C4ID misrepresents science. Again

The dear old Centre for Intelligent Design creationism are misrepresenting science again (University finds brain’s complexity beyond belief).  Of course Alastair Noble and colleagues don’t want any of those nasty scientists leaving comments, so as per usual there’s no commenting facility.  As C4ID report,

They found that the brain’s complexity is beyond anything they’d imagined, almost to the point of being beyond belief, says Stephen Smith

At least C4ID don’t alter the “almost to the point”.

So, in essence, C4ID can’t understand how evolutionary and developmental biology can result in such complexity, so God a designer must have done it.  They then go on to say:

Yet there are scientists who appear on our TV screens all the time to tell us that life just popped into existence when the right bunch of chemicals appeared, and that the genetic instructions required to construct the awesome human brain simply evolved by themselves with no guidance at all.

Which somewhat economical with the truth.  The C4ID article links to an article at cnet.com (Human brain has more switches than all computers on Earth) rather than the actual research paper, probably because they reckon (rightly enough) that their intended audience wouldn’t understand it.

Essentially it’s a technical paper showing how neural connections in the brain can be imaged.  It’s well outside my field of expertise which, since I’m an honest sort of chap, prevents me from pontificating away and drawing over-interpreted conclusions (would that the same could be said of C4ID!).  However, the paper’s conclusion is:

Conclusions
Here, we demonstrate the usefulness of AT for the proteomic examination of individual synapses in natural brain tissue with full preservation of neuroanatomical and circuit context information. As efficient automated analysis strategies are developed to complement the inherently high throughput of array tomographic image acquisition, this tool should open new doors to the large-scale bioinformatic exploration of the molecular diversity and architecture of synapses. One likely consequence of such exploration could be the development of new schemes for the differentiation and cataloging of molecular synapse types. By isolating specific subsets of synapses, a synapse catalog could help enormously in pinpointing the specific synapse changes involved in particular neurological disorders (Luescher and Isaac, 2009) or forms of neural plasticity (Micheva and Beaulieu, 1995; Knott et al., 2002; Hofer et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2009; Yang et al., 2009). AT’s unique abilities to extract simultaneously rich proteomic and fine-scale structural information also suggests that the method may substantially advance ongoing efforts to integrate the structural and molecular views of neuronal microcircuit function.

That doesn’t quite match C4ID’s story, does it.  As Cathy (to whom credit goes for spotting this) points out over at the BCSE Forum:

Wonder how the original authors would feel about that?

Still, rampant ‘economy with the truth’ is frequently associated with creationists, including this newfangled breed of Intelligent Design creationists (aka cdesign proponentsists).

One thought on “C4ID misrepresents science. Again

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *