More Recent Comments

Tuesday, June 25, 2013

One of the Most Significant Days in the History of Biochemistry

Reasons to Believe is "where science and faith converge." It's the organization founded by creationist Hugh Ross, a graduate of the University of Toronto. One of his leading minions is Fazale ("Fuz") Rana, a biochemist.

Fuz says that "September 5, 2012 marks one of the most significant days in the history of biochemistry."


Bilbo said...

Hi Larry,

I don't know if you've received your copy of "the best science book ever written," yet, but when you do, look up your name in the index. I expect you'll have some fun with it.

Larry Moran said...

Please tell me more! What book are you referring to? If it's the latest IDiot book I won't be able to see it for several months.

Nullifidian said...

A friend of mine who works at a major paper snaffled me a review copy of Darwin's Doubt, so I'm looking you up right now. Meyer references this post in the bibliography.

To give you some context, I'll quote the whole paragraph that mentions you, as well as the one previous, as well as posting my own reactions.

"The ENCODE project and other recent research in genomics have confirmed this prediction [Dembski's prediction that "we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function"]. As the lead article in Nature reported, ENCODE has "enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80 percent of the genome in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions." [footnote omitted] Other research in genomics has shown that, overall, the noncoding regions of the genome function much like the operating system in a computer in that they direct the timing and regulate the expression of the data modules or coding regions of the genome, in addition to possessing myriad other functions. [Lengthy endnote contains references in Meyer's typically incompetent citation style, but if you want me to I can reproduce it as well.] Before ENCODE, neo-Darwinists would often ask: If the information in DNA provides such compelling evidence for the activity of a designing intelligence, why is over 90 percent of the genome composed of functionless nonsense sequences? The latest genomics research now provides a ready answer to this question: it isn't.

"The significance of these discoveries in genomics to the debate about design has passed largely unnoticed in the media. [What???? Is Meyer pretending like the ENCODE media blitz never happened?!?!] But repeated attempts to stigmatize the ENCODE researchers as aiding and abetting 'intelligent design creationists' have inadvertently highlighted what is at stake. In this effort a biochemist at the University of Toronto, Laurence A. Moran, emerged as point man. The Moran strategy centered on tarring scientists and science journalists who published ENCODE and its implications with the brush of 'Intelligent Design Creationism'—an all too familiar conflation of of intelligent design with a very different idea, the biblical literalism of young-earth creationism. When the distinguished journal Science selected ENCODE as one of the top ten science news stories of 2012, reminding readers that it had detonated the notion of junk DNA by revealing overwhelming functionality in the genome, [footnote omitted] Moran jeered, 'Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be content to point out that many scientists are as stupid as many Intelligent Design Creationists!' [footnote to your blog post] In the science world, as in the media, 'creationist' is a dirty word; it's like calling someone a Communist used to be in the 1950s. Such attempts to stigmatize results that challenge a favored theory illustrate how an ideological monopoly in science can stifle inquiry and discussion."

Nullifidian said...

I forgot to add that quote is from page 400 in the section "The ENCODE Project and an ID Prediction" from chapter 19, "The Rules of Science".

SRM said...

from the video: "...the idea that human beings were created by an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator.

Ah, religion: addling minds since forever.
Funny how these "investigators" are not content to study the possibility of an ultimate designer of the universe. No, this designer must be said to be all-loving too. Naturally.

I suspect if this requirement was not met, these "scientists" would quickly lose interest in the question of design, the designer, and it’s supposed works.

AllanMiller said...

it's like calling someone a Communist used to be in the 1950s.

Or a "Darwinist" in 2010's America.