This isn’t very different from the noise the Discoveroids are making about this year’s Nobel Prize for ‘Directed Evolution’, but this time it’s from Answers in Genesis (AIG), the creationist ministry of Ken Ham (ol’ Hambo) — the ayatollah of Appalachia, the world’s holiest man who knows more about religion and science than everyone else.
Hambo’s grumbling is titled Nobel Prize Evolution. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:
The New York Times ran an article about the three winners of this year’s Nobel Prize in chemistry, which were announced on October 3, 2018. All three winners, Frances H. Arnold, George P. Smith, and Gregory P. Winter, were awarded “for their work in evolutionary science”.
We know all about it, and we’ve seen the Discoveroids’ rants, so we’ll be skipping a lot of Hambo’s post because the noise he’s making is similar to theirs. He says:
Now what I find fascinating is the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ Nobel Prize’s press release announcing the winners of the shared prize in chemistry. Look at how often intelligent human design and input is equated with “randomness” in an attempt to emphasize molecules-to-man evolutionary processes. Let me list a few quotes used throughout the press release to describe two of the winner’s research.
He then goes merrily quote-mining his way through that press release. For example:
Frances Arnold utilised the fact that subtilisin breaks down milk protein, casein. She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.
That’s what nature does, but it can take nature a long time to produce a useful mutation, which is then naturally selected because it makes the organism better fit. The scientists took a short cut and selected their own mutations. It’s a faster version of what nature does. After a few other quotes, Hambo tells us:
Now all of these scientists were described as having “taken control of evolution and used it for the greatest benefit to humankind” and “they have revolutionised both chemistry and the development of new pharmaceuticals through directed evolution.” But is there really any evolution (in the Darwinian sense) at work here?
It looks like mutation and selection to us, albeit faster because the scientists couldn’t wait a few million years for the process to work by itself. But Hambo sees it differently. He tells us:
Frankly if I were given an award for some great scientific achievement and then told that it would be equated to chance random processes which were unguided by intelligence, I’d be a little offended.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA! Hambo continues:
As our own geneticist, Dr. Georgia Purdom, stated in a recent interview regarding Dr. Arnold’s Nobel-winning research.
[He quotes Sweet Georgia Purdom:] “For evolution — if you’re going to go from one kind of organism to another [which they weren’t doing], you have to not just make a protein work a little bit better or a little bit differently. You’ve got to make entirely new proteins. Her work doesn’t show that at all. [This] has nothing to do with random chance. She’s the one shifting around the parts of the DNA and making these proteins better.
We’ve heard that before from the Discoveroids. Hambo finishes with this:
Rather than showing the “power of evolution,” these Nobel winners show that intelligent design and directed effort was needed to accomplish anything beneficial to humanity. There is no power of naturalistic evolution to create anything demonstrated here.
They’ll make the same complaint when someone finally succeeds in creating life in the lab, and like the complaints they’re making now, no one will pay attention — except for their drooling fans.
Copyright © 2018. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.