Darwinists frequently engage in the personification of nature (i.e., they utilize language suggesting sentience). In a recent press release, they do it again.(1) There are a number of conceptual problems with the following statement:
He and his co-author, postdoctoral researcher Minglei Wang, were interested in tracing how proteins make use of their domains, or groups of domains, to accomplish various tasks. These domains or domain clusters can be thought of as “modules” that fit together in various ways to achieve different ends.
The attribution of accomplishing various tasks to molecules is problematic. The molecules of course have no sentience, planning abilities, and so forth. They are molecules and do not think, feel, or reason. Yet, purpose and achievement are attributed to molecules. This makes sense if you are working from an ID perspective, but the language is not appropriate to a non-design perspective.
They continue in a similar vein:
“As time progressed, these domains started to combine with others and they became very specialized,” Caetano-Anollés said. This eventually led to the big bang of protein architectures.
“Exactly at the time of the big bang,” many of the combined domains began to split apart, creating numerous single-domain modules again, he said. But these new modules were much more efficient and specialized than their ancient predecessors had been.
“This makes a lot of sense,” Caetano-Anollés said. “As you become more complex, you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.”
As if the big bang materialist cosmology story were not enough, we now invoke it in biology. It seemed to work fairly well for them in cosmology, why not try it in biology too? But that’s beside the point. So, we continue with the attribution of sentience to matter. “…you would want to fine-tune things, to do things in a more tailored way.” That’s what I would be thinking if I were a bacteria for certain, but this is a nonsensical way of describing material processes.
I think this goes to a deeper issue. That is that biology does not make sense outside of the concept of design. The language to understand and explore the functions of proteins does not exist in blind materialist terms. The reason is that these things are designed, and must be understood from that conceptual framework.
Access Research Network also has a good post on the language problem faced by Darwinian evolutionists.(2)
Hat Tip: Creation-Evolution Headlines