Comment history

Biologist speaks for intelligent design

calvin wrote:
"It is always fun to see the same people making the same old worn out arguments everytime the LJW has a 'newsworthy' article about this subject of ID vs Macro-evolution. Only one of the theories makes sense and is what I believe, but honestly who cares? But kudos to the LJW crew for trying to keep the topic alive!"

We'll stop making our 'old worn out arguments' when the IDC crowd quits taking the same 'old worn out arguments' out of the creationist literature and does something genuinely useful. Like something scientific.

There's no point in making up shiny new refutations of the IDC claims when the 'old worn out arguments' make mincemeat out of them perfectly well.

December 8, 2006 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Biologist speaks for intelligent design


<I havent read this guys book, but he seems like a smart person.>

Yes, he's smart, he's just foolish and stubborn. And he has a bit of a problem in the area of honesty.

<Unlike some other hard-core, religious, neo-christian fundamentalist wackos, he at least accepts the obvious truth that evolution exists on some level...>

Not really. He acknowledges the existence of what creationists call 'micro-evolution', but most creationists do as well. Just as creationists do, he denies the possibility of speciation and the development of novel features (called 'macro-evolution' by creationists)

<JUST LIKE every good scientist must have a bit of recognition in the complexity of biology on a spiritual level.>

I disagree. I am a Catholic and what some people would describe as a 'theistic evolutionist', but I see no intrinsic need on the part of biology for spirituality, any more than I see a need for it in plate tectonics or beer brewing. I may CHOOSE to view the biological world in a spiritual light, but that does not make biology as a science dependant on spiritual belief.

<As far a public schools are concerned - keep intellignet design where it belongs - in a theology class or at sunday school.>

Well, I certainly agree with you there. I also would not be worried about seeing it in a comparitive religion class, but I think it would be irrellevant in such a setting: it depends on evolutionary theory to act as a foil against: it has no utility otherwise. Perhaps in a Philosophy of Science class.

December 8, 2006 at 11:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Biologist speaks for intelligent design

craigers wrote:
<kestrel, how does gene duplication create anything but a replica of the other gene, not a gene with a completely different function?>

It starts out as a duplicate. Through further variations and, as I mentioned co-option, it is utilized for another function. For in-depth explanation, I'd suggest reading "Endless Forms Most Beautiful" by Sean Carrol or search the TalkOrigin archives.

December 8, 2006 at 10:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Biologist speaks for intelligent design

craigers wrote:

<How can we have A, then gradually adapt to having AB and so on until ABCD occurs when evolution says we change in order to be better suited for our environment and the individual parts are useless until we have the end product ABCD.>

Brush up on the concepts of co-option & gene duplication. One can go from A, to AE, to AEF, to ACE, to ABCE, to ABCDE, to ABCD, retaining and improving function at each step and arriving at an apparently "irreducably complex" result. This has been made painfully clear to Behe on numerous occasions. He prefers to maintain his fantasy and ignore logic.

December 8, 2006 at 9:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Biologist speaks for intelligent design

It should be pointed out that Behe is NOT a professor of biology and has no significant training or research background in evoloutionary biology. He is a professor of biochemistry, a significantly different dicipline. It was due to that shallowness of knowledge concerning biology that his arguments were completely and embarrassingly dismantled in Dover.

December 8, 2006 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )