Don't touch their junk

Yesterday I issued a challenge to the coterie of Darwinist commentors on this modest blog who are having a fit over the ENCODE data and the long-overdue implosion of "junk DNA".

Why the fit? Junk DNA is a cornerstone of Darwinist mythology, and among ideologues myths don't die easy.

How, you may ask, can Darwinists hope to deny such overwhelming scientific evidence-- 30 papers in the leading genetics journals written by 400 of the best molecular geneticists in the world-- that "junk DNA" is junk science?

Here's how: Darwinists are dissembling and spinning like tops on what constitutes "junk DNA" and what "functional" means with reference to DNA.

No reason for surprise. The rhetorical trademark of Darwinism is circumlocution. Darwinists are loathe to define things consistently and with precision. Think how many different ways 'evolution' is used, or 'selection' or 'random'. Darwinism is the creation myth of atheists, but it prevails in a scientific culture, which is ostensibly devoted to relentless testing of hypotheses. Darwinism would evaporate overnight if actually tested against evidence (do you really think that the genetic code came about because 'things changed and survivors survived?), so to maintain their creed Darwinists must keep it all vague. They are very careful about definitions-- not to make them, but to avoid them.

The only way Darwinism gets to survive as a scientific hypothesis is if Darwinists get to define the hypothesis anew with each challenge.

So on the junk DNA controversy I have asked my Darwinist interlocutors to define these terms:

1) Define "junk DNA". Precisely. When you claim that most of the genome is junk (and you have claimed that for decades), what do you mean. Exactly. No weasel words. What is junk. What is not junk. 

2) Define "function", in terms of DNA. What does it mean for DNA to be functional?

3) What relation does "junk" bear to "function"? Be precise. Can DNA be functional (by your definition) and still be "junk"?

4) How much of the human genome is "junk"? How much is "functional"? Explain what you mean.

No one has taken up the challenge, or at least no one has taken it up well. No surprise. When you ask a Darwinist just what he means, he insults you, sneers, throws chaff, and, if all else fails, he runs. The first three have been used to no effect, so here it's number four.


Only bachfiend ventured into rhetorical clarity. He answered:

If you want a definition, I'd define 'junk' as having no current use, but isn't discarded, because it might turn out to have a use later (as an analogy, I have a lot of junk lying around the house, in contrast to garbage, which I discard immediately). 

Having a function means that if you delete the DNA, then it causes a change in the organism.

Bach's definition of "junk DNA" is nonsense. DNA that has "no current use" need not be junk. DNA that regulates embryological development may be turned off in maturity. But it's by no means "junk". DNA that regulates elaboration of a stress hormone may be turned off when you have no stress, but it's not junk. DNA that mediates ovulation may be turned off after menopause. But it's not junk.

Bach's definition of "function" is worse than nonsense. He asserts that if you delete (remove) the DNA and the organism changes, then it had a function. By corollary, if you delete the DNA and the organism doesn't change, it didn't have a function.

But that's hilarious nonsense. If you delete the DNA that regulated embryological development in an adult human cell, the cell might not change. But the embryological DNA certainly has a function. It's just that the function is not expressed at every moment.

And lack of cellular change after removal of DNA doesn't even mean that the DNA had no function at the time it was removed. Consider the analogy to human organs. You can remove a kidney, or half of the liver, or a lung, or a large part of the thyroid gland, or many feet of the intestine, or even major parts of the lobes of the brain (I do it regularly), and the function of the body doesn't change. You have normal excretion of urine with only one kidney, normal liver function with half your liver, normal respiration with only one lung, normal digestion with only part of your intestine, normal thyroid function with only part of your thyroid, and normal brain function even with parts of your brain removed.

That does not mean the your removed kidney or liver or lung or thyroid or brain tissue had no function. Each of those erstwhile organs had plenty of function.

Removal of a portion of DNA, just like removal of a portion of some organs, may or may not impair function. There is redundancy and adaptation in biology. Removal of DNA, without a change in the cell, is not evidence that the DNA had no function. 

You may ask yourself at this point: are Darwinists really that stupid?

Well...

So here's my answer to my own questions, as promised:

1) Define "junk DNA". Precisely. When you claim that most of the genome is junk (and you have claimed that for decades), what do you mean. Exactly. No weasel words. What is junk. What is not junk.

I like the Darwinian definition of junk DNA: junk DNA is archaic DNA that arose by mutation or similar event and that does not contribute to nor impair the functioning of the cell.

I like holding Darwinists to their own definitions, although they fight like cats getting a bath.

2) Define "function", in terms of DNA. What does it mean for DNA to be functional? 

Function, in terms of DNA, refers to DNA that contributes to the natural activities of the cell-- replication, nutrition, excretion, movement, etc. The function need not be continuous. The function may have been in the past, or in the future, or may even be only potential, in response to an environmental stimulus that may or may not occur. DNA that can make melanin is 'functional', even if you never get a tan.

3) What relation does "junk" bear to "function"? Be precise. Can DNA be functional (by your definition) and still be "junk"?

Junk means not contributing to function.  Junk DNA and functional DNA are mutually exclusive. Each 'unit' of DNA is either, but never both.

In working terms, I think that ENCODE criteria for function is reasonable: function is "specific biochemical activity" on one of several standard assays for "RNA, “broad” histone modifications, “narrow” histone modifications, DNaseI hypersensitive sites, Transcription Factor ChIP-seq peaks, DNaseI Footprints, Transcription Factor bound motifs, and finally Exons."

4) How much of the human genome is "junk"? How much is "functional"? Explain what you mean.

I believe that nearly all DNA is functional. Vanishingly little is junk. I believe this for two reasons:

1) I believe that DNA is created by an intelligent Agent, who eschews 'junk'.
2) I believe the current state of the science favors the view that the vast majority of DNA is functional and not junk.

I think those are pretty good answers to my questions, but then, as you can see, we intelligent design folks don't have particularly impressive competitors.

My challenge to critics of the ENCODE research

A number of commentators on this blog, as well as Darwinists on other blogs (Larry Moran at Sandwalk is an example) have been harshly critical of the published findings of the 400 scientists involved with the ENCODE project.

Specifically, these criticisms of the science center on the word "functional", as applied to DNA in the human genome.

Darwinists have argued for decades that most DNA in the eukaryotic genome is "junk", meaning DNA that is not functional and that has accumulated over eons and is isolated from natural selection. Junk DNA, in the Darwinist perspective, is tangible evidence of the "random" in "random mutation and natural selection". Accordingly, Darwinists have pointed to junk DNA as very strong evidence confirming Darwin's theory.

From an ID/teleology perspective, we would not expect the genome to contain much "junk". A genome evolved with purpose is an elegantly integrated system. A small amount of detritus may accumulate even in the most elegantly designed system, but, from the ID perspective, it should be a very small portion of the system.

The ENCODE research has created a firestorm, because the scientists have presented evidence that at least 80% of the human genome is "functional", and not junk.

The ENCODE lead investigator Ewan Birney writes:

It’s clear that 80% of the genome has a specific biochemical activity – whatever that might be. This question hinges on the word “functional” so let’s try to tackle this first. Like many English language words, “functional” is a very useful but context-dependent word. Does a “functional element” in the genome mean something that changes a biochemical property of the cell (i.e., if the sequence was not here, the biochemistry would be different) or is it something that changes a phenotypically observable trait that affects the whole organism? At their limits (considering all the biochemical activities being a phenotype), these two definitions merge. Having spent a long time thinking about and discussing this, not a single definition of “functional” works for all conversations. We have to be precise about the context. Pragmatically, in ENCODE we define our criteria as “specific biochemical activity” – for example, an assay that identifies a series of bases. This is not the entire genome (so, for example, things like “having a phosphodiester bond” would not qualify). We then subset this into different classes of assay; in decreasing order of coverage these are: RNA, “broad” histone modifications, “narrow” histone modifications, DNaseI hypersensitive sites, Transcription Factor ChIP-seq peaks, DNaseI Footprints, Transcription Factor bound motifs, and finally Exons.

He defines "function" quite clearly.

Here's my challenge to my Darwinist ENCODE critics ("deniers"?):

1) Define "junk DNA". Precisely. When you claim that most of the genome is junk (and you have claimed that for decades), what do you mean. Exactly. No weasel words. What is junk. What is not junk.

2) Define "function", in terms of DNA. What does it mean for DNA to be functional?

3) What relation does "junk" bear to "function"? Be precise. Can DNA be functional (by your definition) and still be "junk"?


4) How much of the human genome is "junk"? How much is "functional"? Explain what you mean.

If you are going to criticize the ENCODE research harshly, you need to define your terms, as the ENCODE scientists have defined theirs.

In my experience, Darwinism survives only because its faithful are permitted to evade defining terms. Ambiguity is Darwinism's defining adaptation. It is the only trait that keeps it from going extinct.

So, Darwinian interlocutors, define your terms. Answer my questions, if you feign to participate seriously in this debate.

I'll define the terms as well, and post on both. And then we'll review the ENCODE data in light of the definitions.

That's funny, they were here just a moment ago...

From Hot Air:

Are 60% of Milwaukee’s black voters from 2008 missing? That’s what a study from theNew Organizing Institute claims, which estimates that as many as 160,000 black voters in the city from the last presidential election can no longer be found...  

There are a few possible reasons for the New Organizing Institute to make this claim, and they’re not mutually exclusive. One, they may be just that bad at math. Two, they may just be that bad at door knocking. Three, they may just be that bad at research. Four, the voter file from 2008 contained massive amounts of fraudulent registrations, and the state’s new voter-ID law has respondents thinking twice about trying it again in 2012 — although 160,000 is as absurd a figure for that as it is for claiming people missing. Five, the New Organizing Institute wanted to stake a claim that a loss in Wisconsin wasn’t due to their bad GOTV efforts but a result of both the housing crisis and voter suppression, and concocted the data to support the conclusion.

Please read the whole thing.

The reasons for the bizarre claim of "160,000 missing voters" -- missing Democrat voters obviously-- are probably many. But this fiasco highlights the importance of strong laws to ensure electoral integrity.

Voter fraud is a huge tool in the Democrat toolbox. There is proof that Dems stole the Minnesota Senate election in 2008, which elected Al Franken, who provided the crucial 60th Senate vote on Obamacare.

And recently a entire nationwide Democrat party organization that was devoted to systematic voter fraud-- ACORN-- was disbanded as a consequence of publicity about its illegal activities.

Voter ID laws are a good place to start, but this stinking system may need a lot more scrutiny to protect the integrity of our democracy from the kind of scumbags who "lose" 160,000 Democrat voters just after voter ID laws are passed. 

The Intelligent Design-Darwinism debate just changed, radically

[Dear readers: this post was written as the first post on the ENCODE story, with my post from yesterday as a follow-up. Yesterday's post went up prematurely. This post gives much of the background for the remarkable events playing out now in the ID-Darwinism debate]

By the early 1970's, it was evident that the vast majority of DNA-- as much as 99%-- did not code for proteins. This non-coding DNA was first called "junk DNA" in 1972 by Sasumu Ohno, a pioneer in molecular evolution and evolutionary biology. It soon became clear that there were portions of the genome that were did not code for proteins but which were still functional-- serving a regulatory or structural function. Yet most biologists believed that the functional portions of the genome-- coding and non-coding-- were only a tiny fraction of the total DNA.

Most of the DNA, according to the hypothesis, was non-functional junk. The junk DNA hypothesis was this: during evolution, portions of the genome became non-functional (or were never functional to begin with). Because these "junk" regions of DNA did not code for protein or have other functions, they did not affect the organism's phenotype and were not subject to natural selection. Because they were not subject to natural selection, this DNA "junk" was not removed by natural selection. It accumulated in the genome, a silent witness to eons of random mutation insulated from natural selection.

With haste Darwinists seized on junk DNA as powerful evidence for Darwin's theory. They argued that junk DNA was inconsistent with intelligent agency. An intelligent designer wouldn't pack the genome with non-functional DNA. Furthermore, Darwinists used "junk DNA" conserved across species as evidence for common descent. Why would a designer create different species with identical junk DNA?

Casey Luskin of the Discovery Institute quotes several of Darwinism's most rabid defenders:

Richard Dawkins in 1976:

"The amount of DNA in organisms is more than is strictly necessary for building them: A large fraction of the DNA is never translated into protein. From the point of view of the individual organism this seems paradoxical. If the "purpose" of DNA is to supervise the building of bodies, it is surprising to find a large quantity of DNA which does no such thing. Biologists are racking their brains trying to think what useful task this apparently surplus DNA is doing. But from the point of view of the selfish genes themselves, there is no paradox. The true "purpose" of DNA is to survive, no more and no less. The simplest way to explain the surplus DNA is to suppose that it is a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger. (The Selfish Gene, p. 47)"

Brown University biologist Kenneth R. Miller in 1994:

"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, "orphaned" genes, "junk" DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection. ("Life's Grand Design," Technology Review,February/March 1994)"

Skeptic Magazine publisher Michael Shermer in 2006:

"We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo­genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution. (Why Darwin Matters,pp. 74–75)"

University of Chicago geneticist Jerry A. Coyne in 2009:

"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution." Based on neo-Darwinian theory, "we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or 'dead,' genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed." These are called "pseudogenes." According to Coyne, "the evolutionary prediction that we'll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply." Indeed, "our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes" (Why Evolution Is True, pp. 67, 81)."

Biochemist Larry Moran in 2011 on the percentages of DNA in the genome that are "junk":

"I believe that 90% of the human genome consists of junk DNA (DNA with no known function)"

Total Essential/Functional (so far) = 8.7%
Total Junk (so far) = 65%
Unknown (probably mostly junk) = 26.3%

 Scientists who work from a design perspective knew better.

ID scientists have predicted for years that "junk DNA" is a myth-- that the genome is an elegantly designed biological system, and what we have traditionally understood as "junk" is merely DNA the function of which we have not yet uncovered. There is clear divergence between the scientific predictions of intelligent design-- junk DNA is DNA whose function we have yet to discover-- and the scientific predictions of Darwinism-- junk DNA functionless and is evidence for phenotypically silent random mutations that have accumulated over eons of evolution. This is a clear test of both theories, a test chosen by Darwinists, who have used "junk DNA" to advance Darwinism for four decades.

Here's Darwinophile Larry Moran excoriating Casey Luskin for Luskin's predictions that much of "junk DNA" would be shown to be functional:

Intelligent Design Creationists can't abide junk DNA. Its very existence refutes the idea that living things are designed by some intelligent being. This is why the IDiots go out of their way to make up stories "disproving" junk DNA. 

The latest attempt is by Casey Luskin [Nature Paper Shows "Junk-RNA" Going the Same Direction as "Junk-DNA"]. Having failed to explain why half of the human genome is composed of defective transposons, he now pins his hope on the idea that most of the genome is transcribed. Luskin seems particularly upset by my statement that most of these transcripts are junk [Junk RNA]... 

In other words, most of the transcripts are probably transcriptional noise, or junk, just as I said. This is the consensus opinion among informed molecular biologists. 

This is a point of view that creationists share with many scientists who haven't studied the subject. They assume that the only reason for labeling most of our DNA junk is because we don't know what it does. That's just not true. There's plenty of good evidence that most of our genome can't be functional. We know a lot about the part that consists of transposons and defective transposons, for example [Junk in Your Genome: SINES and Junk in your Genome: LINEs]. That's 44% of our genome.

Intelligent Design proponents have consistently predicted that "junk DNA" was really functional DNA whose function had not yet been discovered. ID scientist Jonathan Wells, in his 2011 book The Myth of Junk DNA, observed:

[ID proponent Richard Sternberg] argues that intelligent design suggests the following hypothesis: The organization of DNA strings along the genome is optimized for the establishment of multidimensional codes at all scales, and each species has a unique and elaborately ordered arrangement of chromosome regions that maximizes the information the genome can carry. The hypothesis is scientific, because it entails two predictions that can be empirically falsified: The first is that the genome of one species cannot be transformed into the genome of another species by random re-arrangements, since this would compromise the formatting, indexing, and punctuation of DNA files. The second is that any observed chromosome changes that result in normal fitness will be those that maintain genomic optimization...

Wells concludes:

Scientists make progress by testing hypotheses against the evidence. But when scientists ignore the evidence and cling to a hypothesis for philosophical or theological reasons, the hypothesis becomes a myth. Junk DNA is such a myth, and it's time to leave it behind—along with other discarded myths from the past.

As recent discoveries have demonstrated, we are just beginning to unravel the mysteries of the genome. Indeed, the same can be said of living organisms in general. But assuming that any feature of an organism has no function discourages further investigation. In this respect, the myth of junk DNA has been a science-stopper.

Not any more. For scientists willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads, these are exciting times.

Does "junk DNA" really have no function, vindicating the Darwinist prediction, or does it have function not yet completely understood, as predicted by scientists working from the design perspective?

The evidence is in, and in the September 6, 2012 issue of Nature and in two other leading biology journals, it is an avalanche. An avalanche for Intelligent Design, that is.

 From Uncommon Descent:

In a spectacular vindication of [the ID] hypothesis [that "junk DNA" is functional], six papers have been released in Nature, in addition to a further 24 papers in Genome Research and Genome Biology, plus six review articles inThe Journal of Biological Chemistry.

The lead publication of the finding (“An Integrated Encyclopaedia of DNA Elements in the Human Genome“) was released in Nature. The abstract reports,

“The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation. Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.” [emphasis added]

They further report that, 

“[E]ven using the most conservative estimates, the fraction of bases likely to be involved in direct gene regulation, even though incomplete, is significantly higher than that ascribed to protein- coding exons (1.2%), raising the possibility that more information in the human genome may be important for gene regulation than for biochemical function. Many of the regulatory elements are not constrained across mammalian evolution, which so far has been one of the most reliable indications of an important biochemical event for the organism. Thus, our data provide orthologous indicators for suggesting possible functional elements.”

As this Nature press release states, 

“Collectively, the papers describe 1,640 data sets generated across 147 different cell types. Among the many important results there is one that stands out above them all: more than 80% of the human genome’s components have now been assigned at least one biochemical function.” [emphasis added]

The overview paper in Nature is here.

This is a catastrophe for Darwinism. C-a-t-a-s-t-r-o-p-h-e. Darwinists have been riding the "junk DNA" trolley for decades, confidently asserting that the presence in the genome of worthless non-functional DNA was incontrovertible evidence against design and for Darwin's theory of random mutation and natural selection. Junk DNA was tangible evidence for the "random" in "random mutation and natural selection". It has been a centerpiece of the Darwinist argument for decades.

It is now in dust. ID scientists were right all along. The inference to intelligent design in biology predicted what Darwinism denied: the most important revolution in molecular genetics since the discovery of the genetic code.

So the inference that "shit happened and survivors survived" has held back molecular genetics research in a very serious way-- why devote precious research money and time to "junk"-- and has impaired critical medical genetic research in such diseases as cancer and diabetes for decades.

Darwinism is worse than ideologically-motivated gibberish. It's not just worthless to science. It is actually an impediment to science. It stops science. By insisting on randomness as the origin of biological novelty, it leads researchers away from studying living systems as elegantly integrated systems replete with purpose-- which, as the Nature research shows so clearly, is the true perspective.  

Darwinism and the consequences of junk DNA science

The remarkable ENCODE data published last week in Nature and several other biology journals is a final nail in the coffin of "junk DNA", a scientific myth that has been used by Darwinists to buttress their assertions that evolution is wholly the result of random genetic variation and natural selection.

Intelligent design scientists have predicted for decades that the genome is an elegantly organized system replete with purpose and that "junk DNA" is really functional DNA whose function remains to be understood.

It is important to understand that the ENCODE research published in Nature is not merely a vindication of the intelligent design prediction that most of the genome has function. Is is also a clear vindication of the insistence by intelligent design scientists that the design hypothesis is heuristic. The inference to design is essential to good science, because biological systems are intricately designed arrays of elements arranged for a purpose. If scientists begin with the inference to purposelessness, they will be misled. The denial of design in biology is bad science, with serious consequences.

The Nature authors point out the serious consequences of junk science:

“The human genome encodes the blueprint of life, but the function of the vast majority of its nearly three billion bases is unknown. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has systematically mapped regions of transcription, transcription factor association, chromatin structure and histone modification. These data enabled us to assign biochemical functions for 80% of the genome, in particular outside of the well-studied protein-coding regions. Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease, and can thereby guide interpretation of this variation. Overall, the project provides new insights into the organization and regulation of our genes and genome, and is an expansive resource of functional annotations for biomedical research.” [emphasis added]

Two of the points that the Nature authors make are critical to understanding the catastrophe of "junk DNA":

 Many discovered candidate regulatory elements are physically associated with one another and with expressed genes, providing new insights into the mechanisms of gene regulation. 

 What the scientists are saying diplomatically is that the inference that these regulatory elements were "junk" has held back our insights into gene regulation. It is likely that if we had not assumed for 40 years that the genome was mostly junk we might now have a much better understanding of gene regulation.

Even more damning, they continue:

 The newly identified elements also show a statistical correspondence to sequence variants linked to human disease...

The assumption that most of the genome is Darwinian"junk" has seriously impaired medical research.

For decades Darwinists insisted that "junk DNA" was the expected consequence of 'random mutation and natural selection'. "Junk DNA" was presented as strong consensus evidence for Darwin's theory, and strong evidence against Intelligent Design.

How many scientists who were raised and suffocated under Darwinian bias failed to pursue focused research on "non-coding" DNA because of the assurance from the Darwinists that this DNA was junk, detritus accumulated over eons of evolution, and not an integral part of a meticulously designed system of cell regulation? How many scientists who did have the insight and courage to ask questions based on the inference to function and even purpose in the genome had their grants denied or their careers stymied? How many of those suppressed scientists were studying cancer, diabetes, and other diseases that will now be studied with the correct inference that the vast majority of the genome has elaborate function?

A major prediction of intelligent design science has been vindicated in what is likely the most important breakthrough in molecular genetics in 40 years, and the Darwinian prediction that most of the genome is junk is... junked.

Even now, in the wake of this massive evidence for the functionality of most of the DNA in the genome, Darwinist thugs like Larry Moran publish veiled threats against the careers of the scientists who published this groundbreaking data.

Moran wrote on his blog, on September 6, 2012, the day the data was published in Nature:

... I reserve my harshest criticism for the scientists, especially Ewan Birney who is the lead analysis coordinator for the project and who has taken on the role as spokesperson for the consortium. Unless other members of the consortium speak out, I'll assume they agree with Ewan Birney. They bear the same responsibility for what has happened.

Moran not-so-subtly threatens not only the lead author of the paper but all of the scientists in the consortium. They will "bear the same responsibility for what has happened".

What chance do you think these scientists' grant applications will stand if Moran is on the grant review panel? What chance do their tenure applications stand if Moran is on their tenure committee? Moran is a very influential senior scientist who is already on record advocating failing Christian undergraduates if they don't personally accept the Darwinist view of evolution, even if they pass all exams and classwork:

Of course, we all recognize the problem here. How do you distinguish between a good Christian who is lying for Jesus and one who has actually come to understand science? It seems really unfair to flunk the honest students who admit that they still reject science and pass the dishonest ones who hide their true beliefs...As we've seen time and time again on the blogs (and elsewhere), the Christian fundamentalists have erected very strong barriers against learning. It really doesn't matter how much they are exposed to rational thinking and basic scientific evidence. They still refuse to listen...This is one of the reasons why I would flunk them if they took biology and still rejected the core scientific principles. It's not good enough to just be able to mouth the "acceptable" version of the truth that the Professor wants. You actually have to open your mind to the possibility that science is correct and get an education. That's what university is all about. [emphasis mine]

Moran supported the denial of tenure to the superbly qualified astronomer Dr. Guillermo Gonzalez, simply because Gonzalez supported intelligent design:

I see nothing wrong here. I looks to me like this is grounds for tenure denial.

Moran has threatened other scientists and students who disagree with his Darwinist/atheist views as well.

In 2008, I noted:

Consider Dr. Moran's chilling comment about Kirk Durston, a Ph.D. candidate in biophysics at the University of Guelph. Mr. Durston has pointed out that intelligent design theory may be applied to an understanding of the enormous complexities of protein folding, which remains one of the deepest problems in molecular biology. Mr. Durston offered to visit and present his evidence at the University of Toronto. 

Dr. Moran replied:

I admire Kirk for his willingness to subject his scientific evidence for intelligent design to a group of experts on protein folding. It's very courageous of him since he's putting his scientific reputation on the line.

... Dr. Moran has even less tolerance for undergraduate students who express support for intelligent design. How would Dr. Moran deal with undergraduate students at the University of California at San Diego who do not believe in Darwinism? 

Dr. Moran:

Flunk the IDiots...40% of the freshman class [at UCSD] reject Darwinism... the university has become alarmed at the stupidity of its freshman class and has offered remedial instruction for those who believe in Intelligent Design Creationism...UCSD should not have required their uneducated students to attend remedial classes. Instead, they should never have admitted them in the first place...[T]he University should just flunk the lot of them and make room for smart students who have a chance of benefiting from a high quality education.

Do you think Moran and his fellow Darwinist thugs would bat an eye at expelling these scientists "who bear the... responsibility for what has happened."? 

But even threats from Darwinist thugs won't stop this science now. Even Moran's commentors on his blog have had enough of the thuggishness:

Crap... [You come] across as emotional, irrational and driven by adherence to dogma. You know you are right, so no need to read the 30 papers (yawn) or explore the interesting question of what does it mean for something to be "functional". You don't even quote the bit where he justifies why he settled on using the 80% figure as a summary. Just attack, attack, attack, like any good Creationist would. (Not suggesting that you are a Creationist, just that you are behaving like one.)

How any scientist can be faced with the publication of such an amazing resource as ENCODE, with all its data, all the questions it raises, all the interesting things to discuss (and not always agree about) and just focus on one or two sentences in the press releases that they don't like, boggles my mind. I know you are obsessed with neutrality and fighting Creationists but that is not all that science is about.

I am reminded why I stopped reading this blog for a while and think it is time for another break. If you give people a bit more benefit of the doubt and remember that they are (in the case of Ewan Birney anyway) highly intelligent, who knows, you might actually learn something - but that does not seem to be the goal of this blog. It is so much easier to criticise science than do it. And so much easier to twist someone's words into something you know how to attack than actually try to understand their data and what they might really be saying.

I would just ask you to consider all the damage that you are doing by your determination to drag the reputation of scientists - and science - through the mud but I know it is probably futile for frequenting this blog has made one thing very clear: Larry Moran is never wrong, has never made an error of judgement and already knows all the answers

One of Darwinists' fundamental arguments against intelligent design for the past 40 years is in flames, and it is clear that the Darwinian inference to randomness has seriously impeded both basic science and medical research. Even bluster and threats won't work any more.

Junk DNA is a Darwinian myth, and Darwinism is junk science.

Imagine no religion

Nobel laureate and Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn had deep personal insight into the intimate link between atheism and totalitarianism.

Solzhenitsyn:

Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' 

Since then I have spend well-nigh 50 years working on the history of our revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: 'Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened.' [9]

Atheism in power is the most deadly ideology in human history. Nothing-- not Christian fratricide nor Islamic terrorism nor Catholic Inquisitions-- has been anywhere near as deadly and repressive as State Atheism.

The authors of The Black Book of Communism-- the definitive reference on the atrocities of communism, which is the only organized political form modern atheism has taken-- estimate that in the 20th century State Atheism murdered more than 100 million people.

The New Atheist tactic of harping on the violence of religion is not coincidental. It puts Christians on the defensive, and diverts attention from atheism-- mankind's most hellish and violent ideology.

In our public debates, we must not let atheists escape accountability for the horrors their ideology has wrought.

When you consider the totalitarian horrors of 20th century-- the gulags, the Berlin Wall, the Show Trials, the massive famine of Great Leap Forward, the indiscriminate brutality of the Cultural Revolution, the barbarism of the Killing Fields, the enduring nightmare of the 'Democratic People's Republic of Korea'-- remember Solzhenitsyn:

"Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened"

Toyota announces the new "Prius Solution"

The ultimate green car. "Eco-Spike Technology". Reduce your carbon footprint.

All sales are final.