Dear Discovery Institute,
Ben Stein is a liar. As are all individuals involved in producing the film "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". I was, unfortunately (for I lament the money I wasted and put into Ben Stein's pockets...more on that later) able to see the film earlier this week. As discussed earlier, Dawkins was quoted nicely out of context, and this is explained in an earlier blog. That wasn't even an issue comparably however.
First, apparently all scientists are atheists, or so the film seems to tell us. The only scientists they show are known atheists, and are shown saying that they are. The filmmakers ignore the 40% of scientists who are actually deeply religious. And apparently all scientists are Nazis; whenever mainstream evolutionary theorists are shown, they are shown connected to images of Nazis. This leads to a deeply offensive point. Not to mention the fact that the film messes up when it claims eugenics was based on Darwinism (it was based on Social Darwinism, not Darwinism), Ben Stein first tells us that he is Jewish, then continues to film in a room where Holocaust victims were systematically murdered in an attempt to make a political statement and show that scientists were behind the Holocaust. What offended me most was not the implied idea that scientists are behind the Holocaust, but rather that Stein had the gall and total lack of respect for his own religion that allowed him to attempt to use Holocaust victims to make a political statement. YOU DO NOT USE HOLOCAUST VICTIMS TO MAKE A POLITICAL STATEMENT. This is both deeply disrespectful and also extremely insulting.
It gets even better from here. Stein makes a point to misquote Darwin. Here's the statement he used from Darwin's Descent of Man:
"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We
civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of
elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick,
thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one
who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this
must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as
to allow his worst animals to breed."
This leaves the viewer thinking "wow, Darwin was horrible and supported eugenics". However, that is not the complete quote. Here is the part of the passage left out by Stein:
"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an
incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as
part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner
previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check
our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest
part of our nature."
Funny; it's almost as if Ben Stein were trying to quote-mine in order to make his position more defendable. What is even more hilarious is when he brings "scientists who were fired for ID" onto the film. The following website (where the Darwin quotes were pasted from; I checked the passages in my copy of The Descent of Man; they're correct) contains a good rebutal for those claims, so I won't do it here. http://alaskanbrights.blogspot.com/2008/04/review-expelled-no-intelligence-allowed.html
Even funnier is the attempt to set up a battle between science and religion within the film, right along the lines of Wedge Strategy. Thus, the ID proponents on the film are shown as Christian martyrs who are falling victim to the Evil Empire called Science. This is not the case; the movie is complete rubbish (and the filmmaking itself is horrible as well...but that's besides the point). Anyone familiar with the Wedge Strategy and Discovery Institute can see your fingerprints all over the film.
So if anyone reading this wants to kill a few brain cells, see Ben Stein's "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed". The title says it all, as no intelligent individual with a background in this topic can sit through the film without being majorly upset by the huge number of lies pushed by the film. A five-year-old with a camera phone could have made a better, more informative film than this one.
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Darwin. Show all posts
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Is there a lawyer in the house?
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today we will be looking at one of the star witnesses for the Intelligent Design movement, namely lawyer Phillip E. Johnson. With the publication of "Darwin on Trial" in 1991, Johnson instantly became a celebrity to those that would argue against evolutionary theory. Let's look at some of his works.
First, is Johnson's work consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy? Let's let his own words speak for him. The following is from his article "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism":
"There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism" (Johnson 2006 p. 32).
Johnson here precisely explains why Creationism is scientifically untenable. But Intelligent Design isn't creationism...is it? Johnson seems to think so:
"All persons who affirm that "God creates" are in an important sense creationists, even if they believe that the Genesis story is a myth and that God created gradually through evolution over billions of years" (Johnson 2006 p.28).
Johnson considers anyone who accepts the presence of a Creator, for scientific purposes especially or otherwise, a Creationist. And Johnson's entire attempt within the article cited is to overthrow "Scientific Naturalism" and replace it with a Theistic mindset, which aligns beautifully with the Wedge Strategy. Johnson's statement in "Darwin on Trial" thoroughly reveals his mindset:
"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth" (Johnson 1993 p. 133)
Telling. Can Phillip Johnson really be ignoring all evidence in favor of evolution? Not all of it. He mainly ignores the fossil record, which we will return to later. First, lets look at one of the evidences in favor of evolution that Johnson accepts:
"The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinsism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees that were the moths' habitat, the percentage of dark moths increased, because of their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as chagning conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring." (Johnson 2006 p. 24)
This is at least an admission that microevolution can occur. To see how microevolution and macroevolution can occur together in a population, refer to my discussion of ceratopsians in my fossil record blog.
What does Johnson have to say about fossils? Let's consider "Darwin on Trial":
[in reference to Darwinian Natural Selection] "There was a way to test the theoryby fossil evidence, however, if Darwin and his followers had wanted a test. Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediates must have been imense, even "inconceivable". Perhapse evidence of their existence was missing because in 1859 only a small part of the world's fossil beds had been searched, and because the explorers had not known what to look for. Once paneontologists accepted Darwinism as a working hypothesis, however, and explored many new fossil beds in an effort to confirm the theory, this situation ought to change. In time the fossil record could be expected to look very different, and very much more Darwinian.
The test would not be fair to the skeptics, however, unless it was also possible for the theory to fail. Imagine, for example, that belief in Darwin's theory were to sweep through the scientific world with such irresistible power that it very quickly beecame an orthodoxy. Suppose that the tide was so irrestible that even the most prestigious of scientists---Harvard's Louis Agassiz, for example---became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Suppose that aplentologists became so committed to the new way of thinking that fossi lstudies were published onliy hf they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absense of evolutionary change. As we shall see, that is what happened. Darwinism apparently passed the fossil test, but only because it was not allowed to fail." (Johnson 1993 p. 48)
First, evidence of stasis (periods of no evolutionary change) is published, as with Eldredge and Gould's work on Punctuated Equilibrium. Second, there are ways for evolution to fail the fossil record test. For example, show me a panda in the Permian, and you have disproven evolution. Third, evolution has passed the test. There are huge volumes of known transitional fossils (see my fossil record blog for just a few examples) available to paleontologists. It is when authors such as Johnson, who have no background in paleontology, brush past known fossil evidence in an attempt to support their ideas that there are problems with grasping the fact that the fossil record does indeed support evolutionary theory. See, for example, the following quote:
"The story to be tested is that a fish species developed the ability to climb out of the water and move on land, while evolving the peculiar reproductive system of amphibians and other amphibian features more or less concurrently. No specific fossil fish species has been identified as an amphibian ancestor, but there is an extinct order of fish known as the rhipidistians which Darwinists frequently describe as an "ancestral group" The rhipidistians have skeletal features resembling those of early amphibians, including bones that look like they could have evolved into legs. But according to Barbara J. Stahl's comprehensive textbook, "Vertebrate History", "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence od feveloping the stout limbs and ribs othat characterized the primitive tetrapods"
In 1938, a coelacanth, an ancient fish thought to have been extinct for about seventy million years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean. Many paleontologists considered the ceolacanth to be closely related to the rhipidistians, and thus a living specimen was expected to shine light on the soft body parts of the immediate ancestors of amphibians. When the modern coelacanth was dissected, however, its internal organs showed no signs of being preadapted for a land environment and gave no indication of how it might be possible for a fish to become an amphibian. The experience suggests that a rhipidistian fish might be equally disappointing to Darwinists if its soft body parts could be examined." (Johnson 1993 p.76-77).
Johnson seems to ignore transitional fossils that prove a fish ancestry for amphibians. While Tiktaalik wasn't known in 1993, Icthyostega was! Here are the transitional forms Johnson wants (see following link)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html
Kind of kills Johnson's argument. Perhaps his lack of understanding of the fossil record has clouded his judgement, or maybe he has a prior commitment to the Wedge Strategy. Either way, he aims to change the rules of science to incorporate the supernatural, a strategy I've discussed many times before. Johnson is a lawyer, and therefore good at making the most of small amounts of evidence. However, as shown by the above quote on fossils, Johnaon himself does exactly what he accuses "Darwinists" of doing, namely, warping the evidence to suit his views.
Works Cited:
Johnson, P. "Darwin on Trial". Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove. 1993
Johnson, P. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism". presented in Dembski's "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing". ISI Books, Washington. 2006. p. 23-40
Today we will be looking at one of the star witnesses for the Intelligent Design movement, namely lawyer Phillip E. Johnson. With the publication of "Darwin on Trial" in 1991, Johnson instantly became a celebrity to those that would argue against evolutionary theory. Let's look at some of his works.
First, is Johnson's work consistent with the Discovery Institute's Wedge Strategy? Let's let his own words speak for him. The following is from his article "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism":
"There are no scientific points in favor of creation and there never will be any as long as naturalists control the definition of science, because creationist explanations by definition violate the fundamental commitment of science to naturalism" (Johnson 2006 p. 32).
Johnson here precisely explains why Creationism is scientifically untenable. But Intelligent Design isn't creationism...is it? Johnson seems to think so:
"All persons who affirm that "God creates" are in an important sense creationists, even if they believe that the Genesis story is a myth and that God created gradually through evolution over billions of years" (Johnson 2006 p.28).
Johnson considers anyone who accepts the presence of a Creator, for scientific purposes especially or otherwise, a Creationist. And Johnson's entire attempt within the article cited is to overthrow "Scientific Naturalism" and replace it with a Theistic mindset, which aligns beautifully with the Wedge Strategy. Johnson's statement in "Darwin on Trial" thoroughly reveals his mindset:
"Darwinist evolution is an imaginative story about who we are and where we came from, which is to say it is a creation myth" (Johnson 1993 p. 133)
Telling. Can Phillip Johnson really be ignoring all evidence in favor of evolution? Not all of it. He mainly ignores the fossil record, which we will return to later. First, lets look at one of the evidences in favor of evolution that Johnson accepts:
"The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinsism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees that were the moths' habitat, the percentage of dark moths increased, because of their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as chagning conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring." (Johnson 2006 p. 24)
This is at least an admission that microevolution can occur. To see how microevolution and macroevolution can occur together in a population, refer to my discussion of ceratopsians in my fossil record blog.
What does Johnson have to say about fossils? Let's consider "Darwin on Trial":
[in reference to Darwinian Natural Selection] "There was a way to test the theoryby fossil evidence, however, if Darwin and his followers had wanted a test. Darwin was emphatic that the number of transitional intermediates must have been imense, even "inconceivable". Perhapse evidence of their existence was missing because in 1859 only a small part of the world's fossil beds had been searched, and because the explorers had not known what to look for. Once paneontologists accepted Darwinism as a working hypothesis, however, and explored many new fossil beds in an effort to confirm the theory, this situation ought to change. In time the fossil record could be expected to look very different, and very much more Darwinian.
The test would not be fair to the skeptics, however, unless it was also possible for the theory to fail. Imagine, for example, that belief in Darwin's theory were to sweep through the scientific world with such irresistible power that it very quickly beecame an orthodoxy. Suppose that the tide was so irrestible that even the most prestigious of scientists---Harvard's Louis Agassiz, for example---became an instant has-been for failing to join the movement. Suppose that aplentologists became so committed to the new way of thinking that fossi lstudies were published onliy hf they supported the theory, and were discarded as failures if they showed an absense of evolutionary change. As we shall see, that is what happened. Darwinism apparently passed the fossil test, but only because it was not allowed to fail." (Johnson 1993 p. 48)
First, evidence of stasis (periods of no evolutionary change) is published, as with Eldredge and Gould's work on Punctuated Equilibrium. Second, there are ways for evolution to fail the fossil record test. For example, show me a panda in the Permian, and you have disproven evolution. Third, evolution has passed the test. There are huge volumes of known transitional fossils (see my fossil record blog for just a few examples) available to paleontologists. It is when authors such as Johnson, who have no background in paleontology, brush past known fossil evidence in an attempt to support their ideas that there are problems with grasping the fact that the fossil record does indeed support evolutionary theory. See, for example, the following quote:
"The story to be tested is that a fish species developed the ability to climb out of the water and move on land, while evolving the peculiar reproductive system of amphibians and other amphibian features more or less concurrently. No specific fossil fish species has been identified as an amphibian ancestor, but there is an extinct order of fish known as the rhipidistians which Darwinists frequently describe as an "ancestral group" The rhipidistians have skeletal features resembling those of early amphibians, including bones that look like they could have evolved into legs. But according to Barbara J. Stahl's comprehensive textbook, "Vertebrate History", "None of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the earliest land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians appeared, and those that came before show no evidence od feveloping the stout limbs and ribs othat characterized the primitive tetrapods"
In 1938, a coelacanth, an ancient fish thought to have been extinct for about seventy million years, was caught by fishermen in the Indian Ocean. Many paleontologists considered the ceolacanth to be closely related to the rhipidistians, and thus a living specimen was expected to shine light on the soft body parts of the immediate ancestors of amphibians. When the modern coelacanth was dissected, however, its internal organs showed no signs of being preadapted for a land environment and gave no indication of how it might be possible for a fish to become an amphibian. The experience suggests that a rhipidistian fish might be equally disappointing to Darwinists if its soft body parts could be examined." (Johnson 1993 p.76-77).
Johnson seems to ignore transitional fossils that prove a fish ancestry for amphibians. While Tiktaalik wasn't known in 1993, Icthyostega was! Here are the transitional forms Johnson wants (see following link)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7085/abs/nature04639.html
Kind of kills Johnson's argument. Perhaps his lack of understanding of the fossil record has clouded his judgement, or maybe he has a prior commitment to the Wedge Strategy. Either way, he aims to change the rules of science to incorporate the supernatural, a strategy I've discussed many times before. Johnson is a lawyer, and therefore good at making the most of small amounts of evidence. However, as shown by the above quote on fossils, Johnaon himself does exactly what he accuses "Darwinists" of doing, namely, warping the evidence to suit his views.
Works Cited:
Johnson, P. "Darwin on Trial". Intervarsity Press, Downers Grove. 1993
Johnson, P. "Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism". presented in Dembski's "Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals who Find Darwinism Unconvincing". ISI Books, Washington. 2006. p. 23-40
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Reducing the Irreducibly Complex
Dear Discovery Institute,
Today I have been thinking about the work of Michael Behe of Lehigh University. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity appears sufficient to support Design theory, until it is critically considered at least. Today we will investigate exactly why the concept of irreducible complexity is flawed, and requires more support before it is accepted as a valid scientific concept.
First, we will critically consider some of "Darwin's Black Box", considered by many to be the seminal work (along with Philip Johnson's "Darwin On Trial") on Intelligent Design. First, Behe seems to confuse the definition of evolution (the diversification of life) with that of abiogenesis (the origin of life). Lets hear it in his own words:
evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. (Behe 2006 p.xi).
While the natural cause explanation clause is a major part of the definition of science (Behe has that statement correct),he is obviously confused about the very definition of Darwinian evolution, the theory which his entire book attempts to debunk. That fact raises major credibility questions. However, lets give Behe the benefit of the doubt for now. Let's consider his irreducibly complex structures.
Behe's poster child for irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. If this stucture can be shown to be "evolvable", then this raises major questions about the validity of irreducible complexity. NJ Matzke has done just that with his article "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum". While I suggest reading his entire piece (cited and linked below), here is the abstract of Matzke's piece, which shows exactly why the words "irreducibly complex" fail to describe the bacterial flagellum:
"The bacterial flagellum is a complex molecular system with multiple components required for functional motility. Such systems are sometimes proposed as puzzles for evolutionary theory on the assumption that selection would have no function to act on until all components are in place. Previous work (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000, A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116) has outlined the general pathways by which Darwinian mechanisms can produce multi-component systems. However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion. A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum." (Matzke 2006).
There it is, right in Matzke's article. An allegedly "irreducibly complex" structure shown to be evolvable. Science once again trumps the Intelligent Design movement. Bad arguments in favor of supposed design do not qualify as science, especially when the "designer" in question, as well as the presence of "design" itself, remains inherently untestable.
But let's play Behe's game. The blood clotting mechanism in blood is Behe's other major "irreducible complex" structure. And as with the bacterial flagellum, it is shown to be evolvable. For example, check out the work of Kenneth Miller (a good rebuttal to Behe's blood clotting argument is available on the following site, which will not be cited because it is linked within the text: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html )
On the site linked, Kenneth Miller does an absolutely beautiful job of refuting Behe's research on "irreducible complexity". It's sad that so many people have accepted Behe's concept of irreducible complexity when he has not even been able to provide an "irreducibly complex" structure that has withstood scrutiny. All of his examples have been shown to be evolvable. The argument from personal incredulity is not a valid argument to use to disprove Darwinian evolution. Strong evidence in favor of your viewpoint is provided. Behe has failed to provide this.
In conclusion, while scientists are still working to understand the exact nature of abiogenesis (the origin of life), that fact does not make Darwinian evolution false. Darwinian evolution does not attempt to explain how life arose; it only explains how it has subsequentially diversified. Those people claiming that evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the origin of life are grasping at straws. Darwinian Natural Selection, by nature, requires reproduction to occur, which, in turn, requires life to be in existance. Darwin's black box? Not quite.
Works Cited:
Behe, MJ. "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". Free Press, NY. 2006. 10th Anniversary edition.
Matzke, NJ. "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum". originally published 2003, updated 2006. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Today I have been thinking about the work of Michael Behe of Lehigh University. Behe's concept of irreducible complexity appears sufficient to support Design theory, until it is critically considered at least. Today we will investigate exactly why the concept of irreducible complexity is flawed, and requires more support before it is accepted as a valid scientific concept.
First, we will critically consider some of "Darwin's Black Box", considered by many to be the seminal work (along with Philip Johnson's "Darwin On Trial") on Intelligent Design. First, Behe seems to confuse the definition of evolution (the diversification of life) with that of abiogenesis (the origin of life). Lets hear it in his own words:
evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subsequently developed entirely by natural means. (Behe 2006 p.xi).
While the natural cause explanation clause is a major part of the definition of science (Behe has that statement correct),he is obviously confused about the very definition of Darwinian evolution, the theory which his entire book attempts to debunk. That fact raises major credibility questions. However, lets give Behe the benefit of the doubt for now. Let's consider his irreducibly complex structures.
Behe's poster child for irreducible complexity is the bacterial flagellum. If this stucture can be shown to be "evolvable", then this raises major questions about the validity of irreducible complexity. NJ Matzke has done just that with his article "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum". While I suggest reading his entire piece (cited and linked below), here is the abstract of Matzke's piece, which shows exactly why the words "irreducibly complex" fail to describe the bacterial flagellum:
"The bacterial flagellum is a complex molecular system with multiple components required for functional motility. Such systems are sometimes proposed as puzzles for evolutionary theory on the assumption that selection would have no function to act on until all components are in place. Previous work (Thornhill and Ussery, 2000, A classification of possible routes of Darwinian evolution. J Theor Biol. 203 (2), 111-116) has outlined the general pathways by which Darwinian mechanisms can produce multi-component systems. However, published attempts to explain flagellar origins suffer from vagueness and are inconsistent with recent discoveries and the constraints imposed by Brownian motion. A new model is proposed based on two major arguments. First, analysis of dispersal at low Reynolds numbers indicates that even very crude motility can be beneficial for large bacteria. Second, homologies between flagellar and nonflagellar proteins suggest ancestral systems with functions other than motility. The model consists of six major stages: export apparatus, secretion system, adhesion system, pilus, undirected motility, and taxis-enabled motility. The selectability of each stage is documented using analogies with present-day systems. Conclusions include: (1) There is a strong possibility, previously unrecognized, of further homologies between the type III export apparatus and F1F0-ATP synthetase. (2) Much of the flagellum’s complexity evolved after crude motility was in place, via internal gene duplications and subfunctionalization. (3) Only one major system-level change of function, and four minor shifts of function, need be invoked to explain the origin of the flagellum; this involves five subsystem-level cooption events. (4) The transition between each stage is bridgeable by the evolution of a single new binding site, coupling two pre-existing subsystems, followed by coevolutionary optimization of components. Therefore, like the eye contemplated by Darwin, careful analysis shows that there are no major obstacles to gradual evolution of the flagellum." (Matzke 2006).
There it is, right in Matzke's article. An allegedly "irreducibly complex" structure shown to be evolvable. Science once again trumps the Intelligent Design movement. Bad arguments in favor of supposed design do not qualify as science, especially when the "designer" in question, as well as the presence of "design" itself, remains inherently untestable.
But let's play Behe's game. The blood clotting mechanism in blood is Behe's other major "irreducible complex" structure. And as with the bacterial flagellum, it is shown to be evolvable. For example, check out the work of Kenneth Miller (a good rebuttal to Behe's blood clotting argument is available on the following site, which will not be cited because it is linked within the text: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/DI/Clotting.html )
On the site linked, Kenneth Miller does an absolutely beautiful job of refuting Behe's research on "irreducible complexity". It's sad that so many people have accepted Behe's concept of irreducible complexity when he has not even been able to provide an "irreducibly complex" structure that has withstood scrutiny. All of his examples have been shown to be evolvable. The argument from personal incredulity is not a valid argument to use to disprove Darwinian evolution. Strong evidence in favor of your viewpoint is provided. Behe has failed to provide this.
In conclusion, while scientists are still working to understand the exact nature of abiogenesis (the origin of life), that fact does not make Darwinian evolution false. Darwinian evolution does not attempt to explain how life arose; it only explains how it has subsequentially diversified. Those people claiming that evolutionary theory is sufficient to explain the origin of life are grasping at straws. Darwinian Natural Selection, by nature, requires reproduction to occur, which, in turn, requires life to be in existance. Darwin's black box? Not quite.
Works Cited:
Behe, MJ. "Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution". Free Press, NY. 2006. 10th Anniversary edition.
Matzke, NJ. "Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum". originally published 2003, updated 2006. http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)