Illusion of design in living things?

…that’s one of the most interesting things about living creatures; that they do carry this overwhelmingly strong illusion of design….living things really do. ”  [emphasis added]

—Richard Dawkins,atheist and anti-creationist.

He called it an illusion. Why? Because he is a follower of scientism2 (‘science’ is the only way of knowing) with its atheistic belief in ‘goo-to-you’ evolution via the zoo. The belief that over millions to billions of years specific complex coded information has been added to the genomes causing them to appear intelligently designed when in fact they are not. They were ‘just shaped’ by their environment under the action of mutations and natural selection, so he says. But just look at this ‘illusion.’

The bacterial flagellum

flagellum

This is well-known but it deserves repeating; a fully rotary proton-powered motor that drives the whip-like tail or flagellum of the bacterium Escherichia coli (E. coli). It rotates up to 270 cycles per second or 16,200 rpm.3  Evolutionists claim co-option from other components in nature was used to construct the motor of about 40 different parts. But take away only a quarter of these components and nothing works.  For evolution to be true, the motor had to have evolved where at every stage it was fully functional. But if only one-quarter of the parts were removed the rest would disadvantage the bacterium and it would be ‘out-survived’ by its neighbours who are not weakened with any defective function.4

Therefore Richard Dawkins (or his fellow evolutionists) must be able to construct a step-wise Darwinian sequence how an organism can develop such a structure, where at every step the structure is functional and adds a survival advantage to the organism.

This type of structure is what is called ‘irreducibly complex.’ Practically all pieces must be there for it to function or it is absolutely useless.

Issus nymph

Or how about this Issus nymph?

Gears

Fully functioning ‘mechanical gears’ seen in nature for the first time:5

“…a plant-hopping insect found in gardens across Europe – has hind-leg joints with curved cog-like strips of opposing ‘teeth’ that intermesh, rotating like mechanical gears to synchronise the animal’s legs when it launches into a jump.”

This is the only known instance of mechanical gears found in nature. The article describing this mechanism also said,

“…gear mechanisms previously thought to be solely man-made have an evolutionary precedent.”

There is the scientism. Their beliefs dominate over the obvious design here. But Dawkins calls it an illusion.

Where would the nymph be if one part had not yet evolved? Certainly it would not be jumping around—it is like a ratchet system on its hind legs. The gear teeth on the opposing hind-legs lock together like those in a car gear-box, ensuring almost perfect synchronisation of leg movement.  The legs always move within 30 millionth of a second of each other.

issus

Issus nymph. Credit: Malcolm Burrows

And if those mechanical gears are what allow it to evade predators through jumping, it speaks of design, not illusion of design. If the synchronicity of the leg movement was off it would cause the nymph trajectory to be uncontrolled—and it would spin helplessly. The supposed force of natural selection would have eliminated the little guy millions of years ago.

It is only in the nymph (the juvenile stage of the insect) that the gears are found. They are lost in a molt as it grows to adulthood. Gears get broken and so this also has a design feature. As adults they must be more capable of evading death without this feature. But the evolutionist claim,6

“These gears are not designed; they are evolved – representing high speed and precision machinery evolved for synchronisation in the animal world.”

More story telling…..more illusion!

Richard Dawkins you are the one who is under an illusion—I’d call it a delusion.

As a physicist I really can appreciate a related issue here—genetic entropy—the loss of information from the genomes over time, due to mostly just copying errors that occur when the DNA is copied from generation to generation in organisms. These, mostly only slightly deleterious mutations, are not eliminated by natural selection because in themselves they are not individually damaging enough to the host, but over time they accumulate.

Genetic EntropyThis results in an increase of disorder in the genomes of organisms, generation after generation. This means a net loss of information, not an accumulation of new information. This work has been particularly pioneered by John Sanford (plant geneticist of Cornell University and inventor of the ‘Gene Gun’). He describes this process in his book “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome”.7 This could be said to describe a process of ‘de-volution’ instead of ‘e-volution’, where the former may be described as ‘you-to-goo’ as compared to the latter as claimed ‘goo-to-you’.

One is a stepwise increase (evolution) and the other a systematic decrease in functional information (devolution). The real world science observes an increase in disorder or entropy. This is the most well established law in the universe with which we are all familiar. Systems left to themselves increase in disorder.

Interestingly, Dawkins implicitly concedes the impact of Sanford’s work on genetic engineering, when he said,8

“I think it well may be that we’re living in a time when evolution is suddenly starting to become intelligently designed.” [emphasis added]

Dawkins can recognise design; so can we. The Creator designed us to recognise design and to also see that there must be a Designer. Only the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

 

References

  1. COSMOS magazine interview, www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/the-beauty-creation-interview-with-richard-dawkins/, 23 May 2012,
  2. Why is a 6000-year-old universe so hard to believe?
  3. C.V. Gabel and H.C. Berg, The speed of the flagellar rotary motor of Escherichia coli varies linearly with protonmotive force, PNAS 100(15):8748–8751, 2003.
  4. The amazing motorized germ, creation.com/the-amazing-motorized-germ
  5. Burrows M. and Sutton, G., Interacting Gears Synchronize Propulsive Leg Movements in a Jumping Insect, Science, Vol. 341, 1264, 2013. Read more at: phys.org/news/2013-09-functioning-mechanical-gears-nature.html#jCp
  6. Ref. 3.
  7. Sanford, J.C. ,Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. Elim Publications. Elim, NY, 2006.
  8. The Atheist, May 1st, 2005; www.salon.com/2005/04/30/dawkins/ (last sentence)

Beliefs of a few Nobel prize winners

The following are quotes from 4 Nobel prize winners.  As a physicist, working in the time and frequency community, I have personally met Bill Phillips. He is American physicist and a Christian (Methodist). Arthur Compton, a Christian (Baptist) held to a supernatural Creation by God (Genesis 1:1). He had faith in the supreme Creator God. Arthur Schawlow, also an American physicist, and a Christian, saw that the Universe was the result of an intelligent Mind, not due to random chance and the laws of physics (and some as-yet-undiscovered esoteric quantum string theory or M-theory in higher dimensions).  Sir Ernst Boris Chain a German-born British biochemist, and a believing Jew, rejected the origin of information in the DNA by random chance evolution.

Phillips

ComptonSchawlowChain

 Recommended Reading:

 

Does the Bible really describe expansion of the universe?

Biblical texts which have been used by some creationists to argue that Scripture supports expansion of the universe were reviewed. To suggest that these texts describe cosmological expansion of space, with galaxies being spread out like the often quoted rubber sheet analogy, is not justifiable and is pure eisegesis. The straightforward meaning is God constructing the heavens above and the earth below as a description of His preparation of a habitat for man. Once the stars were placed in the heavens they were to remain as a constant for all time. (Edited from an article first published in Journal of Creation 25(2):125–127, August 2011, which is also available here.)

We have been told, since Hubble’s discovery in the late 1920s, that the universe is expanding. Hubble found a proportionality between the redshift in the light coming from relatively nearby galaxies and their distance from Earth. This relationship has since been strengthened and extended to very great distances in the cosmos. This has been interpreted to mean that the space that contains the galaxies is expanding and that the galaxies are essentially stationary in that space, but being dragged apart as the universe expands. Often, the rubber balloon analogy is used—galaxies stuck on the surface as the balloon is blown up—which illustrates space expanding and the galaxies being pushed apart from each other (and also that there is no centre, no special place uniquely for us in the universe; figure 1). Nowadays, the expanding big bang universe is considered to be established dogma. Continue reading

Why is a 6000-year-old universe so hard to believe?

God has given us a clear history in the biblical account.  Genesis Chapter 1, from a straightforward reading, describes the history of the planet Earth, the solar system and the whole universe starting not much more than 6000 years ago. This is based on the genealogies, the historical records of father and son, found written in chapters 5 and 11. Add these up and eventually you get to a point in history that is well-known and then you have an estimate of the time that has passed since creation. This exercise will only result in a history of about 6000 years.

Deep time

Then why is this so hard for many people to accept? The answer does not really lie with science. It is because most people believe anything they are told if it comes with the stamp of approval of science. This is actually scientism not science. It is a belief system, a worldview; a worldview that man’s knowledge through science has all the answers or that science ultimately will find all the answers. Continue reading

The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention model as a solution to the creationist starlight-travel-time problem — Part II

Part II of two parts: This paper reviews Lisle’s cosmological model, which uses the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). That model claims the ASC is that of the language used in the Bible, and has special relevance to the creation account. Events are time stamped by the moment they are first observed on Earth. Lisle contends that the stars really were made on the fourth day of Creation Week, and that their light reached Earth instantaneously due to the way clocks are synchronized. (First published in Journal of Creation 25(3): 56-62, 2011.)

This continues where Part I left off. Read Part I first.

Process in observed structures

How much time does it takes for structures in the cosmos to form based on assumptions of their current measured expansion rates, like in supernova remnants, for example? And how much is necessary to be assumed as created mature by God? Continue reading

The Anisotropic Synchrony Convention model as a solution to the creationist starlight-travel-time problem — Part I

This paper reviews (in two parts) Lisle’s cosmological model, which uses the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention (ASC). That model claims the ASC is that of the language used in the Bible, and has special relevance to the creation account. Events are time stamped by the moment they are first observed on Earth. Lisle contends that the stars really were made on the fourth day of Creation Week, and that their light reached Earth instantaneously due to the way clocks are synchronized. (First published in Journal of Creation 25(3): 56-62, 2011)

Jason Lisle has expanded on his solution to the creationist starlight-travel-time problem in “Anisotropic Synchrony Convention—A Solution to the Distant Starlight Problem”.1 The concept in his paper is essentially the same as he has previously published,2 except he explains the concept using light cones. The following is a short summary of his model, followed by a more in-depth review. Continue reading

Hey, not so fast with the Nobel Prize!

Already the alleged discovery of not only primordial gravitational waves but also the big bang era of inflation (which I discussed in Has the ‘smoking gun’ of the ‘big bang’ been found? and also in this blog, only a little over a week ago) has been questioned in a paper1 by leading cosmologists. This is in a paper, submitted to the preprint archive (arXiv.org) on March 20th, 2014, just three days after the press release (on March 17th) of the “discovery” by the BICEP2 Collaboration team.

On March 25th a press item appeared on phys.org quoting these cosmologists and entitled ‘Cosmologists cast doubt on inflation evidence’, with a storimagesyline saying

Some theorists are advising that we “put the champagne back in the fridge”… at least for now.2

Continue reading