May 15, 2010 — Two teams have succeeded in building little robots that work on DNA tracks.  These resemble in many respects the machines that cells use to perform its functions on DNA.  No one denies that humans engineered their nanobots on purpose, but Darwinist scientists claim natural cellular machines evolved without purpose or design. What’s the difference?

…

So if we do it, it’s intelligent design, but if nature does it, it’s blind evolution? You realize, of course, that the natural machines in cells are far ahead of us: they are not only autonomous, but attain very complex behaviors that are programmed into their molecular systems. Not only that, they belong to complexes of molecular machines, which belong to networks of signal processing systems, that boggle the mind – and they belong to entire systems that have a coded library, and can reproduce all their parts! Why should not scientists find it “inspiring to see such creativity” of “autonomous molecular systems that can execute complex actions” and ascribe it to design? Molecular biology should be filled with God-fearing, worshiping, praise-singing scientists shouting Hallelujah! What we get instead are man-fearing, fault-finding, hate-mongering ingrates shouting Pal-Ayala.

[Last updated by Duane: 21 February 2010]

A textbook that actually presents the strengths and weaknesses of evolution.

More info, including pdf samples from the book and a table of contents are available at www.exploreevolution.com

[Update: 21 Feb 2010]

Dr. Carl Wieland writes a relatively positive review of the book in the latest Journal of Creation, saying that there is some really useful and well-presented content that could “…round out many a creationist’s knowledge” and that in most areas “…it is one of the best overviews of the arguments currently available.”

However he also has some expected criticisms. For example, he believes that while ID attempts to limit its sphere of involvement to design vs non-design and make no statements for or against Genesis history, comment on the age of the earth is virtually unavoidable when taking on evolutionary theory and the position of the authors is clearly implied by statements such as “530 Ma ago”, intended to be taken as an established fact.

“…a comprehensive exploration of the arguments for and against today’s evolutionary model of origins is simply not going to be coherent if it was to avoid all comment about the history of the earth. That’s why the authors of Explore Evolution, once they set out to deal with such matters as fossil succession, have little option but to state, implicitly or explicitly, where they stand on such areas as the age of the earth. You either believe that the fossils represent a tape-recording of vast ages, or you don’t. Which is another way of saying that you either believe in the global Flood of Genesis or you reject it.”

I was completely aware of these issues when I bought the book and I would join with Dr. Wieland in wishing the book every success, hoping that it would “…serve to overcome some of the naturalistic prejudice in biology in the minds of its readers”, despite its implicit acceptance of the vast geological ages required for evolution to even get off the ground.

[Last Updated: 22 February 2010]

Dr. Terry Mortenson provides a great example of what evolution isn’t in his review of a 33-page 2004 National Geographic cover story which asked, “Was Darwin wrong?”

It’s examples exactly like this that are typically paraded as evolution in action, when really it is nothing of the sort.

The bacterium, Helicobacter pylori, is troublesome to humans, but doctors can destroy it with an antibiotic. After the patient takes the antibiotic, it is absorbed through the cell wall of the bacterium. It has the genetic information to make an enzyme which reacts with the antibiotic converting it into a poison, killing the bacterium. But due to a mutation, some H. pylori cannot make the enzyme and so cannot convert the antibiotic and so do not die but reproduce, giving the patient and doctor a new problem. The mutant survived through a loss of information, which is not a process that will eventually lead to an increase of information to change a bacterium over millions of years into a biologist.

http://creation.com/national-geographic-is-wrong-and-so-was-darwin

In the scenario above the organism with the mutation has indeed – to use evolutionary language – gained an advantage over the other H. pylori in an environment with the antibiotic present. So has the H. pylori evolved? Well that depends on what you mean by evolution. Is the change that occurred in the organism in the direction for the bacterium to develop new body parts or body plans; is it on it’s way to becoming a baboon, a bird, or a badger? Most certainly the answer is NO. The information change is a negative one, not a positive one. In fact in this example not only is no new information created but the mutation destroyed the information in the bacterium’s genome that would normally have allowed it to produce an enzyme. So the non-evolved H. pylori can make the enzyme and the so-called evolved ones cannot; a damaging mutation with a beneficial side effect. Yet examples just like this (information-destroying changes) are often used to provide support for macro evolution, which requires observable information-gaining changes.

If it makes it any easier to understand, believing that these kinds of changes support the evolutionary theory is analogous to believing that your bank balance will steadily increase the more money you take out. Wish I had a bank account like that!