If ID is dead, why are some obsessed with shutting it down?

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 27, 2020

Academic Freedom, Culture, Darwinism, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Do scientists think more about sex or ID? That was an Enter Laughing question at Evolution News and Science Today but it prompts reflection on why some people in science seem driven around the bend by the idea of design in nature. And others alter their message to avoid confronting the questions:

First, if the critics are right to say ID is “dead,” why devote so much time to it? Evolution News reported in 2014 that an article in the journal Nature admitted that scientists self-censor criticisms of neo-Darwinism to avoid lending credence to ID. As Laland et al. (2014) conceded: “Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science.” In 2017 we observed how Laland followed his own advice, refusing to admit in a report published in Trends in Ecology and Evolution that the 2016 Royal Society meeting included strong critiques of the neo-Darwinian paradigm. Clearly, ID arguments are potent, and evolutionary biologists are aware of this — which is why they admit they don’t like to acknowledge problems in the evolutionary consensus.
Second, intelligent design’s supposed negative impact is hyped beyond reason. The notion that “financing of research” in the U.S. is being hurt by ID is laughable. ID research gets exactly zero dollars from the Federal Government. From other sources, the amount of money available to fund ID research, though not trivial, is minuscule compared to the amount of money available for evolutionary science. No evolutionary scientist has any right to complain.
Third, it’s a shame that “20 percent of their time and brain power” is going to ID because the trend in thought is now running toward government-backed censorship.
Evolution News, “Scientist Admits Biologists Are Obsessed with Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today

Ah yes. Mutterings about the need for censorship. When we don’t have a reasonable response to a troubling topic, first, we self-censor. Then we censor anyone who raises it. Sure, guys. That’ll work.

The questions are still there but only for those capable of addressing them.

Comments

Acartia Eddie:
ID would not have a problem with this. 99% of ID proponents, however, would.
Liar. Does lying about other people make you feel better?
Makes one wonder about the origin of ID.
The two don't have anything to do with each other. Obviously Acartia Eddie is proud to be a desperate foolET_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
10:37 AM
10
10
37
AM
PDT}

JVL
Is it not possible for an alien culture to have equal standing as humans?
ID would not have a problem with this. 99% of ID proponents, however, would. Makes one wonder about the origin of ID.Ed George_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
10:11 AM
10
10
11
AM
PDT}

ET: Yes, humans will still be remarkable, special, or unusual. On what basis? What if an alien culture had a record of a saviour who died for their sins and was resurrected? Is it not possible for an alien culture to have equal standing as humans?JVL_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
08:05 AM
8
08
05
AM
PDT}

Here are some of the most recent attempts to figure out how water got into the coconuts: Circular Code Motifs in the Ribosome: A Missing Link in the Evolution of Translation?
The origin of the genetic code remains enigmatic five decades after it was elucidated, although there is growing evidence that the code coevolved progressively with the ribosome. A number of primordial codes were proposed as ancestors of the modern genetic code, including comma-free codes such as the RRY, RNY, or GNC codes (R = G or A, Y = C or T, N = any nucleotide), and the X circular code, an error-correcting code that also allows identification and maintenance of the reading frame. It was demonstrated previously that motifs of the X circular code are significantly enriched in the protein-coding genes of most organisms, from bacteria to eukaryotes. Here, we show that imprints of this code also exist in the ribosomal RNA (rRNA). In a large-scale study involving 133 organisms representative of the three domains of life, we identified 32 universal X motifs that are conserved in the rRNA of >90% of the organisms. Intriguingly, most of the universal X motifs are located in rRNA regions involved in important ribosome functions, notably in the peptidyl transferase center and the decoding center that form the original “proto-ribosome.” Building on the existing accretion models for ribosome evolution, we propose that error-correcting circular codes represented an important step in the emergence of the modern genetic code. Thus, circular codes would have allowed the simultaneous coding of amino acids and synchronization of the reading frame in primitive translation systems, prior to the emergence of more sophisticated start codon recognition and translation initiation mechanisms.
The primordial tRNA acceptor stem code from theoretical minimal RNA ring clusters
The aim is to understand what makes RNA rings such useful, and perhaps efficient, simulators of prebiotic evolution, independently of the possibility that RNA rings are the actual primordial sequences.

theoretical RNA rings evolved along physicochemical constraints affecting nucleotide substitutions, apparently devoid of effects on their coding properties on amino acid sequences, in line with a pre-translational origin of diversification of RNA rings that would at a later stage become the population of primordial coding and decoding RNAs.
Comparisons Between Small Ribosomal RNA and Theoretical Minimal RNA Ring Secondary Structures Confirm Phylogenetic and Structural Accretion Histories
It is probable that the structural methods are more prone to errors due to evolutionary convergences than the phylogenetic method, though convergences remain the main difficulty in reconstructing evolution.
Origin and Evolution of the Universal Genetic Code
We propose an experimentally testable scenario for the evolution of the code that combines recognition of amino acids by unique sites on proto-tRNAs (distinct from the anticodons), expansion of the code via proto-tRNA duplication, and frozen accident.

The problems of the nature, origin, and evolution of the genetic code appear to be unique in combining extreme outward simplicity with excruciating difficulty.

In our view, theoretical study of the genetic code as a cryptographic problem has largely run its course. The best hope for further progress in understanding the origin and evolution of the code seems to lie with the technically challenging but conceptually clear experimentation aiming at recapitulation of the inferred steps in the translation system evolution.
Evolution of Life on Earth: tRNA, Aminoacyl-tRNA Synthetases and the Genetic Code
Life on Earth and the genetic code evolved around tRNA and the tRNA anticodon. We posit that the genetic code initially evolved to synthesize polyglycine as a cross-linking agent to stabilize protocells. We posit that the initial amino acids to enter the code occupied larger sectors of the code that were then invaded by incoming amino acids. Displacements of amino acids follow selection rules. The code sectored from a glycine code to a four amino acid code to an eight amino acid code to an ~16 amino acid code to the standard 20 amino acid code with stops. The proposed patterns of code sectoring are now most apparent from patterns of aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase evolution. The Elongation Factor-Tu GTPase anticodon-codon latch that checks the accuracy of translation appears to have evolved at about the eight amino acid to ~16 amino acid stage. Before evolution of the EF-Tu latch, we posit that both the 1st and 3rd anticodon positions were wobble positions. The genetic code evolved via tRNA charging errors and via enzymatic modifications of amino acids joined to tRNAs, followed by tRNA and aminoacyl-tRNA synthetase differentiation. Fidelity mechanisms froze the code by inhibiting further innovation.
Hey, at least they're trying hard. :)OLV_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT}

Yes, humans will still be remarkable, special, or unusual.ET_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
06:01 AM
6
06
01
AM
PDT}

BobRyan: the uniqueness of man Interesting thought: if we someday discover aliens just as intelligent as ourselves would you assume they were also intelligently designed? (You''d have to I think 'cause you believe there is an intelligence behind everything.) So, would man then still be unique?JVL_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
01:46 AM
1
01
46
AM
PDT}

Intelligent Design explains the laws of physics, the existence of math, any origin of the universe which does include Big Bang, the uniqueness of man, the difference between the brain and the mind, the origin of life, the existence of every species that has ever existed and our ability to wonder about the heavens. Remove the intelligence and you have no explanation for any of it. Is it really difficult to believe something with far greater intelligence than man is responsible for everything?BobRyan_{May 30, 2020
May
05
May
30
30
2020
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT}

Alexa ranks EN:....... 235,112 TO:....... 654,740 UD:....... 697,964 SW:....... 949,491 PT:....... 1,471,061 PS:....... 2,593,807 TSZ:..... 6,757,500 PS has shown a substantial improvementjawa_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
08:14 PM
8
08
14
PM
PDT}

ID could be falsified the day somebody would show how to get -without the guidance of any conscious agent- biological systems that have things like this : Choreography of molecular movements during ribosome progression along mRNA
During translation elongation, ribosome translocation along an mRNA entails rotations of the ribosomal subunits, swiveling motions of the small subunit (SSU) head and stepwise movements of the tRNAs together with the mRNA. Here, we reconstructed the choreography of the collective motions of the Escherichia coli ribosome during translocation promoted by elongation factor EF-G, by recording the fluorescence signatures of nine different reporters placed on both ribosomal subunits, tRNA and mRNA. We captured an early forward swiveling of the SSU head taking place while the SSU body rotates in the opposite, clockwise direction. Backward swiveling of the SSU head starts upon tRNA translocation and continues until the post-translocation state is reached. This work places structures of translocation intermediates along a time axis and unravels principles of the motions of macromolecular machines.
OLV_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
04:51 PM
4
04
51
PM
PDT}

Any news from the OOL front lately? Have Dr Cronin and Dr Szostak made any progress in the pursue of the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize? There yet? :) Did Dr Cronin finally get the point of what Dr Tour told him at their “Unbelievable” chat? Did the penny drop yet? Or still struggling to understand it? :)jawa_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
04:17 PM
4
04
17
PM
PDT}

ID will be falsified the day somebody could show how to get -without the guidance of any conscious agent- biological systems that have things like this : Signal transmission through elements of the cytoskeleton form an optimized information network in eukaryotic cells
Survival and proliferation of living systems require them to continuously acquire, process, and respond to information from the environment for threats, opportunities, or (in the case of multicellular organisms) instructions from local tissue

eukaryotes use this mode of signal transmission [wire-like flow of electrons and ions along elements of the cytoskeleton] to convey spatial and temporal environmental information from the cell membrane to the nucleus. The cell membrane, as the interface between intra- and extra-cellular environments, is the site at which much external information is received.

transmembrane ion gradients permit information acquisition when an environmental signal interacts with specialized protein gates in membrane ion channels and producing specific ions to flow into or out of the cell along concentration gradients. The resulting localized change in cytoplasmic ion concentrations and charge density can alter location and enzymatic function of peripheral membrane proteins. This allows the cell to process the information and rapidly deploy a local response.

transmission of information received and processed in and around the cell membrane by elements of the cytoskeleton to the nucleus to alter gene expression.

signal transmission by ion flow along the cytoskeleton is highly optimized.

microtubules, with diameters of about 30?nm, carry coarse-grained Shannon information to the centrosome adjacent to the nucleus with minimum loss of input source information.

microfilaments, with diameters of about 4?nm, transmit maximum Fisher (fine-grained) information to protein complexes in the nuclear membrane.

These previously unrecognized information dynamics allow continuous integration of spatial and temporal environmental signals with inherited information in the genome.

the elements of the cytoskeleton can interact in complex way with molecular transduction pathways.

complex network for signal transmission and analysis that permits rich information dynamics that likely augments and modifies the more well-known and studied information found molecular pathways (e.g. the MAPK pathway) that carry information following ligand binding to a membrane receptor to the nucelus.
Or this: The cell-wide web coordinates cellular processes by directing site-specific Ca2+ flux across cytoplasmic nanocourses
our observations point to the incredible signalling potential that may be afforded by modulating quantum Ca2+ flux on the nanoscale, in support of network activities within cells with the capacity to permit stimulus-dependent orchestration of the full panoply of diverse cellular processes. Perhaps more importantly, the cellular intranet conferred by the SR and its associated network activities are not hardwired, reconfiguring to deliver different outputs during phenotypic modulation on the path, for example, to cell proliferation. This in itself suggests that cytoplasmic nanocourses may be common to but vary in nature between different cell types. Supporting this, NE invaginations are a feature of many cell types while other junctional complexes of the S/ER vary by cell type and even between different smooth muscles.
[emphasis added]OLV_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
02:47 PM
2
02
47
PM
PDT}

CD @ 12 That was an interesting and concise overview of a popular anti-ID position. You brought together the key points, that have been made somewhat continually, since Dover, at least. 1. Christians support ID and therefore it is biased and not scientific 2. True (Darwinian) scientists are obsessed with ID because there are continual attempts for ID to enter schools. There are some contradictions, however. Point #1 above is not a scientific critique, but rather, a sociological one. ID is a scientific proposal, so what difference does it make if all its supporters are Christian? Most Darwinists are materialists, so is that enough to falsify it as a biased research project? It could be, but ID actually looks at the Darwinian claim of science and finds it lacking. ID is a non-materialist viewpoint, so why should it be troublesome that ID supporters are non-materialist (most are Christian)? David Klinghoffer who runs Evolution News is Jewish. But why not just say that most IDists are theistic? Isn't that the same criticism? "ID is false because most of its scientists believe that God exists". Ok, that's a nonsensical argument. The other contradiction that I see all the time is that ID is "trying" to get into schools. However, thanks to vigilant Darwinists, this doesn't happen. Dover made it illegal. There are no ID biology books being used in schools. ID has no standing in the scientific community (in your perspective. However, with all of that, you site statistics:
“among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA [Program for International Student Assessment] initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science.” These scores are appalling for the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world.
That's the contradiction. Blame for the "appalling" results in science falls directly on the Darwinists (at least in biology). But the anti-ID argument is going to try to say that "because people are unsuccessfully trying to infiltrate science classrooms, the Darwinists who run things cannot teach properly"? No. Darwin rules unopposed in the classroom. The results are an appalling ignorance. ID has not been tested or measured in the classroom.
So I cheer the scientists that are ever vigilant about ID, they are doing what needs to be done to protect the integrity of science education in the US.
I think you can see that you just refuted yourself. What "integrity in science education" are you talking about? The "integrity" that caused a ranking of 19 out of 35 in science? You can't have it both ways.Silver Asiatic_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

When ID proponents use the term “intelligent,” they simply seek to indicate that a structure has features requiring a mind capable of forethought to design the blueprint. But does intelligent design require perfect design?BrunoAr_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

BobRyan- Their equivocation is pathetic. All alleged evidence for "evolution" is automatically also evidence for Darwinism, i.e. blind watchmaker evolution. "Ed George" is infamous for that sort of cowardly equivocation. It, along with lying and bluffing, are all they have. So they play them to the fullest.ET_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
06:22 AM
6
06
22
AM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @12: The problem with Dr Lee Cronin is that in his appearances at Unbelievable? he has not been able to show anything that gives at least a hint of how he could attempt to win the coveted Evo2.0 OOL $10M prize. James Tour's main point was that every discovery in biology research is taking the finish line farther away from Dr Cronin. The hard problem he's facing is getting harder with every discovery reported in the research literature these days. That's what transpires from watching the Unbelievable? program. Dr Tour scored the slam dunks while Dr Cronin couldn't even hold the ball in his hands. Regardless of the brand of the sneakers the players were wearing. That's on the side. Dr Cronin got three strikes and was out. Pretty soon the game should be over.jawa_{May 29, 2020
May
05
May
29
29
2020
01:07 AM
1
01
07
AM
PDT}

ET @ 18 Nice response to a Darwinist who fails to see the lack of evidence and points to everything as evidence where none exists.BobRyan_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin @ 12 The majority of the fathers of modern science were Christians who had no issue speaking up for Jesus. I don't see the problem. In any case, appeal to motive is simply ad hominem. Hit me good with the predictive usefulness of evolutionary theory; something that doesn't expound on arbitrary mythology outside of empiricism; make claims about entropy that are simply nonsense in any applied field; or reach for teleology that doesn't even belong to it; and I, too, will fear for its loss.JClark_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

Acartia Eddie:
Except for comparative anatomy, the fossil record, genomics, cladistics, proteomics, geology, stable isotopes analysis, antibiotic resistance, molecular biology, plate tectonics, ….
None of which support Darwinism. Comparative anatomy doesn't say anything about a mechanism. The fossil record doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Genomics doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Cladistics doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Proteomics doesn't say anything about a mechanism. Darwinism is all about the mechanism. The main evidence for macroevolution, over on talk origins, is absent a mechanism. Which is strange because their "evidence" is pattern based and patterns depend on mechanisms. But the point is their evidence does not support Darwinism. Clearly Acartia Eddie is just a clueless troll. Acartia Eddie is just a grand equivocator, oblivious to what is actually being debated. And clearly quite content with his willful ignorance.ET_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

According to ID neither natural selection, drift nor any other materialistic, i.e. blind and mindless, process can produce living organisms. The same holds for the systems and subsystems that make up living organisms. But yes, ID is OK with an extraterrestrial OoL for the Earth.ET_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
03:20 PM
3
03
20
PM
PDT}

ET: One cannot be a materialist and accept ID, though. I think alien being can fit into a materialist world view nicely. Or are you saying ID is not about aliens?JVL_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT}

BR
Perhaps it has more to do with the complete lack of any evidence to support Darwinism.
Except for comparative anatomy, the fossil record, genomics, cladistics, proteomics, geology, stable isotopes analysis, antibiotic resistance, molecular biology, plate tectonics, ....Ed George_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
12:25 PM
12
12
25
PM
PDT}

Chuckdarwin, Thank you for illustrating your position. You oppose Christianity. What a surprise. Andrewasauber_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT}

ID is not religiously based. One can be an atheist and accept ID. One cannot be a materialist and accept ID, though. And there isn't any scientist that argues against ID who can present a scientifically viable alternative. And that is very telling The US is ranked low in science due to the fact that the US teaches the unscientific evolutionism is science classrooms.ET_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT}

It is a good thing that scientists are obsessed with Intelligent Design for three reasons. First, although ID proponents have attempted to argue that ID is not religiously based (viz. biblically based), recent events show that it is not just implicitly Christian-based, but explicitly so. A few weeks back, on the podcast Unbelievable, James Tour, the ID chemist, went off on a five minute, pre-discussion rant about being a Christian, his strong faith, how religion informs science, etc. He was debating Lee Cronin, famed biochemist at the U of Glasgow, and even Justin Brierley seemed a bit uncomfortable and embarrassed by Tour's tirade. Tour's comments were completely inapposite and added nothing to the conversation except to demonstrate that Tour is a Christian zealot. Second, ID kingpin, Stephen Meyer was scheduled to publish his new opus this spring "Return of the God Hypothesis." There is nothing even remotely ambiguous about the title of Meyer's book. He is also a Christian zealot. For unexplained reasons, publication of the book has been delayed a year. Finally, even a superficial poll of the members of the Discovery Institutes so called Center for Science and Culture, demonstrates that every board member, scholar and staff member is an evangelical Christian or Catholic. The only exception is the always-annoying, David Berlinski who purports to be agnostic. The conservative, Christian pedigree of the ID movement has never been scientifically neutral, it has always been religiously motivated. The judge in the Dover trial quickly discovered that fact. If ID were to confine itself to operating within the scientific community (where it is universally ignored), it likely would not survive a couple more years. HOWEVER, the reason that it is important for scientists to stay obsessed with ID pertains to its continual attempts to invade the public schools, particularly high schools. State school boards in radicalized, evangelical dominated states continue to try and ban the teaching of evolution, at worst, or have it placed on par with ID, at best. These attempts, if successful would destroy science education in the US. According to PEW, "among the 35 members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which sponsors the PISA [Program for International Student Assessment] initiative, the U.S. ranked 30th in math and 19th in science." These scores are appalling for the richest and most technologically advanced country in the world. So I cheer the scientists that are ever vigilant about ID, they are doing what needs to be done to protect the integrity of science education in the US.chuckdarwin_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
09:00 AM
9
09
00
AM
PDT}

In order for ID to be dead, someone has to come up with a viable scientific alternative. And no one has. That says it all, really.ET_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

"Perhaps they want it dead and buried?" Sev, They sure do. Why? What is it about ID that motivates some to require an extreme Final Solution for it? Get your psychology notes out. ;) Andrewasauber_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

That's a panic reaction. Are they anxious because the have to find a Darwin’s successor?OLV_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT}

Seversky Perhaps it has more to do with the complete lack of any evidence to support Darwinism. The scientific method is not complicated to understand. A hypothesis remains a hypothesis until such a time as it has been observed and the results replicated. No one has ever witnessed macro-evolution and the results have never been replicated. In other words, macro-evolution remains a hypothesis. A multiverse has never been witnessed and the results never replicated. Should we skip the steps and call the multiverse a scientific theory?BobRyan_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
02:11 AM
2
02
11
AM
PDT}

Alexa ranks.......top%.......top% EN:....... 235,528.......0.3%.......1% UD:....... 661,690.......0.7%.......1% TO:....... 672,565.......0.7%.......1% SW:....... 1,109,295.......1.2%.......2% PT:....... 1,470,590.......1.5%.......2% PS:....... 4,635,300.......4.7%.......5% TSZ:....... 6,755,069.......6.8%.......7% Based on 100M active websites. Comparable peers according to Alexa associations and inter contributions. Curiously SW was less than 100K behind UD very recently, but suddenly worsened. What happened?jawa_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
01:59 AM
1
01
59
AM
PDT}

Is @4 an example of what is said @3 ? ;)jawa_{May 28, 2020
May
05
May
28
28
2020
01:42 AM
1
01
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 4 5 6 7 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply