From Chapter 9 of Heretic
Here’s the section Rossiter refers to, from Chapter 9 of Heretic: The most impressive evolutionary experiment to my knowledge so far reported was carried out by an international team using Salmonella enterica. On October 22, 2012 a report claimed that this was the first time a group demonstrated the origin of a new gene. Continue reading From ‘Heretic’…
Tag: evolution
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
Design versus ‘Intelligent’ Design
Despite our challenge to darwinism, and support of the idea of design, we might well challenge the idea of ‘Intelligent Design’ rather than simply ‘design’. The use of the term ‘intelligent’ is no doubt a deliberate attempt to introduce either ‘god’ or at least some ‘mental power’ in the universe connected to evolution. But the gesture is not legitimate: the idea of a design inference allows us to see ‘design’ but its source may or may not be an ‘intelligent mind’ but a process that mimics intelligence, perhaps, but is something different. the distinction is crucial. The idea of design suggests teleology in nature but we cannot produce theology around that. The distinction is essential because the abuse of design arguments in proofs of the existence of god has long since flunked a Kantian metaphysical test. The idea of design however cannot be dismissed using natural selection arguments and the attempt to do so has almost destroyed biological reasoning of scientists…
It may well be that there is some ‘intelligent’ power in the universe, man is one of them, and philosophers like Hegel use the term ‘geist’ (spirit, or mind) explicitly, but that is open to Kantian challenge and in any case is far more sophisticated and reasoned than creationist theologizing…
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.
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.
Some thoughts on the hatchet review of Behe’s Darwin Devolves in Science | Uncommon Descent
One wonders, do many biologists have independent ideas that Darwinism stifles? If so, they must be frustrated by the need to keep them under wraps or defend them from malign mediocrities for whom mere orthodoxy produces a living.
Source: Some thoughts on the hatchet review of Behe’s Darwin Devolves in Science | Uncommon Descent
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
A biochemist’s crusade to overturn evolution misrepresents theory and ignores evidence | Books, Et Al.
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 crea
