5 Comments

A little while ago Ken alerted me to an Intelligent Design website that appeared to be set up to provide ID ‘resources’ to teachers & others who might be interested. Today I found time to wander over & have a look at what was on offer (not much, at the moment). The site’s owner is ‘idfilms’, who tell us that

idfilms was established with the express purpose of reinvigorating and expanding the ID discussion in New Zealand and Australia.

The people behind idfilms are committed to the search for truth about the origin of life and the universe, just like you.

The only resource currently on offer on the Products Page is a DVD entitled”Darwin’s Dilemma”, for which the blurb reads:

Darwin’s Dilemma explores one of the great mysteries in the history of life: The geologically-sudden appearance of dozens of major complex animal types in the fossil record without any trace of the gradual transitional steps Charles Darwin had predicted. Frequently described as ’the Cambrian Explosion,’ the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information. ’The big question that the Cambrian Explosion poses is where does all that new information come from?’ says Dr. Stephen Meyer, a featured expert in the documentary.

Interesting, given the subject matter, that one of the DVD’s ‘featured experts’ is neither a geneticist nor an evolutionary biologist…

Anyway, back to the issue of “Darwin’s Dilemma” (which isn’t a particularly accurate characterisation, given that discovery of the extensive Cambrian biota happened well after his death). Nor is the idea of an ‘explosion’ all that accurate, as the evidence from palaeontology and molecular biology points to a rather more ancient origin for the various phyla found in Cambrian rocks.

The statement that

the development of these new animal types required a massive increase in genetic information
suggests a lack of understanding of a particular suite of genes, the Hox genes. Major changes in morphology can come about as a result of small changes in the Hox genes, because they influence the arrangement and timing of development of various body parts. No need for ‘massive increases in genetic information’ here. However, that phrase is simply setting the stage for the claim that this increase in ‘information’ can only have come about through the agency of a designer, again ignoring the observed ability of mutations – such as the duplication of genes due to transposon activity – to do this all by themselves.
 
However, if we must look at ‘complex specified information’ (the catchphrase of Meyer’s colleague William (Demski) Dembski (my apologies) for the way to recognise the work of the designer), let’s ask a few questions about it. What exactly is ‘complex specified information’? How is it produced? How do we tell it apart from the bits of the genome that aren’t due to an external agency? (A mathematical examination of all this can be found here.)
 
Well, the short answer would appear to be that even the ‘experts’ don’t know. How else are we to interpret the discussion associated with On the calculation of CSI, a post over at ‘Uncommon Descent’? (And thanks for the pointer, Ted!) A concept that cannot be adequately explained can hardly form the basis of a sound teaching resource, let alone provide the impetus to change our view of how evolution works.