“The... very goodness of God should convince all people to believe and trust their Creator.  Although they know that sin has separated them from God and that death is the result of sin, they also know that he has not abandoned them.... Men and women should always have known that there is a God of Creation and that he is also a God of holiness who must punish sin.  But they should also have realized that he is a loving God who will somehow provide salvation.  The God of Creation must also be the God of Redemption.”
—Dr. Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God (Baker, 1989), p. 281.

• Spitzer Clusters:  JPL issued a press release stating that the Spitzer Space Telescope, on a “cosmic safari,” found evidence for clusters of galaxies 9 billion years old.  In the standard dating scheme, this was when the universe was a “mere” 4.5 billion years old.
• Swift GRBs:  Astronomers reported in Nature¹ the discovery, by the Swift satellite, of the earliest gamma-ray burst ever found.  The burst “happened 12.8 billion years ago, corresponding to a time when the Universe was just 890 million years old, close to the reionization era,” they said.  “This means that not only did stars form in this short period of time after the Big Bang, but also that enough time had elapsed for them to evolve and collapse into black holes” (emphasis added in all quotes).
• Ubiquitous Galaxies:  A press release from the journal Astronomy & Astrophysics announced “Ubiquitous galaxies discovered in the Early Universe.”  Observations in far-ultraviolet and near-infrared found galaxies at redshift z=6.7, assumed to be within 5% of the birth of the universe.  Most of them were spirals, not irregulars as theory had predicted.

A second area in astrophysics that can be construed as a cloud on the horizon is that recent observations in the years 2002-2003 suggest that – not just suggest, recent observations tell astronomers that when the universe was less than 3 billion years old, there were already galactic clusters [03/12/2003].  Not only were there galaxies... but here we have, astronomers have discovered, a modest galactic cluster (I believe that it has something like 30 some-odd galaxies in it) that goes back to less than 3 billion years after the big bang.  That’s much too much structure to have after only two and a half or 2.7 billion years of expansion.  So that is another problem that astrophysics needs to come to grips with.
    It’s not a small problem, either, because the extent of the structure that we can discover in the universe has implications for whether big bang and inflation are really capable of providing a model of the universe.  So it’s a small – it may seem like a small problem to non-specialists, but within astrophysics it’s a significant challenge.
    And then there’s the question of whether we are in fact reading the microwave background radiation correctly. [03/20/2006]   Because all of this theory is empirically supported by interpreting extremely minute ripples in the microwave background radiation.  And from those ripples, ripples in temperature, temperature inequalities on the order of ten thousandths of a degree Kelvin are – that’s the basis for trying to explain why there is as much structure as there is in the universe.  If we’re misinterpreting the microwave background radiation data, then really we have a whole new picture of the universe that might emerge.  So, that’s one set of clouds that one can anticipate that over the next decade we will potentially be seeing significant modifications in our conceptualization of the universe and its origin, and maybe even of its fate.

Goldman suggested later in the lecture one possible new conception of the universe that might emerge in the years ahead: that the universe might be viewed as “some kind of information structure.”  Sound like intelligent design?  Sound like instant creation?  He asked, “and how will we understand that philosophically and physically?”  Easy: in the beginning was the Word.  Consider creation: an idea ahead of its time.
Next headline on: Astronomy • Cosmology

The evolution of altruism, a behaviour that benefits others at one’s own fitness expense, poses a darwinian paradox.  The paradox is resolved if many interactions are with related individuals so that the benefits of altruism are reaped by copies of the altruistic gene in other individuals, a mechanism called kin selection.  However, recognition of altruists could provide an alternative route towards the evolution of altruism.  Arguably the simplest recognition system is a conspicuous, heritable tag, such as a green beard.  Despite the fact that such genes have been reported, the ‘green beard effect’ has often been dismissed because it is unlikely that a single gene can code for altruism and a recognizable tag.  Here we model the green beard effect and find that if recognition and altruism are always inherited together, the dynamics are highly unstable, leading to the loss of altruism.  In contrast, if the effect is caused by loosely coupled separate genes, altruism is facilitated through beard chromodynamics in which many beard colours co-occur.  This allows altruism to persist even in weakly structured populations and implies that the green beard effect, in the form of a fluid association of altruistic traits with a recognition tag, can be much more prevalent than hitherto assumed.   (Emphasis added.)

Need we say anything more?  Do you get the picture that evolutionary theorists have gone totally wacko?  Thanks, Jansen and van Baalen; keep up the good work.  Anti-evolutionists appreciate the free ammunition.
    The most egregious dumb idea in this story is not the fairy tale of the “green beard effect.”  It is their belief that altruism might actually evolve by a mutation in a gene.  The second most egregious aspect of this story is that Nature would print such balderdash with a straight fuzzy face.  It’s not even April Fool’s Day yet.  “Beard chromodynamics.”  Sad.  Funny, but sad.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas

The author is less convincing when he turns to the origin of life (at least he is not afraid to deal with big topics).  Citing the work of Mike Russell² and Alan Hall, Lane states that in order to generate a primitive cell from an iron sulphide vesicle “all that the cells need to do to generate ATP is to plug an [proton translocating] ATPase through the membrane.”  Any bioenergeticist who has followed the elucidation of the extraordinary structure and mechanism of the mitochondrial ATP synthase over the past decade will pause at the word “all,” because the ATP synthase—with its spinning rotor massaging the surrounding subunits to generate ATP—is without doubt the most amazingly complex molecular structure in the cell.³   (Emphasis and footnotes added.)

If a pro-Darwinist convinced evolutionist is this surprised that a colleague would treat the “most amazingly complex molecular structure in the cell” so dismissively, what are the rest of us supposed to think?  This is the perpetual bad habit of evolutionists.  It will prove their downfall.  As the gap between life’s complexity and evolution’s explanations continues to grow, Charlie is going to look more and more like Wiley E. Coyote clinging by fingernails and toenails to both sides of a rapidly-widening canyon.
Next headline on: Cell Biology • Origin of Life • Dumb Ideas

This means Mt. Improbable just got higher, and the evolutionists cannot use their Natural Selection ice axes to climb.  All they have is bare feet to go straight up on ice, now twice as high, with avalanches every few minutes.
    We should actually use analogies that are more realistic.  This is way too generous to the evolutionists (see online book).
Next headline on: Genetics • Origin of Life

In a new study forthcoming in the May 2006 issue of The American Naturalist, Mark A. Changizi and his coauthors, Qiang Zhang, Hao Ye, and Shinsuke Shimojo, from the California Institute of Technology explore the hypothesis that human visual signs have been cross-culturally selected to reflect common contours in natural scenes that humans have evolved to be good at seeing.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

No hint, now, that these skills might have been designed that way?  As usual, evolution is both the premise and the conclusion.  It is the question and the answer, the approach and the justification, the jot and the tittle, the alpha and omega. 
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Dumb Ideas

Too bad the Darwinists are in power; they bring science to a halt claiming, “evolution did it.”  (This is called the Darwin-of-the-gaps fallacy.)  Think of how rock climbers and rescue workers could benefit from studying the lowly spider from a design perspective.  If we could just learn a little intelligent design from these lowly organisms, we would advance civilization and bring biology out of the Darkwin Ages.
Next headline on: Terrestrial zoology • Amazing facts

It was such a fun story while it lasted.  It really made for dramatic pseudoscience documentaries on the Discovery Channel and provided animators with a usable motif.  Now, back to the drawing board – or how about this time, as Henry Morris advised, back to Genesis.
Next headline on: Geology • Dating Methods • Fossils

To critics who accuse him of just being up to the same old publicity stunts, the often times contentious brewmeister responds, “Perhaps, but we are really trying to live up to our mission statement, ‘Craft the finest ales and lagers possible.  Achieve a commercial profitability while maintaining the highest level of social responsibility.  And have as much fun as we can legally get away with.’”

If this were intelligently designed product, why didn’t they show the fully-evolved primate with a beer belly?  This guy clearly didn’t get his physique drinking Evolution Amber Ale, and if he were fully evolved, he would be sitting in the pose of Rodin’s Thinker, not pumping glass.
    Thinking of that, it would be fun to see the Discovery Institute donate truckloads of this stuff to the NCSE in a goodwill gesture.  While they’re getting stoned, the real thinkers, fully clothed and in their right minds, could be attending school board meetings, campaigning, writing books and forming IDEA clubs – whatever they can do to enhance the Darwin Party’s morning hangover experience.
    Come morning, ID supporters could even offer them free therapy.  They could tell them that the quickest way out of a hangover is more Evolution Amber Ale.  It not only smothers the depression, they can argue, but enhances mutagenesis, providing more raw material for evolution.  This is the way to kill a strife with kindness.
Next headline on: Darwinism • Intelligent Design • Dumb Stories

Creationists believe Homo erectus were true humans, so this is no issue about evolution, really.  We’ve seen these kinds of claims so many times before.  Now that it has made its splash in the media, a rival will soon be along to discredit the classification, or the date, or the significance of the find.  If their dates are not all mixed up beyond comprehension, there is no way the Ethiopian find could be a missing link if humans were already in Camelot.
Next headline on: Early Man • Fossils

Many botanists doubt the existence of plant species, viewing them as arbitrary constructs of the human mind, as opposed to discrete, objective entities that represent reproductively independent lineages or ‘units of evolution’  However, the discreteness of plant species and their correspondence with reproductive communities have not been tested quantitatively, allowing zoologists to argue that botanists have been overly influenced by a few ‘botanical horror stories’, such as dandelions, blackberries and oaks.  Here we analyse phenetic and/or crossing relationships in over 400 genera of plants and animals.  We show that although discrete phenotypic clusters exist in most genera (> 80%), the correspondence of taxonomic species to these clusters is poor (< 60%) and no different between plants and animals.... Contrary to conventional wisdom, plant species are more likely than animal species to represent reproductively independent lineages.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

How much of what scientists think they know about nature might be subjective judgments based on sampling bias?  How much more fallible might be theories based on these judgments?
    Their ending statement about Darwin is cryptic.  Are they saying that the early botanists poisoned Darwin’s mind and should be considered blameworthy for doing so, or are they joining in the poisoning conspiracy?  Probably the former; they seem to be affirming that plant species are just as much “units of evolution” that can have “reproductively independent lineages” despite crossing and apomixis (reproduction without gametes).  Whether distinct species can evolve is a separate question.  In any case, most plant species seem as distinct as animal species, so any problems with animal speciation apply equally well to plant speciation (see 02/28/2006 entry).
Next headline on: Plants • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory

Evolutionists baffled, not a simple story of descent, natural phenomena more complex than realized, design scientists vindicated; watch this space.
Next headline on: Genetics and DNA

Quotable quote from the blurb: “Despite Jones’s protestations to the contrary, his attempts to use the federal bench to declare evolution a sacred cow—unquestionable in schools and fundamentally compatible with all ‘true’ religion—are exposed by these critical authors as a textbook case of good-old-American judicial activism.”  Jones was only one district judge, and his opinion has no bearing outside that district.  But his lengthy diatribe deserves debate and battle.  Judges do not decide what is science and what is not.  How strange that scientists like Paul Katz are leaning on decisions of lawyers and judges.  Science needs to be judged on the evidence.
    The Amazon listing is already attracting highly polarized reviews.  The toilet talk of some pro-Darwinist reviewers can be considered a success for the book, if that’s the best level of scholarship attainable by critics.
Next headline on: Intelligent Design • Education

Take the thrill ride, and while enjoying the scenery, notice the utter lack of flowing water, trees, deer, mountain lions, wildflowers and sentient beings taking digital photos from the rim.  No Martian national park can compare with our Grand Canyon.  Percival Lowell would have been so disappointed.
Next headline on: Solar System • Origin of Life •

One of the lessons from this talk was how assumptions can subtly influence the scientist’s approach.  Dr. Grotzinger showed conflicting definitions of stromatolites, one that began, “organogenic structures....” – in other words, there was a biological bias built into the very definition of the word.  Interestingly, the NASA Astrobiology Student Focus website says that stromatolites were formerly defined as “laminated organo-sedimentary structures formed by the trapping and binding, and/or precipitation of minerals by microorganisms,” but then does not provide a more neutral definition, and goes on to portray stromatolites as evidences for life.  Biased definitions like these could send a graduate student off in a prejudiced direction to assume they were made biologically, and just as easily influence a TV producer working on a script about the early earth.
    Dr. Grotzinger and his team are to be commended for shaking off this bias and trying to look at the data objectively.  Unfortunately, in other parts of his talk, he accepted other aspects of the geo-biological evolution story without question: the geological column, Milankovich cycles, dating methods, etc.  At least this talk indicated progress away from one evolutionary assumption.  Now, how do we clean up the textbooks, museums and documentaries?
Next headline on: Fossils • Origin of Life • Geology

Alan Boss was fairly frank about the problems and difficulties, but his thinking is enslaved to a larger molecules-to-man world view that assumes everything from the big bang to man can be explained with references to natural causes alone.  The possibility that planets were designed and created is utterly alien to their thinking.  The film and book The Privileged Planet should challenge these modelers with stringent reality checks on the ability of natural processes alone to account for Earth, for the solar system that protects life on our planet, and for the galactic and cosmic systems of which our planet is a part.  Creationists, on the other hand, need to do serious thinking also in the light of the discoveries of extrasolar planets.  Are all planets equally designed, even for stellar systems devoid of life?  If not, did natural processes form them?  If so, how does one differentiate the need for design in our solar system?   Intelligent design theorists argue that it is not necessary to claim everything is designed to make the case against materialism.  To show that some things cannot be explained with reference to natural causes, and that it is possible to discriminate design from chance and natural law, is sufficient to establish ID.  Such questions may forever remain outside the purview of scientific investigation and remain debate topics for philosophers and theologians.  As shown by today’s story, with more anomalies than successes, materialists are in no position to claim the upper hand.  In the meantime, all players can benefit from more observations.
Next headline on: Astronomy • Solar System • Physics

Is that all?  They woke us up for that?  Good grief.  The only inflation here is exaggeration in the media, taking a data point and making a worldview out of it (cartoon).  Theoretical astrophysics is nearly incomprehensible (cartoon), certainly not enough to produce confident pronouncements (cartoon) that violate all common sense (cartoon).  Whatever happened to scientific objectivity and caution?  Not a word said about all the problems with inflation theory (11/02/2002).  In these days of molecules-to-man hype, hubris is the highest virtue.  Are all science reporters from Texas? (cartoon).
Next headline on: Cosmology

We analyzed a very large set of molecular interactions that had been derived automatically from biological texts.  We found that published statements, regardless of their verity, tend to interfere with interpretation of the subsequent experiments and, therefore, can act as scientific “microparadigms,” similar to dominant scientific theories [Kuhn, T. S. (1996) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Univ. Chicago Press, Chicago)].  Using statistical tools, we measured the strength of the influence of a single published statement on subsequent interpretations.  We call these measured values the momentums of the published statements and treat separately the majority and minority of conflicting statements about the same molecular event.  Our results indicate that, when building biological models based on published experimental data, we may have to treat the data as highly dependent-ordered sequences of statements (i.e., chains of collective reasoning) rather than unordered and independent experimental observations.  Furthermore, our computations indicate that our data set can be interpreted in two very different ways (two “alternative universes”): one is an “optimists’ universe” with a very low incidence of false results (<5%), and another is a “pessimists’ universe” with an extraordinarily high rate of false results (>90%).  Our computations deem highly unlikely any milder intermediate explanation between these two extremes.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

We explicitly modeled both the generation of experimental results and the experimenters’ interpretation of their results and found that previously published statements, regardless of whether they are subsequently shown to be true or false, can have a profound effect on interpretations of further experiments and the probability that a scientific community would converge to a correct conclusion.

There is a well established term in economics, “information cascade”, which represents a special form of a collective reasoning chain that degenerates into repetition of the same statement.  Here we suggest a model that can generate a rich spectrum of patterns of published statements, including information cascades.  We then explore patterns that occur in real scientific publications and compare them to this model.

An evaluation of the optimum parameters under our model (see Model Box) indicated that the momentums of published statements estimated from real data are too high to maximize the probability of reaching the correct result at the end of a chain.  This finding suggests that the scientific process may not maximize the overall probability that the result published at the end of a chain of reasoning will be correct.

Imagine that: the very methodology invented to uncover truth could suppress it.  This could explain the near uniform acceptance of Darwinism and condemnation of intelligent design (and other maverick ideas) in Big Science.  Could it be that publication sets off a chain reaction that gains momentum and leads to erroneous interpretations?  Could scientists sometimes be just as prone to crowd psychology as the rest of us?  And you thought that the scientific method, peer review and publishing were safeguards against collective error.  The Hwang scandal should have provided a sharp wake-up slap (see 01/09/2006).
    Lest we make this one paper a self-fulfilling prophecy and start a new erroneous information cascade, we grant that such things are difficult to model mathematically with confidence.  Thomas Kuhn’s cynical view of science is not without controversy, and many scientists do work independently and interpret their results carefully.  These authors, though, should be commended for alerting us to the fact that scientists and scientific publications can perpetuate “microparadigms” that could be false.

  There is anecdotal evidence to support this claim in the case of evolution vs. intelligent design.  Those who publish in the journals any statements about I.D. tend to cite the standard ID-bashing texts as references: Pennock, Gross, Forrest etc.  It is unlikely they actually read those books, and even less likely they consider the arguments on both sides.  To them, the experts have spoken, and Judge Jones has ruled, so all is needed is to make a short statement with a footnote to the authorities.
    More anecdotal evidence comes from a scientist active in the ID movement, who shall remain unnamed, who stated that, in his experience, scientists tend to be very fair and self-critical in their own narrow specialties, but on other subjects, are among the most dogmatic, closed-minded people he knows.  Time and again he has seen them follow the leader – to merely ask questions like “what does Richard Dawkins think about it?  Well, then I’m agin it, too!”
    On the flip side, pro-evolution scientific papers often reference authorities carelessly.  An author may refer briefly to Darwin’s finches as evidence for natural selection, for instance, passing a lateral footnote to the Grants, merely assuming that the Grants demonstrated evolution in their work, without actually studying their work critically to see whether the evidence is valid or convincing (08/24/2005, 04/26/2002).  These cases illustrate how scientists can sometimes march in lock-step on certain topics, assuming one another’s authority, instead of contributing their own independent empirical findings toward an objective truth.

  Science is an intensely human enterprise and, therefore, is subject to human foibles like crowd psychology.  Our finiteness and human nature limit our ability to grasp natural realities.  One scientist cannot possibly know everything even in his or her own field.  Imagine mastering five million articles in ten years, just in one area (biomedical research), to say nothing of replicating or verifying each paper’s experimental results.  We’re human; we’re limited; it’s so much easier to cite the popular statements of the leaders and follow the chain-of-reasoning gang.  The more controversial the material (e.g., evolution vs intelligent design), the more it would seem that polarized interpretations are geared to maintain their own momentum.  Applying Newton’s Laws to social science, a body of ideas tends to remain stationary or in uniform linear motion unless acted on by a sufficient force.  And – every action to oppose the momentum has an equal and opposite reaction.
Next headline on: Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Intelligent Design • Politics and Ethics

• Because they are fully social, ants do not tell us a great deal about the transition from solitary to eusocial behavior.... Regardless of the details of this sequence of events, which of course was played out long ago [sic], contemporary ants offer abundant opportunity for comparative studies of colony life after the eusocial threshold has been crossed.
• The point to emphasize is that since their divergence from a common ancestor [sic] in the Cretaceous, some ant lineages – such as the iconic army ants and leaf-cutting ants – have evolved [sic] quite complex societies while others, such as the ‘primitive’ [sic] bulldog ants of Australia, have remained at a much less advanced level.  The factors responsible for such heterogeneity in the rate of social evolution [sic] have been little explored, and will require a careful analysis of ecological and phylogenetic influences.
• Ants are treated as a single family, Formicidae, in the order Hymenoptera, a large and diverse group of holometabolous insects.... Apocritan Hymenoptera exhibit a unique reorganization of the body parts in which the middle tagma [a functionally integrated set of body segments] is composed of the thorax plus abdominal segment 1, while the posterior tagma comprises the remaining abdominal segments.  It is unclear how this evolutionary novelty arose, but one apparent consequence is that additional constrictions, involving abdominal segments 2–4, evolved [sic] in some apocritans, giving them exceptional dexterity of abdominal movement.
• Ants differ from social bees and wasps in one important respect: the workers of ants are entirely wingless.  This places constraints on their foraging behavior and has probably spurred the evolution of complex chemical communication systems [sic], such as trail and recruitment pheromones, designed for terrestrial (as opposed to aerial) movement.
• There is little doubt that ants are a monophyletic group.  They share a distinctive suite of morphological features, including geniculate (elbowed) antennae, a prognathous (forward-projecting) head, a characteristic configuration of the foretibial antenna cleaner, modification of the second abdominal segment to form a node-like petiole, and several unique exocrine glands.  Yet the closest living relatives of ants have not been unequivocally identified.  Several other families of aculeate Hymenoptera, in a subgroup known as the Vespoidea, have been touted as possible sister groups of ants including Tiphiidae, Bradynobaenidae and the combination of Vespidae plus Scoliidae.  It is a measure of the incompleteness of our phylogenetic knowledge that none of these alternatives has particularly strong support.  In many respects the summary cladogram published by Fredrik Ronquist in 1999, which depicted most vespoid families emerging out of an unresolved bush, still applies today.
• The fossil record helps to explain this impasse.  Most families of aculeate wasps appear rather suddenly in the early Cretaceous, suggesting that there was a rapid burst of diversification once the sting had evolved.  Ants make their appearance a little later, about 100 million years ago [sic].
• A more extensive series of fossil ants has now been documented from the Cretaceous.  The fossils range in age from about 78 to 100 million years, and they include some undoubted crown-group taxa.  Among the more spectacular finds are additional well preserved specimens from New Jersey amber, including representatives of the modern subfamily Formicinae, as well as fossils from Canada, Eurasia, and southern Africa.  This taxonomic diversity and geographic spread indicates that crown-group ants arose some time before this period, perhaps as long ago as 120 million years. [sic]
• One might expect that the phylogenetic relationships among living representatives of Formicidae have been reasonably well clarified.  In fact many uncertainties persist here too, and this is an area of active investigation and debate.  Morphological studies have been helpful in circumscribing the major lineages (subfamilies) of ants, but the relationships among them have largely eluded confident resolution.
• Molecular data, in the form of DNA sequences from multiple nuclear genes, are just now being applied to the problem.  Such data confirm the monophyly of nearly all of the subfamilies, but they also reveal a number of novel and unexpected groupings.
• Another insight to emerge from molecular phylogenetic analyses of ants is that there has been profound morphological convergence in some aspects of worker morphology, to the extent that it misled earlier phylogenetic inferences.  For example, a constriction between abdominal segments 3 and 4, and the formation of a second node-like structure (a postpetiole), has evolved repeatedly [sic] in ants.
• The new phylogenetic estimates, combined with fossil-calibrated [sic] molecular dating analyses, suggest that the history of ants involves a series of sequential diversifications: evolution of sphecomyrmine and poneroid-like lineages in the early Cretaceous, about 100–120 million years ago, followed by a more exuberant diversification of formicoids beginning about 100 million years ago and continuing into the Paleogene.... In short, while the stem lineages of modern ant subfamilies were present before the K–T boundary, the ecological dominance and range of diversity that we associate with modern ants did not arise until later in the Tertiary, about 60–70 million years after ants first evolved. [sic]
• Several commentators have argued compellingly that the social behavior of ants is responsible at least in part for their evolutionary success [sic] and ecological dominance.  Eusociality confers marked advantages in terms of resource acquisition, defense against enemies, and buffering of environmental variation.  The division of labor and flexibility of task allocation that are the hallmarks of advanced social insects enable them to meet contingencies and exploit opportunities much more efficiently than solitary insects.
      But this cannot be the entire story.  Even among social insects ants are especially notable for their abundance and diversity, so additional factors must be invoked to explain their particular prominence.
• One can imagine that if formicoids had not evolved [sic], ants would be perceived as a modest group of tropical wingless wasps (with no vernacular term reserved for them), as opposed to the near-ubiquitous ecological dominants that we know today.  But, then again, maybe another poneroid would have stepped in to fill the void.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

They impose a strong ecological footprint in many communities in their varied roles as scavengers, predators, granivores, and herbivores.  In some tropical forests the biomass of ants exceeds that of terrestrial vertebrates by a factor of four, and their soil-turning activities dwarf those of earthworms.  There is a word for ‘ant’ in most languages, reflecting their ubiquity and distinctiveness to humans.  The ecological dominance and conspicuous social behavior of ants have long engaged the attention of natural historians.  In terms of their species diversity, relative abundance, ecological impact and social habits, ants emerge as one of the most prominent groups of arthropods.

If anyone can find any value whatsoever in Ward’s evolutionary speculations, please write in and explain.  If you subtract the assumption that evolution is a fact, and remove the fictional diagram of millions of years, and erase the supposition that everything evolved from something else by common ancestry, the actual empirical facts speak loud and clear: ants are complex and amazing animals that appeared suddenly on earth and fulfill a variety of important roles in the ecology.  Why does anyone need to be told that they evolved from stinging wasps, evolved their distinctive features several times (05/28/2003), and figured out their complex foraging and navigating skills (the envy of robotics experts) on their own?  How is this speculation helping science?  It serves nothing but to prop up the dead corpse of Charlie at the head of a traditional evolutionary parade.  Worse, it distracts attention from the wonders of nature that should inspire us to observe, study, and think.  Send your local Darwinist a gift and support an industrious entrepreneur: send Uncle Milton’s Ant Farm with a sticky-note saying, “Prov. 6:6-8.”
Next headline on:  Terrestrial Zoology • Fossils • Evolution

The evolution of biological structures must be studied within an evolutionary framework.  In the case of feathers, a robust theropod phylogeny is the basis for reconstructing the sequence in which feathers evolved [sic].  The distribution of various feather morphologies on the currently accepted phylogeny suggests that simple, filamentous feathers first evolved no later than the earliest stage of coelurosaurian evolution.  More complex feathers with a thick central shaft and rigid symmetrical vanes on either side appeared early in the evolution of the coelurosaurian group Maniraptora; and feathers with aerodynamic features, such as a curved shaft and asymmetrical vanes, appeared within the maniraptors but before the origin of birds.  This inferred sequence of events is supported independently by developmental data.  Gohlich and Chiappe place Juravenator within the Compsognathidae, a group that is ‘basal’ in the coelurosaurian tree (Fig. 1).  So Juravenator should bear filamentous feathers. But it seems to be a scaled animal, at least on the tail and hind legs.
    Why, then, does a member of a feathered dinosaur family [sic] bear scales?  The authors’ answer is straightforward: feather evolution, they say, is more complex than we thought.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Problem?  What problem?  Scales are scales, and feathers are feathers.  Dinosaurs are dinosaurs, and birds are birds.  Before, evolutionists wanted us to believe that scales, a skin feature, evolved into feathers that are totally different and embedded beneath the skin.  They expected us to believe there was a straight line of descent from gray wrinkles on a dinosaur into the colorful, aerodynamic, exquisitely-designed feathers of acrobatic swifts and high-diving cormorants.  They asked us to believe that birds co-opted what appeared to be “integumentary structures” of doubtful utility on the legs and tails of some dinosaurs and turned them into flying wonders, complete with interlocking hooks and barbules that are lightweight, water-resistant and extremely adaptable (compare doves and penguins).  They expected us to believe that at the same time feathers evolved, dinosaurs transformed all their internal organs and completely redesigned their lungs and most other bodily systems.  One only has a “problem” when one has to keep telling new lies to back up old ones.  Check out the whopper Mark Looy found at Chicago’s Field Museum (see AIG report): the $17 million “Evolving Planet” exhibit triumphantly announces to unsuspecting children, “Birds Are Dinosaurs.”  Maybe some day museums will be realizing that evolutionists are dinosaurs, too (see Tom Weller illustrations).
Next headline on:  Birds • Dinosaurs • Fossils

For years—for decades—they have been telling us that comets held the secrets to the early solar system.  Drifting in the dark cold of the outer realms of the sun, comets were supposed to have accreted slowly from the original dust and ice of a molecular cloud.  They only neared the sun when perturbed by a passing star and were flung into the sun’s neighborhood.  This thinking has its origin in Laplace’s Nebular Hypothesis of the late 1700s.  Today’s news is a complete turnaround.  Now we have actual material from a live comet, showing that at least some of the material was so hot it was incandescent.  Some of the material looks like it was born in the fires of a rocky planet.  What Stardust has found will rewrite the textbooks and renders many a TV documentary obsolete.  An ounce of data is worth a ton of speculation.  That’s why the public should support sample-return and onsite-reconnaissance missions like Stardust, regardless of their opinions on origins and ages of things, if for no other reason than the entertainment of watching experts squirm.
Next headline on:  Solar System • Physics • Geology

And that is not all: Here we are in the 21st century, and the head of the government himself, George W. Bush, refuses to acknowledge that evolution is a scientific fact!  THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
    The President claims: “On the issue of evolution, the verdict is still out on how God created the earth,” and then sits smugly by while Creationists carry out an assault against evolution in classrooms, museums, libraries, government bookstores, and even IMAX movies and science theaters.
    No, Mr. President, the verdict is NOT out on evolution.  EVOLUTION IS A FACT -- IT IS ONE OF THE MOST WELL-ESTABLISHED AND WELL-DOCUMENTED FACTS IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE.  TO DENY AND ATTACK EVOLUTION IS TO DENY AND ATTACK ONE OF THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACTS ABOUT ALL OF NATURE AND REALITY AND ONE OF THE MOST CRUCIAL FOUNDATION STONES OF ALL OF MODERN SCIENCE.   (Bold added; caps in original.)

Conflating Darwinism with all of scientific progress – the old association propaganda tactic.  Don’t follow the hordes of storm trooper lemmings after that one.  Shouting the big lie “evolution is a fact” in all caps is likely to backfire.  Too obvious.  In fact, that whole quote wins Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week, or maybe of the month.  If you can tell a politician is lying when his lips are moving, you can tell a Darwinist is lying when he has to use all caps.
    Unless Darwin’s critics tire of the battle and let the empire sweep the field without a contest, these are bad days for Darwin Vader.  It’s the beginning of the breakup of a long Hothian winter (like a Narnian one).  Dembski explains why we should not take their threats so seriously or become demoralized: “We have this going for us, however, which the evolutionary naturalists don’t, namely, the evidence and arguments are on our side.”
    Read Dembski’s whole article and take heart – and keep the heat on.
Next headline on: Intelligent Design • Darwinism and Evolutionary Theory • Education • Dumb Ideas

The smart money is on intelligent design.  The next generation of bright, enthusiastic researchers knows that nanotechnology, biomimetics, genetic engineering and information-based research is where it’s at (e.g., 11/19/2005, 10/29/2005).  Sorry, astrobiology; hope you enjoyed your little philosophical fling on company time (01/07/2005).  Don’t let us stop you.  You can continue all you want – on your own euro.
Next headline on: Origin of Life • Evolutionary Theory • SETI

This work indicates that the chronic expression of a misfolded protein can upset the cellular protein folding homeostasis under physiological conditions.  These results have implications for pathogenic mechanisms in protein conformational diseases.  The human genome harbors a load of polymorphic variants and mutations that might be prevented from exerting deleterious effects by protein folding and clearance quality control mechanisms in the cell.  However, should these mechanisms become overwhelmed, as in a protein conformation disease, mild folding variants might contribute to disease pathogenesis by perturbing an increasing number of cellular pathways.... Therefore, the complexity of pathogenic mechanisms identified for protein conformation diseases could in part result from the imbalance in protein folding homeostasis.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Small perturbations in a highly complex working system can have drastic effects.  Notice how the cell has numerous safeguards to prevent this kind of runaway disaster: mechanisms to prevent misfolding, and procedures to safely capture and dismantle the escapees.  How this system ever arrived at such a high level of complex organization is never described in detail by the evolutionists, but they want us to believe that the escaped convicts are the heroes of the story.  They want us to believe that the mistakes and terror attacks are responsible for all the beauty and complexity of the living world, from peacock’s tails to flight muscles of bees that can flap hundreds of times a second, to the ability of humans to run a marathon.  From all indications, on the contrary, life is in a tenuous balance, and the factors trying to upset that balance are increasing.  The Theory of Devolution would appear to have better empirical support.
    What would happen to science if the Theory of Devolution gained dominance?  Science would go on.  Medical knowledge would advance.  Clever researchers would find ways to reinforce cellular quality control processes and develop means to prevent catastrophes.  Life would be seen as a precious commodity to conserve, with the same earnestness of those who try to rescue endangered species and prevent global warming.  In short, science and medical research would continue to thrive and (we think) sail higher and faster without Darwin’s storytelling baggage that only weighs the Beagle down.  An intelligently designed T shirt asks, “Did Darwin Get It Backwards?”  From all indications, such as the article above, yes: the world is running down, and life is facing an ever-growing genetic burden.  Darwinists are all worked up emotionally about their opponents, claiming that by discrediting evolutionary theory they are going to “destroy science.”  Ask yourself, who is the better sailor: the one trying to patch the leaks on the ship, or the slob leaning back against a barrel and speculating, “don’t worry about those holes, matey; given enough time, they will help make the ship stronger!”
Next headline on: Health • Cell Biology

This is probably nothing but a rock ridge.  The most serious ark researchers deny this object has anything to do with the ark.  It will take extraordinary proof to find Noah’s Ark, even if it could have survived at all.  Still, let the search continue.  Better to know than to speculate endlessly.  Publicity and confirmation are not one and the same.  SETI and astrobiology people need to remember that, too.
Next headline on: Bible and Theology

The first vertebrates to walk and run on land; how do they know this?  Why couldn’t the first vertebrates to walk and run have had two feet?  How do they know that other species that came before this one didn’t vanish?  If these animals can not survive in temperatures above 25 degrees Celsius, how have they survived at all?  In all those 225 million years have there been no droughts and hot spells?  Why have all the other animals, like dinosaurs, died out but this one has flourished?  And where do they get the 225 million years from?  Purely from evolutionary assumptions.
    Evolutionary reasoning goes like this: evolution is a fact, therefore, evolution is a fact.  Because evolution is a fact, all anomalies must be forced into the theory before the gun-toting fundamentalists storm the science lab, otherwise students will be unable to compete in the global economy and the glorious reputation of Charlie (blessed be the name) as the greatest scientist in history will be besmirched (and our funding will be cut).  It is vital to save the appearances, therefore, at all costs.  Here are two more good examples: a rodent virtually unchanged for 11 million years, and a lizard for 225 million, yet both are doing just fine today.  Clearly these animals never went extinct.  In whatever gap existed between the last fossil and the first live sighting, there has been a continuous population of these animals living and reproducing.  Stretching this gap into many millions of years without fossils rapidly becomes incredible.  Imagine, for instance, if only 100 of these rodents lived at a time (very conservative estimate, considering their much broader extent in the past), and each individual lived about 20 years (a very generous estimate).  There would be 500 deaths per century, therefore, and since there are 110,000 centuries in 11 million years, are we to believe that 55,000,000 of these rodents died without a trace?  It becomes even more unimaginable to think that over a billion tuataras died without leaving a fossil, only to show up on some New Zealand islands as if nothing happened.  These problems vanish if the time gaps are reduced to thousands, not millions.
    The raising of Lazarus was a bona fide miracle.  There was a living man, known to have died, who could be seen and touched and conversed with.  The skeptics could not deny it.  Evolutionists, by contrast, are conjuring up images of resurrection from a dead theory.  Both miracles require faith, but the first has one advantage: an adequate cause.  Jesus knew how to apply miracle-working power with intelligent design.  Just as the skeptics in Jerusalem could not deny the raising of Lazarus, so tried to have him killed again, today’s dogmatic Darwinists are attempting to put intelligent design and creation to death, while validating their claims to be the messiahs of science with nothing more than mental magic tricks.
Next headline on:  Fossils • Mammals • Terrestrial Zoology • Evolution

He proceeds to outline three assumptions that underlie thinking about extraterrestrial intelligence from antiquity to the present: the universe is very large or infinite, there are other inhabited worlds, and these other complex and intelligent beings are vastly superior to us....
    As for the third assumption, if we did make contact with an ETI, they would have to be vastly superior to us (since we just recently mastered radio and spaceflight).  On an evolutionary time scale, an ETI species only slightly ahead of us biologically could be millions of years ahead of us technologically.   (Emphasis added in all quotes.)

Isn’t it amazing that whenever other inhabited worlds are discussed, the assumpt