Once again we visit the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) — the granddaddy of all creationist outfits — the fountainhead of young-earth creationist wisdom. Their latest article is Lab Studies Show Evolutionary ‘Evidence’ Is Merely Assumed.
Evolutionary evidence is “merely assumed”? Shocking! How can that be? This is a good opportunity for us to see the creationist brain in operation, so here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:
A recent news feature in Nature described the work of molecular biologist Joe Thornton, who studies the biology of toxins. He found that they often operate by mimicking very specific chemicals that fit into receptor proteins like keys into door locks.
We won’t delve into the details because you’ve probably heard of this before. We first read about Thornton’s work a few months ago at PhysOrg: Scientists recreate evolution of complexity using ‘molecular time travel’, which says:
In a study published early online on January 8, in Nature, a team of scientists from the University of Chicago and the University of Oregon demonstrate how just a few small, high-probability mutations increased the complexity of a molecular machine more than 800 million years ago. By biochemically resurrecting ancient genes and testing their functions in modern organisms, the researchers showed that a new component was incorporated into the machine due to selective losses of function rather than the sudden appearance of new capabilities.
[…]
“By reconstructing the machine’s components as they existed in the deep past,” Thornton said, “we were able to establish exactly how each protein’s function changed over time and identify the specific genetic mutations that caused the machine to become more elaborate.”
[…]
“These really aren’t like precision-engineered machines at all,” he added. “They’re groups of molecules that happen to stick to each other, cobbled together during evolution by tinkering, degradation, and good luck, and preserved because they helped our ancestors to survive.”
You can read the Nature article that ICR is talking about here: Prehistoric proteins: Raising the dead. Note the sub-title, which is obviously of concern to creationists: “To dissect evolution, Joe Thornton resurrects proteins that have been extinct for many millions of years. His findings rebut creationists and challenge polluters.”
What do the creation scientists at ICR have to say about this? Here you go:
He [Thornton] told Nature, “I wanted to know where that system came from.” But his specific research questions clearly show that he was only willing to entertain evolutionary origins, even if the data suggested non-evolutionary causes.
Egad — Thornton was only willing to entertain evolutionary origins! What a closed-minded fellow. Let’s read on as ICR quotes from the Nature article. Here, the word in brackets was added by ICR:
Nature further indicated that Thornton and his colleagues “wanted to know how an essential part of the [receptor] machine — a ring of proteins that spans cell membranes — evolved from an ancestral form.” It appears that the concept of the supernatural creation of this feature was not even given a chance.
They never gave the concept of supernatural creation a chance. This is an outrage! Let’s skip to the end:
Thornton’s work shows that some of the best “evidence” for evolution merely assumes it.
As we’ve noted before, by showing how a complex biological structure can arise naturally, it is clearly demonstrated that no supernatural agency is required. Nevertheless, ICR has a point — despite the proven fact that natural means are all that are necessary, if you ignore Occam’s razor, then there still could have been a supernatural cause!
ICR has provided a great service by showing the prejudice inherent in Thornton’s work. Now they have an opportunity to go even further. Having explained that Thornton failed to consider supernatural creation, ICR should step up and show the world how creation science is done. So get with it, ICR — you’ve identified the problem, now provide the solution. Show us how these things really happen — supernaturally.
Copyright © 2012. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
The Sensuous Curmudgeon 
If ICR could develop an repeatable, objective test for supernatural creation, or any other supernatural activity, they might actually get published in a peer reviewed journal. That would be a true breakthrough. I agree with you, SC, they should go for it!
Of course if it was something that could be tested with a repeatable, objective test, it wouldn’t be supernatural anymore.
In the ICR article Thomas says:
Go ask a biologist, but I suspect that scientist Thornton’s use of the term “molecular machine” does not qualify for what creationist Thomas insists on describing as a “living system”.
Once again a creationist uses the ploy of re-defining the terms of the discussion to suit their world view. Which at its base is simply that the entire universe, down to the level of atoms and quarks, is the product of their designer.
“It appears that the concept of the supernatural creation of this feature was not even given a chance.”
Waaaahh. Since, as meh says, a supernatural event can never, by definition, be naturally proven, the only way to “give it a chance” is to simply assume it as the conclusion. Sounds like bad science to me.
Tranlation: how dare some scientist test an hypothesis that interests him, and not our hypothesis! Nobody should be allowed to experiment on their own hypotheses until they experiment on ours first!