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.

Keeping the Debate Over Undeniable on Track 

No matter how hard they try the ID group will never be able to prove the existence of god using the idea of intelligent design, or simple design. It would help if they simply stopped and helped the public move beyond darwinism. The whole public paradigm is stuck between stupid darwinism and unintelligent design arguments. The case for design has been made but to bring in the term ‘intelligent’ vitiates all the work done on the subject.

—————-

I wrote Undeniable primarily for people who wonder whether God is really there — either believers who sometimes doubt their belief or doubters who sometimes doubt their doubt. These people need to know that claims on the part of scientists to have made sense of reality apart from God are badly confused. And because Darwin’s theory is the centerpiece of those claims, I made refuting his theory the centerpiece of the book.

Source: Keeping the Debate Over Undeniable on Track | Evolution News

Biological fields?…//The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect 

Source: The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect – Darwiniana

As you read this watch your brain shut down as the reigning paradigm asserts control, assuming you are a ‘darwinist’…You never think about ‘evolution’, you just believe what biologists tell you, little suspicious they are complete idiots here.
—————————–
Biologists are in a mysterious funk on the question of evolution: it would seem to a more sensible view, given the criticism of darwinism in terms of statistics, that there is no way the conventional account can work. We have noted here repeatedly, citing the insight of the great scientist Fred Hoyle, who was under no threat of academic retaliation, given his brilliance and reputation, that natural selection can’t be right, period. Biologists should have moved on long ago, but, amazingly, to the great discredit of science, the whole field is stuck in an absurdity. Continue reading Biological fields?…//The eonic effect as reminder of the complexity of ‘evolution’, and its non-genetic aspect 

secular humanist (and religious) confusion over…//The Teleological Argument

The issues of ‘design’, teleology, proofs of the existence of god, and finally ‘intelligent’ design are all different and can’t be safely collated in a typical secular humanism diatribe against theism. We discussed yesterday the confusion over ‘design’ and ‘intelligent design’. Design in the realm of biology is almost an inevitable conclusion, but it doesn’t follow it is the result of intelligence, although it might certainly look intelligent…
Teleology is probably the case and this is not an argument for theism. Teleology is visible in the eonic effect, although it is visible only as directionality and must be reconciled with free agency.
Teleology is not proof of divinity, if only because the term ‘god’ is so incoherent we can’t really use it for anything.

Source: The Teleological Argument