I.D. Defeated by Triumphant Press Release
As if having withstood a terrorist attack, “Evolution [is] still scientifically stable,” announced a Monash university press release. After a threat from a non-Darwinian explanation, “An international team of researchers, including Monash University biochemists, has discovered evidence at the molecular level in support of one of the key tenets of Darwin’s theory of evolution.”
Actually, no intelligent design scientist specifically addressed the subject matter under study. Trevor Lithgow and the other scientists used evolutionary theory to try to show that a transporter system in mitochondria was not “irreducibly complex.” That term was coined in an influential I.D. book by Dr. Michael Behe of Lehigh University,2 but he did not use this transporter system as an example. Nevertheless, the press release stated that the paper published in PNAS1 “provides a blueprint for a general understanding of the evolution of the ‘machinery’ of our cells.”
The Darwinists understand that molecular machinery presents a challenge. “Our cells, and the cells of all organisms, are composed of molecular machines,” Lithgow noted. “These machines are built of component parts, each of which contributes a partial function or structural element to the machine. How such sophisticated, multi-component machines could evolve has been somewhat mysterious, and highly controversial.” The press release mentioned intelligent design then knocked it down with the research. Lithgow stood over the defeated non-Darwinian explanation, exclaiming, “Our work … shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be.”
In the scientific journals, controversies are supposed to be aired. Didn’t any I.D. supporters fight back? Actually, they did. Michael Behe himself wrote a response to PNAS, but they refused to print it. If you want the comeback arguments, you will have to look in the I.D. literature, because the Darwin-controlled journals are announcing their win by muffling the outcries of the opponents. PhysOrg reprinted the press release without “teaching the controversy.” Here’s where you can find responses by I.D. scientists and reporters: Behe on Evolution News and Uncommon Descent, Luskin on Evolution News, and Cornelius Hunter on Darwin’s God.
1. Clements et al, “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, August 26, 2009, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0908264106.
2. Behe, Michael, Darwin’s Black Box, Free Press 1996.
This is the only way the Darwinists win. They close the doors and announce themselves the winner. Meanwhile, nature is held hostage to their bluffing. This is analogous to certain news networks that always give the liberal spin and refuse to report news that is embarrassing to liberalism. Here, we report both sides so you can decide who makes a stronger case.
Lithgow doesn’t have much to bluff about with us. He earned Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week with his inebriated worship of Tinker Bell: “Francois Jacob described evolution as a tinkerer, cobbling together proteins of one function to yield more complex machines capable of new functions. Our work describes a perfect example of Jacob’s proposition, and shows that Darwin’s theory of evolution beautifully explains how molecular machines came to be.”