Creationist Wisdom — Example 67

TWO weeks ago we reported Artificial Life Is Only Months Away? We concluded by predicting:

But as the creationists will doubtlessly say, this is merely an illustration of intelligent design.

What was the basis for that prediction? Simple — all you need to know is The Ten Laws of Creationism.

As expected, the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) has posted new article about this at their website: What Will Artificial Life Demonstrate?

This gem is by Frank Sherwin, M.A., described as “Senior Science Lecturer at the Institute for Creation Research.” His M.A. is said to be in zoology. Here’s a website with some more information about Sherwin, where he is described as “an Aide de Campe to ICR’s President, Dr. John Morris.” Most impressive!

We present to you, dear reader, some excerpts from Sherwin’s article. The bold font was added for emphasis:

The production of artificial life is supposedly just around the corner. But ever since the famous 1953 Miller and Urey experiment failed to spark life in the laboratory just from chemicals, that corner has proven painstakingly long to get around.

Five decades is a long time? Okay, but what has creation science produced in all the centuries that it’s been around? Well, that remark was too easy. Let’s read on:

In August, biologist Craig Venter of the J. Craig Venter Institute in Maryland was reported as predicting that artificial life is just months away.

Yes, we reported that already. The article continues:

A number of questions, however, leave wide room to doubt that Venter’s artificial life will be anything more than a substance that has been intelligently engineered. … How “natural” — i.e., dependent on mere laws of chemistry and not on engineering — would the genome assembly be? Who would decide how each gene would be specified and where it would be placed in the genome? Where would the enzymes come from to build the genome?

Yeah, where will the enzymes come from? Hey, make your own dirt! Here’s more:

If and when Venter’s team creates artificial life, it will only have been a product of purpose and applied power and intelligence. And its life-likeness will have been almost entirely copied from pre-existing life in bacterial cells.

That’s true. But it will be the work of men, not deities. Surely that should mean something? Well, maybe not to the creationists. Now we come to the end:

It will, however, stand as an incredible technical achievement that illustrates the creativity and diligence that are part of the “image of God” in humans, as well as the extremely precise engineering involved in even the very smallest of God’s living creations.

Ah, so it will be evidence of intelligent design. Heads, tails — the creationists win. Oogity Boogity!

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

3 responses to “Creationist Wisdom — Example 67

  1. comradebillyboy

    If one is a creationist then everything is evidence of the creator

  2. Oogity Boogity

  3. comradebillyboy wrote: “If one is a creationist then everything is evidence of the creator.”

    Except when they need to find the creator in the “gaps” to “disprove” “Darwinism” then only some things (the first flagellum, etc.) are. What sets creationism/ID apart from thesitic evolution is the desire to have it both ways. The only difference between the leaders and followers are that the former know that they’re trying to, but can’t, have it both ways.