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]:

"...to 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!"

Update:

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)