Home > All, Religion, Science, Skepticism > Stick A Fork In "Intelligent Design" – She’s Done

Stick A Fork In "Intelligent Design" – She’s Done

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers’ eyes. It’s the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

You’ve all heard it before, the Intelligent Design argument that life can’t change and adapt “randomly.” Life couldn’t have come about by “random chance.” Or, even better, that evolution is completely random, and therefore, could not result in the life we have on the planet as it is today… something about a tornado making a 747 jet in a junkyard? Well, stick a fork in that argument… she’s done.

Evolution has been observed in the laboratory. That’s right, a completely random genetic mutation has occurred which provides a benefit to a species – specifically the E. coli bacteria.

The E. coli bacteria had previously not been able to metabolize citrate (citric acid). But, through a random evolutionary mutation, this particular strand now has that capability.

This is no small change, either. This inability for E. coli to metabolize citrate is actually how scientists distinguish E. coli from different species of bacteria. This is direct evidence that random genetic mutations can absolutely result in new species. The article from New Scientist says…

Lenski’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. “The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events,” he says. “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”

It’s not like evolution was ever in question before, but this is one key piece of evidence that really wasn’t seen up until now. Most macro-evolution takes place on such a large scale that our life-spans are simply too short to witness it take place… things that occur over thousands or even millions of years.

Now the only way that I.D.’ers can really refute this evidence is through pure denialism, or pulling the Conspiracy Theory card. You know… more bad logic and whatnot. Or they’ll just say it contradicts the Bible, so it didn’t really happen. You know the deal.

What Are The Implications Of This?

Direct physical evidence of the mechanism of evolution is devastating not only to the Intelligent Design proponents, but also devastating to the Christian religion as a whole. Why is this?

The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is based on the fact that Adam and Eve committed the first (original) sin in the Garden of Eden. According to the Bible, there was no death, no suffering and no sin prior to Adam and Eve eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Genesis 1:29-30 says…

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

But since we’ve physically witnessed the process of evolution taking place, this totally negates the need for a crucifixion. Since evolution is true, that means there was suffering and death (animals feeding upon each other) on the planet before the existence of the alleged “Adam and Eve.” Everything was not so good as the Bible claims.

And if there is no need for a crucifixion, then Christianity is rendered invalid at its source. That is why this discovery is so important.

Again, I’ll just say that this will obviously be overlooked by the Intelligent Design proponents, refuted with bad logic and denialism.

Read a book. It’s good for you.

About these ads
Categories: All, Religion, Science, Skepticism
  1. youtubeskeptic
    Monday June 9, 2008 at 6:26 PM

    Dave,

    There has been many examples of observed mutations and speciation,all of which don’t convince the creationists and this wont either. They will just come back with “you still didn’t get another creature,its still just E.Coli and thats all it will ever be. It didnt gain any “information”,it was already there and evolution never ends up with a gain in information”. Its what they said when we discovered that bacteria had evolved to be able to metabolize nylon,and so forth.

  2. mat
    Monday June 9, 2008 at 10:37 PM

    Hi

    Should’nt the headline read “stick a fork in Intelligent Design…..”?

    More proof of evolution doesn’t explain how life was created. It therefore does not discredit creatioism.

  3. Monday June 9, 2008 at 11:10 PM

    Mat,

    Thanks for pointing that out. You’re right. I’ve made changes accordingly.

  4. Bad
    Wednesday June 11, 2008 at 3:37 PM

    “Read a book. It’s good for you.”

    Better yet, specifically, read Carl Zimmer’s new book, which is about this experiment and so much more. One of the best science writers/popularizers in the biz today.

  5. Saturday June 14, 2008 at 10:15 PM

    I fear that creationists won’t have to deny it. The true war is not being fought over science and Believers—science won that war ages ago—but over the minds (and their hearts, which most promoters of science often forget) of the general public. And, unfortunately, the public is woefully uneducated about science. The majority will continue being ignorant of this breakthrough, allowing IDers to handily ignore it.

  6. Steve
    Thursday June 26, 2008 at 9:49 AM

    No amount of evidence will ever convince the creationists. Their minds are tightly closed by their blind acceptance of 4-5 thousand year old myths.

  7. thewordofme
    Thursday June 26, 2008 at 10:43 PM

    Hi godkillzyou. From your post on June 09, 08 ‘Stick a Fork in it…’

    ***According to the Bible, there was no **death**, no suffering and no sin prior to Adam and Eve eating of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.***

    You might want to look at Genesis 3:22 NASB
    “22Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and **take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”–***

    This verse indicates that Adam and Eve were not originally designed to live forever. Otherwise why would God be concerned they would eat of this tree and live **forever**?
    twom :-)

  8. Friday June 27, 2008 at 4:40 AM

    TWOM,

    While this is an interesting point, you’ve failed to account for Genesis 2:17 (KJV). God said…

    But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

    According to God, Adam would not die unless he ate of this specific tree.

    Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 2:17 cannot be reconciled – it is an error committed by the men who wrote the Bible. Either Adam would die from eating the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, or he would live forever only if he ate from the Tree of Life. You can’t have it both ways.

    It is because of this “sin,” the eating of the tree that brought death and suffering into the world. If man were already destined to die (suffer), there would be no need of Christ’s crucifixion.

    I think it should be interpreted thus:

    1. Adam and Eve were destined to live forever.

    2. They ate of the tree, and thus brought suffering and death into the world.

    3. Because of the death and suffering now in the world, God spoke according to Genesis 3:22, that since Adam was destined to die, he could simply eat of the tree of life and remove this curse.

    4. God sent Adam and Eve away, taking away their ability to remove God’s curse.

    This is far more of a reasonable interpretation than to say that Adam and Eve weren’t destined to live forever. Genesis 2:17 would be meaningless, otherwise.

    As far as relevance to this post, proving evolution true proves that there was suffering before Adam and Eve… which means there was no need for a crucifixion.

  9. thewordofme
    Saturday June 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM

    Hi Godkillzyou, thanks for reply.

    ***While this is an interesting point, you’ve failed to account for Genesis 2:17 (KJV). God said…
    ”But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.”
    According to God, Adam would not die unless he ate of this specific tree.***

    I very much disagree with you on this point. There is no intimation in this sentence that A&E would be living forever…just that if they ate the fruit they would die immediately, which was obviously wrong. Can’t trust those Hebrew scribes.:-) God did not say Adam would not die…unless…he ate of this fruit. He said he would immediately die in the ***DAY he did eat of it…if he ate of it. Not the same as saying you will live forever if you do not eat this fruit.

    ***This is far more of a reasonable interpretation than to say that Adam and Eve weren’t destined to live forever. Genesis 2:17 would be meaningless, otherwise.***

    So should we say that Genesis 3:22 is meaningless?

    I try not to second-guess too much of what the Scriptures actually say. I don’t see God saying he (Adam) would live forever. He (God) is concerned however that A&E will run to the ‘Tree of Life’ to stop the curse.

    Up to the point of Genesis 3:22 he hadn’t considered this. Which begs the question; is God really omniscient? Which also begs many other questions, but I digress.

    I wonder why there was no mention of ‘original sin’ from the time of Moses’ writing up to the time of Paul…Some 1700 years or so…you would think God would give the Jews and other humans a clue as to what was going on.

    *** Yea, I know about the thousand years as a day thing. Blame the Hebrew scribes for the confusion. :-)

  10. Saturday June 28, 2008 at 10:04 PM

    While I agree with you that it would be more reasonable to accept this translation, why apply “reasonability” in one place, but not consistently throughout the Bible?

    Let’s say, for example, we apply this “reasonability” to any miracles claimed in the Bible. In this case, it’s not reasonable to believe those things – things which defy the natural order of things (laws of physics, etc.). So, to say that one interpretation is more reasonable doesn’t really fit, logically. A&E weren’t meant to live forever, but Jesus walked on water, or brought people back to life, or turned water into wine?

    In any case, you’re basically saying that because the Bible doesn’t say one way or the other whether or not they were supposed to live forever, that this lack of information supports your claim that they weren’t. This is the logical fallacy called the argument from ignorance. Using a lack of information to prove a point.

    It doesn’t make sense in the context of the crucifixion that man was destined to die (suffer), when the purpose of the crucifixion was to atone for “original sin” (as well as every other sin), sin which brought death and suffering into the world. Death is a part of suffering, for the one who dies as well as for the survivors. If there were no suffering in the world, that would mean no death, also… reasonably speaking.

  11. Tuesday July 1, 2008 at 1:21 PM

    My own interpretation is that, I Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, they would become mortal, but if they ate of the Tree of Life, they could “regain” their immortality.

  12. Dont Get It
    Monday July 7, 2008 at 1:59 PM

    TWOM said:

    “You might want to look at Genesis 3:22 NASB
    “22Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might stretch out his hand, and **take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”–***

    This verse indicates that Adam and Eve were not originally designed to live forever. Otherwise why would God be concerned they would eat of this tree and live **forever**?
    twom :-)””

    Agree with you there.
    But this verse indicates so much more.
    Why is God, or the angels, or the trinity, (whichever interpretation you choose) vindictive enough to suppress humanity, His loved creation, from possessing KNOWLEDGE, something cherished as a fundamental attribute of any loving, reliable, responsible person, and even more precious, eternal life ?

    Do the angels fear immortal humans ? After having given (not willingly) the power of individual thought, they want to completely disassociate from humanity altogether, seemingly for two reasons:

    1) punishment for the betrayal

    2) to prevent access to the tree of life

    This is where the message of an altogether loving God is lost on me, and at seemingly the very first point of humanity and the birth of all the problems we face.
    Where is the love ?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Tell Me What You Think...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: