Illustra Media: Birds of the Sun
Every year, the Arctic tern—a bird weighing less than five ounces–completes one of the greatest journeys in the animal kingdom. In their constant search for daylight, moderate temperatures and small fish on which to feed, the terns literally follow the sun from the North Pole to Antarctica, and back again. Their migrations can extend more than 50,000 miles, and the biological systems that make this odyssey possible offer spectacular displays of intelligent design and purpose in the living world.
Topoisomerase: (untangler of knots in our genomes)
Untangler of Knots: The Amazing Topoisomerase Molecular Machine – animated video
Topoisomerase II is an extremely important enzyme in your cells that is designed to untangle knots and supercoils in DNA strands that arise during replication and transcription. It does this by grabbing two tangled DNA segments, holding one steady while it breaks the other segment in two, and then passing the first segment through the break. The second segment is then reconnected, and the two DNA segments are released, having been successfully untangled. Without topoisomerases, chromosomes would become an impossible mess, making DNA replication, transcription, and cell duplication impossible.
The carefully orchestrated untangling activity of topoisomerase II doesn’t happen by accident. This enzyme is a molecular machine that only works because its amino acid sequence is highly specified to provide a special shape and structure necessary for its function. In other words, topoisomerase enzymes contain high levels of complex and specified information—a hallmark of intelligent design.
Biochemist Joe Deweese Explains the Topoisomerase Molecular Machine
Biochemist Joe Deweese explains the topoisomerase molecular machine and answers questions submitted by viewers from around the world. The interview is conducted by Casey Luskin, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute.
Topoisomerase II is an extremely important enzyme in your cells that is designed to untangle knots and supercoils in DNA strands that arise during replication and transcription. It does this by grabbing two tangled DNA segments, holding one steady while it breaks the other segment in two, and then passing the first segment through the break. The second segment is then reconnected, and the two DNA segments are released, having been successfully untangled. Without topoisomerases, chromosomes would become an impossible mess, making DNA replication, transcription, and cell duplication impossible…
Apparently, Steve Meyer’s The Return of the God Hypothesis is to be made into a movie:

From Philip Cunningham, hat tipped below, “Now this is movie that will be, in my book, well worth admission and a overpriced bag of popcorn.” 🙂
Stephen Meyer did a very informative two-part interview with host Eric Wallace about Return of the God Hypothesis. Dr. Wallace jokes, “When I read the title it reminded me of the Star Wars film, Return of the Jedi. I was wondering, ‘Should I wait for the movie to come out?’” Actually, now that you mention it, says Meyer, “a theatrical release documentary is being made about the book. We hope to have that released sometime next year, early 2023.” Obviously, that is going to be quite interesting and while I was aware it, this may be the first public tip of the hat by Dr. Meyer. Even so, don’t wait for the movie to come out!” – DVID Klinghoffer, Evolution News
Hat tip: Philip Cunningham
Looking forward to it – thanks.
A theatrical release is a big challenge – but I think the DI film team is up for it.
DI could get Ben Stein to write the screenplay…….
ChuckyD, it appears you are still a little miffed about how badly Richard Dawkins looked in his interview with Ben Stein in the movie “Expelled”:
That’s a good reminder to make a donation for the DI. A great organization – takes a lot of unjust ridicule and abuse. I’m grateful for what they do — including this blog which is one of the best.
I think I’ll stick to The Expanse, The Book of Boba Fett and Star Trek: Discovery.
The Dawkins-Stein interview was never the outrageous takedown that ID folks claim. Dawkin’s only references to a designer or a superior intellect are in the context of panspermia, an idea that many biologists, including Francis Crick, have discussed. Stein should stick to hawking eye drops…
By making ID such an amorphous, vacuous thing, a person can fit just about everything into it, including the kitchen sink….
No, the funniest thing that Dawkins did was when he said the probability of God not existing was 99%. Then when he said he didn’t really know he was asked if it could be 49%. He didn’t like that. “It’s quite far from 50%.” When asked to defend that, he said he didn’t know.
God questions are Catch 22s. I admit that I am disappointed that Dawkins didn’t simply come back with a WTF?
But it doesn’t change the fact that Dawkins remained consistent on the issue of ID, notwithstanding Stein’s post interview crowing that “Richard Dawkins accepts intelligent design.” The whole thing was childish….
CD – I’ve said it very often, but again: You’re a Deist. There’s quite a lot in that you never seem to present at all. Dawkins is an atheist – so he opposes your view. Classical Deism is an ID proposal. In fact, ID is more compatible with Deism (in many ways) than with Theism.
I mean, we’re discussion worldviews here so you have a distinct belief on that – and if you’re right, then the Deist god is proof that ID is correct and materialism is false. So, you’d be right and Dawkins wrong.
The fact that you defend Dawkins as if you’re a fellow-atheist is a little strange as I see it.
That’s why it is so funny. It was obviously a joke – you can see Stein smirking, and Dawkins fell right into it and took it seriously. As if anyone could calculate the probability of God’s existence. But that’s Dawkins – that scene said everything about the guy.
ChuckyD claims that: “By making ID such an amorphous, vacuous thing, a person can fit just about everything into it, including the kitchen sink….”
Complains the man who believes in a, ahem, ‘scientific theory’ that can easily invent just-so-stories to ‘explain away’ completely opposite findings,
As is obvious from the preceding quote by Dr. Hunter, this is not science, this is ‘the dog ate my homework’ lame excuse making by Darwinists
As Denis Noble, President of International Union of Physiological Sciences, stated in 2015, ““If,,, we make neo-Darwinism so flexible as an idea that it can accept even those findings that the originators intended to be excluded by the theory it is then incumbent on modern neo-Darwinists to specify what would now falsify the theory. If nothing can do this then it is not a scientific theory.”
Even Imre Lakatos himself, who was considered one of the top three philosophers of science of the 20th century, observed that “nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific,”
Karl Popper himself, (of falsification fame), called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”
Popper also stated, “In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable; and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality.”
And Darwinists simply refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory, (and thus, according to Popper himself, Darwinists are refusing to speak about reality).
Here are several examples of empirical falsifications of Darwin’s theory that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory.
Whereas Darwinists simply refuse to accept empirical falsification of their theory, on the other hand ID is easily falsifiable, (although it has never been falsified). All anyone has to do in order to falsify ID is show just one example of coded information that does not come from an intelligent mind. All you need is one example and ID would be neatly falsified. Shoot, there is even a 10 million dollar prize awaiting the first person who can falsify ID:
So there you go ChuckyD. Besides neatly falsifying ID, fame and fortune, not to mention a Nobel prize, await you. Just demonstrate that coded information can come into existence without an intelligent mind bringing it into existence.
If you don’t mind ChuckyD, I won’t be holding my breath for you, nor anyone else, to try to prove the impossible. Namely. that material processes can create immaterial information. Frankly, perpetual motion machines are far less impossible.
Quote and Verse:
Ben Stein went down hill after this.
https://youtu.be/f4zyjLyBp64
Scamp @ 11
No kidding….
The Stein/Dawkins interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-cxUYmxiTs
Question: is the God Hypothesis a religious book? Why?
ID presents evidence that highly supports a creator of the universe. Is that a religious conclusion?
ID also presents evidence that supports an intelligence behind the origin of life and complex life. Is that a religious conclusion?
ID also presents evidence supporting that the origin of Earth is probably the only one of its kind in the universe. Is that a religious conclusion?