Darwinism's defeat Intelligent Design Irreducible Complexity

At Evolution News: Michael Behe in World Magazine — “Game Over” for Darwinism

Spread the love

David Klinghoffer writes:

Image: A scene from “Molecular Machines — ATP Synthase: The Power Plant of the Cell,” via Discovery Institute.

Professor Behe was present at a “semi-secret” scientific gathering “whose theme was a specific controversial question: Did Darwinian evolution have any limitations?” ATP synthase (pictured above) is a fearfully and wonderfully made molecular machine, the “power plant of the cell.” John Walker [a British scientist who has studied ATP synthase for over 40 years] had the floor and was discussing his area of expertise. Behe explains:

ATP synthase is not simple. Comprising thousands of amino acid building blocks in about 10 kinds of protein chains, its intricate structure carefully directs a flow of acid particles, beginning from outside the cell, through deep channels in the machine’s organization, into the cell’s interior. Somehow, like the cascade of water over a hydroelectric dam that turns a turbine, the flow of acid through the channels rotates a central camshaft. The cams push against multiple discrete areas of a stationary region of the synthase, distorting their shapes. The distortion forces together two bound feed-chemicals, ADP and phosphate, provoking them to react to yield the energy-rich-yet-stable molecule ATP. As the camshaft completes a turn, the ATP is released into the cell, and the machine begins another cycle. Incredibly, the many copies of the machine in each person produce about 150 pounds of ATP molecules every day, but each is used rapidly as energy — in effect, recharging each cell like a reusable battery.

And Walker’s more recent studies — using the ­newest, most powerful iteration of microscopy, called “cryo-electron” microscopy — would reveal its mechanism in unprecedented detail.

A Snipe Hunt

But there was an obvious problem:

By now, the scientists assembled before Dr. John Walker had run out of patience. The man had just held forth for nearly an hour on this miracle of biological architecture. Elegant and complex, precision-engineered, multiplied daily in the billions across the biosphere and on which the entirety of life depends. Finally, during the Q&A period, a questioner asked him directly: How could a mindless Darwinian process produce such a stunning piece of work?

Walker’s entire reply (paraphrasing): “Slowly, through some sort of intermediate or other.”

Far out of earshot I muttered two simple words: “Game over.”

If a Nobel laureate who has worked on one of life’s most fundamental systems for four decades can’t give an account of how it supposedly arose through a series of lucky mutations and natural selection — despite knowing its innermost workings in spectacular detail — then it’s reasonable to conclude no such account exists, and the effort to find one is a snipe hunt. [Emphasis added.]

A snipe hunt is a “fool’s errand” because the so-called snipe in the metaphor is an imaginary animal. And indeed the game is over for Darwinian evolutionary theory: an unguided evolutionary explanation for what Behe calls irreducibly complex structures, including ATP synthase, will not be found. It remains for Darwin’s apologists, some of them rather vicious, to recognize this and permit the public to hear it, too. Read the rest of Behe’s essay for World here.

Full article at Evolution News.

35 Replies to “At Evolution News: Michael Behe in World Magazine — “Game Over” for Darwinism

  1. 1
    Red Reader says:

    When we see any machinery in the world around us, we know immediately, without the slightest doubt, that the machine was designed and constructed with intelligence, forethought, and purpose.
    Our brains are constructed in such a way as to recognize such design intuitively without a second thought.
    The same is true when we observe biological machinery such as ATP synthase.

    We intuitively know it was designed and constructed with intelligence, forethought, and purpose.
    The molecules of the machine did not arrange themselves accidentally.

    To suggest such machinery could occur without great intelligence “Slowly, through some sort of intermediate or other” is willful refusal to admit what one intuitively already knows to be true.
    It is a choice one makes based not on science but on an irrational (unproven and unprovable) belief there is no God and therefore no intelligence in the universe greater than man’s.

  2. 2
    martin_r says:

    an unguided evolutionary explanation for what Behe calls irreducibly complex structures, including ATP synthase, will not be found.

    let me add to the list:

    P H O T O S Y N T H E S I S

  3. 3
    BobRyan says:

    How many nails in Darwin’s coffin does this make? Sadly, rather than accept the lack of evidence for what it is, Darwinists will write it off without thought or consideration that they are wrong.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    Yet another nail in the coffin of Darwinism.,,, And, as with John Walker’s talk on the ‘stunning’ molecular machine that is ATP, in a great number of instances, it is Darwinists themselves who are the ones driving the nails into the Darwinian coffin.
    https://f4.bcbits.com/img/a0096906383_16.jpg

  5. 5
    chuckdarwin says:

    It is telling that Behe publishes his anecdotal essay about this “semi-secret” conference in an overtly Christian, paywalled e-zine. That makes the likelihood of anyone in the scientific community seeing it close to nil. And, once again, just in case we missed it, ID is not religion dressed up as “science.” And I am the king of Siam…..

  6. 6
    asauber says:

    CD @ 5

    It’s the reactions like yours that just drove nail=x,xxx,xxx,xxx into the coffin.

    Andrew

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    In case you missed it ChuckyD, “religion dressed up as “science”” is a perfect description of exactly what Darwinian evolution itself is.

    From its inception, Darwinism itself has been crucially dependent on bad theology instead of on any compelling empirical evidence.

    In fact, far from being a great scientist, Charles Darwin is far more properly classified as being a shabby theologian who practiced bad theology rather than a great scientist who practiced good science.

    Charles Darwin – Education
    ,,, Repelled by the horror of early 19th century surgery, Darwin dropped out of Edinburgh in 1827 and enrolled in Christ College, Cambridge University, studying to be a clergyman in the Church of England. Charles earned his Bachelor’s Degree in Theology in 1831.,,,
    https://www.allaboutscience.org/charles-darwin.htm

    “What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering low & horridly cruel works of nature!”
    – Charles Darwin to J. D. Hooker 13 July [1856]

    Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin’s Use of Theology in the Origin of Species – May 2011
    Excerpt: The Origin supplies abundant evidence of theology in action; as Dilley observes:
    I have argued that, in the first edition of the Origin, Darwin drew upon at least the following positiva theological claims in his case for descent with modification (and against special creation):?1. Human beings are not justified in believing that God creates in ways analogous to the intellectual powers of the human mind.
    2. A God who is free to create as He wishes would create new biological limbs de novo rather than from a common pattern.
    3. A respectable deity would create biological structures in accord with a human conception of the ‘simplest mode’ to accomplish the functions of these structures.
    4. God would only create the minimum structure required for a given part’s function.
    5. God does not provide false empirical information about the origins of organisms.
    6. God impressed the laws of nature on matter.
    7. God directly created the first ‘primordial’ life.
    8. God did not perform miracles within organic history subsequent to the creation of the first life.
    9. A ‘distant’ God is not morally culpable for natural pain and suffering.
    10. The God of special creation, who allegedly performed miracles in organic history, is not plausible given the presence of natural pain and suffering.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2011/05/charles_darwin_theologian_majo/

    Evolution as a Theological Research Program – by Cornelius Hunter – August 2021
    Abstract
    Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution interacted with non-empirical factors including a range of theological concerns. The influence of these theological concerns is typically modeled as secondary to that of empirical evidence. In both Darwin’s thought and later development of the theory of evolution, theological concerns have been viewed as serving in a range of possible roles. However, the theological concerns have consistently been viewed as, ultimately, subservient to empirical science. In the end, science has the final say regarding the content and evaluation of the theory. Here, this paper demonstrates the failure of this model. Theological concerns do have primacy over the science. They motivate the development of evolutionary theory, and they control the interpretation of the empirical evidence and justification of the theory. It is more accurate to view evolution as a theological research program.
    Introduction Excerpt:
    ,,, theological claims are common in Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (Darwin 1859), where they are essential to his science. The religion is not a tangential message, and one need not read between the lines to see it. In the Origin, it would not be an exaggeration to say the religion drives the science. Darwin’s religion is not merely present, it is prominent and has primacy over the science. The religion is foundational.
    The importance of religion in Darwin’s theory is also apparent in the science he presented. As Section 5 shows, Darwin did not have sufficient scientific arguments and evidence to advance his theory. Finally, as Section 6 and Section 7 demonstrate, these roles and relationships between religion and science persisted after Darwin. This religious foundation was by no means peculiar to Darwin’s thought. It has remained foundational since Darwin in motivating and justifying the theory. What we find in Darwin continued in later evolutionary thought. Therefore, the thesis of this paper is that evolution is best understood as a theological research program.
    https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/9/694/htm

    To this day, since Darwinists still do not have any compelling scientific evidence that Darwinian evolution is true, (or even any evidence that it is feasible), Darwinists are still crucially dependent on bad theology in order to try to make their case for Darwinian evolution.

    Methodological Naturalism: A Rule That No One Needs or Obeys – Paul Nelson – September 22, 2014
    Excerpt: It is a little-remarked but nonetheless deeply significant irony that evolutionary biology is the most theologically entangled science going. Open a book like Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution is True (2009) or John Avise’s Inside the Human Genome (2010), and the theology leaps off the page. A wise creator, say Coyne, Avise, and many other evolutionary biologists, would not have made this or that structure; therefore, the structure evolved by undirected processes. Coyne and Avise, like many other evolutionary theorists going back to Darwin himself, make numerous “God-wouldn’t-have-done-it-that-way” arguments, thus predicating their arguments for the creative power of natural selection and random mutation on implicit theological assumptions about the character of God and what such an agent (if He existed) would or would not be likely to do.,,,
    ,,,with respect to one of the most famous texts in 20th-century biology, Theodosius Dobzhansky’s essay “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” (1973).
    Although its title is widely cited as an aphorism, the text of Dobzhansky’s essay is rarely read. It is, in fact, a theological treatise. As Dilley (2013, p. 774) observes:
    “Strikingly, all seven of Dobzhansky’s arguments hinge upon claims about God’s nature, actions, purposes, or duties. In fact, without God-talk, the geneticist’s arguments for evolution are logically invalid. In short, theology is essential to Dobzhansky’s arguments.”,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....89971.html

    Damned if You Do and Damned if You Don’t – Steve Dilley- 2019-06-02
    The Problem of God-talk in Biology Textbooks
    Abstract: We argue that a number of biology (and evolution) textbooks face a crippling dilemma.
    On the one hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks include theological claims in their case for evolution.
    (Such claims include, for example, ‘God would never design a suboptimal panda’s thumb, but an imperfect structure is just what we’d expect on natural selection.’) On the other hand, significant difficulties arise if textbooks exclude theological claims in their case for evolution. So, whether textbooks include or exclude theological claims, they face debilitating problems. We attempt to establish this thesis by examining 32 biology (and evolution) textbooks, including the Big 12—that is, the top four in each of the key undergraduate categories (biology majors, non-majors, and evolution courses). In Section 2 of our article, we analyze three specific types of theology these texts use to justify evolutionary theory. We argue that all face significant difficulties. In Section 3, we step back from concrete cases and, instead, explore broader problems created by having theology in general in biology textbooks. We argue that the presence of theology—of whatever kind—comes at a significant cost, one that some textbook authors are likely unwilling to pay. In Section 4, we consider the alternative: Why not simply get rid of theology? Why not just ignore it? In reply, we marshal a range of arguments why avoiding God-talk raises troubles of its own. Finally, in Section 5, we bring together the collective arguments in Sections 2-4 to argue that biology textbooks face an intractable dilemma. We underscore this difficulty by examining a common approach that some textbooks use to solve this predicament. We argue that this approach turns out to be incoherent and self-serving. The poor performance of textbooks on this point highlights just how deep the difficulty is. In the end, the overall dilemma remains.
    https://journals.blythinstitute.org/ojs/index.php/cbi/article/view/44

    The reason why Darwinian evolution is dependent upon bad theological argumentation, (besides the fact that it has no compelling empirical evidence), is that all of science is based upon Judeo-Christian presuppositions.

    “Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”.
    – Ian Barbour

    Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature
    “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,,
    “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.”

    Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature
    “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism),
    “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts”
    – Johannes Kepler

    Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility
    “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” (Francis Bacon’s championing of inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks)
    – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA

    You simply can’t do science without those essential Judeo-Christian presuppositions. As Paul Davies succinctly put it, “even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”

    Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995
    Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
    https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24

    In short, since our ability to be rational, and/or to reason, itself must be based in God, Darwinists themselves are forced to sit in God’s lap to even have the capacity to slap Him in the face.

    “In other words, the non-Christian needs the truth of the Christian religion in order to attack it. As a child needs to sit on the lap of its father in order to slap the father’s face, so the unbeliever, as a creature, needs God the Creator and providential controller of the universe in order to oppose this God. Without this God, the place on which he stands does not exist. He cannot stand in a vacuum.”
    – Cornelius Van Til, Essays on Christian Education (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company: Phillipsburg, NJ, 1979).

    Logos is the Greek word transcribed as “reason,” “word,” “speech,” or “principle.” In Greek philosophy, it related to a universal, divine reason or the mind of God (that puts order into the universe instead of chaos). The gospel of John connected this Greek term with the nature and existence of God and Jesus Christ.
    https://www.christianity.com/wiki/christian-terms/logos-in-the-bible-definition-and-significance.html

    John 1:1
    “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word (Logos) was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God.”

  8. 8
    chuckdarwin says:

    BA77
    It’s amazing how quickly you crank out your “responsive” tomes. One might even say uncanny, actually. Until you read them and realize that it is just the same one over and over and over and–well you get the point……
    BTW, you list four (and maybe five) definitions of “logos.” Nothing like precision. Brings to mind that quip of Nietzsche’s that “it is curious that God learned Greek when he decided to become an author-and that he did not learn it better.”

  9. 9
    asauber says:

    “It’s amazing how quickly you crank out your “responsive” tomes.”

    CD,

    That’s because trolls like you have been posting the same comments here for years. Duh.

    Andrew

  10. 10
    jerry says:

    For those interested in finding out more about Michael Behe and biological change, here’s a link to a thread on him and more information from him.

    https://uncommondescent.com/evolution/at-evolution-news-behe-debates-the-limits-of-darwinian-evolution/#comment-765366

  11. 11
    chuckdarwin says:

    Asauber
    There’s a big difference. My posts are pithy and perceptive. And many times, humorous. But most of all, they are relevant.
    For example, in my post @ 8, my point is not to re-hash Behe’s shop-worn ID, but to point out his choice of venue in which to comment, i.e., a Christian magazine, rather than a scientific journal. That doesn’t exactly contribute to the discussion in the scientific world……

  12. 12
    asauber says:

    “My posts are pithy and perceptive.”

    CD,

    You might think so. But like I said, the content has essentially been commented before, thousands of times.

    Andrew

  13. 13
    jerry says:

    And, once again, just in case we missed it, ID is not religion dressed up as “science

    One would think a person would wonder why truth gets published in obscure publications.

    The answer: censorship. Here is a couple discussion on how the WEF, the UN, Google and Democrats censor information.

    The UN said they “own the science” and admit they are working with Google to censor search results.

    https://twitter.com/PeterSweden7/status/1577263886226448386

    World Economic Forum partnered with Google to determine what results are shown.

    WEF Member: “We own the science.

    https://twitter.com/KateTalksTruth/status/1576320140928778240

    And who is doing it

    Disinformation Behind Censorship Demands

    https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/disinformation-behind-censorship

    My posts are pithy and perceptive

    Apparently ChuckDarwin’s perception leads him to believe fake science to the truth. So what else is new.

    rather than a scientific journal.

    Does ChuckDarwin actually believe that corrupt science publications that won’t publish truth would be interested when they take their instructions from the WEF? That is an amazing self indictment.

  14. 14
    relatd says:

    CD at 11,

    “My posts are pithy and perceptive.” hahahahahahahahahahahaha

    No, no. MY posts are pithy and perceptive. Amazing even. 🙂

    As a frontline soldier stationed here to keep promoting Darwin/Evolution, you will apparently remain, forever.

  15. 15
    relatd says:

    The pro-Evolution troops stationed here have only one job: To preach Darwin/Evolution regardless of facts to the contrary. They are immune, or so they think. It’s their job.

  16. 16
    bornagain77 says:

    So ChuckyD, rather than just offering your usual juvenile theological response, (I.e. God did not learn Greek better,,, YAWN), (which, by the way, proves the point of my post precisely, i.e. that Darwinian evolution is a “religion dressed up as “science”), why did you not, instead, finally bring forth some, or any, substantiating empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution?

    Oh that’s right, you don’t have any real time empirical evidence for Darwinian evolution. You don’t even have any real time evidence that Darwinian processes can produce even a single functional protein, much less do you have any real time evidence of Darwinian processes producing a molecular machine. Especially a molecular machine as jaw-droopingly sophisticated as ATP Synthase is.

    In others words, as a dogmatic atheist who refuses to accept Intelligent Design, you are forever stuck making such stupid juvenile theological arguments against God as you have just, self-refutingly, done in response to my claim that Darwinists are dependent on bad theological argumentation to try to make their case. In other words, nice ‘own goal’ buddy!

    Dan S. Tawfik Group – The New View of Proteins – Tyler Hampton – 2016
    Excerpt: Tawfik soberly recognizes the problem. The appearance of early protein families, he has remarked, is “something like close to a miracle.”45,,,
    “In fact, to our knowledge,” Tawfik and Tóth-Petróczy write, “no macromutations … that gave birth to novel proteins have yet been identified.”69
    http://inference-review.com/ar.....f-proteins

    Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne – September 29, 2019
    by Günter Bechly, Brian Miller and David Berlinski
    Excerpt: David Gelernter observed that amino acid sequences that correspond to functional proteins are remarkably rare among the “space” of all possible combinations of amino acid sequences of a given length. Protein scientists call this set of all possible amino acid sequences or combinations “amino acid sequence space” or “combinatorial sequence space.” Gelernter made reference to this concept in his review of Meyer and Berlinski’s books. He also referenced the careful experimental work by Douglas Axe who used a technique known as site-directed mutagenesis to assess the rarity of protein folds in sequence space while he was working at Cambridge University from 1990-2003. Axe showed that the ratio of sequences in sequence space that will produce protein folds to sequences that won’t is prohibitively and vanishingly small. Indeed, in an authoritative paper published in the Journal of Molecular Biology Axe estimated that ratio at 1 in 10^74. From that information about the rarity of protein folds in sequence space, Gelernter—like Axe, Meyer and Berlinski—has drawn the rational conclusion: finding a novel protein fold by a random search is implausible in the extreme.
    Not so, Coyne argued. Proteins do not evolve from random sequences. They evolve by means of gene duplication. By starting from an established protein structure, protein evolution had a head start.
    This is not an irrational position, but it is anachronistic.
    Indeed, Harvard mathematical biologist Martin Nowak has shown that random searches in sequence space that start from known functional sequences are no more likely to enter regions in sequence space with new protein folds than searches that start from random sequences. The reason for this is clear: random searches are overwhelmingly more likely to go off into a non-folding, non-functional abyss than they are to find a novel protein fold. Why? Because such novel folds are so extraordinarily rare in sequence space. Moreover, as Meyer explained in Darwin’s Doubt, as mutations accumulate in functional sequences, they will inevitably destroy function long before they stumble across a new protein fold. Again, this follows from the extreme rarity (as well as the isolation) of protein folds in sequence space.
    Recent work by Weizmann Institute protein scientist Dan Tawfik has reinforced this conclusion. Tawfik’s work shows that as mutations to functional protein sequences accumulate, the folds of those proteins become progressively more thermodynamically and structurally unstable. Typically, 15 or fewer mutations will completely destroy the stability of known protein folds of average size. Yet, generating (or finding) a new protein fold requires far more amino acid sequence changes than that. Finally, calculations based on Tawfik’s work confirm and extend the applicability of Axe’s original measure of the rarity of protein folds. These calculations confirm that the measure of rarity that Axe determined for the protein he studied is actually representative of the rarity for large classes of other globular proteins. Not surprisingly, Dan Tawfik has described the origination of a truly novel protein or fold as “something like close to a miracle.” Tawfik is on Coyne’s side: He is mainstream.
    https://quillette.com/2019/09/29/right-of-reply-our-response-to-jerry-coyne/

    “Enzyme Families — Shared Evolutionary History or Shared Design?” – Ann Gauger – December 4, 2014
    Excerpt: If enzymes can’t be recruited to genuinely new functions by unguided means, no matter how similar they are, the evolutionary story is false.,,,
    Taken together, since we found no enzyme that was within one mutation of cooption, the total number of mutations needed is at least four: one for duplication, one for over-production, and two or more single base changes. The waiting time required to achieve four mutations is 10^15 years. That’s longer than the age of the universe. The real waiting time is likely to be much greater, since the two most likely candidate enzymes failed to be coopted by double mutations.
    We have now addressed two objections raised by our critics: that we didn’t test the right mutation(s), and that we didn’t use the right starting point. We tested all possible single base changes in nine different enzymes, Those nine enzymes are the most structurally similar of BioF’s entire family We also tested 70 percent of double mutations in the two closest enzymes of those nine.
    Finally, some have said we should have used the ancestral enzyme as our starting point, because they believe modern enzymes are somehow different from ancient ones. Why do they think that? It’s because modern enzymes can’t be coopted to anything except trivial changes in function. In other words, they don’t evolve!
    That is precisely the point we are making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91701.html

  17. 17
    relatd says:

    Ba77 at 16,

    Don’t you know that Chuck is surrounded by a Ignore The Evidence force field? That it is impervious to logic, facts and reason? That Chuck is committed to upholding the Soviet Union until it falls? At which point he will just quietly disappear as if he never existed…

    Prepare yourself for MORE OF THE SAME from The Chuck Darwin Show.

  18. 18
    martin_r says:

    CD @5

    It is telling that Behe publishes his anecdotal essay about this “semi-secret” …

    Darwin’s theory of evolution is an anecdotal essay …

  19. 19
    Seversky says:

    Darwin’s seminal theory has been expanded and developed considerably since 1859. If it were fundamentally flawed it would have been exposed by now and discarded rather than being built on. The attacks on the theory are mostly based on god-of-the-gaps arguments, conspiracy theories and mockery, it seems to be able to shrug them off so far. It may be that there will be further modifications or even a complete replacement in the future. None of our current theories are perfect.

    If you want a better understanding of the current state of play in these fields you should read as wide a variety of views as possible. Don’t just stick to your pet authors just because what they write fits your religious predispositions and simply regurgitating your top fifty favorite quotes is not doing science. Nor is it even necessarily a fair representation of the current state of play in those fields.

    As you are well aware, Augustine wrote,

    Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

  20. 20
    relatd says:

    Seversky at 19,

    Augustine? Again? Another attempt at bad theology. What makes you think anyone here has not heard both sides of the story? Especially from you and Chuck? What makes you think anyone here only limits themselves to their “pet” authors?

    And what does the Catholic Church say?

    • ‘The Church “proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.”

    • “Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.” ‘

    “Christoph Cardinal Schönborn is archbishop of Vienna and general editor of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. “

  21. 21
    bornagain77 says:

    So Seversky, since you are supposedly widely read in Darwinian literature, and we are not, perhaps you can be the first Darwinist on UD to finally produce some real time empirical evidence of Darwinian processes creating sophisticated molecular machines?

    “The argument that random variation and Darwinian gradualism may not be adequate to explain complex biological systems is hardly new […} in fact, there are no detailed Darwinian accounts for the evolution of any fundamental biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations. It is remarkable that Darwinism is accepted as a satisfactory explanation for such a vast subject — evolution — with so little rigorous examination of how well its basic theses works in illuminating specific instances of biological adaptation or diversity.”
    – Prof. James Shapiro – “In the Details…What?” National Review, 19 September 1996, pp. 64.
    http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed.....Review.pdf

    “,,,we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.’
    – Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.
    – Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA

    PNAS Paper Admits Understanding the Origin of Cellular Features Is a “Glaring Gap” in Evolutionary Biology – Casey Luskin – December 10, 2014
    Excerpt: In 2001, biochemist Franklin Harold wrote in an Oxford University Press monograph that “there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” Last month, a new paper in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Evolutionary cell biology: Two origins, one objective,” admitted much the same thing.,,,
    ,,,”a full mechanistic understanding of evolutionary processes will never be achieved without an elucidation of how cellular features become established and modified.”
    Though they don’t put it quite as bluntly as Franklin Harold, this paper’s message is no less potent: modern evolutionary biology lacks explanations for the origin of molecular machines.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....91901.html

    Talking Back to Goliath: Some Advice for Students in the Evolutionary Biology Classroom – Paul Nelson – September 30, 2014
    Excerpt: (if neo-Darwinism) is true, we should be able to find in the scientific literature the detailed explanations for the origin of complex structures and behaviors, rendered strictly in terms of random variation plus natural selection.
    Guess what? Those explanations aren’t there; they don’t exist. If anyone doubts this, he should try looking for himself. Choose any complex structure or behavior, and look in the biological literature for the step-by-step causal account where the origin of that structure (that is, its coming-to-be where it did not exist before) is explained via random variation and natural selection.
    You’ll be looking a long time. The explanations just aren’t there, and this fact is well known to evolutionary biologists who have become disenchanted with received neo-Darwinian theory. When proponents of the received theory, such as Richard Dawkins, face the task of making random variation and natural selection work, they resort to fictional entities like Dawkins’s “biomorphs” — see Chapter 3 of The Blind Watchmaker (1986) — or flawed analogies such as the “methinks it is like a weasel” search algorithm scenario. No one would have to employ these toy stories, of course, if evidence were available showing the efficacy of random variation and selection to construct novel complexity.
    “Research on selection and adaptation,” notes Mary Jane West-Eberhard, a disenchanted evolutionary theorist, “may tell us why a trait persisted and spread, but it will not tell us where a trait came from….This transformational aspect of evolutionary change has been oddly neglected in modern evolutionary biology” (2003, p. 197).
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....90141.html

    “The response I have received from repeating Behe’s claim about the evolutionary literature, which simply brings out the point being made implicitly by many others, such as Chris Dutton and so on, is that I obviously have not read the right books. There are, I am sure, evolutionists who have described how the transitions in question could have occurred.” And he continues, “When I ask in which books I can find these discussions, however, I either get no answer or else some titles that, upon examination, do not, in fact, contain the promised accounts. That such accounts exist seems to be something that is widely known, but I have yet to encounter anyone who knows where they exist.”
    – David Ray Griffin – retired professor of philosophy of religion and theology

    Matzke Is Back On The Flagellum Horse – November 11, 2019
    Excerpt: I won’t go into a lengthy discussion of this latest article. Suffice it to say that in the 13 years since the ’06 review article, apparently there still are no peer reviewed research studies that provide the Darwinian model of how a bacterial flagellum came to be. There’s really nothing to review in this article because there just isn’t anything new here. Its more a bunch of assertions without evidence.
    ,,, The real take away here, of course, is that 23 years after Behe’s book was published, it is still the case that there simply are no peer reviewed research studies that provide an evolutionary model to explain the origin of the bacterial flagellum. If there was, then all Matke et.al. would have to do is reference all those studies. Yet that remains the one thing missing in all of the articles and comments.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/matzke-is-back-on-the-flagellum-horse/

    Revolutionary: Michael Behe and the Mystery of Molecular Machines
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ToSEAj2V0s

  22. 22
    relatd says:

    From Humani Generis, 1950, Pope Pius XII:

    “36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter – for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God. However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question.

    “37. When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.[12]”

  23. 23
    relatd says:

    From Communion and Stewardship, International Theological Commission, 2000-2002.

    ’64. Pope John Paul II stated some years ago that “new knowledge leads to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge”(“Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution”1996). In continuity with previous twentieth century papal teaching on evolution (especially Pope Pius XII’s encyclical Humani Generis ), the Holy Father’s message acknowledges that there are “several theories of evolution” that are “materialist, reductionist and spiritualist” and thus incompatible with the Catholic faith. It follows that the message of Pope John Paul II cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe. Mainly concerned with evolution as it “involves the question of man,” however, Pope John Paul’s message is specifically critical of materialistic theories of human origins and insists on the relevance of philosophy and theology for an adequate understanding of the “ontological leap” to the human which cannot be explained in purely scientific terms. The Church’s interest in evolution thus focuses particularly on “the conception of man” who, as created in the image of God, “cannot be subordinated as a pure means or instrument either to the species or to society.” As a person created in the image of God, he is capable of forming relationships of communion with other persons and with the triune God, as well as of exercising sovereignty and stewardship in the created universe. The implication of these remarks is that theories of evolution and of the origin of the universe possess particular theological interest when they touch on the doctrines of the creation ex nihilo and the creation of man in the image of God.”

  24. 24
    jerry says:

    The essence of the OP – the most knowledgeable person in the world on ATP was asked how did it arise?

    He answered: I don’t know. Behe then essentially made a comment that seconded that assessment.

    No one since Darwin wrote his book, can say exactly how something major arose. There is a great theory, proven over and over, to explain very small changes to a species that never really makes anything new. Sometimes these small changes which are just a selection of one allele over others have major effects but never really build something new. It is called genetics.

    All the evolutionary biologist make believe that genetics explains everything but have yet to provide one example where it does. What does this say about the state of the world in which this is a fact?

    Aside: we would never hear the end of the one example they could say supports their theory if there were one. So every time Seversky/Chuchdarwin etc.. makes a snarky remark instead of citing succeses, they are advocating ID,

  25. 25
    martin_r says:

    Seversky @19

    Darwin’s seminal theory has been expanded and developed considerably since 1859 …

    Yes … modern Darwinists added more anecdotes … more absurd ones …

  26. 26
    AaronS1978 says:

    @sev
    October 6, 2022 at 11:08 am
    “Darwin’s seminal theory has been expanded and developed considerably since 1859. If it were fundamentally flawed it would have been exposed by now and discarded rather than being built on. The attacks on the theory are mostly based on god-of-the-gaps”

    It is kinda hypocritical to insinuate that attacks on Darwinism are not a big deal because they are god of gaps criticisms while claiming ID is a science stopper because it’s god of gaps

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    At Protein Data Bank (PDB), ATP synthase has been called “one of the wonders of the molecular world”,

    Molecule of the Month – ATP Synthase – 2005
    ATP synthase links two rotary motors to generate ATP
    Excerpt: ATP synthase is one of the wonders of the molecular world. ATP synthase is an enzyme, a molecular motor, an ion pump, and another molecular motor all wrapped together in one amazing nanoscale machine. It plays an indispensable role in our cells, building most of the ATP that powers our cellular processes.
    https://pdb101.rcsb.org/motm/72

    Other researchers noted that, “the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television”

    ATP: The Perfect Energy Currency for the Cell – Jerry Bergman, Ph.D.
    Excerpt: In manufacturing terms, the ATP (Synthase) molecule is a machine with a level of organization on the order of a research microscope or a standard television (Darnell, Lodish, and Baltimore, 1996).
    http://www.trueorigin.org/atp.asp

    Moreover, although man-made machines capture only 10-30% of the energy available to them, ATP synthase is found to be very close to, if not, 100% energy efficient,

    Thermodynamic efficiency and mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase – 2011
    Excerpt: F1-ATPase is a nanosized biological energy transducer working as part of FoF1-ATP synthase. Its rotary machinery transduces energy between chemical free energy and mechanical work and plays a central role in the cellular energy transduction by synthesizing most ATP in virtually all organisms.,,
    Our results suggested a 100% free-energy transduction efficiency and a tight mechanochemical coupling of F1-ATPase.
    http://www.pnas.org/content/ea.....hort?rss=1

    The Puzzle of Perfection, Thirty Years On – July 31, 2015
    Excerpt: The authors of the first paper, published in PNAS, seem hesitant to use the word “perfect” in their description of ATP synthase, the machine that generates energy currency for most cellular processes in all living things (see our animation of this amazing machine here). They use “near-perfect” in the title and throughout the paper:
    “ATP synthase produces most of the ATP in respiratory and photosynthetic cells. It is a rotary motor enzyme and its catalytic portion F1-ATPase hydrolyzes ATP to drive rotation of the central ? subunit. Efficiency of chemomechanical energy conversion by this motor is always near-perfect under different ATP hydrolysis energy (?GATP) conditions.”
    Any deviation from perfection, however, could be due to experimental error. In their graph, the error bars transverse the slope for 100 percent efficiency (that is, for conversion of chemical energy to mechanical work). It may well be as close to perfect as is physically possible. What’s even more striking is that this “near-perfect” level of efficiency is maintained throughout a “broad range” of operation conditions.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....98171.html

    Moreover, “if ATP synthase was not amazing enough, a team of scientists in Germany now tells us they are arranged in rows with other equipment to optimize performance.,,,” i.e. ATP machines are arranged in a factory-like manner!

    Your Rotary Engines Are Arranged in Factories – August 2011
    Excerpt: As if ATP synthase was not amazing enough, a team of scientists in Germany now tells us they are arranged in rows with other equipment to optimize performance. From electron micrographs of intact mitochondria, they were able to detect the rotary engines of ATP synthase and other parts of the respiratory chain. Their diagram in an open-source paper in PNAS looks for all the world like a factory.,,, “We propose that the supramolecular organization of respiratory chain complexes as proton sources and ATP synthase rows as proton sinks in the mitochondrial cristae ensures optimal conditions for efficient ATP synthesis.” The authors had virtually nothing to say about how this (factory) might have evolved, noting only that the structure is “conserved during evolution” in every sample they examined (3 species of fungi including yeast, potato, and mammal). What this means is a lack of evolution over nearly two billion years, in the standard evolutionary timeline.
    http://crev.info/content/11081....._factories

    Arranged in a factory-like manner to optimize performance? If a factory containing 100% efficient ATP molecular machines, that are lined up in rows to optimize performance, does not make a Darwinist immediately recognize “the purposeful arrangement of parts”, i.e. Intelligent Design, then nothing ever will.

    Recognizing Design by a “Purposeful Arrangement of Parts”
    Michael Behe – June 10, 2021
    Excerpt: So how do we perceive the work of a mind? As I’ve written in my books (most extensively in Darwin Devolves), minds (and only minds) can have purposes. Thus, to the extent it can manipulate things, a mind can arrange parts to achieve its purposes. Of course, we ourselves have minds. And it is a fundamental power of mind that it can discern purposes. Thus we can recognize that a mind has acted by perceiving a purposeful arrangement of parts. There is no other way that I can think of by which we can recognize another mind.
    For purposes of detecting other minds, “parts” can be virtually anything. Examples include: the purposeful arrangement of sounds in speech; words and letters in writing; mechanical parts in machinery; the timing of events in a surprise party; combinations of all those things; and an infinite number of other ways. There are many other things to say to fill this out that I can’t go into here,, Nonetheless, the overriding point is that we can only recognize design/mind in the purposeful arrangement of parts.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2021/06/recognizing-design-by-a-purposeful-arrangement-of-parts/

  28. 28
    martin_r says:

    Recognizing Design by a “Purposeful Arrangement of Parts”

    Actually, it is pretty simple …

    After 150 years, all what Darwinists have to prove, is, that an unguided ( not engineered ) process can arrange parts so they work in concern for a purpose.

    (of course, they never will … because such things happen only in Darwinian fantasy world … )

  29. 29
    TAMMIE LEE HAYNES says:

    AMAZING EXCUSE

    This is a hymn sung by devout Atheist Scientists, such as Nobel Prize Winner John Walker. It was paraphrased from John Newton’s “Amazing Grace”)

    When we’ve been (there) MILKING NSF GRANTS ten thousand years
    Bright shining as the sun
    We’ve no less days to (sing God’s praise) COME UP WITH SOME CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF ATP EVOLUTION
    Than when we’ve first begun

    Speaking as a Creationist high school grad raising our 8 kids, and who never had her snout in the NSF trough, here’s what I figure:
    If youre one of our Atheist Nobel Winning Scientist friends and you dont want to look like a leach, but you still got nothing for after 150 years, its time to cut bait on Evolution, and become a Creationist.
    And rest easy. You can still be vegan. You dont got to move to Texas and get a Ford 350. And your missus, she dont need to get a hick name like Tammy Lee.,

  30. 30
    relatd says:

    TLH at 29,

    ???????????????????????????????????????????? Vegan? A person from the planet Vega? “Hick name? Was ist das für ein Unsinn?

  31. 31
    jerry says:

    Watched this video on Evolution.

    It’s not long, only 11 minutes. It’s convincing. How many flaws are in it? I saw several but this is what the average person knows and sees during their education.

    Evolution: It’s a Thing – Crash Course Biology #20

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3GagfbA2vo&list=PL3EED4C1D684D3ADF&index=22

    What would Hank learn if he discussed Evolution with ID adherents?

  32. 32
    hnorman42 says:

    Jerry @ 31 –
    I watched that video (Evolution: It’s a Thing) as well as the one on speciation. I don’t think he’s addressing the question at all of how evolution (change of the distribution of genes over time) achieves the illusion of design. He does spend a few seconds asserting that macroevolution is just microevolution on a longer time scale. If he understands that, that’s what he should be devoting long videos to.

    At any rate, I think we can agree that change of distribution of genes over time is a thing.

  33. 33
    relatd says:

    Hnorman42 at 32,

    A thing? You just put up the magic curtain, wait millions of years, and poof, you get a rabbit? That’s crap.

  34. 34
    hnorman42 says:

    I said change of distribution of genes over time is a thing. I didn’t say it would do anything meaningful.

  35. 35
    jerry says:

    I don’t think he’s addressing the question at all of how evolution (change of the distribution of genes over time) achieves the illusion of design

    I believe that is what Hank in the video is trying to do though he never uses the concept of design.

    He’s basically dishonest. I have a transcript of the video and the places where he is being purposely evasive. For example, he uses the phrase

    It’s a thing. It’s not a debate.

    This is typical of the fact that various fossils appear in the course of history and no one in ID disagrees. But he is implying that those who don’t believe in Evolution don’t believe this. No one in ID is debating that the fossil record is not correct or doesn’t represents new life forms appearing over time.

    He goes on at the beginning to say

    Evolution is what makes life possible. It allows organisms to adapt to the environment as it changes.

    True, but this is genetics and accepted by everyone in ID. He does not say ID but those who don’t believe in Evolution deny this. They don’t. He purposely is confusing about those who disagree with Evolution over a long time period and what they believe.

    He then immediately follows with

    It’s responsible for the enormous diversity and complexity of life on Earth

    which implies genetics gives up the diversity of life.

    There is absolutely no evidence for this. If there were, he would provide it. He does introduce the wall lizards as a proof later on of rapid Evolution. The irony is that it isn’t really anything meaningful at all. It’s a very clever obfuscation. You have to ask why he is so purposely deceitful.

    The best proof for ID is people like Hank who have to distort and be deceitful about the issue of Evolution.

Leave a Reply