News: New book by Behe


(Matthew Pevarnik) #21

Thanks for sharing. It seems that once again Behe misses the main point of anyone’s critique of his book or articles regarding probability and the ‘edge of evolution’ and again repeats similar statements ‘low probability = bad for evolution.’

But evolution is the result of an extremely large number of ‘improbable’ events strung together. Thornton’s article is particularly helpful:

He writes:

[Behe] supposes that if each of a set of specific evolutionary outcomes has a low probability, then none will evolve. This is like saying that, because the probability was vanishingly small that the 1996 Yankees would finish 92-70 with 871 runs scored and 787 allowed and then win the World Series in six games over Atlanta, the fact that all this occurred means it must have been willed by God.

It is ridiculous for someone to come in and tell researchers that they don’t even understand their own experiments and papers but that’s what you are limited to do when involved in an anti-science thinktank. In the real world of science, those that actually do the experiments can comment on their own experiments better than anyone else. While I could provide maybe some helpful thinking to another research group, the idea of me taking their published results and correcting all of their conclusions and mechanisms is utter nonsense.


#22

Would it be fair to say that Behe thinks these adaptations could not have formed naturally?


#23

If mutations can’t produce new information then ID can’t produce new information, either. I have always found it strange that ID supporters claim that any change to a genome will cause a loss of function, and then they have a designer changing genomes and claiming that it produces new information.


(Chris) #24

No it wouldn’t.

Is that a straw man or just a lack of understanding?


(Phil) #25

Could you elaborate on your last post as to why it wouldn’t , and why you think that is a strawman argument, as I am not seeing it that way. Perhaps I am either slow or ignorant and just need some help here in understanding. Thanks.


#26

If these adaptations can form naturally, then how does Behe go about detecting design?

If changes in genome sequence can increase information, then naturally occurring mutations can increase information. Do you agree?


(Larry Bunce) #27

We who believe in EC have a lot in common with ID. bur we acknowledge that God is outside the bounds of science. ID people seem to realize that also, but believe that by calling God an “unnamed’ designer,” that science can properly include God. “Irreducible complexity” has been shown to be reducible so far, so that ID seems to be an argument from ignorance or incredulity rather than a scientific proof that God exists.


(George Brooks) #28

@aarceng

So let every Christian agree God designed Creation. Then…

If all of Creation is His, then why wouldnt God use Evolution for parts of his designed Creation?


(Chris) #29

For those who don’t understand ID if you preorder the book you get a bonus video course on ID and evolution

Video Course

Free, early-bird access to Michael Behe’s 41-episode online course on Intelligent Design and evolution.

I might sign up for that myself even though I’m YEC.


(Randy) #30

@aarceng, Chris, go for it, and give us feed back on what you think. Thanks! (also ok with me to bring any YEC stuff too).


(Chris) #31

Nathan Lents has been asked to review the book. Should be interesting since NL is no friend of ID.


(George Brooks) #32

Some have found Behe’s analogy of God’s Pool Shot scenario to be surprisingly different from what they expected from an ID theorist!


(system) #33

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.