# Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/21 "2012-04-19T04:21:07Z")
Not that I expect to see the OP come back in to ‘debate’ his or her amazing ‘proofs’, but in the immortal (paraphrased) words of Inigo Montoya ‘Proofs? I dinna thin’ that word means what you thin’ it means, kimosabe’. 😛 -XT ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/22 "2012-04-19T04:31:09Z")
One just have to look at the debunking of the first item and one can see there is no need to continue with the others. From the great NOVA show: Intelligent Design on Trial > **[Intelligent Design on Trial](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/video/judgment-day-intelligent-design-on-trial/)** > > Science is "Exhibit A" in a landmark trial on the teaching of evolution. One has to start with the one that came with that unscientific “irreducible complexity” term: > [@](#): > > MICHAEL BEHE (Dramatization): Yes, they have. And if you advance to the next slide… > > In 1998, a man named David DeRosier wrote an article in the journal Cell, which is a very prestigious scientific journal, entitled “The Turn of the Screw, The Bacterial Flagellar Motor.” David DeRosier is a professor of biology at Brandeis University, in Massachusetts, and has worked on the bacterial flagellar motor for most of his career. In that article, he makes the statement, “More so than other motors, the flagellum resembles a machine designed by a human.” So David DeRosier also recognizes that the structure of the flagellum appears designed. The makers of the documentary then did go to the horse’s mouth and the professor reported on how clueless Behe was on reading what he reported in the past: > [@](#): > > DAVID DEROSIER (Brandeis University): What I wrote was, “This is a machine that looks like it was designed by a human.” But that doesn’t mean that it was designed, that is the product of intelligent design. Indeed, this, more, has all the earmarks of something that arose by evolution. > > NARRATOR: Using an electron microscope, DeRosier produces ghostly pictures like this one, revealing the inner workings of what’s been called the world’s most efficient motor. > > DAVID DEROSIER: This is the drive shaft. This transmits this torque generated by the motor that would then turn the propeller, which would push the bacterial cell through the fluid. > > NARRATOR: Michael Behe has argued that the flagellum could not have evolved, since its parts have no function for natural selection to act on until they are fully assembled. > > But evidence that refutes Behe’s claim of irreducible complexity comes from a tiny syringe that injects poison, found in some of the nastiest of all bacteria. > > DAVID DEROSIER: This is a structure found, for example, in Yersinia pestis, the bacterium that causes the Bubonic plague. Look at the similarities. Now, this structure doesn’t rotate, but it still has to extend this structure, which is equivalent to the rod, the driveshaft here. It has to extend that, because it needs this little channel. It’s like, sort of like a syringe. So the virulence factors that are made inside the cell, which is down here, can be exported, pushed up into this hole and exported out through this long, kind of, needle, perhaps into a cell in your body or mine, and thereby create misery. > > NARRATOR: And it turns out the two structures look similar for a reason. The syringe on the right is made of a subset of the very same protein types found in the base of the flagellum on the left, though the syringe is missing proteins found in the motor and, therefore, can’t produce rotary motion. It functions perfectly as an apparatus for transmitting disease. > > DAVID DEROSIER: So if we think about what it means to be irreducibly complex, the argument is that if you take away even one of these proteins, that the structure cannot function. And yet here is a structure that functions, that is missing several of the proteins, and yet here it is, a working, viable organelle of the bacterium. So indeed, the structure is not, in that sense, irreducibly complex. What is worse is that Behe and others were not taken seriously at all by the scientists and experts on the matter, and nothing new has come from that idea, it is baloney that has its sale date expired many times over already. > **[Where exactly can I find this controversy again? | TalkDesign](http://www.talkdesign.org/cs/node/42/)** > [@](#): > > Where exactly can I find this controversy again? > … > > The best reason not to teach the “origins controversy” is that it simply is nowhere to be found. Genuine scientific controversies – the important and useful ones – take up a huge volume of space in the scientific literature. Even the controversies sparked by wrong ideas can be tracked as they generate discussion among the members of the scientific community. If no-one is talking about it, it’s not controversial. > > **And no-one in the scientific literature is talking about “irreducible complexity”** or “complex specified information”. A recent search on “irreducible complexity” in the Science Citation Index yielded seven instances of papers using this term (two of these were direct responses from Behe to criticism of his work.) For comparison, the term “face on mars” yielded three papers discussing the proposition that an advanced Martian civilization had built edifices with human features. > [@](#): > > It’s clear that the “seminal” ID works have all peaked in their citation impact. They’re not just not ready for prime-time, they’re past their sell-by date. > > What this means is that if there is to be a scientific “origins controversy,” it will not be able to depend on these texts already written. That is to say, the founding text of a scientific “origins controversy” has not yet been written. > > Which makes “teaching the controversy” a difficult proposition. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/23 "2012-04-19T04:40:10Z")
> [@FinnAgain](#): > > To say nothing of the fact that not only do we have transitional fossils, but we also have pre-dinosaur fossils. This is also not in dispute and even [bastions of the Liberal Atheist agenda](http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/05/13/paleontologists-brazil-uncover-complete-fossil/) have reported on examples. 😕Since when is Fox News a bastion of the Liberal Atheist agenda? ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/24 "2012-04-19T04:42:36Z")
What sound does a fighter jet make when it goes over your head at mach 3? ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/25 "2012-04-19T04:49:51Z")
I don’t know. The sound of a better joke than that would be, perhaps. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/26 "2012-04-19T04:57:20Z")
At least you’re beginning to understand that it was a joke. progress is being made. Be that as it may, your knowledge of the intricacies of sarcasm and your ability to graciously admit that you were whooshed are truly respectable. Impressive, even. Well _I’m_ impressed. ---
**Author:** ![Gagundathar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a183cd/32.png) [@Gagundathar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gagundathar)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/27 "2012-04-19T05:03:37Z")
If the OP ever deigns to return to this hive of villainy, what do you want to bet that we are all accused of not being open-minded enough and that we should explore the controversy. No takers? Come on, y’all. Don’t be fraidy-cats. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/28 "2012-04-19T05:18:04Z")
Thing is, the OP claimed that these are **scientific proofs** , but as pointed out already, the “controversy” they claim that lives among the scientists is in reality as dead as the Dodo. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/29 "2012-04-19T05:24:23Z")
That’s because of the Liberal Atheist agenda, GIGO. Which njtt was kind enough to point out is not actually evinced by Fox News, contrary to popular belief. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/30 "2012-04-19T06:02:14Z")
By the way, examples of reducibly complex mousetraps can be found [here.](http://udel.edu/~mcdonald/mousetrap.html) I haven’t tried it, but I wonder if searching for “biggest pack of lies on the web” would get you to the site posted in the OP. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/31 "2012-04-19T06:16:23Z")
To be fair, I found numerous errors, mistakes and simple boneheaded bits of willful ignorance in the list, but I believe that the only lie was the Flintstones bit. Did I miss something? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/32 "2012-04-19T06:24:07Z")
Googling various phrases from the OP, it appears that people have been copy-and-pasting this nonsense word-for-word since at least 2008. ---
**Author:** ![FinnAgain](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/finnagain/32/12500_2.png) [@FinnAgain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FinnAgain)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/33 "2012-04-19T06:30:58Z")
Do you mean to tell me that the OP’s meme has found a method of replication and is, perhaps, being slightly modified depending on relatively successful variations that then achieve a place of relative prominence in the memesphere and are in turn copy-pasted more often via driveby guest postings? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 7:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/34 "2012-04-19T07:02:17Z")
[Natural rock arches](http://lmgtfy.com/?q=natural+rock+arch) are irreducibly complex, therefore they must have been intelligently carved by hand. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/35 "2012-04-19T09:30:13Z")
I love how it’s the _top_ ten. Just how many times has Creationism been scientifically proven, in total? ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/36 "2012-04-19T09:43:14Z")
I only counted three. ---
**Author:** ![Ludovic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/7ab992/32.png) [@Ludovic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ludovic)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 12:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/37 "2012-04-19T12:06:25Z")
> [@chacoguy](#): > > Your finger will fit inside your nose, but not your ear; can’t explain that! Finger goes in, snot goes out. Never a miscommunication! ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/38 "2012-04-19T12:39:43Z")
The half of a wing concept was actually addressed in the Origin of Species. These claims were stillborn. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/39 "2012-04-19T12:46:34Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > He had to go, his planet needs him. “NOTE: Supermegaman died on the way to his home planet” ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2012, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/40 "2012-04-19T12:56:33Z")
What about the tides, though? Tide goes in; tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can’t explain that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=3)