Research on Intelligent Design

To put together scientific advances from the perspective of Intelligent Design.

Friday, April 21, 2006

Science Magazine Publishes a Paper to Oppose Irreducible Complexity (IC)

Long time ago I wrote that the materialists controlling science were in so an extreme paranoia that they will allow the publication of any article to oppose Intelligent Design, no matter how biased it should be.

Naturalistic philosophers in control of the current mainstream science journals are using the "ill-oriented philosophy" of publishing anything opposing Intelligent Design (ID) while at the same time blocking the publication of articles supportive of ID.

Originally I wrote what 'Science' is now confirming [Re: Wall St Journal on Rick Sternberg. 02/01/05]:
" write peer-reviewed papers to refute Intelligent Design and Creationism without having allowed BEFORE the publication of any Intelligent Design or Creationism peer-reviewed paper, is an inexcusable shame for the scientific community of today!"

Is the next scenario evidence of soundness of mind or rather reflects the pathology of evolutionism?

1- The logic of the scientific community of today is that "To publish peer-reviewed articles on "Intelligent Design" or on "Creationism" is forbidden, because both are against 'the soundness of science.' However, to publish peer-reviewed articles against "Intelligent Design" or against "Creationism" is, oh yes, that is "very scientific", and is allowed, indeed, encouraged!"

2- "Intelligent Design" is not science; however, to beat "Intelligent Design" is science indeed.

3- You are forbidden to publish in indexed journals your experimental results, theories and observations based on "Intelligent Design", but you are encouraged to publish anything you want against "Intelligent Design".

That is how the scientific community and the establishment are infested today with the pathological state of mind of evolutionism/darwinism!"
Then, I concluded:
"...I dream in a time in which you could be able to freely do good research, and publish it, no matter if you deeply reject the materialistic and biased assumptions, or I must say "impositions" of current evolutionism and darwinism."
Well, now Science magazine has joined such irrational flock of publishing opposition to ID before the publishing of any peer-review supporting ID. So, Who are those atheist authors and publishers fighting against? Are they fighting a ‘non-existing’ concept in their peer-reviewed journals? A concept (IC) published in a book (Behe's 'Black Box') that is so important to the real science that in order to oppose it, the "God-is-not-allowed" establishment 'escalates it' [IC] to the foremost 'prestigious' scientific journal on earth? Once more, the atheistic paranoia has 'escalated' to the point of confirming that for them, "beating ID is 'science' but supporting ID is 'not science at all'..."

So, did 'Science' published a paper on micro-evo to try to endorse macro-evo, or what...? If that's the case, that's just Darwinism at its very beast! (smile)

Let's check the facts to see how the IC and ID microevolutionary fact of antibiotic resistance-like modifications is now being 'ill-used' by evolutionists to try to oppose IC... Debating a controversy that 'does not exist' according to the outdated NCSE and its blind flocks at the AAAS, at the Smithsonian, etc... (including those atheists at National Geographic, at Scientific American, etc.)

On reviewing the case, Denyse O'Leary wrote: "Science and other sci mags are trying to take out intelligent design by flogging up a study that they claim disproves the ID concept of irreducible complexity [Dr. M. Behe's proposal]."

Dr. Michael Behe, the ID concept's author, has replied, of course with his article entitled: "The lamest attempt yet to answer the challenge Irreducible Complexity poses for Darwinian evolution."

Here are some of those comments by Dr. Behe:
"The authors [Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe Thornton, including Christoph Adami in his commentary] are conveniently defining “irreducible complexity” way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as IC. The IC systems I discussed in Darwin’s Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their “system”, on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex... In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed! No new components were added, no old components were taken away... Nothing new was produced in the experiment; rather, the pre-existing ability of the protein to bind several molecules was simply weakened. The workers begin their experiments with a protein that can strongly bind several, structurally-very-similar steroids, and they end with a protein that at best binds some of the steroids ten-fold more weakly... Such results are not different from the development of antibiotic resistance, where single amino acid changes can cause the binding of a toxin to a particular protein to decrease (for example, warfarin resistance in rats, and resistance to various AIDS drugs). Intelligent design proponents happily agree that such tiny changes can be accomplished by random mutation and natural selection.... Although the authors imply (and Adami claims directly) that the mutated protein is specific for cortisol, in fact it also binds aldosterone with about half of the affinity. (Compare the red and green curves in the lower right hand graph of [their article's] Figure 4C.) What’s more, there actually is a much larger difference (about thirty-fold) in binding affinity for aldosterone and cortisol with the beginning, ancestral protein than for the final, mutated protein (about two-fold). So the protein’s ability to discriminate between the two ligands has decreased by ten-fold... One would think that the hundred-fold decrease in the ability to bind a steroid would at least initially be a very detrimental change that would be weeded out by natural selection. The authors do not test for that; they simply assume it wouldn’t be a problem, or that the problem could somehow be easily overcome. Nor do they test their speculation that DOC [11-deoxycorticosterone] could somehow act as an intermediate ligand. In other words, in typical Darwinian fashion the authors pass over with their imaginations what in reality would very likely be serious biological difficulties... The fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the intrinsic value of the experiment itself... In conclusion, the results (and even the imagined-but-problematic scenario) are well within what an ID proponent already would think Darwinian processes could do, so they won’t affect our evaluation of the science. But it’s nice to know that Science magazine is thinking about us!"

On April 20, 2006, at 09:20 AM, Bruce Chapman Posted:
Now That Science Magazine Recognizes That Behe's Theory of Irreducible Complexity Is Science, Will They Let Him Respond?
The contention that biochemist Michael Behe's intelligent design argument of "irreducible complexity" (IC) is not science was undercut in a recent issue of Science magazine which contains a paper purporting to falsify the theory.

If it's not science, why bother to try to falsify it? Further, the hapless case made against Behe’s theory--as Dr. Behe explains in his detailed response--shows that irreducible complexity is also good science.

Unintentionally, this paper in Science puts the lie to the whole line used in the Dover trial against Behe and his theory of irreducible complexity. It will be interesting to see whether Science lets Behe reply to the Thornton paper in its pages.

If you can't find it [Behe's Response Printed] in Science, you can read it elsewhere [i.e., Previous Link]. Here's a page with links to several articles about irreducible complexity.
Also see that the deceptive nature of such paper published in Science used a "Step One. Find something that is not irreducibly complex, and explain that, sort of". Also see Paul Nelson's "Debating the Controversy That Doesn't Exist" (smile)


Blogger Breslin83 said...

Well we must be making some progress then. These folks at "Science" and "Nature" have their work cut out for them attempting the defend the indefensible, and like most people caught in such situations, they've become tyrants. The Evolutionary Establishment reminds me of the 'Church of Scientology': It's based on science fiction (of a kind), it has it's won mythology that appeals to weak minded people because of the important half-truths which it declares, it gained its official status illegitemately, it works by spreading misinformation, only the high clerics get to make the official story, it appeals to people's vanity ("all the really smart people agree with us"), it sues, fires and generally harrases anybody (especially former members) who realize what's really going on. I wonder how many evo-biologists are into the New Age? It would be an interesting study to do. But eventually truth will triumph, the Soviet Union seemed invincible only 15 years ago and look what happened. Freudianism, dead. Marxism, effectively dead. Darwinism, slowly being defeated by a theory (ID) with a 'functional advantage'.

Friday, April 21, 2006 12:47:00 PM  
Blogger Breslin83 said...

*to defend
*it's own mythology

Friday, April 21, 2006 12:49:00 PM  
Blogger Axinar said...

Well, now wait a minute here ...

You basically have two choices - a universe that can be understood through observation, or a universe at the whim of some alleged "intelligence" who just also happens to have supernatural powers.

If you've got something out there popping stuff out of thin air, it really doesn't MATTER what the details are now, doesn it?

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It always amazes me that scientists are arguing that their brain has no design ...and yet they assume it is working perfectly. Obviously it isn't, or they would figure out that those two things controdict each other. How accurate would you expect a computer program to be, for instance, that was accidently created by a room full of monkeys banging randomly on the keys?

Friday, April 21, 2006 3:59:00 PM  
Blogger fdocc said...

Dear Marine Corps J. G. Breslin,

Thanks very much for your bright comments! And for the alternate title suggested:

"Science Magazine Publishes a Paper to defent its own mythology" (smile)

I also like your new blog on "Intelligent Criticism"

For our readers, bright examples from your two thoughtful and current postings are next:

Are Common Descent And Taxonomy The Same Thing?
"...for this classification [the Linnean Taxonomy], the fact that there is no necessary connection between it and evolution is demonstrated by the fact that is was constructed without recourse to evolution. It's also been substantially confirmed by cytochrome c tests which demonstrate the strange fact of equidistance... when Darwinists cite taxonomy as evidence for common descent, or speak as if the two are identical, they're demonstrating the tautological nature of Darwinism which has plagued it from the beginning. This false association is probably to blame for the ease with which a theory that seems to violate genetic homestasis (and common sense) is accepted (and defended) with such eagerness."

Homology: Is It 'Proof' of Evolution?
"... birds and bees both have wings but for obvious reasons, these structures cannot have a common (evolutionary) source since they are radically different from each other... What the materialist apparently cannot understand is that there is no necessary logical connection between similarity and form and the notion of common descent... The re-use of parts or materials (such as metal or in this case bone) is characteristic of an intelligent designer... If the scientist believes that nature is necessarily a closed system, then evolution and homology are two ways of saying the same thing. If the scientist has no such metaphysical bias against design, then homologous structures can be interpreted either way. The really important point to notice though is the circularity of evolutionary reasoning... Evolutionists propose evolution as an explanation for the fact of homology. But if at another time you ask them to prove evolution...they turn around and cite homologous structures as evidence! ... the reigning scientific (or at least biological) establishment is deeply materialistic. So much so that they typically cannot even see the other point of view..."

Keep on doing your good work, your Intelligent Criticism as well as your reasoning!

J. Breslin, a bright generation like yours will revolutionize the current stagnant deception due to Darwin's evolution, taking biology from darkness towards the practical light of design in nature!

Dear U.S. Marine Corps, I salute you!

Fernando Castro-Chavez.

Friday, April 21, 2006 4:04:00 PM  
Blogger Breslin83 said...

Axinar, I believe your misunderstaning on this point is symptomatic of the modernist view of theism:

"Well, now wait a minute here ...

You basically have two choices - a universe that can be understood through observation, or a universe at the whim of some alleged "intelligence" who just also happens to have supernatural powers.

If you've got something out there popping stuff out of thin air, it really doesn't MATTER what the details are now, doesn it?"


Rational theism and its legacy in the west is the reason why people in Europe in America assume the universe is law-bound and understandable versus chaotic or random! Because theism assumes a priori that the universe is the product of a LOGOS and that we are made in it's 'image and likeness', theism assumes that the world will always be found to be rational, law-bound and intelligible versus chaotic, arbirtary and meaningless. This is a CRUCIAL point! Science and the scientific method are would not have been possible without the historical contribution of Christian theology and phiosophy (See Paul Davies and Stanley Jaki), and while the facts of science are thr product of empirical methods, the empirical methods themselves and the metaphysical assumptions behind them are rooted in the faith assumptions of a LOGOS which is both transcendant and imminent. You cannot prove scientifically that every effect must have a cause , that a thing cannot be and not be in the same time and in the same sense etc cannot find the scientific method under a microscope, it is not written in the sky (but if it was, that would demand some explanation beyond the sky itself). And as for your complaint that 'if you have something out there popping stuff out of thin air" then "it doesn't matter what the details are", I find it supremely ammusing, as this is exactly the scientific 'explanation' offered by atheistic scientists for the origin of the universe from nothing (The 'Big Bang'). It is not Design theorists, but atheists, frustrated by the fine-tuning of the universal constants, who offer such absurd 'explanations' as baby and bubbles universes, uncaused singularities emerging from nothing, Hawking's absurd 'imaginary time' thesis, the so-called 'mulit-verse' (which makes our inconveniently well co-ordinated universe a little less special) et etc. As for the idea that scientists will stop looking for the specifics of nature if they take design as an inference to the best explanation, this is disproven by the fact that science went on for hundreds of years in the West, inspired and sponsored by the Church and the majority of great scientists have been theists. Gallileo, Newton, Descartes, Roger Bacon, Linnaeus, Copernicus, Kepler, Madame Curie, Charles Lyell, Gregor Mendel, Einstein, Alan Sandage...the list goes on and on. Even Anthony Flew, the most well read atheist of the 20th century has now accepted a minimal theism on the basis of scientific evidence and historians of science have substantially rejected the old propagandistic yarn that religion and science are natural enemies and have affirmed that science, without religion, would never have been. But don't believe me, check it out yourself. As for me, I would have no reason to suspect that the universe is intelligible and law bound unless it were the product of intelligence. The only kind of materialism that's consistent is absurdist nihilism. 'Scientific' materialism is parasitic contradiction.

Sunday, April 23, 2006 6:12:00 PM  
Blogger Breslin83 said...

I hope you don't mind FDOCC, I decided I liked your template better than my own, so I changed it (the black it kind of depressing). By the can I get pictures of gifs in my sidebar or title bar?

Sunday, April 23, 2006 7:36:00 PM  
Blogger fdocc said...

Dear Breslin83,

Feel free to do so and to upgrade it!

I have been using the code for "insert figure" copying it from View Source, then manually inserting twice the address of the figure (jpg, gif or any extention) and by manually modifying only the last pixels' size, which is the one that ends with:

... width: 150px;"

The two manual insertions of the address go in:

a href=" " and in src=" "

I don't know how to do the figure posting's that you ask, however, I have seen that open figures can not be posted in the comments, only their links.

Next is just a gif figure example with a website link at the end, for humble comparison purposes:

"Can you imagine our own Universe as a gigantic cell in suspension? To see a great artistic rendition of our small Universe swimming like a cell inside the infinite waters of the Macrospace, go to Teleological."

Monday, April 24, 2006 1:30:00 PM  
Blogger fdocc said...

My Dear Anonymous, this time I must completely agree with you!
Axinar, I completely disagree with you! However, thank you both very much for your comments!(smile)

Fernando Castro-Chavez.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006 8:47:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home