Steve Jones, whose book Almost Like A Whale (Darwin’s Ghost in the US) is a must read as The Origin of Species Updated, has said that human evolution has slowed down with over 50 year olds not having as many children as they did of old. Such oldies are more likely to have mutations in the cells of their sperm. He also says that the future is brown in the global age.

Steve Jones is 64.

Leading geneticist Steve Jones says human evolution is over

I have to give credit for the group for trying to parody the Church of England apology to Charles Darwin. Though naturally they are more funny when they get the wrong end of the stick in their observations on nature (such as Peacocks feathers – which Dawkins had a conversation about with Clive James). Their insults are at odds with the manner by which Dawkins goes for arguments, and the manner in which he does describe opponents. No doubt they would benefit from a day out at the zoo with a zoologist, rather than picketing outside one on Gay Sunday.

14 September 2008, Zoo then party animals at G-A-Y Late

Evolution does not underpin my reasons for being an atheist. That it explains the development of life on earth without having to resort to supernatural explanations, and has evidence for it rather than circular reasoning that says all other opinions are from the devil. As a scientific theory new discoveries and ideas play a part in building up what we know about the process of evolution, once they are verified. They will be obtained by pursuing science, and not fearing where the truth will take us.

Those reasons would be Bertrand Russell’s Why I am Not A Christian and becoming aware that philosophy allowed serious discussion of life on earth without needing the assumption of god to work. That you really do have a credible choice in not believing in a higher power that needs worship or else.

Anyway here is the press release:

Dated 15th September 2008 21.00 hrs

Professor Richard Dawkins is to receive an apology from the prayer and lobby group Christian Voice, despite being spiritually dead for over sixty years. The move follows a posthumous apology to Charles Darwin which the Church of England issued today.

The apology will read:

‘Professor Dawkins, 67 years (give or take a month or two) from your birth, Christian Voice owes you an apology for misunderstanding you and, by getting our first reaction wrong, encouraging others to misunderstand you still. (We are not sure that is good English, but please forgive us for that as well.)

‘In the past Christian Voice has ridiculed you for your irrational belief in evolution and for failing to blaspheme the Holy Spirit.

‘We said, in a press release dated 10th October 2007, that you were ‘daffy’ in encouraging children on your website to blaspheme the Holy Spirit. We said your failure to understand what blaspheming the Holy Spirit actually was stemmed from ignorance and implied that you were barking mad to get people to try to blaspheme a God in whom you did not even believe.

‘We described you as an “evangelical atheist” who looked “malicious, loony, ill-informed and stupid in equal measure”. We pondered your “peculiar combination of wickedness and madness” and asked, “Has the evolutionary biologist lost the plot?”

‘Yesterday, outside London Zoo, while witnessing against the Zoo’s ridiculous “Gay Sunday”, we gave out leaflets mocking the theory of evolution, for which you are such a prominent advocate.

‘We imagined in the leaflet a conversation between two prototype swallows, desperately trying to work out how to stick mud together and watching all their eggs smash on the ground. We had the male swallow saying “I’m sorry about the eggs, darling, it takes time to evolve this nest-building lark.”

‘We ridiculed the idea that the tail of the peacock and the tuft on the head of the tufted duck are there to attract a mate, observing that starlings and sparrows manage to reproduce without over-the-top tails and redundant tufts.

‘In so doing, we characterised you as irrational, illogical and a total loser. We implied you were ill-educated if not a complete plank to think that the incredible interdependence and design in creation could just “happen” over time and did not need a divine designer.

‘People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea, like Jesus Christ being King of kings and Lord of lords, emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy for Roman Empire pagans and modern secularists, both Christian and Atheist, to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.

‘So we recognise now that your dependence on evolution is not science, or even bad science, but an irrational excuse to deny Almighty God. We see that your attempts to poor scorn on Christianity and Jesus Christ are the result of a sort of ‘virus of the mind’, put there by the father of lies.

‘We acknowledge that your hatred of intelligent design – and the Intelligent Designer – is merely a faith-based position, as is the use of your gifts to obscure and even deny the truth of the Gospel.

‘Above all, we now realise, that contrary to your being a complete waste of space and a descendant of apes, you are actually made in the image of God. We realise that although you are still stupid, that is simply because the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and that your eyes are blinded and your ears will not hear any contrary view. In short, we now see you are a sinner in need of the saving, life-transforming grace of God in Jesus Christ.

‘It is a start for you, that you realise there is a deep incompatibility between the pseudo-scientific theories you have adopted and developed from Darwin and Christian teaching. But that is not quite enough.

‘So we apologise if we have failed to say, that rather than continue as a militant, proselytising sinner, you need to recognise your failings right now and seek the forgiveness of the incarnate, crucified, risen, ascended, glorified Lord Jesus Christ.

‘The struggle for your spirit is not over yet, and we pray that you will cast away the dead faith of Darwinism for a living faith in the living Saviour.’

OTHER BLOGS:

Being born a Lesbian

1. “The mystery of the beginning of all things is insoluble by us; and I for one must be content to remain an Agnostic.” (Autobiography)

2. “It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist & an evolutionist.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

3. “I hardly see how religion & science can be kept as distinct as [Edward Pusey] desires… But I most wholly agree… that there is no reason why the disciples of either school should attack each other with bitterness.” (Letter to J. Brodie Innes, November 27 1878)

4. “In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

5. “I think that generally (& more and more so as I grow older) but not always, that an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind.” (Letter to John Fordyce, May 7 1879)

6. “I am sorry to have to inform you that I do not believe in the Bible as a divine revelation, & therefore not in Jesus Christ as the son of God.” (Letter to Frederick McDermott, November 24 1880)

7. [In conversation with the atheist Edward Aveling, 1881] “Why should you be so aggressive? Is anything gained by trying to force these new ideas upon the mass of mankind?” (Edward Aveling, The religious views of Charles Darwin, 1883)

8. “Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Letter to Graham William, July 3 1881)

9. “My theology is a simple muddle: I cannot look at the Universe as the result of blind chance, yet I can see no evidence of beneficent Design.” (Letter to Joseph Hooker, July 12 1870)

10. “I can never make up my mind how far an inward conviction that there must be some Creator or First Cause is really trustworthy evidence.” (Letter to Francis Abbot, September 6 1871)

From The Times.

To make life easier all the blogs on Michael Reiss have been put together in a category to see them all click

PZ Myers writes the well known blog Pharyngula

here (where this one will be on top). There you will find all the letters written by Richard Dawkins and Sir Richard Roberts, and my comments on both the articles that Reiss wrote that started his downfall and analysis of his resignation.

Mind you in hindsight we should have seen Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society and Reiss being in this situation over creationism. Not just because an ordained clergyman given the role of protecting science education in the classroom would be called into doubt, but the anagram of Professor Michael Reiss:

‘ism clash poor Rees fires

PZ Myers made this comment on Reiss:

Dawkins and I are both often slandered as being relatively uninterested in promoting good science education, preferring to fight the culture war against religion (a claim that ignores the fact that we may feel strongly that the only way to achieve a lasting investment in understanding science is by reducing the pernicious influence of religion) — we are told that we think atheism more important than science. Let us ask, though, if these brave paladins of Jesus-compatible science would be willing to set aside their religion to better endorse science…and I think we all know what the answer would be.

That feeling made Reiss’ position untenable because “unfortunately his words got all tangled in the appearance of an unwarranted accommodation to creationism.”

Once again perception of reality rather than the actual empirical observation triumphs in the murky world of society politics – rational minds are not immune to gossip or personality clashes even if they are Nobel Laureates. While the next candidate may well have no conflict between advocating science and holy orders, the issue over which Reiss was brought down was one close to my heart. That in a science classroom science teachers have the right to teach the science that challenges a students declaration of religious belief about the natural world.

Hopefully that challenge will still be taken up, as the Royal Society advocates, and in case you are new to the blog I go into more detail in my blog here on Reiss resigns. Though that can be found as the third blog in the category section of Michael Reiss.

Kind of pointless as an apology; but one way for the C of E to question Young Earth Creationists:

From The Daily Telegraph (Note: spelling mistakes in original article)

Sections of Church likely to be dismayed by Darwin move Photo: PA

The bold and unusual step by the Church comes on the 200th anniversary of the naturalist’s birth.

On a website specially set up to honour Darwin and his hypothesis, launched todayMON [sic], the church will admit that its Victorian hierarchy showed too much “anti-evolutionary fervour” when he published the notion in his book, the Origin of Species, in 1858.

The apology has been written by the Rev Dr Malcolm Brown, the church’s director of mission and public affairs.

Howevetr [sic] is has cut little ice with Darwin’s descendants. Andrew Darwin, a great-great grandson of the scientist, said: “Why bother? When an apology is made after 200 years, it’s not so much to right a wrong, but to make the person or organisation making the apology feel better.”

Dr Brown says that the hounding of Darwin was akin to the Roman Catholic church’s treatment of astronomer Galileo in the 17th Century. Galileo was prosecuted for his belief that the Earth orbited the sun and ended his life under house arrest from the Inquisition.

His statement will say: “People, and institutions, make mistakes and Christian people and Churches are no exception. When a big new idea emerges that changes the way people look at the world, it’s easy to feel that every old idea, every certainty, is under attack and then to do battle against the new insights.

“The Church made that mistake with Galileo’s astronomy and has since realised its error. Some Church people did it again in the 1860s with Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection.

“So it is important to think again about Darwin’s impact on religious thinking, then and now.”

The apology, 126 years after Darwin’s death was yesterday branded “pointless” by the naturalist’s own family.

Tip of the hat to Homo Secular Gaytheist who covers the other article.

Reiss has resigned, having been misrepresented that creationism should be taught in the classroom when he suggested that it should be challenged when brought up by students. He was the director of education at the Royal Society, and having initially stood by him, they decided that the damage to their international reputation over this meant he had no option but to resign. The Royal Society in a statement said:

Some of Professor Michael Reiss’s recent comments, on the issue of creationism in schools, while speaking as the Royal Society’s Director of Education, were open to misinterpretation. While it was not his intention, this has led to damage to the Society’s reputation. As a result, Professor Reiss and the Royal Society have agreed that, in the best interests of the Society, he will step down immediately as Director of Education a part time post he held on secondment. He is to return, full time, to his position as Professor of Science Education at the Institute of Education.

The Royal Society’s position is that creationism has no scientific basis and should not be part of the science curriculum. However, if a young person raises creationism in a science class, teachers should be in a position to explain why evolution is a sound scientific theory and why creationism is not, in any way, scientific.

The Royal Society greatly appreciates Professor Reiss’s efforts in furthering the Society’s work in the important field of science education over the past two years. The Society wishes him well for the future.

It seems that what did for him was the suggestion by some that creationism should not even have science used to discredit it; it should be dismissed. That if a student believed that science was wrong about the age of the world or evolution, that a science teacher should not respond. It is almost like creationism should be treated as the elephant in the science classroom. Science teachers do not deal with a misleading world view, and students go out the classroom thinking that the science of man is wrong compared to the glory of god, and continue to ride the elephant that has no substance. The hope it seems is that the excrement of the elephant will not be shown to the class to infect them with a delusion.

The argument boils down to quarantine creationism (no mention even by students) or inoculation (which risks that it is mentioned, but controlled by the teacher). The problem is that we do not trust that science teachers will teach the science – rather that they will consider creationism an acceptable alternative view, or by talking about it somehow make the criticism scientifically relevant. As if scientific ignorance born of religion is a genie that needs to be kept in the bottle for fear that it will make creationist’s wishes come true.

Outside the scientific community creationism is considered a world view that is acceptable. Whether good or bad science is less important then it being considered a religious belief, shielding the ignorance and by not wanting science teachers to correct the bad science giving further cover. The science classroom seems to be the best place to dispel such ignorance of the world we live in.

What I am calling for is a Bill Bryson teacher of biology class. Reiss is right that this is a tall order for teachers; someone that can make science interesting and explain how we know things, as much as what we know. When a student challenges science (on whatever) they can go into the science. The teacher has to stick to the science, not their personal views.

Why some think this amounts to teaching creationism is absurd. Atheist blogger makes the point:

So, I agree with Mr Reiss on the principle that if the subject is brought up, it should be commented on and dismissed. What I do not agree with is his opinion that “they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis“. Creationism shouldn’t be given more than 10 seconds in a science classroom. If it is mentioned for more than that amount of time, students might get the impression that it is actually a worthwhile subject to talk about, instead of learning how evolution works, and all the evidence for that.

The student already thinks it is a worthwhile subject to talk about. Are we really concerned that a creationist student having their belief system mentioned and corrected with science will have unleashed a meme to infect their other classmates? This is not about saying teach the controversy (there is not one in science) or give it equal time (like we would not with alchemy or astrology).

The issue is one I relate to as a student of the Jehovah’s Witnesses when at school. Education is important in the instruction – that of god’s word and the teachings as explained by the Watchtower and Bible Tract Society. Evolution was wrong and creationism right. I even learned how to argue with Darwinists with scripture and bad science – cushioned with faith that the world was in the hands of the evil one and that science teachers and peers were pawns in the end game of Armageddon.

So it would have been great if my science teachers could have shown me just how wrong the bad science was. Yes I wanted to bring it up, because I felt it was misleading. I would have liked nothing better then to talk to my teacher after class. Their is an arrogance in ministry work that as an instrument of god you can change people’s lives and save them. As you can imagine, teachers would not discuss these things with me because that was not the domain of science to correct religious views.

Lord Winston made the comment:

“I fear that the Royal Society may have only diminished itself. This individual was arguing that we should engage with and address public misconceptions about science — something that the Royal Society should applaud.”

That is my fear too. Yet if we are prepared to allow misconceptions about what Reiss was arguing for then maybe for the sake of creationism not being challenged we will allow children to have their misconceptions about the world go unchallenged in the education system. Which will mean that evolution is not taught in a way that steps on sensibilities too much. That the scientific method and how that validates such things as evolution and the age of the world will not have time on the curriculum.

The enlightenment was about stressing the use of reason as the best way to find the truth about ourselves and the world around us. Kant’s buss word for this was ‘Sapere aude’ (‘dare to know’). Roy Porter observed on those intellectual bandits that were part of the movement:

They shared a general commitment to criticizing the injustices and exposing inefficiencies of the ancien régime; to emancipating mankind, through knowledge, education and science, from the chains of ignorance and error, superstition, theological dogma, and the dead hand of the clergy.

Perhaps a fear of religion in the science classroom is making us forget that education is the primary reason why students go to school. We can continue to allow teachers to teach things, the students to believe something different – and because of our fear not allow the student’s belief given to them by their parents to go uncriticized and their ignorance by which they reject what they are taught unchallenged.

Reiss, suggesting after 20 years this approach has not worked in making evolution understood by a generation of religious students, wanted an engaged approach with them – one that the followers of the enlightenment would have understood only too well. Yet rather than listen to whether such a different way may improve the science education and reduce the ignorance of school leavers, we have effectively said business as normal.

That though is the problem with science education in this country. Dawkins in his latest programme was critical of the science teachers of a school for thinking that creationist world views were acceptable and out of bounds for being challenged in the science classroom. Yet while Dawkins’ intentions are well known (his letter on Reiss can be found here), Reiss was already under suspicion that he wanted to promote religious views on science as an alternative. He was misrepresented in what he said, and people’s fears about him were realized based on the media reports rather than his actual article (which is covered in the first link of this blog but can be found here as well). If he was not ordained maybe he could have survived this.

I hope this incident will not cause religious secularists to duck and cover in the debate. Instead we are by the looks of things heading for a polarization of views. This may well be the best way – science should win over crack pot views of science. The problem though is that we may end up with an education that fails to enlighten students and give them the means to work things out for themselves, because their assumptions are not challenged. Reiss’ contribution was ignored based on the assumptions about his motives and the spin on what he was claimed to have said – in this we on the secular side seem guilty of hearing what we wanted to hear, and to think that a religious man being against creationism in the science classroom was not possible.

That though is exactly want the fundies want. By all means they would like creationism taught alongside evolution. But the next best thing is for the one in ten children of fundamentalist parents not to have their belief challenged. We seem to be promoting a stalemate, a situation that does not improve education, and creates a cold war of ideas. At the ice caps of the polarized views, people assume that the religious cannot take science seriously, and the other that evolution leads to wickedness and damnation. If we cannot challenge ignorance over science in the classroom then be prepared for new adults to be ignorant about the world in which we live.

The looser will be the children we fail to educate.

Click the photo where Reiss talks about animal ethics using theology and science (scroll down)

A debate rages in the Royal Society over the continual appointment of Michael Reiss, who in an article mentioned that creationist views of students should be discussed in the classroom. Nobel Laureates Sir Harry Kroto and Sir Richard Roberts have written to the President of the Society to dismiss him.

Reiss in an article wrote:

Just because something lacks scientific support doesn’t seem to me a sufficient reason to omit it from a science lesson. When I was taught physics at school, and taught it extremely well in my view, what I remember finding so exciting was that we could discuss almost anything providing we were prepared to defend our thinking in a way that admitted objective evidence and logical argument.

So when teaching evolution, there is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have (hardly a revolutionary idea in science teaching) and doing one’s best to have a genuine discussion. The word ‘genuine’ doesn’t mean that creationism or intelligent design deserve equal time.

The question is was he suggesting that in the Science classroom teachers challenge student doubts about how old the world is and the validity of evolution (which he claims) or that creationism should be taught as an alternative so that the scientific viewpoint could be considered as a different world view (which the Nobel Laureates rightly oppose). The problem is saying another world view makes it sound like an equal alternative.

If Reiss was suggesting that the discussion should be student led, with the teacher showing the validity of the scientific method then this would be a good thing. One that I would have benefited from at school seeing as I was brought up to believe that evolution was wrong on a scientific basis – if we could have discussed the science behind evolution and why we know the world is billions rather than thousands of years old would have been brilliant.

Reiss clarified his remarks this way at the Royal Society website saying:

“Some of my comments about the teaching of creationism have been misinterpreted as suggesting that creationism should be taught in science classes. Creationism has no scientific basis. However, when young people ask questions about creationism in science classes, teachers need to be able to explain to them why evolution and the Big Bang are scientific theories but they should also take the time to explain how science works and why creationism has no scientific basis. I have referred to science teachers discussing creationism as a worldview’; this is not the same as lending it any scientific credibility.”

I have just posted that clarification on the Dawkins website. It seems too many people were making judgments about him being sacked based on second hand comments of what he said, rather than reading his original article.

Spore - it's just a game

As I predicted in an earlier blog, the analysis over the game Spore has begun in earnest with a thread on the official Richard Dawkins site here.

It has shocked some posters that Wright (the game designer) is a Republican supporter. As if accepting evolution as a scientific theory influences your political philosophy. It may shock them to know that there are people who voted for George W Bush involved with the Dawkins website. The point is that atheism, and science do not mean that you have a predestined political outlook on life. Hence the fact that though atheists have the numbers, the political organization of them has been like herding cats.

I may well have said about Wright’s game SimCity that it dismissed the invisible hand idea of economics in the game play suggesting a central planner was needed for a successful economy. Naturally to make a game interesting the player is involved in key decisions, interactions in the game having consequences which effect gameplay and results. If Spore was really about evolution and natural selection you would start a game and just watch – the only question then would be when you start a new game from the beginning would the evolution happen in the same way? A question Dawkins himself ponders the answer to.

I am tempted to say that it is all just a game, and what matters is whether the game is fun or not. From the makers perspective what matters is will enough units be shifted to cover costs, and if there are future revenue streams to be made with added extras, and internet downloads/access to main site content.

Yet people are trying to spin the game so that it favours intelligent design – with the argument that you need a designer (the player) for the creatures to survive and develop. We should not worry too much. This is the finding a watch on a walk argument which Dawkins dealt with in The Blind Watchmaker.

I am more with the opinion that it may make some kids take an interest in evolutionary biology. But the fact is that it will be more or less neutral on that score. For most it will just be a game they played.

Ever wondered how to sum up evolution as being a valid scientific theory? PZ Myers suggests:

Yes, I believe evolution is true.
I consider it the best explanation of the origin and diversity of life on earth,
and it is backed by an immense body of evidence. Strictly speaking,
it is not a matter of belief, but a recognition of the knowledge
of qualified experts and a familiarity with the research
that has been done in the field; I would also
add that science does not deal in absolute
truth, but strives for approximations,
and is always willing to discard old
ideas if better explanations
with better evidence
come along.
Do you have evidence for an alternative theory?

I first read The Onion in when staying in Washington DC for the Atheist Alliance International Conference last year. A satirical publication, I remember their story on Pokemon being banned from a school because it promoted evolution caused outrage on the Dawkins site because in the UK people did not realise it was not true.

Enjoy this latest article from The Onion – note latest stories are available in the side bar of this blog:

Evolutionists Flock To Darwin-Shaped Wall Stain

September 5, 2008 | Issue 44•36

Darwinic pilgrims claim the image fills them with an overwhelming feeling of logic.

DAYTON, TN—A steady stream of devoted evolutionists continued to gather in this small Tennessee town today to witness what many believe is an image of Charles Darwin—author of The Origin Of Species and founder of the modern evolutionary movement—made manifest on a concrete wall in downtown Dayton.

“I brought my baby to touch the wall, so that the power of Darwin can purify her genetic makeup of undesirable inherited traits,” said Darlene Freiberg, one among a growing crowd assembled here to see the mysterious stain, which appeared last Monday on one side of the Rhea County Courthouse. The building was also the location of the famed “Scopes Monkey Trial” and is widely considered one of Darwinism’s holiest sites. “Forgive me, O Charles, for ever doubting your Divine Evolution. After seeing this miracle of limestone pigmentation with my own eyes, my faith in empirical reasoning will never again be tested.”

Added Freiberg, “Behold the power and glory of the scientific method!”

Since witnesses first reported the unexplained marking—which appears to resemble a 19th-century male figure with a high forehead and large beard—this normally quiet town has become a hotbed of biological zealotry. Thousands of pilgrims from as far away as Berkeley’s paleoanthropology department have flocked to the site to lay wreaths of flowers, light devotional candles, read aloud from Darwin’s works, and otherwise pay homage to the mysterious blue-green stain.

Capitalizing on the influx of empirical believers, street vendors have sprung up across Dayton, selling evolutionary relics and artwork to the thousands of pilgrims waiting to catch a glimpse of the image. Available for sale are everything from small wooden shards alleged to be fragments of the “One True Beagle”—the research vessel on which Darwin made his legendary voyage to the Galapagos Islands—to lecture notes purportedly touched by English evolutionist Alfred Russel Wallace.

“I have never felt closer to Darwin’s ideas,” said zoologist Fred Granger, who waited in line for 16 hours to view the stain. “May his name be praised and his theories on natural selection echo in all the halls of naturalistic observation forever.”

Despite the enthusiasm the so-called “Darwin Smudge” has generated among the evolutionary faithful, disagreement remains as to its origin. Some believe the image is actually closer to the visage of Stephen Jay Gould, longtime columnist for Natural History magazine and originator of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, and is therefore proof of rapid cladogenesis. A smaller minority contend it is the face of Carl Sagan, and should be viewed as a warning to those nonbelievers who have not yet seen his hit PBS series Cosmos: A Personal Voyage.

Still others have attempted to discredit the miracle entirely, claiming that there are several alternate explanations for the appearance of the unexplained discoloration.

“It’s a stain on a wall, and nothing more,” said the Rev. Clement McCoy, a professor at Oral Roberts University and prominent opponent of evolutionary theory. “Anything else is the delusional fantasy of a fanatical evolutionist mindset that sees only what it wishes to see in the hopes of validating a baseless, illogical belief system. I only hope these heretics see the error of their ways before our Most Powerful God smites them all in His vengeance.”

But those who have made the long journey to Dayton remain steadfast in their belief that natural selection—a process by which certain genes are favored over others less conducive to survival—is the one and only creator of life as we know it. This stain, they claim, is the proof they have been waiting for.

“To those who would deny that genetic drift is responsible for a branching evolutionary tree of increasing biodiversity amid changing ecosystems, we say, ‘Look upon the face of Darwin!’” said Jeanette Cosgrove, who, along with members of her microbiology class, has maintained a candlelight vigil at the site for the past 72 hours.

“Over millions of successive generations, a specific subvariant of one species of slime mold adapted to this particular concrete wall, in order to one day form this stain, and thus make manifest this vision of Darwin’s glorious countenance,” Cosgrove said, overcome with emotion.

“It’s a miracle,” she added.