…and this is a 
I've been asked to publicize another creationist quote mine. Gene Myers, a former vice president at Celera who was one of the leaders in sequencing the human genome, has been quote by Tom Abate in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying, "What really astounds me is the architecture of life…The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed… There's a huge intelligence there." This quote is one of the stock items used by Muslim and Christian creationists everywhere.
He was interviewed by TonkaFocus, and asked flatly whether he was an Intelligent Design creationism supporter. His answer:
I am not. I am being taken out of context and upset about this. Abate [SF Chronicle reporter] interviewed me shortly after we had completed the genome and for a moment I waxed poetic about the complexity of what was there and the elegance of the 'design'. Evolution is very real - it is directly observable in the time frames of mutating bacteria, e.g. the acquisition of antibiotic resistance.
Case closed on that one. Not that any creationists will care.
Comments
Posted by: Leigh Shryock | October 27, 2008 9:54 AM
Of course they won't care! If it appears to validate their theory, no matter the dubious source, it MUST BE TRUE!
Posted by: Creotard | October 27, 2008 10:02 AM
"What really astounds me is the architecture of life...The system is extremely complex. It's like it was designed... There's a huge intelligence there." - Pharyngula
Hey guys! PZ Myers agrees with Intelligent Design. This quote came directly from one of his blog posts!
</quoteminer>
Posted by: Daniel R | October 27, 2008 10:04 AM
I am not a creationist either, but I have the same reaction, looking at how awesome the life can be. But the next step is: "ok, let's say, a designer, but what is that designer? how can we define it? what are its properties? how can we check things about it?". There are no answers to these questions.
But perhaps we find one day some specific property of matter telling us that it is normal that this complexity develops.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | October 27, 2008 10:04 AM
Obviously he slipped up and said what he was really thinking. It sure didn't take long for the Evilutionist Hitler-worshiping Darwinist conspiracy to shut him up and make him tow the line in public again.
Posted by: True Bob | October 27, 2008 10:05 AM
Intellectual Dishonesty means you never say you're sorry.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:08 AM
What about how tragic life can be as well? There is a lot of disease, defects and sickness destroying lives out there. Somehow those are always glossed over when people start talking about the wonder of life.
Yes life is amazing but this in no way makes me believe there is some force controlling it. If there is it's a fucking asshole.
Posted by: Richard Harris | October 27, 2008 10:09 AM
Why can't they ask what designed their god-thing, that they think designed life on Earth?
Of course, some do, but give weasel-word answers. Answers that rely upon magic. What contempt they deserve!
Posted by: Daniel R | October 27, 2008 10:15 AM
#6 Rev. BigDumbChimp: yes, you are absolutely right...
Posted by: Andrés Diplotti | October 27, 2008 10:15 AM
The creationist arguments sure are highly intellectual and mature:
"Yes, the cell certainly shows a complex design..."
"HA! Gotcha there! Hey, kids, the doctor just admitted the cell is designed!"
"But... I didn't mean literally..."
"You said it! You said it! No taking back now! No taking back!"
Posted by: Marc Abian | October 27, 2008 10:16 AM
Does anyone else think that he chose his profession based sorely on his name?
Posted by: Iron | October 27, 2008 10:18 AM
@#6:
Even disease-causing microbes are awesome (awe-inspiring) in their complexity and beauty. Yeah, disease sucks, everything isn't puppy-dogs and butterflies... but I think that #3's point that looking at the absolutely amazing complexity of the natural world and being a little overwhelmed that it could have resulted from such a simple thing as natural selection is perfectly reasonable. And, of course, that personal incredulity is no argument against natural selection.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:24 AM
Oh I agree. My point is more at the anthrocentric view of the universe where the designer would of course be looking out for human's best interest.
Posted by: JStein | October 27, 2008 10:25 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how a Creationist numbskull will take any quote (be it from Einstein or more modern guys like Abate) about the complete and utter awesomeness of the universe and twist it into something that they believe proves design.
It turns out that the universe is awesome and beautiful independent of the invisible. It's beauty exists in and of itself.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 27, 2008 10:31 AM
[...]
It's hard to imagine a finer designer
Than blind evolution and millions of years
But this explanation's (quite oddly) ungodly
And quickly rejected for fanning their fears
They cannot accept evolution's solutions
And make up a God who's the cause of it all
Myself, I can't use that religion, one smidgen
It's selfish and petty; I can't think that small
http://digitalcuttlefish.blogspot.com/2008/10/ignorance-aint-bliss-for-me.html
Posted by: cervantes | October 27, 2008 10:32 AM
Similarly, I've been engaged in an e-mail debate (with the usual complement of theists who find it highly offensive, arrogant, contemptuous, etc. that somebody just doesn't happen to agree with them) about whether Einstein was religious because he said things like "I don't believe God plays dice with the universe" and that he found the Jesus of the Gospels to be an inspiring figure, etc.
Not that it's evidence for anything one way or the other what Einstein's religious beliefs happened to be, but he was in fact an atheist who responded spiritually to the grandeur of the universe. And, ironically I suppose, the reason the "dice" quotation is famous is because he was wrong.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 27, 2008 10:36 AM
Cuttlefish, that last line, a palpable hit. Perfect!
Posted by: Mike | October 27, 2008 10:39 AM
@Cuttlefish
Bravo. Well done again!
Posted by: Nephmon | October 27, 2008 10:42 AM
Well, I don't know how much missing text is denoted by the ellipses in the [Gene] Myers quotation, but it does seem a little careless using the words "intelligence" and "design" in any speech about the wondrous complexity of life! I know it's impossible to stop creationists from quote-mining, but it really pays to be guarded and thoughtful about what you say.
Richard Dawkins tends to do this in his books, explicitly telling creationists not to bother to quote-mine a particular passage - though of course it's much easier to do that when you're writing a book than doing an off-the-cuff interview.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | October 27, 2008 10:43 AM
Cuttlefish, have you ever thought about releasing a book of your poems? Rationalist inspirational/humor books are in short supply in the world.
Posted by: Gene | October 27, 2008 10:43 AM
While I believe Myers is sincere when he says he "waxed poetic," given the relentlessness of the creotards/IDiots, I think that scientists in general need to be more careful with their language, particularly when they are trying to be "poetic."
I see it on TV all of the time with the shows about nature: they are often speaking of "designed" when they mean "evolved." And they often speak of the life forms "trying to perpetuate the species" when they are really just mating, and perhaps trying to perpetuate their own genes, not necessarily the genes of the "species."
Precision in language is important, particularly the designed/evolved distinction.
Posted by: The Chemist | October 27, 2008 10:51 AM
Are intelligent people simply not safe from having their reputations co-opted for some intellectually felonious cause?
Just another example of the kind of thing I'm talking about:
I was arguing with someone online over civil liberties issues (USA PATRIOT Act, et al) and they came back at me confidently with, "Inter arma enim silent leges" - In times of war, laws fall silent. -Cicero
As though it being in Latin makes it right, but beyond that- it's horrifically out of context! It was a legal defense (that failed) put up to support the head of the Praetorian Guard. It doesn't even approach the level of legal precedent!
Sorry- Just had to get that off my chest.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 27, 2008 10:52 AM
Humanist Jones, one is on the way...
That last one was a repeat--I felt guilty, so I thought I'd try something else. Of course, this one wrote itself, and the hard work was done by Allen Toussaint...in 1965.
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Gotta fight evolution
Make a case for God's Design
Lord, I am so tired
I need just one more line
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
I select and I copy
Mining quotes by the score
Church on Sunday rolls around
What's the 9th commandment for?
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
[spoken:]
Gotta fight evolution
Make a case for God's Design
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Gotta fight evolution
Make a case for God's Design
Lord, I am so tired
I need just one more line
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Working in a quote mine, goin' down down down
Working in a quote mine, Whoop--about to slip down
Posted by: Claudia | October 27, 2008 10:54 AM
I'm with #19...Cuttlefish, there needs to be a book!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 10:59 AM
WOW. Cuttlefish / Lee Dorsey mind meld.
I'm in awe!!!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:01 AM
Pardon me. That's Mr. Toussaint's lyrics and music.
Gotta Love New Orleans' soul.
Posted by: Janine ID AKA The Lone Drinker | October 27, 2008 11:05 AM
Chimpy, how do you know it is not a Cuttlefish/Devo mind meld?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp, KoT, OM | October 27, 2008 11:13 AM
I was hoping he went to the original source.... ;)
Posted by: Rich | October 27, 2008 12:18 PM
Speaking of awesome complexity, just look at a Mandelbrot set or similar mathematical shape.
I think the Faithful can see the "hand of God" in much of the natural world if they care to look. It's just not a requirement for everyone else.
Posted by: Doug Little | October 27, 2008 12:24 PM
I find it interesting that when discernible patterns emerge within a system humans have a natural tendency to go with the design paradigm. Because we see a pattern we think that it couldn't happen by chance since we relate to our own experience as being pattern producing beings. Of course we know that there are plenty of instances of patterns being produced in nature that can be wholly explained on a purely naturalistic basis. So in essence an interesting question to ask is.
Did a designer design us or did we design the designer?
I personally go with the latter.
Posted by: Nephmon | October 27, 2008 12:59 PM
Rich@#28: Actually if you measure a Mandelbrot curve's Kolmogorov Complexity (the shortest program that can be used to represent it), it's incredibly simple - a few lines of any high-level programming language.
What astonishes me about god-spotters is not that they might see the hand of god in (apparently) complex shapes like Mandelbrots, but that they can see him in phenomenally simple patterns like water splashed on the side of a building (the Mary "apparitions" that Shermer has written about), and the burnt areas on slices of toast. (The "face" on Mars comes to mind, too.)
No matter how obvious it is to some of us that it's just our wonderfully sensitive face-matching mechanism misfiring, there will always those who see... well, whatever they want to see, really.
Posted by: Eric Saveau | October 27, 2008 1:57 PM
Cuttlefish, you make the world a little brighter with every line you utter. I am very grateful to be able to share this planet with you. Thank you for your entry on this thread, and on all others past and future.
Posted by: sparc | October 27, 2008 3:17 PM
Here's another quote mine to be discovered by the tard miners.
Posted by: Katkinkate | October 27, 2008 5:03 PM
One of my favourite quotes: "God does not play dice with the universe; He plays an ineffable game of his own devising, which might be compared, from the perspective of any of the other players, to being involved in an obscure and complex version of poker in a pitch dark room, with blank cards, for infinite stakes, with a dealer who won't tell you the rules, and who smiles all the time." Terry Pratchett, "Good Omens"
Posted by: John Landon | October 27, 2008 7:09 PM
http://darwiniana.com/2008/10/27/its-like-it-was-designed/
Posted by: John Landon | October 27, 2008 7:11 PM
http://darwiniana.com/2008/10/27/its-like-it-was-designed/
Posted by: clevedan | October 27, 2008 7:34 PM
add it to the talkorigins ever growing quote mine list
Posted by: echidna | October 27, 2008 9:12 PM
It's a sad thing when you have to watch your language to avoid any of the words that the wackaloons have co-opted as code words, such as "design", and intelligence. The blinking idiots, as soon as they hear any phrase that they recognise, instantly seize on it, and claim it supports their position, even if the context makes it quite clear that that is not the case.
Posted by: Lurkbot | October 27, 2008 9:52 PM
I just recently discovered this forum, and I'm probably not qualified to comment on a lot of the areas you cover, so I guess you could consider this a "drive-by."
Whenever I hear molecular biologists, in particular, waxing lyrical about the "complexity" and "elegance" of life's machinery, my first reaction is that these two qualities are approximate opposites as far as I'm concerned.
But then, considering the stupefying complexity of the apparati that life used to perform quite simple functions, I show my age by paraphrasing Sammy Davis Jr.: "Do de name RUBE GOLDBERG strike a familiar note?"
Posted by: tim Rowledge | October 28, 2008 12:11 AM
Oh you biologists, you just don't understand engineering.
It's blatantly obvious to anyone that has been involved in the design of really quite complex things that there is simply no way- no way at all - that the fantasy of 'Intelligent Design' can be true. Just sticking to biological stuff (we all know biologists simply aren't smart enough to comprehend a real science like Physics) it is clear that all that icky living muck is far too complicated to have been designed by any competent designer. So there is either no designer or a really, really stupid one.
There. That was easy. Did I manage to be as condescending as some of the dismissive comments about engineers?
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2008 4:57 AM
Gene @20,
At some point, taking enough care with phraseology so as not to be misleading will preclude any poeticism - geniuses* such as Cuttlefish aside. Using dry academic language will not likely engage viewers on TV shows. In my experience, this was prevalent in days of yore, but I find nature shows these days far better in that regard. But yes, it happens, because English, as a natural language, uses words that embed the social gestalt at the time of their creation, though their specific meanings evolve. As an example, people use "profanity" or "swearing" (quite appropriately and correctly) to refer to offensive language - yet most such current terms neither profane nor avow.---
*AKA genii.
Posted by: Nephmon | October 28, 2008 12:50 PM
trowledge@#39: Next you'll be telling us ST-80 wasn't "designed"!
Posted by: tfagan | October 28, 2008 8:22 PM
Intelligent Design is not a religion, it is a theory about the complexity of living cells.
Intelligent Design is not Creationism, Creationism is a type of theology. Intelligent Design is a scientific theory about the complexity of living cells.
Evolution is often misunderstood.
Microevolution (breeding of plants and animals) has been practiced for as long as humans have had domesticated animals.
Macroevolution changing from one body plan to another. No evidence exists from the last 350 million years to show that macroevolution can in fact occur. Bed time stories are as good as it gets.
Intelligent Design tries through scientific methods to determine if mutations and natural selection can account for the many forms of life found on this earth.
Evolutionists no longer debate the issue.
Having no evidence to support macroevolution the evolutionist (Darwinists) resort to calling Intelligent Design "Creationism" and thus avoid discussion.
Also consider this, smoking takes on avg 4 or 5 years from your lifespan. Homosexual behavior take on avg 24 years from your lifespan and generally consists of years and years of suffering from diseases too numerous to write about here. Intelligent Design theory explains why simultaneous use of multiple drugs is more effective than a single drug treatment applied one at a time for the treatment of HIV. Refer to "Edge of Evolution" by Michael J. Behe for a detailed explanation of mutations and HIV treatments.
tfagan
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 8:27 PM
I don't know where you get your information from, but it is an unreliable source. Intelligent design is creationism. Both science and US law courts say so. So time for you to find a more reputable source for your information.Posted by: amphiox | October 28, 2008 8:30 PM
#29: And man made god, in his own image. . . .
#42: You've got to be kidding, right? Referencing Behe as an authority at this venue? Are you a masochist, or just plain ignorant?
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 8:38 PM
A cdesign proponent trying to talk down evolution? Never!
Case in point:If you are going to talk out of your arse, try and at least inform yourself first.Posted by: Wowbagger | October 28, 2008 8:39 PM
Um, what? Even if either of these were true (sources, please), what does it have to do with 'intelligent design'?
You use this word 'explains' - I do not think it means what you think it means.
Posted by: Owlmirror | October 28, 2008 8:44 PM
"ID" does no such thing.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 8:45 PM
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/11/missing_link_cd.htmlIntelligent Design IS rebranded creationism, it's entire existence is down to creation science not being allowed to be taught in schools.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead | October 28, 2008 8:54 PM
This twit doesn't understand that Behe's department at his old university has disowned him, and the rest of science has essentially "delabcoated" him. Behe was show to be a liar and bullshitter during the Kitzmiller V. Dover trial. So anyone who believes Behe has to be mentally deficient.
Posted by: Kel | October 28, 2008 9:04 PM
A good place to start on Behe:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
Then there is Orr's review of Darwin's Black Box
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR21.6/orr.html
And as a bonus: Orr on Dempski
http://bostonreview.net/BR27.3/orr.html
Posted by: John Morales | October 28, 2008 9:08 PM
Squittens.