Either Modern Evolutionary Biology is Goal-Directed, or it is False!


Philosopher of biology Will Provine died recently.  Provine was an Atheist (I capitalize Atheist, because I view it as a faith based religion). Here is his own summary on evolutionary biology:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either. (Darwinism: Science or Naturalistic Philosophy April 30 1994)

Let me present my own summary as to why Provine’s statement that “There are  … no goal-directed forces of any kind.” is false, and why modern evolutionary biology must indeed be goal-directed, or it must be false.

Virtually all of life, and all of the components of life appear to be goal-directed. From the smallest component of a human life form … the cell, to the various organs contained therein, to the finished product —  all across the board we have items that achieve specific purposes, often multiple purposes.

Internal organs

In the case of human organs we see that each of our internal organs achieves a specific purpose:

  • The heart pumps blood and life sustaining oxygen and nutrients to each part of our body, and to each cell, while also removing carbon dioxide and other wastes.
  • The visual system – eyes, nerves and brain – gathers, processes and stores visual information from our external world allowing us to function smoothly in a very complex, beautiful and often threatening world.  
  • The kidneys serve several essential regulatory roles in vertebrates. They remove excess organic molecules from the blood, and it is by this action that their best-known function is performed: the removal of waste products of metabolism.
  •          And on and on for each of our parts.

So if the evolutionary “just-so” tale is to be believed, each of these very specific and sophisticated organs arrived on the scene simultaneously by a process that had no intention to produce such intentional, purposeful and goal oriented machines. Or … they arrived on the scene by some other means.

And what of the final product – the human being? What you see in the lead-in picture above is the intentional and goal directed execution of a very complex maneuver in baseball called the double play.

Somehow, evolution which is not goal-directed has created a massively complex and synchronous machine which is – at all levels – purposeful and goal directed. Goal directed towards multitudes of goals:


I would dare to suggest that the false god of evolution, undirected “Deep Time”  casts a shroud over observationally obtained truth.


The high priests of this false god of “Deep Time”: Will Provine, Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Stephen Hawking and others peddle this just so tale simply because, in the words of Richard Lewontin – “ … we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ” And they are adamant in keeping this Divine Foot out of the culture, out of education, out of science … and indeed, and perhaps most importantly, out of their own life and life style.


don johnson – September 2015

Richard Dawkins: No moralist like an atheist moralist

File:A small cup of coffee.JPG

Something to think about over morning coffee —


Excerpt from a commenter:

“ … The unmitigated horror visited upon man, by state sponsored atheism, would be hard to exaggerate,,, Here’s what happens when Atheists/evolutionists/non-Christians take control of Government:

“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide]
2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide]
3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide
4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime
8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse
15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea
16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico
17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia”

This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world. … “

There’s more …


Don Johnson – August 2015


I ran across this memorial in Port Townsend Washington the other day. It honors Marvin Shields, a Medal of Honor sailor and Navy CB, who was born and raised in this small Washington town along Puget Sound. I was attracted to this memorial because I served on the USS Shields (DD-596) as a reservist out of San Diego back in the mid-late 1960s – but a different Shields. (click on the photo)WP_20150818_12_27_34_Pro

This was just days after I met a fellow at the 50,000 Silver Dollar Bar in Western Montana along I-90 and the Clark Fork River. This fellow was about my age (~70), a little rough looking along the edges with a grey pony tail, a denim vest and a head scarf showing he was a Vietnam Vet. In talking with this fellow I learned that he had spent 3 years in Vietnam in the early 70s as an Army Medevac pilot.

I got thinking about this guy and his time in the Army in those days. He may not have looked the part, but this guy was a real hero. He undoubtedly saved many a soldier and Marine, and most likely also saw many who didn’t make it back alive and whose names are written on “The Wall”  in DC. This pilot risked his life every time he took off in that medevac hello in a race to save lives.

Marvin Shields was one of those who was medevac’d out but didn’t make it back, and died in that place far away from Port Townsend.

Along with the Medal of Honor, Shields had a ship named after him — meet USS Marvin Shields (FF-1066).

USS Marvin Shields (FF-1066)

Thank you Marvin Shields – and all others who gave the full measure.

Don Johnson – August 2015

Loose Lips Sink Ships


Grassley questions whether Clinton attorney had clearance for thumb drives

Official: More than 300 Clinton emails flagged for potentially classified info

Just how potentially serious is such a security breach?

The invasion of France at Normandy was the largest such landing in history and cost the lives of many thousands of allied soldiers. The landing was shrouded in much secrecy including deception to make the German defenders think that the landing would be elsewhere.

Had the landing plans been compromised,  it is likely the landing would have failed with many more lives lost and the course of the war would have changed dramatically, including the likelihood that all of German occupied Europe would have been lost to a Communist Soviet Union victory.

And the brave Seal Team 6 who went after Osama bin Laden – had this operation been compromised by loose lips, in all likelihood the entire team would have been wiped out and a significant victory handed to an Islamic enemy.

The Hillary Clinton security case needs to be aggressively investigated  and prosecuted. The full force of the law needs to be applied, including indictment, trial and  imprisonment, including life without parole.

The fact that she is a former First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State, and now the leading Democratic candidate for President should not in any way diminish an aggressive prosecution of this case —  on the contrary, because of her extensive resume, all diligence should be applied to prevent such an individual from attaining the highest office in the land, and leader of the free world.

The Democratic Party should immediately disavow her as a candidate and the press should aggressively press for an aggressive prosecution of this case.

This is NOT a political issue – lives are potentially at risk because of such behavior.

Don Johnson – August 2015

A Spider’s Eye: Another Example of Design in Nature

A wee female jumping spider, Phidippus workmani. Photo: Thomas Shahan.

From the article:   http://www.wired.com/2014/04/spider-vision-made-clear/ and  https://youtu.be/gvN_ex95IcE[Emphasis Mine.]

“ … Spider eyes are different from insect eyes; they are not compound but simple. There is one lens for each eye, made of a thin layer of the cuticle. Below that is the retina, the actual light-detecting cells. Jumping spiders have a problem–how do they focus their eye? They don’t have an iris like we do, and their lens is solid.

The easiest way to deal with this is to angle your head, and you can see the spider carefully tilting his head to get a better look at the videographer pestering him. It’s those adorable head tilts that make photos of jumping spiders so very cute.

But for fine focus, more is needed. The evolutionary work-around for this (if you are a jumping spider) is to have eyes that are a bit of a tube: … “

Read more at the article …

Diagram of a Salticid eye, From the fabulously named paper, 'Eight-legged cats' and how they see". Illustration: Fair Use; OA primary research

Diagram of a Salticid eye, from the fabulously named paper, “‘Eight-legged cats’ and how they see”. Illustration: Fair Use; OA primary research

 In evolutionary literature, theory and thinking, no room is left for any kind of forward intentional ‘trying’ to achieve a desirable result such as the spider eye shown above. The eye is simply the unintentional result of Natural Selection created by the evolutionary deity ‘Deep Time.’

But if you look at the diagram above, and view the video’s and read the text you see what seems to be a clear case for Intelligent Design in a number of areas.

In the schematic above, you see a helper lens embedded within the eye structure whose purpose is to enable focusing on potential prey.

Also seen are layers of photo sensors which enable the spider to see colors – probably designed to allow a differentiation between the prey and the background, and thus increase the efficiency of hunting.

And then there are the additional, and more conventional eyes designed to allow a wide field of view.

In short, this example is a fairly simple and clear example of intentional design in nature, and not at all an ‘evolutionary work-around’ as simply asserted in the article.

P.S. Interestingly enough, I came across this article in Jerry Coyne’s blog. I don’t often visit Coyne’s blog, but on occasion I visit it just out of curiosity.

I quit following Coyne a few years back. First, he seems to have abandoned his career in science and has become a professional Atheist – seldom will you find science on his blog, but rather rather virulent bashing of religion of all sorts; very nice nature pictures; and pictures and stories about cats.  I think this abandonment of science is due  to his career long failure to successfully evolve a fruit fly.

And, I found that none of my contrary  comments ever saw the light of day, and on close examination I found that close to 100% of the comments were in support of Coyne’s positions.

But with the article referenced above, it seems that Coyne slipped and allowed a “Divine foot in the door.”

Don Johnson – August 2015    

Questions About Hillary’s E-Mails

Read: Intelligence Community IG: Top Secret Emails on Hillary’s Server

  • Has Hillary’s security clearance been suspended pending completion of the FBI Criminal Investigation?
    • If not — why not?
  • Can Hillary’s security clearance be revoked pending completion of the FBI Criminal Investigation?
    • If not — why not?
  • Can a president elect be inaugurated while his/her security clearance is suspended or revoked?
    • If so, what protection does the nation have against future such security abuse by a President who presumably is the final authority on security matters?

Don Johnson – August 2015

Who or What Is the Designer in Intelligent Design

My second foray into NCSE has been interesting but not unsurprising with many comments, but none relating to the actual content which I shared with the readers.

I leave NCSE once more, with an essay rather than responding to the individual comments directed towards me. Hopefully there are open minded readers that will read the essay with an objective mind and heart. In this essay I try to minimize and avoid theological issues and questions, and I hope readers will read it in that spirit.


However, there is one commenter, Ian Nicholas  I would like to respond to. Ian has questions of people like me — questions that are not new to him and have been asked numerous times by many, and have been addressed by many throughout the years, decades and centuries. The wording may differ, but the questions are similar (taking my time Ian … with much recent travel seeing much of the beauty of God’s green earth).

Here are the questions:

Who or what is the designer? What did it do? How did it do it? Where did it do it? When did it do it?

Let me offer several perspectives on Mr. Nicolas’s questions. I will not offer them up as answers, since I sense in his comments an anger – a closed minded anger – that may keep him from consideration of what I have to say  … nonetheless, let me begin.

First is the perspective from the point of view of Intelligent Design (ID) –

From the Discovery Institute we read [emphasis added]:

“ … What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.  … “

ID theory and practice does not require the identity of a designer or designers. Again, from the Discovery Institute we read [emphasis added]:

“ … The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural. … “

Thus the questions of Mr. Nicolas are irrelevant from an ID perspective.

Perhaps this can be illustrated by an allegory. The one I have in mind is one by A. E. Wilder-Smith —  “He Who Thinks Has to Believe.” at:

In this delightful little book, a modern transport plane crashes into a remote island inhabited by “Neanderthals” who have never been visited by modern man.  The aircraft contains a cargo of various types of farm equipment as well as cans of fuel for the machines. There are no survivors, so all the Neanderthals see is something frightful dropping from the sky in flames and a bunch of unknown stuff scattered around. 

Once the initial fear subsides, the inquisitive Neanderthals start poking around in the debris and begin to discover that many of the strange machines have components that are similar to some of the items in their everyday life.  The large round things attached on the four corners of some of the things look similar to the wheels on their own simple wagons, and they surmise that maybe the big green machine can somehow move across their fields.

A young Neanderthal climbs up onto what is obviously a seat and starts pushing the buttons he finds and pulling various levers. Much to his surprise and fright, the big green thing seems to come ‘alive’ in some sense and when he pulls a particular lever the machine begins to move.

Further, since the ‘writing’ on the machines (CAT, John Deere etc.) seem somewhat similar to their own primitive writing, they surmise that perhaps these machines were designed and constructed by beings having intelligence.  But since from their own perspective these designers are unknowable, except for the design artifacts they delivered from the sky, they can only infer design and thus ‘designers.’

In summary, the Neanderthals soon discover that the machines have purpose and function that they can use to their own advantage in everyday village and farm life.

Wilder-Smith’s allegory illustrates that it is simply not necessary to know:
  • who or what is the designer?
  • what did it do?
  • how did it do it?
  • where did it do it?
  • when did it do it?

to investigate and understand natural systems and use such knowledge to our advantage … we do it in our every day life in any number of ways.

Intelligent Design is a quest to follow the evidence to where-ever it may lead (i.e. science).

Next is the perspective from the point of view of Biblical Creation.

Again … the questions, this time directed at Biblical Creation:

Who or what is the designer? What did it do? How did it do it? Where did it do it? When did it do it?

The answers to these questions are easy and readily available to everyone in the context of the Hebrew/Christian Biblical accounts of Creation:

In the beginning God created …  Genesis 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  John 1:1

And many other accounts throughout the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament.

Here, as distinct from Intelligent Design, proponents clearly identify the Designer as the God of the Bible – the God of the Ten Commandments.

This is admittedly an A priori stance, but one with a considerable amount of success over the centuries in the development of modern science and the advancement of our knowledge of the world and universe we live in. Most of the modern scientific disciplines owe their founding to Biblical Creationists

Is the Creationist stance a hindrance or a help in the advancement of science?

The Creation view of nature is one that sees order and discoverability in the designs seen in nature. This view sees real design and not illusions or appearances of design, and it is from this perspective that investigation proceed from scientists such as Galileo, Newton and many others including modern scientists in many fields.

Is algebra, physics or chemistry taught from the Bible as if it were a text book? Of course not, but the philosophical and inspirational roots can be found in the investigations of many scientists and engineers, past and present.

 Next is the perspective from the point of view of  Naturalism/Materialism and Evolutionary Biology.

Finally we take a look at Mr. Nicolas’s god – ‘Deep Time’, and  this god’s prophet Charles Darwin…, along with the priesthood of Jerry Coyne, Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawking, Laurence Krauss and others.  

Again … the questions, this time directed at Materialistic Evolution:

  • who or what is the designer?
  • what did it do?
  • how did it do it?
  • where did it do it?
  • when did it do it?

So let’s take a look:

  • who or what is the designer?
    Deep Time
  • what did it do?
    “ … tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” Stephen Hawking
  • how did it do it?
    Dawkins, in his book “The Blind Watchmaker”, states regarding the origins of the universe and life: “given enough time, and an infinite number of chances, anything is possible.”
    Random mutations + Natural Selection
  • where did it do it?
    Everywhere throughout the universe.
  • when did it do it?
    During ‘Deep Time’

In short, Darwinian Evolution requires an unknown “deep Time” such that when left alone and given enough time, nothing will borrow nothing from something and turn itself into into something. I’m beginning to understand – but my head hurts.

So we have three perspectives and I will leave it up to the reader to carefully examine each and draw appropriate conclusions.

But please – let’s teach our kids the art of critical thinking.




Our President Needs To Get Out More Often

But, you say, isn’t he seemingly always traveling someplace around the country and the world?

Yes – but he never goes anywhere, and thus sees little of what is actually happening outside of his own secluded world. Consider:

  • He leaves the White House waving as he boards the Marine helicopter.
  • He departs the helicopter and boards Air Force One.
  • He departs Air Force One and gets into his limousine at today’s destination.
  • He enters an arena or conference hall and gives a speech.
  • He then shakes the same old hands following the speech.
  • He gives a speech at a dinner and then hob-nobs with the same people – event after event after event.
  • He then reverses the travel and we see him waving once more as he departs the Marine helicopter and walks back to the White House.

He never goes anywhere, seldom sees what is happing in the country and seldom meets anyone new. 

We have learned that this President has skipped about half of his daily security briefings.

Can he possibly have an realistic appreciation of what is actually happening in the nation?


And yes, this scenario can largely be applied to any modern president.

That is why it is very important that our next president be firmly rooted in America – he or she must:

  • Have a firm,  accurate and solid understanding of American history … from colonial days to current events.
  • Have a firm and solid understanding of the foundational principles of America as found in:
    • Our Constitution.
    • Our Declaration of Independence.
    • The Federalist Papers.
    • The Anti-Federalist Papers.
    • The lives and character of our founders — their motivations and aspirations.
    • The lives, struggles and character of our leaders since the founding through modern times and current events. Leaders such as Lincoln, Truman, Coolidge, Kennedy and others.  
    • Our free market capitalist economic system.
    •    … and more …
  • Have a firm and solid understanding of the nations struggle to overcome injustice in a number of areas such as: slavery, civil rights, women’s rights and more.
  • Have a firm and solid understanding of what has made the United States (until very recent years) an “exceptional” nation, and what has made this nation that “shining city on a hill’ that has attracted multitudes in search of opportunity and liberty, and escape from tyranny and oppression. 
  • Have a firm and solid understanding of America’s key role in the affairs of the world and it’s unique role in maintaining peace and liberty – a role that is abandoned at our own peril.

I saw and heard many on stage in the first republican debate that seem to fit the criteria outlined above.

Let’s seek them out, understand them and support them – the success of future generations count on our wise discernment and engagement in selecting our next president. 


  Don Johnson – August 2015

“it’s all just a matter of line items.” – Planned Parenthood

“Yeah, and so if we alter our process, and we are able to obtain intact fetal cadavers, then we can make it part of the budget, that any dissections are this, and splitting the specimens into different shipments is this,” Farrell said. “I mean it’s all just a matter of line items.”

  • Line item 1:  Roe vs. Wade 1973
  • Line item 2:  1’st intact fetal cadaver.
  • Line item 3:  2’nd intact fetal cadaver.
  • Line item 4:  3’rd intact fetal cadaver.
  • Line item 5:  4’th intact fetal cadaver.

.  .  .

  • Line item 5,000,000:  5Meg+1 intact fetal cadaver.
  • Line item 5,000,001:  5Meg+2 cadaver.
  • Line item 5,000,002:  5Meg+3 cadaver.
  • Line item 5,000,003:  5Meg4 1cadaver.

.  .  .

  • Line item 56,662,169 :  56Meg intact fetal cadaver.
  • Sub line item 1: Liver
  • Sub line item 2: Brain

.  .  .

  • Sub line item n: elbow joint.
  • Sub line item n+1 : stomach
  • Sub line item n+2 : penis

.  .  .


And what is abortion?

Taking the life of an innocent human being without due process of law.

  • Always alive from the point of conception – never been dead.
  • Always a human being, never anything else – never a fish, never a monkey, never a bird, never a worm – always a human being.
  • As innocent as any human can possibly be – never haven taken a first breath in a corrupted and corrupting world.
  • A life unique and distinct from the mother. 
  • A life taken with no investigation – no arrest – no indictment  – no trial – no appeal … no due-process of law … no crime committed.

Abortion – clearly an un-constitutional act made legal by 7 men in black robes.








Don Johnson – August 2015 

A Glutton for Punishment –- Revisiting The National Center For Science Education (NCSE)

(click on the image above)

Yes … I have once more jumped into the shark tank known as NCSE. After more than a year of reading and commenting at the NCSE Blog site, I was finally kicked off after responding rather forcefully to a militant Atheist commenter called CdnMacAthiest, who over the course of a year has accused me of all manner of evil such as treason, sedition, pedophilia, child abuse and more …

So dummy me jumps once more into that shark tank, this time at their Facebook page where it seems I haven’t been banned.

And again, after offering up a good science article from Discovery Institute, the blow back came quickly and in abundance from commenters there.

So once more, I will be leaving NCSE, but not without a parting comment as you can read here.

Why do I do this you ask?

I do this because NCSE is one of the most influential and effective advocates for “evolution only” teaching in schools. This may sound fine to you since it is well known that evolution is “fact” and there is no controversy over it, and those like me who wish to point out the weaknesses and failures of Darwinian Evolution are considered to be and labeled as IDiots, “science deniers” and worse.

But this so called fact of evolution is far from fact, and there is indeed significant controversy centered around evolution, and that is what I attempt to address in my contributions at NCSE, and what I once more will attempt to do in this essay.

I have grandchildren in the public schools, and have had children in the public schools, and know and have known a number of teachers over the years, and it irks me that Atheism is pushed down the throats and into the minds of students.  And NCSE is for the most part pushing an Atheist world view in the guise of science  — at least in their evolution stance though I do not make the same charge in their ‘global warming’ stance. .

Yes, teach evolution by all means as the Discovery Institute advocates,  but teach the whole truth including the warts and failures of the Darwinian theory of Evolution and its successors such as Neo-Darwinism.

In this essay I will present strong evidences of design in nature – Intelligent Design — and follow with a series of serious questions and gaps in the main stream world view of evolution. The evidences for design are compelling because they have very close correlation to designs we commonly see and use in our everyday life of designed things and systems. Modern science and technology can actually look into the cells of nature, including the several trillion that are in each of our own human bodies, so in many cases we can actually see the evidences. Other evidences are what we experience on a daily basis in our own bodies.

My hope and vision for presenting this is as follows:

  • To provide information to the reader.
  • To cause a reader to pause and reconsider a world view — to reexamine the evolution/Intelligent Design/Creation controversy and puzzle over evidence both pro and con.
  • To open minds that may be closed due to long term educational and cultural influences that may have been in error.
  • To counter the bullying, shaming, name calling and career ending persecution that is all to prevalent when a contrary point of view is pursued or presented.
  • To recover the art and decency of civil conversation.

 As a lead in to this discussion I present a somewhat typical article describing research into micro biology – in this case, the human genome.

In modern molecular biology and genetics, the genome is the genetic material of an organism. It consists of DNA (or RNA in RNA viruses). The genome includes both the genes and the non-coding sequences of the DNA/RNA.


The article is at this link:

Biological life requires thousands of different protein families, about 70% of which are ‘globular’ proteins, each with a 3-dimensional shape that is unique to each family of proteins. An example is shown in the picture at the top of this post. This 3D shape is necessary for a particular biological function and is determined by the sequence of the different amino acids that make up that protein. In other words, it is not biology that determines the shape, but physics. Sequences that produce stable, functional 3D structures are so rare that scientists today do not attempt to find them using random sequence libraries. Instead, they use information they have obtained from reverse-engineering biological proteins to intelligently design artificial proteins.

Indeed, our 21st century supercomputers are not powerful enough to crunch the variables and locate novel 3D structures. Nonetheless, a foundational prediction of neo-Darwinian theory is that a ploddingly slow evolutionary process consisting of genetic drift, mutations, insertions and deletions must be able to ‘find’ not just one, but thousands of sequences pre-determined by physics that will have different stable, functional 3D structures. So how does this falsifiable prediction hold up when tested against real data? As ought to be the case in science, I have made available my program so that you can run your own data and verify for yourself the kinds of probabilities these protein families represent. More.


Before continuing  let me make a few remarks about the comments that have been generated on the NCSE Facebook page from my posting:

  • The referenced article is a fascinating and informative look into the proteins in our cells – all several trillion of them.  The article also shows the science and technology that allow a look at these proteins and how they function and how they are constructed. This particular article describes the 4 dimensional character of proteins … 3-dimensional folding and a 4th dimension of time. 
  • As fascinating as this is, none of the comments (and I emphasize none)  spend any time with the article itself. They don’t rebut or take issue with it, they don’t ask questions, they don’t seem to show any interest in the scientific study or reporting. Most likely the article hasn’t been read. And this is the pattern when I offered up similar articles at the NCSE Blog … little or no discussion on the articles presented, but much gnashing of teeth over where the information came from.
  • They spend all their time and energy attacking the Discovery Institute where this study was reported. And they spend a considerable amount of time and energy towards me and my views.
  • There seems to be very little sense of wonder at peering into life at the smallest detail … little indication of curiosity or wanting to know more.
  • The NCSE site itself seldom if ever reports on these kinds of ‘machines’ we see at the cellular level – plenty of articles on fossils, the Grand Canyon  and Scopes and Dover legal cases … but none on the machines of life itself. Sad from a site holding themselves up as an educational advocacy organization.
  • I recently met a professor from the Perelman School of Medicine at the University o0f Pennsylvania. I was able to ask the professor about the animations I have seen  such as the Kinesis Motor, and the one I reference above in this article.  The professor was able to answer my layman level questions because that is his area of research. He recommended I search on “systems biology” and “computational biology” in order to learn more.
    I wonder why NCSE has little or no interest in these two fields of biology, and why they don’t present these growing fields of study to their members and readers, and thus to the schools and students.


And now to continue the contrast between ID and Neo-Darin Evolution…

In a comment to this article reported on at http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/key-prediction-of-darwinian-evolution-falsified/#comment-573890, reader ‘tjguy”  gathers together a list of life characteristics and systems that present A strong case for design in nature. I will use and enhance his list for purposes of this article.

Things we see in life:

  • Nano molecular machines, such as the Kinesin Motor and the Flagellum Motor.
    These machines are among the many that have been discovered in the cells of life in recent years.
  • The 3D genome.
  • Biological codes, some of which can be read backwards and forwards.
  • Information, as contained in DNA. From a Harvard study we read that” … One gram of DNA can store 700 terabytes of data. That’s 14,000 50-gigabyte Blu-ray discs… in a droplet of DNA that would fit on the tip of your pinky. … “
  • Self-correcting biological software.
  • irreducibly complex systems and machines.
  • A 4D world coordinated by internal clocks … see the article referenced above.
  • GPS like biological systems as in the navigational systems found in many animals.
  • Sonar capabilities as found in whales and dolphins.
  • Fantastically complicated and effective information processing, storage, and retrieval systems.
  • Magnets.
  • Amazing and purposeful designs accomplishing a wide variety of useful tasks.
  • Transportation systems, as in the Kinesin Motor.
  • Quality control systems.
  • Flight.
  • Computer like biological systems.
  • Temperature control systems,
  • And more …

This partial list presents a compelling case for a purposeful and deliberate design contained throughout nature from the cellular level to the complete body plan such as the human plan.

In the case of our human bodies, one example (of many) of the culmination of such design is the double play in baseball.



Serious questions showing Dawkins’ ‘Mount Improbable’ really is improbable in the extreme – a case against Darwinian Evolution.

“… tiny quantum fluctuations in the very early universe became the seeds from which galaxies, stars, and ultimately human life emerged” ... Stephen Hawking

Since Darwinian Evolution is asserted as indisputable fact and without controversy, I would like to offer up a serious list of questions … questions that unanswered would seem to shake that confident assertion. I would say that until these questions are definitively answered, or at least the strong majority, the Evolutionary Biologist and Materialistic Atheist can make no such claim of absolute irrefutable fact of evolution,. 

  • We don’t know how the laws of nature evolved.
  • We don’t know how the 240+ physical and natural constants evolved.
  • We don’t know how the first cell evolved.
  • We don’t know how the DNA code evolved.
  • We don’t know how replication evolved.
  • We don’t know how RNA polymerase evolved.
  • We don’t know how transcription evolved.
  • We don’t know how genes evolved.
  • We don’t know how translation evolved.
  • We don’t know how hemoglobin evolved.
  • We don’t know how the electron transport chain evolved.
  • We don’t know how ATPase evolved.
  • We don’t know how eukaryotes evolved.
  • We don’t know how multicellular organisms evolved.
  • We don’t know how the vision cascade evolved.
  • We don’t know how visual pattern recognition evolved.
  • We don’t know how hearing evolved.
  • We don’t know how audio pattern recognition evolved.
  • We don’t know how the kidney evolved.
  • We don’t know how the liver evolved,
  • We don’t know how the circularity system evolved.
  • We don’t know how mammals evolved.
  • We don’t know how male/female anatomical sexuality evolved,
  • We don’t know how bio sonar evolved,
  • We don’t know how the hummingbird tongue evolved.
  • We don’t know how the whale evolved.
  • We don’t know how photosynthesis evolved.
  • We don’t know how the butterfly evolved.
  • We don’t know how turtles evolved.
  • We don’t know how consciousness evolved.
  • We don’t know how biological information (i.e. DNA) evolved.
  • We don’t know how the various machines within the cell evolved.
  • We don’t know how altruism evolved.
  • We don’t know how bees evolved.
  • We don’t know how all of the body organs, including skin co-evolved to their present form.
  • We don’t know how human intellect evolved (i.e. music, art, literature etc.)
  • … and more I’m sure.

So we have a mountain of questions … do we have a mountain of evidence?

I know the principles at NCSE will reject what I have presented here, as well as the most vocal commenters. My hope is that there are  many other readers at NCSE that will consider what I have presented,  seek the truth, investigate the ID alternative  and present their students with honest science.

I know such teachers, administrators and school board members are out there, and I hope I have in some way compelled you to dig a little deeper and ask more probing questions.



Don Johnson — August 2015