University of Colorado at Boulder: “This research overturns decades of thought on what factors shape venom gene evolution and venom variation, and sheds new light on why developing effective antivenom treatments for snakebites remains so challenging.”
Unfortunately for Darwinists, irreducible complexity raises real doubts about Darwinism in people’s minds. Rising to the challenge, Darwinists are doing what must be done to control the damage.
Includes: Steve Meyer’s The Return of the God Hypothesis is to be made into a movie.
Anderson: “The deeply held assumption of nearly all evolutionists is that evolution can do everything. After all, we’re here aren’t we! So there is little point in even asking the question.” Actually, in religious circles, if anyone treated their sect’s creed the way Darwinians have treated evolution, they would be regarded as a cult.
Show notes: how the latest discoveries reconfirm that Irreducible Complexity marks the death of the explanatory power of the Darwinian mechanism and other non-guided naturalistic mechanisms of the extended evolutionary modern synthesis.
John and Sandy Palmer: Part 2 applies the core concepts of irreducible complexity and functional coherence to one of the most important functions in each cell – energy production.
At Nature: “I was so overwhelmed by the beauty and the complexity that in the evenings I would just watch them like I would watch a documentary,” recalls Kukulski, a biochemist at the University of Bern, Switzerland.” No wonder panpsychism is catching on, among those who are forbidden to think in terms of design.
Schulz: This third paper (Part 3) concludes the three-part study with original observations. The observations include an ontology of the exceedingly specific protein binding relationships in the flagellum. … Finally, it is suggested that a motility organelle of this scope and scale seems profoundly unlikely to naturally evolve in the absence of foresight and mindful intent.
A mathematician who uses statistical methods to model the fine tuning of molecular machines and systems in cells reflects…
The flagellum is a good example of what doesn’t work in purely naturalist explanations. None of it happened by chance unless you think masses of information can just suddenly pop into existence by chance. Wouldn’t that be magic? Miracle?
Of course, Darwinism is dead. It is the Darwin profs and the institutional structure that supports them who are very much alive.
Although Michael Behe, is associated with the concept of irreducible complexity, he now says he prefers to explain ID as “purposeful arrangement of parts.”
On the Design Disquisitions YouTube channel, I’ve posted a new video where I recommend several books of interest, specifically pro-ID literature. Most of the suggestions may be familiar to you, but hopefully there are a few that you’ve not read before. I also give a brief summary of the content of each book. I don’t Read More…
Pultz: They find support in writings from the Biologos organization but also, weirdly enough, turn to atheist Stefaan Blancke and his paper “Irreducible incoherence and Intelligent Design: a look into the conceptual toolbox of a pseudoscience”. I guess the old saying that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” can be applied to this bizarre situation where young adherents to theistic evolution join ranks with atheists to prevent other young Christians from being drawn to ID.
As more of this type of information becomes available, expect the topic of irreducible complexity to be no longer discussable. When it can’t be debunked, it can be ruled undiscussable.