Finding 'Super Earth' is a 'Goldilocks' errand

It seems that an `Earth-like' exoplanet with gravity only "twice as strong on its surface as Earth's" would mean "more volcanoes and `planetquakes'" and also might have major "effects on the planet's magnetic field, which shields the surface from solar radiation." My comments are bold and in square brackets.

Finding 'Super Earth' is a 'Goldilocks' errand, USA Today, Dan Vergano, February 19, 2006 Astronomers have detected more than 150 planets orbiting nearby stars, raising hopes of finding another Earth, not only for the Star Trek crowd but also among sober-minded scientists and NASA administrators. But there may be more to finding that "goldilocks" planet, just the right size and distance from its star to match Earth, warns one research team. Last month, an international team reported in Nature that it had detected the smallest extrasolar planet orbiting a normal star yet. Just over five times heavier than Earth, OGLE-2005-BLG-390Lb, is 28,000 light years away. It orbits two-and-a-half times further away from its star than Earth does the sun, and enjoys chilly temperatures of -364 degrees because of the dimness of its star. A few earlier discoveries of similarly-sized "extra solar" planets had also occurred, but all those orbit very close to their stars. But the discoveries show that astronomers are closing in on a planet in the "habitable zone" where temperatures are neither too cold or too hot for life, suggest researchers like Princeton's Bohdan Paczynski, one of the discoverer's of the latest planet. But it may not be so easy, suggests University of Minnesota physicist Renata Wentzcovitch and colleagues in the current Science magazine. For "Super Earth" planets only a few times heavier than Earth, the interior chemistry of the planet's core may have a big effect on whether future space tourists will ever want to vacation there. In the study, the team looked at the "Super Earth" orbiting the star Gliese 876, 15 light years away. The researchers analyzed the chemistry of perovskite, an electronically inert mineral made of oxygen, silicon and magnesium, found in the mantle covering the iron cores of planets. On Earth, there is a thin layer of the stuff in the mantle. Through computer simulations, the study team found the extra gravity of a "Super Earth" (twice as strong on its surface as Earth's) would crush these minerals into new forms, ones that would take on the properties of semi-conductors or metals, Wentzcovitch [said]. So what? The result there would be enhanced heat flow from the planet's core to the surface, which means more volcanoes and more "planetquakes." The effects on the planet's magnetic field, which on Earth shields the surface from solar radiation, of increased electrical activity in the mantle are more difficult to figure out, she says. The larger point is there is more to finding another Earth than detecting a planet the same size and same distance from its star, she says. Venus and Earth are very similar, she notes, but have significant differences in their interior chemistry. Venus has a more viscous interior that lead to a planet-sized earthquake hundreds of millions of years ago, she says, and that likely also explains the hellish conditions there, where 800-degree winds are lashed by sulfuric acid rain. ... [This adds significantly to the already known major problems of an `Earth-like' exoplanet with a mass only two or three times greater than Earth:

"Also vitally important is a planet's mass. A planet's habitability depends on its mass in many ways; terrestrial planets significantly smaller or larger than Earth are probably less habitable. Because Its surface gravity is weaker, a less massive Earth twin would lose its atmosphere more quickly, and because of its larger surface-area-to-volume ratio, its interior might cool too much to generate a strong magnetic field. smaller planets also tend to have more dangerously erratic orbits. In contrast, without getting more habitable, a more massive Earth-twin would have a larger initial inventory of water 14 and other volatiles, such as methane and carbon dioxide, and would lose less of them over time. Such a planet might resemble the gas giant Jupiter rather than our terrestrial Earth. In fact, Earth may be almost as big as a terrestrial planet can get. While life needs an atmosphere, too much atmosphere can be bad. For example, high surface pressure would slow the evaporation of water and dry the interiors of continents. It would also increase the viscosity of the air at the surface, making it more difficult for big-brained, mobile creatures like us to breathe. In addition, more surface gravity would create less surface relief, with smaller mountains and shallower seas. Even with more vigorous tectonic churning, rocks could not support mountains as high as those we enjoy. The planet probably would be covered by oceans and too mineral-starved at the surface (and too salty throughout) to support life. .... To add insult to injury, the surface gravity of a terrestrial planet increases with mass more rapidly than you might guess. Intense pressures compress the material deep inside, so that a planet just twice the size of Earth would have about fourteen times its mass and 3.5 times its surface gravity. This higher compression would probably result in a more differentiated planet; gases like water vapor, methane, and carbon dioxide would tend to end up in the atmosphere. Earth has kept dry land throughout its long history, in part, because some of its water has been sequestered in the mantle; in contrast, a more massive planet would probably have degassed more than Earth. there's another problem with larger planets impact threats. To put it simply, they're bigger targets. Asteroids and comets have a really hard time avoiding larger planets, so these planets suffer more frequent, high-speed collisions. While their bigger surfaces distribute the greater impact energy over more area, this doesn't compensate for the larger destructive energy, since surface area increases slowly with mass for terrestrial planets more massive than Earth." (Gonzalez G. & Richards J.W., "The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed For Discovery," Regnery: Washington DC, 2004, pp.59-60)

This therefore is another fine-tuned parameter that adds support to the extreme rarity (if not uniqueness) of Earth. Indeed, as Wentzcovitch points out, "Venus and Earth are very similar but have significant differences in their interior chemistry" with Venus having "hellish conditions where 800-degree winds are lashed by sulfuric acid rain."

So even if astronomers found an exoplanet with a "Mass 0.815 Earths" (which Venus is) it would not mean that it was truly Earth-like (in the all-important sense of permitting life as we know it). They would have to know a lot more about an exoplanet (including its internal chemistry) before they could say it was truly Earth-like, but it is difficult to see how they could ever know that at such immense distances (e.g. this exoplanet is "28,000 light years away"!). I have added Gonzales and Richards' quote above, and this article, to a new section of my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 6.4.3. "Earth's fitness for life ... Mass"]

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

---

"Nay, `Natural Selection' seems capable of application not only to the building up of the smallest and most insignificant organisms, but even of extension beyond the biological domain altogether, so as possibly to have relation to the stable equilibrium of the solar system itself, and even of the whole sidereal universe. Thus, whether this theory be true or false, all lovers of natural science should acknowledge a deep debt of gratitude to Messrs. Darwin and Wallace, on account of its practical utility. But the utility of a theory by no means implies its truth. What do we not owe, for example, to the labours of the Alchemists?" (Mivart S.J., "On the Genesis of Species," Macmillan & Co: London & New York , Second edition, 1871, p.10)

Mivart's "On the Genesis of Species" (1871)

I received yesterday my order of St. George Jackson Mivart's, "On the Genesis of Species" (1871). Mivart was a zoologist, a one-time protégé of T.H. Huxley, a Fellow of the Royal Society, and was Darwin's most effective contemporary critic, having "gathered, and illustrated `with admirable art and force' ... all objections to the theory of natural selection-`a formidable array'":

"Mivart gathered, and illustrated `with admirable art and force' (Darwin's words), all objections to the theory of natural selection-`a formidable array' (Darwin's words again). Yet one particular theme, urged with special attention by Mivart, stood out as the centerpiece of his criticism. This argument continues to rank as the primary stumbling block among thoughtful and friendly scrutinizers of Darwinism today. No other criticism seems so troubling, so obviously and evidently `right' (against a Darwinian claim that seems intuitively paradoxical and improbable). Mivart awarded this argument a separate chapter in his book right after the introduction. He also gave it a name, remembered ever since. He called his objection `The Incompetency of Natural Selection to Account for the Incipient Stages of Useful Structures.' If this phrase sounds like a mouthful, consider the easy translation: We can readily understand how complex and fully developed structures work and how their maintenance and preservation may rely upon natural selection-a wing, an eye, the resemblance of a bittern to a branch or of an insect to a stick or dead leaf. But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2 percent of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain the incipient stages of structures that can only be used in much more elaborated form?" (Gould S.J., "Not Necessarily a Wing," in "Bully for Brontosaurus: Further Reflections in Natural History," [1991], Penguin: London, 1992, pp.140-141)

Mivart was a Roman Catholic theistic evolutionist who had no problem with "The general theory of evolution," but he regarded "The special Darwinian hypothesis," i.e. Darwin's theory of the natural selection of chance variations as "beset with certain scientific difficulties ... some of which ... are absolutely insuperable":

"The general theory of evolution has indeed for some time past steadily gained ground, and it may be safely predicted that the number of facts which can be brought forward in its support will, in a few years, be vastly augmented. But the prevalence of this theory need alarm no one, for it is, without any doubt, perfectly consistent with strictest and most orthodox Christian theology. Moreover, is not altogether without obscurities, and cannot yet be considered as fully demonstrated. The special Darwinian hypothesis, however, is beset with certain scientific difficulties, which must by no means be ignored, and some of which, the author ventures to think, are absolutely insuperable." (Mivart S.J., "On the Genesis of Species," Macmillan & Co: London & New York , Second edition, 1871, p.5)

Mivart was largely (if not solely) responsible for Darwin having to add an extra chapter to the sixth and final 1872 edition of his Origin of Species, "CHAPTER VII MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS TO THE THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION," in which Darwin, to save his theory of natural selection, demoted it by increasing his emphasis on the Lamarckian "effects of the increased use and disuse of parts" which Darwin now (having barely mentioned them in The Origin's first edition) regarded as "highly important":

"A distinguished zoologist, Mr. St. George Mivart, has recently collected all the objections which have ever been advanced by myself and others against the theory of natural selection, as propounded by Mr. Wallace and myself, and has illustrated them with admirable art and force. When thus marshalled, they make a formidable array; and as it forms no part of Mr. Mivart's plan to give the various facts and considerations opposed to his conclusions, no slight effort of reason and memory is left to the reader who may wish to weigh the evidence on both sides. When discussing special cases, Mr. Mivart passes over the effects of the increased use and disuse of parts, which I have always maintained to be highly important, and have treated in my Variation under Domestication at greater length than, as I believe, any other writer. He likewise often assumes that I attribute nothing to variation, independently of natural selection, whereas in the work just referred to I have collected a greater number of well-established cases than can be found in any other work known to me. My judgment may not be trustworthy, but after reading with care Mr. Mivart's book, and comparing each section with what I have said on the same head, I never before felt so strongly convinced of the general truth of the conclusions here arrived at, subject, of course, in so intricate a subject, to much partial error." (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, pp.200-201)

After only dipping into Mivart's book (and already knowing what Darwin's response in his Origin against Mivart was), I can see that Darwin does not adequately answer at least some of Mivart's criticisms and so I assume Darwin was just bluffing when he wrote above, "after reading with care Mr. Mivart's book ... I never before felt so strongly convinced of the general truth of the conclusions here arrived at"!

Since Mivart's critique of natural selection will be more relevant to my book "Problems of Evolution," I have decided to suspend my `tagline' quotes from Paley's "Natural Theology" and R.E.D. Clark's "The Universe: Plan or Accident?" (each of which seems to have fallen in a hole anyway!) and will instead try to include a Mivart quote at the foot of each post, usualy without comment. Although, where Darwin responded to a Mivart criticism, I may add that response with my comment, perhaps in a post solely on that topic.

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

Re: I am a "young earth" believer ... showing you a flaw on your site

AN

----- Original Message -----
From: AN
To: Stephen E. Jones
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 2:48 PM
Subject: A possible flaw?

AN>Hello,
>My name is AN. I am here to inform you of a mistake I have seen in your website.

Thanks for your message. As is my long-standing policy, I am copying my response to my blog CreationEvolutionDesign, minus your personal identifying information, and minor changes.

AN>I am a "young earth" believer and am a Christian. I am not trying to "attack" you or offend you in any way, I am just showing you a flaw on your site.

Thanks for your concern about the possibility of me being offended if my views are attacked. But after more than a decade of debating creation/evolution on the Internet, with over half of that on evolutionist-dominated groups, I am not offended if my views are attacked, and indeed I look forward to it, as an opportunity to improve my Old-Earth/Progressive (Mediate) Creation position. But in this case there is no flaw on my website, and indeed you actually confirm what I say (see below)!

AN>I noticed in the "problems with your earth" section (I believe it was)

First, I wish to make it clear that I do not regard it as a high priority for me to attack Young-Earth Creationism. This is evident in the lack of effort I have put into that unfinished page, Problems with Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) and my introductory statement in it that "I do not personally regard attacking Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) as a high priority, compared to attacking our common enemy, naturalistic (atheistic) evolution."

AN>in where you stated that 8,000 years isn't enough time for all of the species to have micro-evolved into the various "groups", for lack of a better word, that are here now.

What I said under the heading: "Inconsistencies of Young-Earth Creationism" is that it is inconsistent of YECs to attack naturalistic evolutionary mechanisms, because YEC depends on them to work even more rapidly than the evolutionists do:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stephen E. Jones: Problems with Young-Earth Creationism (YEC)

[...]

3. Inconsistencies of Young-Earth Creationism

1. Requires a higher rate of evolution than even evolutionists claim

If YECs claim that Noah's Flood was global, then all today's land animals must be descendants of pairs of animals on the Ark. But to fit all the world's land animals on the Ark, it needs to claim that they were a smaller number of "kinds". However, then YEC requires a higher rate of evolution than evolutionists themselves claim for the "kinds" on the Ark to give rise to today's land animals (as well as those it claims became extinct after the Flood, e.g. dinosaurs), in the ~8,000 years since the Flood:

"Creation scientists teach that all animals ate only plants until Adam and Eve rebelled against God's authority. Because carnivorous activity involves animal death, they presume it must be one of the evil results of human sin. Accordingly, they propose that meat-eating creatures alive now and evident in the fossil record must have evolved in just several hundred years or less, by natural processes alone, from the plant-eating creatures! The size of Noah's ark and the limited number of humans on board (eight) present an equally serious problem for them. Even if all the animals aboard hibernated for the duration of the Flood, the maximum carrying capacity by their estimates for the ark would be about thirty thousand pairs of land animals? But the fossil record indicates the existence of at least a half billion such species, more than five million of which live on Earth today, and at least two million more lived in the era immediately after the Flood, as they date it. The problem grows worse. Shortly after the Flood, they say, a large proportion of the thirty thousand species on board dinosaurs, trilobites, and so on-went extinct; so the remaining few thousand species must have evolved by rapid and efficient natural processes alone into seven million or more species. Ironically, creation scientists (quietly) propose an efficiency of natural biological evolution greater than even the most optimistic Darwinist would dare to suggest." (Ross H.N., "The Genesis Question: Scientific Advances and the Accuracy of Genesis," NavPress: Colorado Springs CO, 1998, pp.90-91)

Bear in mind that YECs claim that all supernatural creating was completed by the sixth literal day of creation, so all that they have left after that is natural processes. So it is therefore inconsistent of YECs to criticise the same natural processes of speciation that evolutionists propose when YEC itself depends on them!

2. Attacks Darwinian random mutation and natural selection but then depends on it

A prominent YEC of the 1920s, Byron C. Nelson (grandfather of YEC philosopher and ID theorist Paul Nelson), in a book reprinted up to 1980, and endorsed on its covers by leading YECs Whitcomb and Morris, claimed that the mechanism which transformed the "kinds" on the Ark into today's species was "Natural selection, working upon Mendelian or `genic' variations", i.e. Darwinian random mutation and natural selection, which Nelson called "a true evolution":

"Light has been thrown upon the whole problem of animal distribution and adaptation-or what may be called `a true evolution.' After the Flood each species began to `mutate' and new forms began to arise. Among the cattle varieties were produced having short hair, such as is found in the Zebu of India or the Red Africander. Such a coat being better adapted to a hot climate, these varieties migrated to warm, equatorial regions. Other varieties were produced having long, warm coverings of hair, such as the West Highlander and Galloway, or the prehistoric wild ox of northern Europe called the `auroch.' These varieties migrated northward. Natural selection, working upon Mendelian or `genic' variations, produced all the evolution there is. Such evolution is strictly in accordance with what is taught in all Scripture." (Nelson B.C., "After Its Kind", Bethany Fellowship: Minneapolis MN, Revised edition, 1967, pp.119-120)

So again it is inconsistent of YECs to criticise Darwinian random mutation and natural selection when their own position depends on it!

[...]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

AN>I may be wrong, for I do not have any degree and am just a student with an extreme fascination of Creation and the many facets and the kind...but, If you recall the finchs from Darwin and "proof" of Evolution, they could actually change verious characteristicks of their beaks within a year. To me, that proves that within a year there could be many different kinds of animals, and within 8,000 years the millions of varieties as today.

Thanks for confirming my point! Even the most enthusiastic Darwinist would not claim that the mechanisms which produced variations in the beaks of finches (e.g. on the Galapagos) "within a year" could "within 8,000 years" produce "the millions of varieties" of animals alive "today."

Especially when the Darwinists now concede that there are only "six species" of finches on the Galapagos "... in place of the current 14, and additional study might necessitate yet further reduction":

"Writing in Science in 1992, the Grants noted that the superior fitness of hybrids among populations of Darwin's finches `calls into question their designation as species.' [Grant P.R. & Grant B.R, "Hybridization of Bird Species," Science, Vol. 256, 1992, pp. 193-197] The following year, Peter Grant acknowledged that if species were strictly defined by inability to interbreed then `we would recognize only two species of Darwin's finch on Daphne,' instead of the usual four [Grant P.R., "Hybridization of Darwin's finches on Isla Daphne Major, Galapagos," Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B, Vol. 340, 1993, pp.127-139]. `The three populations of ground finches on Genovesa would similarly be reduced to one species,' Grant continued. `At the extreme, six species would be recognized in place of the current 14, and additional study might necessitate yet further reduction.'" (Wells J., "Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?: Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong," Regnery: Washington DC, 2000, pp.172, 312n)

AN>If I am wrong, or not actually, please e-mail me back if time permits.

See above.

AN>I would love to speak more of this. Thank You

Unfortunately it is my long-standing policy not to get involved in private discussions on creation/evolution/design issues. And since July 2005, when I started my blog and terminated my Yahoo group of the same name, so that I could have more time to write my book, "Problems of Evolution," it is now not my policy to have public discussions of those issues either. There are a number of Yahoo groups where you could discuss creation/evolution/design issues. A YEC-run one is TrueOrigin and an evolutionist-run group is CreationEvolutionDebate. However, be prepared for a certain level of ridicule and abuse (not to mention your YEC position being strongly attacked) on evolutionist-run groups.

AN>God Bless,
>AN

God bless you too. I have two pieces of advice to you in respect of creation/evolution that has stood me in good stead these last ~39 years I have been a Christian: 1) remember that YEC is not the only possible Christian creationist position. Even the atheist Darwinist philosopher Michael Ruse criticised his fellow atheist Darwinist Richard Dawkins for ignoring the fact in his attacks on Christianity that since at least 400 AD (well before the rise of modern science), Christians have been interpreting Genesis 1 non-literally:

"It is true that Darwinism conflicts with the Book of Genesis taken literally, but at least since the time of Saint Augustine (400 A.D.) Christians have been interpreting the seven days of creation metaphorically." (Ruse M.E., "Through a Glass, Darkly." Review of "A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love," by Richard Dawkins, Houghton Mifflin, 2003)

and 2) since God is the ultimate Author of both nature and the Bible:

"If we believe that the God of creation is the God of redemption, and that the God of redemption is the God of creation, then we are committed to some very positive theory of harmonization between science and evangelicalism. God cannot contradict His speech in Nature by His speech in Scripture. If the Author of Nature and Scripture are the same God, then the two books of God must eventually recite the same story." (Ramm B.L., "The Christian View of Science and Scripture," [1955], Paternoster: Exeter, Devon UK, 1967, reprint, p.25)

if our interpretation of one book of God (e.g. nature) is intractably at variance with the other (e.g. the Bible), then that is a sign from God to us that we are on the wrong track and need to change our interpretation. Remember the Bible itself says that it is possible to have a zeal for God that is not based on knowledge (Romans 10:2) and so we can be unwittingly fighting against God (Acts 5:39), when we sincerely think we are fighting for him.

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

Review of Dennett's "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon"

An excerpt of a review of leading atheist Darwinist philosopher Daniel Dennett's latest book, by Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic. My comments are bold and in square brackets.

The God Genome: "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon,' by Daniel C. Dennett. Review by Leon Wieseltier, The New York Times, February 19, 2006. THE question of the place of science in human life is not a scientific question. It is a philosophical question. [Agreed. Claims about phenomena are the domain of science. Claims about science itself are the domain of philosophy of science.]

Scientism, the view that science can explain all human conditions and expressions, mental as well as physical, is a superstition, one of the dominant superstitions of our day; and it is not an insult to science to say so. For a sorry instance of present-day scientism, it would be hard to improve on Daniel C. Dennett's book. [The emphasis is on the "all". But scientism is a corollary of Dennett's materialism. If matter is all there is, then there is no "mental" that is not, at least in principle, reducible to matter, and so can, at least in principle, be completely explained by science without remainder.]

... Dennett lives in a world in which you must believe in the grossest biologism or in the grossest theism in the omniscience of a white man with a long beard in 19th-century England or in the omniscience of a white man with a long beard in the sky. [Dennett (like Dawkins) commits the fallacy of the straw man in their depiction of Christianity. Like most They apparently cannot bring themselves to fairly present the strongest evidence and arguments for Christianity.]

In his own opinion, Dennett is a hero. He is in the business of emancipation, and he reveres himself for it. "By asking for an accounting of the pros and cons of religion, I risk getting poked in the nose or worse," he declares, "and yet I persist." [Dennett deludes himself if he thinks he can just lump Christianity in with all other religions and then discuss them all meaningfully as "religion." Christianity has no problem with the "accounting of [its] pros and cons" if Dennett was willing to listen. But of course, Dennett's prior commitment to his materialist religion means that Dennett cannot even consider that Christianity has anything meaningful to say.]

He wonders whether religious people "will have the intellectual honesty and courage to read this book through." [Dennett continues with his self-delusion that his arguments are unanswerable, when in reality they all depend on his materialist starting assumptions being true. But if Christianity is true (which it is), then Dennett's starting assumptions (e.g. matter is all there = there is no God, etc) are false.]

If you disagree with what Dennett says, it is because you fear what he says. Any opposition to his scientistic deflation of religion he triumphantly dismisses as "protectionism."... [Andrew Brown likens Dennett's triumphalist style of argument to "the Americans in Vietnam: he drenches his opponents in high explosive, declares victory, and then gets the hell out":

"There is in his [Dennett's] work a sense that we live in exciting times, when new knowledge of sorts that had previously been thought unattainable is bursting out all over. Like Dawkins, he has the quality of making the world a more interesting place than it was before you read him. The reader is buffeted, frightened and exhilarated, sometimes all at once. Yet, when the pleasure's past, a threatening doubt remains: what, exactly, has one learnt? It's like watching the Americans in Vietnam: he drenches his opponents in high explosive, declares victory, and then gets the hell out." (Brown A., "The Darwin Wars: How Stupid Genes Became Selfish Gods," Simon & Schuster: London, 1999, p.153)!]

Dennett is the sort of rationalist who gives reason a bad name ... Is the theistic account of the cosmos true or false? Dennett, amazingly, does not care. "The goal of either proving or disproving God's existence," he concludes, is "not very important." [Translation: Dennett knows he cannot disprove God's existence by rational argument, so he must delude himself that its "not very important" and resort to other means.]

It is history, not philosophy, that will break religion's spell. Dennett's natural history of religion. ... There are a number of things that must be said about this story. The first is that it is only a story. It is not based, in any strict sense, on empirical research. Dennett is "extrapolating back to human prehistory with the aid of biological thinking," nothing more. "Breaking the Spell" is a fairy tale told by evolutionary biology. There is no scientific foundation for its scientistic narrative. Even Dennett admits as much: "I am not at all claiming that this is what science has established about religion. . . . We don't yet know." [The "yet" is just the usual promissory materialism (or atheism-in-the-gaps). There is no way that Dennett (or anyone) can "extrapolate[e] back to human prehistory" without committing the fallacy of circular reasoning (or begging of the question). Because Dennett starts with materialist assumptions, he cannot come up with a result that is anything but materialistic.]

So all of Dennett's splashy allegiance to evidence and experiment and "generating further testable hypotheses" notwithstanding, what he has written is just an extravagant speculation based upon his hope for what is the case, a pious account of his own atheistic longing. [If the only "hypotheses" allowed are materialist ones, then Dennett's is just another elaborate exercise in materialist self-deception, claiming that he has established by scientific "evidence and experiment" that all "religion" is false, when in reality he had already assumed that in his first premise .]

And why is Dennett so certain that the origins of a thing are the most illuminating features of a thing, or that a thing is forever as primitive as its origins? Has Dennett never seen a flower grow from the dust? Or is it the dust that he sees in a flower? "Breaking the Spell" is a long, hectoring exercise in unexamined originalism. [Wieseltier himself (who I presume is Jewish) seems here to unnecessarily concede that naturalism is true (i.e. nature is a closed system of cause-and-effect in which God never has intervened). That is, to Wieseltier's analogy of "a flower grow[ing] from the dust," Dennett could rightly reply that the growth of a flower is a closed system of cause-and-effect in which God does not intervene). Jesus Himself said that in Mark 4:28 that the growth of a plant is automatos (auto = self + matos = desire), i.e. of its own accord, automatic:

"All by itself [Gk. automatos] the soil produces grain-first the stalk, then the head, then the full kernel in the head."

But that is the growth of a plant in the present. The question is whether God has ever intervened supernaturally (e.g. in the origin of plants). Or more to the point, whether Christianity is just another religion that has grown up (like "a flower from the dust") with no supernatural intervention by God. But even a cursory reading of the Bible would show Dennett that Christianity claims to be a revealed religion, in which God, against a background of normal natural processes of biology, economics, politics, psychology, sociology, and even religion, intervened supernaturally at strategic points to inject new information and direction. For Dennett to just ignore or deny this is for him to beg the question by assuming from the outset that Christianity is just another natural religion and its accounts of God's supernatural interventions (including the incarnation, miracles, resurrection and ascension of Jesus) are at best mere fables and at worst, frauds.]

It will be plain that Dennett's approach to religion is contrived to evade religion's substance. He thinks that an inquiry into belief is made superfluous by an inquiry into the belief in belief. This is a very revealing mistake. You cannot disprove a belief unless you disprove its content. [Agreed. It is like trying to decide whether Einstein's theory of relativity was true by ignoring its content and concentrating instead on the presumed historical and psychological factors that led to Einstein to propose it!]

If you believe that you can disprove it any other way, by describing its origins or by describing its consequences, then you do not believe in reason. In this profound sense, Dennett does not believe in reason. ... Dennett's natural history does not deny reason, it animalizes reason. It portrays reason in service to natural selection, and as a product of natural selection. But if reason is a product of natural selection, then how much confidence can we have in a rational argument for natural selection? The power of reason is owed to the independence of reason, and to nothing else Evolutionary biology cannot invoke the power of reason even as it destroys it. [This is a version of C.S. Lewis's argument from reason. Materialism (matter is all there is) and Naturalism (nature is all there is) must take a standpoint outside themselves to assert that they are true. But in so doing they refute themselves!]

... Dennett actually prefers folk religion to intellectual religion, because it is nearer to the instinctual mire that enchants him. He cannot conceive of a thoughtful believer. He writes often, and with great indignation, of religion's strictures against doubts and criticisms, when in fact the religious traditions are replete with doubts and criticisms. Dennett is unacquainted with the distinction between fideism and faith. [In other words, to protect his weak position, Dennett (like Dawkins) has to set up a straw man of "religion" that he can then knock down.]

Like many of the fundamentalists whom he despises, he is a literalist in matters of religion. But why must we read literally in the realm of religion, when in so many other realms of human expression we read metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, figuratively, analogically? We see kernels and husks everywhere. There are concepts in many of the fables of faith, philosophical propositions about the nature of the universe. They may be right or they may be wrong, but they are there. [As a Christian, I would put it stronger than this. While much of Christianity uses symbols to point to higher realities, it does contain literal core truths, which if they are literally false, then Christianity is false. For example, St. Paul stated in 1 Corinthians 15:12-20 (and I agree) that if Christ has not been raised from the dead, then the Christian faith is both "false" and "futile":

"¹²But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? ¹³If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. ¹⁴And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. ¹⁵More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. ¹⁶For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. ¹⁷And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. ¹⁸Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. ¹⁹If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. ²⁰But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep."]

Dennett recognizes the uses of faith, but not its reasons. In the end, his repudiation of religion is a repudiation of philosophy, which is also an affair of belief in belief. [I don't understand Wieseltier here. Quite clearly all "religion" could be false (e.g. if there is no God) and atheistic "philosophy" would be true. Perhaps what Wieseltier means is Dennett's particular materialist grounds for his "repudiation of religion," which would then be a self-refuting "repudiation of philosophy" because it would, as C.S. Lewis showed in his argument from reason above, undermine the validity of reason itself.]

What this shallow and self-congratulatory book establishes most conclusively is that there are many spells that need to be broken. ... [No doubt Dennett, close-minded dogmatist that he is, will just triumphantly dismiss Wieseltier's review as "protectionism"!

In my morning `quiet time' I have been going through the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament and my study this morning was Isaiah 45:22-23:

"Turn to me and be saved, all you ends of the earth; for I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear" (my emphasis)

My NIV Study Bible's comment on Philippians 2:10-11 (where St. Paul quotes Isa 45:22-23 and applies it to Jesus), has:

"2:10-11 bow ... confess. Cf. Isa 45:23. God's design is that all people everywhere should worship and serve Jesus as Lord. Ultimately all will acknowledge him as Lord (see Ro 14:9), whether willingly or not." (Barker K., ed., "The NIV Study Bible," Zondervan: Grand Rapids MI, 1985, pp.1805)

So if Christianity is true (which it is) then Dennett (like everyone else) will inevitably one day have to acknowledge Jesus as his Lord, willingly (if he had become a Christian) or unwillingly otherwise. However, in the latter case it will be too little, too late.]

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

There is no stop button in the race for human re-engineering, etc

Excerpts of older science news articles from my backlog, with my comments bold and in square brackets.

There is no stop button in the race for human re-engineering: Science will soon give some of us the tools to make ourselves cleverer and stronger. What will it mean for our humanity? Madeleine Bunting, The Guardian, January 30, 2006 ... The pace of development in four distinct disciplines - neuroscience, biotechnology such as genetics, computing and nanoscience - is such that many envisage dramatic breakthroughs in how we can modify ourselves, our physical and mental capabilities. We could live much longer and be much stronger and cleverer - even be much happier. .... The Washington Post journalist and author of Radical Evolution, Joel Garreau, argues that we are at a pivotal point in human development. Having directed our technological ingenuity on the world around us, human beings are now turning it on to their own bodies and minds. From here on in, we will have the tools to engineer our own evolution. To the real enthusiasts - they call themselves transhumanists - humanity is on the point of being liberated from its biology. In their advocacy of our "technological rights", they believe that human beings are on the brink of a huge leap in development, leaving behind the sick, quarrelsome, weak, fallible creatures we have been up to now. We will be, as their slogan goes, "better than well". This is the prospect that horrifies the so-called "bio-conservatives" such as Francis Fukuyama, who argues that transhumanism is the most dangerous ideology of our time. There are plenty who share his concerns, pointing out that the implications for human rights, indeed for our understanding of what it is to be human, are huge. ... [This "human re-engineering" or transhumanism is just the latest version of the Darwinist eugenics urge. On Darwinist principles we were cobbled together by a `blind watchmaker' (not created in the image of God - Gen 1:26-27; 5:1; 9:6; Col 3:10), so there is no reason why we should not improve the `design'. ]

Closer to man than ape: DNA study supports call to reclassify chimpanzees, 'Historic differences' may not be so great, tests find, The Guardian, Ian Sample, January 24, 2006 They already use basic tools, have rudimentary language and star in TV commercials, but now scientists have proof that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than other great apes. Genetic tests comparing DNA from humans, chimps, gorillas and orang-utans reveal striking similarities in the way chimps and humans evolve that set them apart from the others. The finding adds weight to a controversial proposal to scrap the long-used chimp genus "Pan" and reclassify the animals as members of the human family. ... The move drew derision. Roger Scruton, the moral philosopher, asked: "Do we really think that the jails of New Zealand should henceforth be filled with malicious chimpanzees? If not, by what right are they to be exempted from punishment?" ... [This is related to the above. According to the Darwinists we are just another species of ape, with no special rights over other animals. But it is scientifically simplistic to consider only chimps and humans genetic similarities, without considering their major genomic differences, namely "at least 10 large inversions and translocations and one chromosomal fusion have occurred since the two lineages diverged":

"Although humans and chimpanzees have rather similar chromosome numbers, 46 and 48, respectively, the arrangement of genes on chimpanzee chromosomes differs from that on human chromosomes. Only a small proportion of the chromosomes have identical banding patterns in the two species. The banding studies indicate that at least 10 large inversions and translocations and one chromosomal fusion have occurred since the two lineages diverged." (King M.-C. & Wilson A.C., "Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees," Science, 11 April 1975, Vol. 188, pp.107-116, p.114)

Also, if chimps were deemed to have the same legal rights as humans, the they would also have to have the same legal responsibilities and, as Scruton pointed out, "the jails [would] be filled with malicious chimpanzees"!]

Scientists Force Evolution in the Lab, Robert Roy Britt, LiveScience, 2 February 2006 ... Scientists have forced a little evolution in the laboratory, controlling whether a caterpillar becomes green or black. The color of the critter was made to vary with temperature during their development. ... the researchers report in the Feb. 3 issue of the journal Science. The study was done on Manduca sexta, a caterpillar commonly called the tobacco hornworm. Its larvae are normally green. A related species, Manduca quinquemaculata, becomes black or green depending on temperature. The idea was to use similar temperature shocks to evolve a similar change in M. sexta. ... The scientists subjected the black mutants to temperatures above 83 degrees Fahrenheit, and over a few generations two types developed. One group turned green and the other didn't. ... None of this looks to be going anywhere in the sense of survival of the fittest. The black and green caterpillars will all grow up basically the same. "The adult moths are identical, and so there is no obvious basis for the kind of selective mating that might genetically isolate two groups and eventually lead to new species," Nijhout told LiveScience. Because the variations are based on temperatures, and thus in the wild would be dependent on seasons, the two types would tend to occur at different times of the year and may never meet in nature, he said. The next step, the researchers said, is to see if the variations do indeed occur in the wild. ... [A good (or bad) example of how evolutionists use the same word "evolution" to describe "the whole of reality" (Julian Huxley) and also the colour variation in a caterpillar (which is not "going anywhere in the sense of survival of the fittest" and may not even "occur in the wild")! I have added this to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 1.4.2. "Definition of `evolution' ... Trivial variation"]

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

Darwin's warm pond theory tested #2

Darwin's warm pond theory tested, BBC, 13 February 2006, Rebecca Morelle ...

[Continued from part #1]

"It is presumed that life arose in a soup rich in carbon compounds, but where did these organic molecules come from?" said Dr Max Bernstein from the US-based Seti Institute. [The theory "that life arose in a soup rich in carbon compounds" had already been discredited ~40 years ago in respect of an ocean (which presumably is what Bernstein is talking about), since that would be too dilute (see Bernal quote in part #1). This makes Horgan's point that "The origin of life ... abounds with ... exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion":

"If I were a creationist, I would cease attacking the theory of evolution-which is so well supported by the fossil record-and focus instead on the origin of life. This is by far the weakest strut of the chassis of modern biology. The origin of life is a science writer's dream. It abounds with exotic scientists and exotic theories, which are never entirely abandoned or accepted, but merely go in and out of fashion." (Horgan J., "The End of Science," Little, Brown & Co: London UK, 1997, p.138)

He believes the answer may lie in interstellar dust, and will be talking about the possibility that a comet or asteroid may have provided Earth with the raw ingredients needed for life. [Apart from the fact that Bernstein's "life arose in a soup rich in carbon compounds" theory won't work (see above), the provision of "the raw ingredients needed for life" is not the main problem (although it is a major problem). As biophysicist Harold F. Blum pointed out over 50 years ago, the problem is not just "the raw ingredients needed for life" but the naturalistic assembly of those ingredients into a "living machine":

"The living machine is clearly not just a mixture of chemicals, yet there seems to be widespread belief that, once the proper molecular compounds were there, life would appear, whether on the earth, on Mars, or elsewhere in the universe. This no more follows, I may point out at the risk of being thought overly facetious, than that an automobile, 1962 model, might spring spontaneously from a mixture of all the chemical species from which it is composed. " (Blum H.F., "Time's Arrow and Evolution," [1951], Harper Torchbooks: New York NY, Second Edition, 1955, Revised, 1962, p.178G)]

which would have to be immediately self-replicating (i.e. a Von Neumann machine) if it was not to die without offspring. But then that "poses problems that are ... difficult to formulate in our imagination":

"As the late John von Neumann pointed out, a machine that replicates itself ... offers a baffling problem which no one has as yet solved. In the present case, we are trying to understand how a self-replicating machine came into existence; this poses problems that are indeed difficult to formulate in our imagination, and should not be passed over too lightly." (Blum, "Time's Arrow and Evolution," 1962, pp.178G-178H)

which is presumably why most (if not all) origin of life researchers just ignore it!]

The researchers will also be asking whether life could exist elsewhere in the Universe. Professor Monica Grady from the UK's Open University will explore the possibility of a Martian existence at the meeting. She will discuss whether a Martian biosphere once existed by examining research into the carbon chemistry of Mars. [I have no problem if it turns out that Mars or once had (or even still has) life. However, as I have posted before, "I predict that if there is, or has been, life on Mars it will have been a single common origin that came from Earth (or vice-versa)."]

Professor Ian Smith, from the University of Cambridge, the organiser of the conference said: "Understanding how life emerged on Earth within 1,000 million years of its formation is both a fascinating scientific problem and an essential step in predicting the presence of life elsewhere in the Universe." [Indeed! But as Simon Conway Morris observed, "it still remains the case that the notion of an infinitesimally unlikely series of chemical reactions - ... a 'near miracle' remains the unbidden and silent observer at much of the discussion of how life originated" (yet "such terminology is effectively that of creationism"!), and that would mean that "what .... did happen in our Solar System may ... be either a very rare occurrence, or ... unique"!:

"In this context, it is surely interesting that Francis Crick can write 'An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.' [Crick F., "Life Itself," 1981, p.88] Crick is careful to continue by pointing out that the time available ... the diversity of habitats, and combinatorial possibilities of chemistry do not exclude life originating 'by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions'. [Ibid] More than two decades on from Crick's ruminations, however, it still remains the case that the notion of an infinitesimally unlikely series of chemical reactions -that from our perspective can be described only as a 'near miracle' remains the unbidden and silent observer at much of the discussion of how life originated. Yet, as Iris Fry ... reminds us, such terminology is effectively that of creationism. [Fry I., "Are the Different Hypotheses on the Emergence of Life as Different as they Seem?," Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 10, 1995, pp.389-417, p.405] Put this way, nearly everyone will ask that the now unwelcome guest should vanish through the adjacent wall, and agree that for all their differences (soup, clay, clouds ...) they share the common hypothesis that the steps from inert to vital must be those of an unbroken continuity. It would be an uncomfortable corollary if the series of meetings, interactions, and reactions of those few chemicals that led to the origin of life were little more than a series of fortuitous and happy flukes. If so, a scientific campaign for understanding the origin of life is not, to put it mildly, going to be straightforward. It is hardly surprising that George Wald wrote, 'One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task [of making life] to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation.' [Wald G., "The origin of life," Scientific American, Vol. 191, August 1954, pp.45-53] This quotation has become justifiably famous, but it is sometimes forgotten that in its original context there was a very strong underlying assumption that such a process of spontaneous generation could be possible only if there were enough aeons of time. As we shall now see, there probably were not, and to make matters worse what obviously did happen in our Solar System may itself be either a very rare occurrence, or, dangerous thought, possibly unique." (Conway Morris S., "Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe," Cambridge University Press: New York NY, 2003, pp.67-68)]

Professor Deamer said that his research, which is not yet published, will help to narrow down the theories about how life on Earth emerged. [Indeed! But what happens when all naturalistic "theories about how life on Earth emerged" have been eliminated? Would metaphysical (or even methodological) naturalists accept Intelligent Design or Creationism? Not according to Iris Fry (mentioned above by Conway Morris, `The decision to adopt the continuity thesis [there are no unbridgeable gaps between inorganic matter and life] is a philosophical one...and does not depend on the success of a specific experimental program, nor can it be revoked on the basis of its failure":

"What does one need to assume, as a bare philosophical minimum, to conduct research on the naturalistic origin of life? Iris Fry (Cohn Institute for the History and Philosophy of Science, Tel Aviv University) contends that one cannot assume that life came to be as a cosmic accident or near-miracle, a view held by Jacques Monod, Karl Popper, Ernst Mayr, and Richard Dawkins, among others. `Biologists and chemists who claim today that the origin of life borders on the miraculous,' she writes, `...suspend the scientific study of the origin of biological organization and create a barrier between biological evolution and the preceding stages of evolution, as well as between physics and biology' (p. 399). In short, she continues, they open the door to `Hoyle's teleological option' (p. 400), and despite their philosophical commitment to naturalism, imply `in fact, a creationist position.' Scientific progress towards a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life is only possible, Fry argues, if one assumes `the continuity thesis,' according to which (a) there are no unbridgeable gaps between inorganic matter and life, and (b) the emergence of life was highly probable. The continuity thesis is entirely a philosophical assumption, Fry notes. `The decision to adopt the continuity thesis is a philosophical one...and does not depend on the success of a specific experimental program, nor can it be revoked on the basis of its failure' (p. 393). To abandon the continuity thesis is simultaneously to abandon the search for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. Thus, philosophical assumptions and arguments, Fry concludes, go `to the core -- to the very 'right of existence'' (p. 414) of the naturalistic research program in the origin of life." (Nelson P., "Happy Biochemical Accidents Won't Do." Review of Iris Fry, "Are the Different Hypotheses on the Emergence of Life as Different as they Seem?," Biology and Philosophy, Vol. 10, 1995, pp.389-417. Literature Survey, Origins & Design 17:2, Access Research Network, November 14, 1996)

In other words a false naturalistic theory of the origin of life is always to be preferred over a true non-naturalistic one! That is as good an example of naturalistic "invincible ignorance," i.e. "a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. ... no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. ... the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction":

"There does remain, nonetheless, a cast of mind which seems peculiarly closed to evidence. When confronted with such a mind, one feels helpless, for no amount of evidence seems to be clinching. Frequently the facts are simply ignored or brushed aside as somehow deceptive, and the principles are reaffirmed in unshakable conviction. One seems confronted with what has been called `invincible ignorance.'" (Fearnside W.W. & Holther W.B., "Fallacy the Counterfeit of Argument," Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs NJ, 1959, reprint, p.113)]

"One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond', but not in hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents," he added. ... [This sounds like a token sop to the Darwinists. What "warm little pond" would there be, that had a supply of all the necessary organic building blocks and did not have the same acidic and clay problems of "hot volcanic springs or marine hydrothermal vents"? And if there were any such ponds, why doesn't Deamer identify what and where they are and test them also?

I have added the Royal Society press release (with links to the BBC, The Times and The Australian articles) to my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 7.6.3.1" Problems of origin of life locations ... Ponds, pools, lakes, etc. ... Volcanic pools"]

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

Darwin's warm pond theory tested #1

A news item about an experimental test by a leading origin of life theorist, UC Santa Cruz chemistry professor David Deamer, which has falsified two major origin of life theories, that life emerged spontaneously from a volcanic spring or a hydrothermal vent. My comments are bold and in square brackets. I have split this post into two parts due to its length.

Darwin's warm pond theory tested, BBC, 13 February 2006, Rebecca Morelle ... Life on Earth was unlikely to have emerged from volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents, according to a leading US researcher. [This headline is misleading. The actual article, which is based on a Royal Society press release, is about an experiment which falsified "volcanic springs or hydrothermal vents" origin of life theories, not necessarily Darwin's "warm little pond" theory. Indeed the article (as does the press release) actually says at the end, "One possibility is that life really did begin in a 'warm little pond'" (although see my comment at the end of part #2 on that). This press release also seems to have confused sub-editors at The Times ("Study pours cold water on Darwin's theory of life"), The Australian ("Darwin may have been wrong on the origin of life)," and NEWS.com.au ("Darwin may have been wrong"). Which is not to say that Darwin's "warm little pond" theory:

"It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity, &c., present, that a proteine [sic] compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." (Darwin C.R., letter to J.D. Hooker, [1 February] 1871, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," [1898], Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II, 1959, reprint, pp.202-203)

is not wrong anyway. As Thaxton, et al., in their 1984 book," The Mystery of Life's Origin," which is usually credited with beginning the ID movement, pointed out, there are major problems with all theories positing the origin of life in smaller, more concentrated pools, which would include Darwin's:

"Concentrating Little Ponds. The realization that an organic soup would have been too dilute for direct formation of polymers may seem devastating to chemical evolution views. However, as Bernal has written, `The original concept of the primitive soup must be rejected only in so far as it applies to oceans or large volumes of water, and interest must be transferred to reactions in more limited zones.' [Bernal J.D., "Thermodynamics and kinetics of spontaneous generation," Nature, Vol. 186, 28 May 1960, p.694]. By this he meant lakes, pools, lagoons, and the like. These more limited zones might then have been the locus of life's origin rather than the ocean. The significance of these local places is their associated mechanisms for concentrating essential chemicals. By concentrating the monomers, the probability of their molecular interaction would have been increased. ... Critique of Concentrating Mechanism. There is no known geological evidence for organic pools, concentrated by these or other mechanisms, ever existing on this planet. ... Still, if by some means concentrated pools did develop, not only would the desired materials concentrate, but also the undesirable impurities ... that would have been the greatest obstacle to the successful concentration of organic compounds in limited zones. This would be the host of oceanic organic compounds such as amines, amino acids, aldehydes, ketones, sugars, carboxylic acids, etc. that would have destructively interacted in the ocean. The usual consequences of concentrating these would be ... merely an acceleration of the many destructive reactions ... that would also occur at slower rates in the more dilute ocean ... Stemming from this discussion, however, it is our observation that what is needed is a natural sorting mechanism. The problem demands a means of selecting organic compounds and isolating them from other chemicals with which they could destructively interact. Yet there is nothing (but the need) to suggest that such a sorting mechanism ever existed on this planet. In other words, for these more limited zones (e.g., lakes, pools, lagoons), as for the ocean itself, it is difficult to imagine significant concentrations of essential organic compounds ever accumulating. As we have seen, degradative forces need to be taken into account in realistic estimates of concentrations, and they have frequently been ignored." (Thaxton C.B., Bradley W.L. & Olsen R.L., "The Mystery of Life's Origin: Reassessing Current Theories," [1984], Lewis & Stanley: Dallas TX, 1992, Second Printing, pp.61-62, 64-66. Emphasis original)]

Experiments carried out in volcanic pools suggest they do not provide the right conditions to spawn life. [This is very significant because "volcanic pools" and "hydrothermal vents" are major origin of life theoris which may now have to be abandoned. I have added part of the above quote, and the full quote, respectively, to new sections of my "Problems of Evolution" book outline, PE 7.6.2.1.1." Problems of origin of life locations ... Oceanic organic `soup' ... Too dilute" and PE 7.6.3." Problems of origin of life locations ... Ponds, pools, lakes, etc."]

The findings will be discussed on Tuesday at an international two-day meeting to explore the latest thinking on the origin of life on Earth. It takes place at the Royal Society, the UK's academy of science, in London. ... David Deamer, emeritus professor of chemistry at the University of California at Santa Cruz, said ahead of his presentation: "It is about 140 years since Charles Darwin suggested that life may have begun in a 'warm little pond'. We are now testing Darwin's idea, but in 'hot little puddles' associated with the volcanic regions of Kamchatka [Russia] and Mount Lassen [California, US]. [It is to Deamer's credit that he was willing to actually go out into the real world and experimentally test the volcanic hot pools ('hot little puddles') origin of life theory, but it is a criticism (if not a condemnation) of origin of life theory generally if no one had bothered to do it before this.]

"The results are surprising and in some ways disappointing. It seems that hot acidic waters containing clay do not provide the right conditions for chemicals to assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms.'" [That is, they don't even get to first base. There was no evidence anyway that "chemicals ... assemble themselves into 'pioneer organisms'" in "hot acidic waters containing clay" or anywhere!]

Professor Deamer said that amino acids and DNA, the "building blocks" for life, and phosphate, another essential ingredient, cling to the surfaces of clay particles in the volcanic pools. "The reason this is significant is that it has been proposed that clay promotes interesting chemical reactions relating to the origin of life," he explained. "However," he added, "in our experiments, the organic compounds became so strongly held to the clay particles that they could not undergo any further chemical reactions." [So it seems that this also falsifies all clay-based (e.g. Cairns-Smith's) origin of life theories!] ...

While our understanding of the world is rapidly increasing, the answer to how life began on Earth remains elusive. [This in fact was an explicit prediction of Thaxton, et al. (and therefore of ID) that ignoring the evidence "intelligent, exogenous intervention" in "prebiotic simulation experiments" "will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's origin":

"Over the years a slowly emerging line or boundary has appeared which shows observationally the limits of what can be expected from matter and energy left to themselves, and what can be accomplished only through what Michael Polanyi has called "a profoundly informative intervention." [Polanyi M., "Life Transcending Physics and Chemistry," Chemical Engineering News, August 21, 1967, p.54]. When it is acknowledged that most so-called prebiotic simulation experiments actually owe their success to the crucial but illegitimate role of the investigator, a new and fresh phase of the experimental approach to life's origin can then be entered. Until then however, the literature of chemical evolution will probably continue to be dominated by reports of experiments in which the investigator, like a metabolizing Maxwell Demon, will have performed work on the system through intelligent, exogenous intervention. Such work establishes experimental boundary conditions, and imposes intelligent influence/control over a supposedly "prebiotic" earth. As long as this informative interference of the investigator is ignored, the illusion of prebiotic simulation will be fostered. We would predict that this practice will prove to be a barrier to solving the mystery of life's origin." (Thaxton, et al., "The Mystery of Life's Origin," 1984, p.185. Emphasis original.)]

The conference, involving more than 200 leading international scientists, will also explore other theories including whether life arrived from space. [Theories which posit that "life arrived from space" (panspermia) are an admission that all naturalistic Earth-based origin of life on theories have failed! Although this is no doubt attractive to NASA, which funds most `astrobiology' research these days.]

[Continued in part #2]

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

Re: "When the Kansas school board removed evolution from the science curriculum back in 1999"

Editor
New York Times

--- For publication starts ---

In his commentary, "Someday the Sun Will Go Out and the World Will End (but Don't Tell Anyone)" (New York Times, February 14, 2006), Dennis Overbye stated: "When the Kansas school board removed evolution from the science curriculum back in 1999, they also removed the Big Bang."

This is false on both counts (despite it being commonly repeated in the media). First, the Big Bang was not even mentioned in the original 1995 Kansas science standards, as can be verified by checking them online (Kansas Curricular Standards for Science, Kansas State Board of Education, Revised June 14, 1995). To be sure, the Big Bang was in the Science Education Standards Writing Committee's proposed science standards (Kansas Science Education Standards, Fifth Working Draft, July, 1999), but this was not accepted by the Board in its 1999 standards (Kansas Curricular Standards for Science Education, Kansas State Board of Education, Adopted December 7, 1999). However, not accepting a proposed increase to the science curriculum about the Big Bang is not removing the Big Bang from that curriculum, since at the time it was not in the existing 1995 curriculum standards to be removed.

Second, as pointed out by Jonathan Wells ("Ridiculing Kansas School Board is Easy, But it's not Good Journalism," The Daily Republic, Mitchell, SD, October 14, 1999), far from having "removed evolution from the science curriculum back in 1999," the Kansas Board of Education in 1999 actually increased it fivefold over the then existing 1995 science standards, from about 70 to 390 words about evolution. This can be verified by comparing the 1999 standards with the 1995 standards. As Wells noted, the Writing Committee's proposed science standards had about 640 words on evolution, a ninefold increase over the then existing 1995 standards. But again, the Board's reducing a proposed ninefold increase in curriculum content about evolution down to an actual fivefold increase is clearly not removing evolution from the science curriculum!

Please issue a public correction and bring it to the attention of your journalists. Thank you.

Stephen E. Jones
Warwick
Western Australia

--- For publication ends ---

I am copying this message to my blog, CreationEvolutionDesign. I would appreciate you notifying me when the correction is published, so that I can post it to my blog. If you send me anything else about this, I will post it also to my blog.

Stephen E. Jones
[Street address]
Warwick
Western Australia

Darwin's birthday evolves into holiday

News items about the annual celebration of Darwin's birthday (and it being further evidence of Darwinism being a secular religion). My comments are bold and in square brackets.

Darwin's birthday evolves into holiday: Amid challenges, supporters stick up for evolution on Sunday, MSNBC/AP, Kathy Matheson, Feb. 9, 2006 ... PHILADELPHIA - Thanks to the "intelligent design" movement, Charles Darwin's birthday is evolving into everything from a badminton party to church sermons this weekend. Defenders of Darwin's theory of natural selection are planning hundreds of events around the world Sunday, the 197th anniversary of his birth, saying recent challenges to the teaching of evolution have re-emphasized the need to promote his work. "The people who believe in evolution ... really just sort of need to stand up and be counted," said Richard Leventhal, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. "Evolution is the model that drives science. [This is another grandiose claim for evolution, which I have included in a new section, PE 1.4.1.1. "Definition of `evolution' ... Cosmic `evolution'" of my "Problems of Evolution" book outline.]

It's time to recognize that." The museum's celebration will include birthday cake, a little badminton (reportedly a favorite game of Darwin's) and a reading of his masterwork, "The Origin of Species," by Penn junior Bill Wames, who volunteered to dress up as the 19th-century naturalist. "Come to my party!" Wames, in costume, bellowed Wednesday while handing out fliers around campus. "Sunday at 1 o'clock!" At the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, philosophy students will get a jump-start on Darwin Day on campus Friday by singing Darwin carols they composed. Years of discovery Darwin, who was born in England on Feb. 12, 1809, and died in 1882, was 50 when he published "The Origin of Species." His conclusion that species evolve over time was based in part on zoological and geological discoveries made during a five-year voyage around the world on the HMS Beagle. The intelligent-design movement challenges Darwin's theory, contending that organisms are so complex that they must have been created by some kind of higher being. Critics of intelligent design say it is creationism camouflaged in scientific language. Intelligent-design proponents suffered legal setbacks last year in Pennsylvania and Georgia, but Kansas education officials have approved science standards that treat evolution as a flawed theory. Polls have shown many Americans don't accept evolution. A Gallup poll in 2004 found that about 35 percent of Americans believe Darwin's theory is well supported by evidence, another 35 percent thought it was not well-supported and 29 percent said they didn't know enough about it. Religion and science get along To show religion and science are not at odds, more than 400 churches of many denominations - most of them in the United States - have agreed to participate in "Evolution Sunday" by giving a sermon, holding classes or sponsoring discussions. Organizer Michael Zimmerman, a biology professor and dean at the University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh, said there is "no reason that people have to choose between religion and science." The Darwin Day Celebration was formalized six years ago as a California-based nonprofit organization, but some tributes go back much further. Salem State College in Massachusetts has had a Darwin festival for 26 years. ... [I have added these items and others to a new section of my "Problems of Evolution" book outline: PE 3.6.1. "Evolution is a religion ... Darwin's birthday celebrated," with comments "Darwin's birthday is celebrated annually by Darwinists, as Jesus' birthday (Christmas) is celebrated annually by Christians ... This is unique in science (no other branch of science celebrates annually its founder's birthday), therefore this is further evidence that Darwinism is a religion to its followers ... (continued below)]

Churches say 'amen' for Darwin's theory: Many to celebrate scientist's birthday, The Boston Globe/Chicago Tribune, By Lisa Anderson, February 12, 2006 ... NEW YORK -- Nearly 450 Christian churches around the country plan to celebrate the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin today with programs and sermons intended to emphasize that his theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science. 'It's to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don't have to make that choice. You can have both," said Michael Zimmerman ... who organized the event. Darwin's theory holds that all life on Earth, including humans, shares common ancestry and developed over millions of years through the mechanisms of natural selection and random mutation. The concept is repugnant to many conservative Christians because it conflicts with their belief that man was specially created in the image of God. Zimmerman said today's event is designed to educate Americans about two things. ''The first part was to demonstrate to the American public that the shrill fundamentalist voices that were demanding that people had to choose between religion and science were simply wrong. [Presumably Zimmerman (and/or the journalist) is referring to the ID movement, in which case he (and/or she) is erecting a straw man, what Johnson called " the `official caricature' of the creation-evolution debate":

"A laudatory review of Weiner's book (The Beak of the Finch) appeared in the Times book review section a week later. Like Weiner's essay, it began by commenting on the astonishing persistence of biblical creationism among persons who appear to be otherwise perfectly reasonable. The reviewer attributed this to a lack of knowledge of the overwhelming proof of evolution which scientists have discovered. ... The Weiner article and book review illustrate what I would call the `official caricature' of the creation-evolution debate, a distortion that is either explicit or implicit in nearly all media and textbook treatments of the subject. According to the caricature, `evolution' is a simple, unitary process that one can see in operation today and that is also supported unequivocally by all the fossil evidence. Everyone accepts the truth of evolution except a disturbingly large group of biblical fundamentalists, who insist that the earth is no more than ten thousand years old and the fossil beds were laid down in Noah's flood. These baffling persons either are uninformed about the evidence or perhaps choose to disregard it as a temptation placed before us by God to test our faith in Genesis. There is no conceivable intellectual basis for their dissent, because the evidence for evolution is absolutely conclusive." (Johnson P.E., "Reason in the Balance," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1995, pp.72-73).

Leaders of the ID movement like Phil Johnson, Mike Behe and Bill Dembski are not "fundamentalists" in the sense of six-day, young-Earth creationists ( which is what most of Zimmerman's readers would understand by the term). For example, Behe accepts universal common ancestry (as I do):

"Evolution is a controversial topic, so it is necessary to address a few basic questions at the beginning of the book. Many people think that questioning Darwinian evolution must be equivalent to espousing creationism. As commonly understood, creationism involves belief in an earth formed only about ten thousand years ago, an interpretation of the Bible that is still very popular. For the record, I have no reason to doubt that the universe is the billions of years old that physicists say it is. Further, I find the idea of common descent (that all organisms share a common ancestor) fairly convincing, and have no particular reason to doubt it. I greatly respect the work of my colleagues who study the development and behavior of organisms within an evolutionary framework, and I think that evolutionary biologists have contributed enormously to our understanding of the world. Although Darwin's mechanism-natural selection working on variation-might explain many things, however, I do not believe it explains molecular life. I also do not think it surprising that the new science of the very small might change the way we view the less small." (Behe M.J., "Darwin's Black Box," Free Press: New York NY, 1996, pp.5-6. My emphasis)

and Dembski has stated thati "ntelligent design is compatible with ... God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life":

"Where does intelligent design fit within the creation-evolution debate? Logically, intelligent design is compatible with everything from utterly discontinuous creation (e.g., God intervening at every conceivable point to create new species) to the most far-ranging evolution (e.g., God seamlessly melding all organisms together into one great tree of life). For intelligent design the primary question is not how organisms came to be (though, as we've just seen, this is a vital question for intelligent design) but whether organisms demonstrate clear, empirically detectable marks of being intelligently caused. In principle an evolutionary process can exhibit such `marks of intelligence' as much as any act of special creation." (Dembski W.A., "Intelligent Design," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1999, pp.109-110)

The second part was to demonstrate that those fundamentalist leaders that keep standing up and shouting that you can't accept modern science were not speaking for the majority of Christian leaders in this country," said Zimmerman, a former biology professor. However, Evolution Sunday drew sharp criticism from the Discovery Institute. The Seattle-based think tank funds research into challenges to neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory, such as the concept of intelligent design, which posits that some complexities of life, yet unexplained by evolution, best are attributed to an unnamed and unseen intelligence. In a statement issued under the title "On Evolution Sunday It's Give Me That Old-Time Darwinist Religion," Discovery Institute president Bruce Chapman said, ''Evolution Sunday is the height of hypocrisy." "Our view is not that pastors should speak out against evolution," he added, "but that the Darwinists are hypocrites for claiming -- falsely -- that opposition to Darwinism is merely faith-based, and then turning around and trying to make the case that Darwinism itself is faith-based." To counter new challenges to teaching evolution, supporters of Darwin's theory have scheduled hundreds of events around the world today. The events are part of the Darwin Day Celebration, which was formalized six years ago as a California-based nonprofit program. Darwin was born in Shrewsbury, England, on Feb. 12, 1809, and died in 1882. ... [My comments under this section of my book outline continued: "... Because Darwin's birthday fell on a Sunday in 2006, Darwinists managed to get (dupe?) a comparatively small number of churches to celebrate it as "Evolution Sunday", to `prove' that Darwinism (which denies there is design) and Christianity are compatible ...Note above that "Darwin Day Celebration began ... with the Humanist [i.e. atheist] Community back in 1994-95" to celebrate the birth of "Charles Darwin, Emancipator of the Human Mind" (that is, from religion in general and Christianity in particular). Note also above that, "The Honorary President of Darwin Day is none other than Richard Dawkins" who regards religion in general, and Christianity in particular, as, in the words of the titles of the two episodes in his recent BBC TV program: "The Root of All Evil," "The God Delusion" and "The Virus of Faith"!]

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

My critique of Darwin's Origin of Species, pp.5-6

My critique of Darwin's Origin of Species, 6th edition, 1872, pages 5-6, as part of Chapter 4, "History ... Darwin," of my book, "Problems of Evolution." My comments are bold and in square brackets. I have broken up the original's paragraphs for easier readability.

[Continued from p.5]

[page] 5 CHAPTER I. VARIATION UNDER DOMESTICATION. [...]

Causes of Variability. [...]

As far as I am able to judge, after long attending to the subject, the conditions of life appear to act in two ways-directly on the whole organisation or on certain parts alone [This is Lamarckism, which Darwin increasingly emphasized in later editions of his Origin of Species in order to protect his theory from falsification.] and in directly by affecting the reproductive system. [This of course was later found to be the case. In his First Edition (1859), Darwin had here (page 8) only "affecting the reproductive system":

But I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be attributed to the male and female reproductive elements having been affected prior to the act of conception.

Even this gives Darwin an unfalsifiable `out', with its vague "I am strongly inclined to suspect that the most frequent cause of variability may be ..." (my emphasis) which, as we shall see, is a feature of Darwin's rhetoric in what is supposed to be a major scientific theory. As we see here (and shall see), Darwin's theory in its final form in this the Sixth Edition of his Origin of Species is simply wrong in that it depends heavily on Lamarckian inheritance of the "use and disuse" of body parts.]

With respect to the direct

[page] 6

action, we must bear in mind that in every case, as Professor Weismann has lately insisted, and as I have incidently shown in my work on "Variation under Domestication," there are two factors: namely, the nature of the organism and the nature of the conditions. [This is a truism since it covers all factors (internal and external), without remainder. But if "the conditions" included the guidance of an Intelligent Designer, as Christian Darwinist Asa Gray maintained, and later Sir Charles Lyell who agreed with Gray against Darwin:

"In the argument for design in nature which he advanced here, not be it remembered, against Darwin but against Agassiz and Company, Gray made one significant addition. He finally came up to the problem of how to introduce design into the Darwinian system. Variation was the point he seized upon. At least `while the physical cause of variation is utterly unknown and mysterious, we should advise Mr. Darwin to assume, in the philosophy of his hypothesis, that variation has been led along certain beneficial lines.' [Gray A., "Darwiniana," (1861), Belknap: Cambridge MA, 1963, pp.120-121] ... If Gray's argument for the compatibility of the Darwinian hypothesis with theism failed to win over the Bishop of Oxford, it failed equally to win over an even more important leader, Darwin himself. ... In the fall of 1860 ... Darwin in effect announced his decision. `I grieve to say I cannot honestly go as far as you do about design.' [Darwin C.R., Letter to Asa Gray, November 26th, 1860, in Darwin F., ed., "The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin," (1898), Basic Books: New York NY, Vol. II., 1959, pp.145-146] ... While an amiable discussion continued between the two friends, it held from this time on a fundamental disagreement. With Darwin's decision against the design argument, Gray lost his place as a shaper of strategy in the inner circle of friends. The assumption quickly grew up that Darwin had annihilated Paley's argument, and Huxley moved quickly forward to become the interpreter of Darwinism before the public. Gray's solution would obviously have been quite different. Later students have often puzzled over Lyell's hesitation and near estrangement from Hooker, Huxley, and Darwin without noting that Lyell alone of the inner circle in England adhered to Gray's position. Indeed, on the last pages of the Antiquity of Man, he specifically adopted Gray's view of design in nature. Other factors, of course, entered into Lyell's later opinions on the Origin, but he and Gray stepped out of the inner circle together on the same issue." (Dupree A.H., "Asa Gray: American Botanist, Friend of Darwin," [1959], The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore MD, 1988, reprint, pp.296, 300-301)

then Darwinism would not be incompatible with intelligent design or Christian theism. It is the Darwinian unproven and unprovable claim that all genetic changes in the entire history of life have been undirected, that makes Darwinism incompatible with design and therefore with Christian theism. ]

The former seems to be much the more important; for nearly similar variations sometimes arise under, as far as we can judge, dissimilar conditions; and, on the other hand, dissimilar variations arise under conditions which appear to be nearly uniform. [This is vacuous without supporting detail of what exactly the "variations" and "conditions," and what the criteria for "similar" and "dissimilar," are.]

The effects on the offspring are either definite or indefinite. They may be considered as definite when all or nearly all the offspring of individuals exposed to certain conditions during several generations are modified in the same manner. [Again, unless the "conditions" are specified in advance, this is vacuous.]

It is extremely difficult to come to any conclusion in regard to the extent of the changes which have been thus definitely induced. [Agreed, but that's hardly surprising if what is "definite" is not specified in advance so that it can be tested.]

There can, however, be little doubt about many slight changes, such as size from the amount of food, colour from the nature of the food, thickness of the skin and hair from climate, etc. [This is meaningless. There can be no "doubt about many slight changes" that they have happened. But whether Darwin's theory of the natural selection "slight, successive, favourable variations" (p.413) has anything to do with them is what needs to be demonstrated. See above on Darwin's crucial mistake that he thought that "the conditions of life [environment]... act ... directly on the whole organisation or on certain parts alone." But since they don't in an inheritable sense, they are irrelevant to Darwin's argument.]

Each of the endless variations which we see in the plumage of our fowls must have had some efficient cause; and if the same cause were to act uniformly during a long series of generations on many individuals, all probably would be modified in the same manner. [Again, what does this mean (if anything)? It is another truism that every variation "must have had some efficient cause." But that in each instance that it was: 1) "the same cause"; 2) that it "act[ed] uniformly during a long series of generations;" and 3) "all probably would be modified in the same manner," is (apart from being rendered vacuous by the "probably") what needs to be shown.]

Such facts as the complex and extraordinary out growths which variably follow from the insertion of a minute drop of poison by a gall-producing insect, shows us what singular modifications might result in the case of plants from a chemical change in the nature of the sap. [The point is that such "modifications" are not inherited by the plant in the sense that offpsring of plants with galls don't grow with galls in the absence of being parasitised by a gall-producing insect (or fungus, bacteria or mite), so it is irrelevant to his argument. Darwin must have known this, and so it is an example of him deliberately misleading his readers.]

[To be continued]

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