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.

Video Uses Homology To Challenge Non-Darwinists

A buzz about this new video has captured the attention from both sides of the fence concerning evolution. Originally this video was created by another person in youtube and then it was later revised. Major players in the pro-evolution movement such as the likes of PZ Meyers put his stamp of approval on the video. Others from the intelligent design movement have discovered the video as well and posted various responses about it.

I’m going to address the homology argument often times used by evolutionists as evidence of naturalism in biology as a means of showing a Creator namely God wasn’t involved in creating the design or in the terms of the modern ID movement, it wasn’t an unknown “intelligent agent or agents” involved with the design either.

In Nature: Molecular Systems Biology, the work on the Bacterial flagellum was commented upon…

“Motility in most bacterial species depends on a sophisticated molecular machine called the flagellum.  The flagellar apparatus is made of dozens of different proteins and thousands of individual subunits.  The bacterial flagellum is actually a mechanical nanomachine with a rotation frequency of 300 Hz, an energy conversion rate of nearly 100%, and the ability to self assemble.”

The paper reveals even more essential protein parts for the flagellum than in Michael Behe’s Book, Darwin’s Black Box but tries to interpret the data in light of evolution…

“The bacterial flagellum represents an interesting entity to study the evolution of complex biological machines.  For an evolutionary view of the flagellum on the protein level, we constructed a phylogenetic supertree solely based on flagellar protein sequences.  As anticipated, this tree closely recapitulates phylogenetic relationships identified, employing traditional phylogenetic marker molecules such as rRNAs.”

“Whereas it is generally believed that the motility machinery evolved from an ancient type III secretion system, the detailed steps leading to current structures have yet to be defined….Similar to protein sequences and structures, interactions among proteins are often conserved in the course of evolution.  In fact, the phylogenetic relationships of different species are partially reflected by the phylogenetic interaction profile of the integrated network.”

What is wrong with this so-called evidence of homology that is supposed to disprove intelligent design in favor of an unthinking natural cause? You might have noticed, there is something missing namely the absence of explanations in this paper on how naturalism could have produced a continually functioning bacterial flagellum through various steps of adaption rather the authors are telling us, similar to what we seen in the video challenge who uses the same argument that it merely self organized itself based on similarities.

The likes of PZ Meyers likes to accuse those he disagrees with such as;  “Creationists claim genes can’t be created without the intervention of a designer, and what do they do? Nothing.” Firstly, he tries to confuse the ID movement with creationism using homology, but the essence of the two are not the same. I also addressed this issue on “A Critical Look At Intelligent Design.”

Secondly, creationists believe in studying nature, and the advancement in technology and so on. If evolution didn’t exist, studying a gene would continue, as well as advancements in technology contrary to what PZ Meyers and others have said.

Creationists have often been criticized for coming to a conclusion about seeing God’s handy work in nature while studying it. It’s not a scientific method they claim. But on the other hand, evolutionists observe similarities in nature and claim they see evolution’s handy work. It’s no wonder evolutionists like to go on the offense and be the ones who do the challenging because it’s a smoke screen to cover their own weaknesses in a story known as evolution!

Journalist Melanie Phillips And Intelligent Design

The absurdity of a so-called Christian conspiracy to destroy science has been promoted by many in the scientific establishment. Melanie Phillps goes to great pains to set the record straight, she is not part of this so-called conspiracy but rather writes in The Spectator and interesting enough the title is called; The secular inquisition…

“I hold no particular brief for ID, but am intrigued by the ideas it raises and want it to be given a fair crack of the whip to see where the argument will lead. What I have also seen, however, is an attempt to shut down that argument by distorting and misrepresenting ID and defaming and intimidating its proponents.”

Melanie Phillips is not a Christian, but an agnostic where one holds there are no absolutes. So it’s not surprising she has embraced the ID movement, and is she right about the modern intelligent design movement not being a form of creationism. She points two major differences, one being the ID movement embraces the worldview on the age of the earth and the other is organisms develop and change into new species over time.

Instead of being guided by natural selection under the framework of random chance, the modern ID movement claims “intelligent agents” are using purpose, guiding the evolution of these animals in a certain and precise direction. Her comments disappointed the militant crowd a few responses went like this…

“Is it a secular inquisition when we ask for EVIDENCE.
And, just because there are some Flat Earthers about, should we also be having a discussion on the geometry of our Planet?” -Kittler
He tries the insult approach, very unscientific especially for one trying to claim he is a defender of science. I assume he is a teenager and if he is not, than he sure acts like one.

“Ms Phillips writes “What [ID proponents¨] don’t accept is that random, blind-chance evolution accounts for the origin of all species and the origin of life, the universe and everything.” Two errors for the price of one! First, evolution is not random or blind-chance. It follows a logical path determined by a simple principal commonly referred to as survival of the fittest.” Sounds like some sort of intelligent engineering that has a goal in mind, because an unthinking process doesn’t know how to use logic let alone have a goal…lol

Here is a biologist perhaps using his real name; Alan Fox…“I am sorry but claiming ID comes out of science is just wrong. ID is a philosophical argument. It makes claims that are untestable scientifically. Critics say ID is not science because ID is not science.” Alan makes a faulty assumption for his disagreement, one of which is often times repeated but never verified which is circular reasoning “it’s not a science because it’s not a science.”  On the contrary, irreducible complexity is in fact a testable theory and part of the cell body of the  prokaryotic and eukaryotic known as the bacterial flagella is certainly a testable theory for specified complexity as well.

“Thou shalt not think a thought beyond the narrow confines of Dawkins’ dictatorial and highly prescriptive orthodoxy.” by Michael B. Well Dawkins wasn’t the original promoter of such a concept but rather it’s the militant worldview in general.

Problematic DaveScott Is No Longer with Uncommon Descent

After a few years of a love/hate relationship with one of the major players in the intelligent design movement namely Uncommon Descent, DaveScott was finally banned from being a contributor on the blog.  His alienation style in which he used quite often, was not only directed at Darwinists, but Creationists as well for example on Jan 05, 2009, he stated the following in his post called; “ID Debate Opposing Views“.

“ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for and explanations of things like a global flood, a young earth, the parting of the Red Sea, people turning into pillars of salt, or any of that stuff….Anyhow, all this is evident in the debate. You see our side (*he means intelligent design only) is all about math, science, logic, and reason.

Now it’s most certainly true the intelligent design movement doesn’t look for material evidence for explanations pertaining to the age of the earth, or a global flood as it generally accepts the evolutionary viewpoint as fact when it comes to those items.

But then Dave decided to go out of his way and alienate creationists by implying we are looking for material explanations on how people can turn into pillars of salt which is not true therefore according to DaveScott we are not using science and on the other hand he claims his side is all about science, math, logic and so on.

Now I realize DaveScott is an agnostic who rejects Christianity and theism in general which explains his jabbing at YEC. He was one of the examples of  the intelligent design movement showing it’s intention of being not strictly geared for as an organization motivated by Christians or religious people but open to all groups of people from different persuasions.

So now DaveScott is now a former representative of the intelligent design movement, apparently he has been banned due to a conflict of interest on the racism issue with contributors of Uncommon Descent only because these same contributors are held to a higher standard according to the reason given for him being banned in the first place. I”m not surprised this has happened after reviewing DaveScott’s history with the blog.