I Don't Want To Get Into The Peppered Moth Lore Again Except To Point Out How Dishonest You Can Be And Have A Career As An Oxford Level Scientist

LOOK UP "PEPPERED MOTH" IN MY ARCHIVE, you can type the term in the little box on the screen to the left that says "Search this Blog."   That anyone is bringing up that discredited bit of scientific fraud today should be a scandal but, then, people still talk about "IQ" as if that isn't discredited.  And it's getting real People harmed and killed, even now. 

What is more interesting is the fact that one of the gods of current and all of post-1950 science,  Francis Crick, half of the racist, sexist , thieving duo of Watson and Crick, in his quest to drive the final nail in the coffin of God seriously proposed the idea that life on Earth was a result of seeding by advanced extraterrestrial scientists.   He has this in common with so many post-WWII generation scientists that he was so philosophically inept and ignorant and clumsy that it would seem that in his quest to dispose of notions of intelligent design of life on Earth HE HIMSELF PROPOSED THAT LIFE ON EARTH IS AN EXAMPLE OF INTELLIGENT DESIGN. 

That is, by the way, TYPICAL OF ATHEISTS WHO GET INTO THAT LINE OF ARGUMENTATION.   Online I first refuted it during the new-atheist fad of the 00's on Eschaton blog when one of their resident Britatheists brought up the lab experiments of scientists making "self-replicating"  DNA as evidence, perhaps even as proof, for an abiogenetic origin of life on Earth without the design of God.  To start with the "DNA" so created was not "self-replicating" even as natural DNA in a cell is nothing like "self-replicating" it was made to replicate through the experimental design of the scientists who did the experiment.   But as a proof against intelligent design it had the conclusive defect OF ITSELF BEING THE CREATION OF SUCH INTELLIGENT DESIGN BY SCIENTISTS.  

I think anyone disposed to do so has every right to point out that he, after a decades long quest to put that final nail in the coffin of God, found that as clever as he was, he had to resort to a Erich von Daniken scenario in which he made his imaginary, unevidenced, unexplained, ET scientists, do what those who believe God designed life on Earth did.  And he was made so stupid by his ideologizing of science as to not realize what he was doing.  But, then, such ideologizing of science had become increasingly mainstream after the mid-19th century, so he probably didn't realize that's what he was doing. 

If anything it was evidence that intelligent design would possibly have been required to produce DNA.  ANY LAB EXPERIMENT BY SCIENTISTS IN THE ABIOGENETIC QUEST INITIATED BY THE RUSSIAN,  COMMUNIST HACK ALEXANDER OPARIN, COULD ONLY POSSIBLY DEMONSTRATE THAT INTELLIGENT DESIGN WAS REQUIRED TO DO LITERALLY EVERYTHING THEY CAME UP WITH.  And Oparin, willingly, consciously, operated as a scientist under the ideological framework of the degraded forms of Marxism under the dictatorships of Lenin and Stalin, Khrushchev and Brezhnev.  

Every academic, eminent academic materialistic-atheistic-scientistic scientist who claims that scientists can put the last nail in the coffin of God by doing experiments only prove that they are idiots who have no clue as to what they really are doing because there is absolutely no possibility of them teasing out the intelligent design of their experiments or even their reports on observations in nature,  though they seldom actually make such observations in nature.   The entire thing isn't an example of science at its most rigorous but science at its most ideologically decadent.  

I think that as we find out more about how life on the cellular level needs to control enormous numbers of activities and structures and molecules in order to sustain their life function, the idea that ALL OF LIFE EVERYWHERE has to have that level of complex BEHAVIOR in order to sustain itself, replicate, and protect itself becomes more instead of less plausible.  And with that the idea of life assembling anywhere in the universe by random chance molecular events becomes ever less plausible.   I think Crick and his colleagues might have put a nail in a coffin but it was in the coffin of their beloved ideology.  You too.