Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Saturday, February 09, 2019

Three Stooges "Review" Dr. Behe's New Book

The review of Dr. Behe's new book by Lents, Swamidass, and Lenski, is laughable in that not one of the authors seems to understand what Dr. Behe is saying. The strawman review

No one, not even their references demonstrate that blind and mindless processes did it. Ken Miller's example has been dismantled. And then appearance  of a "progenitor fibrinogen gene" in echinoderms is not evidence for blind and mindless processes, either.

What is wrong with you guys? You are supposed to be scientists and yet tilt against a straw man.

Exaptation? Really? Do tell how you determined that A) blind and mindless produced the parts and then B) configured them, you know, completed the exaptation.

Then they go on to gene duplication. They do not seem to realize what they are asking of blind and mindless processes. For their example the right gene, the opsin gene, building it a new binding site and then altering it in specific ways to get the result observed.

Totally. Clueless.

Dr. Behe argues against blind and mindless processes abilities to produce irreducible complexity:
Again, as I made abundantly clear at trial, it isn’t “evolution” but Darwinism — random mutation and natural selection — that ID challenges. Darwinism makes the large, crucial claim that random processes and natural selection can account for the functional complexity of life. Thus the “burden of proof” for Darwinism necessarily is to support its special claim — not simply to show that common descent looks to be true. How can a demand for Darwinism to convincingly support its express claim be “unreasonable”? 
The 19th century ether theory of the propagation of light could not be tested simply by showing that light was a wave; it had to test directly for the ether. Darwinism is not tested by studies showing simply that organisms are related; it has to show evidence for the sufficiency of random mutation and natural selection to make complex, functional systems.
See also What is Intelligent Design and what is it challenging

ETA- The paper they say shows:
Behe also ignores the fact that some of his prior arguments have been dismantled
Is 2. M. Boudry, S. Blancke, J. Braeckman, Quart. Rev. Biol. 85, 473 (2010)

And yet that paper is one long semantic quibble with absolutely no evidence that shows blind and mindless processes are capable of producing IC.


Post a Comment

<< Home