Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Could the public be starting to get enough information to see through Darwinism?


At one time, a Darwinian sneer sufficed for an argument:

In the past, the general public lacked the technical knowledge to decipher the science underlying the evidence for protein rarity, so they were powerless to see past the critics’ smoke and mirrors (see here, here, and here). Fortunately, a straightforward analysis of the research by protein expert Dan Tawfik (see here, here, and here) not only confirms and generalizes Axe’s results, but is much more accessible to the public. Tawfik’s research on β-lactamase yielded results that almost perfectly confirm Axe’s rarity estimate. In addition, the former’s research and research on the HisA enzyme demonstrate that randomly altering less than 2 percent of the enzymes’ amino acids disables them over half of the time. And, altering 10 percent will disable them nearly 100 percent of the time. In contrast, altering 2 percent of a paragraph written in English is usually barely noticeable, and altering 10 percent still leaves a paragraph largely readable. Therefore, protein sequences are often far rarer than readable English sentences, so they are even more difficult to generate by chance.

Brian Miller, “Mistakes Our Critics Make: Protein Rarity” at Evolution News and Science Today:

It’s not that the public has become smarter but the discussion has gone on for so long that Darwinians can’t get away with just sneering. And their hats don’t have many rabbits left either.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to describe and explain how life has changed and diversified over time after it appeared.
It has failed to do so. It doesn't even meet the standards of a scientific theory.
It says nothing about how life may have started and Darwin made no claim whatsoever that it did.
And yet HOW life originated dictates how it subsequently evolved. If the OoL = Intelligent Design then the organisms were intelligently designed with the ability to adapt and evolve- Spetner 1997, 2014. Meaning if your alleged theory can't say how life started it can't say how it subsequently evolved and diversified. ET
I have seen the TalkOrigins Archive and there isn't anything that supports evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. The 29+ evidences for macroevolution does not pertain to any mechanism. And yet the evidence presented is one of patterns and mechanisms determine patterns. It also falsely claims that evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. And yet it also predicts numerous transitional forms. You cannot have both. Numerous transitional forms would ruin any attempt to put all of the organisms in neat little groups. Everything @ talkorigins pertains to "evolution" as if ID and Creation argue for the fixity of species. Meaning it is full of strawman arguments and literature bluffs. ET
The theory of evolution is an attempt to describe and explain how life has changed and diversified over time after it appeared. It says nothing about how life may have started and Darwin made no claim whatsoever that it did. To attack it for not doing what it never claimed to do in the first place is to attack a strawman. Seversky
Yes, the information has always been out there. Anyone who is interested can go to a site like TalkOrigins Archive and find a good summary of all the scientific support for the theory of evolution. What is apparent, unfortunately, is that the general public prefer to stay within their various intellectual comfort zones and not confront challenging information and arguments. Seversky
Here is a great poll question: Do you believe that nature can produce coded information processing systems? If yes, how can we test such a thing? ET
LoL! @ RP- No one cares about polls. Polls almost always ask the wrong questions. The poll in your comment is that type of poll. People care about the science. And seeing that no one can test the claims of blind and mindless processes, it isn't science. Intelligent Design is still the only scientific explanation for our existence. ET
The information has been there all along, but Darwinists have done their best to ignore or vilify all the evidence that points to them being wrong. They point to micro-evolution as evidence of macro-evolution, which is no different than pointing at evidence of the universe and claiming it's evidence of a multiverse. Darwinists refuse to even acknowledge there is nothing to explain how a single law of physics can exist. Chaos does not create order, but order does create chaos. When asked about how life can arise from no-life, they say it has nothing to do with evolution and attack anyone who disagrees. They have no answer and can't allow themselves to accept they may be wrong. They are too busy patting themselves on the back and drooling over the same slogans to bother with such things as evidence. The scientific method requires something to be observed and replicated before a hypothesis, any hypothesis, can become a theory. Macro-evolution has never been witnessed and the results have never been replicated. When asked to point out a single instance of witness and replication, they say Darwinism is the only time anyone has ever dared to bring anything up like that. Science is based on what is known at any given time. There are no facts in science and theories change over time. Static Universe gave way to the Big Bang, but no one calls the Big Bang a fact. It is a theory that will eventually be replaced by another due to our limited understanding of the universe. If anyone believes macro-evolution to be a fact, does so by removing themselves from the realm of science altogether. BobRyan
Information from Gallup polls from 1981 to 2017. “God created man in present form“ 1981: 44% 2017: 38% “Man developed, with God guiding“ 1981: 38% 2017: 38% “Man developed, but God had no part in process“ 1981: 9% 2017: 19% https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx Retired Physicist

Leave a Reply