Dawkins’ confusion over darwinism (and religion)

Dawkins has the most useless take on both revolution and religion: i am reluctant to even post his junk, backed up by that propagandist coyne who should know better and probably does.

Dawkins is wrong about natural selection and he uses that error to claim darwinism disproves the design argument. And this has been going on for forty years.
It is a scandal that the ID group, despite their own religious confusions and evolutionary pseudo-science, sees through darwinism where Dawkins is stubbornly confused…
we can comment on the religion issue later…Dawkins on religion is atrocious and I am not even a theist…

Reader Michael called my attention to Richard Dawkins’s Darwin Day Lecture to Humanists UK (HUK). Richard is introduced by Humanists UK President and evolutionary biologist Alice Roberts, who…

Source: Dawkins’s Darwin Day lecture for Humanists UK: “Taking Courage from Darwin to Fight the Hubris of Faith” « Why Evolution Is True

 Darwinism and ‘evolution’ are two different things, Behe’s title ambiguous…

To challenge darwinism and evolution are two different things: Behe’s title is ambiguous here (I haven’t read the book), but I doubt he rejects ‘evolution’ in general…

Source: Cited to Attack Darwin Devolves, Study Devolves on Close Inspection | Evolution News

Behe won the argument long ago…dumbing down of science ED…//A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.

It is almost incredible that at this late date scientists in a journal such as Science are still in denial over the issue of (irreducible) complexity and the design factor in biology/evolution. The problems pointed to by Behe have not been really answered for the simple reason that they can’t be: design in complex machines, even given some possible but dubious counterexamples, cannot be explained with the usual boilerplate about natural selection…
A whole generation of students of science has been dumbed down to darwinian idiocy about natural selection and have lost the ability to think…

In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In Darwin Devolves, Behe continues his quixotic efforts to overturn modern evolutionary theory.

Source: A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.

Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point | Uncommon Descent

In American Association for the Advancement of Science’s magazine, Science, we read,In the grand scheme of evolution, mutations serve only to break structures and degrade functions, Behe argues. He allows that mutation and natural selection can explain species- and genus-level diversification, bu

Source: Science Mag’s hit on Michael Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves avoids his main point | Uncommon Descent

Life, evolution and the clue of consciousness

We have cited the very important new evidence on mechanobiology as it casts doubt, from still another direction, on hard core darwinism.
But the question remains, beyond negative critiques of evolutionary theories, what direction might we look for a positive view? Conventional biology, including even the critics, hardly has a clue to the enigma of evolution. The reason is that it is focused on the substrate based on biochemistry. That’s the only zone science allows but it is not enough to resolve the evolution mystery which may well be so far an insoluble mystery. Continue reading Life, evolution and the clue of consciousness

The Dissent from Darwinism list now tops 1000 scientists 

In time for Darwin’s birthday February 12:The Dissent statement represents a splash of cold water on the great man. It reads, “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.

Source: The Dissent from Darwinism list now tops 1000 scientists | Uncommon Descent