Without evidence of benefit, an intervention should not be presumed to be beneficial or safe.

- Rogue Medic

Research – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VII

ICR (the Institute for Creation Research) criticizes a paper, recently published in Nature, that demonstrates an adaptation of Escherichia coli to a different environment.[1] This is what we should expect from evolution. As an environment changes, some species will not adapt, or will not adapt quickly enough, and their population will be dramatically decreased, if not eliminated.

Almost every species that ever existed is now extinct. ID (Intelligent Design) is the name change the designed to fit Creationism through a loop hole, so that Creationism can pretend to be science without any scientific method. ID is just a legal re-branding of Creationism.

If ID is true, then how is almost complete extinction in any possible way an example of intelligent design?

Widespread extinction is to be expected with a flawed system, such as evolution. No scientist claims that evolution is perfect, but many ID proponents claim that ID requires perfection.

Look at the complexity!

But ID also means –

Ignore the infinite errors, which dwarf the complexity.

Monstrosity is common in nature. Some of these monstrosities will not be so monstrous that they prevent survival. A tiny percentage of those monstrosities will not be so monstrous that they prevent reproduction. A tiny percentage of that tiny percentage monstrosities will actually produce a survival advantage in that environment.

Some Creation scientists have given up on claiming that genetic modification is impossible, because they are smart enough to realize that it does happen. They just don’t appear to be smart enough to follow that realization to its most probable conclusion. However, while admitting that species may adapt, they claim that this adaptation is an example of an Intelligent Design, not of natural selection.

Here is what ICR wrote –

Microbiologist Richard Lenski is renowned for managing the most extensive and intensive evolutionary experiment on bacteria. Over several decades, his team has tracked changes in over 40,000 generations of E. coli. Although these bacteria normally can’t import citrate in the presence of oxygen, after 30,000 generations, some of his did. Did the bacteria invent a new mechanism to import citrate? If so, then how?[2]


The idea is that as nothing complex as an animal could possibly come about without an Intelligent Design, although they do not explain what created this intelligent designer, because apparently the most perfect, most intelligent being ever was not intelligently designed.

So, the bacteria solved the problem of accessing an alternative food source by generating extra copies of the critical gene and by placing those copies under the control of an appropriate promoter. Does any of this resemble natural, undirected Darwinian evolution? Not at all. This amazing mechanism invented no new functional coded elements. It merely modified pre-existing elements.

Therefore, not only did the Cit+ bacteria not evolve in the molecules-to-man direction, but they showed what could only be ingenious DNA rearrangement mechanisms. What mainstream headlines portrayed as evidence for evolution is actually the opposite.3 [2]


We accept the limitations of computer design, which produces a product that does many wonderful things, but has many frustrating glitches, as an example of much less than perfect intelligent design. Computers work well enough that without computers, the world would not function as well as it does.

What about the limitations of an Intelligently Designed genetic modification that takes 30,000 generations to take effect?

If a computer required 30,000 clicks of a mouse before it would produce the designed effect, would anyone call that Intelligent Design?

If Apple came out with a computer that required 30,000 mouse clicks to produce a necessary change, that would be seen as a design failure so massive that it would replace New Coke as the most famous example of a corporate screw up.

April 23 1985 – To great fanfare (followed by an enormous “thud”), chairman and chief executive officer Roberto Goizueta announces New Coke to the world as a better tasting alternative to the old Coke that was still dominating the world’s brandscape.[3]


Evolution is the result of monstrosities.

Something requiring 30,000 attempts to make an important change is an example of monstrosity, not an example of Intelligent Design.

The diversity of life is the result of the infinite errors of evolution, not the result of any Intelligent Design.


Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part I

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part II

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part III

Shooting the messenger isn’t going to change the science – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part IV

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part V

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VI

Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VII

The Age of the Earth – Do Creationists have any clue about science? Part VIII


[1] Genomic analysis of a key innovation in an experimental Escherichia coli population.
Blount ZD, Barrick JE, Davidson CJ, Lenski RE.
Nature. 2012 Sep 27;489(7417):513-8. doi: 10.1038/nature11514. Epub 2012 Sep 19.
PMID: 22992527 [PubMed – in process]

[2] Bacterial ‘Evolution’ Is Actually Design in Action
by Brian Thomas, M.S. *
Institute for Creation Research
Article posted on October 15, 2012.

[3] New Coke 25 years later: was it all just a brilliant conspiracy?
By Dennis Van Staalduinen
Beg to Differ
Sep 02, 2009