Some Tough Questions For Evolution Now

Creation.com:  The Slow Painful Death of Junk DNA

Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation. It was invented to solve a theoretical evolutionary dilemma...

... Junk DNA is not just a label that was tacked on to some DNA that seemed to have no function; it is something that is required by evolution. Mathematically, there is too much variation, too much DNA to mutate, and too few generations in which to get it all done. This was the essence of Haldane’s work....Junk DNA is a necessary mathematical extrapolation...Without Junk DNA, evolution runs into insurmountable mathematical difficulties.

With the destruction of the "Junk DNA" and "Proteins are everything" theories that have dominated biology science for so long, a number of VERY important questions about what all this means for past studies based on the "2% of our DNA is the important stuff" must now be asked.

1) Only 2% of human and Chimpanzee DNA was very selectively compared to come up with the "proof" that we evolved from monkeys. The common quote is that about 98% of our DNA matches Chimpanzees, but that study ONLY bothered to check 2% of the DNA, the Protein Coding portions, NOT all the "Junk DNA". So then it turns out that our DNA is only a 1.98% match to Chimpanzees, NOT 98%. The same goes for all other studies that analyze this very miniscule amount of DNA with the assumption that this tiny bit of the puzzle was actually the whole thing. Comparing us to whales, or lizards to fish, and on and on it goes. ALL of those studies and the "look how similar we all are thanks to evolution" preaching becomes null and void. It's like comparing 2 pieces of two different puzzles and announcing that the puzzles are "the same" because they're both puzzle pieces. You're forgetting all the other pieces that make each puzzle so unique!

2) Mutation, Genome Clocks, and the rate of Evolution through extrapolation: What happens to all of the studies done that calculate out mutation rates and backtrack through time and history how all life evolved from common ancestors? A ton of this stuff is based on genetic data and mutation rate extrapolation (guesses and calculations), but these largely ignored the 98% of the human genome that doesn't code for Proteins. What happens now to all the constructed charts and connections based on genetic mutation? What about the tree of life, genetic mutation clocks, and all the other connected studies that based their entire premise on the analysis of a tiny fraction of the genetic data? Are now all the projections of timelines and mutations blown completely out of the water? Will they be dropped until completely new timelines, calculations and studies containing ALL available genetic data are put together? My guess is "absolutely not!" Why? Because this stuff is a FACT, no matter what the NEW and improved data and facts say.

When the serious study of genetic data took off in the 1990s, the huge amounts of genetic data were often used to prop up Neo-Darwinism despite lots of data not matching up neatly with what was already believed. This was a problem for evolutionists, but they still made sure it worked. They just said, "Evolution isn't as neat and tidy as we previously thought." NO change in the bulk of the pre-conceived assumptions and beliefs. They simply warped it all to incorporate the changes they could and ignored the rest that they couldn't force fit.

Basically, there's a gigantic stack of genetic studies and beliefs out there that are heavily based upon this idea that most of our genome is "not functional" or "not that important", and thus ignorable. ALL of this stuff needs to be completely labotomized and done over because it all was missing vast amounts of genetic data to begin with. However this stuff is so strongly believed as certain truth that there's NO WAY that evolutionists and scientists will STOP basing much of their beliefs and presentations on the "old paradigms". It's just way too ingrained into their way of thinking, into their worldview. It would be like ripping the Holy Bible out of the Christian church or the Koran out of Islam. The belief systems are fundamental to their core and everything else that depends upon it. It can not be, and will not be, allowed to falter, no matter what the scientific evidence actually says.

"We Never Said It Was Junk DNA..."

HEAVILY UPDATED with quotes and references! (as of 12:30 pm Sept 6 2012)

Evolution News (September 5, 2012): Junk No More!

Junk No More: ENCODE Project Nature Paper Finds "Biochemical Functions for 80% of the Genome"

An impressive 30 studies have been released and grouped together (mostly through the ENCODE genome sequencing project) in the peer reviewed science magazine "Nature" that has verified a longstanding Intelligent Design hypothesis, that the vast majority of the human genome is NOT "Junk DNA" or "evolutionary garbage" but is in fact functional.

While Intelligent Design scientists are obviously quite enjoying this hugely important vindication of their scientific predictions (a very important part in proving a scientific theory correct), the evolutionists are having to do some serious back pedaling.


A Summary Of "Junk DNA"

"Junk DNA" has been a long standing assumption by evolutionists that most of the genome (in humans as well as all other life) is mostly "left over evolutionary garbage", DNA that we no longer use or need because we've evolved out of needing it. It has been jokingly called "Junk DNA" for many years because of this. 2% of the human genome codes for Proteins, and until recently (and now especially), this tiny drop-in-the-bucket of our total DNA has been considered pretty much "the whole story". The reason this assumption has dominated so strongly and for so long is because evolutionists had convinced themselves (believed whole heartedly) that unless the DNA is being transcoded by RNA (like the 2% of Protein coding DNA), then it is useless or not functional. Because of this belief, 98% of our DNA has largely been ignored except by the occasional study here and there.

For more about "Junk DNA" and the debate over it, see my blog post from June 2012 about this exact issue (before this new comprehensive study came out proving it all true).

As Intelligent Design scientists have been studying and pointing out for well over 10 years now, it turns out that the vast majority of our DNA (ALL of our DNA, including the 98% that has mostly been ignored) is functional (actively used). The studies by the ENCODE project and connected studies released in the peer reviewed science magazine Nature state that at least 80% of our DNA is actually (and surprisingly, to them) functional, and that indications are good that the rest of our DNA is also functional (they just haven't figured out how it's being used yet, though signs indicate that it IS being used). That's a massive blow to a main tenet of Neo-Darwinism and a big boost to Intelligent Design.


Let The Excuses And Falsehoods Fly!

Excuses and falsehoods are already starting to pop up on atheist websites and pro-evolution websites to try and "cover their butts" on this issue. Not surprising considering the huge implications (and embarrassment) of it all, and how dedicated these people are to Neo-Darwinism on the whole.

Here is a list of the things that these folks are likely to say (and starting to say already) in an attempt to pretend that they didn't just get completely outdone by Intelligent Design theory and science.



1) We knew this all along. Nothing to see here folks. All you every day non-scientist types are just catching up to what we've known for a long time...

This is the claim that seems to be the most common so far among evolutionists, that they've actually known this for a long time already. Studies HAVE been coming out for the last 5 years, and even as far back as 10 years ago, that indicated functional properties of DNA that doesn't code directly for Proteins. But the point isn't that SOME studies have found SOME functionality and usage with all this "extra" DNA. The point is that the majority of scientists and especially atheists have been making the claim that "most of it is junk" despite this evidence! But because of their previous dedication to the idea of Junk DNA in the first place, they're STILL very hesitant to accept all this new scientific data.

For example:  At "The Mermaid's Tale" Pro-Evolution Science Blog...
More Advertising, Yet A Lesson To Learn

They confirm our idea that, at its base, DNA controls protein production and perpetuates itself, but through many subtle, complex functional roles.  Many are still to be discovered, but a much larger fraction of the genome is found to have some function, and the protein coding parts have been shown to comprise only a few percent of the whole of our DNA.  Whether ENCODE has actually determined the function of 80% of the genome, as they now claim, is debatable.

Basically, the claim is, "We knew this all along..." PLUS "I highly doubt this study is anything more than hype and promotion anyway and isn't actually saying what it seems to be saying..." That's a great double whamy! First, "We've known this all along." AND "It probably isn't true anyway." WOW! Talk about covering all your bases just in case!

And another pro-evolution blog post regarding the new set of studies...
A Slightly Different Response to Today's ENCODE Hype

The claim that “lots of the genome isn’t junk after all!” is not new — people have been using this straw man for nearly 20 years. What’s novel is that the ENCODE authors are claiming that there is now evidence that 80% of the genome shows signs function, or at least of “specific biological activity”. Many people are not convinced by this, me among them. I am especially unimpressed by this figure when I read the ENCODE project lead’s own words on the subject of “function” and the 80% figure.

Again, "Nothing to see here folks. We've known this all along." PLUS "It probably isn't true anyway. Just a load of hype and show."

Also, the previous linked to article states:

Even after 5 years, $185 million, and a massive study by hundreds of researchers, there still is only evidence of function for 80% of the human genome under the most extremely generous interpretation. That leaves 20% without any signs of function whatsoever.

Oh my! It cost LOTS of money and they didn't figure out what the other 20% of the genome does? That's just terrible!... Come on! You guys were arguing that MOST of the genome is non-functional garbage. Now you're arguing that the functioning of 20% is still unknown, so they're still proven right... Give me a break!

Then that same writer goes into a spout of obfuscation, re-defining terminology and pretending that what was meant by "functional" and "not functional" wasn't really what we think or thought it was.

To get that 80% figure, you have to have a very loose definition of “function” indeed.

Basically, "It's only functional so long as you count ANY function." This is getting very disappointing. Now you're arguing that when you were before saying that "NO function" (as in ANY function AT ALL) existed, you actually meant "no MAJOR function"... *rolls eyes*

Some are undoubtedly functional, but it is quite a stretch to suggest that millions of these elements are needed to regulate our 20,000 genes (but not the 30,000 genes of a pufferfish). As Carl Sagan said, “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”, and so far we simply do not have it when it comes to claiming that the majority of the elements in the genome have a biological function.

"Because we're all just evolved animals and fish, so most of this "extra DNA" is obviously garbage or not that important anyway..." *heavy sigh* They're a dedicated bunch aren't they?


2) We never really MEANT that it was "Junk", just that we didn't yet know any function for it. That's good science, not assuming something until we have solid proof...

The proof has been piling up for many years now, and Intelligent Design scientists have been pointing this out constantly with articles online citing such scientific studies and even publishing entire books about the topic. The proof has been there for quite a while, and the evidence pointing to this reality has been piling up for even longer. "Good science" doesn't consider most of the human genome to be garbage or non-functional just because we don't know the function of it yet. THAT is the key problem here. They assumed that all this DNA was junk, evolutionary left overs, and they stated as much repeatedly over and over again, even using it for a long time as a major argument point against Intelligent Design. "98% of our DNA is non-functional and that's exactly what we'd expect if Evolution were true!"... If they had simply said, "We don't know the function of it yet" or something else similar to that, this whole thing wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal. But that's NOT what they've been saying all this time. They've been mostly argueing that this stuff truely had NO function BECAUSE it was evolutionary junk.


3) We've got scientists who suspected function for some of this "Junk DNA" too!...
Smithsonian.com: Junk DNA Isn't Junk, And That Isn't Really News

Remember in high school or college, when you learned about all that DNA inside of you that was junk? The strings and strings of nonsense code that had no function? A recent blitz of papers from the ENCODE project have the world abuzz with news that would rip that idea apart.
But, like many things that stick around in text books long after science has moved on, the “junk DNA” idea that ENCODE disproved, didn’t really need disproving in the first place.

Yes, there were a few out there who admitted even many years ago that the concept of "Junk DNA" was probably wrong and probably even harmful to the progress of science. But these people were very few and far between and only in very recent years have more scientists finally started to admit that all this DNA does actually have function and is actually being used.

However this is a classic case of "We're always right, even when we're wrong." Basically they point out evolutionists that DID get this right even from early on, and claim that this is proof that evolutionism didn't get it wrong. Sorry, but you can't constantly argue the complete opposite and then turn around and say you were right all along because of a few open-minded scientists that didn't follow the mainstream belief. Just because a very small minority of evolutionists didn't get hoodwinked by this bad Neo-Darwinist assumption doesn't mean that the rest of you guys didn't get completely blown apart. You guys are all about "consensus" until the "consensus" gets found out to be completely wrong, and then you shout, "not following the consensus is good science!" This is classic stance jumping, basically, "We're always right, even when we're wrong." As long as ONE scientist SOMEWHERE suggested that there MIGHT be function to SOME of this other DNA, then they claim that the scientific community as a whole didn't grossly screw this up. Sorry, but those smart few people who weren't blinded by Neo-Darwinism are the clear exception to the rest of you.


4) The STUDY is Junk! The scientists are lying!

Michael Eisen, a science writer, on his Twitter feed says about the study:

"measurable biochemical activity" is a meaningless measure of functional significance.

Just like from "The Mermaid's Tale", this science writer who has dedicated himself to the evolutionism debates says that the comprehensive study by the best genome sequencing and analysis project on the planet consisting of hundreds of top scientists is wrong and blowing things way out of proportion. They're basically lying to make the news... Denial at it's finest. These guys constantly argue that science is above hype, promotion, half-truths and lies, and then when it doesn't agree with them that's exactly what they claim the science is. Oi!


Closing

Those are just a few claims that the evolutionists are already starting to make, and likely to continue making for weeks and months (even years) to come. This has all been done before repeatedly as evolutionism has gotten things very wrong and had to completely change its stance and pretend like it never actually did so. All in all it always comes down to, "We might have gotten that one thing wrong, but we're right about everything else, so trust us. Even if something is currently wrong, we'll eventually get it right anyway. Good science goes in the direction that the evidence points, even when the evidence contradicts long held scientific beliefs."

That's very true, but sooner or later it just becomes ridiculous the amount of effort that goes into "covering the trail" of complete missteps that the scientific community have taken based entirely on the assumption that Neo-Darwinist evolution is true. It gets to the point where it's obvious that no matter HOW wrong they are on even MAJOR issues, they simply re-warp the evolutionary system to accommodate it.

This is NOT science, it's desperate blind religion and faith. Science is falsifiable. If a bunch of theories are being overturned then the basis for those bad theories is probably wrong too, otherwise they wouldn't keep getting these big issues wrong in the first place. Intelligent Design didn't get this wrong. So why did evolutionism? But that doesn't matter to evolutionists who are drinking the evolution kool aid. They KNOW in their heart of hearts that evolution must be true so no matter what the evidence says, they believe Neo-Darwinism, even if they have to re-write their core theories every 5 or 10 years in order to still make it work.

Evolution - The Assumptions Dominate

Assume Everything

As I've been debating some atheists online and reading up on a lot of the evolutionary studies and data supposedly promoting a number of Neo-Darwinisms core beliefs, I've come to a frustrating realization. The assumptions or beliefs dominate the interpretation of the data. This is something I've known for a long time, but now I'm really seeing it clearly. I'll show you what I mean.


Similarity And Common Ancestry

The idea of common ancestry is based upon the belief/assumption that similarity equals common ancestry except when it's extremely obvious that it doesn't. This means that whenever a characteristic of a living organism is similar to another organism, the immediate assumption is that this similarity exists because both organisms descended from the same ancestral "parent" somewhere in the distant past. But similarity does NOT automatically mean common descent!

Trying to point this out to an evolutionist is almost impossible, however, because they are so heavily bound by this belief that they can't even consider that it isn't absolutely true. The assumption or belief dominates their interpretation of the data so that all similarities immediately mean common ancestry, except in the cases where it's extremely obvious that it can't possibly be explained by that (this is called convergence, when two greatly separated organisms come up with the same characteristics independently).

Similarity, at it's core, just means that the characteristics are similar. That's it! They're SIMILAR! It's the extrapolation and the assumption that interprets and converts this hard data into the story of common ancestry. This belief often completely ignores what has been proven to be naturally possible by physics, chemistry, and genetic mutation, because they believe it so strongly that it overrides the evidences that say, "This can't actually be the best explanation for this."

The assumption dominates the interpretation of the data. Similarity almost always equals common ancestry, no matter what the natural processes of biology say about this being a valid hypothesis or belief.


Gene Duplication

Gene duplication is another prime example of the assumption dominating the interpretation.

Gene duplication is currently the "best" explanation for how new genetic data and functions arise in living organisms over time. You see, scientists for a long time have seriously struggled with the realization that there is far too much complex genetic instructions in living organisms to have simply arisen by small point mutations. Point mutations (single "letter" mutations in a gene) simply cannot create such large scale changes and sets of new novel data without being considered harmful garbage and culled by natural selection. So evolutionists have latched onto "Gene Duplication" as the explanation for the huge size of the genetic library in organisms, and use it as the explanation for how new functionality can arise over time. It basically saves Evolutionism from the obvious limitations of nature "coming up" with new genes and genetic data.

But since this idea has taken off, now EVERYTHING is considered a duplication event! That gene looks a lot like that gene. That means that one of them was accidentally duplicated, mutated, and became imbedded in the genome adding new unique functionality... This means that now similarity ALSO means (assumed) its a result of gene duplication. But this doesn't just stop at highly similar whole genes. This is also taken on the miniscule level of segments of genes. These two pieces of a gene are similar, and so they're a "partial gene duplication". So up and down the analysis of entire genomes, scientists are matching similar chunks of genetic code and declaring them to be examples of gene duplication. Why? Because they're similar, and they have to have an explanation for how all this additional genetic data came about.

However, just like with the argument of similarity equaling common ancestry, this is entirely an interpretation based upon an assumption, that similarity in the genetic code represents an instance of gene duplication. But it only works that way so long as you believe it to be the reality, because once again similarity is assumed to mean something that it doesn't have to mean. These people must build an evolutionary structure to all of life and so these two fundamental beliefs (one old and one new) dominate the entire interpretation of the existing data. The believed "story" explanation takes precedence over all else.


Final Thoughts

Similarity does not automatically mean common ancestry or gene duplication. There are many equally plausible explanations for similarity, none of which point to Evolutionism.

For example, the letter A is similar to the letter H in a number of ways. The shape of the letter, the fact that it uses straight lines, the fact that both are letters in the English alphabet, etc. However this does not automatically mean that we must assume that A beget (is the parent or grandparent of) H. The similarity between them does not mean common ancestry from A to H.  It's simply similarity and that's all.

The same can be pointed to with regards to computer programming code. Computer code uses the exact same core functions and systems to accomplish everything from your web browser to the latest high tech 3D computer/console game. It's all using the exact same kinds of computer code. But because the code is similar (using the same things like variables, IF...THEN statements, and LOOPS), it doesn't mean that your web browser automatically and naturally (without any intelligent involvement at all) gave birth to the game Call of Duty. Or that simple duplication of code from your web browser is the prime explanation for the fact that the code between both programs is essentially quite similar when all is said and done. Similarity does NOT mean common ancestry and does NOT mean a duplication event.

Now obviously these two examples cannot reproduce on their own like a living organism can, however the points still stand. The only time the assumptions listed above stand is when they are used upon living organisms because it's assumed (again, another assumption) that reproduction and time can solve anything. It can't. All of this is a dramatic example of very creative reaching for explanations that circumvent the plausible reality.

They are so bound and determined to explain all of this by way of materialistic reproduction that they completely reject and ignore the possibility of common design (common programming) by an intelligent designer. The more in depth you go into all of this, the more you see that nature has some extreme limitations and barriers that simply can't be ignored, yet they are, by way of these two dominant assumptions (common ancestry and gene duplication). Intelligent Design as an explanation, however, is NOT handicapped by the need for these assumptions and interpreted explanations because it isn't required that all life accidentally just happened. Intelligent Design says that this is all intelligently designed, at least from the start, that the programming is similar not because of common ancestry or gene duplication but because of a common programming language being used and a common "programmer" having written all the code.

Evolution: King of Contradictory, Inconsistent Logic

I read an interesting little blog article today about the fact that the famous "evolutionary tree of life" so often found in biology text books doesn't really exist in nature and that even modern scientists are finally starting to admit this. The idea of the "biological tree of life" is that you can map similarities between living organisms and fossils into a branching "tree" of evolutionary progress and/or dead ends. It's the idea of common ancestry, everything is connected way back in the past and has branched off from the same ancient common ancestors. The responses to the blog post I read were quite fascinating and are a great example of an astounding flaw in evolutionist apologetics thinking.

Blog Post this article is related to: The Evolutionary Tree Failed But Evolutionists Still Insist Evolution is a Fact

When Creationists or people that believe in Intelligent Design (and not Darwinistic evolution or all-encompassing common ancestry) point this major failure of Darwinism out (the classic "tree of life"), a common response by pro-evolutionists is to argue that clearly evolution is much more complex and variable than was assumed. The "tree of life" is much more like a "very tangled bush" instead, but they still argue that there's enough of a "core tree-like structure" to life that the proof of common ancestry IS there.

The problems of so many instances of life supposedly being along the same branch (due to apparent similarity), and then the genetic studies on these organisms revealing vast differences between them far beyond what should exist when compared against the famous "tree of life", is a nasty punch to Neo-Darwinism. The same is true for organisms that are highly separated on the "biological tree of life" but turn out to have vast genetic similarities despite being physically very different. It boggles the mind and destroys the tidy concept of the biological tree of life (which was always an entirely assumption-based (instead of fact-based) belief anyway). The evolutionists, however, continue to argue that there's still enough "good and accurate structure" to the "tree of life" model that it's a mathematically valid and very probable reality.

But this is a classic case of contradictory logic. As I've debated with some atheists and evolutionists online over the last half year or so, I've found that this kind of "stance-jumping" is extremely common among them. They'll argue one point in defense of evolution and then completely disregard that exact same logical point at another. It's, "win in any way you can, even if we constantly disobey our own previously stated logical and factual stances." There's very little consistency in their position. They contradict themselves all over the place.

Case in point...

Mathematical statistics and probability are used to defend the crumbling "biological and historical tree of life". They say that there's enough mathematical probability and similarity in the structure of the tree to still be considered a valid belief/fact. However when the math does NOT support evolution at all, they say math, statistics and probability has nothing to do with it, or is not relevant. Why? Because they only like the math when it agrees with them.

The probability of life arising from non-living molecules is astronomically impossible. The probability is trillions of times beyond what's mathematically possible, let alone actually plausible. It is absolutely impossible for a simple protein to form in nature except by way of life building it on purpose. The odds for just ONE such simple Protein forming in nature is 1 in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion (etc.). It's simply not mathematically possible. In fact, there isn't even enough matter and energy (probabilistic resources) in the entire universe to get anywhere close to giving this equation a chance. And yet these scientists claim that this exact event (a protein forming with no help from life or intelligence) happened MANY times.

But the math just doesn't work! The entire universe has no way of producing a single protein without life intentionally building it from an already existing blue print. When such things are pointed out to evolutionists and scientists, they shrug it off and say that, "Clearly life happened, since life is here, so the odds and statistics don't really matter." This is a VERY common argument by evolutionists and atheists.

Note the completely contradictory statement and stance compared to their arguments regarding math, statistics and probability when it comes to the biological tree of life. It's completely illogical to consider "the math" to be a valid proof or evidence defending your stance (belief) in one related instance but to ignore it completely with regards to another aspect of your worldview (beliefs). There's no consistency of stance and position there, which throws your entire structure of supposed logical reasoning out the window.

Either probability, statistics and math ARE a valid proof of something's reality (in this case, Darwinistic Evolution) or they are not. You can't have it both ways, as the evolutionists clearly desire.
 

For more on the numerous problems with the "evolutionary tree of life" check out this 5 part entry at EvolutionNews.com. A Primer on the Tree of Life

Oh No! It's Intelligent Design, Educational, AND FUN!

(http://www.cellcraftgame.com/Home.html)

For the past half year or so I've had some ideas floating around in my head for a fun little educational strategy game based on creating a functional living cell. Well it turns out that someone with actual game design experience and education has beaten me to the punch. 

While reading an article about a small company that recently released a strategy tower defense RPG flash game, I noticed that the writer mentioned another game he had developed and released called CellCraft. I was immediately interested as it sounded EXACTLY like what I had been thinking about doing for a game. I looked it up and sure enough it did a lot of what I'd had in mind. It taught the Player about the parts and workings of a living cell. Good for the developer! I was a little disappointed that someone else had come up with a fun little game based on the same kind of idea, but I was also happy to see that such an idea had been put to good use already.

The underlying meaning of this game concept, however, is what initially poked my interest. The game was going to show the Player just how incredible the biology of a single cell was. How a single cell did all kinds of different things based on all kinds of different parts and chemicals in order to survive and accomplish what it needs to. What does all that marvellous structure and functional detail say about the incredible complexity of life? That it can't have happened by accident! It's SO detailed, SO interconnected and SO full of rich specific information and instructions to build and use all kinds of molecule-sized parts that the only way to describe it is to say that it is an astoundingly sophisticated self-sustaining miniscule biological machine. And where do machines come from? An intelligent designer and manufacturer, a creator.

This underlying theme was not at all lost on evolutionist educators who were at first impressed with the game and how it could teach the Player all about the different parts and functions of a single living cell... And then they realized the horrific truth. Neo-Darwinist evolution was mostly absent from the game and instead, the Player of the game was essentially an Intelligent Designer, an alien biologist (a platypus, in fact) constructing a living cell. Evolutionists and atheists immediately wrote articles attacking the game and stating that it was in no way educational or beneficial to any student who might play it because it promoted “Creationism”. 

Game reviews for CellCraft were very good and a lot of people were raving about the fact that the game was educational AND fun! People were saying how much the game taught them about cell biology and that they had a great time playing it too, a rarity in educational software.

“Where CellCraft excels is in the depth of the scientific material presented throughout the game.” “… a challenging and informative educational game with creative and satisfying gameplay mechanics.”

(http://www.brainsforgames.rachelnponce.com/2011/07/review-cellcraft.html)

“Played Cellcraft this morning, which turned out to be one of the best science education games I’ve seen in a while.”
(http://www.meme-hazard.org/blog/2011/06/12/game-review-cellcraft/)

“Now that I've played this highly educational, yet highly fun, game, I would ask they create more games like this.”

(http://omgn.com/review/2011/01/25/cellcraft-review)

So people without any sort of political bent in the debate between Neo-Darwinist evolution and creationism or Intelligent Design clearly thought the game was an outstanding and fun way to learn basic cell biology. Everyone was raving about its educational merits. Atheists, however, were NOT impressed.

PZ Myers, an atheist evolutionist who quite regularly takes on the issues of intelligent design vs evolution (from the pro-evolution and anti-creation perspective) wrote about the game under a blog post titled, "CellCraft, a subversive little game".

"... as a tool for teaching anyone about biology, it sucks. It is not an educational game, it is a miseducational game. I hope no one is planning on using it in their classroom."

(http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/07/cellcraft_a_subversive_little.php)

 The credits for the game include this damning few lines of text. 

"Also thanks to Dr. Jed Macosko at Wake Forest University and Dr. David Dewitt at Liberty University for providing lots of support and biological guidance."

Evolutionists discovered that two of the science contributors to the game were scientists that support the Intelligent Design belief that all life was Intelligent Designed and planted on earth by an Intelligent Designer (Creator). This belief basically states that life is far too sophisticated, complex and full of detailed specified instruction and information (like a massive computer program and intricate city all contained in a single cell) for it to have simply happened by the accidental chance combination of available chemicals of the universe. The atheists and evolutionists had their smoking gun.

As PZ Myers states, 

"Those two are notorious creationists and advocates for intelligent design creationism. Yep. It's a creationist game."

Yes, it's true, the game does not promote Neo-Darwinist evolution. It instead places the Player as the intelligent director and builder of a living cell and their parts. You, as the Player, simply collect the needed chemicals to build the parts and when you have enough of those chemicals, your part is build and added to the cell, giving it a new important feature. The game is structured and plays like a game should, while also providing a lot of information on cell biology that most people would have no clue about.

The atheists are mad because a couple of the scientists that the game’s science was double checked with believe in Intelligent Design, and the game itself does not contain much (if any) explicit references to evolution. They can’t complain about the actual science in the game, but that doesn’t matter. What irks them is the lack of evolution and the fact that the game does an admirable job of showing just how amazing and complex a single living cell is. That complexity can’t help beg the question, “How could this have ever ‘just happened’ by chance?” though such a question is never implied or asked in the game itself.

One furious atheist commenter online said about the game (slightly censored by myself)…

“motherf***ing insidious b*st*rds.

well, it's obvious not ALL of them are complete morons, though it's still the case that all of them are sleazy, underhanded, b*st*rds.”

Thankfully there are also many level headed and rational people out there (evolutionists and atheists included) that have posted comments in relation to the game in a much more positive light

“I don't care who makes the game, if I find it educationally useful.”

Some angry atheists freaked out because the game doesn’t directly preach evolution. In fact, it doesn’t directly preach ANYTHING! But it shows you just how desperate evolution must become in order to survive. Unless it is constantly pointed at, taught, included or spoken of as absolute truth, the incredible realities of life all around us testify to their magnificent and brilliant Creator, God.