Science and Culture Today | Page 1201 | Discovering Design in Nature

In March 2010, Douglas Theobald published a paper in Nature purporting to demonstrate “A formal test of the theory of universal common ancestry.” According to his cheering squad at National Geographic, the paper “supports the widely held ‘universal common ancestor’ theory first proposed by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago.” National Geographic is mistaken on one obvious point: Darwin wasn’t the first to propose universal common ancestry. But never mind that. The paper makes no official claim to be a response to scientific skeptics of universal common ancestry, but given Theobald’s notoriety as the author of the widely criticized “Talk Origins Common Ancestry FAQ,” his motivation is clear. If there were no doubts about universal common ancestry (“UCA”), his paper would be unnecessary. This becomes especially clear when you see the trivially obvious point his paper actually establishes as part of his “test” of universal common ancestry.

Michael Behe has just wrapped up a speaking tour of the UK. Finishing it off over the weekend was a lecture at a conference at the Oxford Brookes University, and now a short column in The Guardian responding to Andrew Brown. My contention is that ‘the purposeful arrangement of parts’ to achieve a specific purpose is the criterion that enables us to recognise design. I argued that the conclusion of design in the bacterial flagellum and in many other biological systems is no different from discerning it for a mousetrap or a Ford Mondeo. So what makes Intelligent Design fundamentally different from Darwinism? The Darwinian view which dominates biology holds that the design we all see in life is merely Read More ›

This past Sunday, science lost a bold and courageous voice for objectivity with the passing of Dr. Philip Skell. A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) since 1977, “Phil” was Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and his research included work on reactive intermediates in chemistry such as carbene molecules, free-atom reactions, and reactions of free carbonium ions. A 1997 article in the journal Pure and Applied Chemistry described some of Skell’s significant scientific contributions as follows:

Another class of intermediates, containing divalent carbon atoms, were suggested by John Nef early in this century but his ideas were generally rejected. However, the concept was revived with vigor when Philip Skell showed that: CCl,, dichlorocarbone, was formed as a reaction intermediate. Carbene chemistry almost immediately became the subject of extensive physical organic research.

Penn State University describes Skell’s research thusly:

Philip S. Skell, sometimes called “the father of carbene chemistry,” is widely known for the “Skell Rule,” which was first applied to carbenes, the “fleeting species” of carbon. The rule, which predicts the most probable pathway through which certain chemical compounds will be formed, found use throughout the pharmaceutical and chemical industries.

Later in his career, Phil became a skeptic of neo-Darwinian evolution. His main position was that Darwinism does not serve as the cornerstone of biological thought that many claim it does. In 2007, I had the pleasure of meeting Dr. Skell and doing three interviews with him for Discovery Institute’s ID the Future Podcast.

Last night, I watched as Mike Behe presented a talk at Glasgow Caledonian University’s Carnegie Lecture Theatre. The lecture was titled, Darwin or Design – What Does the Science Really Say?. The event was organized by the Centre for Intelligent Design UK (event website here).

The lecture theatre was filled almost to capacity (about 500 people). Behe was on form, presenting a powerful cumulative, yet accessible, case for design in biological systems. He presented the bare bones of his two core theses, articulated and defended in Darwin’s Black Box and The Edge of Evolution. Behe talked his audience through some of the criteria which we use — as part of our everyday experience — to come to the conclusion of design, arguing that design is immediately recognisable when one encounters a complex and functionally-specific assemblage of parts. Arguing that the appearance of design is not really in dispute at all, he pointed to Richard Dawkins’ The Blind Watchmaker, in which Dawkins asserts that biology is the study of complicated things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose. If life gives the overpowering appearance of having been designed, argued Behe, then one is rationally justified in adhering to one’s intuitions unless and until a compelling reason is given to suggest that it the appearance of design is only apparent — that is, illusory.

Discover Magazine has a penchant for misleading its readers about intelligent design (ID). Last year it touted Ken Miller’s response to me on Michael Behe’s arguments for irreducible complexity in blood clotting as an “intelligent design fail,” even though Ken Miller had blatantly misrepresented Behe’s arguments. (Miller still hasn’t replied to my refutation of his arguments.) Now, in its October 2010 issue, Discover Magazine was able to combine multiple errors about the nature of ID science and law in one single paragraph. Quite an accomplishment! Here’s the statement:

I was recently asked by an evolutionary biologist where ID can help science generate “new knowledge.” It’s important to realize that when dealing with historical sciences like neo-Darwinian evolution or intelligent design, new knowledge takes the form of both practical insights into the workings of biology in the present day (which can lead to insights into fighting disease), as well as taking the form of new knowledge about biological history and the origin of natural structures. In this regard, I could not disagree more with suggestions that ID closes off inquiry and does not lead to new scientific knowledge. Below are about a dozen or so examples of areas where ID is helping science to generate new knowledge. Each example Read More ›

Every once in a while an article comes out on a new DNA repair mechanism or a new feature of a known DNA repair mechanism. There are so many complexities behind DNA repair and there is still more to uncover. Last October, a review article came out in Molecular Cell on regulatory factors for DNA repair mechanisms (Molecular Cell 40(2), October 22, 2010, 179-204). Basically, DNA repair mechanisms are very powerful because they can often replace or remove nucleotide bases. So these powerful mechanisms need something to make sure they do their job properly and not destroy the whole genome in the process. That is where regulators come in. If DNA repair mechanisms are medics flying out to the damaged site, then the regulators would be the control tower that finds the sites, guides the planes, and tells them when to get to work and when to retreat.

In the previous post in this series, we saw that Natural History Museum of LA County (NHMLAC) scientist Kirk Fitzhugh denied that academic freedom for intelligent design (ID) is “being suppressed.” After reviewing the severe misconceptions that Dr. Fitzhugh has about ID, we come to the California Science Center and its decision to cancel the screening of Darwin’s Dilemma last year. In that decision, Kirk Fitzhugh played no direct role but he did participate in the correspondence surrounding it. On October 15, under the subject heading “DI spin,” NHMLAC scientist John Long e-mailed Fitzhugh about attending the rescheduled American Freedom Alliance (AFA) event on October 25. He wrote: “I enjoy reading your commentary on the ID issues. Will catch you Read More ›

In his next installment Professor Ussery complains that I wasn’t enthusiastic enough in my chapter “What Darwinism Can Do.” As an example of common descent I pointed to Baker’s yeast, for which there is good evidence that sometime in the past its genome duplicated. But I also noted that other yeasts with unduplicated genomes have done fine for themselves. The point was that gene or even whole genome duplication is not the powerful tool that Darwinists often claim. That point passed over Dave’s head. His main comment on the book’s next chapter, “What Darwinism Can’t Do” is to tell the reader to search PubMed for the words “cilium” and “evolution.” One gets lots of papers that contain both those words, he assures us. He naively assumes that means progress is being made on how the cilium could have arisen by a Darwinian mechanism. Ussery is simply wrong. Most of those papers have nothing to do with how the cilium evolved. Others contain interesting studies of which ciliary proteins are similar to which other proteins (which at best concerns only the topic of common descent) as well as vague, speculative scenarios, but none of the papers describes in testable detail how a structure like the cilium could have arisen step-by-step by a Darwinian mechanism. Dave’s argument might be dubbed “The Argument from Personal Credulity” — because he and others believe the cilium could arise by Darwinian means, it must have done so, and any paper that agrees it happened must contain strong evidence that it did happen. Credulity, however, is not ordinarily considered a scientific virtue.

[Editor’s Note: This is the final post in a six-part a series from microbiologist Donald L. Ewert, where he argues that the processes used by our immune system to generate antibodies are anything but “random,” and do not serve as an example of Darwinian evolution. Other posts in this rebuttal can be found at: Part One, Part Two, Part Three, and Part Four, and Part Five. In the first five posts, Dr. Ewert responded to Kathryn Applegate of the BioLogos Foundation. In this sixth post, he responds to similar arguments from Edward Max at TalkOrgins that antibody generation is “evolution in miniature.”]

One of the goals of Edwards Max’s post at TalkOrigins is to refute a narrow claim of “creationists” that “random mutations are detrimental.” But he goes further and, like Applegate, asserts that “clearly what we observe in the antibody response is evolution in miniature.” Max believes that because affinity maturation of antibodies is an established biological process, it therefore carries more weight than the computerized model of evolution used by Richard Dawkins to demonstrate that “without the intervention of any intelligent designer…successive rounds of mutation and selection could be unambiguously shown to lead to increased fitness within living organisms.” Like Applegate, Max draws inspiration from a naíve reductionist view of affinity maturation to give false comfort for his philosophical perspective.