Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 536

January 22, 2019

An information theory argument for the value of human beings

From Eric Holloway, based on creativity:

Because creativity is unique to humans and irreducible, all human beings have the ability in principle. The fact that a particular human being’s creativity is not in use or is perhaps unusable at present does not mean that that person does not have the ability. Consequently, all humans have at least latent intrinsic instrumental value. Eric Holloway, “The Creative Spark” at Mind Matters

See also: Will artificial intelligence design artificial super-intelligence?

and

Human intelligence as a halting oracle

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Copyright © 2019 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

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 22, 2019 05:58

January 21, 2019

Why simple but useless theories of consciousness get so much attention

Because science writers need simple sound bites and catch phrases:

Dennett’s integration of popular evolution theory into his work appeals to many science writers, as this snippet from a BBC news item shows:

From an evolutionary perspective, our ability to think is no different from our ability to digest, says Dennett.

Both these biological activities can be explained by Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection, often described as the survival of the fittest.

We evolved from uncomprehending bacteria. Our minds, with all their remarkable talents, are the result of endless biological experiments.

Our genius is not God-given. It’s the result of millions of years of trial and error. Anna Buckley, “Is consciousness just an illusion?” at BBC News

BBC writer Buckley makes these statements with remarkable self-assurance but the trouble is, not one of them is defensible science.

Take, for example, “our ability to think is no different from our ability to digest”: That’s nonsense. There is a Hard Problem of consciousness; there is no hard problem of digestion.

Darwin’s Theory of Natural Selection does not and cannot address the Hard Problem (the first person perspective).

No evolutionary biologist thinks that humans “evolved from” bacteria either; we belong to a quite different kingdom of life from bacteria.

And whether or not our genius is God-given is certainly a matter of opinion.

Not all science writers are mere fans; some examine the philosopher’s claims in more detail. Dennett’s use of the term “illusion” is a source of confusion, says John Horgan… More.

Denyse O’Leary, “Has science shown that consciousness is only an illusion?” at Mind Matters

See also: In one sense, consciousness IS an illusion (Michael Egnor)

How can consciousness be a material thing? Maybe it can’t. But materialist philosophers face starkly limited choices in how to view consciousness. In analytical philosopher Galen Strawson’s opinion, our childhood memories of pancakes on Saturday, for example, are—and must be—”wholly physical.”

Panpsychism: You are conscious but so is your coffee mug

and

Consciousness Studies Is a “Bizarre” Field of Science

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 21, 2019 16:13

Researchers’ claim: Complex molecules emerge without evolution or design

[image error]
Core part of the foldamer, showing five stacks of three phenyl rings connected by disulfide bonds/Bin Liu, University of Groningen

From ScienceDaily:

The Otto research group studies how simple building blocks — in this case a nucleobase linked to the amino acid aspartic acid — can form rings. In previous research, Otto has shown that such rings can form stacks which can grow and divide, and show a level of chemical evolution. But this time, something different happened. Otto: ‘One of my PhD students, Bin Liu, noticed that very large rings were formed, polymers of 15 building blocks.’ They were extremely stable, so eventually most of the building blocks were transformed into these rings.

After studying the rings’ structure with X-ray crystallography, it became clear to the team that they were folded. ‘When rings form stacks, there is interaction between the molecules. In this case, the interaction took place within the large molecule.’ The hydrophobic parts of the ring were folding into the centre of the molecule, which is also what happens with proteins in water. The folding pattern, however, is completely different. ‘Proteins are polymers linked by amine bonds. In our molecules, the building blocks are linked exclusively by disulphide bonds. The difference in structure results in a different folding pattern.’

This is the first time that a complex folding structure (or foldamer) that is so radically different from proteins has been described. ‘Despite decades of research, we still have no reliable design rules that can fully predict the folding of proteins’, explains Otto. This hampers the design of new enzymes. A different class of folding molecules can help us to understand the basic rules of molecular folding. ‘Furthermore, the molecule we describe in our paper is only the first that we’ve discovered. In the past year, we have discovered several more and will publish these later.’ …

A striking conclusion drawn from the discovery of this new folding molecule is that complexity can emerge spontaneously. ‘This is interesting for origin-of-life research: apparently, you can get these complex molecules before biological evolution has started.’ The formation of the new molecule is actually driven by folding, explains Otto. ‘That is quite special. The energy level of this molecule is very low. This drives the equilibrium from a “random” mixture of small rings towards this specific very stable 15-mer.’ Paper. (open access) – Bin Liu, Charalampos G. Pappas, Ennio Zangrando, Nicola Demitri, Piotr J. Chmielewski, Sijbren Otto. Complex Molecules That Fold Like Proteins Can Emerge Spontaneously. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 2019; DOI: 10.1021/jacs.8b11698 More.

A reader comments, “It isn’t very different from a crystal. That is, it forms complex shapes without evolution or design. But how many of these structures would have formed in nature in the absence of the researchers? We need to know that before we decide if this is relevant to the origin of life.”

In short, it’s geometry. But what follows?

See also: Claim: Complex Self-Replicating Molecules Can Emerge Spontaneously And Relatively Easily From Simple Chemical Reaction Systems If life can “emerge spontaneously and relatively easily from simple chemical reaction systems through a sequence of transitions,” why don’t we ever see it happening today?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 21, 2019 15:40

Particle physicist: Please quit calling the Higgs boson “the God particle”!

File:HAtomOrbitals.png Hydrogen atom orbitals at different energy levels. An electron is most likely in a brighter one /FlorianMarquardt, GNU

An experimental particle physicist complains about the way in which implications of concepts for the public can lead to false claims. He especially resents people calling the Higgs boson the “God particle”:

For starters, you should know that the term comes from Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, who used the term as the title of a book. He explained later that he wanted to call the book “The goddamn particle”, to hint at how hard (and unsuccessful until then) the search for that elusive particle had been, but his publisher insisted on avoiding the bad word (plus, of course summoning God in his title was a choice also dictated by wanting to maximize sales).

But then, what does the idea of a “God particle” have to do with the Higgs boson? Very, very little. The Higgs boson is in fact the result of an almost magical mechanism, called in its non-trivialized version “electroweak symmetry breaking” (EWSB). The universe “chooses” one among an infinity of possible minimum-energy states to be its vacuum, and in so doing hides in an asymmetric world the symmetrical nature of the equations that describe its physics: the equations remain symmetrical, but the ground state of the theory is not. In this process, terms that describe a scalar massive particle, the Higgs, pop up in the physics equations.

If you have bothered to read the above description, you certainly do not fail to notice that the Higgs boson is not the mastermind of any tricks, but it is in fact the result of one. Calling it “the God particle” is thus plain silly.

Tommaso Dorigo, “False Claims In Particle Physics” at Science 2.0

As a matter of fact, we don’t often hear the Higgs called the “God particle” now that it’s been clearly identified and given Peter Higgs’s name. That was more common before. It’s almost like something else is bothering Dorigo but we won’t speculate.

See also: Will The Large Hadron Collider Doom Particle Physics?

and

Sabine Hossenfelder: Particle Physics Now Belly Up. As It Happens, Her Book Is A Solid String Of 1’S At Amazon

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 21, 2019 14:12

“Rube-Bait”: Kevin Williamson vs. David Klinghoffer: Round 2

Kevin Williamson

Recently, we covered Evolution News and Science Today editor David Klinghoffer’s response to a sneer by Kevin Williamson against ID at National Review (where Klinghoffer used to work, incidentally). Klinghoffer cited a number of respectable thinkers who have held Darwinism in little esteem—which led to our publishing a separate and different long list of such thinkers here at Uncommon Descent.

David Klinghoffer

Meanwhile, Williamson replied to Klinghoffer (“Irreducible Perplexity”), who fired back:

Here’s what is missing: serious public debate. Telling scientists to “slug it out” in professional journals and not try to persuade others is like asking a free-market advocate to persuade his Marxist colleagues before he dares offer his case to the public. What makes Kevin think entrenched Darwinists are willing even to listen to scientific challenges? Kevin is saying that critics of Darwin should allow themselves to be abused — by non-scientists like Kevin D. Williamson — and just take it. Why is Williamson such an (entertaining) scourge of experts in other fields, yet eager to accept and amplify the prejudices of Darwinists? There’s no “conspiracy” here. Scientists are as subject to careerism, groupthink, and status anxiety as anyone else. The hypothesis of purpose in nature is too important to leave to the “experts” alone. We needn’t be impressed by pseudo-Menckenesque put-downs.David Klinghoffer, “More Than a Technical Debate” at National Review

Not only needn’t we be “impressed by pseudo-Menckenesque put-downs” but quite a few of the people who offer them have nothing going for them but the sneer. See, for example, Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Cosmos and “the artistic license to lie” and Bill Nye’s “Christianity vs. the Big Universe” myth for classic instances.

Note: Mark Steyn, who also used to write for National Review and kairosfocus here at UD, discuss the rake that National Review has
just stepped on, —a much better-known current controversy involving some school kids and a drum, resulting in a suddenly disappearing story and some deep-sixed executive tweets.

See also: Intelligent design as “rube-bait” and David Klinghoffer’s response Klinghoffer offers his vid, The Information Enigma by way of rebuttal. But rebuttal almost misses the point. Today’s Darwinism is a snipe on Twitter, a swipe in passing, a slogan on a whiteboard, a well-practiced rant – not something it would make sense to ask anyone to support with reference to facts or coherent ideas. Williamson’s got that right. No arguing with fashion.

and

Respectable people who doubt Darwin: a long list Why then do media rush to cover any doubt about Darwin as some kind of a descent into a panic of ignorance? Because they are struggling for survival themselves in a linked world that may not need them as much any more The longer they behave this way, the more of a certainty that is. Under the circumstances their panic, hence the nonsense, may increase.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 21, 2019 12:58

Theistic Evolutionists: The Reality Behind the Illusion is Itself an Illusion

. . . and the reality behind that illusion is, well, the initial illusion.

Richard Dawkins famously declared that the appearance of design in living things is overwhelming. Theistic evolutionists do not disagree. But, like arch-atheist Dawkins, they assert that the appearance of design is an illusion and Darwinian evolution is the reality behind the illusion.

But TEs don’t agree with Dawkins about everything; they are, after all, “theistic.” And to give themselves a fig leaf for the whole “theistic” part, they assert that at a deeper, empirically undetectable ontological level, God directs the process toward an end.

In summary, the TE position is that the reality behind
the illusion is itself an illusion, and the ultimate reality behind that
illusion is the initial illusion, i.e. design.

The twirling sound you hear is William of Ockham spinning in his grave.

Bill Nye’s Knowledge of Science Could Benefit From a Visit to Wikipedia

As long-time readers know, we at UD often disparage Wikipedia for its left-wing bias. Still, you have to give it its due. For a quick lookup of non-controversial facts, it has its uses.

Uses to which, apparently, Bill Nye has not put it. If he had looked up Wiki’s entry on Ptolemy’s Almagest (published in around 150 AD), he would have known that the ancients understood very well that the universe is incomprehensibly vast. Here is the Summary of Ptolemy’s Cosmos from that article:

The cosmology of the Syntaxis includes five main points, each of which is the subject of a chapter in Book I. What follows is a close paraphrase of Ptolemy’s own words from Toomer’s translation.

The celestial realm is spherical, and moves as a sphere.
The Earth is a sphere.
The Earth is at the center of the cosmos.
The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.
The Earth does not move.

The “the ancients thought the universe was tiny” myth and the “the ancients thought the earth was flat” myth are both refuted by the Almagest. The persistence of these myths is difficult to explain given that it takes about 30 seconds on Google to find the Wiki article.

But apparently Bill Nye is so busy spouting his anti-Christian propaganda, he does not have 30 seconds to spare.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that Nye’s ignorance is all the more inexcusable because it is not like he is unaware of Ptolemy. Nye once said:

It was curiosity that drove Ptolemy to study the stars and eventually develop the theory that the sun revolved around the Earth, and it was curiosity that eventually led Copernicus to challenge him centuries later and suggest it was actually the other way around.

Yes, Ptolemy was wrong about that. But he was right about other things, like the fact that the earth is a sphere and that the universe is very very large.

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 21, 2019 06:27

Agit Prop media/troll ambush at the 2019 46th March for Life — lessons on well-poisoning for us all

Yesterday, I noticed how across 24 hours, a smear operation targetting students who participated in the 46th MfL played out. I commented in the MfL thread and think it is worth headlining with added media features:

Student letter in response to an Agit Prop media ambush

Let me embed some clips from Social Media, by fairly prominent personalities, these are HT Gateway Pundit, and give an idea of the sort of way piling on happens:

Gould is a comedian and writer

Gomez is actor-writer-director of the Gotham awards

Jeffrey is Editor-in-Chief of Mother Jones

K Griffin, who notoriously posed with a wax image of a beheaded President Trump

J Morrissey proposing murder by wood chipper

[KF, MfL 19, no 35:] Notice the upstaging and tainting agit prop game where students of Covington Catholic High School who had participated in the MfL and were waiting for transport, were widely portrayed as politically and/or racially motivated harassers of a Native American Vietnam veteran, when it is emerging (see the linked) that almost the reverse is more credibly true.

I link a letter of plea for correction: https://twitter.com/AClementsWKRC/status/1086822521012473858/photo/1

The letter is backed by video evidence (see the first linked [I cannot embed a vid within a quote]).

On fair comment, it seems they were set up for a media, visual ambush — someone comes up pounding a drum in faces and pictures are taken which are evidently set in an inaccurate, loaded context — and were then in effect abandoned by School leadership, under threat of expulsion and facing threats set up by media amplification of what seems to be an agit prop stunt.
Notice, a second GP article on how this sort of Agit Prop works:
After 24 hours of savaging a group of teenage boys in MAGA hats at the March for Life rally for “harassing and abusing” a Native American veteran — the anti-Trump and far left media is backing off from their deadly assault on a group of Catholic teenage boys.
But after 24 hours of media lies and hit pieces the Catholic families are now in hiding and their children fear for their lives.
The Associated Press backed off their initial reporting this afternoon that the boys were chanting against the Native American activists.
Marcus Frejo, a member of the Pawnee and Seminole tribe says the children were singing with them.
The Latest: Marcus Frejo, a member of the Pawnee and Seminole tribes says students wound up singing with him. https://t.co/oLaLtstkPZ
— The Associated Press (@AP) January 20, 2019
CNN’s Jake Tapper retweeted Reason Mag’s claims that Nathan Phillips’s claims were trash.
.@reason: “Video footage strongly contradicts Native American veteran Nathan Phillips’ claim that Covington Catholic High School boys harassed him. The media got this one completely wrong,” writes @robbysoave https://t.co/9Ki4iiTkQ9
— Jake Tapper (@jaketapper) January 20, 2019
Note, too, a third GP piece pointing out the media amplification and piling on, apparently complete with prominent social media personalities making comparisons to Nazi stormtroopers and lynch mobs of the past:
Social media erupted Saturday after selectively edited videos of Covington Catholic students were posted on Twitter accusing the boys of harassing and mocking an elderly Native American man.
The left, along with their mouthpieces in the media immediately called for these teens to be tarred and feathered — no judge, no jury.
Here are the cold hard facts about what really happened at the Lincoln Memorial this weekend:
According to one of the high school boys who was present, a group of black men were taunting the Trump supporters, calling them “shooters” and “crackers” and said the white kids “had everything given to them by their parents.”
At first, the Trump supporting teens ignored the black men who were harassing them, but after the blacks continued to taunt the white kids, the white kids began to chant back at them.
According to a witness, it was at this point that a Native American man showed up “out of no where” and began drumming in the high school kid’s face.
“We weren’t even chanting at him, we were chanting at the African American guy, but obviously social media made us look bad to get views and stuff,” a witness said . . . .
These Covington Catholic students showed incredible restraint after being ambushed and taunted. No crimes were committed and no one became violent yet the media is piling on the children and calling for them to be severely punished over lies!
Despite the liberal media narrative completely collapsing far left pundits are comparing the boys to Nazi storm troopers, rapists and race-based lynchings. [see article for telling Twitter clips]
It is obvious that MfL is being targetted for agit prop media ambushes designed to portray people connected to a movement against a holocaust in progress in the worst possible light. Let us not forget, this generation, globally, has seen the slaughter of 800+ millions of our living posterity in the womb in 40+ years, now advancing at the rate of about a million further victims per week. All, under false colour of law and with enabling by media, education, political leadership and much more.
Meanwhile, there is general suppression of the MfL and its anti-holocaust message.

An online video rebuttal to the media narrative, which is included just as documenting a different perspective, without endorsing the wider views or personality:

Another video report, under similar non-endorsement terms (this coming from someone who is manifestly African American):

See a full-length video here.

We need to realise just how dirty the ongoing civilisation-wide culture war is, especially on the media front.

Later, on concern trolls, victim card trolls and more on agit prop tactics.

Okay, let me add on return from ferrying duties.

Recently, we noted on so-called concern trolls.

These typically turn up with what Intel Agencies call a Legend, an outline backstory that portrays them as sympathetic to the target. However, they continually express “concerns” that serve mainly to discredit, undermine, burden and sow dissension or the like. Seldom, if ever will there be an actual supportive argument. Some such trolls serve as cheerleaders or support figures for objectors and other trolls, helping to derail serious discussion or debate on merits. A particularly pernicious trick is to create a side conversation that creates a false sense of the warrant for the objections being made. In many cases, clusters of concern trolls turn out to be sock-puppets of one actual person, or they may be an organised group arranging their strategy and tactics elsewhere.

If someone is fitting the profile and is not contributing to the substantial discussion, that is a strong tell. Another, is when there is stubborn, willful obtuseness or evasiveness regarding well warranted points on the case being attacked. That’s why I recently noted that when an actual demonstration on a material point is on the table, “I have another opinion” avails nothing. Similarly, attempts to dismiss relevance or declare that one has no interest in such well warranted points is a key tell. Let us not forget that only fools dispute or willfully dismiss, distract attention from or studiously ignore actually established facts. (It bears noting, that mislabelling something not actually demonstrated, observed, witnessed, credibly recorded etc as a “fact” is another tactic. This one is commonly seen with the notion that the model past presented under evolutionary materialistic scientism is a “fact.”)

The victim card, identity politics troll is a closely related and often far more destructive cousin. In this case, the Legend — never assume it is true without good warrant! — is that the objector is a member of a politically correct culturally victimised group, say X; bet your farm that Christians — currently the most viciously victimised and persecuted group in the world — will not be portrayed as sympathetic victims. On the strength of this, a Cultural Marxist shield-halo is created and one who objects is automatically deemed X-phobic, this denoting an irrational fear, and through the magic of loaded projection, is turned instantly into a villain. As a result, victim card trolls are routinely used as face-cards for agendas that cannot stand on their own merits. In some cases, the actual troll is a “spokesperson” rather than the actual claimed victim. Then, once the target has been sufficiently smeared, s/he is attacked to be demonised, stereotyped, scapegoated, pushed beyond the pale of the Overton Window, censored, deplatformed, silenced in social media, defamed etc. And of course, robbed of a livelihood. Especially if the target commits the thought-crime of trying to defend him-/her- self. Likewise, an apology is taken as further proof of guilt and anyone who comes to the defence of a target will become a secondary target.

The Overton Window:

By way of a corrective, let us note again on countering spin games:

We are now at the threshold of Orwell’s Animal Farm or 1984 dystopias: “welcome” to the gates of hell on earth. END

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 21, 2019 04:31

January 20, 2019

It would be different if we had found Darwin’s genes and Darwin’s fossils

Responding to a recent Salon piece by philosopher John G. Messerly, “Religion’s smart-people problem: The shaky intellectual foundations of absolute faith,” a writer responds to the familiar lament that most people don’t buy into naturalist atheism:

Messerly then turns to affirming the “overwhelming body of evidence of biological evolution.” It’s pretty obvious that he is in over his head in affirming really anything associated with scientific evidence. He just asserts with no premises in support, which probably satisfies your typical Salon reader. And what he affirms, the standard unguided natural selection acting on random mutation assertion of the materialists, is just so twentieth century.

The evolutionary theory that the Messerlys of the world just accept is being steadily dismantled. Darwin’s theory has been totally refuted by the fossil record. Search the web for the Cambrian Explosion and judge the evidence for yourself. The transitional forms that Darwin insisted must exist for his theory to become law are nowhere to be found. Science has been looking for 150 years now and the record is a sparse as it was when Darwin expressed doubt in his own theory.

Of course, Darwin had no idea of the existence of DNA and its role in protein synthesis. Today we know an enormous amount about the genetic code and its role in biological life. We understand what it does, but we have absolutely no idea how such a sophisticated set of instructions and their sequencing could have self-assembled through natural unguided processes. The most brilliant software engineers in the world cannot begin to duplicate the eloquence we see in the DNA code. It clearly displays the earmarks of intelligence to those willing to see. John E. Tutten, “Is Religion Anti-Intellectual” at American Thinker

Maybe Tutten overstates his case a bit but, in a general way, he has identified the core of the conflict. The very things that should have been the slam dunk for Darwin—the fossil record and the genetic code—seem to want to tell a different story, whether or not the academics want to listen.

Salon readers will, of course, listen. But then, they would listen gladly to “the artistic license to lie.”

As to why most people don’t buy into naturalist atheism, well, that would be a more awkward discussion. One risks saying something unkind, such as that many naturalist atheists seem to work so hard to undermine the brand, there must be something wrong with it. But we won’t go there just now.

Hat tip: Ken Francis who, along with Theodore Dalrymple is the author of The Terror of Existence: From Ecclesiastes to Theatre of the Absurd

See also: Eric Holloway: Atheists, Agnostics More Skeptical Of Evolution Now

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 20, 2019 15:00

Bill Nye’s “Christianity vs. the Big Universe” myth

This image represents the evolution of the Universe, starting with the Big Bang. The red arrow marks the flow of time.

Big Bang/NASA

Mike Keas, author of Unbelievable,offers some thoughts on the idea that Christians have a problem with the universe being really big.

Scientists from centuries past, including Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) and Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), recognized that the universe is vast. They saw in this no contradiction with their Christian beliefs. Yet celebrity TV science educator Bill Nye, the “Science Guy,” is among those who suggest that the sheer scale of the cosmos means humans are insignificant. In the last minutes of his 2010 “Humanist of the Year” acceptance speech, Nye — speaking for science and all humanity — delighted the American Humanist Association with this:

I’m insignificant. … I am just another speck of sand. And the earth really in the cosmic scheme of things is another speck. And the sun an unremarkable star. … And the galaxy is a speck. I’m a speck on a speck orbiting a speck among other specks among still other specks in the middle of specklessness. I suck.

Nye’s audience laughed approvingly, no doubt because they believed that “I suck” really means “religion sucks.”

But Bill Nye isn’t so much the science guy as he is the scientism guy. Scientism is atheistic dogma masquerading as objective science.
Mike Keas, “Myth: A Big Universe Is a Problem for Christianity” at Evolution News and Science Today

In the current culture, Bill Nye doesn’t need to worry about the facts catching up with him. “The big universe is a problem for Christianity” is a claim something like “They’re out there” (meaning ET).

It has nothing to do with facts; it is pure social positioning (or posturing). As with the Cosmos’s series’s “artistic license to lie,” it is a way of indicating that their social position is so powerful that they can misrepresent people and 1) demand that their assertions be taken for truths – and 2) even wonder publicly what’s the matter with people who don’t believe them.

Today’s media love that sort of thing. They can’t keep up with the internet and it certainly beats thinking of a killer comeback on Twitter or (no! no!) working on a real story (no! no!), something they do less and less, it would seem. And just think, all they want is our trust and our money.

See also: Astrophysicist: Climate Change Killed The ET Civilizations

SETI finds more creative ways to keep looking. As long as there’s an Out There, They’ll always be Out There, of course.

SETI reacts to the study that says not to wait up for the extraterrestrials

Researchers: We have dissolved the Fermi Paradox!

Extraterrestrial civilizations: When all else fails, try Bayesianism. The good news is, no one can ever prove They’re Not Out There.

and

How do we grapple with the idea that ET might not be out there?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

View more on Michael J. Behe's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on January 20, 2019 10:58