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.

Intelligent Design Tries To Distant Itself From Creationism

Intelligent Design proponents spend a great deal of time trying to separate itself from religion, and creationism in particular…Dave Scott who frequently writes  blogs in Uncomon Decent writes…

“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.”

I like to know which creation scientist does Dave think is looking for scientific evidence for people turning into “pillars of salt.” As far as I know, there are none in the mainstream who are trying to find such a discovery using science. Dave Scott is trying so hard to separate ID from creationism, that he goes out of his way, to insult them which is just as bad as militant Darwinists who do the same thing.

It’s true that ID doesn’t try to find material evidence for a flood, and how old the earth is, generally they get their information from ones who they fight with in other areas, evolutionists. IDers for the most part agree with evolutionists on these issues.

Now Casey Luskin who is one of the leading proponents of ID, and I have of course written about him before in a previous post, states in his podcast on 12/29/2008…

“ID theorists argue design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arises by intelligent cause.”

What we find  in this particular podcast is basically making a case for ID as being a valid non-religious scientific proposal. Casey Luskin goes on to discuss about how ID scientists compare “intelligent agents” and the study of their behavior when they design things whose origin is unknown.

This might be a little confusing for some Christians who believe in just one Creator, and it’s a huge distinction between creationism and ID. Instead of natural selection which an unthinking process that supposedly chooses a wide range of possibilities of favorable traits, an “intelligent agent” supposedly accomplishes this task. In creationism, God doesn’t select favorable traits with such options of possibilities presented to Him.

Macro evolution is viewed as having an intelligent cause. ID says naturalism cannot create new information which is correct. So then they claim “intelligent agents” are able to create new and specified information in order to create such things as different species.

Macro evolution in any form, intelligent or not, is rejected by biblical creationism. Only small changes within the species kind which we see is an acceptable  conclusion which confirms the Bible.

Many from the evolutionist side have attacked intelligent design for being creationism. This is because creationism was ruled against the law to teach in public schools so they try and discredit it that way…

But they are right about one thing, ID has it’s own problems with origins because it has no history neither does it look for any explanation regarding the origin of it’s so called “design agents.” This is why they rather not go that far because it’s goes outside the limitations of science. There is no way they can prove or disprove the intelligent cause, similar to that of a multi-universe hypothesis which is not testable either.

In conclusion, their fight with Darwinists some IDers like Dave Scott go out of their way to distant intelligent design from creationism as a way to try and prove it’s scientific. It’s not a good way to go about it. But he is right, ID doesn’t come from creationism, it resembles more of evolution than creationism except for the cause being intelligent, but still what they believe as an intelligent agent is not God.