hESC researchers
are not driven primarily by concern for the sick. Researchers prefer to work on ES cells because they are convenient,
Deisher argued; their science is not about helping patients and its not about advancing the common good.
Instead, she argued, There is no commercial, clinical or research utility in working with human embryonic stem cells.
That anecdote about the four-year-old girl born from a frozen embryo added emotional clout. Here was a darling human being
obviously a great deal more than a clump of cells.
These are signs that embryonic stem cell research is losing its hype-driven public mandate (cf. 01/02/2011).
After all the promises, it has produced no cures (while adult stem cell research is on a roll; see 11/18/2010
starting from initial promise in 01/24/2002).
It is superfluous, now that iPS technology is its equal, without the ethical qualms. Its credibility has been marred by
fraud (12/16/2005), while others worry about future abuses (10/21/2004;
cf. 04/22/2004 and 07/30/2001 on eugenics).
Opponents within the scientific community are becoming more bold. And it is hanging by a thread, waiting for the next court ruling that might end its federal funding
for good (double entendre intentional). But why should it get federal funding in the first place? If the promises
were credible, commercial and charitable support would be overwhelming. That ES researchers have to lean on the government
dole is a sign it is not commercially viable.
Is this subject relevant for Creation-Evolution Headlines? Maybe not directly, but ones view of the origin
of life and humanity has direct bearing on ethics. The stem cell controversy of the past decade has been a direct
outgrowth of competing views on the significance of human life. If an embryo is just a clump of cells,
then playing with those clumps because of their convenience or the temptation of a Nobel prize has no ethical consequences.
But if human life was created by God, it never loses its sanctity from conception to burial. It will affect how we
view a fetus in a jar, a plasticized body in an exhibit, an Alzheimers patient in a nursing home, a woman considering
an abortion, the direction of scientific research. Its where the rubber of worldview meets the road of scientific practice.
Next headline on:
Politics and Ethics
Feb 12, 2011 Bird brains are getting smaller in the region around Chernobyl.
Organisms in the vicinity of the radiation from the nuclear disaster 25 years ago have not improved,
but suffered under the onslaught of mutations. There is no evidence of any population increasing
in fitness in any way; on the contrary, animals are struggling to survive. Yet according to
neo-Darwinism, mutational change is the seedbed of evolutionary gains in fitness.
Timothy Mousseau was a co-author of a paper in PLoS ONE studying bird populations
in the affected area.1 They studied 550 birds belonging to 48 species
and found an overall 5% decrease in brain size, especially among yearlings: Brain size was significantly
smaller in yearlings than in older individuals, implying directional selection against small brain size.
This means that the radiation was a drag, not a help, on the fitness of these birds: their bodies want to make
the brains larger, but they cant: the directional selection is contrary to the mutational load. Mousseau explained
in a press release on PhysOrg,
These findings point to broad-scale neurological effects of chronic exposure to low-dose radiation.
The fact that we see this pattern for a large portion of the bird community suggests a general phenomenon that
may have significant long-term repercussions.
The radiation affects other organisms, too: The study revealed that insect diversity and mammals
were declining in the exclusion zone surrounding the nuclear power plant. The birds provide
a test case of population response to a mutagen. Although the brains were the organs measured, the whole body
suffers: Stressed birds often adapt by changing the size of some of their
organs to survive difficult environment conditions, the article said. The brain is the
last organ to be sacrificed this way, meaning the radiation could be having worse impacts on other organs of the birds.
But isnt this a case of adaptation, then? Neo-Darwinists should not take comfort in the findings:
Mousseau said not only are their brains smaller, but it seems they are not as capable at dealing with their
environment as evidenced by their lower rates of survival.
1. Moller, Bonisol-Alquati, Rudolfsen and Mousseau, Chernobyl Birds Have Smaller Brains,
Public Library of Science ONE
6(2): e16862. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016862.
Oh, the Darwinist says, but you must give it millions of years.
Dont fall for that. Evolution runs both fast and slow, dont they tell us? (01/15/2002,
If Charlies mutation magic can turn a cow into a whale in six million years, it could surely produce a
measurably fitter bird brain in 25 years. Lets expand the population and ask how many human CAT-scan patients
have gotten smarter and produced genius kids. How many dental patients have grown new improved teeth or new organs after
X-rays? Tumors, maybe, but not some new sense organ or function.
If Darwins tree of life was toppled 4 years ago, why are evolutionists still teaching it?
Time to re-read the 02/01/2007 entry to them.
The Chernobyl bird populations have been under a steady dose
of radiation for decades now, giving ample opportunity for mutations to help at least one chick get a lucky break.
Evolution fails another real-world test. Dont go to Chernobyl hoping to get fit. Under mutational
load (12/14/2006, 04/09/2007), you dont get
a choice of Evolve or Perish; just the latter.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
This Is Your Brain on Bytes
Feb 11, 2011 Its mind-boggling time. Some recent articles have tried to quantify
the information capacity of the eye, the brain, and the world. Ready? Think hard.
You may now put an ice pack on your head and reboot.
- Eye boggle: Your eyes contain about 120 million rods and 6 million cones each. If each
receptor represents a pixel, that is 2 x 126 million pixels, or 252 megapixels. And remember these
are moving pictures, not stills (talk about high-def). How can the brain transmit and process that much
visual information? The answer is, apparently, it uses compression just like computers compress
raw camera photos into more manageable JPEG images. Thats the title of an article on
JPEG for the Mind: How the Brain Compresses Visual Information.
The article begins,
The brain does not have the transmission or memory capacity to deal with a lifetime of megapixel images.
Instead, the brain must select out only the most vital information for understanding the visual world.
Researchers at Johns Hopkins found that certain cells in the image transmission pathway apparently focus
on highly curved edges that are the most informative, dropping flat edges resulting in an 8-fold
compression ratio comparable to the JPEG algorithm. Eyesight compression, though, is done in-line, in real time,
during the image transmission process (see also the 05/22/2003 entry). Geeks will enjoy the punch line:
Computers can beat us at math and chess, said [Ed] Connor [Johns Hopkins], but they cant
match our ability to distinguish, recognize, understand, remember, and manipulate the objects that make up our world.
This core human ability depends in part on condensing visual information to a tractable level.
For now, at least, the .brain format seems to be the best compression algorithm around.
- Cerebellum boggle: Your cerebellum (a portion of the brain near the brain stem) is important for
motor functions, emotions and language. Live
Science claims that wiring in the cerebellum starts with surprisingly bad wiring, because axons seeking
connections to granule cells of the cerebellum sometimes link up incorrectly to Purkinje cells. But bad wiring
may be in the eye of the beholder, because an international team found that a substance known as bone morphogenetic protein 4,
which plays a role in bone development, helped correct these errors.
One of the researchers publishing in
PLoS Biology explained,1 What we demonstrate here is that you have a negative system that repels axons from
an inappropriate target, thereby steering them to the right target. If it works, can it be called bad?
The authors said, In summary, we show that the specificity of the synaptic connections in the ponto-cerebellar circuit
emerges through extensive elimination of transient synapses. But that raises an interesting question: what regulates the regulators?
- Memory boggle: Get ready for the punch line on this one. An article on
Live Science discussed the
tipping point of human information technology from analog to digital storage. In 2000, the article said, about
75% of the worlds information was stored in analog form (e.g., paper, analog tape, analog sound recordings).
By 2007, 93% of that information was stored digitally (computer files, digital tape, digital recordings).
Digital information can be quantified in the familiar bits, bytes, megabytes, gigabytes, yotta yotta yotta....2
Now that information can be quantified digitally, its possible to estimate all the human information in the
world. As of 2007, that quantity was 295 trillion megabytes (295 x 1018 bytes, or 295 exabytes),
according to Martin Hilbert of USC. Before divulging the punch line, lets quote the articles comparisons:
Have a hard time imagining 295 trillion megabytes? Hilbert suggests thinking of it this way: If we would use a
grain of sand to represent one bit each of the 295 trillion, we would require 315 times the amount of sand that is currently
available on the worlds beaches.
Now the punch line: that incredibly huge amount of information represents still only enough for 0.33 percent of the information
that can be stored in all DNA molecules of one human adult. Lets do the math: multiply all the values in the quote above by 300,
and you get into the ballpark of the information storage inside your body: 94,500 times the grains of sand of all the worlds
beaches; 18,300 CDs for every person on Earth, enough to reach over halfway to Mars; 350 times the GDP of the US if printed in
$1 newspapers; enough to cover the US in 3,900 layers of books. Now you know.
For a better idea of what these numbers all mean, Hilbert and his colleague, Priscila López of the Open University of
Catalonia, express the information through other analogies.
295 trillion megabytes is roughly:
Equivalent to 61 CD-ROMs per person on Earth.
Piling up the imagined 404 billion CD-ROM would create a stack that would
reach the moon and a quarter of this distance beyond.
Enough that, if printed in newspapers that sold for $1 each, the United States entire global Gross Domestic Product
would not be enough to buy them all. (The cost would be 17 percent beyond the GDP.)
Enough information to cover the entire area of the United States or China in 13 layers of books.
- Brain boggle: If your mind is not sufficiently boggled yet, lets finish with a measurement posted
on Wired Science. Author John Timmer of Ars Technica
expanded on the work by Hilbert and López to estimate the processing power of the human brain. After several more
mind-numbing analogies of the combined processing power of all the worlds computers, storage and memory, the
article ended with another surprise. First, Hilbert and López estimated the combined processing power of all the
worlds computers at 6.4 x 1018 operations per second. Then, Timmer wrote:
Lest we get too enamored with our technological prowess, however, the authors make some comparisons with biology.
To put our findings in perspective, the 6.4*1018 instructions per second that human kind
can carry out on its general-purpose computers in 2007 are in the same ballpark area as the maximum number of nerve impulses
executed by one human brain per second, they write.
Our total storage capacity is the same as an adult humans DNA. And there are several billion humans on the planet.
1. Kalinovsky et al, Development of Axon-Target Specificity of Ponto-Cerebellar Afferents,
Public Library of Science Biology,
9(2): e1001013. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001013.
2. A byte is 8 bits (in the ASCII encoding format). Kilobyte=103 bytes.
Megabyte=106 bytes. Gigabyte=109 bytes.
Terabyte=1012 bytes. Petabyte=1015 bytes.
Exabyte=1018 bytes. Each level represents 1000 times the prior category (103).
Those wanting to boggle their brains further can consider zettabytes (1000 exabytes), yottabytes (1000 zettabytes),
brontobytes (1000 yottabytes), geobytes (1000 brontobytes)....
While reading this article, your brain just outperformed all the computers on
the planet, and your body stored genetic information that, if stored on CDs, would reach over halfway to Mars.
And who could forget the stunning analogy we published nine years ago about the information storage capacity of one cubic millimeter
of DNA? (see 08/16/2002). Facts are powerful things. The information
in this article could be taught with some clever presentation slides or posters. Nothing is more effective
than facts like these to make people reconsider assumptions about how the human body and brain came to be
(see 01/19/2011 commentary).
Evolution Running Backwards
Evolutionists want you to believe this all happened by chance, through mistakes, without purpose
or guidance. How about asking for a time out in your local high school biology teachers evolution spiel
to write some of these facts on the board in front of the students? Then say (nicely), According to your textbook,
evolution teaches that your brain, but not computers, got here by mistake. You dont even have to put the school at risk of
a lawsuit by setting off the alarms with the emotionally-charged phrase intelligent design.
Next headline on:
Mind and Brain
Feb 10, 2011 For Darwins doctrine of universal common ancestry to be demonstrably true,
there must have been a common ancestor of insects and humans. That base of the family tree has
just been discredited, leaving a gap in this important junction of Darwins tree of life.
For decades, evolutionists have taught that acoelomorphs, a kind of marine worm, were
at the base of the tree that branched one way toward insects and another way toward man.
Now, however, as published in Nature,1 two large groups of
marine worms are more closely related to us than are insects and mollusks, a new study shows
According to a co-author quoted by Live Science,
We can no longer consider the acoelomorphs as an intermediate between simple groups such as jellyfish
and the rest of the animals, said researcher Max Telford of the Department of Genetics, Evolution and Environment,
University College London. This means that we have no living representative of this stage of evolution:
the missing link has gone missing.
To explain the confusing genomes in evolutionary terms, the researchers are having to suppose that the
last common ancestor, whatever it was, was even more complex than these worms and the living worms
lost some of the genetic information contained in the ancestor:
Being such simple creatures and yet still mixing and mingling on the family tree with us complex creatures
suggests these marine worms were once complex themselves, Telford said.
Commenting on this development in the same issue of Nature,1 Amy Maxmen titled
her entry, Evolution: A can of worms and wrote:
This is an interesting evolutionary question, Telford told LiveScience. Why do animals
lose complex features, and how do they do it? What genes have they lost?
The rearrangement has triggered protests from evolutionary biologists, who are alarmed that they may lose their key example of that crucial intermediate stage of animal evolution. Some researchers complain that the evidence is not strong enough to warrant such a dramatic rearrangement of the evolutionary tree, and claim that the report leaves out key data. In any case, the vehemence of the debate shows just how important these worms have become in evolutionary biology.
But rather than bemoaning the loss of evidence, or teaching the controversy, some reporters are promoting this finding as a triumph
for evolution. PhysOrg
wrote its headline, Revisited human-worm relationships shed light on brain evolution, even
though the source paper had nothing to say about brains.
PhysOrg also buried
the Telford quote about the missing link still being missing under a bold headline,
Simple marine worms distantly related to humans.&
Live Science announced,
Lowly Worms Get Their Place in the Tree of Life, downplaying the confusion over where these
organisms fit. As if doing penance, though, a later PhysOrg,
read, New evolutionary research disproves living missing link theories.
I will say, diplomatically, this is the most politically fraught paper Ive ever written, says Max Telford, a zoologist at University College London and last author on the paper.
1. Come back soon for reference.
2. Amy Maxmen, Evolution: A can of worms,
470, 161-162 (2011), Published online 9 February 2011, doi:10.1038/470161a.
This is why you must read past the headlines and mute the Darwin Marching Band
music and look at the data. Evolutionists thought they had a missing link at a critical juncture
in Darwins tree of life, only to find, according to their own apologists, that the genetics dont fit.
To keep their story going requires more speculation about less evidence. This is no happy ending;
it turns Charlies bedtime story into a nightmare generator.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
One demonstration of how science should be used. Watch the 90-second video at
How Bacteria Use Their Flagella
Feb 09, 2011 Do an imaginary mind-meld with a bacterium for a moment. Visualize yourself encased in
a membrane, surrounded by fluid. You have no eyes, ears, or hands. You need to find where food is,
and avoid danger, so you have organelles that can take in molecules that provide information about what is going on outside,
where other bacteria can also communicate information to you. To get around, you have a powerful outboard motor,
called a flagellum. Lacking eyes, how do you know where to go? How do you steer and make progress toward
food or away from danger? These are the questions of chemotaxis the ability to move toward or away
from chemicals. Two recent papers discuss how bacteria use their rotary motors to succeed in life.
Some bacteria have only one flagellum (monotrichous, or one-haired, since the flagella
look like hairs at low resolution). One such critter is Vibrio
alginolyticus, an inhabitant of the coastal ocean. In a PNAS Commentary,1 Roman Stocker
discussed how this microbe uses its single flagellum in a reverse and flick movement to explore its environment.
This newly discovered mechanism for turning, he said, ....is part
of an advanced chemotaxis system. The bacterium can actually make better progress toward or against a
concentration gradient with this semi-random search method. How can a simple back-and-forth
movement result in high-performance chemotaxis, rather than causing the bacterium to endlessly retrace its steps?
Stocker asked. The answer is that the flick action, which involves a sudden kinking of the U-joint of the flagellum,
combined with reversal of flagellar rotation, provides three times the chemotaxis efficiency of E. coli.
He showed this with mathematical models.
Stocker attributed this to evolution: Despite the limited
morphological repertoire of the propulsive system, radically different movement
strategies have evolved, likely reflecting the diversity of physicochemical conditions
among bacterial habitats. But what he was really talking about was adaptation of different microbes
to different habitats and conditions. He ended with praise, not for evolution, but for the cleverness of
microbe transportation: the study he cited makes monotrichous marine bacteria an appealing model system to
expand our knowledge of motility among the smallest life forms on our planet.
Other bacteria have 2, 4, or 8 flagella (peritrichous), like Escherichia coli.
When all 8 flagella begin turning in the same direction, they bundle into a kind of V8 engine that can propel the
germ at around 30 micrometers per second (µm/s). To change direction, they reverse one or more flagella,
causing the bundle to fall apart, stopping forward movement in a strategy called tumbling, after which unified
motion begins in another direction. While not as efficient at chemotaxis as V. alginolyticus, it should
be remembered that E. coli live in different environments and they have other tricks up their sleeve.
Flagellum specialist Howard Berg and colleagues figured out how to watch fluid movement around swarms
of bacteria. Reporting in PNAS,2 they discovered that bacteria, by rotating
their flagella counterclockwise in swarms, create small rivers of fluid moving clockwise ahead of the swarm
that help them move faster as a group than they could be swimming alone. They wrote,
we discovered an
extensive stream (or river) of swarm fluid flowing clockwise along
the leading edge of an Escherichia coli swarm, at speeds of order 10
µm/s, about three times faster than the swarm expansion. The flow
is generated by the action of counterclockwise rotating flagella of
cells stuck to the substratum, which drives fluid clockwise around
isolated cells (when viewed from above), counterclockwise between
cells in dilute arrays, and clockwise in front of cells at the
swarm edge. The river provides an avenue for long-range communication
in the swarming colony, ideally suited for secretory vesicles
that diffuse poorly.
The observations may have practical applications: These findings, they wrote, broaden our understanding of
swarming dynamics and have implications for the engineering of bacterial-driven microfluidic devices.
1. Roman Stocker, Reverse and flick: Hybrid locomotion in bacteria,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
published online before print February 2, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1019199108 PNAS February 2, 2011.
2. Wu, Hosu, and Berg, Microbubbles reveal chiral fluid flows in bacterial swarms,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
published online before print February 7, 2011, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1016693108 PNAS February 7, 2011.
And these are simple or primitive organisms that were the first to evolve, they tell us.
The outboard motors alone are phenomenally complex, but when they work together with signal transduction mechanisms
and group search strategies, its overkill for Darwin, who was dead anyway.
The precision of cells quality control systems was described in the 02/03/2006 entry.
Next headline on:
Bizarre Fossils Raise Questions
Feb 08, 2011 For decades, students have been taught that the fossil record shows a long, slow, gradual
progression of increasing complexity over millions of years. Scientific data are usually not so simple.
Only the third entry tried to tie the fossil to an evolutionary prediction, but even then, the story was not straightforward.
It is not clear, for instance, that the loss of legs represents an increase in genetic information or in fitness.
Flightless birds are adapted to their land-based habitats, but it would be a greater leap for birds to evolve from
ground to air than the other way around. Same for snakes losing legs instead of evolving them de novo.
In the first two entries, though, the discoveries were clearly unexpected, surprising, and contrary to conventional wisdom.
- Surprising youth in old fossil: When you see the word unexpected in a headline, expect the unexpected.
Unexpected exoskeleton remnants found in Paleozoic fossils, reported
about chitin protein remains found in scorpion-like arthropod fossils alleged to be 310 million and 417 million years old.
The previous record was 25 to 80 million years. The subtitle reads, Surprising new research shows that,
contrary to conventional belief, remains of chitin-protein complex structural materials containing protein and
polysaccharide are present in abundance in fossils of arthropods from the Paleozoic era.
George Cody of the Carnegie Institution speculates that the vestigial protein-chitin complex may
play a critical role in organic fossil preservation by providing a substrate protected from total degradation
by a coating waxy substances [sic] that protect the arthropods from desiccation. Is he claiming the proteins protected
the rock impressions, and not the other way around? Other than that, the article
did not explain how proteins could last for over 400 million years. Prior to the discovery, it was unexpected,
surprising, and contrary to conventional belief.
- Antarctic forests: The caption of artwork in a BBC News
piece reads, Dinosaurs once foraged beneath the Southern Lights in Antarctica. It shows young dinosaurs admiring
the skylights while grazing around conifers in the long polar night. It may be hard to believe, but Antarctica was once covered in
towering forests. Fossil trees in Antarctica have been known since Robert Falcon Scott explored the frozen wastes
of the south polar regions, finding evidence of a subtropical climate where no trees grow today.
Jane Francis (University of Leeds) has spent 10 seasons collecting samples. As she described her
adventures, it was evident the surprise of fossil trees in ice has not worn off:
I still find the idea that Antarctica was once forested absolutely mind-boggling, she told the BBC.
The article says that this was not the only period of warmth. Fossil plants dated 100 million years old indicate the area must have
resembled forested areas of New Zealand. We commonly find whole fossilised logs that must have come from really big trees.
One of the specimens found is Ginkgo biloba, a well-known living fossil that was thought extinct from the age of dinosaurs
till living trees were discovered in Japan (cf. NW Creation.net article with links).
We take it for granted that Antarctica has always been a frozen wilderness, but the ice caps only
appeared relatively recently in geological history.
One of her most amazing fossil discoveries to date was made in the Transantarctic Mountains, not far from where Scott made his own finds.
She recalled: We were high up on glaciated peaks when we found a sedimentary layer packed full of fragile leaves and twigs.
These fossils proved to be remains of stunted bushes of beech. At only three to five million years old, they were some of the
last plants to have lived on the continent before the deep freeze set in.
How did the trees adapt to the polar light conditions, when long periods of darkness alternate with six months of light?
Francis did experiments growing trees in simulated polar light conditions and found they adapted remarkably well. In addition to the
trees, dinosaurs lived under these conditions. One kangaroo-size vegetarian dinosaur had large optic lobes, possibly suggesting adaptation to the low light
of the long winters.
The article tried to tie this evidence into the current debate over global warming, but clearly the climate changes of those prior times were
not caused by humans. Visiting the frozen wasteland of Antarctica today, it is hard to believe that rainforests
haunted by small dinosaurs once flourished where 3km thick ice-sheets now exist, the article ended.
However, the geological record provides irrefutable evidence that dramatic climate fluctuations have occurred throughout
our planets history.
- Snakes alive and dead: Fossil snakes show remnant hind legs, reported
MSNBC News. At first, this seems to
support the belief that snakes descended from lizards, and lost their legs through evolution. The snake fossil studied
by Alexandra Houssaye (National Museum of Natural History in Paris), named Eupodophis descouensi, has ultra tiny
0.8 inch legs with four anklebones but no foot or toe bones. It appears that calling these
structures legs requires some interpretation; they were clearly not used for walking.
Questions remain, however, about the evolution of snakes. The oldest snake remains are dated to 112 to 94
million years ago, and this snake is dated to around 90 million years ago, Houssaye said. Yet her evolutionary story seemed to
allow opposite conclusions: If something is not useful it can regress without any impact on the (animals) survival,
or regression can even be positive, as for here if the leg was disturbing a kind of locomotion, like for burrowing snakes
or swimming snakes. But why would useless structures remain for 4 to 22 million years? It would seem
millions of generations of snakes would have had to contend with useless structures getting in their way, if it took that long
for legs to regress. Houssaye was not prepared to announce a victory for evolutionary theory: The question of snake
origin should not be resolved in the next 10 years, the article quoted her saying, ending, She is, however, hopeful
that all of the separate teams working on this puzzle can one day pinpoint what species was the common ancestor of all snakes.
The lizard-like ancestor, if there was one, is not known from the fossil record.
According to Live Science,
which also reported the story, the bones suggests that evolution took snakes legs not by altering the way they grew.
Instead, Houssaye said, it looks as though the limbs grew either slower or for a shorter period of time.
PhysOrgs coverage includes an image
of the very simple structures. According to this entry, Only three specimens exist of fossilised snakes with preserved leg bones.
None of the articles mentioned whether the structures had a function, or might have been developmental anomalies, such as when babies are born
with an enlarged coccyx (cf. CMI). What evolutionary stories could be told if
a fossil two-headed snake were found?
Conventional wisdom is not always wise. A better term might be conventional folly, or popular credulity.
Enough reports like this, and a consistent theme emerges: evolutionists are clueless about not only their own theory
of common ancestry, but about the millions-of-years scheme on which their theory is built. You cant just
read one BBC News or PhysOrg article to get the whole picture. Individual articles present puzzles, but maintain
the triumphal theme of the march of secular science toward Understanding Reality. That is a false picture.
Sites like CEH help document the reality, that secular scientists sold on an evolutionary world view maintain their
belief system by telling stories in spite of the evidence. And for you creation-bashing lurkers out there
who lambaste CEH as anti-science, pay attention! This is not anti-science, because we clearly honor and support
legitimate scientific discovery and analysis (see yesterdays entry, for instance).
This is anti-storytelling anti- twisting evidence to support a belief system. An honest rationalist
skeptic should join with us in that goal.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Feb 07, 2011 Imitating spider silk or gecko feet is one thing, but some researchers
are going to extremes to try to do what living organisms do.
Heres an update on an old biomimetics story: the imitation of nacre, or mother-of-pearl (see 07/06/2004;
09/18/2008, bullet 4; 12/06/2008,
PhysOrg said that researchers
at Northwestern University and McCormick School of Engineering are still trying to understand the molecular structure
of this attractive material that is strong yet resistant to cracking. They created an interlocking composite
material that, while not as good as nacre, achieved a remarkable improvement in energy dissipation.
- DNA railcar: Researchers at University of Oxford have constructed a
programable [sic] molecular transport system that travels like a railcar on DNA molecules,
And thats not all: they would like to build synthetic ribosomes, the article said.
DNA origami techniques allow us to build nano- and meso-sized structures with great precision,
said Prof. Hiroshi Sugiyama. We already envision more complex track geometries of greater length
and even including junctions. Autonomous, molecular manufacturing robots are a possible outcome.
- DNA iPad: More DNA origami is at work creating smaller components for consumer and industrial
electronics like iPods, iPads and similar devices, reported another article on
Japanese researchers at Arizona State University, familiar with their cultures art of origami,
work with have discovered a way to use DNA to effectively combine top-down lithography with chemical bonding
involving bottom-up self-assembly.
- Turbo dragonflies: Imagine micro wind turbines that can withstand gale-force winds.
Such marvels are being prepared with inspiration from dragonfly wings, reported
Scientist. Who would have thought that the energy source for powering your cell phone might some day owe
its design to the dragonfly?
- Flagella carnival: Nanoscopic inventions being built at Rice University look like a carnival
ride gone mad, said Science Daily.
Researchers want to build arrays of programmable rotating machines modeled after the bacterial flagellum
(07/12/2010) and ATP synthase
Such devices could be used for radio filters that would let only a very finely tuned signal pass, depending
on the nanorotors frequency. The computers used to model the molecular rotors are not yet capable
of characterizing ATP synthase found in all living things, but as computers get more powerful and our methods
improve, a team member said, we may someday be able to analyze such long molecules.
- Plankton armor: Science
Daily said that The ability of some forms of plankton and bacteria to build an extra natural layer of
nanoparticle-like armour has inspired chemists at the University of Warwick to devise a startlingly simple way to
give drug bearing polymer vesicles (microscopic polymer based sacs of liquid) their own armoured protection.
One goal is stealth armor that looks like water but can allow drugs to sneak past the immune system.
What were they looking at for inspiration? Organisms that particularly attracted our interest were those
with a cell wall composed of an armour of colloidal objects for instance bacteria coated with S-layer proteins,
or phytoplankton, such as the coccolithophorids, which have their own CaCO3-based nano-patterned colloidal armour.
If these researchers succeed in getting DNA and rotating molecules to do the work of molecular machines already active
in the living cell, will science finally admit that life shows evidence of intelligent design? Notice that they
cannot yet come close to doing what ATP synthase, a flagellum, mother-of-pearl, a ribosome or a dragonfly wing has been doing
for millennia. Ironic, is it not, that ATP synthase is powering their bodies and minds to imitate it.
Shrinking Brains Prove Human Evolution
Intelligent design is revolutionizing science via biomimetics, promising amazing benefits for human health and society,
forcing thinking along engineering concepts, challenging our best scientific minds, inspiring awe at natural capabilities,
ignoring Darwin entirely.
Next headline on:
Feb 06, 2011 Ever since Darwin, brain size has been the measure of human nature (e.g.,
Except for some anomalies with Neanderthal and Cro-magnon skull sizes, the iconic march of human
evolution showed growing upright posture accompanied by increasing brain size (example on
and brain size was used to discriminate between races on the presumption it was a measure of intelligence.
It is not clear, therefore, what to make of a question on PhysOrg,
Are brains shrinking to make us smarter?
It seems evolutionists want to have it both ways. Larger brains are evidence
of evolution; smaller brains are evidence of evolution. Does the new claim muddy the waters of
brain size as the measure of increasing human intelligence? The article tries to draw links between
brain size as a function of body mass, or of population size, but its not clear any trend is detectable.
In fact, the article later admits that brain size is not well linked to intelligence. Brian Hare
(Duke U) said, But the downsizing does not mean modern humans are dumber than their ancestors
rather, they simply developed different, more sophisticated forms of intelligence.
The article ended by Hare hoping that humans will express their inner bonobo.
Chimps are more aggressive and violent. Humans are both chimps and bobos [sic] in their
nature and the question is how can we release more bonobo and less chimp, he said.
I hope bonobos win... it will be better for everyone.
This comedy show is brought to you for your Superbowl halftime
entertainment. Imagine if the Steelers were able to set the rules so that no matter which goal
the ball landed on, they would win and they could get away with it, because they bought off all
the referees. The Packers cant complain because if they dont play according to those
rules, they are accused of practicing religion instead of Football. The cameramen aim the cameras
to make the Steelers look good and the Packers bad, and the commentators have their talking points
down to make it all look enlightened and progressive. Anyone who complains this is
unfair gets Expelled from the stadium.
Octopus arms have an optimal design: 02/09/2005.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Intelligence as a Cosmic Reality
Feb 06, 2011 The "I" in SETI takes "Intelligence" seriously. It requires that intelligence
is a recognizable, quantifiable property of nature. The origin of intelligence is a question that
separates theists from materialists whether it is a fundamental or emergent property.
Before engaging that question, it might be instructive to see how scientists who are not necessarily
theists are regarding it.
Intelligence is a concept that overlaps the fringes of many sciences. Researchers in neuroscience, artificial
intelligence, linguistics, information theory, cryptography, SETI and communications all assume intelligence is real,
but like life, have a difficult time defining it (01/16/2011). While using the term as
applied to birds, rats, machines or aliens, there is something about human intelligence that yearns to
communicate not just for food or sex, or as a response to a stimulus or program but for understanding at
a deep level. Is that just more of the same as observed in animals? And can such longings, while making use of atoms
(as in brain memory centers), be reduced to atoms?
- SETI protocol: The Arecibo Message beamed to the stars in 1974 was a binary encoded
stream of bits. Subsequent messages have included graphical depictions of humans, and catalogs
of human science and art. PhysOrg
recalled those attempts at communication with other intelligences and asked what would be the most likely protocol
that aliens would recognize as intelligent on the receiving end. This is the study of METI: messaging to
METI includes considerations of how to maximize communication effectively at the lowest cost.
What good would an engraving of human forms be for aliens without eyes? An international team, PhysOrg reported,
considered factors like signal encoding, message length, information content, anthropocentrism, transmission method,
and transmission periodicity for an upcoming report in Space Policy. Their current recommendation is to
concentrate on short, simple messages with minimal anthropocentrism, and which rely on simple physical or
The scientists also emphasize that searching for and attempting to communicate with extraterrestrials is
as much about understanding ourselves as it is about finding aliens, the press release continued. We need, in other words, to
understand human intelligence. The only way we have to calibrate a test message, though, is to try it on
other human beings with other cultures and languages. Whatever they decide to send for the next broadcast from Earth,
they must assume intelligence is real at both the sending and receiving end.
- Universal intelligence: Science
Daily expanded the concept with an article, On the hunt for universal intelligence. The question is,
How do you use a scientific method to measure the intelligence of a human being, an animal, a machine or an extra-terrestrial?
To plumb that question, Spanish and Australian AI researchers (artificial intelligence) devised a new intelligence test to replace the historic
Turing Test that Allan Turing developed in 1950 to demonstrate intelligence in machines. Their new Anytime Universal
Intelligence test that can be applied to any subject whether biological or not at any point in its development
(child or adult, for example), for any system now or in the future, and with any level of intelligence or speed.
Their model measures Kolmogorov Complexity, the number of computational resources needed to describe an object or a
piece of information, yet they admit this is a first step in an ongoing evaluation of intelligence.
- Language efficiency: Philip Ball at Nature
News reported on a new proposal in linguistics at MIT theorizing that longer words carry more information.
In contrast to a 1930-era model by George Kingsley Zipf that language speakers seek to minimize time and effort when
speaking, Steven Piantadosi and colleagues propose that to convey a given amount of information, it is more efficient to
shorten the least informative and therefore the most predictable words, rather than the most frequent ones.
While not speaking of intelligence directly, this article overlaps with the means of communication between intelligent
agents. The words informative and predictable presuppose intelligences able to discriminate those
factors using abstract reasoning.
- Mind matters: At the threshold of mind and matter, neuroscientists continue to probe how intelligence
is mediated by the physical brain. PhysOrg
reported on experiments at the University of Sydneys Centre for the Mind that seemed to indicate electrical stimulation
of the anterior temporal lobe produced flashes of insight that might lead to an electronic thinking cap
some day. Neuroscientists at New York University found, according to
Science Daily, that memory storage
and reactivation is more complex than thought. Experiments on lab rats showed that
different effects of specifically inhibiting the initiation of protein synthesis on memory consolidation and reconsolidation,
making clear these two processes have greater variation than previously thought.
Memory, however is a tool of mind, not mind itself if the distinction is more than academic.
No SETI researcher, however, is expecting lab rats to attempt purposeful communication with alien civilizations.
If memory is more complex than thought, thought is also more complex than memory.
These are deep questions that have not been exhausted by philosophers despite millennia of trying.
But when you use your intelligence to define intelligence, or think about thinking, who is acting?
While intelligence is somewhat quantifiable in birds or dolphins or apes, our self-consciousness as beings, as persons, able to
communicate and desiring communication with others, is unheard of in the animal kingdom. Unlike bird chirps
and ape grunts, we speak with meaning (semantics) using complex syntax, referring to abstractions in the
conceptual realm. We use codes and references. We write philosophy books and symphonies with no survival
value. We can communicate the same message through entirely different physical media.
Perhaps the better question is the search for extra-terrestrial personality. Like the fire triangle
(heat, oxygen, fuel), the triad of personality intellect, emotions, and will lights the fire of
communication as only intelligent persons experience it. It is doubtful todays human SETI staff would be
particularly thrilled if future intelligent robots made contact with alien robots, intelligent as they might be. Even if emotions and will were
programmed into the robots, we would recognize the robots to be just carrying out the program. Similarly, if our
self-conscious intelligence is to be accepted as real as we know it to be deep in our souls, it cannot
be just executing a genetic program.
If intelligence were an epiphenomenon of matter in motion, no scientist could
ever know that to be true. Truth implies morality (honesty). If morality is also an epiphenomenon of
matter in motion, the materialist soon multiplies epiphenomena upon epiphenomena, reducing his explanation to
ghost stories. The only self-consistent explanation for intelligence, personality, and truth is that
they derive from a Creator who is intelligent, personal, and true: I AM.
Next headline on:
Mind and Brain
Philosophy of Science
Feb 05, 2011 Here is a quick list of headlines to scan for your next
baloney detecting safari. Be discerning: theres great, good, bad, and ugly in the list,
often within the same article.
Scientists insert themselves into many subjects. Not all scientific research is equally valid.
By standing for too much, does science spread its presumptive authority too thin?
- Planets Why the moon is getting farther from Earth: BBC News.
- Stars First stars were not born solitary: PhysOrg.
- Zoology How do insects survive the cold winter? Answer at PhysOrg.
- Health Exercising outdoors provides value added: PhysOrg.
- Education Colleges not teaching critical thinking: PhysOrg.
- Physics Information can be erased without energy: PhysOrg.
- Geology Dead Sea drill cores may illuminate Biblical history: PhysOrg.
- Astrophysics The waters above: measuring H2O in space: PhysOrg.
- Evolution Cancer as an evolutionary process: PhysOrg.
- Health Discoverer of induced pluripotent stem cells wins top award: PhysOrg.
- Planets The MESSENGER spacecraft approaches Mercury orbit on March 17: PhysOrg.
- Health Popeye was right: eat your spinach for efficient muscle: PhysOrg.
- Archaeology Zechariahs tomb found? PhysOrg; ask Todd Bolen.
- Evolution Lampreys provide clues on evolution of immune system: PhysOrg.
- Biology Why do fish sleep? PhysOrg.
- Birds Birds use right nostril to navigate: PhysOrg.
- Geology Finding gold by a new model: Science Daily.
- Physiology When the nose smells, the brain wants to know: Science Daily.
- Genetics/Evolution Jumping genes tangle Darwins tree of life: Science Daily.
- Fossils Eleven-foot bear fossil found in Argentina: Live Science.
- Education Kids believe literally everything they read online: Live Science.
- History Vikings could have navigated on cloudy days: Live Science.
- Genetics Lessons learned from the Human Genome Project: Live Science.
- Anthropology Mans best friend, the fox: news at Live Science.
- Marine Biology Ocean in motion: how do squid hear? Live Science.
- Evolution Childhood diseases rooted in evolution: Live Science.
- Early man You could outrun Neanderthals in a race, says New Scientist.
- Mathematics Explore fractals in Google: New Scientist.
- Politics Climate forecasting is a form of soothsaying: New Scientist.
- Origin of Life Is this Dr Frankenstein creating life from scratch and bootstrapping evolution? New Scientist.
Although many subjects are touched on above, we only have space to categorize them in Amazing Facts
or Dumb Ideas. Some include both, perhaps some neither.
Readers are encouraged to analyze these articles with their critical thinking skills.
Write in if there is one you would like reported in detail.
Fossils by Faith
Next headline on:
Feb 04, 2011 Fossils are real artifacts you can hold in your hand. The stories
behind them are not. How does science connect the one with the other? Sometimes,
it requires faith in incredible stories.
If paleontologists unfamiliar with the consensus views on age, origin, ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms
were to examine these fossils, its interesting to consider what stories they might come up with.
- Stay, sis: Darwin portrayed a world in flux, with natural selection continually
sifting and amplifying minute changes over time. Why, then did
Science Daily title
an article, Rare Insect Fossil Reveals 100 Million Years of Evolutionary Stasis?
Sure enough, the article claims that a certain splay-footed cricket in rock alleged to be 100
million years old has undergone very little evolutionary change since the Early Cretaceous Period,
a time of dinosaurs just before the breakup of the supercontinent Gondwana.
But is a phrase like evolutionary stasis an explanation, or just a term providing protection from
- Goldilocks and the 3 Dinos: According to
computer models show that dinosaurs can only leave footprints in strata that are just right for
the mass of the animal. Now we can use this Goldilocks effect as a baseline for
exploring more complicated factors such as the way dinosaurs moved their legs, or what happens to
tracks when a mud is drying out. But even if the model allows the scientist to tweak
all the parameters in a computer, what happened to good old-fashioned field experiments?
- Titanoceratops the granddaddy: Analysis of a partial skeleton from New Mexico
could be the new granddaddy of horned dinosaurs,
Geographic News teased. Its a big one, the biggest horned dinosaur found in North America, dated
at 74 million years old, but hold on; they gave this bone a new name when they are not sure it isnt a member
of a previously-identified species called Pentaceratops. No sooner was it given a titanic name but
paleontologists were describing its Darwinian pedigree: If indeed a new species, Titanoceratops
discovery could also mean that triceratopsinsmembers of a family of giant horned dinosaursevolved
their gigantic sizes evolved [sic] at least five million years earlier than previously thought, the study says.
Its not clear why this specimen had anything to do with ancestry. Does the smaller evolve
from the larger? Sometimes, perhaps, but clearly, much of Darwins story had to get things bigger than the last
universal common ancestor, a cell. A Yale paleontologist remarked, Its pretty surprisingI would
have not have thought something this big and this advanced was living in this time period.
But have faith: I would like it to be real, a paleontologist at Cleveland Natural History Museum said,
struggling with his doubts. Another brother helped his unbelief: After all, Triceratops must have
had ancestors in this earlier time, and this individual does show specialized traits that we see in the Triceratops complex.
Pardon, your assumptions are showing. Did you catch the slips?
The specimen must have ancestors during this earlier time says who? Darwin, thats who.
The evidence may not show it, and claiming it may require willing suspension of disbelief, but the Bearded Buddha
asks for unfeigned faith. But then why not apply the same faith to Titanoceratops (if such a species
even existed) that was applied to the splay-footed cricket, saying it showed incredible stasis for
100 million years?
Darwin Day, that annual non-event, is coming up on the 12th. Its pretty much blown itself out after
the 2009 Bicentennial hoopla, but if you want to spice up your celebration, look at our
02/13/2004 entry for game ideas; more after the
02/13/2008 entry. Better yet, read
Darwin Day in America by John West.
Evolutionists have come up with the perfect crime. No evidence will ever convict Darwin,
because he bought out the police, the researchers, the politicians, the teachers, and the judges. Will any magistrate
in his totalitarian regime ever pay attention to a citizens arrest of these scientist impersonators? (see
09/30/2007 commentary). If the foundations be destroyed,
what can the righteous do? Tell the unvarnished truth to whoever will listen, thats what.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Feb 03, 2011 Recent news stories about Mars can be categorized into past, present, and future.
Meanwhile, back on Earth, a volunteer crew of six have reached Mars orbit in a simulated experiment
testing how humans might endure long term space travel. PhysOrg
reported on the milestone of Mars200 project, now 244 days into their experiment living and working in hermetically-sealed modules
as if traveling to Mars and back.
On February 14 (Valentines Day) they get to emerge onto a simulated Martian surface. The arrival
back on Earth (a place they never really left) occurs in early November.
- Mars past: How Mars formed is a convoluted story. That is evident from
a report on PhysOrg that
might suggest Mars modelers are drinking too much to relieve stress: Marstinis could
help explain why the red planet is so small. Mars seems the right size for itself, but for
modelers, it is too small for their theories. The article describes a kind of complex billiard
game requiring Mars to migrate outward before it could grow its expected size. As it went, it perturbed
smaller planetesimals, objects the modelers dubbed Marstinis. Those, in turn, might have
gotten perturbed by giant planets, which were also migrating at the time. This complex scenario has
the benefit of simultaneously providing source material to explain another
mystery the Late Heavy Bombardment, needed to explain cratering on the moon.
Divining Mars history in meteorites was discussed in another article on
Studying wafer-thin slices of meteorites thought to have landed on Earth from Mars,
scientists look for clues indicating large impacts on the red planet. From conclusions reached,
they try to infer impact effects on subsurface water and the production of carbonates, serpentine, clay and methane.
A scientist promised, We are now starting to build a realistic model for how water deposited minerals
formed on Mars, showing that impact heating was an important process.
- Mars present: Several sources reported the surprise that Mars sand dunes can
change quickly: Space.com,
the BBC News, and
PhysOrg among them. Scientists had
considered the dunes to be fairly static, shaped long ago when winds on the planets surface were much
stronger than seen today, according to analysis of images from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter
HiRISE camera. Several sets of before-and-after images from HiRISE over a period covering
two Martian years four Earth years tell a different story.
seeking to understand how carbon dioxide sublimation a process not occurring on earth
contributes to the rapid changes. Theres lots of debate about whether features we see on
Mars could be produced in the current Mars climate or whether they require different conditions,
one scientist commented. The numbers and magnitude of the changes have been really surprising,
Meanwhile, the THEMIS infrared camera on the Mars Odyssey orbiter,
NASAs longest-running Mars mission, is studying Mars dust. Dull as that sounds, it is actually an important
source of information on Mars, as PhysOrg explained.
Principal investigator Philip Christensen has a puzzle: Theres a good question why Mars isnt a billiard-ball planet
covered by a kilometer of dust, he said, considering that scientists believe it has been there 4.5 billion years.
Explaining why the dust layer is thin required imagination: Well, maybe throughout most of its history, Mars
has had too thin an atmosphere to make dust or initiate saltation or wind abrasion, he said; No dust devils, no storms.
Mars seems poised on the brink of global dust storms that occasionally obscure the entire surface of the planet with dust as fine
as talcum powder. Calculations show that 100 meters of dust should blanket the planet in 4.5 billion years given current estimated
dust creation rates. To wriggle out of that anomaly, Christensen imagined that the atmosphere cycles in and out,
actively creating dust only 2% of the time. Even so, that would have produced 2 meters of dust on Mars, which
he says is about right, provided he be forgiven for tweaking an unseen history to match the observations.
- Mars future: Interesting missions are being planned for Mars.
The big one is Jet Propulsion Laboratorys long-awaited
Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), nicknamed Curiosity,
scheduled for launch in the fall.
Science Daily talked about
its Sample Analysis at Mars instrument (SAM), which, along with other instruments, will check for the ingredients of life.
Ingredients is the operative word. MSL will be unable to detect life, but may be able to determine once for
all whether organic molecules are found on the Red Planet.
An article about future Mars missions on PhysOrg
has illustrations reminiscent of sci-if comic books. The Center for Space Nuclear Research at Idaho National Laboratory is working
on fleets of Mars hoppers they feel would be more efficient explorers of the Martian surface than rovers.
CSNRs mission design includes a method for sample return delivering Martian material back to Earth for analysis.
A single rocket launch from Earth could deploy several hoppers at once, the article explained.
A few dozen hoppers could map the entire Martian surface in a few years.... Hoppers could also serve as a network of
weather stations monitoring the Martian climate and could collect a trove of air, rock and soil samples to send back to Earth.
Mars exists in the present. We dont see Mars in the past, or in the future.
We see effects produced by an unobserved history, and can extrapolate current processes a reasonable amount forward.
When scientists tweak too many parameters in their imagined scenarios moving the planet in and out, imagining lucky-strike
impacts at certain times and places where needed for theory, turning the atmosphere on and off to maintain a belief in billions
of years, we have good reason to doubt the infallibility of their science. Remember that scientific explanation
is an entirely different enterprise than scientific discovery. Lets discover! Go forth and conquer with
Curiosity and better instrumentation. Hop to it. Data clear the fog and put storytellers out of business. But always keep a wary eye on the
opinions of scientists who practice divination, or who make reckless drafts on the bank of time.
Planets a-Plenty, but Are They Lively?
Next headline on:
Feb 02, 2011 The Kepler spacecraft has found over 1,235 planets so far
(Space.com), 54 in their
stars habitable zone, and some Earth-size or smaller. Science media are having a field day reporting the discoveries,
portraying them with artist imaginations, licking their chops at the possibility of life in outer space.
What does this mean?
Space.com is racking up the most headlines: tabulating
the leading earthlike candidates, posting videos
with expert prognosticators, posting a gallery of the strangest,
keeping the tally current. So far, the
number of habitable planets with life is: 1. (Thats us, folks.) The number of Earth-size and Earthlike
habitable planets confirmed to exist with intelligent life. We call this planet Earth. Thats assuming
we can agree on a definition of intelligent life.
Scientists were surprised to find a six-pack of planets around a star named Kepler 11, reported
Space.com. The smallest
in the system is 2.3 times the size of Earth; others are the size of Uranus or Neptune. The planets orbits
do not fit planetary evolution theories unless the planets migrated: the close proximity of the inner planets is
an indication that they probably did not form where they are now, one scientist commented. No sense
looking for life on these planets; none are habitable by any measure. You can take a tour of the
system on Space.com anyway.
Another Space.com article
described the 54 potentially habitable planets Kepler has found (see also the
BBC News article by Jason Palmer).
One of the leading contenders for Earthlike Planet, named Kepler 10-b (see
Space.com gallery), was announced last month:
the first rocky planet ever discovered outside our solar system according to David Tyler
writing for ARN.
Trouble is, its rocks are hot 1500°C because the planet is closer to its parent star than Mercury to our sun.
What are the implications of Keplers unquestionably exciting finds?
Before the latest Kepler tally was announced, one of the leading planet hunters gave his thoughts in an interview on
(see also MSNBC News).
Geoff Marcy had participated in finding more planets than anyone else. The first questions concerned
technology and statistics, but then he admitted a scientific embarrassment: hot Jupiters. No one predicted
gas giants close to the star. All the scientists expected extrasolar planetary systems to resemble ours,
with the rocky planets close in and the gas giants farther out. It was silly reasoning, based on a sample size of one,
he agreed: It would be like trying to characterize human psychology by going to one distant Indonesian island and
interviewing one person, and thinking that that gave you the full range of human psychology.
We also dont know how long planets last, he said, or how common Earth-like planets are.
The existence of life is the big question.
According to the UK Mail
Online, Dr. Howard Smith (Harvard) has lost hope of finding intelligent life. Of the first 500 planets found, none
are habitable; they are downright hostile. The new information we are getting suggests we could effectively be alone in the universe,
he said. Geoff Marcy is mildly pessimistic, too: We might be rare, he remarked.
Where are the SETI [search for extraterrestrial intelligence] signals? he asked.
There is a non-detection thats like the elephant in the room. Forty years of searching
has turned up empty. So theres an indication not definitive that maybe the Earth is
more precious than we had thought. He was not considering intelligent design as an option.
He said, after considering how comparatively young our solar system is in an ancient universe,
maybe habitable planets that sustain Darwinian evolution for a billion years maybe theyre rare. Maybe.
Asked if he has a gut feel about cosmic loneliness, he said,
I do. If I had to bet and this is now beyond science I would say that intelligent, technological critters
are rare in the Milky Way galaxy. The evidence mounts. We Homo sapiens didnt arise until some quirk of environment
on the East African savannah so quirky that the hominid paleontologists still cant tell us why the australopithecines
somehow evolved big brains and had dexterity that could play piano concertos, and things that make no real honest sense in terms of Darwinian evolution.
He was speaking of the giant dinosaurs ruling the earth with chicken-size brains. He could not point to anything making sense
in Darwinism, but he dismissed purposeful direction out of hand:
Why the high chaparral on the East African savannah wouldve led to a Tchaikovsky piano concerto, never mind
the ability to build rocket ships theres no evolutionary driver that the australopithecines suffered from that leads
to rocket ships. And so that and the fact that we had to wait four billion years without humans. Four billion years?
SPACE.com: Yes, it took four billion years to get there.
Marcy: Since the Cambrian explosion, we had hundreds of millions of years of multi-cellular, advanced life in which, guess what
happened with brain size? Nothing.
We humans came across braininess because of something weird that happened on the East African savannah.
And we cant imagine whether thats a common or rare thing.
From there, the interviewer and Marcy pepped themselves up with dreams of a souped-up SETI project.
He implied it would be easy to separate an intelligently-designed signal from a natural one:
We know what to look for, he said. That would be the rat-a-tat-tat of a radio signal.
We dont know exactly what the code would be, but wed be looking for pulses in the radio, in the infrared maybe, in the X-ray or UV.
Wed have to think broadly. But this is a great quest for humanity.
SPACE.com: People assume evolution is directed, and its always leading toward higher complexity and greater intelligence, but its not.
Marcy: Its not. Dinosaurs show this in spades.
David Tyler drew different conclusions from the same evidence for the uniqueness of our planet.
In the ARN article,
he said, Based on evidence, some argue that the Earth is a Privileged Planet.
The basic approach of that book is being vindicated as research discovers just how extraordinary the Earth is.
Are you sometimes undecided whether to laugh or weep for the SETI cultists? Both responses can make you shed tears.
Marcy and his interviewer both admitted they are clueless, surprised, ignorant, and resigned to Stuff Happens as their
scientific explanation for everything. Swallowing the whole Darwin baggage of billions of years of evolution, he could only say that
something weird that happened on the East African savannah a hominid got a brain, and presto: a Tchaikovsky
Got Twitter? Follow us at @psa104 and tweet your followers to our easy-to-remember URL, http://crev.info.
Now, while Dr. Marcy
and the Kepler scientists deserve honors for collecting data with intelligently designed instruments,
theyre not likely to rank very high as philosophers or theologians. If the best philosophy they can invent is stuff
happens, they have flunked out. And if they cannot be convinced they are hopelessly lost via the evidence of the
Privileged Planet, the SETI silence, the origin of life,
the Cambrian explosion, and a Tchaikovsky
piano concerto, is there any hope for todays secular scientists being rescued from self-deception?
Remember, these are the same people who refuse to let criticisms of Darwinism be heard in the schools or research labs.
Emperor Charlie is not only naked himself, he is surrounded by naked soldiers arresting the clothed little boy for indecent exposure.
Added to that, when you hear of communist and Muslim radicals calling
for the complete overthrow of Western civilization, and the brutal murder of Supreme Court justices
and the news media totally ignoring their hate speech while calling out peace-loving conservative
Christians for alleged violent rhetoric, it is hard not to conclude that most of the world has gone completely crazy.
Dont be surprised; it has gone crazy many times before. Escape the craziness with power, love, and a sound mind
(II Timothy 1:7). Then rescue a neighbor.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Metaphors of Evolution
Feb 01, 2011 If Will Rogers never met a man he didnt like, science never metaphor it didnt force.
The history of science is replete with examples of metaphors not only trying to explain phenomena, but actually
driving scientific research. Many times thoughtless metaphors have said more about current social values than science.
So argued Mary Midgley, a a freelance philosopher, specialising in moral philosophy, in an article on
The trouble with metaphors is that they dont just mirror scientific beliefs, they also shape them.
Our imagery is never just surface paint, it expresses, advertises and strengthens our preferred interpretations.
It also usually carries unconscious bias from the age we live in and this can be tricky to ditch no matter how faulty,
unless we ask ourselves how and why things go wrong, and start to talk publicly about how we should understand metaphor.
The article was developed from her book, The Solitary Self. But did her conclusion learn the lessons of history?
Here is a short list of metaphors she found in science over the centuries:
So did Midgley argue that we need to rid science of metaphors? No; she proposed new and better ones suitable for the 21st century
the language of integrated systems:
- Nature, the clock: Scientists in Newtons day envisioned the world as a mechanical clock wound up by God.
- Nature, the billiard game: Early atomists interpreted everything as colliding billiard-ball atoms. Rousseau applied this to social atomism.
- Nature, the war of all against all: Thomas Hobbes metaphor of a war of individuals accidentally launched a wider revolt against the notion of citizenship, Midgley said. The slogan made it possible to argue later that there is no such thing as society, that we owe one another nothing.
- Nature, the capitalist: Laissez-faire capitalism, Midgley argued, is an application of atomism to economics.
- Nature, the competitor: Spencer and Darwin used the metaphor of competition to interpret nature, although Midgley asserts that
Charles Darwin actually hated much of it, flatly rejecting the crude, direct application of natural selection to social policies.
Whether or not his emotions against competition were derived from science or from his cultural milieu is another question.
- Nature as selfish genes: Evolution has been the most glaring example of the thoughtless use of metaphor over the past 30 years,
with the selfish/war metaphors dominating and defining the landscape so completely it becomes hard to admit there are other ways of conceiving
it, Midgley complained.
- Nature as self-organization: D'Arcy Thompson, Brian Goodwin, Steven Rose and Simon Conway Morris have worked on the metaphor of
unfolding organic forms, a kind of self-organisation within each species, which has its own logic. Contrary to the long-held
view of nature red in tooth and claw, Goodwin has written that humans are every bit as co-operative as we are competitive; as altruistic as we are selfish.
Now the old metaphors of evolution need to give way to new ones founded on integrative thinking reasoning based on
systems thinking. This way, the work of evolution can be seen as intelligible and constructive,
not as a gamble driven randomly by the forces of competition. And if non-competitive imagery is needed, systems biologist
Denis Noble has a good go at it in The Music Of Life, where he points out how natural development, not being a car, needs no
single driver to direct it. Symphonies, he remarks, are not caused only by a single dominant instrument nor,
indeed, solely by their composer. And developing organisms do not even need a composer: they grow, as wholes,
out of vast and ancient systems which are themselves parts of nature.
She did not reveal whether she is an admirer of John Cages chance music, but his kind of music seems to be the only kind
that emerges without a composer. All other symphonies are usually composed and performed by intelligent design. It could
be argued, though, that even John Cage purposefully chose to produce his works in certain directed ways. He had to choose to sit
at a piano, for instance, and decide not to play for 4 minutes and 33 seconds, turning pages at pre-designed movements.
For the metaphor to work, Cage would have had to step aside and do absolutely nothing but even that would be a choice.
Metaphors bewitch you (07/04/2003).
If Mary Midgley wants to criticize earlier scientists for imposing their social values (like competition) on nature, then how
can she avoid being criticized for imagining nature to be a self-organizing system? The next philosopher in future years could
just as easily sneer at Midgleys own misguided conceptions of nature, just as she sneered at evolutionists for being guilty of the
most thoughtless uses of metaphor.
Is it even possible for humans to perceive nature without metaphors? If you look at the list, all of the
suggested metaphors have presupposed intelligent agency: clocks, billiards, warfare, competition, selfish genes, symphonies.
Intelligence in the atomistic view is a little harder to spot, until you recognize that colliding atoms presuppose
natural laws: spherical shapes, and consistent physics of collisions. Theists draw on the metaphor of a Creator
as Architect, Designer, Maker, and Overseer. That is how God describes himself. So if every other metaphor
already presupposes intelligent agency, then theism must be the most accurate one. Metaphors, therefore, can be true.
If metaphors are inescapable, the symphony one is a good one. God becomes the composer and conductor, His creatures
the obedient yet skilled musicians, the instruments the capabilities, skills and talents he has endowed on his works.
The music is extended in time, with moments of tension and relaxation, periods where the listener is uncertain where the
work is headed, but all working toward a planned finale.
Remove the sheet music and the conductor, though, and you get nothing but endless tuning exercises that all sound alike.
Eventually the musicians leave and the music stops, having gone nowhere. John Cage might be happy, but not the rest of us, who know design
when we see it and hear it. The fact that audiences vastly prefer Mozart to John Cage just might reveal something about reality.
Next headline on:
Darwin and Evolution
Politics and Ethics
Philosophy of Science
Bible and Theology
I love your blog [sic; science news site], and have been very blessed by your hard work of staying up to
speed on current science news. In fact, I like your blog articles so much that I am constantly quoting you
and using some of your material on Facebook discussion boards.
(a paralegal in California)
The things these scientists and priests of Darwin write are hysterical....
Thanks for the work of gathering it into a convenient location.
(a maintenance tech in Colorado)
I just found this site earlier today, and I can't stop reading! This seems like a great place to keep
myself updated in this heated debate between Creation science and Darwinian nonsense. Though being an electrical
engineer student, I may or may get involved with much biology in my future career; I still hope that my appreciation
for Gods design may help me become a better designer myself.
(an undergrad in California)
Your site is great. I read it every day. Whoever is doing the writing and researching is a genius:
witty, funny, insightful, informed and always right on....you make the darwinian farce look utterly laughable.
Keep up the great work...I'll be tuned in. God Bless you!
(a real estate investor in Texas)
First, thank you for your site. It is truly wonderful. I spend a lot of time debating evos on web sites ... and your site
is indispensable reading for me. I've been reading it for several years now and I would like to become a regular donor....
It wont be much, but Id like to do what I can. I feel this issue is the primary issue standing between
humanism and revival in America and the world.
(a reader in Florida)
I have just recently started studying this science of God stuff with some degree of diligence and I am astonished at what
I did not know and did not understand, despite my 58 years, and 4 Masters Degrees, to include from an Ivy League school.
Thank you for your efforts to get the true word out.
(a reader in Alabama)
Just wanted to let you know how much I enjoy creation headlines. I check them every few days and constantly gain perspective.
Without you, even I would possibly believe at least some of the baloney. Your baloney detector
is more sensitive and I appreciate it!!
(a pastor in Ontario, Canada)
Crev.info is by far my favorite website. The information is helpful in understanding and dismantling Darwinian foundations.
Some of my favorite articles are the biomimetics articles revealing the fantastic design that is obvious to anyone not blinded
by the evolutionary goggles. The commentaries are priceless, and love the embedded humor and clever innuendoes... Keep up the tremendous work!
(a database administrator in Texas)
Creation Evolution Headlines is my favorite website on intelligent design and Darwinism. This is both due
to your being always on the cutting edge of all the latest research relevant to the debate over evolution, as well as
due to your soberness coupled with your uncomprimising [sic] stand against Darwinism. Your work is invaluable.
Please keep it up all costs.
(founder of the Danish Society for Intelligent Design, who is beginning to translate some of our articles into Danish at
Thank you for your work. You show how the theory of macroevolution makes absolutely no contribution to scientific
progress and in fact impedes scientific progress. Conversely you show how the design assumption points the way toward
true progress in science.
(an aerospace engineer in California)
Your website is by far the best for getting the most up to date news on what is going on in the science realm,
and then separating the useful information from the baloney.
You have a knack for ripping the mask off of Darwin. Keep up the great work!
(an electrical engineer in North Carolina)
I love your work. I check in nearly every day.
(an associate pastor in California who works with college grad students)
Ive been a fan of your site for some time, since a friend in an intelligent design group I joined
(quite clandestine for the sake of job security of those involved) clued me in to it. I check what you have to say every day.
I cant say enough about your highly credible scientific arguments, your incisive dissection of the issues, and your practical format.
Your references are always on target.
(a physician, surgeon and writer in Georgia)
Nice site. I enjoy reading the comments, and find it quite informative....
I am a frequent visitor to your headlines page. I am a former agnostic, and Creation Safaris
was one of the first pieces of open evolution questioning read (The Baloney Detector). Great stuff.
(a historian in Australia)
You do a terrific job on snatching content from the headlines and filtering it for stupidity and lockstep paradigm thinking!
Not only are you on top of things but you do garnish the dish well!
(an IT security consultant in the midwest)
I always thought that science and the Bible should not be at odds with each other and prayed that God
would reveal the truth about evolution/creation through science to us. I wondered if there existed
scientists who were believers and how they reconciled Genesis with science. Where were they when I was teaching?
Now I understand that these Godly men and women had been silenced.... I am so thankful for your website
containing your insightful and educational articles that reveal your understanding of science and Gods word.
(a retired biology teacher in Ohio)
It keeps getting better and better. Wonderful resources there.
(a mechanical engineer and educational consultant in Texas)
Just stopped by to say Hi; Thanks again for your posting--still the best web site on the net!!
(a regular reader in Illinois)
I accidentally came across your BRILLIANT website today.... your website is mesmerising and i sincerely thank you for it.
Wishing you every success.
(an author in Ireland)
I appreciate your reviews more than I can tell. Being able to find the references enables me to
share them with my colleagues and students.
(a teacher in Virginia)
Thank you for your site. I have thoroughly enjoyed it for a few years now and find it an awesome resource.
(a pastor in the arctic circle)
This is a lovely site, and I personally visit this often.... An interesting thing is also the
creation scientist of the month .... just this information alone is enough to write a book from.
(a reader in South Africa)
What God has done through you and crev.info in the past 9 years is nothing less than miraculous.
(an author, PhD in science, and head of a Christian apologetics organization)
I thank God for you and your contribution to His Kingdom. Yours is my favorite site.
May the Lord bless you this season as you get some rest. We really appreciate your work.
(a consultant in Virginia responding to our Thanksgiving-week hiatus)
Instead of criticising every piece of evidence for evolution how about presenting some evidence for creationism?
Obviously there are holes in evolutionary theory we cant even define a species! But its a theory with a
whole load of evidence and if taken at its definition is a mathmatical [sic] certainty.
(a student in Leeds, UK, who must have reacted to one or a few articles, and appears to be
philosophically and mathematically challenged)
In the creation vs. evolution world, which oftentimes is filled with a strong negative vibe,
your website is a breath of fresh air! Keep it up.
(a business manager in Texas)
The maple-seed helicopter (10/21/2009) is fascinating.
Ill be spending some time surfing your encyclopedic collection of articles.
(dean of the aerospace engineering department at a major university)
I stumbled upon this web site more than once by following links from my usual creationist web sites but now I visit here quite often. I am glad to see that there are more and more creationist web sites but disappointed to find out that this one has been running for nearly 10 years and I never knew about it.
(an electronics engineer in Sweden)
I am a teacher ... For three years ive been learning from you at crev.info/... My wife, a teacher also, passes your website on to all interested. We are blessed by your gifts to the body of Christ through this site! Thank-you for ALL your efforts over the decade.
(a teacher in California)
I just want to thank you for these resources that go back 9 years.
It has helped be tremendously when debating evolutionists. Just like in the Parable of the
Talents, God will say to you, Well done, good and faithful servant!
(an engineer in Maryland)
There is no other place I can find the breadth of subjects covered, yet with the detailed insight you give.
People actually think I am smarter than I really am after I read your summaries.
(a business owner in Utah)
I believe there is a middle ground between ID and Evolution that defines what goes on in the real world. It hasnt been labeled by humanity yet, and its probably better that it hasnt, for now. The problem is there is still so much that humanity doesnt know about the universe we live in and our learning progress is so uneven throughout our population. If there is an Intelligent Designer, and I believe there is, these problems too will be taken care of eventually. In the meantime, you do the best you can, the best that's humanly possible, to be objective and logical, while maintaining your faith.
(a retired letter carrier in Pennsylvania)
The information you have provided has been instrumental in completely resolving
any lingering doubts I had when I became a Christian and being faced with the monolithic
theory of evolution. Your website is unique in that it allows the evolutionists
themselves to shoot them in the feet by quoting them in context. Bravo!
(a retired surveyor in Australia)
I really enjoy reading your posts and often send out links to various friends and family members to direct them to your site.
You have an incredible gift and I truly appreciate how you use it.... I have been a satisfied reader of your headlines for the last 5 years at least...
cant remember when I first stumbled on your site but it is now a daily must-stop for me.
(a senior software engineer in Ohio)
Thank you so much for your news. Ive fully enjoyed your articles and commentary for a while now and look forward to the future.
(a doctor in North Carolina)
I like your stuff.
(a doctor in New York)
Thank you and may God bless you all at CEH, for the wonderful work you do.
(a retired surveyor in Australia)
The information you put out there is absolutely superb.
(a lawyer in Kansas)
Your website is the best website on the web for keeping me current of fast developing crev material.
(a medical doctor in California)
I am a Christian & really appreciate the creation websites, I check your site every night.
(a logger in New Zealand)
I just found your website a day or so ago and am totally addicted.
You dont know what that says, considering Im only now within the last few days, as a matter of fact
a recovering old-earther ... Talk about going down internet rabbit trails.
I could go deeper and deeper into each headline you post and never get anything else done...
(a home school educator, graphic designer, painter, former geologist in Texas)
I very much enjoy your web site. I have used it as a resource for debating evolutionist for about a year.
I am impressed at the breadth of journals and quantity of articles you report on. I have recommended your site to
several of my on line friends. I dont care if you publish this post but I wanted you to know how thankful
I am for all the hard work you do.
(an engineering recruiter in California)
I pray that our Lord continue to give you strength to continue writing your articles
on Creation-headlines. I have been really blessed to read it daily....Unlike all
other creation sites I am familiar with, yours has such a high scientific quality and
your discussions are great.
(a scientist and university professor in Iceland, where 95% of the people believe in evolution)
Thank you for the work you do ... I scratch my head sometimes, wondering how you have the time for it all.
(a former atheist/evolutionist in aerospace engineering, now Biblical creationist)
Im a regular (daily :) reader of your site. It is amazing the amount
of work that you impart in such a project. Thank you very much.
(an IT professional with a degree in mechanical engineering from Portugal)
I find your site so helpful and you are so fast in putting up responses to current news.
I have your site RSS feed on my toolbar and can easily see when you have new articles posted.
(a geologist in Australia)
I have been reading your website for several years now. Working in an environment where
most people believe that there are only two absolutes, evolution and relativism, it has been wonderful
to be able to get the facts and the explanations of the bluffs and false logic that blows around.
I have posted your website in many places on my website, because you seem to have the ability to cut
through the baloney and get to the truth--a rare quality in this century. Thank you for all that you do.
(a business analyst in Wisconsin)
...this is one of the websites (I have like 4 or 5 on my favorites), and this is
there. Its a remarkable clearinghouse of information; its very well written,
its to the point... a broad range of topics. I have been alerted to more
interesting pieces of information on [this] website than any other website I can think of.
(a senior research scientist)
I would assume that you, or anyone affiliated with your website is simply not
qualified to answer any questions regarding that subject [evolution], because I can almost
single-handedly refute all of your arguments with solid scientific arguments....
Also, just so you know, the modern theory of evolution does not refute the existence
of a god, and it in no way says that humans are not special. Think about that
before you go trying to discredit one of the most important and revolutionary scientific
ideas of human history. It is very disrespectful to the people who have spent
their entire lives trying to reveal some kind of truth in this otherwise crazy world.
(a university senior studying geology and paleontology in Michigan)
Hi guys, thanks for all that you do, your website is a great source of information: very comprehensive.
(a medical student in California)
You are really doing a good job commenting on the weaknesses of science, pointing
out various faults. Please continue.
(a priest in the Netherlands)
I much enjoy the info AND the sarcasm. Isaiah was pretty sarcastic at times, too.
I check in at your site nearly every day. Thanks for all your work.
(a carpet layer in California)
I just wanted to write in to express my personal view that everyone at Creation
Evolution Headlines is doing an excellent job! I have confidences that in the
future, Creation Evolution Headline will continue in doing such a great job!
Anyone who has interest at where science, as a whole, is at in our current times,
does not have to look very hard to see that science is on the verge of a new awakening....
Its not uncommon to find articles that are supplemented with assumptions and vagueness.
A view point the would rather keep knowledge in the dark ages. But when I read over the
postings on CEH, I find a view point that looks past the grayness.
The whole team at CEH helps cut through the assumptions of weary influences.
CEH helps illuminate the true picture that is shining in todays science.
A bright clear picture, full of intriguing details, independence and fascinating complexities.
I know that Creation Evolution Headlines has a growing and informative future before them.
Im so glad to be along for the ride!!
(a title insurance employee in Illinois, who called CEH The Best Web Site EVER !!)
Thank you very much for your well presented and highly instructive blog [news service].
(a French IT migration analyst working in London)
Please keep up the great work -- your website is simply amazing!
Dont know how you do it. But it just eviscerates every evolutionary
argument they weakly lob up there -- kind of like serving up a juicy fastball
to Hank Aaron in his prime!
(a creation group leader in California)
I just want to thank you for your outstanding job. I am a regular reader of
yours and even though language barrier and lack of deeper scientific insight play
its role I still draw much from your articles and always look forward to them.
(a financial manager and apologetics student in Prague, Czech Republic)
You guys are doing a great job! ... I really appreciate the breadth of coverage and depth of analysis that you provide on this site.
(a pathologist in Missouri)
I have read many of your creation articles and have enjoyed and appreciated your website.
I feel you are an outstanding witness for the Lord.... you are making a big difference, and
you have a wonderful grasp of the issues.
(a PhD geneticist, author and inventor)
Thank you for your great creation section on your website. I come visit
it every day, and I enjoy reading those news bits with your funny (but oh so true) commentaries.
(a computer worker in France)
I have been reading Creation Evolution Headlines for many years now with ever increasing astonishment....
I pray that God will bless your work for it has been a tremendous blessing for me and I thank you.
(a retired surveyor in N.S.W. Australia)
I totally enjoy the polemic and passionate style of CEH... simply refreshes the
heart which its wonderful venting of righteous anger against all the BS were
flooded with on a daily basis. The baloney detector
is just unbelievably great. Thank you so much for your continued effort,
keep up the good work.
(an embedded Linux hacker in Switzerland)
I love to read about science and intelligent design,
I love your articles.... I will be reading your articles for the rest of my life.
(an IT engineer and 3D animator in South Africa)
I discovered your site about a year ago and found it to be very informative,
but about two months back I decided to go back to the 2001 entries and read through the
headlines of each month.... What a treasure house of information!
....you have been very balanced and thoughtful
in your analysis, with no embarrassing predictions, or pronouncements or unwarranted
statements, but a very straightforward and sometimes humorous analysis of the news
relating to origins.
(a database engineer in New York)
I discovered your site several months ago.... I found your articles very
informative and well written, so I subscribed to the RSS feed. I just want to
thank you for making these articles available and to encourage you to keep up the good work!
(a software engineer in Texas)
Your piece on Turing Test Stands (09/14/2008)
was so enlightening. Thanks so much. And your piece on Cosmology
at the Outer Limits (06/30/2008) was
another marvel of revelation. But most of all your footnotes at
the end are the most awe-inspiring. I refer to Come to the light
and Psalm 139 and many others. Thanks so much for keeping us grounded in the
TRUTH amidst the sea of scientific discoveries and controversy. Its so
heartwarming and soul saving to read the accounts of the inspired writers testifying
to the Master of the Universe. Thanks again.
(a retired electrical engineer in Mississippi)
I teach a college level course on the issue of evolution and creation.
I am very grateful for your well-reasoned reports and analyses of the issues that
confront us each day. In light of all the animosity that evolutionists
express toward Intelligent Design or Creationism, it is good to see that we on
the other side can maintain our civility even while correcting and informing a
hostile audience. Keep up the good work and do not compromise your high
standards. I rely on you for alerting me to whatever happens to be the news
of the day.
(a faculty member at a Bible college in Missouri)
Congratulations on reaching 8 years of absolute success with crev.info....
Your knowledge and grasp of the issues are indeed matched by your character and desire for truth,
and it shows on every web page you write.... I hope your work extends to the ends of the world,
and is appreciated by all who read it.
(a computer programmer from Southern California)
Your website is one of the best, especially for news.... Keep up the great work.
(a science writer in Texas)
I appreciate the work youve been doing with the
Creation-Evolution Headlines website.
(an aerospace engineer for NASA)
I appreciate your site tremendously.... I refer many people to your content
frequently, both personally and via my little blog....
Thanks again for one of the most valuable websites anywhere.
(a retired biology teacher in New Jersey, whose blog features beautiful plant
and insect photographs)
I dont remember exactly when I started reading your site but it was probably
in the last year. Its now a staple for me. I appreciate the depth
of background you bring to a wide variety of subject areas.
(a software development team leader in Texas)
I want to express my appreciation for what you are doing. I came across
your website almost a year ago.... your blog [sic; news service] is one that I regularly
read. When it comes to beneficial anti-evolutionist material, your blog
has been the most helpful for me.
(a Bible scholar and professor in Michigan)
I enjoyed reading your site. I completely disagree with you on just
about every point, but you do an excellent job of organizing information.
(a software engineer in Virginia. His criticisms led to an engaging dialogue.
He left off at one point, saying, You have given me much to think about.)
I have learned so much since discovering your site about 3 years ago.
I am a homeschooling mother of five and my children and I are just in wonder over
some the discoveries in science that have been explored on creation-evolution headlines.
The baloney detector will become a part of my curriculum during the next school year.
EVERYONE I know needs to be well versed on the types of deceptive practices used by
those opposed to truth, whether it be in science, politics, or whatever the subject.
(a homeschooling mom in Mississippi)
Just wanted to say how much I love your website. You present the truth
in a very direct, comprehensive manner, while peeling away the layers of propaganda
disguised as 'evidence' for the theory of evolution.
(a health care worker in Canada)
Ive been reading you daily for about a year now. Im extremely
impressed with how many sources you keep tabs on and I rely on you to keep my finger
on the pulse of the controversy now.
(a web application programmer in Maryland)
I would like to express my appreciation for your work exposing the Darwinist
assumptions and speculation masquerading as science.... When I discovered your site
through a link... I knew that I had struck gold! ....Your site has helped me to
understand how the Darwinists use propaganda techniques to confuse the public.
I never would have had so much insight otherwise... I check your site almost daily to
keep informed of new developments.
(a lumber mill employee in Florida)
I have been reading your website for about the past year or so.
You are [an] excellent resource. Your information and analysis is spot on, up to
date and accurate. Keep up the good work.
(an accountant in Illinois)
This website redefines debunking. Thanks for wading through the obfuscation
that passes for evolution science to expose the sartorial deficiencies of
Emperor Charles and his minions. Simply the best site of its kind, an
amazing resource. Keep up the great work!
(an engineer in Michigan)
I have been a fan of your daily news items for about two years, when a friend pointed
me to it. I now visit every day (or almost every day)... A quick kudo: You are
amazing, incredible, thorough, indispensable, and I could list another ten
superlatives. Again, I just dont know how you manage to comb so widely, in so many
technical journals, to come up with all this great news from science info.
(a PhD professor of scientific rhetoric in Florida and author of two books, who added that he was
awe-struck by this site)
Although we are often in disagreement, I have the greatest respect and admiration for your writing.
(an octogenarian agnostic in Palm Springs)
your website is absolutely superb and unique. No other site out
there provides an informed & insightful running critique of the current
goings-on in the scientific establishment. Thanks for keeping us informed.
(a mechanical designer in Indiana)
I have been a fan of your site for some time now. I enjoy reading the No Spin of what
is being discussed.... keep up the good work, the world needs to be shown just how little the scientist
[sic] do know in regards to origins.
(a network engineer in South Carolina)
I am a young man and it is encouraging to find a scientific journal
on the side of creationism and intelligent design....
Thank you for your very encouraging website.
(a web designer and author in Maryland)
GREAT site. Your ability to expose the clothesless emperor in clear language is indispensable to
us non-science types who have a hard time seeing through the jargon and the hype. Your tireless efforts
result in encouragement and are a great service to the faith community. Please keep it up!
(a medical writer in Connecticut)
I really love your site and check it everyday. I also recommend it to everyone I can, because there is
no better website for current information about ID.
(a product designer in Utah)
Your site is a fantastic resource. By far, it is the most current, relevant and most frequently
updated site keeping track of science news from a creationist perspective. One by one, articles
challenging currently-held aspects of evolution do not amount to much. But when browsing the archives,
its apparent youve caught bucketfulls of science articles and news items that devastate
evolution. The links and references are wonderful tools for storming the gates of evolutionary paradise
and ripping down their strongholds. The commentary is the icing on the cake. Thanks for all your
hard work, and by all means, keep it up!
(a business student in Kentucky)
Thanks for your awesome work; it stimulates my mind and encourages my faith.
(a family physician in Texas)
I wanted to personally thank you for your outstanding website. I am intensely interested in any
science news having to do with creation, especially regarding astronomy. Thanks again for your GREAT
(an amateur astronomer in San Diego)
What an absolutely brilliant website you have. Its hard to express how uplifting it is for me
to stumble across something of such high quality.
(a pharmacologist in Michigan)
I want to make a brief commendation in passing of the outstanding job you did in rebutting the
thinking on the article: Evolution of Electrical Engineering
... What a rebuttal to end all rebuttals, unanswerable,
inspiring, and so noteworthy that was. Thanks for the effort and research you put into it.
I wish this answer could be posted in every church, synagogue, secondary school, and college/university...,
and needless to say scientific laboratories.
(a reader in Florida)
You provide a great service with your thorough coverage of news stories relating
to the creation-evolution controversy.
(an elder of a Christian church in Salt Lake City)
I really enjoy your website and have made it my home page so I can check on your latest articles.
I am amazed at the diversity of topics you address. I tell everyone I can about your site and encourage them to
check it frequently.
(a business owner in Salt Lake City)
Ive been a regular reader of CEH for about nine month now, and I look forward to each new posting.... I enjoy the information CEH gleans from current events in science and hope you keep the service going.
(a mechanical engineer in Utah)
It took six years of constant study of evolution to overcome the indoctrination found in public schools of my youth. I now rely on your site; it helps me to see the work of God where I could not see it before and to find miracles where there was only mystery. Your site is a daily devotional that I go to once a day and recommend to everyone. I am still susceptible to the wiles of fake science and I need the fellowship of your site; such information is rarely found in a church.
Now my eyes see the stars God made and the life He designed and I feel the rumblings of joy as promised. When I feel down or worried my solution is to praise God the Creator Of All That Is, and my concerns drain away while peace and joy fill the void. This is something I could not do when I did not know (know: a clear and accurate perception of truth) God as Creator. I could go on and on about the difference knowing our Creator has made, but I believe you understand.
I tell everyone that gives me an opening about your site. God is working through you. Please dont stop telling us how to see the lies or leading us in celebrating the truth. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.
(a renowned artist in Wyoming)
I discovered your site a few months ago and it has become essential reading via RSS to
(a cartographer and GIS analyst in New Zealand)
I love your site, and frequently visit to read both explanations of news reports,
and your humor about Bonny Saint Charlie.
(a nuclear safety engineer in Washington)
Your site is wonderful.
(a senior staff scientist, retired, from Arizona)
Ive told many people about your site. Its a tremendous service to
science news junkies not to mention students of both Christianity and
(a meteorology research scientist in Alabama)
...let me thank you for your Creation-Evolution Headlines. Ive been an avid reader of it since I first discovered your website about five years ago. May I also express my admiration for the speed with which your articles appearoften within 24 hours of a particular news announcement or journal article being published.
(a plant physiologist and prominent creation writer in Australia)
How do you guys do it--reviewing so much relevant material every day and writing incisive,
(a retired high school biology teacher in New Jersey)
Your site is one of the best out there! I really love reading your articles on creation evolution
headlines and visit this section almost daily.
(a webmaster in the Netherlands)
Keep it up! Ive been hitting your site daily (or more...).
I sure hope you get a mountain of encouraging email, you deserve it.
(a small business owner in Oregon)
Great work! May your tribe increase!!!
(a former Marxist, now ID speaker in Brazil)
You are the best. Thank you....
The work you do is very important.
Please dont ever give up. God bless the whole team.
(an engineer and computer consultant in Virginia)
I really appreciate your work in this topic, so you should never stop doing what you do,
cause you have a lot of readers out there, even in small countries in Europe, like Slovenia
is... I use crev.info for all my signatures on Internet forums etc., it really is fantastic site,
the best site! You see, we(your pleased readers) exist all over the world, so you must be
doing great work! Well i hope you have understand my bad english.
(a biology student in Slovenia)
Thanks for your time, effort, expertise, and humor. As a public school biology teacher I
peruse your site constantly for new information that will challenge evolutionary belief and share much
of what I learn with my students. Your site is pounding a huge dent in evolutions supposed
solid exterior. Keep it up.
(a biology teacher in the eastern USA)
Several years ago, I became aware of your Creation-Evolution Headlines web site.
For several years now, it has been one of my favorite internet sites. I many times check your
website first, before going on to check the secular news and other creation web sites.
I continue to be impressed with your writing and research skills, your humor,
and your technical and scientific knowledge and understanding. Your ability to cut through
the inconsequentials and zero in on the principle issues is one of the characteristics that
is a valuable asset....
I commend you for the completeness and thoroughness with which you provide
coverage of the issues. You obviously spend a great deal of time on this work.
It is apparent in ever so many ways.
Also, your background topics of logic and propaganda techniques have been useful
as classroom aides, helping others to learn to use their baloney detectors.
Through the years, I have directed many to your site. For their sake and mine,
I hope you will be able to continue providing this very important, very much needed, educational,
humorous, thought provoking work.
(an engineer in Missouri)
I am so glad I found your site. I love reading short blurbs about recent discoveries, etc,
and your commentary often highlights that the discovery can be interpreted in two differing ways,
and usually with the pro-God/Design viewpoint making more sense. Its such a refreshing difference
from the usual media spin. Often youll have a story up along with comment before the masses
even know about the story yet.
(a system administrator in Texas, who calls CEH the UnSpin Zone)
You are indeed the Rush Limbaugh Truth Detector of science falsely so-called.
Keep up the excellent work.
(a safety director in Michigan)
I know of no better way to stay
informed with current scientific research than to read your site everyday, which in turn has helped me understand
many of the concepts not in my area (particle physics) and which I hear about in school or in the media.
Also, I just love the commentaries and the baloney detecting!!
(a grad student in particle physics)
I thank you for your ministry. May God bless you! You are doing great job effectively
exposing pagan lie of evolution. Among all known to me creation ministries [well-known organizations listed]
Creationsafaris stands unique thanks to qualitative survey and analysis of scientific publications and news.
I became permanent reader ever since discovered your site half a year ago. Moreover your ministry is
effective tool for intensive and deep education for cristians.
(a webmaster in Ukraine, seeking permission to translate CEH articles into Russian to reach
countries across the former Soviet Union)
The scholarship of the editors is unquestionable. The objectivity of the editors is
admirable in face of all the unfounded claims of evolutionists and Darwinists. The amount
of new data available each day on the site is phenomenal (I cant wait to see the next new
article each time I log on). Most importantly, the TRUTH is always and forever the primary
goal of the people who run this website. Thank you so very much for 6 years of consistent
dedication to the TRUTH.
(11 months earlier): I just completed reading each entry from each month. I found your site about
6 months ago and as soon as I understood the format, I just started at the very first entry
and started reading.... Your work has blessed my education and determination to bold in
showing the unscientific nature of evolution in general and Darwinism in particular.
(a medical doctor in Oklahoma)
Thanks for the showing courage in marching against a popular unproven unscientific belief system.
I dont think I missed 1 article in the past couple of years.
(a manufacturing engineer in Australia)
I do not know and cannot imagine how much time you must spend to read, research and
compile your analysis of current findings in almost every area of science. But I do know
I thank you for it.
(a practice administrator in Maryland)
Since finding your insightful comments some 18 or more months ago, Ive
visited your site daily.... You
so very adeptly and adroitly undress the emperor daily; so much so one
wonders if he might not soon catch cold and fall ill off his throne! ....
To you I wish much continued success and many more years of fun and
frolicking undoing the damage taxpayers are forced to fund through
unending story spinning by ideologically biased scientists.
(an investment advisor in Missouri)
I really like your articles. You do a fabulous job of cutting through
the double-talk and exposing the real issues. Thank you for your hard
work and diligence.
(an engineer in Texas)
I love your site. Found it about maybe
two years ago and I read it every day. I love the closing comments in
green. You have a real knack for exposing the toothless claims of the
evolutionists. Your comments are very helpful for many us who dont know
enough to respond to their claims. Thanks for your good work and keep it
(a missionary in Japan)
I just thought Id write and
tell you how much I appreciate your headline list and commentary. Its
inspired a lot of thought and consideration. I check your listings every day!
(a computer programmer in Tulsa)
Just wanted to thank you for your creation/evolution news ... an outstanding educational
(director of a consulting company in Australia)
Your insights ... been some of the most helpful not surprising considering the caliber of
your most-excellent website! Im serious, ..., your website has to be the
best creation website out there....
(a biologist and science writer in southern California)
I first learned of your web site on March 29.... Your site has far exceeded my expectations and is
consulted daily for the latest. I join with other readers in praising your time and energy spent to educate,
illuminate, expose errors.... The links are a great help in understanding the news items.
The archival structure is marvelous.... Your site brings back dignity to Science conducted as it
should be. Best regards for your continuing work and influence. Lives are being changed and
sustained every day.
(a manufacturing quality engineer in Mississippi)
I wrote you over three years ago letting you know how much I enjoyed your Creation-Evolution headlines,
as well as your Creation Safaris site. I stated then that I read your headlines and commentary every day,
and that is still true! My interest in many sites has come and gone over the years, but your site is
still at the top of my list! I am so thankful that you take the time to read and analyze some of the
scientific journals out there; which I dont have the time to read myself. Your commentary is very,
very much appreciated.
(a hike leader and nature-lover in Ontario, Canada)
...just wanted to say how much I admire your site and your writing.
Youre very insightful and have quite a broad range of knowledge.
Anyway, just wanted to say that I am a big fan!
(a PhD biochemist at a major university)
I love your site and syndicate your content on my church website....
The stories you highlight show the irrelevancy
of evolutionary theory and that evolutionists have perpetual foot and
mouth disease; doing a great job of discrediting themselves. Keep up
the good work.
(a database administrator and CEH junkie in California)
I cant tell you how much I enjoy your article reviews on your
websiteits a HUGE asset!
(a lawyer in Washington)
Really, really, really a fantastic site. Your wit makes a razor appear dull!...
A million thanks for your site.
(a small business owner in Oregon and father of children who love your site too.)
Thank God for ... Creation
Evolution Headlines. This site is right at the cutting edge in the debate
over bio-origins and is crucial in working to undermine the
deceived mindset of naturalism. The arguments presented are unassailable
(all articles having first been thoroughly baloney detected) and the
narrative always lands just on the right side of the laymans comprehension
limits... Very highly recommended to all, especially, of course, to those who
have never thought to question the fact of evolution.
(a business owner in Somerset, UK)
I continue to note the difference between the dismal derogations of the
darwinite devotees, opposed to the openness and humor of rigorous, follow-the-evidence
scientists on the Truth side. Keep up the great work.
(a math/science teacher with M.A. in anthropology)
Your material is clearly among the best I have ever read on evolution problems!
I hope a book is in the works!
(a biology prof in Ohio)
I have enjoyed reading the sardonic apologetics on the Creation/Evolution Headlines section
of your web site. Keep up the good work!
(an IT business owner in California)
Your commentaries ... are always delightful.
(president of a Canadian creation group)
Im pleased to see... your amazing work on the Headlines.
(secretary of a creation society in the UK)
We appreciate all you do at crev.info.
(a publisher of creation and ID materials)
I was grateful for creationsafaris.com for help with baloney detecting. I had read about
the fish-o-pod and wanted to see what you thought. Your comments were helpful and encouraged me
that my own baloney detecting skill are improving. I also enjoyed reading your reaction
to the article on evolution teachers doing battle with students.... I will ask my girls to read your
comments on the proper way to question their teachers.
(a home-schooling mom)
I just want to express how dissapointed [sic] I am in your website. Instead of being objective, the
website is entirely one sided, favoring creationism over evolution, as if the two are contradictory....
Did man and simien [sic] evovlve [sic] at random from a common ancestor? Or did God guide this evolution?
I dont know. But all things, including the laws of nature, originate from God....
To deny evolution is to deny Gods creation. To embrace evolution is to not only embrace his creation,
but to better appreciate it.
(a student in Saginaw, Michigan)
I immensely enjoy reading the Creation-Evolution Headlines. The way you use words
exposes the bankruptcy of the evolutionary worldview.
(a student at Northern Michigan U)
...standing O for crev.info.
(a database programmer in California)
Just wanted to say that I am thrilled to have found your website! Although I
regularly visit numerous creation/evolution sites, Ive found that many of them do
not stay current with relative information. I love the almost daily updates to
your headlines section. Ive since made it my browser home page, and have
recommended it to several of my friends. Absolutely great site!
(a network engineer in Florida)
After I heard about Creation-Evolution Headlines,
it soon became my favorite Evolution resource site on the web. I visit several times a
day cause I cant wait for the next update. Thats pathetic, I know ...
but not nearly as pathetic as Evolution, something you make completely obvious with your snappy,
intelligent commentary on scientific current events. It should be a textbook for science
classrooms around the country. You rock!
(an editor in Tennessee)
One of the highlights of my day is checking your latest CreationSafaris creation-evolution news listing!
Thanks so much for your great work -- and your wonderful humor.
(a pastor in Virginia)
Thanks!!! Your material is absolutely awesome. Ill be using it in our Adult Sunday School class.
(a pastor in Wisconsin)
Love your site & read it daily.
(a family physician in Texas)
I set it [crev.info] up as my homepage. That way I am less likely to miss some really interesting events....
I really appreciate what you are doing with Creation-Evolution Headlines. I
tell everybody I think might be interested, to check it out.
(a systems analyst in Tennessee)
I would like to thank you for your service from which I stand to benefit a lot.
(a Swiss astrophysicist)
I enjoy very much reading your materials.
(a law professor in Portugal)
Thanks for your time and thanks for all the work on the site.
It has been a valuable resource for me.
(a medical student in Kansas)
Creation-Evolution Headlines is a terrific resource. The articles are
always current and the commentary is right on the mark.
(a molecular biologist in Illinois)
Creation-Evolution Headlines is my favorite
anti-evolution website. With almost giddy anticipation, I check
it several times a week for the latest postings. May God bless you and
empower you to keep up this FANTASTIC work!
(a financial analyst in New York)
I read your pages on a daily basis and I would like to let you know
that your hard work has been a great help in increasing my knowledge
and growing in my faith. Besides the huge variety of scientific
disciplines covered, I also enormously enjoy your great sense of humor
and your creativity in wording your thoughts, which make reading your
website even more enjoyable.
(a software developer in Illinois)
THANK YOU for all the work you do to make this wonderful resource! After
being regular readers for a long time, this year weve incorporated your
site into our home education for our four teenagers. The Baloney Detector
is part of their Logic and Reasoning Skills course, and the Daily Headlines
and Scientists of the Month features are a big part of our curriculum for an
elective called Science Discovery Past and Present. What a wonderful
goldmine for equipping future leaders and researchers with the tools of
(a home school teacher in California)
What can I say I LOVE YOU!
I READ YOU ALMOST EVERY DAY I copy and send out to various folks.
I love your sense of humor, including your politics and of course your faith.
I appreciate and use your knowledge What can I say THANK YOU
THANK YOU THANK YOU SO MUCH.
(a biology major, former evolutionist, now father of college students)
I came across your site while browsing through creation & science links. I love the work you do!
(an attorney in Florida)
Love your commentary and up to date reporting. Best site for evolution/design info.
(a graphic designer in Oregon)
I am an ardent reader of your site. I applaud your efforts and pass on
your website to all I talk to. I have recently given your web site info
to all my grandchildren to have them present it to their science
teachers.... Your Supporter and fan..God bless you all...
(a health services manager in Florida)
Why your readership keeps doubling: I came across your website at a time when I was just getting to know what creation science is all about. A friend of mine was telling me about what he had been finding out. I was highly skeptical and sought to read as many pro/con articles as I could find and vowed to be open-minded toward his seemingly crazy claims. At first I had no idea of the magnitude of research and information thats been going on. Now, Im simply overwhelmed by the sophistication and availability of scientific research and information on what I now know to be the truth about creation.
Your website was one of dozens that I found in my search. Now, there are only a handful of sites I check every day. Yours is at the top of my list... I find your news page to be the most insightful and well-written of the creation news blogs out there. The quick wit, baloney detector, in-depth scientific knowledge you bring to the table and the superb writing style on your site has kept me interested in the day-to-day happenings of what is clearly a growing movement. Your site ... has given me a place to point them toward to find out more and realize that theyve been missing a huge volume of information when it comes to the creation-evolution issue.
Another thing I really like about this site is the links to articles in science journals and news references. That helps me get a better picture of what youre talking about.... Keep it up and I promise to send as many people as will listen to this website and others.
(an Air Force Academy graduate stationed in New Mexico)
Like your site especially the style of your comments.... Keep up the good work.
(a retired engineer and amateur astronomer in Maryland)
Support This Site|
Scientist of the Month
Find our articles in:
Dutch Spanish Russian
|Guide to Evolution
Featured Creation Scientist for February
1838 - 1923
This is the Morley of the famous Michelson-Morley Experiment, which failed to find
an expected lumeniferous ether that might serve as a medium for light waves.
The result was vital to
Einsteins theory of relativity, in which Einstein treated the constancy of the
speed of light as a fundamental principle of the universe in the development of
his revolutionary ideas.
Here is what Dr. Don DeYoung wrote about Morley in his new book,
Pioneers of Intelligent Design (BMH Books, 2006), p. 68:
His Congregational minister father home schooled Morley. He later received
training at Andover Theological Seminary in Massachusetts, and pastored a church
in Ohio. Morley also had an unusual ability to make precise experimental
measurements. He shared this talent with a generation of engineering students
at Case Western Reserve Academy in Cleveland, Ohio. Morleys Christian
testimony is shown in the creed that he wrote for his students at Case Western:
I believe Jesus Christ shall come with the clouds of heaven to judge the
world in righteousness and that those who have believed in Him shall inherit
eternal life through the Grace of God.
If you are enjoying this series, you can
learn more about great Christians in science by reading
our online book-in-progress:
The Worlds Greatest
Creation Scientists from Y1K to Y2K.
Copies are also
available from our online store.
A Concise Guide|
You can observe a lot by just watching.
First Law of Scientific Progress
The advance of science can be measured by the rate at which exceptions to previously held laws accumulate.
1. Exceptions always outnumber rules.
2. There are always exceptions to established exceptions.
3. By the time one masters the exceptions, no one recalls the rules to which they apply.
Nature will tell you a direct lie if she can.
So will Darwinists.
Science is true. Dont be misled by facts.
Finagles 2nd Law
No matter what the anticipated result, there
will always be someone eager to (a) misinterpret it, (b) fake it, or (c)
believe it happened according to his own pet theory.
3. Draw your curves, then plot your data.
4. In case of doubt, make it sound convincing.
6. Do not believe in miracles rely on them.
Murphys Law of Research
Enough research will tend to support your theory.
If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
1. The bigger the theory, the better.
2. The experiments may be considered a success if no more than 50%
of the observed measurements must be discarded to obtain a correspondence
with the theory.
The number of different hypotheses erected to explain a given biological phenomenon
is inversely proportional to the available knowledge.
All great discoveries are made by mistake.
The greater the funding, the longer it takes to make the mistake.
The solution to a problem changes the nature of the problem.
Peters Law of Evolution
Competence always contains the seed of incompetence.
An expert is a person who avoids the small errors while sweeping on to the grand fallacy.
Repetition does not establish validity.
What really matters is the name you succeed in imposing on the facts not the facts themselves.
For every action, there is an equal and opposite criticism.
Thumbs Second Postulate
An easily-understood, workable falsehood is more useful than a complex, incomprehensible truth.
There is nothing so small that it cant be blown out of proportion
Hawkins Theory of Progress
Progress does not consist in replacing a theory that is
wrong with one that is right. It consists in replacing a theory that is wrong with one that is
more subtly wrong.
The best theory is not ipso facto a good theory.
Error is often more earnest than truth.
Advice from Paul|
Guard what was committed to your trust, avoiding the profane and idle
babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge by
professing it some have strayed concerning the faith.
I Timothy 6:20-21
Song of the True Scientist
O Lord, how manifold are Your works! In wisdom You have made
them all. The earth is full of Your possessions . . . . May the glory of the Lord endure forever. May the
Lord rejoice in His works . . . . I will sing to the Lord s long as I live; I will sing praise to my God while I have my
being. May my meditation be sweet to Him; I will be glad in the Lord. May sinners be
consumed from the earth, and the wicked be no more. Bless the Lord, O my soul! Praise the Lord!
from Psalm 104
Through the creatures Thou hast made
Show the brightness of Thy glory.
Be eternal truth displayed
In their substance transitory.
Till green earth and ocean hoary,
Massy rock and tender blade,
Tell the same unending story:
We are truth in form arrayed.
Teach me thus Thy works to read,
That my faith, new strength accruing
May from world to world proceed,
Wisdoms fruitful search pursuing
Till, thy truth my mind imbuing,
I proclaim the eternal Creed
Oft the glorious theme renewing,
God our Lord is God indeed.
James Clerk Maxwell
One of the greatest physicists
of all time (a creationist).
I really enjoy your website, the first I visit every day. I have a
quote by Mark Twain which seems to me to describe the Darwinian philosophy of
science perfectly. There is something fascinating about science.
One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment
of fact. Working as I do in the Environmental field (I am a geologist
doing groundwater contamination project management for a state agency) I see that
kind of science a lot. Keep up the good work!!
(a hydrogeologist in Alabama)
I visit your website regularly and I commend you on your work. I
applaud your effort to pull actual science from the mass of propaganda for Evolution
you report on (at least on those rare occasions when there actually is any science
in the propaganda). I also must say that I'm amazed at your capacity to
continually plow through the propaganda day after day and provide cutting and
amusing commentary.... I can only hope that youthful surfers will stop by
your website for a fair and interesting critique of the dogma they have to
imbibe in school.
(a technical writer living in Jerusalem)
I have enjoyed your site for several years now. Thanks for all the
hard work you obviously put into this. I appreciate your insights, especially
the biological oriented ones in which I'm far behind the nomenclature curve.
It would be impossible for me to understand what's going on without some
interpretation. Thanks again.
(a manufacturing engineer in Vermont)
Love your site and your enormous amount of intellectualism and candor
regarding the evolution debate. Yours is one site I look forward to on
a daily basis. Thank you for being a voice for the rest of us.
(a graphic designer in Wisconsin)
For sound, thoughtful commentary on creation-evolution hot topics go to
(Access Research Network
Your website is simply the best (and Id dare say one of the most important) web sites on the entire WWW.
(an IT specialist at an Alabama university)
Ive been reading the articles on this website for over a year, and
Im guilty of not showing any appreciation. You provide a great service.
Its one of the most informative and up-to-date resources on creation available
anywhere. Thank you so much. Please keep up the great work.
(a senior research scientist in Georgia)
Just a note to thank you for your site. I am a regular visitor and I use your site
to rebut evolutionary "just so" stories often seen in our local media.
I know what you do is a lot of work but you make a difference and are appreciated.
(a veterinarian in Minnesota)
This is one of the best sites I have ever visited. Thanks.
I have passed it on to several others... I am a retired grandmother.
I have been studying the creation/evolution question for about 50 yrs....
Thanks for the info and enjoyable site.
(a retiree in Florida)
It is refreshing to know that there are valuable resources such as Creation-Evolution
Headlines that can keep us updated on the latest scientific news that affect our view of
the world, and more importantly to help us decipher through the rhetoric so carelessly
disseminated by evolutionary scientists. I find it Intellectually Satisfying
to know that I dont have to park my brain at the door to be a believer
or at the very least, to not believe in Macroevolution.
(a loan specialist in California)
I have greatly benefitted from your efforts. I very much look forward
to your latest posts.
(an attorney in California)
I must say your website provides an invaluable arsenal in this war for souls
that is being fought. Your commentaries move me to laughter or sadness.
I have been viewing your information for about 6 months and find it one of the best
on the web. It is certainly effective against the nonsense published on
Talkorigins.org. It great to see work that glorifies God and His creation.
(a commercial manager in Australia)
Visiting daily your site and really do love it.
(a retiree from Finland who studied math and computer science)
I am agnostic but I can never deny that organic life (except human) is doing a wonderful
job at functioning at optimum capacity. Thank you for this ... site!
(an evolutionary theorist from Australia)
During the year I have looked at your site, I have gone through your archives and
found them to be very helpful and informative. I am so impressed that I forward link
to members of my congregation who I believe are interested in a higher level discussion
of creationist issues than they will find at [a leading origins website].
(a minister in Virginia)
I attended a public school in KS where evolution was taught. I have
rejected evolution but have not always known the answers to some of the
questions.... A friend told me about your site
and I like it, I have it on my favorites, and I check it every day.
(an auto technician in Missouri)
Thanks for a great site! It has brilliant insights into the world of
science and of the evolutionary dogma. One of the best sites I know of on
(a programmer in Iceland)
The site you run creation-evolution headlines is
extremely useful to me. I get so tired of what passes
for science Darwinism in particular and I find your
site a refreshing antidote to the usual junk.... it is clear that your thinking and logic
and willingness to look at the evidence for what the
evidence says is much greater than what I read in what
are now called science journals.
Please keep up the good work. I appreciate what you
are doing more than I can communicate in this e-mail.
(a teacher in California)
Im a small town newspaper editor in southwest Wyoming. Were pretty
isolated, and finding your site was a great as finding a gold mine. I read
it daily, and if theres nothing new, I re-read everything. I follow links.
I read the Scientist of the Month. Its the best site Ive run across. Our
local school board is all Darwinist and determined to remain that way.
(a newspaper editor in Wyoming)
have been reading your page for about 2 years or so....
I read it every day. I ...am well educated, with a BA in Applied Physics
from Harvard and an MBA in Finance from Wharton.
(a reader in Delaware)
I came across your website by accident about 4 months ago and look at it every day....
About 8 months ago I was reading a letter to the editor of the Seattle Times that was written
by a staunch anti-Creationist and it sparked my interest enough to research the
topic and within a week I was yelling, my whole lifes education has been a lie!!!
Ive put more study into Biblical Creation in the last 8 months than any other topic in my life.
Past that, through resources like your website...Ive been able to convince my father (professional mathematician and amateur geologist), my best friend (mechanical engineer and fellow USAF Academy Grad/Creation Science nutcase), my pastor (he was the hardest to crack), and many others to realize the Truth of Creation.... Resources like your website help the rest of us at the grassroots level drum up interest in the subject. And regardless of what the major media says: Creationism is spreading like wildfire, so please keep your website going to help fan the flames.
(an Air Force Academy graduate and officer)
I love your site! I **really** enjoy reading it for several specific reasons: 1.It uses the latest (as in this month!) research as a launch pad for opinion; for years I have searched for this from a creation science viewpoint, and now, Ive found it. 2. You have balanced fun with this topic. This is hugely valuable! Smug Christianity is ugly, and I dont perceive that attitude in your comments. 3. I enjoy the expansive breadth of scientific news that you cover. 4. I am not a trained scientist but I know evolutionary bologna/(boloney) when I see it; you help me to see it. I really appreciate this.
(a computer technology salesman in Virginia)
I love your site. Thats why I was more than happy to
mention it in the local paper.... I mentioned your site as the place
where..... Every Darwin-cheering news article is
reviewed on that site from an ID perspective. Then
the huge holes of the evolution theory are exposed,
and the bad science is shredded to bits, using real
(a project manager in New Jersey)
Ive been reading your site almost daily for about three years. I have
never been more convinced of the truthfulness of Scripture and the faithfulness of God.
(a system administrator and homeschooling father in Colorado)
I use the internet a lot to catch up on news back
home and also to read up on the creation-evolution controversy, one of my favourite topics.
Your site is always my first port of call for the latest news and views and I really appreciate
the work you put into keeping it up to date and all the helpful links you provide. You are a
beacon of light for anyone who wants to hear frank, honest conclusions instead of the usual diluted
garbage we are spoon-fed by the media.... Keep up the good work and know that youre changing lives.
(a teacher in Spain)
I am grateful to you for your site and look forward to reading new
stories.... I particularly value it for being up to date with what is going on.
(from the Isle of Wight, UK)
[Creation-Evolution Headlines] is the place to go for late-breaking
news [on origins]; it has the most information and the quickest turnaround.
Its incredible I dont know how you do it.
I cant believe all the articles you find. God bless you!
(a radio producer in Riverside, CA)
Just thought I let you know how much I enjoy
reading your Headlines section. I really appreciate
how you are keeping your ear to the ground in so
many different areas. It seems that there is almost
no scientific discipline that has been unaffected
by Darwins Folly.
(a programmer in aerospace from Gardena, CA)
I enjoy reading the comments on news articles on your site very much. It is incredible
how much refuse is being published in several scientific fields regarding evolution.
It is good to notice that the efforts of true scientists have an increasing influence at schools,
but also in the media.... May God bless your efforts and open the eyes of the blinded evolutionists
and the general public that are being deceived by pseudo-scientists.... I enjoy the site very much
and I highly respect the work you and the team are doing to spread the truth.
(an ebusiness manager in the Netherlands)
I discovered your site through a link at certain website...
It has greatly helped me being updated with the latest development in science and with
critical comments from you. I also love your baloney detector
and in fact have translated some part of the baloney detector into our language (Indonesian).
I plan to translate them all for my friends so as to empower them.
(a staff member of a bilateral agency in West Timor, Indonesia)
...absolutely brilliant and inspiring.
(a documentary film producer, remarking on the
I found your site several months ago and within weeks
had gone through your entire archives.... I check in several times a day for further
information and am always excited to read the new
articles. Your insight into the difference between
what is actually known versus what is reported has
given me the confidence to stand up for what I
believe. I always felt there was more to the story,
and your articles have given me the tools to read
through the hype....
You are an invaluable help and I commend your efforts.
Keep up the great work.
(a sound technician in Alberta)
I discovered your site (through a link from a blog) a few weeks ago and I cant stop reading it....
I also enjoy your insightful and humorous commentary at the end of each story. If the evolutionists
blindness wasnt so sad, I would laugh harder.
I have a masters degree in mechanical engineering from a leading University. When I read the descriptions, see the pictures, and watch the movies of the inner workings of the cell, Im absolutely amazed.... Thanks for bringing these amazing stories daily. Keep up the good work.
(an engineer in Virginia)
I stumbled across your site several months ago and have
been reading it practically daily. I enjoy the inter-links
to previous material as well as the links to the quoted
research. Ive been in head-to-head debate with a
materialist for over a year now. Evolution is just one of
those debates. Your site is among others that have been a
real help in expanding my understanding.
(a software engineer in Pennsylvania)
I was in the April 28, 2005 issue of Nature [see 04/27/2005
story] regarding the rise of intelligent design in the universities. It was through your website
that I began my journey out of the crisis of faith which was mentioned in that article. It was an honor to see you all highlighting the article in Nature. Thank you for all you have done!
(Salvador Cordova, George Mason University)
I shudder to think of the many ways in which you mislead readers, encouraging them to build a faith based on misunderstanding and ignorance. Why dont you allow people to have a faith that is grounded in a fuller understanding of the world?...
Your website is a sham.
(a co-author of the paper reviewed in the 12/03/2003
entry who did not appreciate the unflattering commentary. This led to a cordial
interchange, but he could not divorce his reasoning from the science vs. faith dichotomy,
and resulted in an impasse over definitions but, at least, a more mutually respectful dialogue.
He never did explain how his paper supported Darwinian macroevolution. He just claimed
evolution is a fact.)
I absolutely love creation-evolution news. As a Finnish university student very
interested in science, I frequent your site to find out about all the new science
stuff thats been happening you have such a knack for finding all this
information! I have been able to stump evolutionists with knowledge gleaned from
your site many times.
(a student in Finland)
I love your site and read it almost every day. I use it for my science class and
5th grade Sunday School class. I also challenge Middle Schoolers and High Schoolers to
get on the site to check out articles against the baloney they are taught in school.
(a teacher in Los Gatos, CA)
I have spent quite a few hours at Creation Evolution Headlines in the past week
or so going over every article in the archives. I thank you for such an informative
and enjoyable site. I will be visiting often and will share this link with others.
[Later] I am back to May 2004 in the archives. I figured I should be farther
back, but there is a ton of information to digest.
(a computer game designer in Colorado)
The IDEA Center also highly recommends visiting Creation-Evolution Headlines...
the most expansive and clearly written origins news website on the internet!
(endorsement on Intelligent Design and Evolution
Hey Friends, Check out this site: Creation-Evolution Headlines.
This is a fantastic resource for the whole family.... a fantastic reference library with summaries,
commentaries and great links that are added to
dailyarchives go back five years.
(a reader who found us in Georgia)
I just wanted to drop you a note telling you that at www.BornAgainRadio.com,
Ive added a link to your excellent Creation-Evolution news site.
(a radio announcer)
I cannot understand
why anyone would invest so much time and effort to a website of sophistry and casuistry.
Why twist Christian apology into an illogic pretzel to placate your intellect?
Isnt it easier to admit that your faith has no basis -- hence, faith.
It would be extricate [sic] yourself from intellectual dishonesty -- and
from bearing false witness.
Sincerely, Rev. [name withheld] (an ex-Catholic, apostate Christian Natural/Scientific pantheist)
Just wanted to let you folks know that we are consistent readers and truly appreciate
the job you are doing. God bless you all this coming New Year.
(from two prominent creation researchers/writers in Oregon)
Thanks so much for your site! It is brain candy!
(a reader in North Carolina)
I Love your site probably a little too much. I enjoy the commentary
and the links to the original articles.
(a civil engineer in New York)
Ive had your Creation/Evolution Headlines site on my favourites list for
18 months now, and I can truthfully say that its one of the best on the Internet,
and I check in several times a week. The constant stream of new information on
such a variety of science issues should impress anyone, but the rigorous and
humourous way that every thought is taken captive is inspiring. Im pleased
that some Christians, and indeed, some webmasters, are devoting themselves to
producing real content that leaves the reader in a better state than when they found him.
(a community safety manager in England)
I really appreciate the effort that you are making to provide the public with
information about the problems with the General Theory of Evolution. It gives me
ammunition when I discuss evolution in my classroom. I am tired of the evolutionary
dogma. I wish that more people would stand up against such ridiculous beliefs.
(a science teacher in Alabama)
If you choose to hold an opinion that flies in the face of every piece of evidence
collected so far, you cannot be suprised [sic] when people dismiss your views.
(a former Christian software distributor, location not disclosed)
...the Creation Headlines is the best. Visiting your site...
is a standard part of my startup procedures every morning.
(a retired Air Force Chaplain)
I LOVE your site and respect the time and work you put into it. I read
the latest just about EVERY night before bed and send selection[s] out to others and
tell others about it. I thank you very much and keep up the good work (and
(a USF grad in biology)
Answering your invitation for thoughts on your site is not difficult because
of the excellent commentary I find. Because of the breadth and depth of erudition
apparent in the commentaries, I hope Im not being presumptuous in suspecting
the existence of contributions from a Truth Underground comprised of
dissident college faculty, teachers, scientists, and engineers. If thats
not the case, then it is surely a potential only waiting to be realized. Regardless,
I remain in awe of the care taken in decomposing the evolutionary cant that bombards
us from the specialist as well as popular press.
(a mathematician/physicist in Arizona)
Im from Quebec, Canada. I have studied in pure sciences and after in actuarial mathematics.
Im visiting this site 3-4 times in a week. Im learning a lot and this site gives me the opportunity to realize that this is a good time to be a creationist!
(a French Canadian reader)
I LOVE your Creation Safari site, and the Baloney Detector material.
(a reader in the Air Force)
You have a unique position in the Origins community.
Congratulations on the best current affairs news source on the origins net.
You may be able to write fast but your logic is fun to work through.
(a pediatrician in California)
Visit your site almost daily and find it very informative, educational and inspiring.
(a reader in western Canada)
I wish to thank you for the information you extend every day on your site.
It is truly a blessing!
(a reader in North Carolina)
I really appreciate your efforts in posting to this website. I find
it an incredibly useful way to keep up with recent research (I also check science
news daily) and also to research particular topics.
(an IT consultant from Brisbane, Australia)
I would just like to say very good job with the work done here,
very comprehensive. I check your site every day. Its great
to see real science directly on the front lines, toe to toe with the
pseudoscience that's mindlessly spewed from the prestigious
(a biology student in Illinois)
Ive been checking in for a long time but thought Id leave you a
note, this time. Your writing on these complex topics is insightful,
informative with just the right amount of humor. I appreciate the hard
work that goes into monitoring the research from so many sources and then
writing intelligently about them.
(an investment banker in California)
Keep up the great work. You are giving a whole army of Christians
plenty of ammunition to come out of the closet (everyone else has).
Most of us are not scientists, but most of the people we talk to are not
scientists either, just ordinary people who have been fed baloney
for years and years.
(a reader in Arizona)
Keep up the outstanding work!
You guys really ARE making a difference!
(a reader in Texas)
I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say that science is not
hostile towards religion. It is the dogmatically religious that are
unwaveringly hostile towards any kind of science which threatens their
dearly-held precepts. Science (real, open-minded science) is not
interested in theological navel-gazing.
Note: Please supply your name and location when writing in. Anonymous attacks
only make one look foolish and cowardly, and will not normally be printed.
This one was shown to display a bad example.
I appreciate reading your site every day. It is a great way to keep
up on not just the new research being done, but to also keep abreast of the
evolving debate about evolution (Pun intended).... I find it an incredibly useful
way to keep up with recent research (I also check science news daily) and also
to research particular topics.
(an IT consultant in Brisbane, Australia)
I love your website.
(a student at a state university who used CEH when
writing for the campus newsletter)
....when you claim great uncertainty for issues that are fairly
well resolved you damage your already questionable credibility.
Im sure your audience loves your ranting, but if you know as much
about biochemistry, geology, astronomy, and the other fields you
skewer, as you do about ornithology, you are spreading heat, not
(a professor of ornithology at a state university, responding to
the 09/10/2002 headline)
I wanted to let you know I appreciate your headline news style of
exposing the follies of evolutionism.... Your style gives us constant,
up-to-date reminders that over and over again, the Bible creation account
is vindicated and the evolutionary fables are refuted.
(a reader, location unknown)
You have a knack of extracting the gist of a technical paper,
and digesting it into understandable terms.
(a nuclear physicist from Lawrence Livermore Labs who worked
on the Manhattan Project)
After spending MORE time than I really had available going thru
your MANY references I want to let you know how much I appreciate
the effort you have put forth.
The information is properly documented, and coming from
recognized scientific sources is doubly valuable. Your
explanatory comments and sidebar quotations also add GREATLY
to your overall effectiveness as they 1) provide an immediate
interpretive starting point and 2) maintaining the readers
(a reader in Michigan)
I am a huge fan of the site, and check daily for updates.
(reader location and occupation unknown)
I just wanted to take a minute to personally thank-you and let
you know that you guys are providing an invaluable service!
We check your Web site weekly (if not daily) to make sure we have
the latest information in the creation/evolution controversy.
Please know that your diligence and perseverance to teach the
Truth have not gone unnoticed. Keep up the great work!
(a PhD scientist involved in origins research)
You've got a very useful and informative Web site going.
The many readers who visit your site regularly realize that it
requires considerable effort to maintain the quality level and
to keep the reviews current.... I hope you can continue your
excellent Web pages. I have recommended them highly to others.
(a reader, location and occupation unknown)
As an apprentice apologist, I can always find an article
that will spark a spirited debate. Keep em
coming! The Truth will prevail.
(a reader, location and occupation unknown)
Thanks for your web page and work. I try to drop by
at least once a week and read what you have. Im a
Christian that is interested in science (Im a mechanical
engineer) and I find you topics interesting and helpful.
I enjoy your lessons and insights on Baloney Detection.
(a year later):
I read your site 2 to 3 times a week; which Ive probably done for a couple
of years. I enjoy it for the interesting content, the logical arguments, what I can
learn about biology/science, and your pointed commentary.
(a production designer in Kentucky)
I look up CREV headlines every day. It is a wonderful
source of information and encouragement to me.... Your gift of
discerning the fallacies in evolutionists interpretation of
scientific evidence is very helpful and educational for me.
Please keep it up. Your website is the best I know of.
(a Presbyterian minister in New South Wales, Australia)
Ive written to you before, but just wanted to say again
how much I appreciate your site and all the work you put into it.
I check it almost every day and often share the contents
(and web address) with lists on which I participate.
I dont know how you do all that you do, but I am grateful
for your energy and knowledge.
(a prominent creationist author)
I am new to your site, but I love it! Thanks for updating
it with such cool information.
(a home schooler)
I love your site.... Visit every day hoping for another of your
brilliant demolitions of the foolish just-so stories of those
who think themselves wise.
(a reader from Southern California)
I visit your site daily for the latest news from science journals and other media,
and enjoy your commentary immensely. I consider your web site to be the
most valuable, timely and relevant creation-oriented site on the internet.
(a reader from Ontario, Canada)
Keep up the good work! I thoroughly enjoy your site.
(a reader in Texas)
Thanks for keeping this fantastic web site going. It is very
informative and up-to-date with current news including incisive
(a reader in North Carolina)
Great site! For all the Baloney Detector is impressive and a
great tool in debunking wishful thinking theories.
(a reader in the Netherlands)
Just wanted to let you know, your work is having quite an impact.
For example, major postings on your site are being circulated among the
Intelligent Design members....
(a PhD organic chemist)
opening a can of worms ... I love to click all the related links and
read your comments and the links to other websites, but this usually makes me late
for something else. But its ALWAYS well worth it!!
(a leader of a creation group)
I am a regular visitor to your website ... I am impressed
by the range of scientific disciplines your articles address.
I appreciate your insightful dissection of the often unwarranted conclusions
evolutionists infer from the data... Being a medical
doctor, I particularly relish the technical detail you frequently include in
the discussion living systems and processes. Your website continually
reinforces my conviction that if an unbiased observer seeks a reason for the
existence of life then Intelligent Design will be the unavoidable
(a medical doctor)
A church member asked me what I thought was the best creation web site.
I told him CreationSafaris.com.
(a PhD geologist)
I love your site... I check it every day for interesting
information. It was hard at first to believe in Genesis fully, but
now I feel more confident about the mistakes of humankind and that all
their reasoning amounts to nothing in light of a living God.
(a college grad)
Thank you so much for the interesting science links and comments
on your creation evolution headlines page ... it is very
(a reader from Scottsdale, AZ)
visit your site almost every day, and really enjoy it. Great job!!!
(I also recommend it to many, many students.)
(an educational consultant)
I like what I seevery
much. I really appreciate a decent, calm and scholarly approach to the
whole issue... Thanks ... for this fabulous
It is refreshing to read your comments. You have a knack to get to the heart of
(a reader in the Air Force).
Love your website. It has well thought out structure and will help many
through these complex issues. I especially love the
I believe this is one of the best sites on the Internet.
I really like your side-bar of truisms.
Yogi [Berra] is absolutely correct. If I were a man of wealth, I would
support you financially.
(a registered nurse in Alabama, who found
us on TruthCast.com.)
WOW. Unbelievable.... My question is, do you sleep? ... Im utterly
impressed by your page which represents untold amounts of time and energy
as well as your faith.
(a mountain man in Alaska).
Just wanted to say that I recently ran across your web site featuring science
headlines and your commentary and find it to be A++++, superb, a 10, a homerun
I run out of superlatives to describe it! ... You can be sure I will
visit your site often daily when possible to gain the latest information
to use in my speaking engagements. Ill also do my part to help publicize
your site among college students. Keep up the good work. Your
material is appreciated and used.
(a college campus minister)
Disclaimer: Creation-Evolution Headlines includes links
to many external sites, but takes no responsibility for the
accuracy or legitimacy of their content. Inclusion of an
external link is strictly for the readers convenience,
and does not necessarily constitute endorsement of
the material or its authors, owners, or sponsors.|