Here’s a bunch of recent creation/evolution news I wanted to summarize:

1. Antibiotic Resistance:  Is antibiotic resistance evidence of evolution?  Biologist Scott Minnich and other biologists think not and explain why.

ooooo

2. Failed Predictions:  ID the Future has a nice
series of podcasts discussing the failed predictions of Common Descent
(a.k.a. evolution, or macro-evolution). Enjoy:

  • Part I
    – Casey Luskin of the CSC asks Dr. Nelson a series of illuminating
    questions: Is intelligent design compatible with common descent? What
    is his view of common descent, and how is it related to the origin of
    life? As the theory of common descent does not tell us whether or not
    the tree of life was designed, there are design theorists on both sides
    of this debate.
  • Part II – Dr. Nelson continues his analysis of the evidence for common ancestry and how the theory is affected by failed predictions.
  • Part III
    – Examining the single-tree picture of common ancestry and how this
    picture is affected by the newly discovered diversity of genetic
    sequences.
  • Part IV – Descent and phylogeny.
  • Part V
    – Phylogenies and data which seems to conflict with common descent.
    Nelson recommends weighing Darwinism’s claims with significant
    skepticism and moving from public rhetoric into the actual practice of
    the science.

ooooo

3. Science, War, & Darwin:  ID the Future has a nice six part interview with x-ray crystallographer, biochemist, long-time neo-Darwinian skeptic, and former member of the Manhattan Project, Dr. Lyle Jensen.

  • Part I – How Dr. Lyle became interested in science in the 1920’s.
  • Part II – Science during the great depression and WWII
  • Part III – The Manhattan Project
  • Part IV – Dr. Lyle Jensen describes his career in X-ray crystallography and his ground-breaking work in identifying protein structures.
  • Part V – Jensen explains his doubts about Darwinian evolution, citing everything
    from X-ray crystallography and fossils to blood clots and academic
    brainwashing. He also enunciates his fears that commitment to Darwinian
    dogma is impeding advances in scientific discovery.
  • Part VI – not posted yet (come back later ;)

ooooo

4. Bioinformatics and Evolution:  Dr. Robert Marks has done work on evolutionary informatics at Baylor University, and in light of the need for information creation in the evolutionary model, often assumed but not explained, Marks has been led "to critically analyze a number of evolutionary computer programs that claim to prove Darwin’s theories."

ooooo

5. Ciencia Alternativa (alternative science): Ciencia Alternativa is a site devoted to "expanding intelligent design’s reach within the Spanish-speaking community."  Hear an interview with it’s co-founder, Mario Lopez. (NOTE:  The site only works in IE, breaks in Firefox :()

ooooo

6. Darwinism Hinders Science:  The Discovery Institute asks Did Darwinism Hinder Research Into Understanding Cancer and Diabetes ?

It’s turning out that this "mistake" of ignoring function for junk-DNA may have also hindered discovery of the causes of colon cancer. A news article from Science reports:

“Three independent groups have hit on the first common genetic variant that appears to raise the risk of colorectal cancer, albeit by a small amount, and which they estimate is found in half the world’s population. Although rare genes have been linked to the disease before, this is the first evidence of common DNA–and also notable because it falls outside a gene, in so-called ‘junk DNA.’”

The Washington Post also reported that causes of Type II diabetes may be linked to malfunctions in non-coding “junk” DNA. How much earlier might these non-coding “junk” DNA causes of disease have been recognized had scientists operated under an intelligent design paradigm rather than a Neo-Darwinian one?

Evolution truly is one of the great modern deceptions.  As I said, it is now on the order of a Mass Delusion.  But the need for an explanatory world view is great, and people will often believe explanatory models without sufficient credulity.