Synthetic Evolution: The Art of Equivocation
Posted by DuaneMar 28
According to a recent CreationSafaris[1] post:
Some Cambridge scientists engineered a four-character genetic code and made some proteins with it. They guided the process at every step, but claim that they “evolved” this code. Is that a fair use of language? This strange admixture of concepts is found in today’s issue [18 March 2010] of Nature. The confusion began right in the title: “Encoding multiple unnatural amino acids via evolution of a quadruplet-decoding ribosome.” [emphasis in original]
http://creationsafaris.com/crev201003.htm#20100318a
After summarising the work as reported in the scientific journal Nature, they rightly observe the equivocation:
…everything was intelligently designed, both the natural and unnatural codes and functions. This paper was one of the best examples in recent memory of Truman’s Law: “If you can’t convince them, confuse them.” Using evolve as a synonym for design is a clever way to blow smoke using equivocation. Words mean things. This has nothing to do with evolution in the way Darwin used it, and in the way the debate rages today. It has everything to do with intelligently designing codes to synthesize things they would not naturally do (that is, without the intervention of a human mind). These human designers did not “evolve” anything, and they did not rule out intelligent design in the “natural” systems. If they really wanted to talk about evolution, they should have left the lab and let “nature” take its course. [emphasis in original]
Notes:
- CreationSafaris is highly recommended and would be in my Top5 all time websites across all genres. Their team constantly survey the main stream media and secular scientific journals and are well-equipped to point out the many equivocations, failings, misgivings and “baloney” associated with many of their claims. It is one of the best places to get your secular [materialistic] brainwash washed.
PDF 
4 comments
Comment by Mathew on 29 Mar 2010 at 00:50
Can you imagine the ecstatic joy of these scientists who, at the end of their work, exclaimed: “What we programmed, evolved!”
Ur … that's called having one's cake and eating it, too.
Comment by Duane on 29 Mar 2010 at 01:24
Well actually, I'd say it's called eating one's cake and having it too, but that's just semantics.
You know we see/hear advertisements on TV/radio all the time now that talk about the evolution of the car, or hear a football commentator talk about the evolution of the game, etc. So I guess we shouldn't be too surprised when we read of the same equivocation happening in the science lab. Who knows, they probably started it?
Comment by Mathew on 29 Mar 2010 at 01:39
I stand corrected – that's the correct formulation of that phrase.
You would think that scientists would know better than general society, though, huh? But the term “evolve” or “evolution” is used so colloquially nowadays, it's really detached itself from it's original intent. You could say the meaning of “evolution” has “evolved” … but I just think it's more of a mutation, destroying information rather than creating new data ;)
Comment by René Mulder on 29 Mar 2010 at 17:49
I “evolve” things in the microwave oven on a regular basis :P
I do think it's a little scary that humans are capable of messing with genetic code and getting some results with it. But I suppose God is allowing it for the time being…I wonder what will come out of that :)
It is kind of ironic how their little “evolution” project is actually of an intelligent design nature :P I can't help but chuckle a little at that.