Archive for the tag Creationism

Molecular Leitmotif

A Creationist commenter on the Unicorn Museum website regurgitated a huge section of an old Michael Behe article. For those “not in the know”, Behe is an intelligent design proponent from the Discovery Institute who coined the principle of “irreducible complexity”. In a nutshell, irreducible complexity means that if some biological structure or function seems so complex that the observed cannot think of a way to explain the entire evolutionary process in detail, then the answer automatically is “God did it”. Although this is a clear example of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, it still remains a powerful argument aimed to win over laymen to the evolution deniers camp.

In the article Behe wrote:

Each of the anatomical steps and structures [with regards to vision] that Darwin thought were so simple actually involves staggeringly complicated biochemical processes that cannot be papered over with rhetoric. Darwin’s simple steps are now revealed to be huge leaps between carefully tailored machines. Thus biochemistry offers a Lilliputian challenge to Darwin. Now the black box of the cell has been opened and a Lilliputian world of staggering complexity stands revealed. It must be explained.

This argument makes two false assumptions: first, that the entire biochemical cascade evolved as is, and second, that all the proteins involved evolved dependently of each other. This is far removed from the biological reality: life uses, re-uses, recycles and remixes common “motifs”! Therefore, the proteins and their functional subsections called domains, in the vision pathway and in other complex pathways, can evolve independently of all the other proteins.

I will address this failure in logic once I have more time. For now, a good break-down of the fallacies in Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box can be found at the wonderful Talk Origins website.

TWiSmas

A special TWiSmas story I stumbled upon on the fantastic podcast/radioshow This Week in Science, sent in by TWiS-minion Jason Quade, and read by the always charming Dr. Kirsten Sanford. Enjoy… A Visit From James Cameron

Please note: all rights reserved by original author/producers. I am just hosting this little snippet because I love it, and also because I want more people to listen to This Week in Science.

Childhood Origins of Resistance to Evolution

This is an old, unpolished file I dragged up from my folder filled with notes and clutter. Come back daily till the 12th of February for the Darwin Day advent posts and links!

In a 2002-2003 study about a third of American adults indicated that evolution is “absolutely false” (Miller et al. 2006). Disturbing as these results might be, the origin of this misconception concerning life’s humble origins lies not solely with, as one might expect, religious fundamentalism or plain ignorance. Don’t resist! Read more»

This is (NOT) how science publishing works

A new “scientific journal” *ahum* can be added to our subscription list and it’s a keeper! The Answers Research Papers is a cutting edge, young (like 6,000 years old) journal that…

will provide scientists and students the results of cutting-edge research that demonstrates the validity of the young-earth model, the global Flood, the non-evolutionary origin of “created kinds,” and other evidences that are consistent with the biblical account of origins

How awesome that there is a journal where scientifically illiterate creotards can publish their non-researched papers, as long as the conclusions are in agreement with the previous statement, of course.

Do you think that if you come up with valid scientific data and a good paper showing evolution to be false, that it will not be published by other journals? Even not by journals with evolution in their name? Well, if you think the answer to that question is “yes, it will not be published” then you just missed out on the grand prize of a field trip to the Creationist Museum!

Scientific journals do not only publish papers confirming preconceived notions. In fact, real scientific journals will eagerly publish groundbreaking, novel, status quo defying papers: it is the best advertising a journal can get!

But to give our scientifically challenged comrades some credit , the Answers Research Journal is also peer-reviewed, just like a real journal. Seeing how the journal is published by Answers in Genesis I can only come to the conclusion that the only peer reviewer they have on board is God, the Lord Almighty Himself, and who can argue with the Big Dictator in the Sky?

God of Closed Doors

There is no God of the Gaps, just a God of Closed Doors. Human knowledge is limited and, when studying the universe we live in, we walk into closed doors all the time. The theist is quite content not knowing what is behind the door. He shrugs and says to himself “it’s God”. But a naturalist will try to pick the lock so he or she has access to novel knowledge that will broaden the human understanding of Life, the Universe and Everything.