Who committed fraud?

The Discovery Institute is a thinktank for the Intelligent Design movement, which teaches that life is best explained as originating with an intelligence and not originating through evolution. This opposition to evolution is especially seen in how it tackled the subject of human origins in a video it released on October 13, 2021: “Human Evolution: The Monkey Bias — Science Uprising, Episode 8.”^[1]

This video refers to the PBS documentary “In Search of Human Origins, part one.”^[2]

In their “Monkey Bias” video, the following accusation was made by the narrator: “This PBS documentary shows Anthropologist Owen Lovejoy manipulating the fossils to make Lucy walk upright.” The video then shows Owen using a power tool to grind away at what is presumably the actual pelvis, with one audience member in “Monkey Bias” viewing this in obvious shock. This is an accusation of academic fraud, and one that was made publicly in a PBS documentary for all his colleagues to witness on TV. That accusation thus struck me as strange. Why would he commit academic fraud so brazenly and openly in a documentary? It did not add up in my mind. So, I tracked down the transcript of “In Search of Human Origins, part one,” and I saw obvious academic fraud, but not from Owen Lovejoy.

The relevant portion of the transcript presents this, with my comments interspersed:

DON JOHANSON: My suspicions were confirmed. As Lovejoy pointed out, the joint had all the hallmarks of a creature that moved around on two legs, not on all fours. Walking upright is something that only humans can do. And it needs a special kind of knee joint, one that can be locked straight. A chimp gets around on all fours. If it tries to walk upright, it's knee joint doesn’t lock. It’s forced to walk with a bent leg and that’s tiring. This mysterious fossil really perplexed us. What was a modern-looking human knee doing among fossils that were millions of years old. …

[So Lucy had a lockable knee joint for walking upright.]

The ape that stood up, it was a revolutionary idea. We needed Owen Lovejoy’s expertise again, because the evidence wasn’t quite adding up. The knee looked human, but the shape of her hip didn’t. Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee’s, which meant that Lucy couldn’t possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they’re in an anatomically impossible position.

[So the hip bone was shattered and fused into an unnatural geometry.]

DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seem to flair out like a chimp’s. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn’t want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimp’s, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human.^[3]

Accusation: “Anthropologist Owen Lovejoy manipulating the fossils.”
Reality: “He didn’t want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster.”

Lovejoy working on the plaster copy is also seen in a video snippet of the PBS documentary.^[4]

This also shows that “Monkey Bias” carefully removed the context of Lovejoy operating on the plaster copy, and presented the PBS documentary narration with the following underlined part removed:

The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy’s hip bones seem to flair out like a chimp’s. But all was not lost. ✂️Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn’t want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle.✂️ As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimp’s, but a lot like ours.

“Monkey Bias” then had Discovery Institute senior fellow Casey Luskin comment: “And so Lucy’s pelvis had to be reconstructed using a quite a bit of evolutionary interpretation and imagination.” Thus, not only did “Monkey Bias” purposefully misportray Owen as damaging the original fossil, it also removed the original narration in the PBS documentary explaining that there was an anatomical problem with the pelvis, as it was shattered and fused differently than in life, as well as a paradox of a locking knee joint. Omitting reference to the knee joint is particularly problematic, as that explains why Owen was suspicious of the pelvis to begin with. So it was not “evolutionary interpretation and imagination,” but detailed knowledge of comparative anatomy.

The conclusion from this is pretty troubling. Since it was the Discovery Institute and Casey Luskin who removed the relevant context to make Owen Lovejoy look like a biased vandal in committing academic fraud, it is actually the Discovery Institute and Casey Luskin who lied publicly and misrepresented Owen Lovejoy and the fossil evidence for their own biases, committing academic fraud. Opposing human evolution is one thing, but lying about it and slandering someone is unacceptable.

I am only reporting this incidence as it is what I personally discovered based on my suspicion that there was some monkey-business afoot.

Lastly, speaking of feet, “Monkey Bias” made a point about Lucy’s feet never being recovered but being human-like in restorations,^[5] but completely left out any discussion of human-like footprints (the Laetoli Footprints) dated to her kind, the Australopithecines. It also ignored any discussion of the foreman magnum. (It has a more central position in the underside of the cranium, positioning the vertebral column directly under it, demanding an upright posture.)

Casey Luskin then referred to a Nature magazine article “From forelimbs to two legs” which he claimed called Lucy a knuckle-walker.

Screenshot from “Monkey Bias.” Click to enlarge.

He said: “In fact, an article in the journal Nature studied the hand bones of Lucy, and found that she had the hand bones of a knuckle-walker.” (A video of a knuckle-walking gorilla was then displayed.) He said this while showing the actual text of the article, which he highlighted as saying: “These features are thought to be associated with knuckle-walking…” Does that match his claim of what it said? And why did he not point out the publication year: 2000, or share qualifying information published at the same time in the same journal that negates his claim? For instance, he showcased text from a preliminary article “From forelimbs to two legs” in “news and views” that was introducing the main paper “Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor” by Richmond and Strait. This main paper was summarized by Henry Gee in his supplement “These fists were made for walking,” where he said: “Richmond and Strait have looked at the wrist bones of two extinct members of the human family, Australopithecus anamensis from Kenya and Australopithecus afarensis (the famous ‘Lucy’ skeleton) from Ethiopia, as they report in Nature. … Both, for example, were bipeds—they walked as upright as you or I, and probably not on their knuckles.”^[6] Why did Casey Luskin not quote that? Was he being incompetent or dishonest? This is absolutely appalling.^[7]

The moral of the story is, do not look for a “quick win.” Do competent research and fact-checking. Above all, be honest. There is no love or joy in doing anything less.^[8]

Update:
Sadly, the Discovery Institute is celebrating “Monkey Bias” and a video airing after it which merely repeated the same sensationalized and slanderous claims from the attorney Casey Luskin. For an organized body of public servants to act this way is reprehensibly careless and reveals a very slipshod view of truth. The need to fact-check news outlets now includes their website Evolution News. This is very dissapointing. See: Human Origins — The Scientific Imagination at Play and Luskin: The “Big Bang” of Human Origins by David Klinghoffer.

Update 2:
Sadly, Günter Bechly now joins the list of liars. He defended the obvious lies revealed above and claimed: “Neither Luskin nor the video narrator alleges that Lovejoy engaged in ‘fraud.’ … Neither the Science Uprising episode nor Luskin claims that Lovejoy damaged a precious original fossil in his work.” He is only making this situation worse, and is not helping his compatriot Casey by excusing his obvious deception and mischaracterizations. Günter Bechly is only correct that the PBS video narrator did not allege that Lovejoy engaged in fraud, because he did not! Again, I am deeply disappointed in the Discovery Institute, Evolution News, etc., and now Günter Bechly for their obvious dishonesty. My fellow Jehovah’s Witnesses should take note of these developments and have limited involvement with this insincere organization. It has become the Dishonesty Institute. (John 8:44; Revelation 21:8; 1 Corinthians 15:33) See: Examining “Professor Dave’s” Absurd Attack on Casey Luskin by Günter Bechly. (This title is grandstanding and contains two lies: “absurd” and “attack.” It was not “absurd” but spot-on, and not an “attack” but a sincere evaluation. This deceptive conduct from professionals, who call themselves Christians no less, is deeply disheartening!) (6/1/2022)

Footnotes:
^[1] youtu.be/aGzXAgFSbnk
^[2] At this mark: youtu.be/aGzXAgFSbnk?t=260. This was first aired on June 3, 1997.
^[3] www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.htm
^[4] youtu.be/L_U9SCyWw4w
^[5] Start of Lucy part: youtu.be/aGzXAgFSbnk?t=206
^[6] “From forelimbs to two legs” by Mark Collard and Leslie C. Aiello
www.nature.com/articles/35006181 (or free PDF)
“Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor”
www.nature.com/articles/35006045 (or free PDF)
“These fists were made for walking”
www.nature.com/articles/news000323-7
^[7] I asked the co-author of the Nature article, Dr. Richmond, if Casey Luskin was correct in his summary of it, that: “an article in the journal Nature studied the hand bones of Lucy, and found that she had the hand bones of a knuckle-walker.” He replied:

Wow, yes, Luskin’s comment is a flagrant mischaracterization of our scientific results. Lucy did not have the hands of an active knuckle-walker. Rather, there is evidence from her anatomy that her ancestors seemed to have had knuckle-walking adaptations. (Personal correspondence dated November 22, 2021.)

This is what I gathered from his article too. Why didn’t Casey Luskin draw a more responsible and professional conclusion? Could his vision be clouded with the lenses of confirmation bias?
^[8] Owen Lovejoy is alive and is a professor at Kent State University. www.kent.edu/anthropology/dr-c-owen-lovejoy
He was kind enough to share with me his response to “Monkey Bias”:

Hi Jim: Thanks for the notification and of your interest in our work. I did watch the video and I have rarely seen such colossal dishonesty in any film or video that I have ever seen. It’s amazing but terribly disheartening for the future of science that there are organized groups dispensing such trash. Sincerely, Owen (October 17, 2021)

He is correct. What they produced is nothing more than a hit piece!

Screenshots of correspondence:

Dr. Lovejoy

Dr. Richmond

Additional reading:
Baboon Bone Found In Famous Lucy Skeleton
www.techtimes.com/amp/articles/45780/20150413/baboon-bone-found-in-famous-lucy-skeleton-of-early-human-ancestor.htm

Video presentations by Professor Dave Explains:

• Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 1: Casey Luskin
  youtu.be/HRxq1Vrf_Js
• Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 4: Günter Bechly
  youtu.be/NFPHvvJWVAk
• Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 5: Günter Bechly Again
  youtu.be/9LOndaNwyyA
• Exposing the Discovery Institute Part 10: Casey Luskin Again
  youtu.be/VOnb0SZYZUI

Blog Index

If you enjoyed this, please consider donating:

Evolution, earlier life, and can openers

Here presented are a series of articles in succession regarding an amazing paleontological discovery in Greenland, and the ramifications for life's origins:

1. Greenland Fossils, Earth's Oldest, Pose an Evolutionary Dilemma by David Klinghoffer
   
2. Evolution Just Got Harder to Defend by Eric Metaxas
   
3. Eric Metaxas on "Evolution's Can Opener" by David Klinghoffer

Related blog entry:

• Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God
  http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/03/science-increasingly-makes-case-for-god.html

RTB Presents: Earth's Climate History

This video is simply superb and brilliant!

https://youtu.be/AGYYxlnDH-c

It reminds me of Psalm 65:9, 10, 12, 13:

You care for the earth, Making it abundantly fruitful and very rich. The stream from God is full of water; You provide grain for them, For that is how you prepared the earth. You drench its furrows and level off its plowed soil; You soften it with showers of rain; you bless its growth. ... The pastures of the wilderness keep overflowing, And the hills are clothed with joyfulness. The pastures are covered with flocks, And the valleys are carpeted with grain. They shout in triumph, yes, they sing.

RTB is Reasons to Believe, an old-earth creationist think tank.



Related blog entries:

• Terraforming Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2016/01/terraforming-earth.html
• Antipodal Volcanism and the K-T Extinction Event http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/10/antipodal-volcanism-and-k-t-extinction.html
• The Earth that Adam Knew? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/01/earth-that-adam-knew-what-did-earth.html
• Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Age of the Earth http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2015/09/dr-stephen-meyer-on-age-of-earth.html

See also:

• Why Did God Wait So Long to Create People? By Dr. Jeff Zweerink
  http://www.reasons.org/blogs/impact-events/why-did-god-wait-so-long-to-create-people

Dr. Stephen Meyer on the Age of the Earth

He also mentions his view of the age of humanity. He shares the Old-Earth Creationist (OEC) perspective which I sympathize with.

Young-Earth Creationism (YEC) errs by:

• Combining the origin of animal and human death together.
• Ignoring the growth-rate of flora from seeds.
• Restricting the interpretation of the creation days to solar periods only, with a contrived rule that numbered days are solar (thus falling victim to the logical fallacy of circular reasoning).

The next speaker, Dr. Del Tackett, is YEC.

Dr. Stephen Meyer also mentions the need for Christian charity in conversations over issues that are secondary and tertiary, which he notes are sorely lacking in the OEC-YEC exchange within Trinitarian Christianity. This is a mature principle that I wholeheartedly agree with.

For further reading on why the creation days are not solar, as well as for the meaning of the creation refrain "evening and morning," see my article An Analysis of the Creation Week http://www.jimspace.000space.com/CW.htm.


In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

Science Increasingly Makes the Case for God

The following is a re-post of this article by Eric Metaxas as seen publicly in the Wall Street Journal at this link: http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

The odds of life existing on another planet grow ever longer. Intelligent design, anyone?

By ERIC METAXAS

Dec. 25, 2014 4:56 p.m. ET

In 1966 Time magazine ran a cover story asking: Is God Dead? Many have accepted the cultural narrative that he’s obsolete—that as science progresses, there is less need for a “God” to explain the universe. Yet it turns out that the rumors of God’s death were premature. More amazing is that the relatively recent case for his existence comes from a surprising place—science itself.

Here’s the story: The same year Time featured the now-famous headline, the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 27 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researchers have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself.

Mr. Metaxas is the author, most recently, of “Miracles: What They Are, Why They Happen, and How They Can Change Your Life” ( Dutton Adult, 2014).

Correction
An earlier version understated the number of zeroes in an octillion and a septillion.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/eric-metaxas-science-increasingly-makes-the-case-for-god-1419544568

Video version of this article:

Related Videos from Dr. William Lane Craig:

Recommended reading:

• Why the Earth Will Never Be Invaded, by Robert Lanza, M.D. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-lanza/why-the-earth-will-never-be-invaded_b_6879216.html This references Metaxas’ article seen here.
• Maybe We Really Are Alone In the Universe http://time.com/3747812/life-in-space-alone/
• Jupiter's 'Smashing' Migration May Explain Our Oddball Solar System http://www.space.com/28901-wandering-jupiter-oddball-solar-system.html
• Humanity is cosmically special. Here’s how we know.
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/humanity-is-cosmically-special-heres-how-we-know/2016/11/25/cd327520-b0cc-11e6-8616-52b15787add0_story.html
• Life on Other Planets? http://jimspace3000.blogspot.com/2012/11/life-on-other-planets-discovery-of.html

Visualizing the Flagellum with Computer Animation

The video above is an animation of the bacterial flagellum, presenting both its auto-manufacture and function.

"Although this animation does not capture the sheer complexity of the flagellum, it does offer an edifying taste of the intricacy of the nano-machine's self-assembly and function."
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/09/visualizing_the064761.html

As with ATP Synthase, this nanotechnology with embedded auto-manufacture signaling is truly amazing. Try making a motor that makes itself... by deciphering its own instructions. Yet, biology depends on this type of ability.

Additional Reading:
The Molecular Flagellar Clutch of Bacillus Subtilis http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/05/the_molecular_f059121.html

The Continuing Marvel of ATP Production

The biochemical nanomachine we call ATP Synthase is continually enlightening investigators. An article authored by Intelligent Design supporters, Machine Revolution: More Details Emerge on ATP Synthase and Its Exquisite Design, reveals some of the recent research that has been published on it. They explain:

ATP synthase is a rotary motor made of proteins, embedded in the membranes of mitochondria. Plants also have them in their chloroplasts. The two-part machine has a spinning carousel-like rotor labeled F₀ that runs on protons, and a catalytic structure labeled F₁ where ATP synthesis takes place, producing three ATP per cycle. (ATP, adenosine triphosphate, is the universal energy currency of life.) Cells in all kingdoms of life contain this "marvelous rotary engine of the cell" as Yoshida et al. described it in 2001.[1]

This microscopic nanotechnology that we did not produce, and that educates us as we study it, certainly should give us pause to reflect on the power and intellect of the mind that produced the intricacies of biochemical engineering seen in nature. And where there is a mind, a person follows closely behind.

Footnote:
[1] http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/07/the_other_rotar061761.html (underline added)

<<<<<>>>>>

Animation of the mitochondria and ATP Synthase: 'BioVisions presents Inner Life: Mitochondria' found at: http://multimedia.mcb.harvard.edu

Introductory graphic taken from the educational ATP video "Gradients (ATP Synthases)" by Virtual Cell Animation Collection (http://vcell.ndsu.edu/animations) seen here: http://youtu.be/3y1dO4nNaKY



See also:
Miniature Molecular Power Plant: ATP Synthase
http://youtu.be/XI8m6o0gXDY

A Primal Predator's Acute Vision

Anomalocaris, with a face only a mother could love, the "undisputed terror of the Cambrian seas."

The fossilized eyes of a Cambrian Era predator, Anomalocaris (meaning "strange shrimp"), have revealed the astonishing complexity of a prehistoric aquatic animal without clear precursors. Its eyes have been compared to the eyes of dragonflies, and by comparison, is superior to most modern examples of similarly-designed eyes.

(Anomalocaris eye fossils, Credit: John Paterson, University of New England)

This latest example of astonishingly sophisticated primal design, seen in predacious eyes, is seemingly out-of-place for naturalism (the belief that designs and engineering in nature formed naturally), for advanced eyes like that of dragonflies should not appear in this early period of life. That they do naturally lends support to an intelligent cause building organisms on earth.


Further Reading:
An Eye-Opening Discovery: The Remarkable Vision of Anomalocaris
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/12/an_eye_opening053921.html

Review: The Myth of Junk DNA

"Jonathan Wells' The Myth of Junk DNA, is a well-written book that manages to accomplish two separate tasks: to silence the Darwinists who had claimed that recent genomic discoveries supported their dystopic version of [Stephen Meyer's] The Signature in the Cell; and to bring all of us up-to-date on the breath-taking mysteries being decoded from this most ancient script.
...
Yet even more spine-tingling is the sense that we are seeing truly dense information storage, something far more elegant than a Donald Knuth computer code. We expected to find something resembling our FORTRAN or machine-code assembly language, but instead we found something far more baroque, far more detailed, far more advanced than even Microsoft Windows. For in 3 Gigabytes, Microsoft barely gets Windows up and running for an expected lifetime of 5 years and it still must be patched monthly for the latest viruses, but in 3 Gigacodons, an entire baby is constructed with a full set of repairs for the assaults of countless viruses and the insults of an 80-year lifetime. If Meyers has shown the cell to have a software signature, then Wells has shown it to be written as poetry in an unknown tongue, replete with rhymes and stanzas and refrains and harmonies we can barely hear. If Meyers taught us to read DNA, Wells teaches us to sing it."

Source link:
http://procrustes.blogtownhall.com/2011/06/30/review__the_myth_of_junk_dna.thtml

Intelligent Bacteria: Cells are Incredibly Smart

(Video frame is too large, editing its size does nothing. See link below.)

For years I just sort of assumed that cells were self-reproducing blobs of protein. Maybe you did too. Turns out they’re way smarter than that. You will be amazed at this video. Dr. Bonnie Bassler from Princeton University presents a beautiful TED talk on how bacteria communicate with each other by forming words out of simple molecules.
She also explains…

• How bacteria strategize together on how to ‘take down’ their host
• Elegant systems of bioluminescence
• Symbiotic relationships between organisms
• Cells speak multiple languages

Enjoy this remarkable presentation. And a sincere thanks to Patrik Beno for sharing it with me.
Perry Marshall
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/intelligent-bacteria/

This is really incredible. Where did the proposed bacterial molecular codes come from?

Stephen Meyer speaks on Intelligent Design

See this previous post, Does Science Point To A Creator? Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer Debate, for a typical example of Steve being as cool as a cucumber under fire.

There are other videos of him speaking on what he's best known for, Intelligent Design, but the following video is simply a must see, regardless of one's position:

Stephen Meyer vs Peter Ward


While it's a long one, an hour and forty minutes (so get some popcorn and soda ready), it's certainly worth the time to watch. This is amazing!

Lastly, while I usually respect Dan Abrams' opinions, here he fails completely to be objective and fair on his show The Abrams Report. It's very sad and frustrating to watch, yet important to see to be aware of the obstacles that surround a skeptic's heart:

Eugenie Scott vs Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design

Does Science Point To A Creator? Michael Shermer and Stephen Meyer Debate

Excellent exchange.
Introduced, moderated, and concluded by Lee Strobel.

Regarding the "who created the creator" dilemma, I would like to point out that a proposed "universal designer," a personal Prime Reality, must operate on a level where our rules may not apply. Therefore, that dilemma is premature. One commentator said regarding this:

Here [the atheist] ignores the possibility that God is a very different sort of being than brains and computers. His argument for God’s complexity either assumes that God is material or, at least, that God is complex in the same general way that material things are (having many parts related in complicated ways to one another).
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/on-dawkinss-atheism-a-response/?ref=opinion

But, that is an unsafe assumption, and may just be a distraction from the "heavy commitment" of believing in a universal designer.

Also mentioned, not by name, is the 'god of the gaps' issue. That is, attributing a divine cause to something before science can give a perfectly rational natural explanation for it. Thus, 'god' rules over our gaps in knowledge. This is applicable for many things. For instance, we do not attribute divine causality to lightning or earthquakes. But its applicability has limits, specifically, on the cause of information. Information is specified complexity. Mount Rushmore contains specified complexity of recognizable men's faces. Biological information is no different. This is an axiom that will survive the heated and fiery controversy over life's origins.