Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

When I Pointed Out the Absurdity an Evolution Professor Gave Me Pushback

arroba Email

Perhaps the biggest myth in today’s origins debate is that evolution is the result of good, objective scientific research. And so anyone who would reject evolution’s mandate that the world arose spontaneously must be religious while those who, on the other side, insist on our modern-day Epicureanism are simply all about science. In order to prop up this myth we must tell ourselves that all those scientific arguments against evolution are nothing more than disingenuous ploys by those religious rascals, and that all those religious mandates for evolution also don’t matter because they are nothing more than helpful explanations offered up by the secular good guys. Both of these are false of course. The significant scientific problems with evolution are not contrived, they are real. And the religious mandates for evolution are not a sidebar, they underwrite evolutionary thought. Without them there would be no evolution. So maintaining this myth requires some effort. We must deny the obvious scientific problems while at the same time presenting evolution as good science. And we must deny any religious mandate while at the same time proclaiming our metaphysical certainties that require evolution. I repeat this sad state of affairs not only as a public service, but also because two convenient examples presented themselves yesterday. Let’s look at the first one.  Read more

OT: Thomas Woodward Intelligent Design Interview (by apologetics 315)- video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZA9yJmq_vo bornagain77
It's miraculous that something like superhighways of microtubules crowded with molecular machines that “walk” along them delivering cargo should emerge, but what constructs those superhighways and how is the entire enterprise powered? At the molecular level certain forces reign supreme. Does the cell operate in spite of these forces or are those forces harnessed for use, as it were? Is that not even more miraculous? That it's all just accidental becomes less and less credulous as a rationally acceptable explanation. Mung
Every time I see the kinesin machine, I can't help thinking of R. Crumb's Keep on Truckin' character: http://goo.gl/iHFCG sagebrush gardener
How Cellular Motors Prevent Traffic Jams - January 10, 2013 Excerpt: Living cells have superhighways of microtubules, crowded with molecular machines that "walk" along them delivering cargo. Sometimes things get a bit crowded, but deliveries arrive on time -- thanks to a unique strategy. In short, the machines hand off their cargo, one to the next, till it reaches the end of the traffic jam, something like the kid's relay race game of passing a beach ball overhead down the line. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/01/how_cellular_mo068121.html
Of note:
Kinesin: What Gives? - Steven M. Block - Department of Molecular Biology - Princeton Excerpt: The kinesin motor is impressively fast,,, and is quite powerful,,, (Scaled up to our own dimensions, a motor with corresponding properties would travel at similar speeds and produce as much horsepower per unit weight as the 'Thrust' supersonic car, which recently broke the sound barrier) http://www.stanford.edu/group/blocklab/Block-Cell%20Review.pdf
These following videos, which really don't do the kinesin machine justice, gives us a small glimpse of what the machine looks like:
Kinesin Linear Motor - Video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeJwQ0OXc4 The inner life of a cell – Harvard University – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJyUtbn0O5Y
sg, In explanatory power, "it just happened, that's all" trumps "goddidit" any day! Mung
AMEN. It is a myth that evolution etc is the result of smart people doing excellent(scientific) investigation of nature with conclusions proving evolution. In fact its a few people, reading older people's stuff, and not doing or able to do any scientific investigation backing up evolution. It really is not able thinkers doing careful investigation. This is why they are under pressure these days by smarter people looking into the facts. Robert Byers
"Goddiddit" gets us nowhere.
I can't for the life of me figure out how evolutionists believe they have scored a point when they repeat this foolish mantra of theirs. To me it only underscores the depths of their own intellectual and spiritual poverty. Generations of scientists before Darwin believed that "God did it", and that belief served them quite well. What kind of intellect says "This extraordinarily complex universe was apparently designed by an unimaginably superior intelligence. Oh well, nothing to see here; I'll just go home now!" The only endeavor they see as worthy is the spinning of endless and contradictory just-so stories; the marijuana-smoker's pipe dream of "I can imagine it, therefore it must be possible, therefore it must be probable, therefore it must be true!" (See also the "Pegasus fallacy".) They call this nonsense "science". And it is to be defended at all costs against the ignorant fundamentalist rabble outside the gates. sagebrush gardener
Life is accident. You heard it here. Mung
Professor Thomas Nagel of New York University seems to agree and he is a self-proclaimed atheist. See his book, Mind and Cosmos, Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly false. A quote from the last page says it all- "I have argued patiently against the prevailing form of naturalism, a reductive materialism that purports to capture life and mind through its neo-Darwinian extension. ...I find this view antecedently unbelievable - a heroic triumph of ideological theory over common sense." pg 128 smordecai
Chalk another molecular machine up to the designing power of Intelligence:
Artificial molecular machine could hold key to more efficient manufacturing (w/ video) - January 2013 Excerpt: Professor Leigh's molecular machine is based on the ribosome. It features a functionalized nanometre-sized ring that moves along a molecular track, picking up building blocks located on the path and connecting them together in a specific order to synthesize the desired new molecule.,,, Professor Leigh says the current prototype is still far from being as efficient as the ribosome: "The ribosome can put together 20 building blocks a second until up to 150 are linked. So far we have only used our machine to link together 4 blocks and it takes 12 hours to connect each block. http://phys.org/news/2013-01-artificial-molecular-machine-key-efficient.html
Whereas unfortunately Darwinism still had, as usual, no observed instances of generating any molecular machine today! :) Of semi related note to molecular machines:
Virus caught in the act of infecting a cell (w/ video) - January 10, 2013 Excerpt: The researchers show that when searching for its prey, the virus briefly extends—like feelers—one or two of six ultra-thin fibers it normally keeps folded at the base of its head. Once a suitable host has been located, the virus behaves a bit like a planetary rover, extending these fibers to walk randomly across the surface of the cell and find an optimal site for infection. http://phys.org/news/2013-01-virus-caught-infecting-cell-video.html
Natural selection is commonly interpreted as the fundamental mechanism of evolution. Questions about how selection theory can claim to be the all-sufficient explanation of evolution often go unanswered by today's neo-Darwinists, perhaps for fear that any criticism of the evolutionary paradigm will encourage creationists and proponents of intelligent design.
Biological Emergences Mung
Contrary to near-unanimity among scientists, he insisted that the neo-Darwinian theory of micromutations applied only within species and was no longer tenable as a general theory of evolution. Instead, Goldschmidt claimed, macroevolution resulted from larger jumps in genotype - across "bridgeless gaps" - related either to systemic mutations or to mutations affecting early development.
The Material Basis of Evolution Mung
But somehow, the only people who are capable of recognizing this deep truth are Christian fundamentalists. How odd.
And anyone who discovers this deep truth must be, ipso facto, a Christian fundamentalist. QED. Mung
This is sort of like how materialist atheists claim to eschew philosophy and religion while concurrently holding dear the notion that only methodological naturalism should be the basis of what we consider to be knowledge. It's this kind of thing that has led me to believe that many people in the world are nothing more than sophisticated, holographic versions of turing machines. They really are, IMO, exactly what they say they are: entirely caused, input-output mechanisms - biological automatons or, in the gaming vernacular, NPCs (non-player characters). However, it's my duty to assume they are not. William J Murray
For people may have a bit of trouble understanding just how deeply entrenched Darwinism is in its Theological presuppositions, as I did, this following video may be a great help: The Descent of Darwin - Pastor Joe Boot - (The Theodicy of Darwinism) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKJqk7xF4-g bornagain77

Leave a Reply