Evolutionists have long sought to discredit opposing views, shutting them down in public schools, colleges, and science journals. In public schools, for example, dissent was blocked in the Dover vs. Kitzmiller trial, where the court prohibited the teaching of Intelligent Design (ID). This amounted to censorship. However, occasionally, opposing voices have won, and that recently happened in the science journal, Science Direct.
Whenever the topic of evolution vs. creation and intelligent design are discussed, one popular talking point espoused by evolutionists is the belief that creation and ID cannot be valid forms of science because their ideas aren’t published in science journals. This claim is both false and deceptive because creationists and ID proponents are published in peer reviewed journals frequently; the real issue is that they typically have to publish their work within their own circles due to overt discrimination by evolutionists, who refuse to publish ID or creationist work in mainstream, secular journals, which isn’t surprising. Why would evolutionists publish anything critical of evolution, or anything suggesting God exists in their own journals? They’re committed to naturalism, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. Thus, it makes no sense for them to publish something contradicting their own worldview.
Nonetheless, the science Journal, Science Direct, published an article on Intelligent Design, legitimizing it. The article is titled, “Using statistical methods to model the fine-tuning of molecular machines and systems.”
“Fine-tuning” is the key point because it implies conscious intention and design. A house key, for example, is finely tuned to open a lock. No one expects a random object to unlock a door, yet we know that someone designed the keys we use to open locks.
The authors define fine-tuning as:
“an object with two properties: it must a) be unlikely to have occurred by chance, under the relevant probability distribution (i.e. complex), and b) conform to an independent or detached specification (i.e. specific).”
The fine-tuning of the universe has been widely discussed. If the laws of physics were slightly different, then we wouldn’t exist. Gravity is finely tuned for there to be galaxies and planets. The earth’s atmosphere is finely tuned to protect life on earth, and the properties of water are finely tuned to support life on earth. The list of fine-tuning examples goes on and on…
The article applies the fine-tuning concept to molecular biology, highlighting the complex machinery contained inside cells, all designed to perform specific functions. The paper even goes on to question evolution!
The authors do a fine job defining their terms, presenting parameters, constraints and values. They acknowledge that “Humans have a powerful intuitive understanding of design that precedes modern science.” And that’s an important truth; people know- intuitively- that a key requires a key maker, or a watch demands a watchmaker. We can recognize patterns of design without difficulty, and we’re not easily fooled when we see a cloud in the sky that looks like a face. Sure, our intuitive nature might be challenged if we find a rock in the shape of an arrowhead and wonder whether or not it’s authentic, or just a natural formation. But the point of the paper is that the function of biological systems is so complex and orderly that it stretches credulity to suggest their origin developed as a result of natural processes.
The authors intend to provide a “firm scientific foundation” for their approach by examining functioning proteins and cellular networks to see if they can apply useful statistical methods.
It’s nice to see a paper like this be recognized by a top peer-reviewed journal, and I hope we see many more to come.