Interesting article from Evolution News regarding the recent showing of “Darwin’s Dilemma” at the University of Oklahoma.

This article is long and really interesting. I highly recommend reading through the whole thing. The accounts of Wells and Meyer interacting with the Darwinists during the live Q&A time is fascinating. But I thought that the actions of one Darwinist named Abbie Smith was particularly interesting. She is apparentlya well-respected Darwinist blogger who is specialized in refuting intelligent design! So how did she do against Wells and Meyer?

Excerpt:

On September 28, Steve spoke to an audience estimated at 300 in the Meacham Auditorium at the Oklahoma Memorial Union.[…]

Abbie Smith was there, but she spent the entire time blogging on her laptop. Her entries included the following:

7.10 — Meyer is clueless on origin of life and Darwin.

7.27 — ‘Origin of information in DNA’. HAHAHA I made all the mathematicians facepalm.

7.40 — Bored. Now watching porn.

Despite her earlier threats to expose publicly how “stupid” Steve is, Smith left abruptly after the lecture and did not stay for the Q&A.

And here’s another interesting professor:

The next person—apparently a professor of developmental biology—objected that the film ignored facts showing the unity of life, especially the universality of the genetic code, the remarkable similarity of about 500 housekeeping genes in all living things, the role of HOX genes in building animal body plans, and the similarity of HOX genes in all animal phyla, including sponges. Steve began by pointing out that the genetic code is not universal, but the questioner loudly complained that he was not answering her questions. I stepped up and pointed out that housekeeping genes are similar in all living things because without them life is not possible. I acknowledged that HOX gene mutations can be quite dramatic (causing a fly to sprout legs from its head in place of antennae, for example), but HOX genes become active midway through development, long after the body plan is already established. They are also remarkably non-specific; for example, if a fly lacks a particular HOX gene and a comparable mouse HOX gene is inserted in its place, the fly develops normal fly parts, not mouse parts. Furthermore, the similarity of HOX genes in so many animal phyla is actually a problem for neo-Darwinism: If evolutionary changes in body plans are due to changes in genes, and flies have HOX genes similar to those in a horse, why is a fly not a horse? Finally, the presence of HOX genes in sponges (which, everyone agrees, appeared in the pre-Cambrian) still leaves unanswered the question of how such complex specified genes evolved in the first place.

The questioner became agitated and shouted out something to the effect that HOX gene duplication explained the increase in information needed for the diversification of animal body plans. I replied that duplicating a gene doesn’t increase information content any more than photocopying a paper increases its information content. She obviously wanted to continue the argument, but the moderator took the microphone to someone else.

The post is filled with interesting interactions with Darwinists, so you should go read it to see how good the opposition is. I have already given away 1 copy of this DVD and ordered 3 more. If you missed Brian Auten’s review of the “Darwin’s Dilemma” DVD, check it out here.