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.