text:
General and Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology
The general evidence for intelligent design in biological systems is evidence that can be used to support both unintelligent causation (e.g., Darwinism) and intelligent causation (i.e., intelligent design theory). Thus, the general evidence for intelligent design is the same evidence that evolutionists, particularly Darwinists, use to support theories of unintelligent causation. However, an objective approach shows that Darwinism is only one interpretation of the evidence. As with any evidentiary question in which present day evidence is used to determine a past historical event (as in crime solving), it's the interpretation of the evidence against competing explanatory theories that permits one to converge on a best explanation. In the case of origins science the present day evidence in nature can be viewed in light of alternative explanatory causes. To a priori rule out intelligent causation and mandate only explanations involving unintelligent causes removes the inquiry from the realm of science.[1] Insisting that science can only consider unintelligent causation converts origins science into unchallengeable dogma. Science should be tentative, considering all reasonable causal inferences based on observed material data.
The fact of speciation, that is, that we observe distinct species of plants and animals in nature, is strong evidence of intelligent design.[2]
Darwin attempted to explain how unguided, purposeless processes could create new species. Darwin analogized to intelligent breeding, which involves intelligent selection among variant offspring to produce differences in future generations of a given animal or plant line. Darwin theorized that if intelligent agents could produce variations in physical characteristics in pigeons, for example, perhaps nature, via natural selection, over time could produce all the variety of species we observe.
Modern science calls Darwin's theory into question for at least two reasons. First, regardless of whether "selection" is unintelligent (by nature alone) or intelligent (by breeding), the selection process can only be effective once there is a favorable variation in the base species from which to "select". What this means is that regardless the efficacy of "natural selection", there is nothing to select until some beneficial feature or characteristic is created in the first place. Current scientific data shows that variations in the genome, i.e., random mutations, are rarely, if ever, beneficial in an organism. Most mutations are either neutral in effect, or harmful. Therefore, the idea that "selection" can be made in an unguided, unintelligent manner among largely harmful mutations to result in long term beneficial speciation is not supported by the evidence. Second, even when intelligent selection is utilized, such as in the breeding of dogs, cows, or fruit flies, the evidence shows that regardless the extent of selection, the respective species remain intact.[3] No amount of intelligent selection, as in breeding, has ever produced any new, beneficial features, like new organs, new eyes, new wings, etc.[4]
Therefore, the scientific question with respect to speciation is this: What evidence is there that unintelligent processes can create new, beneficial variations, such as genetic mutations, that can then be selected to propagate to future generations?
Darwin's 19th century theory was bolstered with the advent of modern genetics, microbiology, and other science disciplines, from which neo-Darwinism was born. Neo-Darwinism holds that the variation necessary for creating new features and benefits arises due primarily to the random mutations that occur in the genome of a living organism.
But can the random variation produced by chance mutations in the genome produce any beneficial change, and especially enough long-term, directional change in major features and body plans to create a new species? To date there is no evidence to suggest that such unintelligent variation can cause speciation. Just as intelligent selection can produce only different versions of an existing species, it appears from the evidence that unintelligent variation (i.e., random mutations) is likewise limited to change only within the bounds of a species. Even the intelligent manipulation of existing species such as the fruit fly has produced only more and different fruit flies.
There is simply no evidence to suggest that the random action of chance mutations can create beneficial changes from which natural selection can "select" sufficient to produce new body plans evident in even closely related species. In fact, random mutations are almost universally neutral in effect, but when of a magnitude to affect the organism are likewise almost universally detrimental to the health of the organism. In most cases such mutations result in what are called birth defects.
For this reason, the fact of different species, each being bounded by a genomic limit with respect to change, is evidence for intelligent design. An intelligent cause can create with a purpose. An intelligent cause can be forward looking to produce changes that are beneficial. An intelligent cause can create information-bearing genetic instructions, where unintelligent causes can simply shuffle genetic information in random ways, usually harming the organism.
Fossils offer both positive evidence for design, and negative evidence for Darwinian gradualism.
Positive Evidence for Design
Fossils exhibit features that appear designed, much like living organisms. The scientific question presented is, "is the design exhibited by fossils the result of unintelligent causes, or intelligent causes?"
The assumption of those steeped only in Darwinism, of course, is that fossils are solely the result of unintelligent causes, specifically Darwin's "descent with modification" in which each fossil is the unintelligently modified version of an ancestor in a gradual chain of cause and effect occurrences. The unintelligent operations of physics and chemistry alone are believed to have produced the specified complexity observed in fossils, and in ever-increasing specification and complexity over time.
The true cause of fossils can only be determined by testing known causal agents to see if they can produce the specified complexity evident in the design of fossils. Unintelligent causes such as the random variation of mutations or the deterministic law of natural selection have not been shown to be capable of producing specified complexity, much less new and more specified complexity. Specifically, natural selection (which can only select what is already created) has no creative power. The only things that can be "selected" are things already in existence. Therefore, in Darwinism any "creating" of new DNA information coding for new body designs as evidenced in fossils must be produced by unintelligent deterministic physics. Each random mutation of the genome of an existing body plan must be directionally beneficial in producing a new, beneficial body plan. But, as discussed above, no unintelligent natural process has been shown to produce new, beneficial morphology, or new, beneficial information content in the genome, or new species. Therefore, the ability of Darwinian processes to produce the specified complexity evident in fossils is called into serious question.
Negative Evidence of Darwinian Gradualism
Charles Darwin himself recognized in his book On the Origin of Species[5] that the fossil record does not support his theory. Beginning in Chapter 6, entitled, "Difficulties on Theory", Darwin himself noted that among the "crowd of difficulties" with Darwinism, the foremost difficulty is that the fossil record does not support his theory of gradual descent with modification. Darwin himself asked: "why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?"[6]
There are no unambiguous transitional forms, and few purported forms in a fossil record that should be teeming with millions upon millions of such creatures. Such knowledge is common among educated scientists and paleontologists, but virtually unknown among members of the public, including students. In fact, evolutionist Stephen J. Gould described the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists" in his book, The Panda's Thumb (see further, below).
Note the surprising conventional wisdom that fossils are not only evidence, but proof of "evolution". Rather than being proof for Darwinism, however, an honest assessment of the evidence shows fossils to be stronger evidence of true design than unguided, purposeless evolution. Consider, for example, the preeminent Darwinist Ernst Mayr, known as "the Darwin of the 20th century."[7] In his 2001 book entitled What Evolution Is[8] Mayr discusses the evidence for evolution in Chapter 2, in a section headed "What evidence does the evolutionist have?" Predictably, he first discusses the fossil evidence. Specifically, on page 14 of the paperback Basic Books edition, he states:
Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. [9]
Mayr goes on to make clear that the fossil record does not support Darwinian gradualism (as noted above, a fact Darwin himself recognized, but believed future fossil finds would fill in the gaps). Then Mayr asks a revealingly honest question:
This raises a puzzling question: Why does the fossil record fail to reflect the gradual change one would expect from evolution?[10]
The fact is that the fossil evidence does not support Darwinian gradualism. It never has and likely never will. Evolutionists such as Stephen Jay Gould were forced to propose theories such as "punctuated equilibrium" to "save the phenomena," i.e., explain the evidence in a coherent fashion." Stephen J. Gould refers to the rarity of transitional fossils as the "'trade secret' of paleontologists". Gould states:
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. Yet Darwin was so wedded to gradualism that he wagered his entire theory on a denial of this literal record: ". . . He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory." [11]
Comparative anatomy of many living beings shows similarity in morphology, i.e., in body parts and structure. Sometimes referred to as an organism's Bauplan, which is a German word coined to refer to the "building plan" or "blueprint" of the organism, common or "homologous" morphological features such as skeletal frameworks point to a common intelligent designer. Just as modern architects use blueprints having common building features and engineers use common parts in different models of machines, it is not surprising that an intelligent designer of living beings would use common structure across various "models" of animals. In fact, it would be surprising if that were not the case.
Without a "rule" that prohibits a scientific inference of intelligent causation,[12] common homology among various organisms would be plainly and simply clear evidence of intelligent design. As Jonathan Wells[13] and Paul Nelson[14] explain in their essay, Homology, a Concept in Crisis,[15] "Before Darwin, homology was defined morphologically and explained by reference to ideal archetypes -- that is, to intelligent design." It is only when unintelligent causes are mandated that common morphological features are "proof" of unintelligent Darwinian descent with modification. Wells and Nelson continue:
Darwin reformulated biology in naturalistic* rather than teleological terms, and explained homology as the result of descent with modification from a common ancestor. Descent with modification, however, renders design unnecessary only if it is due entirely to naturalistic mechanisms. Two such mechanisms have been proposed, genetic programs and developmental pathways, but neither one fits the evidence. Without an empirically demonstrated naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, design remains a possibility which can only be excluded on the basis of questionable philosophical assumptions.
*In this article, "naturalism" and "naturalistic" refer to the philosophical doctrine that nature is the whole of reality, and that intelligent causation does not qualify as a scientific explanation.
Wells and Nelson continue:
Diverse organisms possess homologous features. Homology in some cases may or may not be due to inheritance from a common ancestor, but it is definitely not due to similarity of genes or similarity of developmental pathways. In 1971, Gavin de Beer wrote: "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same 'patterns', in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered." (de Beer, 1971, p.16) Twenty-six years later, the question still has not been answered.
Without a naturalistic mechanism to account for homology, however, Darwinian evolution cannot claim to have demonstrated scientifically that living things are undesigned, and the possibility remains that homologies are patterned after non-material archetypes. Without a demonstrated mechanism, naturalistic biologists are left with only one alternative: exclude design a priori, on philosophical grounds.
This exclusion could be taken as a statement that intelligent design does not exist, or it could be taken as a statement that intelligent design is beyond the reach of empirical science. The first is a philosophical or theological statement, and warrants the same response. The second is a methodological limitation which cannot be logically extrapolated to a limitation on reality. In other words, a scientist who makes the first move is engaging in metaphysical disputation, while a scientist who makes the second is declining to investigate a possible aspect of reality.
Unfortunately, many biologists make both moves, but fail to distinguish logically between them. While justifying their exclusion of intelligent design on methodological grounds, they act as though science has disproved its existence by providing a naturalistic explanation for homology. When confronted with the fact that science has failed in this regard, they reaffirm their methodological commitment and express faith that a naturalistic mechanism will someday be discovered.
In the end, Wells and Nelson contend that genetics and developmental pathways are insufficient unintelligent causal agents to account for common morphology.
Further information from a creationist perspective can be found at The Parent Company[16] in an essay entitled Do Similarities Prove Evolution from a Common Ancestor?
Special Evidence for Intelligent Design in Biology
The special evidence for intelligent design in biological systems is material evidence for which there is no known naturalistic explanation. Such evidence can only reasonably be considered to support an inference of intelligent causation (i.e., Intelligent design theory).
Origin of Life
To date there are no known naturalistic (involving only unintelligent processes) causes known that can explain the occurrence of life from non-life. Of all the proposed explanations for first life, only intelligent causation is tenable.
Darwin did not (and did not purport to) provide any explanation for the origin of the first replicating life form necessary for his theory of origin of species to work. That is, Darwinism is a naturalistic explanation for the origin of species that assumes a replicating life form to start the process.
Origin of life from non-living sources is termed abiogenesis or chemical evolution[17] and scientific hypotheses that seek explanations for a first replicating life form suitable for Darwinian processes must postulate at least an unintelligent, deterministic physical cause for the first complex strand of DNA or other biologically active material.
Atheists, evolutionists and Darwinists who seek to provide an explanation for abiogenesis face the problem of proposing how the extremely unlikely occurrence of life could appear or evolve from purely unintelligent physical causes. By any account, the probability of such an occurrence by any known natural causes over any postulated time period is so low as to make the occurrence practically impossible.
By way of example of the probabilistically impossible odds of abiogenesis, consider the May 31, 2007 paper published by Eugene V. Koonin of the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Peer reviewed and published in Biology Today,[18] Koonin calculated the probability of the most simple life form arising by natural processes, with the following conclusion:
The requirements for the emergence of a primitive, coupled replication-translation system, which is considered a candidate for the breakthrough stage in this paper, are much greater. At a minimum, spontaneous formation of:
- two rRNAs with a total size of at least 1000 nucleotides
- ~10 primitive adapters of ~30 nucleotides each, in total, ~300 nucleotides
- at least one RNA encoding a replicase, ~500 nucleotides (low bound) is required. In the above notation, n = 1800, resulting in E <10-1018.
That is, the chance of life occurring by natural processes is 1 in 10 followed by 1018 zeros. Koonin's intent was to show that short of postulating a multiverse of an infinite number of universes, the chance of life occurring on earth is vanishingly small, and we can understand the practical import to be that life by natural processes in a universe such as ours to be impossible.
Other prominent evolutionists agree that naturally occurring life from non-life is impossible. Evolutionist and theoretical physicist Paul Davies, for example, considers random self-assembly of proteins to be "a nonstarter".[19] Davies recognizes that life as we know it requires hundreds of thousands of specialist proteins, not to mention the nucleic acids; the number of amino acids sequenced in a small protein is 10^130 (written as one followed by 130 zeros). According to Davies, such an improbable sequence that is best explained by unconventional theories such as life has always existed. That is, there was no origin of life, because life is eternal, "spread around the universe … without having originated anywhere in particular".[20]
Davies also argues for a yet-to-be-discovered natural law, one that could be capable of abiogenesis:
[E]mergent laws of complexity offer reasonable hope for a better understanding not only of biogenesis, but of biological evolution too. Such laws might differ from the familiar laws of physics in a fundamental and important respect. Whereas the laws of physics merely shuffle information around, a complexity law might actually create information, or at least wrest it from the environment and etch it onto a material structure.[21]
With respect to problems presented regarding the chance origin of life, and his proposed explanations, Davies concluded, "If you have found the foregoing argument persuasive, you could be forgiven for concluding that a genome really is a miraculous object. However, most of the problems I have outlined above apply with equal force to the evolution of the genome over time" [22]
Likewise, Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick (who along with James Watson, determined DNA's molecular structure), considered the chance synthesis of even a small protein of 200 amino acids so improbable that he concluded that "the great majority of sequences can never have been synthesized at all, at any time." [23]
Finally, consider Sir Fred Hoyle, an atheist astronomer who nevertheless reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence. In 1978, Hoyle described Charles Darwin's theory of evolution as wrong and claimed that the belief that the first living cell was created in the "sea of life" was just as erroneous. Together with Chandra Wickramasinghe, Hoyle stated:
Precious little in the way of biochemical evolution could have happened on the Earth. It is easy to show that the two thousand or so enzymes that span the whole of life could not have evolved on the Earth. If one counts the number of trial assemblies of amino acids that are needed to give rise to the enzymes, the probability of their discovery by random shufflings turns out to be less than 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000.[24]
Mathematician and intelligent design theorist William Dembski calculates a "universal probability bound" at 10^150 (1 in 10 followed by 150 zeros).[25]
Clearly, then, to an objective observer of the material evidence, the fact of life's existence, knowing that it must have a genesis, or a beginning, holds little in the way of evidence for naturalistic, unguided, unintelligent processes of nature.
Origin of life, therefore, is prima facie evidence of intelligent agency, and is at minimum sufficient observational evidence to support a reasonable scientific inference of intelligent design.
Specified Complex Information
Specified Complex Information (SCI) is noted by William Dembski as strong evidence of intelligent agency in biological systems. Based on the probability of certain arrangements or components of a whole, Dembski explains his idea in an essay entitled Explaining Specified Complexity[26]
Briefly, Dembski states:
Life is both complex and specified. The basic intuition here is straightforward. A single letter of the alphabet is specified without being complex (i.e., it conforms to an independently given pattern but is simple). A long sequence of random letters is complex without being specified (i.e., it requires a complicated instruction-set to characterize but conforms to no independently given pattern). A Shakespearean sonnet is both complex and specified.
"Information" is the intangible property of an arrangement of elements that imparts a message or conveys meaning. Just as a book is more than paper and ink, the message formed by the specific, non-random combination of letters and spaces you are now reading reflects the purposeful character of this sentence. Living organisms exhibit vast amounts of information content similar to that in a computer program. In fact, information is defined as "the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects."[27] The idea that the information in a computer program or in DNA could possibly be formed in an unspecified manner by unintelligent causes is a matter for mathematicians and statisticians, all of whom report back numbers that, in the time available in our universe, make such an occurrence by unguided processes effectively impossible.
DNA is one example of specified complex information in living organisms, reflecting a purposefulness that cannot be reduced to matter alone. As intelligent design theorist Phillip E. Johnson explains:
The important thing about DNA is not the chemicals but the information in the software, just as the important thing about a computer program or a book is the information content and not the physical medium in which that information is recorded.[28]
Very simply, there is no known unguided, purposeless process (including Darwinism) that can make non-repetitive, specified sequences of matter, particularly the long, detailed sequences of DNA, comparable in quantity and quality to an entire set of encyclopedias.[29]
The information content of DNA is many, many times more complex and specified than a Shakespearean sonnet. Just as no scientist would suggest that Shakespearean sonnets were the work of unintelligent causes (even if the author were unknown), the presence of specified, complex information in DNA is equally dispositive of intelligent causes in living systems. The question of the cause of Specified Complex Information is critical to the origins science debate. If "evolution" means "change over time," then there is no controversy. However, if "evolution" is defined as "a natural, unguided, information-producing process capable of creating Specified Complex Information," then virtually no one would be an evolutionist based on the evidence. The evidence overwhelmingly suggests an intelligent cause. However, the question of the source of Complex Specified Information is secondary, and not necessarily a scientific question. But to rule out intelligent causes for Specified Complex Information based on the supposed inability for science to detect the source (e.g., as due to a conflict between "science" and "religion") is to make a category mistake. As Dembski states, "The proper contrast is between natural causes on the one hand and intelligent causes on the other." Dembski elaborates:
Intelligent causes can do things that natural causes cannot. Natural causes can throw scrabble pieces on a board but cannot arrange the pieces to form meaningful words or sentences. To obtain a meaningful arrangement requires an intelligent cause. Whether an intelligent cause operates within or outside nature (i.e., is respectively natural or supernatural) is a separate question entirely from whether an intelligent cause has operated.[30]
For more on the importance of biological information, see, Stephen C. Meyer, The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories, Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,.[31] Meyer argues, citing numerous studies by other scientists, that no current materialistic theory of evolution can account for the origin of the information necessary to build novel animal forms. Proposing intelligent design as an alternative explanation, arguing that new life forms such as those exhibited in the Cambrian explosion can only be attributed to a "remarkable jump" in complex specified information. No known material cause exists for such a jump.
Irreducible ComplexityMichael Behe, Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University, argues that the most convincing evidence for design is not to be found in the stars or the fossils, but in biochemical systems. Author of Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,[32] and The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism,[33] Behe has posed a scientific response to Charles Darwin's challenge in Origin of Species:
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.
Michale Behe claims to have shown exactly what Darwin claimed would destroy the theory of evolution, through a concept he calls irreducible complexity. As explained by the Intelligent Design and Evolution Awareness Center (IDEA),[34] "In simple terms, this idea applies to any system of interacting parts in which the removal of any one part destroys the function of the entire system. An irreducibly complex system, then, requires each and every component to be in place before it will function."
The IDEA Center continues:
Since the publication of Darwin's Black Box, Behe has refined the definition of irreducible complexity. In 1996 he wrote that "any precursor to an irreducibly complex system that is missing a part is by definition nonfunctional.".[35] By defining irreducible complexity in terms of "nonfunctionality," Behe casts light on the fundamental problem with evolutionary theory: evolution cannot produce something where there would be a non-functional intermediate. Natural selection only preserves or "selects" those structures which are functional. If it is not functional, it cannot be naturally selected. Thus, Behe's latest definition of irreducible complexity is as follows:
"An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway." (A Response to Critics of Darwin's Black Box, by Michael Behe, PCID, Volume 1.1, January February March, 2002; iscid.org/)
Evolution simply cannot produce complex structures in a single generation as would be required for the formation of irreducibly complex systems. To imagine that a chance set of mutations would produce all 200 proteins required for cilia function in a single generation stretches the imagination beyond the breaking point. And yet, producing one or a few of these proteins at a time, in standard Darwinian fashion, would convey no survival advantage because those few proteins would have no function-indeed, they would constitute a waste of energy for the cell to even produce. Darwin recognized this as a potent threat to his theory of evolution-the issue that could completely disprove his idea. So the question must be raised: Has Darwin's theory of evolution "absolutely broken down?" According to Michael Behe, the answer is a resounding "yes."
For a good description of irreducible complexity, including examples, see the entire article at the IDEA Center website.[36] Michael Behe's concept of irreducible complexity is further explained by the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (ISCID)[37] in their Encyclopedia of Science and Philosophy:[38]
Michael Behe's Original Definition: A single system composed of several well-matched, interacting parts that contribute to the basic function of the system, wherein the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to effectively cease functioning. (Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution,[39] p. 39)
William Dembski's Enhanced Definition: A system performing a given basic function is irreducibly complex if it includes a set of well-matched, mutually interacting, nonarbitrarily individuated parts such that each part in the set is indispensable to maintaining the system's basic, and therefore original, function. The set of these indispensable parts is known as the irreducible core of the system. (No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot be Purchased Without Intelligence,[40] p. 285)
Michael Behe's "Evolutionary" Definition:
An irreducibly complex evolutionary pathway is one that contains one or more unselected steps (that is, one or more necessary-but-unselected mutations). The degree of irreducible complexity is the number of unselected steps in the pathway.
Behe first introduced the concept of irreducible complexity in his book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.[41] He has since expanded on the concept in his book The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism.[42] In Edge of Evolution he extends his analysis to define what evolution is capable of doing and what is beyond its scope.
In Darwin's Black Box Behe used the illustration of a mousetrap as an example of an irreducibly complex system. See here.[43] A simple mousetrap includes: (1) a flat wooden platform to act as a base; (2) a metal hammer, which does the actual job of crushing the little mouse; (3) a wire spring with extended ends to press against the platform and the hammer when the trap is charged; (4) a sensitive catch which releases when slight pressure is applied; and (5) a metal bar which holds the hammer back when the trap is charged and connects to the catch. There are also assorted staples and screws to hold the system together.
If any one of the components of the mousetrap (the base, hammer, spring, catch, or holding bar) is removed, then the trap does not function. In other words, the simple little mousetrap has no ability to trap a mouse until several separate parts are all assembled, i.e., all the parts arrive in functional order and are assembled at the same time. Because the mousetrap is necessarily composed of several parts, it is irreducibly complex. Thus, irreducibly complex systems exist.
Behe then asks: Now, are any biochemical systems irreducibly complex? Yes, it turns out that many are. In many biological structures proteins are simply components of larger molecular machines. Like the picture tube, wires, metal bolts and screws that comprise a television set, many proteins are part of structures that only function when virtually all of the components have been assembled. A good example of this is a cilium. The components of cilia are single molecules. This means that there are no more black boxes to invoke; the complexity of the cilium is final, fundamental. And just as scientists, when they began to learn the complexities of the cell, realized how silly it was to think that life arose spontaneously in a single step or a few steps from ocean mud, so too we now realize that the complex cilium can not be reached in a single step or a few steps. But since the complexity of the cilium is irreducible, then it can not have functional precursors. Since the irreducibly complex cilium can not have functional precursors it can not be produced by natural selection, which requires a continuum of function to work. Natural selection is powerless when there is no function to select. We can go further and say that, if the cilium can not be produced by natural selection, then the cilium was designed.
Another example is the bacterial flagellum. As quoted at Access Research Network,[44] Behe explains: "Because the bacterial flagellum is necessarily composed of at least three parts -- a paddle,a rotor, and a motor -- it is irreducibly complex. Gradual evolution of the flagellum, like the cilium, therefore faces mammoth hurdles." The bacterial flagellum is just one of virtually innumerable biological structures, that, once understood in detail, have no naturalistic causal explanation. Many evolutionists have attempted to deny Behe's contention that the flagellum is irreducibly complex, but every attempt fails to show how the flagellum actually could have been formed by Darwinian gradualism. Rather, all denials by evolutionists of irreducible complexity rely on non-confirmable, non-falsifiable, non-experimental assumptions to justify belief in unguided processes to produce such structures.
For more on irreducible complexity, go here,[45] or here,[46] or here.[47]
- ↑ Indeed, one characteristic of religion is the presence of dogmatic views. The mark of true science is tentativeness in holding to theories. Ironically, once a theory like Darwinism becomes unchallengeable based on the supposed religious implications of a competing theory, Darwinism itself is converted from science to religion.
- ↑ The term "species" is used in its ordinary and usual sense. Although the term can be defined in different ways, at least the term refers to organisms differentiated by reproductive compatibility and/or morphological dissimilarity, each of which involves the presence of differences in the coding of the information in the organism's genome.
- ↑ The term "species" is itself malleable, and is often stretched to a meaningless status by those who wish to show that "natural selection" has produced a "new" species. In any event, the selection usually referred to is not "natural", but is performed by intelligent beings in a lab, and the "species" exhibits no new, beneficial features that might yield a reproductive advantage. Usually, like in the intelligently designed "four-winged fruit fly" the new features are not beneficial, but detrimental to survival.
- ↑ When any new features do appear, such as on the intelligently designed "four winged fruit fly", the features are actually harmful to the organism's survival. Such organisms are referred to as "freaks". (For more information on the four-winged fruit fly, see http://www.idthefuture.com/2005/12/icons_of_evolution_a_response_4.html)
- ↑ Online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1
- ↑ See online at http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F391&viewtype=text&pageseq=1, p. 133.
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), back cover.
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001).
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.(emphasis added).
- ↑ Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is, (New York: Basic Books, 2001), p. 14.
- ↑ The Panda's Thumb, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1980), p. 181.
- ↑ Intelligent design's opponents rely on a hidden assumption to remove intelligent design as a challenge to Darwinism. The assumption is that materialism is effectively true, meaning that only unintelligent causes can be considered to explain the cosmos, including life. The "rule" effectively re-defines "science" and serves to block all but unintelligent natural forces as potential causes for life and its diversity. The assumption operates as a rule—the "unwritten rule" of science, as described in a book by popular science writer Robert Wright. In his book, Wright explains that certain assumptions in science result in "unwritten rules of scientific conduct" that require adherents "to scrupulously avoid even the faintest teleological [i.e., design] overtones. (See, Robert Wright, Three Scientists and Their Gods (New York: Times Books, 1988), 70-71.)
- ↑ Jonathan Wells is a Senior Fellow at the Discovery Institute. Jonathan Wells has received two Ph.D.s, one in Molecular and Cell Biology from the University of California at Berkeley, and one in Religious Studies from Yale University. He has worked as a postdoctoral research biologist at the University of California at Berkeley and the supervisor of a medical laboratory in Fairfield, California, and he has taught biology at California State University in Hayward. Dr. Wells has published articles in Development, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, BioSystems, The Scientist and The American Biology Teacher. He is also author of Charles Hodge's Critique of Darwinism (Edwin Mellen Press, 1988) and Icons of Evolution: Why much of what we teach about evolution is wrong. Most recently Dr. Wells authored, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design.
- ↑ Paul A. Nelson, Fellow of the Discovery Institute, received his Ph.D. from the University of Chicago in Philosophy (1998). He is a philosopher of biology, specializing in evo-devo and developmental biology. He has published articles in such journals as Biology & Philosophy, Zygon, Rhetoric and Public Affairs, and Touchstone, and chapters in the anthologies Mere Creation, Signs of Intelligence, and 'Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics. Nelson is also a fellow of the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design.
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od182/hobi182.htm
- ↑ http://www.parentcompany.com/creation_essays/essay11.htm
- ↑ Chemical Evolution: the hypothesis that the appearance of life from non-living materials occurred via Material Causes alone.
- ↑ The cosmological model of eternal inflation and the transition from chance to biological evolution in the history of life [1]
- ↑ Paul Davies, The Fifth Miracle, The Search for the Origin of Life (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1999, p. 91).
- ↑ Ibid., pp. 247-49.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 259.
- ↑ Ibid., p. 120.
- ↑ Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1981) p. 51-2).
- ↑ Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Where Microbes Boldly Went, New Scientist, vol. 91 (August 13, 1991), p. 415
- ↑ William Dembski, The Design Inference, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), sec. 6.5.
- ↑ http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-specified.html
- ↑ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition: 1996 (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster. Inc.)
- ↑ Johnson, Wedge of Truth, p. 53.
- ↑ Atheist and Darwinist Richard Dawkins states that each nucleus of plant or animal cells contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica put together." Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. 1996) p. 17-18, (emphasis added).
- ↑ Dembski, Intelligent Design, p. 106.
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=2177
- ↑ https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0743290313/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194232123&sr=1-2
- ↑ https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/103-4254630-6741457?url=search-alias=stripbooks&field-keywords=behe
- ↑ http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
- ↑ Behe, M, 1996. Evidence for Intelligent Design from Biochemistry, a speech given at the Discovery Institute's God & Culture Conference, August 10, 1996 Seattle, WA. http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_idfrombiochemistry.htm
- ↑ http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/840
- ↑ http://www.iscid.org/
- ↑ http://www.iscid.org/encyclopedia/Irreducible_Complexity
- ↑ https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936
- ↑ https://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Specified-Complexity-Intelligence/dp/074255810X/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-1803249-2067114?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194726709&sr=1-1
- ↑ https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Black-Box-Biochemical-Challenge/dp/0684834936
- ↑ https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_sim_b_title_1/104-1803249-2067114
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_mm92496.htm
- ↑ http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flagellum_all.htm
- ↑ http://www.discovery.org/a/1831
- ↑ http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1142
- ↑ http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/irreducible_complexity_01.html


text:
Sourced from Wikivoyage. Text is available under the CC-by-SA 3.0 license.Cheboksary (Russian: Чебокса́ры chee-bahk-SAH-ree) is the capital of Chuvashia in the Volga Region of the Russian Federation. About 600,000 people live here and in the nearby satellite city Novocheboksarsk.
Get in
By plane
Cheboksary airport receives both cargo and passenger aircraft. Commercial Aviation traffic to Cheboksary airport is served by various local airlines on Russian Yakovlev Yak-42 jet and Antonov An-24 turboprop. There are regularly scheduled flights to Moscow and other destinations. Cheboksary is also about a four-hour drive from Nizhny Novgorod, a city with international air connections through Lufthansa on an Airbus A319 aircraft. Lufthansa also flies its A319s to Kazan, which is a short two-hour car ride away as well. Microbusses may be hired to get to Cheboksary from Kazan, but it is highly recommended to seek transportation with acquaintances.
By train
The railway network is developed and accessible all year. One of the largest railway junctions of Russia, Kanash, is in the center of the Republic. Via Kanash, the rail system connects Cheboksary with the major industrial centers of Eastern Siberia, the Urals, and Moscow. Express trains present a low-cost, comfortable way to travel. Express trains to and from Moscow are available everyday, and the easy overnight journey is approximately 14 hours each way.
By car
Autos, trucks, and buses carry the majority of transportation, as the Republic ranks forth in highway density in all of Russia. Cheboksary is situated on one of the main highways of the Russian Federation leading from Moscow to the industrial areas of Tatarstan, the Southern Urals, and Siberia.
By ship
The Volga river connects Cheboksary with Nizhny Novgorod, Yaroslavl, Moscow, and the northern regions of Russia. By using river-sea vessels, it is possible to get from Chuvash riverports all the way to Saint Petersburg, Novorossiysk (on the Black Sea), Astrakhan, and ports situated on the Danube river. However, the river is frozen from December through April.
Get around
Public transportationCheboksary is covered by an extensive system of trolleybuses, autobuses, and minibuses. There are several official taxi agencies, but also many so-called "gipsy" taxis, which are privately owned. The latter can be a convenient way of getting around, but also potentially dangerous and thus not recommended. Official taxis cost less than two dollars for travel between most points within the city.
By boat
Cheboksary is a frequent stop on many boat tours that travel up and down the Volga. A boat tour to the major cities along the Volga is highly recommended.
- Vvedensky cathedral (1657)
- Saint-Trinity monastery (1566)
Like many Russian cities, Cheboksary possesses excellent cultural opportunities. There is an Opera-Ballet Theatre, a Philharmonic Orchestra, and numerous theaters (showing productions in both Russian and Chuvash languages). However, a very popular gathering place for the locals is the recently completed zalev (bay), beautifully situated in the middle of the city. There people gather to stroll, visit cafes, and socialize. Cheboksary also has beautiful boardwalks and beaches along the Volga River, where people swim in the summer. There are also a number of heated pools, health clubs, and museums (including Russia's only beer museum).
Embroidered textiles are a local speciality, as are beer related items such as wooden mugs. Chuvash specialties also include hohloma, a beautiful wood embroidery as seen on the image at the right.
Many restaurants and cafes exist throughout the capital city, and excellent dishes can be found at the Restaurant Emilia, the Hotel Rossia, and Favorite.
Ask someone in Russia about Chuvashia and they will likely respond with a comment about beer, as the republic has been a center of hops growing and beer brewing for hundreds of years. There are two beer manufacturers in Cheboksary, Buket Chuvashii and Yantar, as well as Russia's only beer museum.
Hotel Volga and the Promtraktor Hotel in Cheboksary provide clean rooms and friendly service at a reasonable price.
Hotel DIS is very nice too.
phone: +7 8352 37-19-67address: ул. Комбинатская, дом 5A new backpackers' hostel in Cheboksary (open since August 2013).

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Patient Care Technician - Nights
Company: Community Rehabilitation Hospital North
Location: Indianapolis
Posted on: September 18, 2023
Job Description:
Patient Care Technician
Full Time Nights
Community Rehabilitation Hospital North
Community Rehabilitation Hospital North, located on the Community Hospital North medical campus and in partnership with Kindred Healthcare, is an inpatient facility that offers superior access and the latest equipment to improve the lives of individuals with a broad range of diagnoses - from brain and spinal cord injury to stroke and amputation.
Our 63,000 square foot facility has 60 beds and serves as a Midwestern regional provider for patients with complex physical and neurological injuries and -has an advanced accreditation from the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation Facilities (CARF) in Adult Inpatient Care and for their Inpatient Brain Injury Specialty Program, Stroke Specialty Program and Amputee Program as well as Joint Commission disease-specific certifications in Stroke and Amputee Rehabilitation. -
Assist nursing staff with patients' personal care, emotional support, and activities of daily living. More complex duties performed under supervision of licensed nursing personnel.
Performs patient care responsibilities considering needs specific to the standard of care for patient's age.
Provides morning care which may include bed bath, shower or whirlpool, oral hygiene, combing hair, back care, changing bed linens, cleaning over bed table and bedside stand, straightening room and other general care as necessary throughout the day.
Provides evening care which includes hands/face washing as needed, oral hygiene, back rubs, peri-care, freshening linen, cleaning over bed tables, straightening room and other general care as needed.
Notifies appropriate licensed personnel when patient complains of pain.
Prepares patients for meals; serves and removes food trays and assists with meals or feeds patients if necessary.
Distributes drinking water and other nourishments to patients.
Answers patient call lights, anticipates patient's needs and makes rounds to assigned patients.
Assists patients with the handling of personal property: dentures, glasses, contact lenses, hearing aids, prosthetic devices, etc.
Performs all aspects of patient care in an environment that optimizes patient safety and reduces the likelihood of medical/health care errors.
Transports patients to and from various departments in the hospital.
Reports and, when appropriate, records any changes observed in condition or behavior of patients and unusual incidents.
Assists in the preparation of admissions, transfers and discharge of patients.
Assists licensed nursing staff with treatment procedures.
Demonstrates ability to revise plan of care as indicated by the patient's response to treatment and evaluate overall plan daily for effectiveness.
Integrates the plan of care with Rehabilitation Services treatment plan to attain patient's optimal level of functioning.
Provides general nursing care: positioning patients, lifting and turning patients, applying/utilizing special equipment, assisting patients with the bedpan, commode; assists ambulating patients. - Uses correct body mechanics.
Checks patient for reddened areas or skin breakdown and reports to licensed nursing staff.
Obtains and records temperature, pulse, respirations, blood pressure, weight, intake and output.
Makes rounds with oncoming shift to ensure the unit is left in good condition.
Maintains a good working relationship both within the department and with other departments.
Communicates appropriately and clearly to nurse, supervisor, co-workers, physicians and the Rehabilitation Services staff.
Consults other departments, as appropriate, to provide for an interdisciplinary approach to the patient's needs.
Demonstrates an ability to be flexible, organized and function under stressful situations.
Treats patients and their families with respect and dignity; ensures patient confidentiality.
Practices careful, efficient and non-wasteful use of supplies and linens and follows established charge procedures for patient charge items.
Follows infection control procedures. - Keeps the unit clean and organized.
Meets current documentation standards and policies.
Manages and operates equipment safely and correctly.
Response to the patient is appropriate in emergency or physically distressful situation.
Performs other duties as assigned within the nurse assistant's scope of practice.
Other duties as assigned
CPR/BCLS Certification highly preferred
Minimum six months experience in an acute or long term facility preferred.
Excellent oral and written communication and interpersonal skills.
Keywords: Community Rehabilitation Hospital North, Indianapolis , Patient Care Technician - Nights, Professions , Indianapolis, Indiana
here to apply!


text:
Story highlights
U.S. star Jozy Altidore suffered racial abuse during Dutch cup game
The AZ Alkmaar player was subjected to racist chanting during match at Den Bosch
Referee suspended match during the first half and asked Den Bosch to make announcement over loudspeaker
Match resumed after brief delay and Altidore scored in 5-0 win
U.S. star Jozy Altidore has said he will "pray" for those who subjected him to racist abuse during a Dutch cup game Tuesday.
The 23-year-old American international was the target of racist chanting during AZ Alkmaar's 5-0 win at nine-man Den Bosch.
Referee Reinold Wiedemeijer suspended the game during the first half following "jungle sounds chanted at Altidore," according to AZ's official twitter feed. But AZ players, including Altidore, persuaded him not to.
Wiedemeijer asked host club Den Bosch to put a message over the public address system, warning the crowd he would stop the match if the abuse carried on.
The contest was also briefly stopped after the interval after home fans threw snowballs at the linesmen.
Time for football to tackle racism epidemic?
Altidore was adamant the game should not be stopped and in a post-match interview with Dutch television he explained his stance.
He said: "It's a bit disappointing that these things still happen at this time but what are you going to do?
"You just have to hope that these people find a way to improve themselves. You can only pray for them.
"I feel like as a football player that I have an obligation, to my team, to my club, to my family to not react to things like this.
"I want to show them that club stands better than that and that I was raised better than that than respond to such ridiculous behaviour.
"It's a bit disappointing because you would hope as human beings that humanity can grow from these types of times.
"But at the end of the day, it's still alive racism and all we can do is try and educate ourselves and the young kids coming up to be better than that.
"All I can do is pray for them and hope they become better people."
FIFA ready to hit racists hard
Altidore, who scored from the penalty spot during the contest, also insisted he would not rise to those who had insulted him from the stands.
He added: "I'm not going to fight them. They just have some issues and need some help. You can only pray for them and hope they get better.
"We were in a good rhythm and it was important for us to keep going. I think we started the New Year right and you have to look at the bigger picture."
AZ soccer director and former U.S. midfield player Earnier Stewart, also spoke of his disgust, telling Dutch television's Eredivisie Live: "It is terribly sad that this can happen for those involved and for lovers of football in the Netherlands.
"You hear that and wonder what on earth is going on."
Stewart also revealed that Den Bosch officials are "ashamed" of the fans involved. The club told fans to stop the chants over the public address system, but that failed to stop a small section of supporters.
Alkmaar player Viktor Elm added: "The fans that misbehaved towards Altidore should be ashamed.
"I, like everybody else, am really disappointed in these supporters. It is a bad time for professional football. It is not something I have experienced in my career before.
"Jozy handled it really well. He has not been tempted to respond. He was emotional after his penalty."
Boateng makes racism walkout vow
Meanwhile, in Italy, Lazio booked its place in the final of the Coppa Italia courtesy of a 2-1 win over Juventus.
With the tie poised at 1-1 following last week's first leg in Turin, Lazio took the lead through Alvaro Gonzalez's header.
The home side looked set for its first final since 2009, but Juventus grabbed a dramatic equalizer in the 91st minute when Arturo Vidal lashed home.
The tie looked destined for extra-time, but with just seconds remaining, Sergio Floccari netted a late winner to take Lazio through.
Vladimir Petkovic's side will now face city rival Roma or Inter Milan in the final.
Sink or swim for 'Super Mario'?
In the English Premier League, Manchester City endured a frustrating night as it was held to a goalless draw by bottom of the table QPR.
On a day dominated by speculation linking City striker Mario Balotelli with a move to AC Milan, manager Roberto Mancini might have hoped for a victory to concentrate on instead.
But his side was unable to find a way past a stubborn and determined Rangers defense, which managed to hold on for a precious point in its fight against relegation.
Instead, Mancini was left to focus on the impending departure of the enigmatic Balotelli, who is set to undergo a medical at Milan Wednesday before completing a move to Italy.
Mancini told Sky Sports News: "He had this big chance to come back to Italy and play for another top club like Milan.
"I hope Mario can continue to improve and show he's always ready because I think he can, if he works hard, continue growing and become one of the best players in the world.
"It's important for Mario to be in Italy with his family. I think that would be good for him."
Aston Villa's nightmare run of form continued with a 2-1 home defeat by Newcastle.
Villa, which had suffered consecutive defeats by a lower league opposition in its previous two matches, now sits in the relegation zone.
Villa embarrassed by third-tier Bradford
Paul Lambert's team has failed to win a Premier League game since December 15 and has taken one point from a possible 18.
On this occasion, it gave itself an uphill task after falling two goals behind early on to a Newcastle team also struggling at the wrong end of the table.
Papiss Cisse and Yohan Cabaye both scored within the first 31 minutes to give Newcastle a comfortable halftime advantage.
Villa pulled one back four minutes after the interval through Christian Benteke's penalty, but it couldn't prevent Newcastle from claiming a first away win of the league season.
In the night's other games, Sunderland held Swansea to a goalless draw while Wigan came from two goals down to draw 2-2 at Stoke.


text:
|My "C shelf: cameras and cats" was recently featured on Offbeat Home
Recent photography articles worth checking out:
For anyone with a camera (even a point & shoot) that may be traveling or going to the beach this summer...
* Summer Camera Busters (sand, water, heat, theft, etc.)
If you're interested in getting into film photography...
* The Film Format Guide
* Film Hunting- Where to Buy and Develop Film
* Introduction to 35mm cameras, Intro. to Medium Format, Intro. to Large Format
** And, be sure to submit your photographs to the KEH 2012 Photography Calendar Call for Entries! (Entries due by June 17th). Open to anyone, so go enter and spread the word!


text:
Netflix (Nasdaq: NFLX) has won over consumers and Hollywood with its mix of TV reruns, old movies and original shows, all for $7.99-a-month with liberal policies that let family and friends share one account.
Chief Executive Officer Reed Hastings may now be able to squeeze more profit from his 33.3 million customers by tightening up those policies or boosting prices.
As many as 10 million people are watching the online video service without paying, according to Michael Pachter, a Wedbush Securities analyst in Los Angeles.
Netflix's options include limiting the number of people or computers that could share one account or charging extra, for example, to let a college student in another town use his parents' account. The company today has no restrictions on the number of PCs, tablets or phones that can use one account or the number of people who can sign in, though it limits each account to playing two video streams simultaneously.
"It's time to change," Pachter said in an interview. "They can say they're cracking down on piracy. They can appeal to fairness. It's great if the parent has a subscription and the kid watches it in the college dorm."
Investors will be looking for clues to new revenue opportunities when Los Gatos, California-based Netflix reports first-quarter results after markets close today. The shares have risen 76 percent this year, second-most in the S&P 500 behind Best Buy Co., as profit and subscriber gains beat Wall Street estimates. They fell 0.3 percent to $163.37 on April 19.
Sales Help
Tightening up sharing would help sales. A pricing or policy change could boost revenue per subscriber by 5 percent in 2014, accelerate new signups and fatten profit margins, according to Goldman Sachs & Co. analyst Heath Terry.
Hastings, 52, has a number of options, said Pachter, who has an underperform rating on the stock. He could charge extra for access to kids' programming. The company could also levy $3 each time a user wanted to register more than a limited number of devices per account.
The topic of raising prices is touchy. Netflix lost 800,000 domestic customers in the third quarter of 2011 when it raised the cost of combined streaming and DVD-by-mail service by 60 percent to $15.98 a month from $9.99 previously.
Hastings has said Netflix has no plans to change prices. In January, he said the company still had "a year and a half of probation" left after the 2011 subscriber revolt.
"It wouldn't take much to have that issue flare up again or for us to lose trust," Hastings said.
Family Plans
Under current policy, Netflix lets people stream to two different devices at the same time using one subscription, said Joris Evers, a spokesman. That allows family members or friends to share a single account and watch different programs. He declined to comment on future plans.
Netflix is considering family accounts that would let people keep individual queues and see personal recommendations, company executives said last May at a JPMorgan Chase & Co. conference. While Netflix hasn't discussed prices, Hastings suggested families now paying for two accounts might save money.
In general, consumers don't see sharing accounts as theft, according to John Rose, managing director of the media, technology and telecom practice for Boston Consulting Group in New York. Raising prices on every customer creates a risk in competitive markets where consumers have many choices, he said.
"In the digital world, you don't want to become the pariah, for people to rise up against you and look elsewhere for their content," said Rose, a former EMI Group executive who struck digital music deals with Apple Inc.
Subscriber Outlook
Hastings might offer a range of plans, including individual accounts, surcharges for additional users or some combination, Terry, the Goldman analyst, wrote on April 11. He has a neutral rating on the stock.
If Hastings does that, Netflix might reach 53 million domestic subscribers in 2017, Terry estimates. The company could also just raise prices. Goldman estimates average revenue per user will rise 5 percent next year.
"The improving quality of content, better personalization of the service and higher price points from competitors would justify moderately higher prices," Terry wrote.
Netflix is expected to report its U.S. online subscribers increased by 1.8 million to 29 million from year-end, the average of seven analysts' estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Analysts project profit rose to 20 cents a share, compared with an 8-cent loss a year earlier, on sales that grew 17 percent to $1.02 billion.
The company has been trying to increase consumer loyalty by building a film and television library that stands out from competitors such as Amazon.com Inc., the largest Web retailer, Hulu LLC and Redbox Instant by Verizon.
Studio Contracts
Hastings has agreed to spend $5.63 billion over the next several years on exclusive content and original programs. He says subscriber gains — his goal is to reach 90 million U.S. customers in the next two decades — will pay for such deals.
The exclusive Netflix horror series "Hemlock Grove" became available for viewing on April 19, and the resuscitated show "Arrested Development" premieres on May 26. The original series "House of Cards" was its most-watched program ever.
Hollywood studios that were reluctant to sign exclusive deals with Netflix now welcome its big paychecks amid dwindling DVD sales and the growing popularity of online viewing. Some 59 percent of teens in a recent Piper Jaffray Cos. survey said they expect to get most of their online viewing from Netflix in five years, up from 48 percent a year earlier.
Consumer Clout
"Despite all the bad PR, the mindshare of Netflix seems to be increasing," said Michael Olson, a Piper Jaffray analyst in Minneapolis who rates the stock neutral. Of 38 analysts who follow the company, 11 say buy, 19 hold and 8 recommend selling.
The company's original and exclusive content, such as its film deals with Walt Disney Co. and DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc., give Netflix more clout with consumers than it had in 2011, according to Tony Wible, a Janney Montgomery Scott LLC analyst in Philadelphia. He recommended the stock in January for the first time in six years.
Hastings, in a Facebook post this month, said subscribers since January had streamed 4 billion hours of video. That implies 87 minutes of daily streaming per subscriber, putting Netflix on par with the Disney Channel, the most-watched cable network, said Rich Greenfield, an analyst with BTIG Research.
Netflix shares could be pressured if Hastings resumes a costly international expansion. Investors have been cheered by Hastings's suggestion that geographic growth will occur at a slower pace to maintain profit, Olson said.
"Depending on what they invest in for content and for international, they can do between $2 in earnings per share, up to $8," said Olson, who has a buy rating on the stock.


text:
Energy-guzzling China is facing a coal conundrum. Rapid urbanization and industrialization will keep China's coal consumption at record highs of around 4 billion tons per year by 2015. At the same time, the country will have to fight for coal security and to keep its supply line uninterrupted, according to the first energy outlook report from China's Energy Research Institute (ERI).
Swelling urban populations in pursuit of better housing, appliances and vehicles are keeping their foot on the gas when it comes to China's energy consumption. They will continue to drive the shift from low-end, noncommercial energy like firewood to high-quality commercial energy like piped gas. The spread of urban centers increases the demand for electricity, more than 75 percent of which in China is generated from coal-fired power plants.
The biggest challenge to keeping the lights on is transporting coal across the country from the mineral-rich northwest to the highly populated nine provinces of the southeast coastline. Estimates peg coal demand in the southeast in 2015 to be 23 percent of total coal demand in the country, or 880 million tons. Experts at the Energy Research Institute have recommended that China move away from a system hauling coal across the country and instead increase imports to ease pressure on transportation.
"Traditionally, we transport coal from the west to the east, from north to south. This has a very, very high cost," said Yang Yufeng, senior researcher at the institute and co-author of the report. "We need to more effectively use the international coal market to import more coal, especially for our southeast coastline."
To ensure easy access to coal where it is most needed, the report recommends establishing a nationwide stock system. Such a system would be designed to connect southeastern, central, northeastern and northwestern China with the largest stockpile allocated to the demand-heavy southeast. Yet another recommendation from the institute is to set up global coal futures trading centers in coastal cities like Shanghai to ensure long-term supply of coal and ease supply bottlenecks.
China's focus on maintaining steady coal supply underscores how unprepared it is to wean its economy away from the cheap but dirty fuel. And it is more than the geographic expanse of the country that complicates energy policy decisions. "Any action the government is going to take, you have to consider this huge population. Any action that you take in China, however tiny, it will affect 1.3 billion people," said Xuedu Lu, adviser on climate change at the Asian Development Bank (ADB).
Could 'Airpocalypse' make a difference?
China has been taking big strides in addressing climate change and the mitigation of greenhouse gases, Xuedu said, including reducing its energy intensity per unit of gross domestic product by 19 percent. The reduction came at the cost of closing small power plants and iron and steel production facilities.
China has incentives to cut emissions, since it faces devastating climate change impacts. Grain production could fall by 10 to 20 percent with a temperature rise of between 1 and 2.5 degrees Celsius, according to the ADB. More than 80 percent of glaciers in western China have retreated in the last decade alone, exacerbating the already serious water supply crunch. More than 11,000 miles of China's coast is threatened by rising sea levels, including the cities of Shanghai and Guangzhou.
China has committed to cutting its carbon dioxide intensity by between 40 and 45 percent by 2020 compared to 2005 levels and increasing its share of non-fossil-fuel energy to 15 percent. The government has undertaken to further cut energy intensity by 17 percent from the 2010 level by 2015.
However, Yang said, it will not be easy for China to switch to other fuels. One example is the use of natural gas, which has benefited the United States but is not as cheap or as abundant in China. "A specific difference is that in the near future, the United States can replace its traditional coal [use] by power generation plants using gas, but China cannot. This means China cannot, like United States, control its large emissions," Yang said. "Although we do a lot of work in renewable energy and some other clean energy, but coal still is the dominant fuel today in China."
"Last year, China consumed as much coal as the rest of the world, but if it hadn't made all these efforts, it would have been much worse," said Jennifer Turner, director of the China Environment Forum. She said that the smog that has overtaken many parts of the country in recent months has given China's Ministry of Environmental Protection a foot in the door in regulating coal-fired power plants and will allow it to develop a framework to control greenhouse gases and pollutants together.
"The 'Airpocalypse' could be the best thing that's happened, in that it has started a different kind of conversation about the cost of coal," Turner said. "It's a good thing. Especially when you control them together, it raises the cost of coal, which is a good thing."
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500