When strolling through the flea market that is 'settled science' ,caveat emptor.

William A. Wilson on the "Cult of Science

David Klinghoffer 

In First Things, William A. Wilson has what may be the most trenchant takedown of the "Science Says" mentality that I've come across. It's a long and fearless essay. Seeing it all put together in one place as Wilson does is liberating.

He utterly disenchants the popular, cult-like notion that science, any field of it -- from physics to psychology and everything in between -- is simply a distributor of objective truth, to be trusted implicitly. The reality is that scientists are built from the same "crooked timber" we all are, and it shows in their work. Buyer beware.

Much of this is familiar. There is the scandal of widespread failed replication. There is Stanford University Medical School professor John Ioannidis's notorious essay, "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False." Says Wilson, "There is no putting it nicely, deliberate fraud is far more widespread than the scientific establishment is generally willing to admit." Retractions of research findings are common -- that's well known. But when celebrated findings are withdrawn, that is less likely to catch the attention of the media:

Two of the most vaunted physics results of the past few years -- the announced discovery of both cosmic inflation and gravitational waves at the BICEP2 experiment in Antarctica, and the supposed discovery of superluminal neutrinos at the Swiss-Italian border -- have now been retracted, with far less fanfare than when they were first published.

And there's peer review. Ah, the vaunted standard, peer review. This hits the nail on the head: "If peer review is good at anything, it appears to be keeping unpopular ideas from being published." Yes, proponents of counter-theories in competition with Darwinism know this dynamic particularly well:

What they do not mention is that once an entire field has been created -- with careers, funding, appointments, and prestige all premised upon an experimental result which was utterly false due either to fraud or to plain bad luck -- pointing this fact out is not likely to be very popular. Peer review switches from merely useless to actively harmful. It may be ineffective at keeping papers with analytic or methodological flaws from being published, but it can be deadly effective at suppressing criticism of a dominant research paradigm. Even if a critic is able to get his work published, pointing out that the house you've built together is situated over a chasm will not endear him to his colleagues or, more importantly, to his mentors and patrons.

It's built into the structure of the modern scientific enterprise that senior researchers are jealous guardians of orthodoxy, to whom younger colleagues bow and scrape. Funerals, as the aged pass on with the advance of time, don't solve the problem -- as some have hopefully suggested:

The quantum physicist Max Planck famously quipped: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." Planck may have been too optimistic. A recent paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research studied what happens to scientific subfields when star researchers die suddenly and at the peak of their abilities, and finds that while there is considerable evidence that young researchers are reluctant to challenge scientific superstars, a sudden and unexpected death does not significantly improve the situation, particularly when "key collaborators of the star are in a position to channel resources (such as editorial goodwill or funding) to insiders."

Wilson raises the possibility that some of the best science may involve the rediscovery and unearthing of dormant truths. He gives a helpful formulation to describe this -- "scientific regress." Yes, check:

[I]f raw results are so often false, the filtering mechanisms so ineffective, and the self-correcting mechanisms so compromised and slow, then science's approach to truth may not even be monotonic. That is, past theories, now "refuted" by evidence and replaced with new approaches, may be closer to the truth than what we think now. Such regress has happened before: In the nineteenth century, the (correct) vitamin C deficiency theory of scurvy was replaced by the false belief that scurvy was caused by proximity to spoiled foods. Many ancient astronomers believed the heliocentric model of the solar system before it was supplanted by the geocentric theory of Ptolemy. The Whiggish view of scientific history is so dominant today that this possibility is spoken of only in hushed whispers, but ours is a world in which things once known can be lost and buried.

His description of the Cult of Science, a noxious and juvenile culture familiar from countless science blogs and news sites, cannot be improved on:

The Cult is related to the phenomenon described as "scientism"; both have a tendency to treat the body of scientific knowledge as a holy book or an a-religious revelation that offers simple and decisive resolutions to deep questions. But it adds to this a pinch of glib frivolity and a dash of unembarrassed ignorance. Its rhetorical tics include a forced enthusiasm (a search on Twitter for the hashtag "#sciencedancing" speaks volumes) and a penchant for profanity. Here in Silicon Valley, one can scarcely go a day without seeing a t-shirt reading "Science: It works, b--es!" The hero of the recent popular movie The Martian boasts that he will "science the sh-- out of" a situation. One of the largest groups on Facebook is titled "I f--ing love Science!" (a name which, combined with the group's penchant for posting scarcely any actual scientific material but a lot of pictures of natural phenomena, has prompted more than one actual scientist of my acquaintance to mutter under her breath, "What you truly love is pictures"). Some of the Cult's leaders like to play dress-up as scientists -- Bill Nye and Neil deGrasse Tyson are two particularly prominent examples -- but hardly any of them have contributed any research results of note. Rather, Cult leadership trends heavily in the direction of educators, popularizers, and journalists.

It's significant that Wilson himself is a software engineer, meaning that he is in the business of satisfying paying customers, not merely ginning up publicity for himself, impressing colleagues, and boosting his own self-esteem. If he were active in any other area of science, he could not possibly have gotten away with writing as frankly as this.

The Watchtower Society's commentary on king Saul

SAUL

[Asked [of God]; Inquired [of God]].

1. A Benjamite descended from Jeiel (presumably also called Abiel) through Ner and Kish (1Ch 8:29-33; 9:35-39; see ABIEL No. 1); the first divinely selected king of Israel. (1Sa 9:15, 16; 10:1) Saul came from a wealthy family. A handsome man, standing head and shoulders taller than all others of his nation, he possessed great physical strength and agility. (1Sa 9:1, 2; 2Sa 1:23) The name of his wife was Ahinoam. Saul fathered at least seven sons, Jonathan, Ishvi, Malchi-shua, Abinadab, Ish-bosheth (Eshbaal), Armoni, and Mephibosheth, as well as two daughters, Merab and Michal. Abner, evidently King Saul’s uncle (see ABNER), served as chief of the Israelite army.—1Sa 14:49, 50; 2Sa 2:8; 21:8; 1Ch 8:33.

The young man Saul lived during a turbulent time of Israel’s history. Philistine oppression had reduced the nation to a helpless state militarily (1Sa 9:16; 13:19, 20), and the Ammonites under King Nahash threatened aggression. (1Sa 12:12) Whereas Samuel had faithfully judged Israel, his sons were perverters of justice. (1Sa 8:1-3) Viewing the situation from a human standpoint and, therefore, losing sight of Jehovah’s ability to protect his people, the older men of Israel approached Samuel with the request that he appoint a king over them.—1Sa 8:4, 5.

Anointed as King. Thereafter Jehovah guided matters to provide the occasion for anointing Saul as king. With his attendant, Saul looked for the lost she-asses of his father. Since the search proved to be fruitless, he decided to return home. But his attendant suggested that they seek the assistance of the “man of God” known to be in a nearby city. This led to Saul’s meeting Samuel. (1Sa 9:3-19) In his first conversation with Samuel, Saul showed himself to be a modest man. (1Sa 9:20, 21) After eating a sacrificial meal with Saul, Samuel continued speaking with him. The next morning Samuel anointed Saul as king. To confirm that God was with Saul, Samuel gave him three prophetic signs, all of which were fulfilled that day.—1Sa 9:22–10:16.

Later, at Mizpah, when chosen as king by lot (1Sa 10:20, 21, JB; NE), Saul bashfully hid among the luggage. Found, he was presented as king, and the people approvingly shouted: “Let the king live!” Escorted by valiant men, Saul returned to Gibeah. Though good-for-nothing men spoke disparagingly of him and despised him, Saul remained silent.—1Sa 10:17-27.

Early Victories. About a month later (according to the reading of the Greek Septuagint and Dead Sea Scroll 4QSama in 1Sa 11:1) Ammonite King Nahash demanded the surrender of Jabesh in Gilead. (See NAHASH No. 1.) When messengers brought news of this to Saul, God’s spirit became operative upon him. He quickly rallied an army of 330,000 men and led it to victory. This resulted in a strengthening of Saul’s position as king, the people even requesting that those who had spoken against him be put to death. But Saul, appreciating that Jehovah had granted the victory, did not consent to this. Subsequently, at Gilgal, Saul’s kingship was confirmed anew.—1Sa 11:1-15.

Next Saul undertook steps to break the power of the Philistines over Israel. He chose 3,000 Israelites, placing 2,000 under himself and the remainder under his son Jonathan. Evidently acting at his father’s direction, “Jonathan struck down the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba.” In retaliation, the Philistines assembled a mighty force and began camping at Michmash.—1Sa 13:3, 5.

Sins Presumptuously. Meanwhile Saul had withdrawn from Michmash to Gilgal in the Jordan Valley. There he waited seven days for Samuel. But Samuel did not come at the appointed time. Fearing that the enemy would sweep down upon him when he had not secured Jehovah’s help and that further delay would result in losing his army, Saul ‘compelled himself’ to offer up the burnt sacrifice. Samuel, on arriving, condemned Saul’s ‘foolish act’ as sinful. Evidently, Saul’s sin consisted of his presumptuously going ahead with the sacrifice and not obeying Jehovah’s commandment, which had been given through his representative Samuel, to wait for Samuel to offer up the sacrifice. (Compare 1Sa 10:8.) As a consequence of this act, Saul’s kingdom was not to last.—1Sa 13:1-14.

In the progress of the campaign against the Philistines, Saul pronounced a curse upon anyone partaking of food before vengeance was executed on the enemy. This rash oath led to adverse consequences. The Israelites tired, and though they triumphed over the Philistines, their victory was not as great as it might have been. Famished, they did not take time to drain the blood from the animals they afterward slaughtered, thereby violating God’s law concerning the sanctity of blood. Not having heard his father’s oath, Jonathan ate some honey. Saul, therefore, pronounced the death sentence upon him. But the people redeemed Jonathan, for he had been instrumental in Israel’s gaining the victory.—1Sa 14:1-45.

Rejected by God. Throughout Saul’s reign there were repeated battles against the Philistines and other peoples, including the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, and Amalekites. (1Sa 14:47, 48, 52) In the war against the Amalekites, Saul transgressed Jehovah’s command by sparing the best of their flock and herd as well as their king, Agag. When asked why he had not obeyed Jehovah’s voice, Saul disclaimed guilt and shifted the blame onto the people. Only after Samuel emphasized the serious nature of the sin and said that, because of it, Jehovah was rejecting him as king did Saul acknowledge that his error was the result of his fearing the people. After Saul pleaded with Samuel to honor him in front of the older men and in front of Israel by accompanying him, Samuel did appear with him before them. Then Samuel himself proceeded to put Agag to death. After that, Samuel parted from Saul and they had no further association.—1Sa 15:1-35.

It was after this and after the anointing of David as Israel’s future king that Jehovah’s spirit left Saul. From then on “a bad spirit from Jehovah terrorized him.” Having withdrawn his spirit from Saul, Jehovah made it possible for a bad spirit to gain possession of him, depriving Saul of his peace of mind and stirring up his feelings, thoughts, and imaginations in a wrong way. Saul’s failure to obey Jehovah indicated a bad inclination of mind and heart, against which God’s spirit offered Saul no protection or resistive force. However, since Jehovah had permitted the “bad spirit” to replace his spirit and terrorize Saul, it could be termed a “bad spirit from Jehovah,” so that Saul’s servants spoke of it as “God’s bad spirit.” On the recommendation of one of his attendants, Saul requested that David be his court musician to calm him when he was troubled by the “bad spirit.”—1Sa 16:14-23; 17:15.

Relationships With David. Thereafter the Philistines threatened Israel’s security. While they were camped on one side of the Low Plain of Elah and King Saul’s forces were camped on the opposite side, Goliath, morning and evening, for 40 days, emerged from the Philistine camp, challenging Israel to furnish a man to fight him in single combat. King Saul promised to enrich and to form a marriage alliance with any Israelite who might strike down Goliath. Also, the house of the victor’s father was to be “set free,” probably from the payment of taxes and compulsory service. (Compare 1Sa 8:11-17.) When David arrived on the scene with food supplies for his brothers and certain portions for the chief of the thousand (possibly the commander under whom David’s brothers served), his questionings apparently suggested his willingness to answer the challenge. This led to his being brought to Saul and to his subsequent victory over Goliath.—1Sa 17:1-58.

Develops enmity for David. Saul thereafter placed David over the men of war. This eventually resulted in David’s being celebrated in song more than the king himself. Saul, therefore, came to view David with suspicion and envious hatred. On one occasion, as David was playing on the harp, Saul ‘began behaving like a prophet.’ Not that Saul began to utter prophecies, but he evidently manifested extraordinary feeling and a physical disturbance like that of a prophet just prior to prophesying or when prophesying. While in that unusual, disturbed state, Saul twice hurled a spear at David. Failing in his attempts to pin David to the wall, Saul later agreed to give his daughter Michal in marriage to David upon the presentation of a hundred foreskins of the Philistines. Saul’s intent in making this offer was that David would die at their hands. The scheme failed, David presenting, not 100, but 200 foreskins to form a marriage alliance with Saul. The king’s fear of and hatred for David therefore intensified. To his son Jonathan and to all of his servants, Saul spoke about his desire to put David to death. When Jonathan interceded, Saul promised not to kill David. Nevertheless, David was forced to flee for his life, as Saul hurled a spear at him for the third time. Saul even had messengers watch David’s house and commanded that he be put to death in the morning.—1Sa 18:1–19:11.

That night David made his escape through a window of his house and ran to Ramah, where Samuel resided. With Samuel he then took up dwelling in Naioth. When news of this reached Saul, he sent messengers to seize David. But, upon arriving, they “began behaving like prophets.” Evidently God’s spirit operated upon them in such a way that they completely forgot the purpose of their mission. When this also happened to two other groups of messengers dispatched by him, Saul personally went to Ramah. He likewise came under the control of God’s spirit, and that for a prolonged period, this evidently providing David sufficient time to flee.—1Sa 19:12–20:1; see PROPHET (Means of Appointment and Inspiration).

David spares Saul’s life as God’s anointed. After these unsuccessful attempts on David’s life, Jonathan, for a second time, spoke out in behalf of David. But Saul became so enraged that he hurled a spear at his own son. (1Sa 20:1-33) From that time onward Saul relentlessly pursued David. Learning that High Priest Ahimelech had assisted David, Saul ordered that he and his associate priests be executed. (1Sa 22:6-19) Later, he planned to attack the Judean city of Keilah because David was residing there but abandoned the plan when David escaped. Saul continued the chase, hunting for him in wilderness regions. A Philistine raid, however, brought his pursuit to a temporary halt and enabled David to seek refuge in the Wilderness of En-gedi. On two occasions thereafter Saul came into a position that would have allowed David to kill him. But David refused to put out his hand against Jehovah’s anointed one. The second time Saul, learning of David’s restraint, even promised not to do injury to David. But this was an insincere expression, for it was only when he learned that David had run away to the Philistine city of Gath that he abandoned the chase.—1Sa 23:10–24:22; 26:1–27:1, 4.

Saul turns to spiritism. About a year or two later (1Sa 29:3), the Philistines came against Saul. Without Jehovah’s spirit and guidance, and abandoned to a disapproved mental state, he turned to spiritism, a transgression worthy of death. (Le 20:6) Disguised, Saul went to see a spirit medium at En-dor, requesting that she bring up the dead Samuel for him. From her description of what she saw, Saul concluded that it was Samuel. However, it should be noted that Jehovah had not answered Saul’s inquiries and obviously did not do so by means of a practice condemned by His law as warranting the death penalty. (Le 20:27) Therefore, what the woman said must have been of demonic origin. The message gave no comfort to Saul but filled him with fear.—1Sa 28:4-25; see SPIRITISM.

Saul’s death. In the ensuing conflict with the Philistines, Saul was severely wounded at Mount Gilboa and three of his sons were slain. As his armor-bearer refused to put him to death, Saul fell upon his own sword. (1Sa 31:1-7) About three days later a young Amalekite came to David, boasting that he had put the wounded king to death. This was evidently a lie, designed to gain David’s favor. David, however, commanded that the man be executed on the basis of the claim, because Saul had been Jehovah’s anointed one.—2Sa 1:1-15.

Meanwhile the Philistines had fastened the corpses of Saul and his three sons on the wall of Beth-shan. Courageous men of Jabesh-gilead, however, retrieved the bodies, burned them, and then buried the bones.—1Sa 31:8-13.

Years later, during David’s reign, the bloodguilt that had been incurred by Saul and his house in connection with the Gibeonites was avenged when seven of his descendants were slain.—2Sa 21:1-9.


2. A Benjamite of the city of Tarsus in Asia Minor who persecuted Christ’s followers but later became an apostle of Jesus Christ. (Ac 9:1, 4, 17; 11:25; 21:39; Php 3:5) In all of his letters he referred to himself by his Latin name Paul.—See PAUL.

On the history of life a question worth asking:The Watchtower Society's commentary II

Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few.7 In fact, there are more than 200 different types of cells in your body.8

Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.9*

What does the Bible say? The Bible states that life on earth is the product of an intelligent mind. Note the Bible’s clear logic: “Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but he that constructed all things is God.” (Hebrews 3:4) Another Bible passage says: “How many your works are, O Jehovah! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions. . . . There are moving things without number, living creatures, small as well as great.”—Psalm 104:24, 25.

What does the evidence reveal? Advances in microbiology have made it possible to peer into the awe-inspiring interior of the simplest living prokaryotic cells known. Evolutionary scientists theorize that the first living cells must have looked something like these cells.10

If the theory of evolution is true, it should offer a plausible explanation of how the first “simple” cell formed by chance. On the other hand, if life was created, there should be evidence of ingenious design even in the smallest of creatures. Why not take a tour of a prokaryotic cell? As you do so, ask yourself whether such a cell could arise by chance.

THE CELL’S PROTECTIVE WALL
To tour a prokaryotic cell, you would have to shrink to a size that is hundreds of times smaller than the period at the end of this sentence. Keeping you out of the cell is a tough, flexible membrane that acts like a brick and mortar wall surrounding a factory. It would take some 10,000 layers of this membrane to equal the thickness of a sheet of paper. But the membrane of a cell is much more sophisticated than the brick wall. In what ways?

Like the wall surrounding a factory, the membrane of a cell shields the contents from a potentially hostile environment. However, the membrane is not solid; it allows the cell to “breathe,” permitting small molecules, such as oxygen, to pass in or out. But the membrane blocks more complex, potentially damaging molecules from entering without the cell’s permission. The membrane also prevents useful molecules from leaving the cell. How does the membrane manage such feats?

Think again of a factory. It might have security guards who monitor the products that enter and leave through the doorways in the factory wall. Similarly, the cell membrane has special protein molecules embedded in it that act like the doors and the security guards.

Some of these proteins (1) have a hole through the middle of them that allows only specific types of molecules in and out of the cell. Other proteins are open on one side of the cell membrane (2) and closed on the other. They have a docking site (3) shaped to fit a specific substance. When that substance docks, the other end of the protein opens and releases the cargo through the membrane (4). All this activity is happening on the surface of even the simplest of cells.

INSIDE THE FACTORY
Imagine that you have been allowed past the “security guard” and are now inside the cell. The interior of a prokaryotic cell is filled with a watery fluid that is rich in nutrients, salts, and other substances. The cell uses these raw ingredients to manufacture the products it needs. But the process is not haphazard. Like an efficiently run factory, the cell organizes thousands of chemical reactions so that they take place in a specific order and according to a set timetable.

A cell spends a lot of its time making proteins. How does it do so? First, you would see the cell make about 20 different basic building blocks called amino acids. These building blocks are delivered to the ribosomes (5), which may be likened to automated machines that link the amino acids in a precise order to form a specific protein. Just as the operations of a factory might be governed by a central computer program, many of the functions of a cell are governed by a “computer program,” or code, known as DNA (6). From the DNA, the ribosome receives a copy of detailed instructions that tell it which protein to build and how to build it (7).

What happens as the protein is made is nothing short of amazing! Each one folds into a unique three-dimensional shape (8). It is this shape that determines the specialized job that the protein will do.* Picture a production line where engine parts are being assembled. Each part needs to be precisely constructed if the engine is to work. Similarly, if a protein is not precisely constructed and folded to exactly the right shape, it will not be able to do its work properly and may even damage the cell.

How does the protein find its way from where it was made to where it is needed? Each protein the cell makes has a built-in “address tag” that ensures that the protein will be delivered to where it is needed. Although thousands of proteins are built and delivered each minute, each one arrives at the correct destination.

Why do these facts matter? The complex molecules in the simplest living thing cannot reproduce alone. Outside the cell, they break down. Inside the cell, they cannot reproduce without the help of other complex molecules. For example, enzymes are needed to produce a special energy molecule called adenosine triphosphate (ATP), but energy from ATP is needed to produce enzymes. Similarly, DNA (section 3 discusses this molecule) is required to make enzymes, but enzymes are required to make DNA. Also, other proteins can be made only by a cell, but a cell can be made only with proteins.*

Microbiologist Radu Popa does not agree with the Bible’s account of creation. Yet, in 2004 he asked: “How can nature make life if we failed with all the experimental conditions controlled?”13 He also stated: “The complexity of the mechanisms required for the functioning of a living cell is so large that a simultaneous emergence by chance seems impossible.”14

What do you think? The theory of evolution tries to account for the origin of life on earth without the necessity of divine intervention. However, the more that scientists discover about life, the less likely it appears that it could arise by chance. To sidestep this dilemma, some evolutionary scientists would like to make a distinction between the theory of evolution and the question of the origin of life. But does that sound reasonable to you?

The theory of evolution rests on the notion that a long series of fortunate accidents produced life to start with. It then proposes that another series of undirected accidents produced the astonishing diversity and complexity of all living things. However, if the foundation of the theory is missing, what happens to the other theories that are built on this assumption? Just as a skyscraper built without a foundation would collapse, a theory of evolution that cannot explain the origin of life will crumble.


After briefly considering the structure and function of a “simple” cell, what do you see—evidence of many accidents or proof of brilliant design? If you are still unsure, take a closer look at the “master program” that controls the functions of all cells.


  (HOW FAST CAN A CELL REPRODUCE?

Some bacteria can make replicas of themselves within 20 minutes. Each cell copies all the controlling “computer programs.” Then it divides. If it had unlimited access to fuel, just one cell could increase in number exponentially. At that rate, it would take only two days to produce a clump of cells with a weight more than 2,500 times greater than that of the earth.15 Cells that are more complex can also replicate quickly. For example, when you were developing in your mother’s womb, new brain cells formed at the astounding rate of 250,000 per minute!16

Human manufacturers often have to sacrifice quality to produce an item at a fast pace. How is it possible, then, that cells can reproduce so fast and so accurately if they are the product of undirected accidents?
  FACTS AND QUESTIONS

▪ Fact: The extraordinarily complex molecules that make up a cell—DNA, RNA, proteins—seem designed to work together.

Question: What seems more likely to you? Did unintelligent evolution construct the intricate machines depicted on page 10, or were those machines the product of an intelligent mind?

▪ Fact: Some respected scientists say that even a “simple” cell is far too complex to have arisen by chance on earth.

Question: If some scientists are willing to speculate that life came from an extraterrestrial source, what is the basis for ruling out God as that Source?

[Diagram on page 10]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

The cell membrane has “security guards” that allow only specific substances to pass in or out)

Suboptimal?Says who?

Design Can Be Suboptimal on Purpose
Evolution News & Views

Evolutionists wrongly argue that ID can't be true because some designs are not optimal. But there might be a perfectly intelligent reason for some suboptimal designs in nature.

"When It Comes to Genetic Code, Researchers Prove Optimum Isn't Always Best," according tothe news from Texas A&M University. For example, "Imagine two steel springs identical in look and composition but that perform differently because each was tempered at a different rate." Engineers might want the springs to perform differently, and temper them that way for a reason.

Turning to the living cell, the researchers considered how variations in the coding of the biological clock can create similar timing differences. Their finding is related to our comments the other day on the "snooze button" on the biological clock. They were part of the team that found out how synonymous codons allow for timing differences that fine-tune circadian rhythms. Applying their analogy about tempered springs, we learn:

The group's research indicates that the protein in the fungal genus Neurospora they studied, frequency, performs better when the genetic code specifying it has non-optimal codon usage, as is normally found. However, when the genetic code is deliberately altered so that codon usage is optimized, clock function is lost. The reason for this is that non-optimal codon usage slows translation of the genetic code into protein, allotting the frequency protein the necessary time to achieve its optimal protein structure.
The team's results also demonstrate that genetic codons do more than simply determine the amino acid sequence of a protein as previously thought: They also affect how much protein can be made as well as the functional quality of that protein. (Emphasis added.)

So what at first appeared sloppy or suboptimal actually has a purpose. "Less is more" sometimes. Even though an alternate codon specifies the same amino acid, it can affect the action of the resulting enzymatic reaction through timing.
Also noteworthy about the news from Texas A&M is its elevated praise of design in the biological clock:

"Living organisms' inner clocks are like Swiss watches with precisely manufactured spring mechanisms," said Matthew Sachs, a professor in the Texas A&M Department of Biology. "For example, if you fast-temper a critical spring, the watch may be unable to keep time, as opposed to slow-tempering it. It's not just about the composition of the components, such as which alloy is used. It's about the manner in which the components are made. Our research says the genetic code is important for determining both composition and fabrication rate for a central component of the circadian clock, and that the fabrication rate also is critical. And that's essentially a discovery."
Swiss watch, you say? That sounds almost like an echo of Paley. But Paley's approach was natural theology. This approach is intelligent design: finding complex specified information, functioning with a purpose, that implies not necessarily a deity, but an intelligent cause that can be rightly inferred scientifically from our uniform experience with what intelligence routinely does.

Darwinism vs. the real world XXVI

Thyroid Function: When Real Numbers Don't Add Up

Howard Glicksman 

Editor's note: Physicians have a special place among the thinkers who have elaborated the argument for intelligent design. Perhaps that's because, more than evolutionary biologists, they are familiar with the challenges of maintaining a functioning complex system, the human body. With that in mind, Evolution News is delighted to offer this series, "The Designed Body." For the complete series, see here. Dr. Glicksman practices palliative medicine for a hospice organization.


By only considering DNA and the molecules that derive from it, evolutionary biologists only talk about how life looks, not how it actually works within the laws of nature to survive. It's like explaining how all the parts of the Saturn V came together as a functioning rocket without showing how it developed the capacity to overcome the Earth's gravitational pull to boost the Apollo XI into space.

In previous articles in this series I have shown that life does not exist within a vacuum or in the imagination of evolutionary biologists, but within the laws of nature. Those laws state that heat is the transfer of energy from one object to another, whereas temperature is a measure of the random motion within an object or its internal energy. The body must control its core temperature because if it isn't just right it can adversely affect enzyme function and the integrity of the plasma membrane and other cellular structures.

The core temperature is directly related to how much heat the body's metabolism releases, whether at complete rest (basal metabolic rate, or BMR) or with activity, and how much heat it loses to, or gains from, its surroundings. The BMR represents the minimum amount of heat the body produces and is mainly controlled by thyroid hormone activity. The exact mechanism of how thyroid hormone affects the metabolism of the cell is as yet poorly understood. However, studies indicate that it binds to a specific receptor in the nucleus of all of the body's cells to stimulate protein synthesis and cellular respiration, causing an increase in oxygen consumption and heat production.

We saw in a previous article that thyroid hormone production is controlled by the hypothalamus and the pituitary, both of which can detect its level in the blood. If the level is too low, the hypothalamus sends out more thyrotropin-releasing factor (TRF) and the pituitary sends out more thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). If it is too high, they send out less of the hormones. The more TRF is sent to the pituitary, where it attaches to specific receptors, the more TSH it releases, and vice versa. And the more TSH sent to the thyroid gland, where it attaches to specific receptors, the more thyroid hormone it releases, and the less sent, the less it releases. Clinical experience shows that the normal blood level for thyroid hormone is 60-140 units and for TSH, 0.4-4.2 units.

When your car isn't working properly, you can appreciate why all the different parts must be present and in good working order for it to function right. The same can be said for your body. Medical science's attention is usually brought to bear when the body is suffering from a condition that is affecting its ability to function properly. So, knowledge and appreciation for what thyroid function accomplishes in the body may best be viewed through the lens of dysfunction. Let's look at what happens to the body when the real numbers regarding thyroid function don't add up right.

Along with diabetes mellitus, diseases that affect thyroid function are one of the commonest endocrine disorders. In general, if the hypothalamus and pituitary are working normally, when the thyroid produces too much, or not enough hormone the blood level of thyroid hormone and TSH are outside the normal range. If the thyroid hormone level goes too low (hypothyroidism) there normally is a compensatory rise in the TSH as the pituitary tries to make the thyroid make more. And if the thyroid hormone level goes too high (hyperthyroidism) there normally is a drop in TSH, often approaching zero, as the pituitary tries to turn off the thyroid's excessive production.

Hypothyroidisminvolves a major drop in the production of thyroid hormone. World-wide, the commonest cause is a deficiency in iodine which, like iron for hemoglobin, is an important element for thyroid hormone production. The normal daily intake of iodine is about 150 micrograms, but there are many areas in the world where it may be as low as 20 micrograms. Most developed countries add iodine to salt and flour to prevent deficiency. The commonest cause for hypothyroidism in these countries is Hashimoto's thyroiditis, an autoimmune disease that produces antibodies that attack thyroid tissue, causing inflammation and tissue injury. Over time, as enough of thyroid tissue is destroyed, the thyroid gland is rendered incapable of producing adequate amounts of thyroid hormone to meet the body's normal metabolic needs.

Hypothyroidism causes all of the cells in the body to function slower than normal, use less energy, consume less oxygen, and give off less heat. All of this results in a major drop in the basal metabolic rate and every organ in the body is affected. People with hypothyroidism usually experience weight gain, despite eating less than usual, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, dry skin, loss of hair, increased sensitivity to cold, constipation, a slower heart rate, and may even have problems with concentration, memory, and depression. A person with severe hypothyroidism may even develop myxedema in which all of the tissues of the body become swollen. If not diagnosed and treated in time, these people can slip into a coma. Congenital hypothyroidism takes place in about 1 in 4,000 newborns and if not quickly diagnosed and treated can lead to permanent growth problems and intellectual deficiency.

Hyperthyroidism involves a major rise in the production of thyroid hormone activity and the commonest cause is Grave's Disease. This is also an autoimmune disease, but instead of causing inflammation and destruction of tissue, the antibodies stimulate the TSH receptors on the thyroid gland, making it produce more thyroid hormone. In this setting, the usual control mechanisms for thyroid hormone production are no longer working right, since the formation of these antibodies has nothing to do with the hypothalamus or the pituitary. Since these antibodies and their effect on the TSH receptors are not under hypothalamic and pituitary control, the thyroid gland becomes over-stimulated. This causes it to swell up and form a goiter and release increased amounts of thyroid hormone.

Hyperthyroidism causes all of the cells in the body to function faster than normal, use more energy, consume more oxygen and give off more heat. All of this, results in a major rise in the basal metabolic rate and every organ in the body is affected. People with hyperthyroidism usually experience weight loss, despite often eating more than usual, severe fatigue, muscle weakness, excessive sweating, nervousness, tremors, increased sensitivity to heat, diarrhea, and a faster heart rate that can sometimes lead to palpitations and life-threatening rhythm problems. Occasionally a person with hyperthyroidism may experience a thyrotoxic crisis where the core temperature rises above 105oF (41oC), and becomes confused, restless, and agitated which, if not diagnosed and treated can quickly progress to lethargy or a coma.

When it comes to thyroid hormone real numbers have real consequences. Not only is the total absence of thyroid hormone incompatible with human life, but for our earliest ancestors to have survived, not just any amount would have been sufficient. c The system the body uses to control the blood level of thyroid hormone demonstrates irreducible complexity. But, this article has shown that this is not enough for human life to survive within the laws of nature. Just like the systems the body uses to control oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen ion, hemoglobin, iron, water, sodium, potassium, respiration, heart rate, and blood pressure, the one for thyroid function must have natural survival capacity, because it seems to know what the normal range is and then, using an irreducibly complex system, achieves it.


However, the control of thyroid hormone and the basal metabolic rate represents only one part of what the body must do to control its core temperature. After all, life is a dynamic process and the body must stay very active within an environment to which it can lose heat, or gain from it. In the next article, I will review what it takes for the body to control its core temperature and what happens when the numbers just aren't right.

Another failed Darwinian prediction XVIII

Nature does not make leaps

Evolution is a process. It occurs gradually via variations within populations. The tempo may vary, but “the canon of ‘Natura non facit saltum,’” as Darwin explained, was “on this theory intelligible.” But today this is no longer true. The first problem, that species appeared abruptly in the strata, could be explained as a spotty fossil record, though incredible stretches of evolutionary progress would have to have gone missing.

But the fossil record is not the only evidence for leaps. Since Darwin, rapid change has been directly observed in species ranging from bacteria and yeast to plants and animals. Consider the house finches which began spreading throughout the United States in the 1940s from Mexico and the southwest. The beaks of these birds adapted to their new environments with great speed. Within a decade or so their beaks had adjusted to the new habitats. (Grant) In another example, Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia responded rapidly, developing new head morphology and digestive tract structure. (Herrel, et. al.) Such change “would normally take millions of years to play out …” (Johnson) Likewise mussels introduced to a new environment were found to evolve “in an evolutionary nanosecond compared to the thousands of years previously assumed.” (Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs) Such examples of adaptation are not new, and one evolutionist concluded that “evolution can occur much more rapidly than we previously thought. Rapid evolution is pervasive, and the list of examples is growing.” (Rapid Evolution Helps Hunted Outwit Their Predators)

All of this means that evolution may need a new mechanism of change. In fact it appears doubtful that minor biological variations leads to large-scale change. As one evolutionist put it, macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. (Irwin) Increasingly evolutionists have recognized the need for a new mechanism to explain evolutionary change. (Gould, 579, 582) In recent years evolutionists have considered precisely what Darwin ruled out: saltational evolution. Here are some examples:

As nature does jump, exclusive gradualism is dismissed. Saltatory evolution is a natural phenomenon, provided by a sudden collapse of the thresholds which resist against evolution. The fossil record and the taxonomic system call for a macromutational interpretation. (van Waesberghe)

We offer evidence for three independent instances of saltational evolution in a charismatic moth genus with only eight species. … Each saltational species exhibits a markedly different and discrete example of discontinuous trait evolution (Rubinoff and Le Roux)

Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin’s original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life’s history, the principal “types” seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate “grades” or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. (Koonin)

Here we provide for the first time evidence of major phenotypic saltation in the evolution of segment number in a lineage of centipedes (Minelli, Chagas-Júnior and Edgecombe)

Titles of research papers, which include phrases such as “farewell to Darwinism, neo- and otherwise,” “when natura non facit saltum becomes a myth,” “Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay,” and “a Neo-Goldschmidtian view of unicellular hopeful monsters,” highlight this falsification of evolution’s prediction that there are no leaps.

References

Gould, Steven Jay. 2002. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Belknap Press.

Grant, B. 2010. “Should Evolutionary Theory Evolve?.” TheScientist January 1.

Herrel, A., et. al. 2008. “Rapid large scale evolutionary divergence in morphology and performance associated with the exploitation of a novel dietary resource in the lizard Podarcis sicula.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105:4792-4795.

Irwin, D. 2000. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.” Evolution & Development 2:61-62.

Johnson, K. 2008. “Lizards rapidly evolve after introduction to island.” National Geographic News April 21.

Koonin, E. 2007. “The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.” Biology Direct 2:21.

Minelli, A., A. Chagas-Júnior, G. Edgecombe. 2009. “Saltational evolution of trunk segment number in centipedes.” Evolution & Development 11:318-322.

“Mussels evolve quickly to defend against invasive crabs.” 2006. ScienceDaily August 11. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/08/060811091251.htm

“Rapid Evolution Helps Hunted Outwit Their Predators.” 2003. NewsWise July 16.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/?id=500152&sc=wire

Rubinoff, D., J. Le Roux. 2008. “Evidence of repeated and independent saltational evolution in a peculiar genus of sphinx moths (Proserpinus: Sphingidae).” PLoS One 3:e4035.

van Waesberghe, H. 1982. “Towards an alternative evolution model.” Acta Biotheoretica 31:3-28.

File under "well said" XXIII

Look that nothing live in thy working mind, but a naked intent stretching into God. (Dionysius)

Stephen Meyer answers critiques of "signature in the cell"

Michael Denton on the Galapagos finches

Michael Denton on why Darwinism's crisis continues

Tertullian against Hermogenes Ch.18

If any material was necessary to God in the creation of the world, as Hermogenes supposed, God had a far nobler and more suitable one in His own wisdom — one which was not to be gauged by the writings of philosophers, but to be learned from the words or prophets. This alone, indeed, knew the mind of the Lord. For who knows the things of God, and the things in God, but the Spirit, which is in Him? 1 Corinthians 2:11 Now His wisdom is that Spirit. This was His counsellor, the very way of His wisdom and knowledge. Isaiah 40:14 Of this He made all things, making them through It, and making them with It. When He prepared the heavens, so says (the Scripture ), I was present with Him; and when He strengthened above the winds the lofty clouds, and when He secured the fountains which are under the heaven, I was present, compacting these things along with Him. I was He in whom He took delight; moreover, I daily rejoiced in His presence: for He rejoiced when He had finished the world, and among the sons of men did He show forth His pleasure. Proverbs 8:27-31 Now, who would not rather approve of this as the fountain and origin of all things— of this as, in very deed, the Matter of all Matter, not liable to any end, not diverse in condition, not restless in motion, not ungraceful in form, but natural, and proper, and duly proportioned, and beautiful, such truly as even God might well have required, who requires His own and not another's? Indeed, as soon as He perceived It to be necessary for His creation of the world, He immediately creates It, and generates It in Himself. The Lord, says the Scripture, possessed me, the beginning of His ways for the creation of His works. Before the worlds He founded me; before He made the earth, before the mountains were settled in their places; moreover, before the hills He generated me, and prior to the depths was I begotten. Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Wisdom of God is declared to be born and created, for the special reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God alone who is unbegotten and uncreated. For if that, which from its being inherent in the Lord was of Him and in Him, was yet not without a beginning—I mean His wisdom, which was then born and created, when in the thought of God It began to assume motion for the arrangement of His creative works—how much more impossible is it that anything should have been without a beginning which was extrinsic to the Lord! But if this same Wisdom is the Word of God, in the capacity of Wisdom, and (as being He) without whom nothing was made, just as also (nothing) was set in order without Wisdom, how can it be that anything, except the Father, should be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the only-begotten and first-begotten Word? Not to say that what is unbegotten is stronger than that which is born, and what is not made more powerful than that which is made. Because that which did not require a Maker to give it existence, will be much more elevated in rank than that which had an author to bring it into being. On this principle, then, if evil is indeed unbegotten, while the Son of God is begotten (for, says God, my heart has emitted my most excellent Word ), I am not quite sure that evil may not be introduced by good, the stronger by the weak, in the same way as the unbegotten is by the begotten. Therefore on this ground Hermogenes puts Matter even before God, by putting it before the Son. Because the Son is the Word, and the Word is God, John 1:1 and I and my Father are one. John 10:30 But after all, perhaps, the Son will patiently enough submit to having that preferred before Him which (by Hermogenes), is made equal to the Father!

Tertullian's against Praxeas Ch.5

But since they will have the Two to be but One, so that the Father shall be deemed to be the same as the Son, it is only right that the whole question respecting the Son should be examined, as to whether He exists, and who He is and the mode of His existence. Thus shall the truth itself secure its own sanction from the Scriptures, and the interpretations which guard them. There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: In the beginning God made for Himself a Son. As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone— being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call λόγος, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the prior existence as being its own substance. Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards about to utter through His Word. Now, while He was thus planning and arranging with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse. And that you may the more readily understand this, consider first of all, from your own self, who are made in the image and likeness of God, Genesis 1:26 for what purpose it is that you also possess reason in yourself, who are a rational creature, as being not only made by a rational Artificer, but actually animated out of His substance. Observe, then, that when you are silently conversing with yourself, this very process is carried on within you by your reason, which meets you with a word at every movement of your thought, at every impulse of your conception. Whatever you think, there is a word; whatever you conceive, there is reason. You must needs speak it in your mind; and while you are speaking, you admit speech as an interlocutor with you, involved in which there is this very reason, whereby, while in thought you are holding converse with your word, you are (by reciprocal action) producing thought by means of that converse with your word. Thus, in a certain sense, the word is a second person within you, through which in thinking you utter speech, and through which also, (by reciprocity of process,) in uttering speech you generate thought. The word is itself a different thing from yourself. Now how much more fully is all this transacted in God, whose image and likeness even you are regarded as being, inasmuch as He has reason within Himself even while He is silent, and involved in that Reason His Word! I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His Word, which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.

On Jehovah's day:The Watchtower Society's commentary.

DAY OF JEHOVAH

The special period of time, not 24 hours, when Jehovah actively manifests himself against his enemies and in behalf of his people. With divine judgment executed against the wicked, Jehovah comes off victorious over his opposers during this “day.” It is also a time of salvation and deliverance for the righteous, the day in which Jehovah himself is highly exalted as the Supreme One. Thus, in a double way it is uniquely and exclusively Jehovah’s great day.

This day is detailed in the Scriptures as a time of battle, a great and fear-inspiring day of darkness and burning anger, a day of fury, distress, anguish, desolation, and alarm. “What, then, will the day of Jehovah mean to you people?” God asked wayward Israel by the mouth of his prophet Amos. This: “It will be darkness, and no light, just as when a man flees because of the lion, and the bear actually meets him; and as when he went into the house and supported his hand against the wall, and the serpent bit him.” (Am 5:18-20) Isaiah was told: “Look! The day of Jehovah itself is coming, cruel both with fury and with burning anger.” (Isa 13:9) “That day is a day of fury, a day of distress and of anguish, a day of storm and of desolation, a day of darkness and of gloominess, a day of clouds and of thick gloom.” (Zep 1:15) During such a time of trouble, one’s money is absolutely worthless. “Into the streets they will throw their very silver . . . Neither their silver nor their gold will be able to deliver them in the day of Jehovah’s fury.”—Eze 7:19; Zep 1:18.

A sense of urgency is attached to the day of Jehovah by the prophets, who repeatedly warned of its nearness. “The great day of Jehovah is near. It is near, and there is a hurrying of it very much.” (Zep 1:14) “Alas for the day; because the day of Jehovah is near.” “Let all the inhabitants of the land get agitated; for the day of Jehovah is coming, for it is near!”—Joe 1:15; 2:1, 2.

Times of Destructive Judgment. From certain features of the prophecies, and in view of subsequent events, it appears that the expression, “the day of Jehovah,” at least in a miniature way, referred to different times of destructive judgment that occurred long ago at the hands of the Most High. For example, Isaiah envisioned what would befall unfaithful Judah and Jerusalem on “the day belonging to Jehovah of armies,” which was coming “upon everyone self-exalted and lofty” among them. (Isa 2:11-17) Ezekiel addressed himself to the unfaithful prophets of Israel, warning that they would in no way serve to fortify their cities “in order to stand in the battle in the day of Jehovah.” (Eze 13:5) By the mouth of his prophet Zephaniah, Jehovah foretold how he was about to stretch out his hand against Judah and Jerusalem, giving special attention so that not even the princes or the sons of the king would escape. (Zep 1:4-8) As the facts show, that “day of Jehovah” came upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E.

In that distressing time of trouble upon Judah and Jerusalem, her neighboring nations such as Edom showed their hatred for Jehovah and his people, causing the prophet Obadiah (vss 1, 15) to prophesy against them: “For the day of Jehovah against all the nations is near. In the way that you have done, it will be done to you.” Similarly, “the day of Jehovah” and all the fiery destruction embraced within that expression befell Babylon and Egypt just as foretold.—Isa 13:1, 6; Jer 46:1, 2, 10.

Later, through the prophet Malachi, another “great and fear-inspiring day of Jehovah” was foretold, and it was said that it would be preceded by the coming of “Elijah the prophet.” (Mal 4:5, 6) The original Elijah had lived some 500 years before that prophecy was uttered, but in the first century C.E. Jesus indicated that John the Baptizer was the foretold counterpart of Elijah. (Mt 11:12-14; Mr 9:11-13) So at that time a “day of Jehovah” was near at hand. At Pentecost of 33 C.E., Peter explained that what was occurring was the fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy (Joe 2:28-32) concerning the outpouring of God’s spirit and that this too was due to happen before “the great and illustrious day of Jehovah.” (Ac 2:16-21) That “day of Jehovah” came in 70 C.E., when, in fulfillment of his Word, Jehovah caused the armies of Rome to execute divine judgment upon the nation that had rejected the Son of God and defiantly shouted: “We have no king but Caesar.”—Joh 19:15; Da 9:24-27.

However, the Scriptures point forward to yet another “day of Jehovah.” After the restoration of the Jews to Jerusalem following the Babylonian exile, Jehovah caused his prophet Zechariah (14:1-3) to foretell “a day . . . belonging to Jehovah” when he would gather not merely one nation but “all the nations against Jerusalem,” at the climax of which day “Jehovah will certainly go forth and war against those nations,” bringing them to their end. The apostle Paul, under inspiration, associated the coming “day of Jehovah” with the presence of Christ. (2Th 2:1, 2) And Peter spoke of it in connection with the establishment of ‘new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness is to dwell.’—2Pe 3:10-13.


Security and safety during the great day of Jehovah should concern everyone. After asking, “Who can hold up under it?” Joel says, “Jehovah will be a refuge for his people.” (Joe 2:11; 3:16) The invitation is graciously extended to all, but few avail themselves of this provision of refuge by following Zephaniah’s counsel: “Before the statute gives birth to anything, before the day has passed by just like chaff, before there comes upon you people the burning anger of Jehovah, before there comes upon you the day of Jehovah’s anger, seek Jehovah, all you meek ones of the earth, who have practiced His own judicial decision. Seek righteousness, seek meekness. Probably you may be concealed in the day of Jehovah’s anger.”—Zep 2:2, 3.

A clash of Titans XIV

Another Failed Darwinian prediction XVII

Functionally unconstrained DNA is not conserved

As different species evolve, their DNA segments are preserved only if they contribute to the organism’s fitness. DNA segments that are not functionally constrained should mutate and diverge over time. The result is that similar yet functionally unconstrained DNA segments should not be found in distant species. The corollary to this prediction is that similar DNA sequences found in distant species must be functionally constrained.

This prediction has been falsified in the many examples of functionally-unconstrained, highly similar stretches of DNA that have been discovered in otherwise distant species. For instance, thousands of so-called ultra-conserved elements (UCEs), hundreds of base pairs in length, have been found across a range of species including human, mouse, rat, dog, chicken and fish. In fact, across the different species some of these sequences are 100% identical. Species that are supposed to have been evolving independently for 80 million years were certainly not expected to have identical DNA segments. “I about fell off my chair,” remarked one evolutionist. (Lurie) “It can’t be true” another commented. (Pennisi)

Evolutionists assumed such highly preserved sequences must have an important function. But laboratory studies failed to reveal any significant effects in mice. A variety of experiments were done to determine the function of these sequences that evolution was supposed to have preserved. But in many of the regions no function could be found. One study deleted several UCE regions, including a stretch of 731 DNA base pairs that was hypothesized to regulate a crucial gene. Evolutionists expected the removal to result in lethality or infertility but instead found normal, healthy mice. Months of observation and a battery of tests found no abnormalities or significant differences compared to normal mice. (Ahituv, et. al.) As one of the lead researchers explained:

For us, this was a really surprising result. We fully expected to demonstrate the vital role these ultraconserved elements play by showing what happens when they are missing. Instead, our knockout mice were not only viable and fertile but showed no critical abnormalities in growth, longevity, pathology, or metabolism. (Mice thrive missing ancient DNA sequences)

Another study knocked out two massive, highly conserved, DNA regions of 1.5 million and .8 million base pairs in laboratory mice and, again, the results were viable mice, indistinguishable from normal mice in every characteristic they measured, including growth, metabolic functions, longevity and overall development. (Nobrega, et. al.) “We were quite amazed,” explained the lead researcher. (Westphal)

References

Ahituv, N., Y. Zhu, A. Visel, A. Holt, V. Afzal, L. Pennacchio, E. Rubin. 2007. “Deletion of ultraconserved elements yields viable mice.” PLoS Biol 5:e234.

Lurie, Karen. 2004. “Junk DNA.” ScienCentral July 20.

“Mice thrive missing ancient DNA sequences.” 2007. ScienceDaily September 6. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070904151351.htm

Nobrega, M., Y. Zhu, I. Plajzer-Frick, V. Afzal, E. Rubin. 2004. “Megabase deletions of gene deserts result in viable mice.” Nature 431:988-993.

Pennisi, Elizabeth. 2004. “Disposable DNA puzzles researchers.” Science 304:1590-1591.

Westphal, S. 2004. “Life goes on without ‘vital’ DNA.” New Scientist June 3.

Right to die or license to kill?

Canada's Prescription for Getting Away with Murder
Wesley J. Smith 

The Canadian government has proposed its new euthanasia bill -- and as expected, it will be the most radical in the world.

Since the death doctor need not be present at the demise, the bill creates an unprecedented license for family members, friends -- heck, a guy down the street -- to make people dead. From the bill:

Exemption for person aiding patient

(5) No person commits an offence under paragraph (1) (b) if they do anything, at another person's explicit request, for the purpose of aiding that other person to self-administer a substance that has been prescribed for that other person as part of the provision of medical assistance in dying in accordance with section 241. 2.

Reasonable but mistaken belief

(6) For greater certainty, the exemption set out in any of subsections (2) to (5) applies even if the person invoking the exemption has a reasonable but mistaken belief about any fact that is an element of the exemption.

Once the lethal drugs are obtained, this means there are zero meaningful safeguards and protections for vulnerable people, since anyone can kill at the request of the patient. How will authorities know that actual consent was made to do the deed?

Coercion happens behind closed doors. Indeed, even if there was a "mistake," the killer is protected from culpability by claiming "good faith." In short, this provision is the perfect defense for the murder of sick and disabled people who requested lethal drugs.

The George Delury case is an example of what I mean: Delury said he assisted his wife Myrna Lebov's suicide out of "compassion" and at her request due to MS.

But his real hope was not only to be free from care giving, but to become famous by writing a book about her death. (He did, What If She Wants to Die?)

It almost worked. But because assisted suicide was a criminal offense, authorities conducted an investigation and discovered his diary. It showed that contrary to the compassionate face Delury was conjuring, in reality he emotionally pressured Myrna into wanting to commit suicide, telling her, for example, that she was a burden and ruining his life.

He also withheld full dosage of antidepressants so he could use those drugs to kill her. And, he but put a plastic bag over her head to make sure she died.

If euthanasia Canada's bill had been the law of New York when Delury killed Myrnov, he might have been able to coerce her into asking for lethal drugs. At that point, he could have killed her any time he wanted and there wouldn't have been a criminal investigation to find his diary.


Canada has just paved the way for a person hungry for an inheritance or ideologically predisposed to get away with the perfect murder.

On ID as zombie apocalypse.

Is the Market for Articles that Ask "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" Dead?

David Klinghoffer 

and theistic evolutionists keep pumping them out, as they've done for ten years now since the Dover decision. Yet all these numerous funeral processions later, here we still are. 

Here's a partial list of contributions:

• "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" (American Policy Roundtable 2006)
• "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" (Annals of Spacetime 2007)
• "Intelligent Design is Dead! Long Live Creationism?" (Vassar Alumnae/i Quarterly 2007)
• "Twenty years after Darwin on Trial, ID is dead" (Jason Rosenhouse 2011)
• "Jason Rosenhouse pronounces intelligent design dead" (Jerry Coyne 2011)
• "Intelligent Design Is Dead: A Christian Perspective" (Paul Wallace, Huffington Post 2012)
• "Paul Wallace Says, 'Intelligent Design Is Dead'" (Internet Monk, 2012)
• "Is 'intelligent design' dead since everybody realized it's just good old creationism?" (Yahoo Answers 2013)
• "Intelligent Design: Still Dead" (Jason Rosenhouse 2014)

Back in 2012, a person identified only as RJS wrote at the blog Jesus Creed, "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" Now RJS is back with more musings at the same venue, and asking the same question, "Is Intelligent Design Dead?" RJS begins:

A decade ago Intelligent Design with a capital I and a capital D was a hot topic. A major trial testing the teaching of the ID in Pennsylvania was decided in late 2005 and Stephen C. Meyer's massive book Signature in the Cell was published in 2009. It was a common topic in evangelical churches -- viewed as a way to combat the evil influence of evolution. Quite frankly, it was a topic I was ready to see disappear. The controversy was tainting most conversations about Christianity in my circles at the University.

"Tainting conversations"? Why? He doesn't say.

RJS quotes a religion professor at Pepperdine University, Ron Highfield, who's looked into ID a bit. He concludes on Highfield's authority that intelligent design isn't "a particularly useful scientific or theological approach."

Not "useful"? Toward what end? What about "true," "serious," "honest"? But fine, then what wouldbe "useful"? This, says RJS:

[T]he best empirical evidence for intelligence isn't found in the pattern of DNA but in the existence of intelligence in the universe. This is complexity at its highest. In fact, the sciences that look for intelligence ... forensic science, information theory, cryptography etc. ... rely on intelligence to detect intelligence. "Only a mind can detect information or the activity of another mind." (p. 163)

Intelligent design theory as an empirical science alone cannot get us to a designer. It cannot offer an alternative to biological evolution. There is no reason to set it up against modern science as science. On the other hand, as a philosophical argument -- reasoning from intelligence to intelligence -- it has something to offer.

RJS allows that as a Christian he believes "the world is intelligently designed for a purpose." What he rejects is recognizing objective, scientific evidence of that. If I follow the line of reasoning correctly, he would rather infer "intelligence" from "intelligence." Once again quoting the indispensable Ron Highfield:

Had [William] Dembski argued from the mind's perception of the pervasive presence of intelligible reality with in the universe, in itself and other human minds, in biological structures, in cosmological laws and in the micro world of subatomic structures to the existence of a cosmic mind, his argument would demand attention. It would be built on a primitive , undeniable and universal human experience. (p. 164)

What? I don't want to give RJS, or Ron Highfield, less credit than they deserve, but that makes no sense. Because we experience minds at the human level, therefore...intelligent design? That's an "undeniable" argument that would "demand attention"?

Guys, please. You may notice that everyone dramatically heralding the demise of the ID movement does so with his own idiosyncratic justifications, often leaning on the vaporous authority of someone else who said it first, and never taking note of the excellent decade that ID has in fact enjoyed since Dover.

With the religious critics in particular, it's hard to resist the suspicion that it's easier to say "ID Is Dead" than it is to grapple with the relevant science, which can admittedly be challenging. RJS seems to regard the sheer volume of Stephen Meyer's "massive" book as off-putting. (It's actually not that massive.) 

But this is not surprising. If you write for a blog called Jesus Creed, it's probably not because of your interest in biology.

And I sympathize. Not everyone can picture himself cracking open a "massive" science tome. But then at least when someone asks you "Is ID Dead?," or when it occurs to you to write an article with that title, have the humility to say, "I don't have the slightest idea."