Go to the ant-lion, you Darwinist, consider its ways and be wise! (~Proverbs 6:6)

I was continuing my reading of Pierre Grasse's "Evolution of Living Organisms" (see my previous post, "Pierre Grasse and the `irreducible complexity' of the blood-clotting cascade" for who he was) and I came across his description of the ant-lion (Myrmeleon formicarius, etc.), the larval stage of an otherwise unremarkable lace-winged fly (order Neuroptera).

But first, some background:

"ANT LIONS, name given to the larvae of a group of insects belonging to the Neuroptera and related to the Lacewing flies. The larval Ant lion digs itself a small conical pit in sand or soft soil and buries itself at the bottom of it. Ants and other small insects wandering across the ground fall into the pit and are seized by the Ant lion before they are able to escape up the loose soil of the pit walls. Ant lions, Myrmeleon spp, are common in southern Europe and the family is very widely distributed in tropical and subtropical regions. The adult Ant lion fly bears a superficial resemblance to the thin-bodied dragonflies, from which it is easily distinguished, however, by its long clubbed antennae and two prominent parallel veins in the wings which have no cross veinlets between them. Some of the tropical species may have a wing-span of up to 4 or 5 in (10-12½ cm). Their wings are usually of equal size, translucent with mottled patches. Some tropical species have enormously elongated hindwings drawn out at the ends so that they are shaped roughly like a squash racquet. Ant lions are nocturnal and their weak flight, achieved with their seemingly oversized wings, makes them conspicuous as they fly around lights. The larvae generally have pear-shaped bodies with enormous curved mandibles. Some species in Southeast Asia have a greatly elongated prothorax which gives the impression of a very long neck and therefore a rather bizarre appearance. FAMILY: Mymeleontidae, SUBORDER: Planipennia, ORDER: Neuroptera, CLASS: Insecta, PHYLUM: Arthropoda." (Fisher R.C., "Ant lions," in "Encyclopedia of the Animal World," [1977], Bay Books: Sydney NSW, Vol. 1, 1982, reprint, pp.84-85)

Dawkins mentions the ant-lion briefly in his latest book, "The Ancestor's Tale" (2004), noting that it is unique, i.e. among the "things that have evolved only once", but again [see posts 26-Jul-05, 25-Aug-05 & 07-Sep-05] Dawkins does not explain how RM&NS (the natural selection of random mutations) gradually step-by-tiny-step, micromutation-by-micromutation, produced the ant-lion's unique set of coordinated and interdependent features without which most (if not all) it could not have functioned in that role at all:

"How about things that have evolved only once, or not at all? ... I put the challenge to my Oxford colleague the entomologist and naturalist George McGavin, and he came up with a nice list, but still a short one compared with the list of things that have evolved many times. ... Ant lions are insect larvae of the order Neuroptera. Like many larvae, they look nothing like their adults. With their huge jaws, they could be good casting for a horror film. Each ant lion lurks in sand, just be the surface at the base of a conical pit trap which it digs itself. It digs by flicking sand vigorously outwards from the centre - this causes miniature landslides down the sides of the pit, and the laws of physics do the rest, neatly shaping the cone. Prey, usually ants, fall into the pit and slide down the steep sides into the ant lion's jaws. ... They are sometimes knocked down into the pit by the particles of sand." (Dawkins R., "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution," Houghton Mifflin Co: Boston MA, 2004, pp.592-593)

Grasse starts with a general point: "The humblest creature often poses evolutionary problems ... that cannot be escaped by mere rhetoric"! He then lists the "exceedingly rich collection of coaptations" (i.e. "complementary morphological features that allow close interlocking of opposing surfaces") that enable the ant-lion to live its unique way of life (numbered by me in square brackets):

"COAPTATION AND ADAPTATION OF UNLIKE PARTS. The humblest creature often poses evolutionary problems in stark terms that cannot be escaped by mere rhetoric. None is more `antichance' than the ant lion larva, for it offers the naturalist an exceedingly rich collection of coaptations and in all its organs pushes specialization, both morphological and physiological, to an extreme. Its [1] head is flat and [2] its mouth has become a slit hermetically closed by a double lock, two astonishing coaptations of parts formed independently of one another during ontogeny. The forward edge of the head is bent back underneath to form the upper lip, while a hexagonal plate whose real edge is welded to the wall of the skull forms the lower. The roof of the buccal slit has a triangular projection that fits into a preexisting hollow of the lower lip, the whole forming a kind of pushbutton. A second, complementary locking device is a dovetail assembly in which a sideways and forward projection of the floor of the pharynx is lodged in a corresponding groove in the roof of the mouth. A closed mouth is admittedly not conducive to absorption of food, and rules out all solids, but the ant-lion larva has adopted a very special means of nourishment: It pumps out the body fluids of its victims. Because of the locking of the buccal orifice, [2] the mandibles and maxillae are pushed laterally rearward from the oral cavity to the edges of the slot. They are highly elongated and their free extremities curve inward to form sharp-edged pincers. The mandibles have a [3] longitudinal groove on their inner face running as far as the root of the appendix, thus communicating with the buccal cavity. The maxilla, reproducing on a smaller scale the curve of the mandible, runs parallel to its inner side; externally it has [4] a gutter, which fits extremely snugly to the groove in the mandible. The superimposed trench and gutter form, edge to edge, a capillary channel: Coaptation is perfect. The ant lion larva ... digs its buccal pincers into the body of its prey. It first injects [5] a paralyzing poison secreted by a gland and kept ready in a small basilar swelling of the maxilla; the poison travels not down the capillary channel but along a longitudinal gap between epidermis and cuticle; thus, it does not mingle with the digestive juices. Once the prey is paralyzed, the ant lion injects into it, via its maxillomandibular capillary tube, digestive juices that attack and liquefy viscera and muscles. The juices can be withdrawn and then the body juices of the prey sucked off by conversion of [6] the pharynx to a reciprocating pump. The larva's sensory equipment includes [7] numerous organs capable of recording the tiniest mechanical vibration of the support. Let but a grain of sand trickle down the walls of its tunnel, and the larva, instantly alerted, gets ready to leap on the possible prey with its mandibles gaping wide. To struggle with the prey, the hunter needs to get a firm grip on the substratum. It is able to do so because [8] the rear end of its abdomen bears chitinous hooks that bite like teeth into the substratum and prevent slipping. The ant lion's habitat does not support a plentiful fauna, and starvation often occurs. For days on end the sedentary larvae lie hidden in the sand at the bottom of their funnel-shaped trap, on the lookout for possible prey, ant or other insect. But their physiology enables them to fast for long periods without dying. Since the larva lives in very dry sand, often sheltered from the rain, it can only survive by avoiding all losses of moisture. Its excretory function operates economically and [9] resorbs the water containing its urine and other waste. What is more, [10] the digestive tract ends at the junction of intermediate and lower intestines so that all defecation becomes impossible and the water absorbed with the food is totally conserved. In addition, the ant lion larva is protected against evaporation by [11] exceedingly impermeable integuments. Obliteration of the rectum from the digestive system enables it to be transformed into [12] an organ having a new functions that of silk tank and spinner. It dilates into a blister whose tip forms a fold into which the free extremities of the excretory organs or Malpighian tubes (cryptonephridism) penetrate, an arrangement facilitating resorption of the water in the urine. The segments of the Malpighian tubes nearest to their insertion into the intestine [13] alter in function, no longer excreting waste but secreting silk made of proteins and accumulated in the reservoir of if the ex-rectum. Through [14] the very narrow anus, which serves as a spinneret, the fully grown larva ejects the silk and, like a caterpillar, spins a cocoon in which, a few weeks later, it undergoes metamorphosis into a perfect imago." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, pp.161-163. Emphasis in original)

Grasse continues with a question for the Darwinists: "How many chance occurrences would it have taken to build this extraordinary creature ... It is not enough for a property to appear, it has to come at the right time ... [and] in a certain order" (my emphasis):

"So we now have to turn to the Darwinians and ask: `Have you ever seen a mutation simultaneously affecting two separate components of the body and producing structures that fit one another precisely? Tell us, have you ever beheld three, four, or five simultaneous mutations with matching structures producing coordinated effects? And yet you have observed and described thousands upon thousands of mutations. The huge populations of animals and humans bear witness to their frequency. In any man the number of mutated genes is extremely high. The mutations are nondescript, monstrous, or pathological, and are invariably, repeat, invariably incoherent. And yet it is by that that you claim to explain the biological order, and make evolution intelligible?' These are vital questions that demand an answer. There is no way of getting around them, or evading the issue. Every biologist who wants to know the truth must answer them, or be considered a sectarian and not a scientist. In science there is no `cause' to be defended, only truth to be discovered. How many chance occurrences would it have taken to build this extraordinary creature that braves the burning sands of the Sahara, endures prolonged fasting, economizes water, detects the slightest vibration in the ground, lies in wait for days on end at the bottom of a funnel, or goes forth, freely, to hunt down its prey? It is not enough for a property to appear, it has to come at the right time. These accidents, always fortunate of course, produced their effects by occurring in a certain order, for, out of order and untimely, they would have remained imperative [inoperative?]. What scientist would venture to estimate the chances of such a cascade, such an avalanche, of coordinated and mutually adjusted chance occurrences? The odds are infinitesimal." (Grasse P.-P., "Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation," Academic Press: New York NY, 1977, p.163. My emphasis)

Interestingly Darwin, while in Australia on his journey around the world in HMS Beagle, observed an ant-lion catching a fly, and he wrote in his diary at the time that "so beautiful, so simple & yet so artificial a contrivance" (the latter being Paley's favorite term for evidence of design!) occurring in different species of what must be then same genus in both Europe and Australia, was evidence that "The one hand [i.e. "the Creator"] has surely worked throughout the universe":

"January 18, 1836, New South Wales: `A little time before this I had been lying on a sunny bank & was reflecting on the strange character of the animals of this country as compared to the rest of the World. An unbeliever in everything beyond his own reason might exclaim, 'Surely two distinct Creators must have been at work; their object, however, has been the same & certainly the end in each case is complete.' Whilst thus thinking, I observed the conical pitfall of a Lion-Ant: a fly fell in & immediately disappeared; then came a large but unwary Ant. His struggles to escape being very violent, the little jets of sand described by Kirby (Vol. 1. p. 425) were promptly directed against him. His fate, however, was better than that of the fly's. With out doubt the predaecious Larva belongs to the same genus but to a different species from the European kind-Now what would the Disbeliever say to this? Would any two workmen ever hit on so beautiful, so simple & yet so artificial a contrivance?. It cannot be thought so. The one hand has surely worked throughout the universe. A Geologist perhaps would suggest that the periods of Creation have been distinct & remote the one from the other; that the Creator rested in his labor.'" (Darwin C.R., in Gruber H.E., "Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity," together with Gruber H.E. & Barrett P.H., "Darwin's Early and Unpublished Notebooks," Wildwood House: London, 1974, p.438. My emphasis)

PS. The above was what Darwin wrote in his diary on board HMS Beagle. But after he had returned to England and started work on his theory of evolution in 1837, Darwin published his Journal of Researches (later renamed "The Voyage of the 'Beagle'") in 1839, and relegated the diary entry to a footnote as well as editing out his references to the ant-lion's "beautiful, so simple & yet so artificial a contrivance" and "the Creator":

"* I was interested by finding here the hollow conical pitfall of the lion-ant, or some other insect: first a fly fell down the treacherous slope and immediately disappeared; then came a large but unwary ant; its struggles to escape being very violent, those curious little jets of sand, described by Kirby and Spence (Entomol., vol. i., p. 425) as being flirted by the insect's tail, were promptly directed against the expected victim. But the ant enjoyed a better fate than the fly, and escaped the fatal jaws which lay concealed at the base of the conical hollow. This Australian pit-fall was only about half the size of that made by the European lion-ant." (Darwin C.R., "The Voyage of the 'Beagle'" [1845], Edito-Service: Geneva, n.d., reprint, p.442)

It now sounds like Darwin's first thought was the right one!

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Let 'intelligent design' and science rumble

Here is an amazing op-ed column in the Los Angeles Times by "a human evolution writer for Science" journal no less, who is advocating that there be "A national debate over how best to explain the complexity of living organisms" between "leading proponents of intelligent design and our sharpest evolutionary biologists on a national television panel" and "If biblical literalists want to join in, let them." Also, "teachers to stage debates in their classrooms or in assemblies." My comments are in square brackets.

Los Angeles Times
Let 'intelligent design' and science rumble
By Michael Balter

MICHAEL BALTER is a human evolution writer for Science. The views expressed above are his own.

October 2, 2005

Should "Intelligent DESIGN" be taught in school alongside the theory of evolution?

That's the question being tried in a federal court in Pennsylvania, where 11 parents have sued to block the teaching of intelligent design in Dover's high school. But it's the wrong question. A national debate over how best to explain the complexity of living organisms would better serve our children, and adults too.

[Actually, there never was any "teaching of intelligent design in Dover's high school." What the "11 parents have sued" the Dover board of education over is a 1-minute statement that made two main points: 1) Darwin's theory of evolution is not a fact; and 2) there is ID material in the school library:

The Pennsylvania Academic Standards require students to learn about Darwin’s Theory of Evolution and eventually to take a standardized test of which evolution is a part. Because Darwin’s Theory is a theory, it continues to be tested as new evidence is discovered. The Theory is not a fact. Gaps in the Theory exist for which there is no evidence. A theory is defined as a well-tested explanation that unifies a broad range of observations. Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin’s view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves. With respect to any theory, students are encouraged to keep an open mind. The school leaves the discussion of the Origins of Life to individual students and their families. As a Standards-driven district, class instruction focuses upon preparing students to achieve proficiency on Standards- based assessments." (Dover Area School District, "Biology Curriculum Press Release," Dover Area Board of Directors, December 12, 2004)

However, what Balter is proposing here (although he is a bit confusing about it) is not "the teaching of intelligent design in ... school" but a "A national debate" on TV "over how best to explain the complexity of living organisms.]

Most scientists don't want any debate. Many view intelligent design as simply a new and more sophisticated attempt - "the thinking man's creationism," as Science magazine put it - to slip old-time religion into the classroom. They maintain that the theory of evolution, in particular natural selection, is so well supported by the evidence that it is the consensus scientific view. As such, it deserves a monopoly in school curricula.

[Again, it is simply false that "intelligent design" is "creationism", for starters ID is based on the evidence of nature, and "creationism" is based on the Bible. Some IDists are not even theists and many creationists are opposed to ID.]

Using complex statistics, intelligent-design theorists contend that natural selection fails to fully explain life's complexity, thus alternative explanations to evolution should be considered. As a rule, they don't speculate over who or what did the designing.

[Which contradicts the claim that "intelligent design" is "creationism"!]

Intelligent-design proponents also argue that the scientific consensus on evolution is not rock solid. The Seattle-based Discovery Institute, whose Center for Science and Culture spearheads the intelligent-design campaign, has recruited more than 400 scientists to sign its "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism," which states in part: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life."

[And I strongly suspect that those "400 scientists" would be just the tip of the iceberg. Indeed, I would not be surprised if there were not less than "400 scientists" in the whole world who would claim that "random mutation and natural selection" does "account for the complexity of life"!]

Opinion polls consistently show that a majority of Americans don't believe that the theory of evolution is the best explanation for our own origins. A November 2004 Gallup poll, for example, found that only 13% of respondents said they believed that God had no part in the evolution or creation of human beings, and 38% said they thought humans evolved from less-advanced forms but that God guided the process. About 45% said they believed that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 or so years. These results echoed similar Gallup polls dating to 1982.

[And it is only the view of the 13% that is "the standard scientific theory [of evolution] that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" (my emphasis):

"In one of the most existentially penetrating statements ever made by a scientist, Richard Dawkins concluded that `the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.' Facing such a reality, perhaps we should not be surprised at the results of a 2001 Gallup poll confirming that 45 percent of Americans believe `God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so'; 37 percent prefer a blended belief that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process'; and a paltry 12 percent accept the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.'" (Shermer M.B., "The Gradual Illumination of the Mind," Scientific American, February 2002. My emphasis.)

The view of the 38% + 45% = 83% rejects "the standard scientific theory [of evolution]", despite decades of it having "a monopoly in school curricula."]

This suggests that scientists have won few converts during at least the last two decades - despite a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision banning the teaching of creationism in the classroom.

[Indeed, it is the stability of those poll results over more than "two decades" that is the most surprising, given evolution's State-sanctioned "monopoly in school curricula" in all that time.]

In large part, Americans' skepticism toward evolutionary theory reflects the continuing influence of religion. Yet it also implies that scientists have not been persuasive enough, even when buttressed by strong scientific evidence that natural selection alone can account for life's complexity.

[By "the continuing influence of religion" Balter tacitly admits that "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" can only be accepted by philosophical naturalists (i.e. who either deny that there is a God or deny that God intervened supernaturally in life's history), who, if history is any guide, will always only be a  minority. Agreed that "scientists have not been persuasive enough", but it is hard to see how they could do any better given their "monopoly in school curricula". The real reason that "the standard scientific theory" of evolution has made little (if any) headway in nearly a quarter of a century (1982-2004) is that they don't actually have "strong scientific evidence that natural selection alone can" (and what's more does) "account for life's complexity"!]

Could it be that the theory of evolution's judicially sanctioned monopoly in the classroom has backfired?

[Although I like the way he puts it: "judicially sanctioned monopoly in the classroom", this is where Balter gets confusing. It is unclear what he wants: "teaching of intelligent design in ... school" or "A national debate over how best to explain the complexity of living organisms"? But of course there is no reason why there could not be both, given that a TV debate is unlikely to do more that scratch the surface. Also, I don't agree that the problem is that it "backfired". The real problem is what made evolutionists seek a "judicially sanctioned monopoly in the classroom" in the first place, i.e. they know in their heart of hearts that the "scientific evidence that natural selection alone can account for life's complexity" just isn't there. And "two decades" of "evolution's judicially sanctioned monopoly in the classroom" has inadvertently taught that to the general public!]

For one thing, the monopoly strengthens claims by intelligent-design proponents that scientists don't want to be challenged.

[By George he's got it! The whole point of a "monopoly" is that it "doesn't want to be challenged". In the case of Darwinism, the public interpret that "doesn't want to be challenged" as `is afraid to be challenged" and therefore "they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics", including "employ[ing] propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked," and "rely[ing] on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story":

"In the final analysis, it is not any specific scientific evidence that convinces me that Darwinism is a pseudoscience that will collapse once it becomes possible for critics to get a fair hearing. It is the way the Darwinists argue their case that makes it apparent that they are afraid to encounter the best arguments against their theory. A real science does not employ propaganda and legal barriers to prevent relevant questions from being asked, nor does it rely on enforcing rules of reasoning that allow no alternative to the official story. If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw men. Instead they have chosen to rely on the dishonorable methods of power politics." (Johnson P.E., "The Wedge of Truth: Splitting the Foundations of Naturalism," Intervarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 2000, p.141)]

More important, it shields Darwinian theory from challenges that, when properly refuted, might win over adherents to evolutionary views.

[Agreed. But that is assuming that "Darwinian theory" both can and will be able to refute all such challenges.]

Pro-evolution scientists have little to lose and everything to gain from a nationwide debate. Let's put the leading proponents of intelligent design and our sharpest evolutionary biologists on a national television panel and let them take their best shots. If biblical literalists want to join in, let them. Let's encourage teachers to stage debates in their classrooms or in assemblies. [This has already been done in the 1997 Firing Line debate but it was inconclusive. I think such debates have a place but they are not a substitute for teaching the controversy in schools.]

Students can be assigned to one or the other side, and guest speakers can be invited. Among other things, students would learn that science, when properly done, reaches conclusions via experimentation, evidence and argument, not through majority view.

[Sounds great! But I wonder how many on Balter's side would agree? Their usual mantra is that "ID is not even science"!]

Would this bring religion into the classroom? Religious faith and thinking are already in the classroom, as the opinion polls strongly suggest. And the courts should stay out of it because educators would not be required nor allowed to advocate a religious point of view.

[But "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process'" is "a religious point of view." Specifically, the theory of evolution's foundational assumption that all mutations in the history of life have been random in the sense of unguided, because there is "no mechanism ... that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random":

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non- random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.312. Emphasis in original)

is inherently "a religious point of view", since God "could guide mutation in directions that are non-random" and to deny that is effectively atheism!]

The history of the theory of evolution is one of bitter debates between religion and science, and the debates continue today. In "On the Origin of Species," Charles Darwin refuted the arguments for intelligent design put forward by the 18th century English philosopher William Paley, who greatly influenced the evolutionary theorist until Darwin witnessed natural selection at work on the Galapagos Islands. Over the ensuing decades, Darwin's theories were rigorously tested and criticized before they won over the majority of scientists.

[This also is false. Darwin only mentioned "Paley" once in his On the Origin of Species and that was to agree with him:

"Natural selection will never produce in a being any structure more injurious than beneficial to that being, for natural selection acts solely by and for the good of each. No organ will be formed, as Paley has remarked, for the purpose of causing pain or for doing an injury to its possessor. If a fair balance be struck between the good and evil caused by each part, each will be found on the whole advantageous. After the lapse of time, under changing conditions of life, if any part comes to be injurious, it will be modified; or if it be not so, the being will become extinct as myriads have become extinct." (Darwin C.R., "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection," [1872], Everyman's Library, J.M. Dent & Sons: London, 6th Edition, 1928, reprint, p.187)

It was only in 1876, towards the end of his life, in his autobiography which was published posthumously, that Darwin claimed (and then only as a "vague conclusion") that "The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered":

"Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws." (Darwin C.R., in Barlow N., ed., "The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, 1809-1882: With Original Omissions Restored," [1958], W.W. Norton & Co: New York NY, 1969, reprint, pp.87)

But this is false, because as Oxford philosopher Richard Swinburne pointed out, even if Darwin's theory was 100% true, Paley's design argument (which Swinburne calls "the argument from spatial order") could then be reconstructed from the eighteenth century analogy of "machines of the kind which men make " (e.g. a watch made by a watchmaker) to the "twentieth century" analogy of "men [who] make not only machines, but machine making machines" (e.g. an automated mass-production line):

"We can reconstruct the argument from spatial order as follows. We see around us animals and plants, intricate examples of spatial order in the ways which Paley set out, similar to machines of the kind which men make. We know that these animals and plants have evolved by natural processes from inorganic matter. But clearly this evolution can only have taken place, given certain special natural laws. These are first, the chemical laws stating how under certain circumstances inorganic molecules combine to make organic ones and organic ones combine to make organisms. And secondly, there are the biological laws of evolution stating how organisms have very many offspring, some of which vary in one or more characteristics from their parents, and how some of these characteristics are passed on to most offspring, from which it follows that, given shortage of food and other environmental needs, there will be competition for survival, in which the fittest will survive. Among organisms very well fitted for survival will be organisms of such complex and subtle construction as to allow easy adaptation to a changing environment. These organisms will evince great spatial order. So the laws of nature are such as, under certain circumstances, to give rise to striking examples of spatial order similar to the machines which men make. Nature, that is, is a machine-making machine. In the twentieth century men make not only machines, but machine making machines. They may therefore naturally infer from nature which produces animals and plants, to a creator of nature similar to men who make machine-making machines." (Swinburne R.G., "The Existence of God," Clarendon Press: Oxford UK, Revised Edition, 1991, pp.135-136)

This BTW is one good reason why evolution should not have "a monopoly in school curricula": evolutionists make a lot of false statements not only about creation and intelligent design, but also about evolution, that they are never able to be challenged on.]

The best way to teach the theory of evolution is to teach this contentious history. The most effective way to convince students that the theory is correct is to confront, not avoid, continuing challenges to it.

[Balter is to be commended for advocating what is the ID movement's "teach the controversy" position. It will be interesting to see how many on his side agree with him!]

Given the opportunity to debate, scientists should say: "Bring it on."

[Agreed that "Given the opportunity to debate, scientists should say: "Bring it on." So why then don't evolutionary "scientists"? Anyway, "debate" is not the only, or even the best, means of resolving (or at least clarifying) the evolution/intelligent design controversy. But it is a start. What really should happen is that ID scientists should have unfettered access to scientific journals to publish their ID theories on their merits, without them being rejected out of hand or later withdrawn, as not even being "science" on question- begging naturalistic (and therefore false) philosophical grounds.]

[...]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Darwin's critics fire back at Nobel laureates, etc

Here are recent science news items with my comments in square brackets.

Darwin's critics fire back at Nobel laureates, MSNBC/AP, Sept. 29, 2005 ... TOPEKA, Kan. - A group of Nobel Prize winners should have done more homework before criticizing proposed science standards in Kansas, advocates of the guidelines said in a letter Thursday. The intelligent-design advocates favor new standards that would expose students to more criticism of evolution. They say the laureates' complaints are an attempt to suppress debate on the issue. The letter was signed by Bill Harris, a professor of medicine at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and Greg Lassey, a former middle school science teacher, who helped draft the disputed language. "We all want good standards," the letter said. "However, demeaning rhetoric that does not address specifics but serves only to belittle and misrepresent the changes is not helpful." Earlier this month, 38 laureates, including prominent chemists, physicists and medical experts, asked the State Board of Education to reject the proposed standards. The laureates, led by Holocaust survivor and author Elie Wiesel, said that evolution is the foundation of biology and that it has been bolstered by DNA studies. Many scientists see intelligent design as another form of creationism, which the Supreme Court has banned from public schools. In contrast, intelligent design's proponents believe the complexity of the natural world cannot be explained except by attributing creation to some higher intelligence. The Kansas board expects to vote this year on the standards, which will be used to develop tests for students but would allow local boards to decide how science is taught. ... [A good response. I agree that common ancestry (not "evolution") "is the foundation of biology," because common ancestry is not necessarily evolution. Again, this claim that "Many scientists see intelligent design as another form of creationism" is false because (for starters) creationism is based on the Bible (which is why "the Supreme Court has banned [it] from public schools"), but intelligent design is based on the evidence of nature. The evolutionist historian Ronald L. Numbers, the foremost expert on creationism, let the cat out of the bag when he admitted that "the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But ...its `the easiest way to discredit intelligent design':

"The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press signaled ID's growing importance in January, issuing an 805-page anthology titled `Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics.' That book title depicts ID as a variant of creationism, which reads Genesis literally and says the Earth was formed thousands of years ago - rather than billions - all species appeared immediately and a flood engulfed the globe. Yet ID actually insists on none of that. And while creationists are mostly conservative Protestants, ID theorists come from a wider range of faiths and some are nonreligious. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled creationism is too biblical for public schools, and ID proponents sought to distinguish themselves from that label in a long Utah Law Journal article arguing that ID is fit for public schools. University of Wisconsin historian Ronald L. Numbers, an ID opponent and author of `The Creationists,' agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID movement. But, he adds, its `the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.'" (Ostling R.N., "Ohio School Board Debates Teaching 'Intelligent Design'," The Washington Post, March 14, 2002)

But if the Darwinists keep on claiming that "intelligent design [is] ... another form of creationism" they will increasingly discredit themselves and their science, as the general public increasingly realize the very real differences between "intelligent design" and "creationism"!]

New Analyses Bolster Central Tenets of Evolution Theory, Washington Post, Rick Weiss and David Brown, September 26, 2005; A08 When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins. But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests. If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes. "That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander .... Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted. Their analysis was just the latest of many in such disparate fields as genetics, biochemistry, geology and paleontology that in recent years have added new credence to the central tenet of evolutionary theory: That a smidgeon of cells 3.5 billion years ago could -- through mechanisms no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection -- give rise to the astonishing tapestry of biological diversity that today thrives on Earth. Evolution's repeated power to predict the unexpected goes a long way toward explaining why so many scientists and others are practically apoplectic over the recent decision by a Pennsylvania school board to treat evolution as an unproven hypothesis, on par with "alternative" explanations such as Intelligent Design (ID), the proposition that life as we know it could not have arisen without the helping hand of some mysterious intelligent force. ... [This is the usual confusion of common ancestry (which IDists like Mike Behe - and myself - accept) with: "evolution" (i.e. "the standard scientific theory that `human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.") and with the "mechanisms" being "no more extraordinary than random mutation and natural selection." It is only in the mechanism and in particular that every "mutation" in the entire history of life was "random" in the sense of unguided, that ID necessarily is opposed to "evolution." Having said that, it doesn't seem much of a "tough ... test" to predict "the number of harmful mutations in" one species' "DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes." Even if the two species were specially created ex nihilo by God (which I don't claim), the mutation rate per population size thereafter would presumably be similar? Also, genetic mutations are not the main differences between humans and chimps: there are also major chromosome mutation (i.e. chromosome rearrangement) differences:

"The genetic differences between humans and chimps are minor, but they include at least ten large inversions and translocations. An inversion is, literally, the turning around of a chromosomal segment. Each hybrid cell would have a set of chimp and a corresponding set of human chromosomes. Egg and sperm cells are made by a process called meiosis, or reduction division. In meiosis, each chromosome must pair (lie side by side) with its counterpart before cell division, so that corresponding genes can match up one to one: that is, each chimp chromosome must pair with its human counterpart. But if a piece of human chromosome is inverted relative to its counterpart in chimps, then gene-by-gene pairing cannot occur without elaborate looping and twisting that usually precludes successful cell division." (Gould S.J., "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History," [1978], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.55)

which are "unique event[s]" that are "almost impossible to predict":

"The role of chromosomal rearrangements in speciation has been considered in Chapters 3 and 6. More and more, it appears as if such rearrangements, of many different types, have played the primary role in the majority of speciation events. It by no means follows, however, that their significance in speciation is always of the same type. In fact, each chromosomal rearrangement-whether fusion or dissociation, translocation, inversion, gain or loss of heterochromatin-must be regarded as a unique event whose consequences will be almost impossible to predict in the present stage of our knowledge. It is thus extremely difficult to incorporate chromosomal rearrangements into mathematical models of speciation and phyletic evolution, which may be one reason why they have been relatively neglected by many evolutionary geneticists." (White M.J.D., "Modes of Speciation," W.H. Freeman & Co: San Francisco CA, 1978, p.336. Emphasis mine)]

including "Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory." This highlights yet again, Karl Popper's point that "really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry" (my emphasis):

"However, Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. There are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as `industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." (Popper K., "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, 1978, pp.339-355, p.344)]

New 'Biological' Robots Build Themselves, Livescience, Ker Than, 28 September 2005 ... Inspired by biological systems, scientists have developed miniature robots that can self-assemble using parts that float randomly in their environments. The robots also know when something is amiss and can correct their own mistakes. Scientists have long been fascinated by how living cells are able to replicate DNA using building blocks floating randomly inside the cell’s nucleus. The interior of the nucleus is filled with a gel-like liquid known as nucleoplasm. The DNA building blocks, known as nucleotides, float around in this liquid like ingredients in a molecular soup. Also present in the nucleoplasm are proteins known as polymerases, which pluck nucleotides from the soup as needed when copying DNA. The beauty of this approach is that the parts do not have to be presented in a specific order the way they are in a car assembly line. All the cell has to do is make sure there is a continuous supply of nucleotides and the polymerases do the rest. Furthermore, the more nucleotides present, the more likely they will come into contact with the polymerases and the faster the DNA strand can be assembled. To artificially recreate this process, a research team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), headed by Joseph Jacobson, created robots capable of latching onto one another in specific sequences. The robots come in two colors, yellow (Y) and green (G), and float around on a cushion of air like pucks on an air hockey table. Each robot is programmed to latch onto a green robot on one side and a yellow robot on the other to form 5-robot strings such as YGGYY or GYYGG. The robots also have a built-in mechanism to correct any errors they might make. Each robot is able to check the color of its neighboring block and will unlatch itself if the sequence is not correct. The study is detailed in the Sept. 29 issue of the journal Nature. ... [All this seems to be is the spontaneous coming together of parts that have already been intelligently designed and prefabricated to do just that. It is not making the parts from basic materials to completely replicate itself, as living cells do. Note the condition: "All the cell has to do is make sure there is a continuous supply of nucleotides ..."!]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

No method to intelligent design, witness says, etc.

Here are my comments [in square brackets] on articles on the third - fifth days (Wednesday-Friday, September 28-30) of the Dover intelligent design trial, Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, et al. Again, I have tried to eliminate duplications and topics that have already been mentioned.

No method to intelligent design, witness says, MSNBC Carolyn Kaster/AP ... Sept. 28, 2005 .... HARRISBURG, Pa. - The concept of "intelligent design" is a form of creationism and is not based on scientific method, a professor testified Wednesday in a trial over whether the idea should be exposed to public school students in science class. Robert T. Pennock, a professor of science and philosophy at Michigan State University, testified on behalf of families who sued the Dover Area School District. He said supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea. "As scientists go about their business, they follow a method," Pennock said. "Intelligent design wants to reject that and so it doesn't really fall within the purview of science." ... Pennock said intelligent design does not belong in a science class, but added that it could possibly be addressed in other types of courses. ... Meanwhile, a lawyer for two newspaper reporters said Wednesday the presiding judge has agreed to limit questioning of the reporters, averting a legal showdown over having them testify in the case. Both reporters wrote stories that said board members mentioned creationism as they discussed the intelligent design issue. Board members have denied that. U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III agreed that the reporters would only have to verify the content of their stories - and not answer questions about unpublished material, possible bias or the use of any confidential sources. "They're testifying only as to what they wrote," said Niles Benn, attorney for The York Dispatch and the York Daily Record / Sunday News, the papers that employed the two freelancers. The reporters were subpoenaed but declined to give depositions Tuesday, citing their First Amendment rights. A lawyer for the school board had said he planned to seek contempt citations against the two. The judge's order clears the way for the reporters to provide depositions and testify Oct. 6. ... [It will be interesting to see what was the factual basis (if any) for these reporters' claims. As for Pennock, he is a philosopher of science and so he must know that there is no such thing as "a [single] method" that covers all of "science":

"In modern times, science is highly esteemed. Apparently it is a widely held belief that there is something special about science and its methods. The naming of some claim or line of reasoning or piece of research `scientific' is done in a way that is intended to imply some kind of merit or special kind of reliability. But what, if anything, is so special about science? What is this `scientific method' that allegedly leads to especially meritorious or reliable results? .. The high regard for science is not restricted to everyday life and the popular media. It is evident in the scholarly and academic world and in all parts of the knowledge industry. Many areas of study are described as sciences by their supporters, presumably in an effort to imply that the methods used are as firmly based and as potentially fruitful as in a traditional science such as physics. ... The mistaken view of science referred to above will be discussed and demolished in the opening chapters of this book. Even though some scientists and many pseudo-scientists voice their allegiance to that method, no modern philosopher of science would be unaware of at least some of its shortcomings. Modern developments in the philosophy of science have pinpointed and stressed deep-seated difficulties associated with the idea that science rests on a sure foundation acquired through observation and experiment and with the idea that there is some kind of inference procedure that enables us to derive scientific theories from such a base in a reliable way. There is just no method that enables scientific theories to be proven true or even probably true." (Chalmers A.F., "What is this thing called Science?: An Assessment of the Nature and Status of Science and its Method," [1976], University of Queensland Press: St Lucia Qld, Australia, Second edition, 1994, reprint, pp.xv-xvi. My emphasis)

"The So-called Scientific Method. It is widely believed that the essence of science is its method. The earlier-mentioned definition used in surveys of scientific literacy expresses commonly held notions of what the scientific method is: systematic, controlled observation or experiment whose results lead to hypotheses, which are found valid or invalid through further work, leading to theories that are reliable because they were arrived at with initial open- mindedness and continual critical skepticism. ... For our present purpose, it is sufficient to recognize that these are the salient acknowledged elements of the popular view of being scientifically methodical: empirical, pragmatic, open-minded, skeptical, sensitive to possibilities of falsifying; thereby establishing objective facts leading to hypotheses, to laws, to theories; and incessantly reaching out for new knowledge, new discoveries, new facts, and new theories. The burden of the following will be how misleading this view-which I shall call `the myth of the scientific method'-is in many specific directions, how incapable it is of explaining what happens in science, how it is worse than useless as a guide to what society ought to do about science and technology." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994, reprint, pp.19-20. My emphasis)

"So the classical and common view of science misconceives the actual relationship between theories and facts; and (consequently, inevitably) it misconceives the nature of the scientific method-the things that scientists actually do. It misconceives the behavior of science and of scientists in the face of surprising discoveries; and it misconceives much else about science, about technology, and about their interaction with one another and with the wider society. An important misconception is implicit in the very use of the terms `science,' `scientists,' `scientific.' To talk of scientists is to imply that astronomers, biologists, chemists, geologists, and physicists are all somehow much the same in some significant respect. To talk of science is to imply that astronomy, biology, chemistry, geology, and physics are all much the same sort of things. When there is talk about being scientific, it is commonly implied that one can be that, scientifically methodical, irrespective of the particular nature of what is being done; that one can be scientific about anything ... As soon as one looks in any depth, however, it becomes less and less clear what is really the same about astronomy and biology, say, or about what astronomers do and what biologists do." (Bauer H.H., "Scientific Literacy and the Myth of the Scientific Method," [1992], University of Illinois Press: Urbana & Chicago IL, 1994, reprint, p.24. My emphasis)

So each branch of science has had to develop its own methodology, appropriate to its particular subject-matter. ID theorists have developed a number of methodologies to detect design, including: inference to the best explanation, e.g. Meyer, 1994; Dembski, 2000; Dembski, 2001, Meyer, 2004; the explanatory filter, Dembski, 1996; incorporating a universal probability bound.

As for Pennock's claim that "supporters of intelligent design don't offer evidence to support their idea" this is demonstrably false: e.g. Behe's evidence that certain structures in the living world exhibit "irreducible complexity", e.g. the bacterial flagellum rotary motor, the vertebrate blood-clotting cascade and Meyer's evidence that the rapid information build-up in the Cambrian Explosion exceeds the capacity of unguided natural process. See also Dan Peterson's excellent article, The Little Engine That Could...Undo Darwinism. But as anyone who has debated philosophical naturalists (as Pennock is) soon finds out, the real problem is that there is no evidence for intelligent design in nature that they would accept.]

"Intelligent Design" on Trial, TIME, Michael Lemonick. Sep. 29, 2005 .... Proponents of intelligent design insist that it is founded on science, because evolution can't fully explain some of the complexities of living things - the structure of the eye, for example - which they argue follow a conscious design. And while some critics maintain this argument is but a ploy to avoid the Supreme Court's ruling, advocates of ID avoid identifying who or what that designer might be. ... The thrust of the ID argument - that there are many things not yet explained by the theory of evolution - will be challenged by expert witnesses, on the grounds that it holds true for a variety of other widely taught scientific theories. .... Still, ID'ers will counter, failing to teach kids about the scientific controversy over evolution is tantamount to keeping them ignorant. Except that there is no significant scientific controversy. ID proponents are correct in maintaining that there are legitimate scientists - a relatively tiny handful - who maintain that evolution is bogus science. But you can also find an equivalent handful of legitimate scientists ready to challenge relativity, or quantum physics, or the idea that HIV causes AIDS, or pretty much any widely accepted idea in modern science. A handful of doubters does not a controversy make. ... [As for "there is no significant scientific controversy" about evolution, this too is false. As Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris observed, "the only point of agreement" among evolutionists about evolution is that `It happened'":

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: `It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." (Conway Morris S., "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, January 7, 2000, pp.1-11, p.11).

And as Bill Dembski testified, "there is considerable debate in scientific circles about the mechanism of evolution, namely, how it happened" (my emphasis):

"In his testimony to you on July 9th, UT biology professor David Hillis claimed, `There is no debate about the existence of evolution in scientific circles.' That may be, depending on how you define evolution. But there is considerable debate in scientific circles about the mechanism of evolution, namely, how it happened. Cambridge paleontologist Simon Conway Morris, writing for the premier biology journal Cell, remarks: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: `It happened.' Thereafter, there is little consensus...." (Jan. 7, 2000) Despite that, the illusion of consensus is all we get in the textbooks. What's more, pro-Darwinian lobbyists, like Eugenie Scott, strive to maintain that illusion. In an interview with Salon (May 4, 2001), Scott tells us why. According to her, for textbooks to admit the lack of consensus over how evolution happened will "confuse kids about the soundness of evolution as a science." Whatever happened to science education nurturing the capacity of young minds for critical thought? Whatever happened to exposing students to as much information as required to form balanced scientific judgments? All the textbooks under consideration grossly exaggerate the evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, pretending that its mechanism of natural selection acting on random genetic change is a slam-dunk. Not so." (Dembski W.A., "William Dembski Testimony for Textbook Hearing, Austin, Texas, September 10, 2003," Texas State Board of Education, September 10, 2003. Discovery Institute: Seattle WA. WA.)

As for "ID proponents ... who maintain that evolution is bogus science" this is a straw man. Few (if any) IDists claim "that evolution is bogus science." As journalists are increasingly noting, IDists have no problem with many (if not most) aspects of evolution, up to and including common ancestry (e.g. Mike Behe - and myself). As I pointed out in an interview with a local newspaper, "ID is only necessarily opposed to `evolution' when the latter denies that there is design in nature, e.g. Darwinian evolution (or Darwinism) ...". But these misrepresentations of ID will eventually backfire on those doing the misrepresentation, as the public increasingly discover for themselves what ID is really about, and that they have been deliberately misled.]

Theologian says intelligent design is religion, MSNBC, Sept. 30, 2005 HARRISBURG, Pa. - "Intelligent design" is vastly similar to creationism and should be taught as religion, not science, a Catholic theologian testified Friday, on the fifth day of a trial over whether the concept belongs in a public school science curriculum as an alternative to evolution. Georgetown University theology professor John F. Haught said that while intelligent-design proponents do not explicitly identify God as the creator of life, the concept is "essentially a religious proposition." "I understand it to be a reformulation of an old theological argument for the existence of God," he said. Haught testified as an expert witness on behalf of eight families who are trying to have a reference to intelligent design removed from the Dover Area School District's biology curriculum. ... Haught said there is no conflict between science and religion because they represent different levels of explanation for phenomena. "When we have a failure to distinguish science from religion, then confusion will follow," Haught said. "Science and religion cannot logically stand in a competitive relationship with each other." During cross-examination, Richard Thompson, a lawyer representing the school district, asked Haught to draw distinctions between intelligent design and creationism. Haught conceded that not all intelligent-design supporters literally interpret the Bible, but said the two concepts only differ "in the same sense that an orange is different than a navel orange.".... [It is misleading to portray Haught as "a Catholic theologian," implying that he represents mainstream Catholic or Christian theology. But in fact Haught's "God" bears little resemblance to the God of the Bible or historic Christian (including Catholic) theology. For example, Haught's "God" is "a vulnerable, defenseless, and humble deity" (Haught J.E., "God After Darwin: A Theology of Evolution," Westview Press: Boulder CO, 2000, p.46), who is "no-thing" (p.78), a "void" (p.79), "hidden and subdued-even to the point of seeming to be completely absent (p.79), who "`withdraws' in order to allow for the relatively autonomous self-creation of evolution" (p.97) and who is not even intelligent, since: "The enormity of cosmic time simply adds to the suspicion that intelligence is something that emerged only recently, perhaps only in the evolution of the human species" (p.113). See also theistic evolutionist Ted Davis' eye-witness assessment of Haught's testimony, including that Haught does not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, nor in His bodily resurrection. Also, Haught contradicts himself above, because if ID is "religion" and "there is no conflict between science and religion" then he should have no problem with ID! As for Haught's claim that ID is "vastly similar to creationism", that is a fatal admission (since "similar" is not the "same"), as is his admission that "not all intelligent-design supporters literally interpret the Bible." BTW Haught dissented from Cardinal Schönborn's recent statement in the New York Times that "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense-an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection-is not", so Haught's days of calling himself a "Catholic theologian" might be numbered, given that Cardinal Schönborn is reportedly close to Pope Benedict XVI, who as Cardinal Ratzinger indicated that he preferred a "smaller, purer church"!]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Faith and Reason Compatible, Scientist Testifies, etc

Here are my comments [in square brackets] on articles on the second day (Tuesday, September 27) of the Dover intelligent design trial, Kitzmiller, et al v. Dover School District, et al. Again, I have tried to eliminate duplications and topics that have already been mentioned. I have added more information below about Ken Miller's widely reported claim that he "missed that reference by a co-author" "in a 1995 biology textbook he co-wrote that said evolution was `random and undirected.'"

Faith and Reason Compatible, Scientist Testifies, Livescience/AP, 27 September 2005 ... HARRISBURG, Pennsylvania (AP) -- An expert witness who has sharply criticized the teaching of an idea that a higher power -- rather than evolution -- created life testified Tuesday that faith and reason are compatible. Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller returned to the stand for the second day of a landmark trial to determine whether a school district should require students to hear about an idea called "intelligent design." Intelligent design implies that life on Earth was the product of an unidentified intelligent force, and Darwin's theory of natural selection cannot fully explain the origin of life or the emergence of highly complex life forms. Miller, who testified on Monday that intelligent design was not accepted by scientists, was asked by a school attorney whether faith and reason are compatible. "I believe not only that they are compatible but that they are complimentary," said Miller, who earlier told the court he was a practicing Roman Catholic. Miller also backed off a statement in a 1995 biology textbook he co-wrote that said evolution was "random and undirected." Miller said he missed that reference by a co-author and that he did not believe evolution was random and undirected. ... [Miller's reported claim that he "missed that reference by a co-author" in his "1995 biology textbook" that "evolution was `random and undirected" is simply unbelievable. Textbooks are checked and rechecked by not just the authors but by many other reviewers, and a definition of "evolution" is a major topic. So it beggars belief that Miller as a co-author could have "missed that reference". Especially since, according to Jonathan Wells, it was still in his 2000 edition:

"As we have seen, the doctrine that evolution was undirected, and consequently that human existence is a mere accident, is rooted in materialistic philosophy rather than empirical science. The doctrine existed long before the meager evidence now cited to justify it. Since the doctrine is very influential in our culture, it is a good idea to teach students about it-but as philosophy, not science. Yet Miller and Levine's high school textbook, Biology, teaches students that as they learn about "the nature of life" they must "keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected." [Miller K.R. & Levine J.S., "Biology," Prentice-Hall: Upper Saddle River NJ, Fifth Edition, 2000), p. 658] (emphasis in the original)":" (Wells J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, p.206)

Indeed, at the American Scientific Affiliation in August 1995 Miller pledged to remove the phrases "evolution is without plan or purpose" and "evolution is random and undirected" from his biology textbook:

"A very good example of confusing science with philosophy involves the definitions of the term `evolution.' In a popular high school biology text (Biology, Miller and Levine, Prentice-Hall, 1993-2000 editions), the term evolution is defined as `the process by which modern organisms have descended from ancient organisms; any change in the relative frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population.' In the same biology book the authors instruct that `evolution is without plan or purpose' and "evolution is random and undirected" (p. 658). ... In spite of author Kenneth Miller's pledge to the American Scientific Affiliation in August of 1995 to remove the phrases that `evolution is without plan or purpose' and `evolution is random and undirected' because they represent ideology masquerading as science, this identical language reappeared in the 1998 and 2000 editions" (Anderson J., "Dealing with the Media in the Science Textbook Controversy," Access Research Network, January 28, 2000.)

This appears to have been a debate with Mike Behe at the ASA's 1995 Annual Meeting:

"This is my report on the recent (July 23 [1995]) ASA Behe/Miller debate about the book Of Pandas and People. Actually, I'll have much more to say about my conversations with Ken Miller than about the debate itself. Like Mike Behe, I'd judge the debate a draw, or, perhaps more accurately, a stalemate. Ken wanted to hear how we (the design guys) explained the fossil record and earth history, and we wanted Ken to explain how complex biological systems evolved. Because neither Mike nor I had much to say about the fossil record, and because Ken pled ignorance about the actual mechanisms of evolution, I think the audience was left in some frustration (or confusion). Pandas took some genuine hits from Ken, but none, I think, that would sink the book. Certainly (as Mike pointed out), Ken's own textbook Biology (Prentice-Hall) has problems - some of which Ken very honorably offered to fix in the next edition - and I think nearly all the problems Ken mentioned with Pandas are reparable, without affecting the book's distinctive intelligent design thesis." (Nelson P.A., "A Report on the ASA Conference Debate on Pandas and People Textbook," Access Research Network, September 1, 1995)

"For example, when Michael and I engaged in debate at the 1995 meeting of the American Scientific Affiliation, I argued that the 100% match of DNA sequences in the pseudogene region of beta-globin was proof that humans and gorillas shared a recent common ancestor. To my surprise, Behe said that he shared that view, and had no problem with the notion of common ancestry." (Miller K.R., "Review of Michael Behe's Darwin's Black Box," Creation/Evolution, Vol. 16, pp.36-40, 1996. National Center for Science Education, May 20, 2003).

In fact the statement that "evolution is random and undirected" in Miller & Levine's 1995 biology textbook was quoted in the Alabama biology textbook insert controversy:

"The greatest failures of the texts are that philosophical assumptions are not identified, and that such assumptions are treated as `scientific knowledge'. An unwarranted world view is presented to students under the color of scientific authority and knowledge. The following quotations illustrate this problem:

`We can learn a great deal about the nature of life by comparing body systems among invertebrate groups and by tracing the patterns of change as we move from one phylum to another. As we do so, it is important to keep this concept in mind: Evolution is random and undirected. ...In many ways, each animal phylum represents an experiment in the design of body structures to perform the tasks necessary for survival. Of course, there has never been any kind of plan to these experiments because evolution works without either plan or purpose' (Biology, Miller Levine, Prentice Hall, 1995, p. 658)."

(Anderson N., "The Alabama Insert: A Call for Impartial Science," May 15, 1996. Access Research Network, May 14, 1996).

which Miller actually responded to, including the criticism that "Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things," in a document that is actually on his website:

"Evolution also refers to the unproven belief that random, undirected forces produced a world of living things. This statement is false on two accounts. Evolution is not a `random' process, and to characterize it as such seriously misleads students. Natural selection, the most important force driving evolutionary change, is not random at all, but an observable, verifiable process that fine-tunes variation in populations of a species to the demands of the environment in which they live. It is true, of course, that variation in a species arises from sources such as mutation and sexual recombination, which are inherently unpredictable. Therefore evolution, like any historical process, can be influenced by random forces. But a larger problem with this statement is the attribution to evolution of an idea outside of science. Whether evolution is `undirected' or `directed' is a matter of theology or philosophy, not of science. Writers of the disclaimer wish students, most of whom are religious, to believe that acceptance of evolution is incompatible with faith. This is demonstrably false: far too many scientists (and clergy) accept both evolution and a God who creates through evolution. Students should not be taught the evolution equates with atheism, and, incredibly, that is exactly what this portion of the disclaimer says." (Miller K.R., "Dissecting the Alabama Disclaimer." My italics substituted for bold in original)

And as for he "did not believe evolution was random and undirected," that is precisely what the "random" in "random mutation" means: undirected:

"There is a fifth respect in which mutation might have been nonrandom. We can imagine (just) a form of mutation that was systematically biased in the direction of improving the animal's adaptedness to its life. But although we can imagine it, nobody has ever come close to suggesting any means by which this bias could come about. It is only in this fifth respect, the 'mutationist' respect, that the true, real-life Darwinian insists that mutation is random. Mutation is not systematically biased in the direction of adaptive improvement, and no mechanism is known (to put the point mildly) that could guide mutation in directions that are non-random in this fifth sense. Mutation is random with respect to adaptive advantage, although it is non-random in all sorts of other respects. It is selection, and only selection, that directs evolution in directions that are nonrandom with respect to advantage." (Dawkins R., "The Blind Watchmaker," [1986], Penguin: London, 1991, reprint, p.312. Emphasis in original).

Besides, here are quotes from Miller's 1999 book, "Finding Darwin's God" where he states that "evolution is ... a chance, random process":

"For many religious people, here lies the problem with evolution. No matter how much experimental or historical evidence can be marshaled to support it, evolution is still a chance, random process." (Miller K.R., "Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution," [1999], HarperCollins: New York NY, 2000, reprint, p.233)

that "evolution is subject to chance and unpredictability" and has "no obvious purpose or single goal":

"Biological history, just like human history, is a contingent process. The chance extinction of a rare species can profoundly affect the course of evolution in the same way that the unexpected death of a single person could change political or economic history ... Evolution answers the question of chance and purpose in exactly the same way that history answers questions about the course of human events. To a biologist, evolution is subject to chance and unpredictability, just like human history. Its outcome is uncertain, and likely to be unrepeatable, just like human history. And evolution admits to no obvious purpose or single goal, just like human history. " (Ibid, p.237. Emphasis in original)

that even the "events leading to the evolution of the human species" were not "predestined":

"Considering the events in natural history that led to our own emergence on this planet, we can ask whether events leading to the evolution of the human species had to come out the same way? Did the ancestors of vertebrates have to survive the Cambrian? Did mammals have to evolve from the vertebrates? Did one group of mammals, the primates, have to take to the trees? Was one tiny African branch of these tree climbers absolutely predestined to survive and give rise to Homo sapiens? The answer in every case is no." (Ibid, p.235. Emphasis in original)

and that "the Creator" would have to wait until "sooner or later it [evolution] would have given [Him] ... exactly what He was looking for ... a creature ... like us":

"Would God's purpose have been realized if evolution had turned out, a little differently? How can we say for sure? But this much I think is clear: Given evolution's ability to adapt, to innovate, to test, and to experiment, sooner or later it would have given the Creator exactly what He was looking for-a creature who, like us, could know Him and love Him, could perceive the heavens and dream of the stars, a creature who would eventually discover the extraordinary process of evolution that filled His earth with so much life." (Ibid, pp.238-239)

This last BTW is patently self-contradictory. It is simply false that "a chance, random process" would "sooner or later" (given the resource and time constraints in our finite universe) produce "a creature ... like us", and Miller as a biology professor must know that. Miller reminds me of what the geneticist Darlington wrote about Darwin:

"Darwin was slippery" employing "a flexible strategy which is not to be reconciled with even average intellectual integrity" (Darlington C.D., "Darwin's Place in History," Basil Blackwell: Oxford, 1959, p.60).

If Miller has been correctly reported as testifying under oath that "he missed that reference by a co-author" "in a 1995 biology textbook he co-wrote that said evolution was `random and undirected,'" then it is difficult to see how he could escape a charge of perjury here. I hope the ID side's lawyers grill him over this.]

Witness cites school board's anti-evolution bias, MSNBC/AP, Religion behind intelligent design policy, former board member says, September 27, 2005 HARRISBURG, Pa. - The Dover school board showed a clear bias against teaching Darwinian evolution before it voted to require students to be exposed to "intelligent design" in science class, a former board member testified Tuesday. The testimony about the school board's intentions came on the second day of a trial over whether the intelligent-design concept has a place in public schools. Aralene "Barrie" Callahan, who was once on the board of the Dover Area School District and is now among its challengers, said she believed the intelligent-design mandate was religion-based. Callahan testified that board member Alan Bonsell - during a retreat in 2003 - "expressed he did not believe in evolution and if evolution was part of the biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50-50." At a school board meeting in June 2004, when she was no longer on the board, Callahan recalled board member Bill Buckingham complaining that a biology book recommended by the administration was "laced with Darwinism." "They were pretty much downplaying evolution as something that was credible," she said. In the lawsuit challenging the intelligent design policy, Buckingham was further quoted as saying: "This country was founded on Christianity and our students should be taught as such." ... In a separate development Tuesday, two freelance newspaper reporters who covered the school board in June 2004 both invoked their First Amendment rights and declined to provide a deposition to lawyers for the school district. Both are expected in court Wednesday to respond to a subpoena to testify at trial, said Niles Benn, a lawyer for the papers. Lawyers for the school district have questioned the accuracy of articles in which the reporters wrote that board members discussed creationism during public meetings. Patrick Gillen, an attorney with the Thomas More Law Center, said the defense would ask U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III on Wednesday to issue a contempt citation. In other testimony Tuesday, plaintiff Tammy Kitzmiller said that in January, her younger daughter chose not to hear the intelligent-design statement - an option given all students - putting her in an awkward position. "My 14-year-old daughter had to make the choice between staying in the classroom and being confused ... or she had to be singled out and face the possible ridicule of her friends and classmates," she said ... [I would have thought that a 1-minute statement would not be too hard for Ms Kitzmiller's daughter to endure! These attempts to show that the Dover board are motivated by anti-Darwinism and Christian creationism will presumably fail, because what matters is whether: 1) ID itself is inherently religious and cannot have a "secular purpose"; and 2) criticism of Darwin's theory cannot have a "secular purpose". Remember that Judge Jones had already ruled that that was the issue, when he decided that there should be a trial:

"In a ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III denied Dover's request for summary judgment to throw out a case filed against the district by 11 parents over the intelligent design inclusion. He wrote that `genuine issues of material fact exist regarding as to whether the challenged policy has a secular purpose and whether the policy's principal or primary effect advances or inhibits religion." (Lebo L., "Lawsuit over intelligent design moves forward, York Daily Record, September 14, 2005)

Indeed, it seems suicidal of the evolution side to have Miller (and as we shall see the theologian Haught) claiming that evolution and religion are compatible, because how then could anti-evolution be pro-religion? Indeed, this question of "whether faith and reason are compatible" was "asked by a school attorney", i.e. by the pro-ID defence, so it sounds like they set a trap for Miller, which he has fallen into!]

Trial over 'intelligent design' resumes, CNews, Martha Raffaele September 27, 2005 ... HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) - The opening day of a landmark trial over whether a school district should require students to hear about "intelligent design" felt a lot like a science lecture. Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller, the first witness called Monday by lawyers suing the Dover Area School District for exposing its students to the controversial theory, sprinkled his testimony with references to DNA, red blood cells and viruses, and he occasionally referred to complex charts on a projection screen. Even U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III was a little overwhelmed. "I guess I should say, 'Class dismissed,'" Jones mused before recessing for lunch. ... [I wonder if Miller overdid it here?]

Parents challenge US 'intelligent design' teaching, The Guardian, Julian Borger, September 27, 2005, Harrisburg ... The civil trial, triggered last year by a classroom battle, marks the beginning of the first major legal assault on evolution science in 18 years. The case also represents the first legal test of "intelligent design", the belief that life on earth is too complex to be explained by random genetic mutation and therefore a guiding force must be involved. In yesterday's court hearings, supporters argued "intelligent design" does not stipulate what that guiding force might be, and is therefore not a religion. Its opponents derided it as a mere repackaging of creationism, the religious dogma that God brought life into being in its present form a few thousand years ago. It is a test of strength which secularist organisations hope will prove decisive in destroying the scientific credibility of intelligent design once and for all. They are therefore determined to pursue it as far as the supreme court if necessary. Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) arguing the case yesterday, told the Guardian before the trial: "It's the first vigorous review of intelligent design. They have so far refused to enter the forum where scientists publish their theories." ... The plaintiffs ... legal team, backed by ACLU, launched an assault on intelligent design, describing it as a "clever, tactical repacking of creationism", which the supreme court ruled in 1987 could not be taught alongside evolution. "It is a wedge strategy to overturn the rules of science," argued Eric Rothschild, the lead lawyer for the plaintiffs. "It's creationism with the words God and Bible left out. Intelligent design is not science in its infancy. It's not science at all." ... In his opening statement yesterday, Pat Gillan, the lead attorney for the defence, argued the case was "about freedom in education, not about a religious agenda". Pointing out that the Dover statement asked school children to keep "an open mind", Mr Gillan said: "The primary effect of the policy would be to advance science education. "It is not religion. Intelligent design is really science in its purest form - a refusal to close avenues of exploration in favour of a dominant theory." ... [Notice how the Darwinists make out it this case is a "major legal assault on evolution science". But in fact it is the Darwinists who are the plaintiff mounting the "major legal assault" on ID, the defence, not the other way around. And it is simply false that ID has "so far refused to enter the forum where scientists publish their theories." As I pointed out to a local newspaper: "Prof. Behe has several times submitted ID research papers to peer-reviewed scientific journals, only to have them rejected with no explanation.[9]" and "Also, recently ID geophysicist-philosopher Stephen Meyer managed to have a paper published on the Cambrian explosion in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.[10] However, after the paper had been published, Darwinists forced it to be withdrawn[11] and then hounded the editor who published it, Dr Richard Sternberg, from his job.[12]" It is simply false that ID is a "clever, tactical repacking of creationism:" after "the supreme court ruled in 1987 [creationism] could not be taught alongside evolution". Apart from the fact that "creationism" is based on the Bible and ID is based solely on the evidence of nature, ID actually started in 1984, well before that 1987 Supreme Court ruling. The ID defence makes a good (if not decisive) point that "the Dover statement asked school children to keep `an open mind'" which is "science in its purest form" unlike the Darwinists' attempt to "close [down] avenues of exploration in favour of a dominant theory"!]

Darwin vs God case opens in US, The Australian, September 28, 2005 ... Pat Gillen, a lawyer for the Dover school district, said intelligent design was anchored in science and was not creationism in disguise. He also rejected the accusation that it was unconstitutional to teach the theory to students. "They (the Dover students) are merely made aware of the existence of another theory," Mr Gillen said. Teaching intelligent design "helps students grasp the controversy that surrounds science". Devoid of any reference to the Bible or the divine, intelligent design so far has skirted the constitutional ban on advancing religious beliefs in public school classrooms. ... [Another good point by the defence. The Dover Board is not teaching ID, all it is doing is letting students know that there are ID reference materials in the library.]

Religion Drove Board, Witness Says, Los Angeles Times September 28, 2005 ... Through the testimony of Rehm and Callahan, attorneys for the plaintiffs hoped to establish that some board members were motivated primarily by religious, not educational, considerations when they approved their new policy on biology. Not so, said Robert Thompson, lead counsel for the defense, after court Tuesday. "A policy can have a religious motivation as long as that is not the primary motivation," said Thompson, one of three attorneys from the Christian-oriented Thomas More Law Center .... Reiterating the defense position that the board's prime goal was "good pedagogy" by exposing students to differing views, he said, "It is a bottomless pit once you start looking at motivation." Nonetheless, attorneys for the parents, a team assembled by the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State, pounded away at those motivations Tuesday. Callahan, mother of an 11th-grader at Dover High, testified that during a school board retreat in March 2003, fellow board member Alan Bonsell "expressed he did not believe in evolution and also said that if evolution was part of the biology curriculum, creationism had to be shared 50-50." Rehm, a teacher at Dover at the time, said Bonsell had told him that evolution was "against his religious views" and that Bonsell particularly was concerned about the idea of "monkeys to man." During a court recess, Bonsell, who owns an auto repair business in nearby York, said a lot of the statements attributed to him were inaccurate. "They're accusing us that this is religion, and it isn't," Bonsell, 45, said. "This is a one-minute statement, a one-minute statement. We're not teaching kids intelligent design, we're making kids aware of it," Bonsell said. Callahan said that although the budget for the purchase of a new textbook, "Biology," long had been approved, the board deliberately delayed for more than a year approving the actual purchase because members openly sought a book that included creationism with evolution theory. ... [Bonsell makes a good point. The Board in fact is "not teaching kids intelligent design" but "making kids aware of it." Maybe this where the issue is going to be decided, whether the "religious motivation" is deemed to be "the primary motivation" rather than "`good pedagogy' by exposing students to differing views"? But if the Board members state under oath that religion was not in this case their "primary motivation" (it would not be the first time that individuals with a set of priorities as private citizens, change the order of their priorities when they assume public office) and how could a judge not give them the benefit of the doubt? They may (and almost certainly do) genuinely believe that evolution is false and ID is true (and polls show they would be in good company with a substantial minority - if not the majority - of the general public). And as for "a bottomless pit once you start looking at motivation" what about the evolution side's "religious [including anti-religious] motivation"?]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"

Wild gorillas seen using tools for first time, etc

Science news items with my comments in square brackets.

Wild gorillas seen using tools for first time, ABC, September 30, 2005. ... Two female gorillas have been photographed using sticks as tools to get through swampy areas, the first time the apes have been seen doing so in the wild, researchers report. "This is a truly astounding discovery," said Thomas Breuer of the Wildlife Conservation Society and the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who led the study. The findings can help shed light on how human beings came to use tools, and also broaden the understanding of how animals use them, the researchers said. "Although there are reports of tool use by captive gorillas, including object throwing and use of tools in feeding, there has been to our knowledge no reported case of tool use in by wild gorillas, despite decades of field research," they wrote in their report, published in the Public Library of Science Biology, an online journal. All great apes use tools in captivity, but scientists have worried this does not necessarily reflect natural behaviour, just something copied from humans. "Tool usage in wild apes provides us with valuable insights into the evolution of our own species and the abilities of other species. Seeing it for the first time in gorillas is important on many different levels," the report said. They describe the two instances in the northern rain forests of the Republic of Congo. "We first observed an adult female gorilla using a branch as a walking stick to test water deepness and to aid in her attempt to cross a pool of water at Mbeli Bai, a swampy forest clearing in northern Congo," Mr Breuer and his international colleagues wrote. In the second case, they saw another pull up a dead shrub. "She forcefully pushed it into the ground with both hands and held the tool for support with her left hand over her head for two minutes while dredging food with the other hand," they wrote. "Efi then took the trunk with both hands and placed it on the swampy ground in front of her, crossed bipedally on this self-made bridge, and walked quadrupedally towards the middle of the clearing." Chimpanzees, closely related bonobos and other apes have also been seen using tools in the wild - for instance, to catch termites. Other animals such as crows have been seen using them. But never wild gorillas. "Information on tool use and factors favouring tool use in wild apes helps us to understand its importance in the evolution of our own species," Mr Breuer and his colleagues, Mireille Ndoundou-Hockemba and Vicki Fishlock wrote. The gorillas live in a protected area, and the researchers said this was key. "These protected areas are not only important for the conservation of species they contain, they also hold the key to comparing our own development as a species with our next of kin," Mr Breuer said. ... [Also in The Australian, BBC, CBS & CNN. That this minimal use of tools (if one can call a stick even that) is the best that primatologists have seen in apes in the wild, only underlines the uniqueness of humans. I have added this to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 14.1.5 Man ... Uniqueness ... Tools"]

Oxygen Helped Mammals Grow, Study Finds, ABC News/AP, Sep. 29, 2005 - Mammals, once tiny creatures scampering on the forest floor, grew larger as the amount of oxygen in the air increased over millions of years, a new study says. Today mammals, ranging from dogs and cats to elephants, dolphins and people, dominate the planet. It's a success story Paul G. Falkowski ... and colleagues say was helped by the more than doubling of oxygen in the air over the last 205 million years. Their findings are published in Friday's issue of the journal Science. The researchers measured samples of material deposited on the seafloor going back millions of years. By measuring the amount of carbon-13 in the samples they were able to estimate the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere at a particular time. They found that the air contained only about 10 percent oxygen at the time of the dinosaurs. By 50 million years ago the oxygen level had risen to 17 percent and it was 23 percent 40 million years ago, they reported. Currently the air contains about 21 percent oxygen. The rise of oxygen "almost certainly contributed to evolution of large animals," the researchers reported. The oxygen needs of mammals and birds are three to six times as high as reptiles. The impact of an asteroid or meteorite about 65 million years ago is thought to have contributed to the demise of the dinosaurs. Their elimination also created an opportunity for the rise of mammals. There was an increase in small and medium-sized mammals in the first few million years after the end of the dinosaurs, the researchers reported. A second surge, from medium to large sizes, was seen between 50 million and 40 million years ago, they reported. ... [Also at CNN & Livescience: Another fine-tuned parameter without which we would not be here! I have added this to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 6.4.5 "Earth's fitness for life ... Oxygen"]

Why Kyoto will never succeed, by Blair, Daily Telegraph, Patrick Hennessy and James Langton, 25 September 2005 ... Tony Blair has admitted that the fight to prevent global warming by ordering countries to cut greenhouse gases will never be won. ... The Prime Minister said "no country is going to cut its growth or consumption" despite environmental fears. Mr Blair's comments, which he said were "brutally honest", mark a big environmental U-turn and will dismay Labour activists. They were made earlier this month in New York, at a conference on facing up to "global challenges ... Blair, who has been seen up to now as a strong supporter of the Kyoto Treaty, effectively tore the document up and admitted that rows over its implementation will "never be resolved." ... "I would say probably I'm changing my thinking about this in the past two or three years. I think if we are going to get action we have got to start from the brutal honesty about the politics of how we deal with it. "The truth is, no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem. "Some people have signed Kyoto, some people haven't signed Kyoto, right? That is a disagreement. It's there. It's not going to be resolved." ... Mr Blair admitted that there would probably never be a successor treaty to Kyoto, which expires in 2012, and said the "answer" was merely to try to introduce "incentives" for business and large-scale energy users to make cut-backs. He said: "To be honest, I don't think people are going, at least in the short term, to start negotiating another major treaty like Kyoto." One of the problems surrounding the Kyoto Treaty was that the harsh carbon emissions targets did not apply to developing countries such as China and India. ...: "China and India... will grow. They are not going to find it satisfactory for us in the developed world to turn around and say, 'Look, we have had our growth. You have now got yours so we want you to do it sustainably even if we haven't'."... [Prime Minister Blair puts his finger on the fundamental problem. "no country is going to cut its growth or consumption substantially in the light of a long-term environmental problem." This is why when runaway global warming proves to be globally catastrophic and beyond the ability of any one nation to address, governments will cede power to a World Environment Organisation. It is out of such an organization that I expect Antichrist (1 Jn 2:18, 22; 4:3; 2 Jn 1:7; 2 Th 2:1-4; Rev 11:1-8; 13:2-18) will emerge. See my posts of 08-Sep-05 and 03-Sep-05 on this. See also my posts of 17-Sep-05 & 11-Sep-05 on global warming being part of the Great Tribulation. See also other posts 29-Sep-05 & 12-Aug-05 on global warming.]

Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
"Problems of Evolution"