The sad tale of how the Discovery Institute desperately seeks to gain scientific respect is seen in the latest post by Casey Luskin, our favorite creationist. His new effort at the Discoveroids’ creationist blog is Peer-Reviewed Paper: Development Needs Ontogenetic Information that Cannot Arise from Neo-Darwinian Mechanisms.
Wowie — a peer reviewed paper! That certainly sounds exciting. Let’s see what Casey has to tell us. We’ve added some bold font for emphasis:
Jonathan Wells has published a new peer-reviewed scientific paper in the journal BIO-Complexity, “Membrane Patterns Carry Ontogenetic Information That Is Specified Independently of DNA” [link omitted]. With over 400 citations to the technical literature, this well-researched and well-documented article shows that embryogenesis depends on crucial sources of information that exist outside of the DNA.
BIO-Complexity? BWAHAHAHAHAHA! We’ve written about that thing before — see Discovery Institute: Creationist “Peer-Review”. It’s the Discoveroids’ own, captive vanity journal. A look at the Editorial Team of that esteemed journal reveals some well-known Discoveroid names, including its managing editor, Douglas Axe, and these names on their Editorial Board: Michael Behe, William Dembski, Ann Gauger, and Jonathan Wells. Wells is, as you noticed, not only on the journal’s board, he is also the author of the paper in question.
Axe, Gauger, and Wells are also affiliated with the Discoveroids’ captive “research” lab, Biologic Institute, a venerable facility to which the Discoveroids gave a “grant” of $291,300, as we recently pointed out in Discovery Institute: Their 2012 Tax Return. You may judge for yourself, dear reader, the independence of BIO-Complexity’s distinguished group of “peers” as they review the work of their Discoveroid colleague. The Discoveroids’ imitation of the accouterments of science has caused their “theory” of intelligent design to be described as a cargo cult.
Okay, we know where this paper was published. Now what’s been discovered? Casey tells us:
This ontogenetic information guides the development of an organism, but because it is derived from sources outside of the DNA, it cannot be produced by mutations in DNA. Wells concludes that because the neo-Darwinian model of evolution claims that variation is produced by DNA mutations, neo-Darwinism cannot account for the origin of epigenetic and ontogenetic information that exists outside of DNA.
Casey’s article is unusually long, with lots of quotes from Wells. We’re not going to dig into it — not until the topic shows up in something we regard as a more reliable publication. You can click over there and read it, if you like. Here’s Casey’s conclusion:
This is cutting-edge biology — but Wells grounds it in literally hundreds of citations to the peer-reviewed literature. Papers like this show that when freed from the “central dogmas” of neo-Darwinian evolution, a theory of intelligent design can open up promising and fruitful avenues of research and thinking in biology.
Yeah? Well, Casey is excited, but that’s not quite sufficient to get us interested. For the moment, we’ll withhold our enthusiasm and continue to regard Discoveroid “research” as important to biology as The Time Cube is to cosmology.
Copyright © 2014. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.