Another excerpt from my new book What Your Atheist Professor Doesn’t Know (But Should):
An additional problem with the Darwinian paradigm that is related to the above, is the problem with molecular sequencing. “Molecular sequences” are molecular signatures of genes and proteins within cells that reflect the evolutionary path they took (if any). Since the 1990’s, scientists have been able to map these sequences, and they completely clash with the “tree of life” paradigm. A recent cover story in the journal New Scientist called “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life” expressed it this way:
For a long time the holy grail was to build a tree of life,” says Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist at the Pierre and Marie Curie University in Paris, France. A few years ago it looked as though the grail was within reach. But today the project lies in tatters, torn to pieces by an onslaught of negative evidence. Many biologists now argue that the tree concept is obsolete and needs to be discarded. “We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,” says Bapteste. That bombshell has even persuaded some that our fundamental view of biology needs to change. (Graham Lawton, “Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life,” New Scientist [January 21, 2009] [emphasis added].
Who’da thunk it? Although the massive additional improbability that this adds to the equation hasn’t yet been calculated, it is obviously going to increase it manyfold.
The complexity of biology has seemed to grow by orders of magnitude. Biology’s new glimpse at a universe of non-coding DNA — what used to be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating and befuddling…the signaling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It’s infinitely more complex.”– Erika Hayden, “Life is Complicated,” Nature, 3/31/10, p. 664-667
So are we allowed to infer “design” from the complexities explored hereto? I certainly think we can. Many people not only don’t know these things, but assume that since Science has generally not inferred design, that it must be because there is no evidence for it. In many cases, they have not considered that some Scientists may be operating under the influence of ulterior motives. Additionally, they have no idea that many scientists are horrendous philosophers, and don’t even notice the prevailing mistake of drifting from Methodological Materialism (the presumption in Science that supernatural causes are not to be considered) to Philosophical Materialism (the idea that therefore the supernatural cannot possibly exist).
That being said, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I think Psychological and Sociological factors are in play here. Human Beings have a tendency to conform, so as not to be “left out” or ostracized. “Groupthink” is a powerful force.