Science Daily reports on new work examining cellular motors: Life’s smallest motor — a protein that shuttles cargo within cells and helps cells divide — does so by rocking up and down like a seesaw, according to research conducted by scientists at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and Brandeis University. The researchers created high-resolution snapshots of a protein motor, called kinesin, as it walked along a microtubule, which are tube-shaped structures that form a cell’s “skeleton.” The result is the closest look yet at the structural changes kinesin proteins undergo as they ferry molecules within cells. “We see for the first time how kinesin’s atomic-scale moving parts allow it to pull itself and its cargo along Read More ›

I’ve evolved, and here’s my evolution: Richard Dawkins became Antony Flew who became C.S. Lewis. (Of course, I’m not in the same league as Flew or Lewis, and God forgive my Dawkins past.) Things that are made. I have a faint recollection of this phrase from some ancient text I once read. Things that are made are designed and engineered. We all can recognize them. I would like to offer the following hypothesis: The universe was rigged. It was designed for discovery (a thesis put forward in The Privileged Planet), but also designed in such a way that there would always be an escape clause in the contract for those who are committed, for whatever reason, to reject the obvious. Read More ›

My grandfather, about whom I have written before in these pages, was an extraordinary man.  Born in 1910, he left school after the second grade to go to work shortly after the great flu pandemic of 1918.  He was, however, a prodigious autodidact, and when he died his library ran into the thousands of volumes.  He had many talents, but his true genius lay in things mechanical.  He was a highly skilled tool and die maker at a multi-national manufacturing company, and it was ironic but not unusual for college educated engineers to consult with this second grade dropout on particularly thorny problems.

Papa also made machines for his own amusement, and what wonderful, whimsical, marvelous machines he made.  I remember one machine in particular.  On a large platform stood several mechanical men about six inches tall.  The men were animated by an electric motor attached to a series of pulleys and levers out of sight underneath the platform.  Read More ›

Two years ago, “the most primitive bat known” was reported in Nature. It was not primitive in its wings and body, but “the morphology of the ear region suggests that it could not echolocate, making it a possible intermediate link between bats and their non-flying, non-echolocating mammalian ancestors”. At the time, the find was suggested to settle the question as to which came first: flight or echolocation? The answer was a definite flight first. “The problem of understanding bat evolution dates back at least to Charles Darwin, who in The Origin of Species enumerated a list of difficulties he saw with the theory of evolution by natural selection. The example often discussed is the origin of the eye. But Darwin Read More ›

In a comment to a prior post lastyearon writes: I’m simply not understanding how it is possible to detect that certain things were the result of design if everything is the result of design. If you hold that the laws of nature were Fine-Tuned for life, then that position seems incompatible with the notion that it is possible to detect that certain things were the product of Intelligent Design. IDers say they can detect design by distinguishing designed objects from products of natural ‘undirected’ causes. But if natural causes were designed for life, then doesn’t that invalidate that claim? I reply: You seem to imply that “IDers” are the only ones who claim to be able to distinguish between designed Read More ›

In a prior thread mikev6 asked: “If God is required to be moral, and I don’t believe in God, does that make me immoral?” I responded: “mikev6. Just because you are an atheist you will not necessarily act in an immoral way. No one said you would. It is a fact, however, that you are unable to ground your morality on anything other than your whim at the moment.” Ov responded to me: “Barry Arrington, in response to mikev6, said: “It is a fact, however, that you are unable to ground your morality on anything other than your whim at the moment.” I agree that such morality having an absolute grounding is not the case, but calling what mikev6 holds Read More ›

Tandem repeats are short stretches of DNA that are repeated head-to-tail. “At first sight,” explains evolutionist Marcelo Vinces, “it may seem unlikely that this stutter-DNA has any biological function.” This is an example of how evolutionary thinking harms science. Since life is an accident, biology must be straightforward. If we do not immediately perceive how something works, then evolutionists typically think it is non functional junk. Over and over this evolutionary expectation has turned out wrong. And now again with tandem repeats.  Read more

It seems that evolutionists are forever repeating their refrain that evolution is both theory and fact. And for good reason—evolution is commonly misunderstood. On the one hand, evolution is a mechanistic explanation for the origin of species. That is the theory part of evolution and it is open to substantial revision. A wide variety of explanations are possible and even the venerable natural selection can be discarded if need be. The only requirement, it seems, is that the explanation must be mechanistic. Aside from that, most any explanation, no matter how fantastic, is fair game.  Read more

Mathematician Granville Sewell on Common Design   On this episode of  Dr. Sewell’s new book, In the Beginning: And Other Essays on Intelligent Design, is published by Discovery Institute Press. Click here to listen.ID the Future, pro-ID mathematician Granville Sewell explains his views on common design and how the second law of thermodynamics challenges materialism. Listen in as Sewell and Luskin explore an expanse of important topics, such as the origin of human consciousness, scientism, education policy, and the problem of evil. www.idthefuture.com

Jeffrey Dahmer: “If it all happens naturalistically, what’s the need for a God? Can’t I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” [Biography, “Jeffrey Dahmer: The Monster Within,” A&E, 1996.] Naturalists like to stress that you don’t need God or religion to be good. Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins even suggest that leaving God out of the equation actually allows one to be more moral because then our moral acts are authentic, motivated by deep conviction rather than by having a divine gun to our heads. Even so, Dahmer’s logic is compelling. We need some external reference point — God — to justify being good. And that justification is significant in its own right. Without it, we can still Read More ›

The article is open access, so you can choose to download it. Or choose not to download it. Or choose to click over to YouTube, or the Huffington Post, to see what’s doing there.

Whatever happens, “you” — meaning the person reading this right now — won’t be making a decision. Physics and chemistry will. These forces will inform you of their “decision,” so to speak, by the perceptual illusion, constructed in the infinite wisdom of natural selection, which gives you the misleading sense of having made a choice. Otherwise known as free will, which doesn’t exist.
Read More ›

Dr. Behe’s “Misusing Protistan Examples to Propagage Mythes about Intelligent Design” is up at his UD blog.

One problem with evolution is its strong bias toward viewing everything in biology as a kludge. When a newly discovered structure is examined, evolutionists take one look and conclude it is leftover junk. After all, blind, unguided mutations and other processes just happened to produce everything we see. The evolutionist’s going in position is that biology is a fluke. We’re lucky anything works.  Read more