Science and Culture Today | Page 1205 | Discovering Design in Nature

It is difficult to escape the use of technological language in discussing cellular functions. Stephen Meyer has a section on information theory in Signature in the Cell and basically uses technological language or metaphors to describe DNA. The best language for describing DNA uses analogies to writing, copying and pasting, and software. Another example of this is in Behe’s book, Darwin’s Black Box, where he uses a rotary motor to describe the function of a bacterial flagellum. This brings to mind an interesting question: what is the relationship between the development of technology and the discovery of the inner workings of the cell? They seem to go hand-in-hand.

Display “YouTube video player” from YouTube Click here to display content from YouTube. Learn more in YouTube’s privacy policy. Always display content from YouTube Open “YouTube video player” directly For more about the new book God & Evolution, go here: http://www.faithandevolution.org/god-and-evolution/

This interview with Dr. Stephen Meyer about his book Signature in the Cell was conducted some time ago, but is a very good introductory discussion of DNA manipulation, cellular engineering and attempts to create living cells with computer assembled DNA at its heart. Display content from www.discovery.org Click here to display content from www.discovery.org. Always display content from www.discovery.org Open content directly

In his book Why Evolution is True, evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne claims that “Imperfect design is the mark of evolution; in fact it’s precisely what we expect from evolution.” (p. 81) He makes this prediction because “[n]ew parts don’t evolve from old ones, and we have to work well with the parts that have already evolved. Because of this, we should expect compromises: some features that work pretty well, but some not as well as they might, or some features–like the kiwi wing–that don’t work at all, but are evolutionary leftovers.” (p. 81) Thus according to Coyne, evolution predicts that some features will work well, some will work not-so-well, and some will work not at all. This is not exactly Read More ›

In my previous post in this series about the California Science Center (CSC), we saw that the CSC might not have rented its facilities to a pro-intelligent design (ID) group like the American Freedom Alliance (AFA) had they known about “the nature of the groups involved.” At the same time that the CSC learned that a pro-ID group had booked its facilities, on the other side of the country, head staff at the Smithsonian Institution were outraged that one of their affiliates was allowing a pro-ID event. The Smithsonian’s Chief Spokesperson, Linda St. Thomas, was so upset about CSC’s rental to a pro-ID group that she asked the Smithsonian’s Director of Affiliates, Harold Closter, to send a “cease and desist” Read More ›

Can you be an orthodox Darwinist and an orthodox theist? The plain answer is “no,” according to God and Evolution, an important new book coming out this fall. The book provides a thorough examination of the conflict between belief in God and Darwin’s theory of unguided evolution.

In the century and a half since Charles Darwin first proposed his theory, Christians, Jews, and other religious believers have grappled with how to make sense of it. Most have understood that Darwin’s theory and materialistic theories of the origin of life have profound theological implications, but their responses have varied dramatically.

Some have rejected evolutionary ideas outright; others, often called “theistic evolutionists,” have sought to reconcile materialist theories including Darwinism with their religious beliefs, but often at the cost of clarity, orthodoxy, or both.

Dual-Ph.D. wielding, Darwin-doubting scientist Donald E. Johnson has published another a book on life’s computer-like programming. Titled Programming of Life, the dust jacket reads:

Each cell of an organism has millions of interacting computers reading and processing digital information, using digital programs and digital codes to communicate and translate information. Life is an intersection of physical science and information science. Both domains are critical for any life to exist, and earth must be investigated using that domain’s principles. Yet most scientists have been attempting to use physical science to explain life’s information domain, a practice which has no scientific justification.

After reviewing the severe misconceptions that Natural History Museum of LA County (NHMLAC) scientist Kirk Fitzhugh has about the theory of intelligent design, we come to the California Science Center and its decision to cancel the screening of Darwin’s Dilemma. 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,” John Long e-mailed Fitzhugh about attending the rescheduled American Freedom Alliance event on October 25. He wrote: “I enjoy reading your commentary on the ID issues. Will catch you feeding the leeches on Sat night.” Kirk Fitzhugh replied — without protesting John Long’s description of ID proponents as “leeches” but merely pointing out Read More ›

Still searching for some rhetorical crowbar to remove the “Four Nails in Darwin’s Coffin,” Mark A. Chancey claims ID “originated within certain religious circles and has credibility only within those same circles — mostly theologically conservative Christian groups that find aspects of evolutionary theory threatening.” Readers may find his complete comments at SMU Daily Campus, but whatever else may be said of his characterizations, the statement above is surely bad history and not an accurate reflection of the development of modern ID. Here is why.