p.

163 Casey Luskin Intelligent Design

Lynn Margulis National Academy of Sciences Biologist

Part I: Evolution, Science, Philosophy Forces of Science v. Blind Religious Dogma? Yes, but which side is which?

Evolution 1) Small scale changes within species 2) All living organisms share a common ancestry 3) Natural selection and random mutation is driving force

Darwins Big idea natural selection drove evolution (Darwinism)

Darwinism 1) 2) 3) 4) Random, chance and indirect mutations Organisms compete for limited resources This blind and unguided process is called natural selection Evolves

New Darwinism = Darwinism + Modern Knowledge of DNA and Genetics

Chemical Evolution Gasses used were not present on Early Earth (Methane, Ammonia)

This impossible to create primordial soup Life is fundamentally based upon information DNA cannot evolve because all parts must be present to have cell Odds of producing a self-replicating RNA without intelligence by chance: 1/10^150 which is below the Universal Probability Bound BBC News May 20, 2010 Artificial Breakthrough Announced by Scientists (Intelligently Designed Plagiarism)

Joke -> www.getyourowndirt.com

Part II: Irreducible complexity If you remove or change any part a structure stops working

Common Descent Tree of Life doesnt work Darwin was Wrong quote from Newscientist magazine

When Phylogenetic tree is built Fundamentally similarities = same ancestry (assumption)

Common Descent or common design?

Stephen Joy Gould Paleobiology, p. 127. 1981

Cambrian Information Explosion Uncovering our Earliest Ancestor the link Sir David Attenborough (IDA)

Part II: Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design

Many features of nature are best explained by an intelligent cause because in our experience, intelligence is the cause for the informational properties in life.

Contact the movie (used as example)

Stephen C. Meyer quote

Information is complex if it is unlikely Its specified if it follows some independent pattern

Specific pattern + complex = intelligent design

One might disagree with the conclusions of Intelligent design, but one cannot reasonably claim that it is an argument based on religion or faith

Intelligent Design Prediction = Life will be more complex than we think

3 Layers of Design 1) Encoded info 2) Info processing ability of cell 3) The product is protein based molecular machines

Wojciech Makalowski not junk after all Life is complicated in-nature vol. 464-664-667 April 1, 2010

Gene-coding DNA controls bricks but junk DNA controls bricklaying

Richard Sternberg Academic Freedom the freedom for scientists to follow the research where it leads and stand for different view points even if the majority disagrees.

If you dont have freedom to disagree, then there is no freedom

IDEA CLUBS