I am often baffled by the mentality of professional biologists and their fixation over darwinism. And it is hard to determine whether their pronouncements are sheer mendacity or simply stupidity induced by paradigm conformity and the admitted unlikelihood they could speak their minds if they actually did dissent from the run of propaganda.
Here, I have no idea whether the Discovery Institute is falling apart (I doubt it), but the attempts to discredit its work are amazing in their naivete and unprofessional display of falsehoods. These professional bodies have learned that they can simply repeat falsehoods ad infinitum and get away with it.
The hatred between darwinists and the ID factions gets a little tiresome. I can understand the fear of fundamentalist religion influencing the schools, but the imposition of darwinian falsehoods in the same context is hardly any better. It asks for a solution to a simple problem being given a chance to override two confusions.
Coyne is unaware that there is any problem with darwinism. Sandwalk tries to ridicule this paragraph:
So my first question is: if (i) Nature contains systems which accomplish a feat (namely, coding for complex structures) in a manner which is far better than what our best computer scientists can do, and (ii) despite diligent searching, scientists have failed to observe any cases in Nature of unguided processes generating a new code from scratch, then why isn’t it reasonable to infer (at least provisionally) that these systems were designed by a super-human Intelligence? You tell me, Professor.
You can’t just dismiss this kind of objection. Biologists have consistently lied about complex biochemical machines (or else they are simply confused or conformist). It is a species of absurdity for darwinists to still maintain that complex machines can be assembled by random chance (or sometimes in a series of steps that make no difference to the core argument…). Why do they set themselves up in this way? It is hard to fathom, until you realize these people are so isolated in a community of common delusion and paradigm control they don’t really have to answer to a real debate.
Sandwalk intones further:
Both of the premises are wrong. I’ve yet to see any natural system that’s as good as what computer scientists can do. Most of the genes that code for complex structures are inefficient and error-prone. Natural systems look like they were designed by a tinkerer who cobbles together odds and ends that just happened to be in reach. They look like they evolved haphazardly. Any intelligent scientist could do better and, in some cases, they have done better by genetically modifying organisms to make them more efficient.
The first claim is unbelievable, really. Computer scientists are getting better, but they can’t replicate the constructs of biochemistry. How can this fellow claim otherwise. The mysteries of protein folding alone are beyond current technologies.
The statement about proteins is misleading. Why would a reputable scientist make these statements? Just to ‘show’ that design is contradicted by imperfect structures. That line of argument is not really founded. Proteins can indeed show defects, but overall the design is something almost magical in terms of what science can do now. That isn’t an argument for the supernatural or ‘intelligent design’ from this quarter. But it is a willing assent to ‘design’ in some sense that has nothing to do with creationism.
This debate has made biologists stupid to the point that amateur outsiders are needed to keep some sense of perspective on the sheer muddle of the current biological community, with confused leaders like Dawkins at the head of the pack.