Darwinist Proposes Something Radical In His Field

Over many years, the United States has spent millions of dollars trying to detect or communicate with supposed alien life forms so much so that Paul Davis from AZ state university has proposed something radical in his particular field. Not so much for us creationists or the modern intelligent design proponents, but radical for his follow scientists who are followers of Darwinian evolution.

Why? The reason is quite obvious, the material being published today in the secular media and scientific journals attempt to undermined or attempt to disprove that detection for intelligent design is not science. A topic that comes up quite often when science standards are being formulated by public schools. While it’s true, that detecting intelligent design is not Darwinian evolution, it doesn’t mean science cannot detect intelligence behind the design.

In Astrobiology Magazine

“Perhaps the most fascinating possibility is if aliens used bioengineering to leave behind unintentional or intentional traces or messages in the DNA of life on Earth. The self-perpetuating nature of life forms could help ensure survival of any such biologically-embedded messages.”

This is the type of things that are on Coast To Coast, a radio station on the AM station which reports on stories that the internet is going to be injected into a person and then integrated with the brain to become part of it. Back in the 80’s when I was going to school, computer chips was the popular story with a particular number being inserted underneath the skin. The chip used for ID and money for a cashless society, now the story has gotten more complex, this time using nano technology to turn humans into robots.

“Citizen scientists and school students could pitch in to run genomic versions of SETI programs to find any such traces, Davies said. Data-mining software programs could do much of the heavy lifting as just a small part of the usual genomic analyses going on in everyday research.”

Paul Davis needs to get out of Hollywood science fiction and should take back the promise that evidence of alien life forms would be discovered on earth in 20 years. How does he propose aliens travel to get here? In order to start looking for traces of alien forms on earth one would have to rationalize how they got here in the first place over vast distances which is theoretically impossible considering the amount of energy and speed and time it would take to get here. What about worm holes? Have those been detected? No! But Hollywood science fiction says they exist and claim that is one of the ways aliens travel.

This is a sad way of spending taxpayer money on a delusion or science fiction story about alien life forms, there are so many other fields in science that could use the extra millions of dollars for their research like fighting diseases, exploring space, and learning how nature works. But there is one thing about his so-called radical proposal, intelligent design is detectable and therefore a science.

Intelligent Design Papers Are Making Noise

The theory of intelligent design science considers itself to be a detector of patterns arranged in such a way, that it reveals something intelligent was beyond its cause.  There are similarities but also differences with creationism. Despite the differences, this blog does support the ID movement’s efforts to question Darwinism but do not encourage Christians to embrace all aspects of it.

Recently, it has been making some noise in peer-review papers. One was on “Plant Biology” Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig, the author of this particular paper who is a biologist at the Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, he writes…

“Many of these researchers also raise the question (among others), why — even after inducing literally billions of induced mutations and (further) chromosome rearrangements — all the important mutation breeding programs have come to an end in the Western World instead of eliciting a revolution in plant breeding, either by successive rounds of selective “micromutations” (cumulative selection in the sense of the modern synthesis), or by “larger mutations” … and why the law of recurrent variation is endlessly corroborated by the almost infinite repetition of the spectra of mutant phenotypes in each and any new extensive mutagenesis experiment (as predicted) instead of regularly producing a range of new systematic species…”

The research collected data from 240,000 plants. Lönnig then refutes the idea that a step by step process with an enormous amount of slight variations then sides with Michael Behe who is known for advocating concept of “irreducible complexity” and Dembski’s arguments which has to do with universal probability bound.

Dembski and Robert Marks who are major players in the intelligent design movement. Their paper was published in Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics where they argue fitness fails (which is how evolution is measured) without specified information about its target.

“We prove two results: (1) The Horizontal No Free Lunch Theorem, which shows that average relative performance of searches never exceeds unassisted or blind searches, and (2) The Vertical No Free Lunch Theorem, which shows that the difficulty of searching for a successful search increases exponentially with respect to the minimum allowable active information being sought.”

In the International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics by Dominic Halsmer came out pretty strong in favor of intelligent design.  He writes

“Human-engineered systems are characterized by stability, predictability, reliability, transparency, controllability, efficiency, and (ideally) optimality. These features are also prevalent throughout the natural systems that make up the cosmos. However, the level of engineering appears to be far above and beyond, or transcendent of, current human capabilities. Even so, there is a curious match between the comprehensibility of the universe and the ability of mankind to comprehend it.”

“This unexplained matching is a prerequisite for any kind of reverse engineering activity to be even remotely successful. And yet, mankind seems to be drawn onward toward a potential wisdom, almost in tutorial fashion, by the puzzles of nature that are continually available for us to unravel. Indeed, the universe is so readily and profitably reverse engineered as to make a compelling argument that it was engineered in the first place, apparently with humanity in mind.”

While the modern intelligent movement avoids identifying what an intelligent agent is which is part of the problem, it lacks history, engineering has observed to be performed with intelligence. Engineering is not a natural phenomena that just happens on it’s own. Rather it’s a phenomena concerning a finely tuned universe which was produced by a highly advanced intelligence namely, God!

Carl Zimmer vs Michael Behe On Thornton’s Work

Like many of these types of debates about evolution with few exceptions, proponents on one side or the other conduct themselves within the confines on where they feel most comfortable  in order to avoid a face to face meeting, this particular one is without exception.

Carl Zimmer, a highly regarded so-called science writer who promotes evolution while trying to attack intelligent design. He recently posted this to Michael Behe about the work Thornton had conducted, it reads as follows…

“Thornton’s new work turned up last week on a web site run by the Discovery Institute, a clearinghouse for all things intelligent design (a k a the progeny of creationism). Michael Behe, a fellow at the Institute, wrote three posts (here, here, and here) about the new research, which he pronounced “great.” Why the change of heart? Because Behe thinks that the new research shows that evolution cannot produce anything more than tiny changes. And if evolution can’t do it, intelligent design can. (Don’t ask how.)”

Carl Zimmer takes a jab at Michael Behe, falsely accusing him of being a creationist like it’s some sort of dirty word and how dare he (Behe) conclude that intelligence is the source of organized information which produces and maintains life. Zimmer also wrongly believes science and Christianity are at odds with one another which they are not.  Behe responds

“I must say, it never ceases to amaze me how otherwise-very-smart folks like Zimmer and Thornton fail to grasp pretty simple points when it comes to problems for Darwinian mechanisms. Let me start slowly with a petty complaint in Carl Zimmer’s intro to the post. Zimmer is annoyed that I think Thornton’s latest work is “great”, yet I thought his previous work published a few years ago was “piddling”. “Why the change of heart?”, wonders Zimmer.”

What Michael Behe fails to grasp, they really do get the simple points that he likes to write about, but because he disagrees with evolution it changes full range of dynamics on how they treat him. Who would really argue over a generalization about disagreeing with one study and then later on agree with another? Behe further explains by comparing it to a crane and it’s massive promise of what it could do, Behe calls this “piddling” but later on a more detailed study comes out that demonstrated a realistic evaluation on what the crane could actually do. Thus, Behe praises the work!

I believe Zimmer understands this position, that is not to say he agrees with it, but like I pointed out earlier, it’s the conclusions of science that dictates the dynamics of how he treats him! It’s a sad commentary for those who are so well educated but act so immature.

Nick Matzke Makes Common Accusation Against ID

Most liberals with a particular agenda are relentless in their quest to accuse others for the purpose of stereotyping them which they consider a much easier way of disqualifying their opposition.  Now there are flaws in the modern intelligent design movement which has been pointed in here. We also have observed the modern intelligent design movement trying to distant themselves many times  from creationism as pointed out in here. Nick Matzke using some sort of conspiracy style in his writing in which he claims to be collecting evidence and then showing it in Pandas Thumb, calling ID proponents, young earth creationists…

He writes…

“There was a huge stink raised over the alleged inappropriateness of linking ID to creationism. After much argument the anti-linkage people more or less conceded that there were some good reasons to link ID to a somewhat generic definition of creationism (relying on special creation), but still protested loudly about how inappropriate it was to make the linkage, because most people (allegedly) would assume that creationism = young-earth creationism, and linking ID to young-earth creationism was oh-so-wildly unfair.

Well, it’s now a week later, and, what do you know, but right there on the latest blogpost on William Dembski’s Uncommon Descent is a big fat advertisement for a straight-up young-earth creationist conference.”

There are different groups of people who are in the modern intelligent design movement. Dr. Dean Kenyon doesn’t represent everyone in ID. In fact, there are atheists and agnostics who have a connection in some particular way with the organization and yet, ID proponents will not throw out their membership per say because of their views about the supernatural. Most ID proponents don’t believe in the earth being six thousand years old, rather they accept the evolutionary viewpoint when it comes to the age of the earth.

ID can be compared to something like the 12 steps which has been used by the US government for rehab, the higher power is never defined to any particulars, it could be yourself, it could be the supernatural like God, it could be the devil, or any other religion or non-religion. It’s similar to how the modern intelligent design movement is run today.

Just like Dawkins who uses Fox News to promote his books, William Dembski uses various conferences to promote ID. He writes in Uncommon Decent“For the record, just because various non-ID conferences and events are reported here at UD (e.g., creationist, atheist, or theistic evolutionist) does not constitute an endorsement of those events.

Nor does the appearance of an ID proponent at such events constitute complicity with the positions of the organizers. I myself have appeared at atheist (World Skeptics Congress), theistic evolutionist (Templeton conferences), and young-earth creationist (local gatherings here in Texas) events. I believe in getting the word out about ID and, frankly, am happy to have the opportunity to address people on the other side of these issues.”

Nick Matzke like many liberals with an agenda hammer time and time again lame accusations towards a group of people in whom they disagree with, thinking this has won the debate when in fact it shows how much dislike they have for people in general whom they disagree with which provides no real evidence for their position! If Nick Matzke was able to produce proof that leading figures in ID like William Dembski were embracing not just attending some young earth creationism conference or skeptics conference, then it would be another story.