This week the Texas School Board will vote on the adoption of public school biology texts—in an atmosphere of rancor and controversy created by creationists who vetted those texts and suggested severe revisions to water down the “e-word” and discussions of global warming. But more on that later.
In such an atmosphere, the major daily paper of Austin, Texas—one of the more liberal redoubts of the state—has given ample space to a preacher to rail against evolution. The paper is the Austin American-Statesman (statesman.com), and the author is David Sweet, pastor of the Hays Hills Baptist church in Buda (!), Texas, who claims that “Science doesn’t explain everything about life’s origins.”
Once again, I fail to see why it’s considered good journalism to present both sides of an issue that’s settled: evolution happened. Well, actually, I do understand: it’s because the paper is catering to its many religious subscribers who don’t accept evolution. Yet that paper wouldn’t publish an op-ed by a faith healer claiming that Western medicine doesn’t work, or by a flat-earther decrying the spurious sphericity of our planet; but they do the equivalent when it comes to evolution. What a gutless move!
Sweet’s letter, however, contains a number of misconceptions, all fueled by the notion that it’s a big mistake to think that science is based on materialism. And, I suppose, a reader who doesn’t know much about science is likely to be taken in by what he says. For example (Sweet’s words are indented):
1. Physicists are desperate to overthrow the Standard Model of physics because it gives evidence for God.
Why so much energy given to overthrowing the Standard Model in the face of consistent, confirming evidence? Because a singular origin of the universe is too close for comfort to certain religious explanations of origins. Also, the perceived odds against a singular beginning resulting in a universe like the one we have appear to be mind-numbingly astronomical. One way to try to slightly mitigate [JAC: he means “militate”] against these crazy odds is to add more universes. It turns out that it’s not just fundamentalist Christians who have ideological issues with science.
That’s crazy. Physicists are expanding—or going beyond—the standard model because by itself it doesn’t tell us everything we want to know. How do we unify gravity with the other major forces of physics? And adding more universes is not a desperation move, but a prediction derived from inflationary cosmology and string theory. Physicists are, by and large, atheists, and have no motivation to try to overturn God, for his supposed actions are simply irrelevant to their interests. Ask any physicist: do your colleagues do their work because they’re sweating over the possibility of God? That’s absurd.
2. Materialism is increasingly coming under question.
Yet despite its failure to bring down the Standard Model, materialism has largely co-opted science. Science seems untouchable today, and so materialism seems untouchable. Philosopher Karl Popper coined the term “promissory materialism.” Materialism operates on the assumption that if a materialistic explanation is not available, it will be forthcoming, because — simply put — materialism is true. Thus, voila — there are no more mysteries! That was easy.
Not even wrong. Materialism is not an a priori assumption: it’s a tool that happens to have provided answers. In contrast, invocation of a deity has explained nothing. That’s why materialism seems “untouchable”, for no alternative methodology has given us any answers about the universe. A materialist approach is not an act of faith, but a working assumption. If there were evidence that immaterial minds had effects on the cosmos, scientists would eagerly pursue it. In fact, they have: studying things like telepathy, ESP, telekinesis, and intercessory prayer. None of these studies have given an iota of evidence for “immaterialism.”
Sweet continues:
Yet, increasingly philosophers of science, like David Chalmers and Thomas Nagel, are questioning whether dualism can be ruled out, either in origins of the cosmos or human consciousness. The intellectual leader of modern atheism, Anthony Flew, converted to theism based on new philosophical arguments, the struggle to explain the emergence of a single cell from non-life and the apparent design seen in the genome.
It’s telling that all the questioning of materialism cited by Sweet comes not from scientists but from renegade philosophers like Nagel and their “new philosophical arguments.” (Nagel, by the way, has no new arguments.) We are given no credible scientists who feel they must invoke dualism to explain cosmology or evolution. As for Anthony Flew, I believe there are other explanations for his conversion to theism.
3. There are big holes in the theory of evolution that suggest we should reject materialism.
One problem with teaching evolution in public schools (and it should be taught) is that, inevitably, it is over-simplified — as though evolution were an uncomplicated model with no loose ends. Students don’t hear of the fierce debates about various models within evolution or the constant mini-revolutions. (One way to give students an inkling of the complexities of the evolutionary enterprise is to have them read some articles over a few months from leading scientific magazines.)
A watered-down version of evolution contributes to the false implication that evolution is so well worked out that there is no longer room for mystery. Certainly materialists hope that this is the implication students go away with.
Well, I’m an evolutionary biologist, and yes, we have debates about the unanswered questions in our field. Is epigenetics (defined as environmentally-induced changes in the DNA) of any importance in evolution? How important is sexual selection or group selection in explaining the evolution of behavior and morphology? How often are such changes due to mutations in regulatory elements rather than in genes that produce proteins? These are real empirical questions and, if the history of science is any guide, will eventually yield materialistic explanations. Really, should we consider “God” when arguing about epigenetics? I haven’t seen anyone on either side mention that possibility.
4. Unanswered questions like the origin of life and the evolution of the human brain require non-materialist explanations (i.e., God).
I know that scientists have models for how life emerged from non-life — but it hasn’t been replicated in 150 years of attempts. Evolutionary-minded philosopher John Searle admits, “It is a scandal that we don’t know how life began, but it did — between 3 and 5 billion years ago.” Darwin had no clue of the mind-blowing complexity of a single cell, complete with information systems, so the mystery has only deepened with scientific knowledge. Is it too much to say that the appearance of life from non-life is a mystery?
How about the emergence of the human brain? Why such a brain when evolution posits gradualism based on slight evolutionary advantages? All we needed were brains to allow us to swing higher and run faster. Instead we got brains that allow us to do number theory, philosophy and contemplate that we contemplate.
Think of the many unanswered questions of science that we had 200 years ago. Many of those, including questions about the nature of matter, the origin of the universe, and how species change or new ones arose, have since been answered: all by materialistic investigation. Unanswered questions are just that—unanswered questions. Implying that they haven’t yet yielded to science is simply the discredited God-of-the-gaps gambit. In light of the continual progress of science, and the way it displaces religious explanations, any theologian with a brain in his head has given up invoking God-of-the-gaps. (Of course, there are plenty of brainless theologians.)
I’m not sure I’d call these things “mysteries” anyway, for that word has numinous connotations implying that the answer lies outside of science—in the realm of the divine. In fact, the puzzle (or “unanswered question”) of the origin of life hasn’t deepened, but been clarified, and progress has been made. We now know that RNA can act as a catalyst, providing a new avenue for studying the origin of life. There are new theories that life may have begun on a substrate of clay. These, too, give us new things to test.
I’m not sure what Sweet means by “models for the emergence of life” being “not replicated in 150 years of attempts,” but we don’t replicate models, we replicate results. And when we do produce replicating and metabolizing “life” in the lab under early-Earth conditions—something I think will happen in the next century—will Sweet admit he’s wrong? Or will he simply say, “Well, we don’t know that it did happen that way.”
As for his ludicrous notion that our brains are too complex to have evolved, since the selective pressures involved only swinging from the trees and running faster (these are conflicting, by the way), he needs to educate himself. The notion that the cerebral complexity of humans suggests the intervention of God—an idea that set Alfred Russel Wallace apart from his colleague Charles Darwin—ignores not only the novel selective pressures impinging on small bands of bipedal and social hominins (selection for language, tool use, a theory of mind, and so on), but also the fact that once we’ve achieved a certain level of neural complexity, things like playing chess, making music, and doing physics would arise as spandrels. Further, we can set in order (as Darwin did for the eye), different degrees of mental complexity in different existing species, and thereby construct scenarios for what advantages might accrue to some species evolving more complicated brains. It’s simply silly to say that once we came down from the trees and could run fast, that marked the end of new mutations’ ability to enhance our survival and reproduction.
5. Scientists lie by implying that all the big questions have been answered. They haven’t, and the answers involve rejecting materialism.
Is it fair to lead students to believe that there is no mystery in what we know so far about origins and evolution? Is it only for adults to grapple with the great questions, but leave young students with the impression that it’s all solved? Supporters of teaching evolution like to cite Francis Collins as an example of a Christian who supports teaching evolution in their defense of teaching evolution. Why would they not also support conveying to students that there are leading scientists like Collins who are not materialists?
The problem is materialism’s admixture with science. When materialism gets confused for science, students suffer. Science-education leaders should be equally concerned about the co-option of science by materialism as they are about its co-option by creationism.
I don’t know any scientist or teacher who tells students that we understand everything about evolution, nor that we understand how life arose from nonliving matter. As for Francis Collins, well, yes, he’s gone off the rails by implying that human morality and the “fine tuning” of the universe will never yield to science. But he’s an exception, and, at any rate, he’s never published a scientific paper in which he invokes a deity or the supernatural. As far as I know, the science he does is firmly wedded to materialism.
The decrying of “materialism” is, of course, a tactic right out of the Intelligent Design (ID) playbook, and goes back to the Wedge Document produced by the Discovery Institute in 1999. Recognizing that it was a losing strategy to force public schools to teach creationism, or to inject any religious views into the science curriculum, the IDers decided to use the “wedge” of materialism as a way to ultimately bring people to God. Here are the governing goals of the “anti-materialism” movement, as embodied in that document:
Let us make no mistake about pastor Sweet. What he is doing in his op-ed is using the supposedly invidious strategy of “materialism” as a way to sneak Jesus into the schools. Unfortunately for him, materialism works—in fact, it’s the only thing that’s worked in promoting the progress of science. When he comes up with a phenomenon that demands a nonmaterialistic approach, like evidence for ESP or telepathy, then science will pay attention. For the time being, he’s just an ignorant preacher who’s misleading the public—and I shouldn’t have wasted so much time on him.
h/t: Lamar
Well, perhaps you shouldn’t spend *too* much time on these ignoramuses but I don’t think of it as a waste (of time). In fact I rather enjoy it when you take them apart, destroy their pathetic arguments and, (from my high school days) “rip ’em a new one”.
Agreed. While most of the regulars probably are familiar with good counter arguments against creationist nonsense, the newcomers definitely benefit from reading stuff like this. And it never really gets old seeing their drivel get ripped apart! 😉
//
Why does the pastor think the standard model is non-materialistic and/or pro-god?
His logic and reasoning are about what one expects from someone who makes things up for a living.
“In such an atmosphere, the major daily paper of Austin, Texas—one of the more bastions parts of that state—has given ample space to a preacher to rail against evolution.”
You’re missing a word there; I guess you were deciding whether Austin was a “liberal bastion” or “liberal part” of Texas and forgot the word “liberal” here?
Probably just inadvertently cut the wrong word. Been there, done that.
Responded and challenged
“That paper wouldn’t publish an op-ed by a faith healer saying that Western medicine doesn’t work”
I wouldn’t bet on that one.
I, among many atheists, had never even heard of Anthony Flew before his “conversion” from atheism to whatever it was he converted to; how is it that the “intellectual leader of modern atheism” was relatively unknown to his “followers”.
Dammit! I only meant to italicize “heard”!
Same here!
He was well known c. 20-30 years ago, but was an academic rather than a popular writer. I think you’ll still find his books offered by Prometheus and other such sources.
Unfortunately, in his old age he began to suffer from some disability and apparently fell under the influence of some xian Svengali types. His last book, wherein theism is defended, was clearly (to my eyes) written by someone other than him. I think he was disabled and these apologists “helped” him by writing the book, in a whole new style with brand new arguments.
That’s right, there were serious allegations concerning the undue influence exercised over Flew, in his dotage, by the co-author of his final book and others.
Even then, Flew never took the plunge to theism. At the end, though he was having problems communicating at all, what he seemed to be espousing was a watery, loose-jointed form of deism.
He has written many important philosophical books (well they were considered so at the time, and he was influenced quite strongly by the Oxford ordinary language philosophy).
When I was at university in NZ in the 1970s his books “Introduction to Western Philosophy” (which is an excellent text, by the way) and “Thinking about Thinking” and “Thinking about Social Thinking” and “Rational Animal” were all recommended texts.
Personally, I found him a little verbose and old fashioned, but he was pretty well known as a philosopher.
His work on the philosophy of religion must also have been quite popular given the number of copies of his books in the university bookshops. However, I do remember one of the members of the Bertrand Russell Society visiting him at about the time he (supposedly) wrote the God Does Exist book and his comment was that he was extremely elderly, quite confused and very unlikely to have been able to take the lead writing on that book. I expect in reality he hadn’t changed his mind at all on the subject. But I would have to be careful what I say here in case there are any libel issues.
sub
2
3
You wrote: “And when we do produce replicating and metabolizing systems in the lab under early-life conditions — something I think will happen in the next century — will Sweet admit he’s wrong? Or will he simply say, “Well, we don’t know that it did happen that way.””
Probably neither. People thinking like this will completely miss the importance of early life conditions. They’ll say, “Intelligent humans DESIGNED that new form of life; this is evidence that life billions of years ago was also designed.”
I’ve had this argument.
Pretend, just for a moment, that the good pastor is correct in all his arguments. That would mean that his bronze-age desert deity with the foreskin fetish is the One True Dude? Yeah, seems legit.
Oh, and BTW (physics geek here) the Standard Model is a particle physics theory describing the electromagnetic and weak & strong nuclear forces along with the most basic (so far) particles (e.g. quarks, neutrinos, electrons). The only thing it has to do with cosmology is that your cosmology shouldn’t break the Standard Model.
But if the Deity WEREN’T the foreskin fetishist, why would humans be designed with foreskins that could be cut off?
Good point. Intelligent design, clearly.
For the answer to that get Sam Singleton’s “Patriarchs and Penises.”
“One problem with teaching evolution in public schools (and it should be taught) is that, inevitably, it is over-simplified…” This is true for almost all of science, even more so in Physics. In schools they wouldn’t touch relativity or quantum mechanics, although it maybe mentioned without detail. This is not a problem. Hearing the “fierce debates” and reading from leading scientific magazines would only confuse school students, if any of it could be understood. Again this is not just in evolutionary biology.
If he thinks materialistic science does not or can not give answers, or very good answers he should at least attempt to provide an alternative. Sweet’s typical god-of-the-gaps argument mostly comes from his own ignorance, he doesn’t understand basic science and this makes those god shaped gaps much bigger for him. If he were to educate himself his god would shrink.
Yeah, and I think too that one problem with teaching Christianity in church is that, inevitably, it is over-simplified.
Too true. They don’t even bother to read their textbook.
“…the author is David Sweet, pastor of the Hays Hills Baptist church in Buda (!), Texas…”
Locals here pronounce it “Byoo-duh”.
If you imagine yourself in the hometown of cartoon-character Hank Hill from Matt Groening’s King of the Hill you won’t be far off the mark.
Actually, it’s Mike Judge, of Beavis and Butthead fame.
Does anyone have a reference for Pastor David Sweet’s quote?:-
It is a common tactic for preachers & their ilk to put quote marks around any old rot. They even do it for the words of Jesus when it suits them. So I have a suspicion the Searle quote is made up, heavily paraphrased or leaves out some important context. I’ve read Searle on the “scandal” [meaning various types of definitional confusion] of consciousness & also of free will, but nothing along those lines with respect to abiogenesis.
I suspect also that Searle might just be being honest – in the sense we *don’t* know details of how life began. We know something, though, and even if we didn’t, “therefore jebus” is a howler of reasoning.
Also to call Searle “evolutionary-minded” a bit weird. To my knowledge he has never written about philosophy of biology. He is a materialist, though his stuff on “intrinsic intensionality” is a bit weird and certainly not consensus by any means. (And most philosophers of AI agree that his most famous work to the public at large is wrongheaded.)
Finally, I cannot find the quote except in the original article, to boot.
I think Pastor Sweet has [wilfully?] half remembered this quote by Searle [or read a 3rd-hand quote mine of it]…
…and conflated consciousness, free will & abiogenesis ~ which I suppose is possible if one believes in souls/dualism. That’s the best explanation I can come up with ~ it being true that evangelical theists put persuasion & conversion as a higher duty to God than respect for truth in advertising. 🙂
I emailed Pastor David Sweet regarding the source of the quote & he replied in a comment beneath the article [as dassy].
Note the parts in bold are closest to David’s quote of Searle & I’ve encased the whole thing in the context.
Searle: Philosophy of Mind, lecture 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi7Va_4ekko
0:06:20 The two central facts of intellectual life are the atomic theory of matter & the evolutionary theory of biology. We already know how, consistent with physics, we can show how humans & other species evolved ~ you have big carbon-based molecules with lots of hydrogen, nitrogen & oxygen ~ and somehow or other life began and here’s the big scandal, we don’t know how life began on Earth, but we do know it did begin & once you’ve got it going, if you’ve got three to five billion years to operate with you’ve got enough room for evolution to work, and it did work, and here we are ~ we are the products of three billion years or so of evolution of big carbon-based molecules & lifeforms.
Sorry about the embed. Forgot to use the tags to prevent it.
Great piece Dr. Coyne.
I do appreciate the time you put into it. I know that the arguments are super tedious for someone like yourself, but for the rest of us, it’s great to see them dealt with so cogently.
See this article from the Dallas Observer on the same topic. Raymond Bohlin got a doctorate in molecular biology just so that he could serve as a creationist on the textbook selection committee.
http://www.dallasobserver.com/2013-11-14/news/creationists-last-stand-at-the-state-board-of-education/full/
The Observer article offers not only biographical material useful for understanding positions espoused by Dr. Bohlin, it provides both a comprehensive history of the last half century of textbook materials selection as well as a glimpse into possibilities for future student text materials and selection processes.
Much like Moonie Jonathan Wells got a PhD in biology so he could take down Darwinism.
Hmm… After reading his musings, I’m wondering if it’s possible to be an anti-materialist and how the hell would that work?
I’d imagine it would sort of leave you in conflict with yourself in a very fundamental way.
No problem, let’s start earlier – let’s start in elementary school and build on that in high school so we have everything covered.
I really worry about the future when I see how people wear ignorance like a badge of honour. I really think we’re selecting for stupid in this day & age.
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/)
Ha ha! That looks entertaining.
It’s alright. I was expecting a few more laughs, but it’s funny in its own surreal way…
Good for popcorn and a lazy sunday. 🙂
Actually, it’s depressing.
🙁
What does the pastor think why d*g gave monkeys so much bigger brains than insects? If “swing higher and run faster” is the only thing they need to do…
It’s one thing to say science doesn’t know everything, it’s another to attribute that to materialism. That is making an argument from ignorance, and one stooped in motivated reasoning. If there are mysteries, why shouldn’t we think they’ll have materialist answers? After all, materialism has been highly empirically successful. Even worse is that non-materialism isn’t even a scientific theory. So materialism is being dismissed in favour of an unscientific concept.
I really don’t think materialism is a problem in science, but it is a huge problem in the understanding of science. It can be portrayed as some underlying concept, and thus whole swathes of disagreeable science can be dismissed on meta-grounds.
I have a rule of thumb in debates that when materialism is brought out, that’s a sign they don’t have a good grasp of what science is. At that point, it becomes a clash of worldviews, where God science is sacrificed for the dismissal of unfavorable metaphysics.
In fairness, it should be pointed out that Francis Collins mostly accepts materialistic explanations in science. Similarly with Ken Miller who describes himself as a methodological naturalist and philosophical theist.
Although the human brain is unique on this planet, it should be pointed out that there are a number of other brains that approach the human brain in terms of relative size (encephalization). Thus the various varieties of Homo Erectus varied between 700cc (Home habilis) and Homo heidelbergensis (1200cc) while Neanderthals sized out at 1450cc. The difference is more in organization then in relative size.
“The difference is more in organization then in relative size.”
Absolutely. Remember, human children can speak (in some cases, multiple languages) before they turn 3. At that point they are a little over 3 feet tall, weigh between 30-40 pounds, and IIRC have a cranial capacity just north of 900cc.
IOW, there are critters living on earth, today, that reason and speak using complex language, and which are smaller and have less cranial capacity than many earlier hominids. This is not to say that other hominids did reason the way we do, only that we should be very cautious about ruling out reasoning power based merely on cubic centemeters of skull. It is, as you say, about organization rather than (mere) volume.
What makes arguments like Sweet’s and the Catholic Church’s work is the word “materialism”. To most people, the word refers to materialist greed. This conflation/confusion is intentional.
If people realized these religious apologists were referring to material reality, Sweet et. al. would be laughed at.
No, I think a lot of people really do either think they are the same thing — or that one of them (belief in ‘materialism’) invariably leads to the other (being a ‘materialistic’ person.)
The argument goes this way:
A scientific materialist is someone who believes that only physical, material things exist. If they can’t pick it up, hold it, or see it, then as far as they’re concerned there’s no such thing.
But consider all the things which are real and which can’t be seen, picked up, or held — like love. Or beauty. Or the value of friendship and honesty and trust.
A materialist doesn’t believe in these things — not really. Therefore, a scientific materialist will care only about money and items they can buy — get, get, get in order to fill an empty heart. Their world view is ultimately impoverished.
On the other hand, people who DO believe in non-material things — like God and love and the simple pleasure of sitting on a beautiful beach — are capable of experiencing the entire range of reality. Materialism: boo, hiss.
Yes, this is probably how Sweet is being sweet to us — and the general public laps it up because he only reflects the common confusion, he and his ilk don’t create it ex nihilio..
Very glad that you took the time. Thanks for putting their deceitful arguments in perspective.
I can easily understand an editor giving space to some one who reflects his opinions or the opinions of the majority of the newspaper’s readers. It makes good business sense.
It also makes good business sense to flame the embers of debate with an oposing view point, such as Jerry’s. If the editor had any balls, he would do exactly that.
I reject “materialism” too. Drop the dead donkey cos it’s a complete red herring. Science does not assume only the “material” exists. Science simply seeks the best explanations to questions about the world. The best are those which stand up to severe testing and explain more and/or require less assumptions than other possible explanations. None of this demands “materialism” or “naturalism”. Other than science what do we have?
Miraculous knowledge appears out of nowhere, preformed, complete and perfect. It seems only to happen to certain individuals who sometimes succeed in convincing some others of its truth. However, such miracles never seem to inform us how the universe operates in any practically useful way. Science does just that
Unfortunately, science *does* assume that. However, it is not an ungrounded conclusion, but one supported by 2500 years of research and inquiry. Well established conservation laws are basically what killed immaterialisms of many kinds (others by other techniques and discoveries).
(Note: some physicists do not call electromagnetic radiation matter; this is just a terminological decision. EMR possesses energy, so it is certainly matter in the broad sense.)
Flew converted to intelligent design.
Not theism. Theism implies a good intelligence behind the universe. Intelligent design doesn’t.
A god intelligence?
I thought it was well established that ID was simply creationism in disguise.
Yes, god. Flew thought that god had to be responsible for the good and the evil in the world.
DI ID is creationism masquerading as science of course. But they are also high-jacking the philosophical notion of intelligent design. Theists of every hue do that as a matter of course. Flew made it clear that his god had a little “d”.
duh, that should be little “g”.
> to water down […] discussions of global warming
That one made me smile.
My pet peeve is that these kinds of people cite the odds of something like an amoeba spontaneously arising as first life, as if they’ve never considered Archaea or their proto-cell antecedents.
Well done by Jerry as usual.
My immediate reflections:
Fractal failure.
– There is a “Standard Model” of particles (as commented on up thread), but none of physics that is consensual. Well, maybe you could count semiclassical models (GR at low energies + QFT) but even then people tend to go outside the SM QFTs.
We do know that semiclassical physics is not complete (doesn’t give neutrino masses, doesn’t give DM, doesn’t give DE explicitly, …), which is why much energy is given to extend it.
– Particle physicists tend to like a singular origin, still the consensus despite that inflation leaves it open and an overthrown semiclassical physics would too.
– If you adhere to semiclassical physics even inflation would need a singularity by way of semiclassical singularity theorems. It is the extensions (or replacement) of it that threatens singularity ideas.
If Sweet means a complete mystery, it is too much. We do know possible pathways (Sweet’s “models”).
Lane, who is looking at abiogenesis has repeatedly under 2012 in peer review stated that we may be very close to test such pathways (Russell started experiments 2010, I gather), and that alkaline hydrothermal vents are our evolutionary roots. [ I just read this: http://www.nick-lane.net/Lane%20formamide%20Phys%20Life%20Rev.pdf ; and we have his and Martin’s “Origin” paper.]
Lane [jan 2012]:
“Much fine experimental work has been done, but the gaps between laboratory chemistry, geological environments, and real biochemistry in living cells are still great. Closing those gaps is the task at hand, and we might be surprisingly close.”
“What has been missing from this scenario is extensive experimental work. Russell himself has built a hydrothermal reactor and is exploring the geochemical origins of biochemistry [8,9]; and others, notably Braun and colleagues in Munich, have made headway on the origins of replication via thermal cycling [10]. But a detailed chemical simulation of autotrophic origins under warm alkaline conditions is missing. The next best thing, an impressive body of experimental work, is reported in this issue of Physics of Life Reviews by Di Mauro and colleagues in Rome [11].”
To you a waste, but to those of us who can hear a duck quack*, but are unable to verbalise how we hear the quacking, an excellent read. Thanks so much.
*trying not to use bad language here