Discovery Institute News Flash: God-Did-It!

This will really shake all you misguided Darwinists to your roots. We have some shocking, paradigm-changing news from the creationist blog of the Discovery Institute. Their latest article is Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger Argue that Design Best Explains New Biological Information. It’s by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist.

You know who Axe and Gauger are. They do what the Discoveroids say is research in their own creation science lab — Biologic Institute, and their work sometimes appears in the Discoveroids’ captive “peer reviewed” journal, BIO-Complexity. Those facilities, plus their own “peer reviewed” vanity press operation (Discovery Institute Press) constitute the Discoveroids’ imitation of the accouterments of science, and have caused intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.

Here are a few excerpts from the latest Discoveroid post. Casey says, with bold font added by us:

What is the best explanation — neo-Darwinism or intelligent design — for the origin of the basic metabolic complexity found in life?

What a profound question! Is it evolution, or is it Oogity Boogity? Perhaps, at last, we’ll have the answer:

According to a new paper by Douglas Axe and Ann Gauger [link omitted], in order to explain “the origin of biological complexity,” we “must tackle the particular challenge of explaining metabolic complexity.” In the course of reviewing the results of their own previous research papers, and the research of others, they examine six obstacles to Darwinian explanations of metabolic complexity. They conclude that a design-based paradigm offers the best solution to those obstacles.

Wow — what a research effort! They reviewed their own stuff, and some other stuff. From that they concluded that the best answer is Oogity Boogity. Exciting, huh? Let’s read on to see what those six obstacles are, and why intelligent is the best solution:

Problem 1: Offsetting the cost of gene expression

Axe and Gauger observe that “The most widely accepted explanation for the origin of new enzymes is gene duplication and recruitment.” However, they cite experimental work showing that a duplicate gene is much more likely to be silenced (because of the costly resources expended in transcribing and translating it) than it is to acquire a new function.

[…]

In their view, intelligent design provides a better explanation because such innovations require a goal-directed cause that looks beyond immediate fitness costs that go along with preserving a non-advantageous duplicate gene.

Let’s think about this. The creation scientists appear to acknowledge the phenomenon of gene duplication. And we know that there are observed examples of the extra gene’s mutating to provide some new function. For an example, see How One Gene Becomes Two Different Genes. But the Discoveroid creation scientists conclude that “intelligent design provides a better explanation.” Are you impressed, dear reader?

Casey’s article gives us five more “obstacles” that the magic designer — blessed be he! — is able to overcome. We’ve scanned the other five that Casey discusses. They are every bit as impressive as the first one, but don’t take our word for it. Read Casey’s article and decide for yourself. We’ll jump ahead to the conclusion — it’s certain to leave you gasping in amazement:

They propose that a new design-based model of biology could help scientists understand how systems like metabolism arose. Indeed, as a goal-directed process, intelligent design stands apart from unguided Darwinian evolution, and can uniquely provide the kind of innovative solutions necessary for complex life.

So there you are. A “new design-based model of biology” will explain how things happen, and it’ll do a much better job than Darwinian evolution. When this new paradigm sweeps through the science community — as it is certain to do — then you’ll understand everything. Casey already does, so get with it and maybe you’ll be as good an evolutionary biologist as he is.

Copyright © 2013. 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

19 responses to “Discovery Institute News Flash: God-Did-It!

  1. Charles Deetz ;)

    I won’t pretend to understand the gene duplication stuff, Casey is probably better at it than me. I’ll just use my empirical ‘looking around’ to really wonder if we can say that the creation around us looks ‘goal oriented’. You’d think maybe one of the goals would have been to help man tell time, so an animal would have grown into a watch. Did I use the watchmaker’s analogy correctly? Am I maybe smarter than Casey in this regard?

  2. Charles Deetz,
    You didn’t need the qualifier “in this regard”.

  3. They propose that a new design-based model of biology could help scientists understand how systems like metabolism arose.

    Really? So, let me understand this…. in the “design-based model of biology”, every time a problem arises that is hard to solve, one can simply publish a paper saying it is improbable, therefore goddidit, and be done with it? Heck, if it were that easy, all we would need to explain biology and, in fact, any branch of science would be a few fellows at a small institute on a second floor walkup writing blog posts and publishing books for general readers.

  4. Its already been demonstrated in E. coli that new enzymatic activities and substrate specificity can arise by mutation and selection acting on previous genes and their enzymes. In some cases why does the same gene do different things in different species. Because evolution is forever using preexisting genes to do new jobs as species evolve.

  5. Ed observes

    Heck, if it were that easy, all we would need to explain biology and, in fact, any branch of science would be a few fellows at a small institute on a second floor walkup writing blog posts and publishing books for general readers.

    You left out one essential item: a stock photograph of a laboratory for projection behind Ann Gauger to give the appearance that genuine empirical research is being conducted.

    An electrical ‘Jacob’s Ladder’, as featured in the original Frankenstein movies, would add to the scientific ambiance therein, methinks…

  6. The Creationist article says, “…However, they cite experimental work showing that a duplicate gene is much more likely to be silenced (because of the costly resources expended in transcribing and translating it) than it is to acquire a new function.”

    “Likely” is a silly argument. Evolution grants that the majority of mutations have neutral or negative results in organism survival. But the rarer, less LIKELY positive mutations do still happen – and therefore still cause the lifeform in question to be “selected” for survival to transmit the trait.

    So basically, the Discoveroids are just rehashing the fallacious probability argument and applying it to a specific biolgical process.

  7. A “new design-based model of biology” will explain how things happen, and it’ll do a much better job than Darwinian evolution.

    Unless of course you “Darwinists” keep taking their bait with “No it’s not designed, and here’s why,” or worse: “There you go again lying for Jesus.” Then they’ll keep comfy cozy on “square one,” while you just keep supplying them with more facts and quotes to take out of context. Really, I could have spent the last 15 years away from this “debate” and seen the same questions (always from them) and answers (always from you), while evolution keeps getting stronger, and 99+% of nonscientists, including the ~50% that accept evolution (or usually a caricature) remain 100% clueless.

    Here’s a modest proposal: Once in a while, instead of taking the bait, just say “Assume for the sake of argument that Oogity Boogity did do it, and is the better explanation. What exactly did OB do and when, and how will you test it? Start with the basics, such as how many years has life existed on earth, and do humans and chimps share common ancestors – as several ID peddlers have plainly conceded – or not?”

  8. You are quite right to reject GodDidIt explanations out of the hand.
    As a Christian myself, I find that very embarrassing, as if God would need to constantly intervene for correcting natural processes He designed.

    I agree that God of the Gap reasonings are deeply flawed from the very beginning, you cannot prove God’s existence that way.
    Yet I also believe God could have intervened during the history of life on earth, in such a way that after millions of years, purely natural processes would also become an explanation for something having occurred otherwise.

    Lovely greetings from continental Europe.

    A fag-enabling socialist conservative.

    Lothars Sohn – Lothar’s son

  9. Welcome aboard, lotharson. We’ve never had a socialist conservative visit us before. Oh, just one thing: Your name already links to your website, so there’s no need to add yet another link as part of your signature.

  10. Actually, I’m a Christian socialist conservative, which can in a continental European context make some sense :=)
    Thanks for your welcome!

  11. So exactly what is Axe’s proposed “new design-based model of biology?” What are the details? How does it work? How is it experimentally tested? Do all the answers seem “likely” to support his idea. Hmm. Seems to me any forthcoming answer will be just as nebulous as their so-called theory of intelligent design, which has never been defined other than things are complicated.

  12. SC said:

    the accouterments of science

    Did you mean accoutrements (sp)?

  13. “natural processes He designed.”
    which is also a god of the gaps statement.

  14. Gary asks: “Did you mean accoutrements (sp)?”

    Same word. For once it’s not a typo. But your sharp eye is always welcome.

  15. lotharson – you will likely find the folks here a tad more laid back than you found at WEIT 🙂

  16. “a duplicate gene is much more likely to be silenced”
    Are they really claiming that that it becomes a useless pseudogene, i.e. junk?

  17. So, the “model of biology” in use today isn’t working? Just because we don’t know everything, that doesn’t mean the “model of biology” in use is wrong. Or is that idea too simple for them to understand?

  18. MaryL asks:

    So, the “model of biology” in use today isn’t working?

    It works too well. That’s why they hate it.

  19. Aye, dear Curmudgeon, it does work. Each step provides a base for the next one.