Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 198

May 16, 2021

Larry Krauss article at Inference Review – reply from Steve Meyer

Then, Larry Krauss responds.

The original piece was an article by Larry Krauss, “Cosmology Without Design”:


To assume that the universe is fine-tuned for life because we exist in a universe in which we can exist—this is a little like a single individual, alone in the world, looking down at his legs and finding that they are remarkably fine-tuned to touch the ground. A millimeter shorter and they wouldn’t make it. A millimeter longer and they would be buried underground. Thanks to gravity, no such fine-tuning is required. In a cosmic sense, we are like the isolated individual. We simply do not know enough to ascribe significance to things that may be accidental, or that may be governed by some underlying principle, like the existence of gravity.


Lawrence Krauss, “Cosmology without Design” at Inference Review (Vol. 5, No. 3 / September 2020)

Steve Meyer offered a
rebuttal:


Cosmological fine-tuning exemplifies just the kind of evidence we would expect to find if a purposeful and intelligent agent had acted in the past to design the universe as a fit habitat for life. It does not seem to be the kind of evidence that one would expect if the universe had arisen from “blind, pitiless indifference.” Nor do Professor Krauss’s arguments alter this probability calculus.


Steve Meyer, “Cosmology without Design reply” at Inference Review (Vol. 6, No. 1 / April 2021)

Oh, and Larry Krauss replies:


If, as Meyer seems to require, life must be like the life we experience on earth, presumably designed in the image of God, then the Universe is a horribly poor environment. In almost every other location we see in the Universe, life like our own cannot arise. Indeed, even here, our survival involves a constant battle against a harsh and seemingly indifferent universe that is trying to kill us, as it eventually will. But why must life be like our own? Meyer argues, without any underlying evidence, that life has to exist on rocky planets like our own. But some, like my late colleague Freeman Dyson, argued cogently that in the long run, other sorts of intelligent life could arise even in the very “diffuse clouds of hydrogen” that Meyer finds so inhospitable—the black clouds of Fred Hoyle. The rules for such life-forms would undoubtedly be very different than for us.


Lawrence Krauss, “Cosmology without Design reply” to Meyer, at Inference Review(Vol. 6, No. 1 / April 2021)

We await Meyer’s reply… he won’t disappoint us.

If you are stuck in some ridiculous lockdown, be sure to find a link to Inference Review and order in lots of good coffee.

Hat tip: Philip Cunningham

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 16, 2021 20:23

Linnean Society is sponsoring a meeting on teleonomy in living systems 28th – 29th June 2021

It’s called Evolution on Purpose: Teleonomy in Living Systems

From the Linnean Society in London:

Living systems exhibit an internal teleology, the full implications of which have not been explored. This meeting will address various aspects of this phenomenon, including its scope and meaning, and its many forms and facets.

Further to that:

Although it is now widely accepted that living systems exhibit an internal teleology, or teleonomy, the full implications of this distinctive biological property have yet to be explored. This online conference will seek to address various aspects of this important phenomenon, including the origins and history of the teleonomy concept, its scope and meaning, and its many forms and facets. Possible topics may include: an historical review of teleological thinking; teleology (and entelechy) versus teleonomy in evolutionary theory; the nature of teleonomy (who/what is in control, and how?); agency and teleonomy; semiotics and teleonomy; modeling teleonomic processes; teleonomy in the genome, in epigenesis, in physiology, and in behaviour; teleonomy and natural selection; teleonomy in human evolution; and, especially significant, how teleonomy has influenced the evolutionary process.

Registration

The Programme Committee includes Peter CorningEva JablonkaStuart KauffmanDennis NobleSamir OkashaJames ShapiroDick Vane-Wright, and Denis Walsh. The organisers are Peter Corning and Dick Vane-Wright.

Teleonomy? That would be teleonomy vs. teleology, right? This came up on a DuckDuckGo search: With respect to an open access paper by Jonathan Bartlett on teleonomy, Ann Gauger writes,

Pittendrigh and Mayr sought a way to deal with the problem of apparent function in biologists’ use of language:


In order to alleviate the situation, Pittendrigh and later Mayr suggested using the term teleonomy instead of teleology to describe this sort of purposive behavior.


Mayr suggested that we can use the term teleonomy to represent something that operates according to a purpose because of a program. Specifically, Mayr says, “It would seem useful to restrict the term teleonomic rigidly to systems operating on the basis of a program, a code of information. Teleonomy in biology designates ‘the apparent purposefulness of organisms and their characteristics,’ as Julian Huxley expressed it.”


That is, to the extent that organisms operate according to their genetic programming, “purpose” can simply refer to the actions of the program behind the organism. [Emphasis in the original.]


And of course, the program was, to their minds, an inherited program, the result of variation, natural selection, and drift. Mayr was concerned that the idea of teleonomy might be turned back toward the idea of design or purpose, so he made it abundantly clear:


Only three processes are known to [change the genetic pool]: mutation, fluctuation in genetic frequencies, and differential reproduction. The first two of those processes are not oriented toward adaptation. They are in that sense essentially random, and are usually inadaptive, although they may rarely and coincidentally be adaptive. By “differential reproduction” is meant the consistent production of more offspring, on an average, by individuals with certain genetic characteristics than by those without those particular characteristics…


If an organism is well adapted, if it shows superior fitness, this is not due to any purpose of its ancestors or of an outside agency, such as “Nature” or “God,” who created a superior design or plan.


“Note that here, Mayr explicitly decries not only the influence of outside purposes (i.e., divine teleology) in evolution, but also the influence of inside purposes (i.e., biological purposes present within ancestors),” says Bartlett.

Ann Gauger, “Teleonomy and Evolution” at Evolution News and Science Today (December 1, 2017)

Are the Linneans trying to come to grips with design in nature within a framework they can handle?

You may also wish to read: Why some think emergence is replacing materialism in science. Materialism, in the form of reductionism, posits a world without novelty — but that is not the world we live in. Philosophers and scientists who champion emergence over reductionism argue that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 16, 2021 19:33

Michael Egnor: Is neurotheology just a “brain prosperity gospel”?

Michael Egnor argues that the study of the neuroscience of mental states, including religious belief, is a reasonable pursuit but neurotheology, as a science, faces huge obstacles:

3. The most subtle and, I think, most dangerous consequence of neurotheology is its implicit endorsement of a sort of “prosperity gospel” in terms of making the brain “healthier.” The prosperity gospel is the teaching that belief in God and right conduct will bring you prosperity — wealth, health and happiness — in this life. Religious belief becomes a matter of self-improvement, a cerebral face lift. Neurotheology stamps a scientific imprimatur on the profoundly misguided doctrine that if you believe in God, if you observe the Sabbath, if you never fail to pray your rosary, your brain is better! Your frontal lobes get better blood flow, your hypothalamic neurotransmitters are better balanced, and your cerebellum is more finely tuned! But for what?

Faith in God — genuine faith — is faith in Truth. In the Christian perspective (with which I am most acquainted) we are created to know and love God and to enjoy him in intimate friendship for eternity. There are no promises about more robust cortical gyri and enhanced striatal dopamine.

Some of the most holy men and women have not exactly prospered neurologically — martyrdom tends to ablate, not augment, cerebral blood flow. St. Peter’s brain worked no better when he was crucified upside down for his Lord and St. Paul’s worked no better when he was beheaded for the Faith. St Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross (pictured) had agonizing dark nights of the soul. St. Francis of Assisi lost his health and shortened his life through his austerity, and St. Catherine of Siena probably starved herself to death.

Genuine religious faith and practice is a search for transcendent truth, not a program for brain health and emotional happiness.

Since Egnor mentioned the Christian perspective:

You may also wish to read:

God’s existence is proven by science. Arguments for God’s existence can be demonstrated by the ordinary method of scientific inference. If we approach the arguments logically, as the ancient philosophers did, we will see that it is more certain that God exists than that anything else does.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 16, 2021 18:35

May 15, 2021

Some features of bird brains are remarkably similar to those of mammal brains

Specifically, neurons in the forebrain:


University of Massachusetts Amherst neuroscientists examining genetically identified neurons in a songbird’s forebrain discovered a remarkable landscape of physiology, auditory coding and network roles that mirrored those in the brains of mammals.


The research, published May 13 in Current Biology, advances insight into the fundamental operation of complex brain circuits. It suggests that ancient cell types in the pallium — the outer regions of the brain that include cortex — most likely retained features over millions of years that are the building blocks for advanced cognition in birds and mammals.


“We as neuroscientists are catching on that birds can do sophisticated things and they have sophisticated circuits to do those things,” says behavioral neuroscientist Luke Remage-Healey, associate professor of psychological and brain sciences and senior author of the paper.


University of Massachusetts Amherst,”Songbird neurons for advanced cognition mirror the physiology of mammalian counterparts” at ScienceDaily (May 13, 2021)

The paper is open access.

Other parts of bird brains are quite different:


A bird’s brain is mostly smooth, and lacks the bumps and grooves of a mammalian brain.


The size and exact structure of a bird’s brain differs from species to species. In general, birds have large brains in relation to the size of their heads, and also in relation to the size of their bodies. That’s a good indicator of intelligence.


The brains of crows and parrots – two of the smartest types of bird – are, in relation to body size, as large as those of the great apes.


admin, “Bird Intelligence: How Intelligent Are Birds?” at ActiveWild (January 23, 2018)

Are certain brain structures are essential for high animal intelligence or will alternative structures work?

See also: We knew crows were smart but they turn out to be even smarter. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of the mysteries of animal intelligence

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 15, 2021 21:07

Were there cephalopods in the Cambrian era?

A recent find in Newfoundland suggests maybe so:


The octopus is one of the most complex invertebrates known. If fossils from Newfoundland (pictured above) have been interpreted correctly by paleontologists at Heidelberg University, they give more worries to Darwinists: “The 522 million-year-old fossils could turn out to be the first known form of these highly evolved invertebrate organisms, whose living descendants today include species such as the cuttlefish, octopus and nautilus. In that case, the find would indicate that the cephalopods evolved about 30 million years earlier than has been assumed.” Anne Hildenbrand and Gregor Austermann from the University’s Institute of Earth Scientists say this would mean that “cephalopods emerged at the very beginning of the evolution of multicellular organisms during the Cambrian explosion.” Their paper on “A potential cephalopod from the early Cambrian” was published in Communications Biology.


Evolution News, “Cephalopods Join the Cambrian Explosion? And Other Topics in ID” at Evolution News and Science Today (May 11, 2021)

The paper is open access.

One reason that Cambrian cephalopods would be very interesting is that the octopus and cuttlefish, apart from being quite complex, are some of the few invertebrates known to be seriously intelligent. Were their ancestors intelligent back then?

By the way, didn’t a big Darwinian honcho, J. B. S. Haldane, say that he would re-evaluate his beliefs about Darwinian evolution if we found fossil rabbits in the preCambrian era?

Of course he didn’t really mean it. See That unfalsifiable Cambrian rabbit, and sanity … If finding a mammalian vertebrate fossil in the Cambrian, half a billion years ago, would prompt no serious rethink in paleontology, the belief in Darwinism is actually irrelevant to evidence from nature.

Re smart cephalopods, see also:

Is the octopus a “second genesis” of intelligence? Can its strange powers provide insights for robotics or the human mind?

and

Scientists clash over why octopuses are smart New findings show, the brainy seafood breaks all the rules about why some life forms are smart.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 15, 2021 20:07

Worry of the month: Could humans have contaminated Mars with life?

Clean rooms could be making microbes hardier, says molecular and genetic space flight expert:


Spacecraft are built rooms with air filters and strict biological control procedures. These are designed to ensure that only a few hundred particles can contaminate each square foot and ideally no more than a few dozen spores per square metre.


But, it is almost impossible to get to zero biomass on a spacecraft. Microbes have been on Earth for billions of years, and they are everywhere. They are inside us, on our bodies, and all around us. Some can sneak through even the cleanest of clean rooms…


In JPL’s clean rooms, we found evidence of microbes that have the potential to be problematic during space missions. These organisms have increased numbers of genes for DNA repair, giving them greater resistance against radiation, they can form biofilms on surfaces and equipment, can survive desiccation and thrive in cold environments. It turns out that clean rooms might serve as an evolutionary selection process for the hardiest bugs that then may have a greater chance of surviving a journey to Mars…


There is a chance, however, that if we do detect signs of life on Mars, it could have come from Earth in the first place. Ever since the first two Soviet probes landed on the Martian surface in 1971, followed by the US Viking 1 lander in 1976, there likely have been some fragments of microbial, and maybe human DNA, on the Red Planet. Given the global dust storms and trace amounts of DNA that might have gone with these spacecraft, we have to be sure we don’t fool ourselves that the life we find isn’t originally from Earth.


Christopher Mason, “Could humans have contaminated Mars with life?” at BBC (May 10, 2021)

But wait. If life got started very early, while Earth and Mars were still exchanging fragments, it’s possible some hardy life forms were from Earth anyway, no? Better yet, maybe we will find out that some Earth life forms were originally from Mars.

Hey, the Uncommon Descent News Virtual Coffee Room has always maintained that the Martians have been among us since forever but they don’t make a lot of noise …

China lands Rover on Mars to look for water, life National Geographic: Utopia Planitia, thought to be the site of an ancient sea, has sedimentary layers that could contain evidence of past water. Even more exciting, these layers of rock could contain traces of any past life on Mars, says James Head III, a planetary scientist at Brown University.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 15, 2021 19:01

Homo erectus had language, says cognitive scientist

who has studied unusual languages, says the evidence from Homo erectus’s tools and artifacts of over 100,000 years ago show that they must have had language:


”Erectus settlements show evidence of culture – values, knowledge structures and social structure. This evidence is important because all these elements enhance each other. Evidence from the erectus settlement studied at Gesher Benot Ya’aqov in Israel, for example, suggests not only that erectus controlled fire but that their settlements were planned. One area was used for plant-food processing, another for animal-material processing, and yet another for communal life. Erectus, incredibly, also made sea craft. Sea travel is the only way to explain the island settlements of Wallacea (Indonesia), Crete and, in the Arabian Sea, Socotra. None of these were accessible to erectus except by crossing open ocean, then and now. These island cultural sites demonstrate that erectus was capable of constructing seaworthy crafts capable of carrying 20 people or more. According to most archaeologists, 20 individuals would have been the minimum required to found the settlements discovered. Daniel Everett, “Did Homo Erectus Speak” At Aeon (February 28, 2018)”


He certainly has a point. It is hard to imagine organizing the construction, launch, and navigation of such craft without language. How would an erectus get co-operation without explaining the idea?


News, “Cognitive scientist: Earliest humans, Homo erectus, had language” at Mind Matters News

Note: Yes, it’s that about whom Tom Wolfe wrote The Kingdom of Speech (2016), contra Noam Chomsky (1928–).

You may also wish to read:

Why Noam Chomsky is a great scientist of our era. He singlehandedly rid linguistics of a stultifying (and technically mistaken) behaviorism (Michael Egnor)

Did the human mind originate in telling ourselves stories? A philosopher and writer tries to account for the jump from animal to human by wholly natural means. (Denyse O’Leary)

and

The real reason why only human beings speak. Language is a tool for abstract thinking—a necessary tool for abstraction—and humans are the only animals who think abstractly. (Michael Egnor)

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
1 like ·   •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 15, 2021 18:18

May 14, 2021

In previously unpublished letter, Einstein suggests that new physics discoveries might come from studying animals

[image error]

The letter, written to radar researcher Glyn Davys in 1949, was released by the latter’s wife.


The letter also proves Einstein met with Nobel laurate Karl von Frisch, who was a leading bee and animal sensory researcher.


In April 1949, von Frisch presented his research on how honeybees navigate more effectively using the polarization patterns of light scattered from the sky.


The day after Einstein attended von Frisch’s lecture, the two researchers shared a private meeting.


Although this meeting wasn’t formally documented, the recently discovered letter from Einstein provides insight into what they might have talked about.


“It is thinkable that the investigation of the behavior of migratory birds and carrier pigeons may someday lead to the understanding of some physical process which is not yet known,” Einstein wrote.


RMIT University, “Previously unknown letter reveals Einstein’s thinking on bees, birds and physics” at Phys.org (May 13, 2021)

Would Einstein count birds’ use of magnetic sensing for migration?

The paper is open access. ‘Einstein, von Frisch and the honeybee: a historical letter comes to light’, with Adrian Dyer, Andrew Greentree, Jair Garcia, Elinya Dyer, Scarlett Howard and Fredrich Barth, is published in the Journal of Comparative Physiology A (DOI: 10.1007/s00359-021-01490-6).

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 14, 2021 21:25

How exactly do one-celled life forms learn?

They don’t have a brain or nervous system. Where do they store memories? Mid-twentieth century research showing that one-celled life forms can learn was dismissed at the time for lack of a model.

But now researchers are taking a second look. Computer systems may offer a model for learning without a brain:

Key to the conundrum of how creatures with no brain or nervous system can learn is the assumption that memories are stored physically. Perhaps not. Michael Levin of Tufts University suggests an alternative approach that adapts concepts from artificial intelligence:


His group at Tufts University has been studying gene regulatory networks, which control gene expression, in individual cells. In a computational study published earlier this year, Levin and colleagues explored how these networks could shift their responses to certain stimuli or inputs without requiring underlying physical changes—much like how a computer doesn’t need to physically change its hardware when it records a piece of information typed into word processor.


In the simplest version of such a network, genes are assumed to be activated or inactivated by interactions with other genes or by stimuli from the external environment. Memory arises because the current state of genes in the network is dependent on all the interactions and inputs that occurred until now. In some situations the team has studied, this means that the network can be trained to learn certain associations and adapt its future behavior “not because we’ve changed the connections between genes A and B. . . . It’s simply that certain experiences change the overall stable state of the system in a way that changes how it reacts to those stimuli in the future.” Levin says.


CATHERINE OFFORD, “CAN SINGLE CELLS LEARN?” AT THE SCIENTIST (MAY 1, 2021) THE PAPER IS OPEN ACCESS.

In short, changes in the state of the life form, resulting in changed behavior — which amounts to learning — need not “be someplace” or weigh something, for the same reasons as a full USB stick doesn’t weigh any more than an empty one. 

You may also wish to read: Why do many scientists see cells as intelligent? Bacteria appear to show intelligent behavior. But what about individual cells in our bodies?

and

What neuroscientists now know about how memories are born and die. Where, exactly are our memories? Are modern media destroying them? Could we erase them if we wanted to?

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 14, 2021 19:46

Could artificial intelligence change the mind–body problem?

Can an artificial intelligence program that calculates really understand mathematics? Or is that a “hard ceiling” for AI?:


Robert J. Marks: I still have one more question that I want to ask you. If indeed dualism is true, doesn’t that mean that we will never be able to have artificial general intelligence where we have a strict duplication of human performance?


Angus Menuge (pictured): Yeah, I think it does. There will be artificial general intelligence in the sense that there are very sophisticated learning algorithms that can generalize, and so they can move from their initial training domain to work in new areas. So at the level of just being able to formally solve problems, you could say there’ll be artificial general intelligence. However, what you’re asking about is will it really duplicate everything about the human mind? And there I think, no, because I don’t see any reason from these amazing enhancements of the complexity of these systems to think that the systems would move from not having subjective awareness to having it or from moving to true intentionality about anything beyond themselves.


So I think that the fundamental issues are metaphysical. We’re aware that there’s something it’s like to be us and that we can think about the world. And we can also think about things which, it is arguable, no physical system ought to be able to think about — abstract principles, like the laws of logic or theorems about prime numbers. Well, no physical system has ever physically interacted with any of these things. So the very contents of our thoughts seem to suggest that we have access to a realm. In a way it’s a somewhat platonic realm, but without getting into that issue, that’s certainly a realm of things which are not purely physical.


News, “Will AI change — or eliminate — the mind-body problem?” at Mind Matters News

Takehome: Philosopher Angus Menuge doubts that an algorithm can really “understand” abstract concepts like prime numbers and integers. If so, we are stuck with the mind–body problem because we can’t just instantiate a mind in an artificial body.

Here are the earlier parts of the series:

Part 1: How do we know we are not just physical bodies? The mind–body problem is one of the most difficult issues in modern philosophy. Philosopher Angus Menuge cites the immateriality and indivisibility of the mind and discusses the evidence from near-death experiences.

Part 2: If the mind and body are so different, how can they interact? A look at different models of the mind–body problem. Angus Menuge asks, Why should wanting a drink of milk produce physical changes like opening the fridge? It’s a harder question than many think.

Part 3: How have various thinkers tried to solve the mind–body problem? Philosopher Angus Menuge explains why traditional physicalism (the mind is just what the brain does) doesn’t really work. Some philosophers today claim that the mind is simply what the brain does; a newer group thinks the mind emerges from the brain but is not simply the brain.

Part 4: How would Angus Menuge resolve the mind–body problem? From his background in computer science, he sees mind–body interaction as a transmission of information between two realms
Menuge argues that our minds and bodies are one integrated system with a translation function … like developing and then writing down an idea.

Copyright © 2021 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana
 •  0 comments  •  flag
Share on Twitter
Published on May 14, 2021 19:18

Michael J. Behe's Blog

Michael J. Behe
Michael J. Behe isn't a Goodreads Author (yet), but they do have a blog, so here are some recent posts imported from their feed.
Follow Michael J. Behe's blog with rss.