The Altenberg 16 - burying Darwin while he is still hot?

Is Susan Mazur writing a book that exposes the Darwin industry instead of protecting it?

The title is "Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry
Sunday, 6 July 2008, 12:32 pm
Article: Suzan Mazur "

Forward

Introduction

Chronology

Evolution Tribes

1 The Altenberg 16

2 Altenberg! The Woodstock of Evolution?

3 Jerry Fodor and Stan Salthe Open the Evo Box

4 Theory of Form to Center Stage

5 The Two Stus

[ and more ... ]

Susan, you mean, no more of the "dancing with the biologists" on Galapagos rubbish (and, person who wrote that silliness, you know who you are ... ) A real accounting at last?

By the way, the intro to a book is the "Foreword", not "Forward". Easy to correct.

I will read and report shortly.

Okay, (2:04 pm EST) starting to get some answers now: A long-time observer who knows several of the Alt. 16, says,

The anecdote about Mary Leakey, with which Mazur opens her e-book, is telling. Leakey says that she re-buried hominid fossils so that their "discovery" could be covered by a film crew. As I see it, Mazur places this story as a epigraph to her coverage of the Alt 16, and related issues, to indicate her skepticism of the neo-D enterprise: a science hopelessly corrupted by ideology and quasi-religious motivations, and shot through with cowardice and intimidation of dissent.

Mazur's skepticism is long-standing (note the date of the Leakey interview: 1980). That means she got bit with the bug of doubt about neo-D nearly 30 years ago, and has had plenty of time to observe the mischief since then. Now she's on a roll.

I don't think she wants to take the Alt 16 to the cleaners, so much as she wants a lot more openness and candor about neo-D in public discussions. Moreover she sees the stifling orthodoxy, even to the extent that she publishes her correspondence with magazine editors turning down her article proposals.

Fascinating lady. I look forward to meeting her.

But why did Mazur even make any article proposals? Don't legacy media editors have to front Darwin as part of making a living?

Here are some of the Comments at Telic Thoughts in response to this intro by Guts:

It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence. It's pre the discovery of DNA, lacks a theory for body form and does not accomodate "other" new phenomena. So the theory Charles Darwin gave us, which was dusted off and repackaged 70 years ago, seems about to be reborn as the "Extended Evolutionary Synthesis".

A lot of the ensuing chatter is just people talking to themselves, but some interesting discussion is developing:

Well, it’s very unfortunate that you bought into this. There are very few people in evolutionary biology who take Pigliucci seriously, and Fodor, Pivar, et al. are literally unknowns, providing no evidence that they’ve read a single bit of the mainstream evolutionary biology literature.

[ ... ]

I have little confidence in a “new synthesis” emerging from this motley crew of B-list science celebrities, and their mishmash of old ideas (“self-organization,” “emergence,” “edge of chaos,” and all that), and current professional rivalries and personal animosities. These are all “old school” biologists and philosophers.

And so forth.

Essentially, old school or new school, the Darwinists first need to decide what exactly Darwinism is. Is it simply a theory about whether species originate via survival of the fittest? That's what Darwin (and Wallace) proposed. Or is it also Lee Smolin's cosmic Darwinism, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution beloved of Psychology Today, and gangs of deceitful memes spreading religion as a virus of the mind?

If it is the first (a theory of the origin of species), it may well be true in some cases. But the evidence for Darwinism as a large, general cause of the origin of species has never been very good. When challenged, Darwinists typically point to trivial or questionable examples, then demand loyalty to their bigger idea as proof of support for "science" generally.

Then, of course, in marches a kazoo band harping on cosmic Darwinism, the Big Bazooms theory, and the gangs of deceitful religion memes (or viruses).

The fact that Darwinists have been able to get away with this nonsense for so long is principally due to the popularity at universities of the bigger idea that Darwinism supposedly underwrites - materialist atheism. Darwinism is the creation story of materialist atheism, if not of any particular species in nature. Most of the "skeptic rants' you hear in Darwinism's defence are recitations of the creed.

In short, I think Darwinism would be a viable idea in science if Darwinists could bring themselves to fire the kazoo band, but I bet they can't. We'll see.

Oh, and here's some damage control from Olivia Judson in the New York Times, "Let's get rid of Darwinism" because it's all much broader than that:

I’d like to abolish the insidious terms Darwinism, Darwinist and Darwinian. They suggest a false narrowness to the field of modern evolutionary biology, as though it was the brainchild of a single person 150 years ago, rather than a vast, complex and evolving subject to which many other great figures have contributed. (The science would be in a sorry state if one man 150 years ago had, in fact, discovered everything there was to say.) Obsessively focusing on Darwin, perpetually asking whether he was right about this or that, implies that the discovery of something he didn’t think of or know about somehow undermines or threatens the whole enterprise of evolutionary biology today.

But Judson, what ISN'T Darwinism?

The best way to accomplish your proposed goal would be by beginning there. But somehow I don't think you want to go there.

Yet all too often, evolution — insofar as it is taught in biology classes at all — is taught as the story of Charles Darwin. Then the pages are turned, and everyone settles down to learn how the heart works, or how plants make energy from sunshine, or some other detail. The evolutionary concepts that unify biology, that allow us to frame questions and investigate the glorious diversity of life — these are ignored.

Do these evolutionary concepts include or exclude cosmic Darwinism, the Big Bazooms theory of evolution, and the gangs of deceitful religion memes (or viruses). I am beginning to suspect that the Birkenstock of Evolution (the Altenberg Conference) will break up without defining anything like that, which means it will have been a pleasant Alpine holiday.

July 16 6:17 pm EST, another friend writes,

I have not had time to read Mazur's stuff in detail. It seems that she has experienced the stonewalling encountered by anyone who questions Neo-Darwinism, but it also seems she is trying to push the self-organization school of thought, which tends to be either materialistic or pantheistic (ala Stuart Kaufman) in approach. Self-organizationalists acknowledge the incompleteness of the Darwinian explanation, but will not concede the necessity of an intelligent agent who guided the origin and development of life.

As to her assessment of the A-16s- she is angry because they promised her access, then denied it after her first article caused an uproar. I am not sure she has engaged the arguments for herself yet. I think she didn't realize how radioactive this particular subject is, but she is now beginning to find out.

Radioactive? yes. Susan should contact me if she wants to know whether she has a future as a journalist. Yes, if she adopts as her motto, "If, after investigation, it sounds unbelievable, ... hey, don't believe it." Otherwise, no. But there is always a government job somewhere.

Another friends, James Barham, comments,

On the whole, I thought it was splendid. ... Something like Mazur's article is long overdue. I am so happy that finally a few of the people who question neo-Darwinism from a secular perspective are beginning to get a real hearing in the media. It's high time!

There are many, many other folks that she might have interviewed, as well, but I am grateful that she at least gave Kauffman, Newman, and Lima-de-Faria a hearing (also, I was delighted to learn that Piattelli-Palmarini seems to have come around to a self-organization perspective, which I was not aware of). Now, if she will only interview West-Eberhard, Jablonka, Margulis, Ho, Goodwin, Yates, Reid, and a dozen others ...

Look, James, I just paid a library fine for a bunch of overdue pop sci mags that were not worth checking out even for free because they were brimful of the sci trash that Mazur is trying to expose (and thus were expensively forgettable clutter).

I just hope that girl got good biz sense ...

Casey Luskin at Discovery Institute notes,

Pigliucci claims there's "no crisis" here, but Kevin Padian is hanging up on people and Eugenie Scott claims people will confuse the arguments of conference-attendees with intelligent design.

What is most interesting here is not just Pigliucci's attempt at damage control, but the NCSE's knee-jerk reaction against anything that isn't neo-Darwinian. It seems that the NCSE was indeed quite worried that this conference will do damage to neo-Darwinism. At the very least, this exchange exposes the NCSE's intolerant attitude towards non-Darwinian thoughts, even when the doubters don't support ID. Indeed, Mazur's reports reveal that various scientists she has interviewed at the conference have fundamental doubts about neo-Darwinism, but they are eschewed by the scientific community.

Well yes, because they have to yap Darwinyap to get research funding. Try getting research funding without doing that ... try holding your hat out on the street.

Major revolution in evolutionary theory in the offing?

In his "infamous" essay, "Why Pigs Don't Have Wings,"Philosopher Jerry Fodor, who will soon be authoring a book on the subject with Massimo Piatelli-Palmarini, writes

In fact, an appreciable number of perfectly reasonable biologists are coming to think that the theory of natural selection can no longer be taken for granted. This is, so far, mostly straws in the wind; but it’s not out of the question that a scientific revolution – no less than a major revision of evolutionary theory – is in the offing. Unlike the story about our minds being anachronistic adaptations, this new twist doesn’t seem to have been widely noticed outside professional circles. The ironic upshot is that at a time when the theory of natural selection has become an article of pop culture, it is faced with what may be the most serious challenge it has had so far. Darwinists have been known to say that adaptationism is the best idea that anybody has ever had. It would be a good joke if the best idea that anybody has ever had turned out not to be true. A lot of the history of science consists of the world playing that sort of joke on our most cherished theories.

Like it or not, Darwin’s theory of evolution is coming under fire among biologists. One issue is Darwin's use of examples from human-directed breeding experiments, where intelligent design is the key, to explain how natural selection works. But the whole point about natural selection is that intelligent design is not supposed to be involved:

The present worry is that the explication of natural selection by appeal to selective breeding is seriously misleading, and that it thoroughly misled Darwin. Because breeders have minds, there’s a fact of the matter about what traits they breed for; if you want to know, just ask them. Natural selection, by contrast, is mindless; it acts without malice aforethought. That strains the analogy between natural selection and breeding, perhaps to the breaking point. What, then, is the intended interpretation when one speaks of natural selection? The question is wide open as of this writing.

Of course, some theorists like Richard Dawkins have argued that "selfish genes" can do the apparent work of an intelligent designer because they seek to replicate themselves. Other Darwinists like Daniel Dennett believe that the mind is an illusion. And if you put the two ideas together, you come up with a scenario that would work just fine if it made any sense. At any rate, Fodor refuses to credit genes with a level of purposefulness that is denied to nature as a whole.

Fodor is more or less an atheist who wants to get God out of the picture. But he does not want to smuggle in that ol' Darwinian magic whereby a conservative force like natural selection is somehow co-opted to produce all sorts of wonders, like winged pigs.

Speaking of wonders, I wonder whether the conference coming up in July at the Konrad Lorenz institute in Altenberg - yet another supposed "Woodstock of Evolution" - to hash out this question, will amount to anything more than an angry circle of wagons united by a hatred of ID. In that case, if he is truly contrite over his forever-wingless pigs, Fodor will not need the Witness Protection Program after all.

On the other hand, Suzan Mazur may well be right in averring,

Papers are in. MIT will publish the findings in 2009 – the 150th anniversary of Darwin's publication of the Origin of Species. And despite the fact that organizers are downplaying the Altenberg meeting as a discussion about whether there should be a new theory, it already appears a done deal. Some kind of shift away from the population genetic-centered view of evolution is afoot.

But she sure loses me when she writes,

It's not Yasgur's Farm, but what happens at the Konrad Lorenz Institute in Altenberg, Austria this July promises to be far more transforming for the world than Woodstock. What it amounts to is a gathering of 16 biologists and philosophers of rock star stature – let's call them "the Altenberg 16" – who recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.

Transforming for the world? Guess what ... almost everyone in North America except the snug 16 already sensed that their theory was inadequate. Poll after poll has shown that for years. The difference between the typical rock star and these guys is that the rock star is ahead of the curve, not struggling to catch up to it. For people who have been so wrong for so long, these people could lose a little self-importance and be none the worse for it.

Note: I can't help wishing agnostic Australian philosopher David Stove, author of Darwinian Fairy-Tales, were alive to see this.

Darwinism: More tales from the Altenberg - a prof who questions and thinks

A friend draws my attention to this article in the University of Minnesota Daily by Katherine Wolfe (05/03/2009), about one of the Altenberg 16 - the 16 guys who started to confront the Darwin cult: "Prof making philosophy out of science: Philosophizing about science, assistant professor looks to the questions not the answers."

University of Minnesota assistant professor Alan Love is focusing in on how and why researchers ask questions and conduct experiments.

and

“Alan is the kind of guy that can engage anthropologists, developmental biologists or geneticists,” he said. “He always seems to have something insightful or provocative to say.”

Part of his insightfulness comes from his amazing memory, Doyle said.

Love commonly cites books and papers from memory, remembering both the dates they were published and their content, Doyle said.

“He has this way of processing or remembering all the stuff he reads and [uses] it in his courses and research,” Doyle said.

Love, whose small office is lined wall-to-wall with hundreds of book s, said he finds science “amazingly interesting” and hopes his work might someday help attract more people to the field.

I hope so too. Darwinism tends to attract narrow and unimaginative people who simply keep trying to prove their central thesis, that life arose by chance, when it is becoming more and more obviously implausible all the time. Students deserve better.

See also The Top Ten Darwin and Design Stories of 2008, of which #1 was the Altenberg conference.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

3. Karl Giberson's basic point: Why are we not all contented Darwinian cows?

Giberson's basic point in "Would you like fries with that theory?" is that lay people should be contented cows when listening to scientists.

Well, first, what about the Altenberg 16, scientists seeking to rescue evolution from tax burden Darwinists?

And just shutting up and listening would get us where, exactly? My favourite Giberson lines:

My field is physics. I cannot imagine what it would mean for a layperson to deal with the data of physics and draw their own conclusions.

Well, physics can easily be divided into what can be demonstrated and what can’t. The prospects of getting an explorer probe out to Pluto or a Canadarm on the space shuttle could, at least in principle, be demonstrated or refuted. Multiple universes or competing Darwinian universes (Lee Smolin-style) cannot. Well, Giberson goes on, as profs tend to do:

Furthermore we rarely—if ever—apply this “Professor Everyman” style of reasoning to, say, medical diagnoses. If our child is sick we want our doctor to share the collective wisdom of the medical profession with us and tell us what to do, not hand us some charts and say “Here are the facts. Let me know what medications you want me to prescribe. Or if you think surgery is required.”

Well, excuse me. I sure want a say myself. And have always had one in the past. And my kids and grandkids are fine.

I don’t know what happens in Prof. Giberson’s community, but here we think that consensus is important, because it affects patient care - except in unusual, emergency situations, where no one need accept responsibility for an adverse outcome. I once saw a doctor on her knees on the floor of a hotel lobby, administering heart massage to an unconscious heart attack victim, while awaiting emerg backup.

However, in a normal surgical situation, the doctor offers the patient a chance to choose, or a parent a chance to choose on behalf of a minor child. That is quite different. The reality is that, today, matters are often complex. Many people simply refuse further conventional treatment, and they are by no means less aware than the physician of what that means. They need to live with whatever outcome either way, and if one outcome means more suffering than another, they need to determine at what point conventional treatment has run its course. Onward, research!! But why the parent is a worse judge than the physician in such difficult cases, is out of my reach.

In a typical modern community, where we have clean water, vaccinations, absence of constant violent crime, etc., obvious solutions work, and we just provide them. We call that "applied science" - known locally as "engineering." But we cannot extrapolate applied science to all difficult cases.

Next segment: 4. Maybe the coffin is still empty because no one actually bought it?

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Further to National Science Board dropping Darwin propaganda from science to-do list

Speaking as one who has worked in education curriculum, I would say that this news item, noted by Sal Cordova, is really a very significant change, if it lasts.

The key point is the admission that "There are many biologists and philosophers of science who are highly scientifically literate who question certain aspects of the theory of evolution."

Um, yeah. How about the Altenberg 16?

The key issue here is the "Darwinism only" approach to evolution. Few believe this, and no one should. It is increasingly obvious that Darwinism is not the true origin of massive information inputs.

But I would hardly be surprised if lobbyists and helpful ninnies are now running around shouting that the Board has been taken over by religious crackpots, when it is only acknowledging a simple truth (in a politically evasive manner, of course): In North America, "evolution" has usually meant "Darwinism only".

So there are two challenges: Finding out real facts about massive information inputs (the fun part), and second, slowly sidelining the Darwinists (the boring part).

In my view, the Darwinists had it coming. Evolutionary biologists, most of whom are tenured, were never willing to denounce "evolutionary psychology". No matter how ridiculous the theses, they refused to state clearly, publicly, and as a profession, that that is not science.

Well, the problem is that everyone knew that this, for example, wasn't science. Which raises the question of whether evolutionary biology is itself a science. At any rate, the situation fully justifies broad skepticism of evolutionary biology's current approach to evolution.

Here is the problem in a nutshell: If any stupid idea is okay as long as it fronts Darwinism, then stupid competes with - and nullifies - smart. Nice going, guys. Keep up the good work!

We come to bury Darwin, not to praise him?

Susan Mazur, who covered the Altenberg 16 rethink of evolution, is posting an e-book about what she is learning - and it ain't pretty. More later.

I start to get answers here. 2:35 pm EST July 15, 2008

Darwin: Science mags pipe up the hype, and no, you are NOT just imagining that uproar behind the curtains ...

British physicist David Tyler observes, in an article about a recent early flatfish find:

The most noticeable feature of the research concerns the evolutionary hype that has emerged from the journal Nature and from the science media. We are not witnessing an impartial evaluation of the data, but a construction of an argument to "lay to rest" criticisms of Darwinism and evolutionary transformation.

For example,

Matt Friedman, the author of the research paper, says that the fossils are important because "they help to settle a long-standing evolutionary debate and shed light on the mode and tempo of evolutionary change". Apparently, finding one intermediate stage dated at 47 million years is sufficient to say that the tempo was "gradual" and that it occurred over "over thousands to millions of years". We have no earlier fossils without asymmetry, and fully asymmetric flatfish appear in the fossil record at the same time. At very least, we can say that these data do not justify the word "gradual"!

One outcome of the huge investment in saving Darwinism is that the really interesting questions are not even pursued. The flatfish is best known for gradually moving both eyes to the same side of its head as it grows:

The morphological changes are developmental: they occur in every flatfish living today. These changes do not involve any genetic change - the genome is the same before and after the development of asymmetry. The important difference is that the new fossils are mature, not young. But surely the first explanatory options to be explored relate to developmental mechanisms. Are there environmental factors leading to the retarded development of these fish? Or are there epigenetic influences which mean that normal development was impaired, and these animals represent stunted growth? Curiously, there is no exploration of these options in the research paper or in the science media.

Anyone familiar with the underlying politics will immediately recognize the attempted swipe in the pop science media against American paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould's notion that large changes might occur quite suddenly.

The Darwinists have never been comfortable with this, because they need a complete series of intermediate steps - every single one of which confers a "survival of the fittest" advantage in order to prove that their "greatest idea anyone ever had"* is even mildly plausible.

And they will settle for very little evidence and very much hype. I have noted the same thing as Tyler in recent years:

The need of legacy media to “refute” intelligent design is taking
precedence over normal story values. For example, reviewer Sara Lippincott in the Los Angeles Times, looking at When Science Goes Wrong by Simon LeVay says that the book, “despite its provocative title, will not give particular comfort to proponents of intelligent design.” (If their view was relevant to the story, she doesn't say how. It sounds more like she had to just get that in, to remind herself of what she believes).

Similarly, Anne Minard writes in National Geographic News (July 9, 2008), “The discovery of a missing link in the evolution of bizarre flatfishes-each of which has both eyes on the same side of its head could give intelligent design advocates a sinking feeling.” I know for a fact that it didn’t give the key ID guys that I keep track of a sinking feeling.

But Minard herself needs to believe that it does give them a sinking feeling. More to the point, her job is to communicate that idea to her faithful and grateful Geographics. Yet even now, the Altenberg 16 meet to decide how they can save their exploded idea, reminding me of Glasnost.

*Philosopher Daniel Dennett's description of Darwinism.

(Note: The image is from Project Gutenberg.)

Darwinism: Sociologist's book on ID controversy denounced by three-star Darwin bore

Here's another attack on Expelled sociologist Streve Fuller, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, this time by Sahotra Sarkar at the University of Texas at Austin:

The fifth chapter pontificates on the future of Darwinism. Fuller predicts that Darwinism (by which he means the entire framework of evolutionary theory) will be dead by the end of the twenty-first century and will be replaced by something more akin to ID creationism. No particular reason is given for this pious hope other than that Marxism underwent a similar denouement during the twentieth century (though, obviously it was not replaced by ID).

Oh? What about the Altenberg 16? Or have they already undergone a Marxist-type "reclassification" as not really having any problem with the disintegrating Darwinist party line?

I understand that Fuller plans a reply, and I will link to it.

By the way, here's a video of a lecture by Steve Fuller in England on why there is an intelligent design controversy. (It's a Google vid, so not as nicely done up as a YouTube.)



Hat tip David Rice III.

Also: Darwin: Science mags pipe up the hype, and no, you are NOT just imagining that uproar behind the curtains ...

To understand the intelligent design controversy (despite the fact that "there is no controversy"), read this:

Darwin skeptic Suzan Mazur is one fine journalist

Here is her interview with David H. Koch, a Darwin-thumping multi-millionaire who has done much to front the cult to the public ("Evolution Sea Change?: David H. Koch Weighs In ," Archaeology Today, February 17, 2009). Mazur made headlines last year when she wrote about the Altenberg 16, scientists who met in Austria to plan a way of understanding evolution that was free of tax-funded Darwin worship. Anyway, among other things, we learn:

Next year, the David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins opens at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, where evidence of 6 million years of human evolution will be part of an interactive display that includes the Laetoli footprints and a reconstruction of Lucy. Visitors will be able to pass through a time tunnel to view early humans "floating in and out of focus," touch models of ancient human fossils as well as watch their own faces morph into those of extinct species. The Smithsonian display follows the creation of the American Museum of Natural History's David H. Koch Dinosaur Wing.

Rendering of proposed "Human Characteristics" display at the Smithsonian's David H. Koch Hall of Human Origins, now in development. (Courtesy David Koch)
Richard Potts, director of the Smithsonian's Human Origins Program, explained about the new exhibition, "David's commitment to science and the study of human evolution will enable the Smithsonian to bring the latest discoveries in this field to the broadest audiences. The exhibition, still in the planning stages, encourages the public to explore the lengthy process of change in human characteristics over time. It also presents one of the new research themes in this field--the dramatic changes in environment that set the stage for human evolution. Although the subject can be controversial, the unearthed discoveries that bear on the question of human origins are a source of deep interest and significance for everyone to contemplate."

David Koch is Executive Vice President of $110 billion Koch Industries (he owns 42%) and CEO of its subsidiary, Koch Chemical Technology Group. He is often described as Manhattan's wealthiest resident, and contributes to Lincoln Center, Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, and the fertility clinic at New York-Presbyterian Hospital, to name a few. He is also is the principal private funder of PBS's Nova series.

It gets better when she begins to challenge him:

Suzan Mazur: As a man committed to the principles and practices of freedom, including scientific freedom, and as a scientist yourself with degrees from MIT in chemical engineering - is it your perspective that we are now witnessing a sea change in evolutionary thinking? That even as the global celebration begins for Charles Darwin's 200th birthday, the man who brought us the theory of evolution by natural selection 150 years ago--Darwinian selection, or survival of the fittest, is now being viewed by serious evolutionary scientists as not enough to explain our existence?

To quote from my interview several months ago with NASA astrobiologist Chris Mckay, who was featured in the recent Nova Mars documentary you helped underwrite: "Something had to precede Darwinian natural selection. The Darwinian paradigm breaks down in two obvious ways. First, and most clear, Darwinian selection cannot be responsible for the origin of life. Second, there is some thought that Darwinian selection cannot fully explain the rise of complexity at the molecular level." So the question is: Is it your perspective that we are now witnessing a sea change in evolutionary thinking?

David Koch: No. I don't think it's a sea change. The sea change occurred back when Darwin published his evolutionary theories, backed up by massive, overwhelming evidence. What's happened since is that there's been a rather steady progressive acceptance of the concepts of evolution in the general public. It's amazing to me that in America a large faction of the population still doesn't believe in it.

Suzan Mazur: But the point is that Darwin started with life. He addressed what happens once you have life. He didn't address the origin of life. That's what Chris McKay, the NASA astrobiologist is saying.

And so it goes, until she gets him to admit that he does not know what he is talking about.

Well, we must give the guy marks for honesty. The average third-rate biology prof is just content to emit Darwin noises and know as little as possible about real challenges.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

Podcasts in the intelligent design community

Warning: The evil Discovery Institute is behind this.

1. Darwin Doubting in the UK: Columnist, Doctor and Author James LeFanu

Anika Smith

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features part one of Casey Luskin's interview with James LeFanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. Dr. LeFanu shares his perspective as someone who straddles two worlds, encountering science on a micro level in his practice as a medical doctor, and reflecting on the broader aspects of science and medicine as an author and columnist for the UK's Daily Telegraph. Dr. LeFanu explains why he doubts the too-simplistic Darwinian account, where the "facade of knowing" is daily challenged by the inescapable complexity of life.

To learn more about Dr. LeFanu, visit his website here or read a recent review of his book at Evolution News & Views.

2. Rediscovering the Mystery of Ourselves: Part Two With Science Writer James LeFanu

Click here to listen.

This episode of ID the Future features part two of Casey Luskin's interview with James LeFanu, author of Why Us?: How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves. According to Dr. LeFanu, one of the problems with Darwin’s theory and where it stands today is that it presupposes that the argument is closed, draining interest and fascination from the question of our origins.

Dr. LeFanu discusses the problems with the Darwinian explanation for the evolution of the eye and how the development of genetics has brought our attention to the deep inscrutability of the nature of genetic structures and the origin of life. Can natural selection acting on random mutations account for these features? Listen in as Dr. LeFanu explains how science is on the cusp of this intriguing moment, rediscovering the mystery of ourselves.

Listen to part one of the interview here.

To learn more about Dr. LeFanu, visit his website here or read a recent review of his book at Evolution News & Views.

Note: This next one goes better with background information sponsored by the villains at Uncommon Descent. Basically Darwinists in Spain have discovered that there is a contrversy, and the pop media went wild. The thing about pop media is that they lack curiosity. If last year's top Darwinism vs. ID story about the Altenberg 16 didn't apprise them, nothing will.

Now back to the evil Discos:

3. Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, Part One

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin interviews Rich Akin from Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity, who shares why he founded the organization for Darwin-doubting doctors and the misinformation about his organization on Wikipedia. Listen in as Dr. Akin explains more about PSSI International.

If you are a physician or surgeon who dissents from Darwinism, please consider joining PSSI International here.

4. PSSI International Adventures With Darwinists in Spain, Part Two

Click here to listen.

On this episode of ID the Future Casey Luskin continues his interview with Rich Akin, the founder and CEO of Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity (PSSI) International. Dr. Akin shares stories from his adventures in Spain, where PSSI International stirred up trouble with Darwinists and caused a tempest that is still raging today.

For background information on Dr. Akin's stories, click here.

The very idea of design in the universe utterly obliterated: Chronicle 4382

In "Creationism lives on in US public schools" (New Scientist 20 October 2010), John Farrell revisits the Dover trial:

IN DOVER, Pennsylvania, five years ago, a group of parents were nearing the end of an epic legal battle: they were taking their school board to court to stop them teaching "intelligent design" to their children.

But the monster never sleeps, it seems:

None of this means that the Discovery Institute, the Seattle-based think tank that promotes intelligent design, has been idle. The institute helped the conservative Louisiana Family Forum (LFF), headed by Christian minister Gene Mills, to pass a state education act in 2008 that allows local boards to teach intelligent design alongside evolution under the guise of "academic freedom".

Who told these Cajuns that they have the same right to question Darwin as the Altenberg 16 or philosopher Jerry Fodor? Actually, no one should have the right, but definitely not Cajuns. And it gets worse all the time:

Five years after the landmark case, the battle for science education continues. But for the plaintiffs and their representatives this does not detract from the achievement. Their lead attorney, Eric Rothschild, sums it up: "If we'd lost, intelligent design would be all over the place now".

Earth to planet Rothschild: It already is.

Find out why there is an intelligent design controversy:

My op-ed piece in The Calgary Herald - Albertans are right to reject Darwinian evolution

My op-ed piece published in The Calgary Herald, Saturday, August 16, 2008, responding to radio host and commentator Rob Breakenridge, with links to sources:

In rebuttal - Theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders

Denyse O’Leary

Re “What is it about evolution theory that Albertans don't get?” (August 12, 2008), Rob Breakenridge has cobbled together key talking points of the American Darwin lobby. The resulting column is an excellent illustration of why one should not write about big topics without basic research.

The 2005 Judge Jones decision in Pennsylvania, to which Breakenridge devotes much of his column, has not crimped the worldwide growth of interest in intelligent design. That is no surprise. A judge is not a scientist, and Jones cannot plug gaping holes in Darwin’s theory of evolution. Evolution is—contrary to its (largely) publicly funded zealots— in deep trouble, for a number of reasons.

The history of life has not been the long, slow “survival of the fittest” transition that classical evolution theory requires. Life got started on Earth soon after the planet cooled. All the basic divisions of animal life took shape rather suddenly in the Cambrian seas, about 550 million years ago. Later, there was, for example, the "Big Bang" of flowers and the Big Bang of birds, where many life forms appear quite suddenly.

Modern human consciousness is one of these leaps, judging from the superb cave paintings from recent millenniums. The creationists whom Breakenridge derides may be wrong on their dates, but not on much else.

Breakenridge hopes that we can enlighten backward Albertans by teaching more “evolution” in Alberta schools. But that won’t help. Textbook examples of evolution often evaporate when researchers actually study them (instead of just assuming they are true).

For example, the peacock’s tail did not evolve to please hen birds; hens don’t notice them much. The allegedly yummy Viceroy butterfly did not evolve to look like the bad-tasting Monarch (both insects taste bad). The eye spots on butterflies’ wings did not evolve to scare birds by resembling the eyes of their predators. Birds avoid brightly patterned insects, period. They don't care whether the patterns resemble eyes. Similarly, the famous “peppered moth” of textbook fame has devolved into a peppered myth, featuring book-length charges and countercharges.

And remember that row of vertebrate embryos in your textbook years ago? It was dubbed in the journal Science one of the "most famous fakes" in biology—because the embryos don’t really look very similar. And Darwin’s majestic Tree of Life? It's now a tangleweed, or maybe several of them.

We seldom see evolution happening. Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution (2007) notes that for decades scientists have observed many thousands of generations of bacteria in the lab. And how did they evolve?

Well, they didn’t. Worse, when evolution is occasionally observed (and widely trumpeted), it often heads the wrong way. For example, bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance by junking intricate machinery, not by creating it. Cave fish lose their eyes. But we don’t need a theory for how intricate machinery gets wrecked. We need a theory for how it originates and how it develops quite suddenly. Evolution, as we understand it today, apparently isn’t that theory.

We aren’t going to improve science education by teaching Darwinian fairy tales.

Breakenridge informs us that in a recent Angus Reid poll, “A shockingly low 37 per cent of Albertans supported the position that humans beings evolved from less advanced life forms over millions of years.” Well, good, let's drive the numbers lower still. That position is an article of atheist dogma. Evidence for it is hailed as a truth we must all embrace; evidence against it is shrugged off as a temporary setback. Try doubting the dogma, and you could end up starring in Ben Stein’s Expelled, Part II.

Breakenridge also frets, “An even greater number of Albertans—40 percent—agreed that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years.” That’s easy to explain. It was the only other option (barring “don't know”). The ever-popular “God uses evolution” choice wasn’t offered.

Forced to choose between excluding God and including him, I’d pick option two, even though I accept NASA’s estimate of our Earth’s age (4.5 billion years) and consider common ancestry a reasonable idea.

My guess is, Albertans diverged from the national norm because they considered the question more carefully than some folk. History, anyone?

This summer a meeting of key evolutionists took place at Altenberg, Austria, to revise the theory. So, Albertans, if you haven't started believing it yet, don’t bother. Right now, the theory needs a paramedic, not more cheerleaders.

Denyse O'Leary is a journalist and blogger who is the author of By Design or by Chance? (Augsburg Fortress 2004), an overview of the intelligent design controversy and co-author, with Montreal neuroscientist Mario Beauregard, of The Spiritual Brain: A neuroscientist’s case for the existence of the soul (Harper 2007).

(Note: I put this opinion piece up because I was beginning to receive correspondence about it, but could not find a link to the Herald, and in any event wanted to link readers to my sources. Thanks to Jane Harris-Zsovan for the scan.)

Read more about why there is an intelligent design controversy here: