Okay, it’s more art than science. The blobby glass thing shows the outer shape of the enzyme (luciferase) that causes fireflies to glow, with the bright object in the cavity representing the filament-like molecule (luciferin) that actually produces the light. It’s cool on every level—from the biochemistry on up to the sight of a moonlit field pulsing with fireflies. Reasoning in reverse from Darwinism, we infer that it must be easy to get these molecular lanterns by accident because many different versions exist in a wide variety of life forms. But they aren’t nearly as simple as the image suggests. The outer shape may look like a blob, but a highly refined inner structure is needed for that enzyme to hold together and do its job, and the same is true for the other enzymes that make the various luciferins. Reverse reasoning tries to tease out historical details by assuming that the processes in operation have been correctly identified and understood. There’s certainly a place for that in science, but it always has to be checked against forward reasoning, where we test whether we really have identified the right processes. Darwinism seems to have failed this test, but biologists won’t see this until they shift out of reverse.
Doug

Okay, it’s more art than science. The blobby glass thing shows the outer shape of the enzyme (luciferase) that causes fireflies to glow, with the bright object in the cavity representing the filament-like molecule (luciferin) that actually produces the light. It’s cool on every level—from the biochemistry on up to the sight of a moonlit field pulsing with fireflies. Reasoning in reverse from Darwinism, we infer that it must be easy to get these molecular lanterns by accident because many different versions exist in a wide variety of life forms. But they aren’t nearly as simple as the image suggests. The outer shape may look like a blob, but a highly refined inner structure is needed for that enzyme to hold together and do its job, and the same is true for the other enzymes that make the various luciferins. Reverse reasoning tries to tease out historical details by assuming that the processes in operation have been correctly identified and understood. There’s certainly a place for that in science, but it always has to be checked against forward reasoning, where we test whether we really have identified the right processes. Darwinism seems to have failed this test, but biologists won’t see this until they shift out of reverse.

Doug