OF THE
TIMES
Evolution News Editor's note: We are delighted to welcome Dr. Shedinger as a new contributor. A Professor of Religion at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa, he is the author of a new book critiquing Darwinian triumphalism, The Mystery of Evolutionary Mechanisms: Darwinian Biology's Grand Narrative of Triumph and the Subversion of Religion, from which this post is adapted.For most of my fifty-nine years, I fully accepted the truth of Darwinian evolution. I knew that Daniel Dennett had called Darwin's theory the best idea anyone has ever had and was quite familiar with Richard Dawkins's aggressive defense of modern evolutionary theory. Moreover, I had a passing familiarity with the biological establishment's disparaging treatment of intelligent design theory and accepted the view that ID is just a religious idea dressed up as science — that it has no scientific validity. And as a scholar committed to the academic study of religion, I found that these ideas about evolution and ID fit well with my position in the liberal academy.
I've been wondering about this for some time and haven't been able to find an answer. In protein production in an organism having a diploidal genome, do both strands contribute to protein production? In particular, does the complementary segment of a translated gene also get translated? It seems to me that it would be a real miracle if that were to be the case, since the chances of a sequence being useful and its complement being useful in the reversed direction would be quite small.
Best regards,
Charles

Comment: Kudos to Shedinger for breaking out of the Darwinist mind prison.
For SOTT's own series on evolution and ID, don't miss these:
- The Probability of Evolution
- Evolution - A Modern Fairy Tale
- Evolution's Struggle with Complexity and New Genes
- Darwinism, Creationism... How About Neither?
And if you prefer podcasts: