Every few years the world of the supporters of Intelligent Design becomes ecstatic when the founding father of their thought liberating movement – Dr. Michael Behe – publishes a new book against Darwinism…Due to that, apparently some churches’ records show an increased mass attendance, confessions, donations…etc. It is almost as if one the apostles of Jesus Christ wrote another book of the Bible even though Behe clams his publications are not religious but rather scientific…
But not everyone is celebrating… Does this mean the end of evolution?
The Intelligent Design movement has many powerful enemies who not only represent the opposite to ID, or atheistic (materialism), views of life origins. Some even claim to support intelligent design…of sort, as long as that design also includes evolution…Confused? Wait until the debate gets heated… 😉
So, what’s this book kerfuffle all about, one might ask?
Well, in short: some of most profound world views are colliding…again… as Behe and many of his comrades at the Discovery Institute also had published many books and papers in the past.
The Three Musketeers of neo-Darwinism, or some sort of theistic evolutionary theory, involved in the upcoming debate are represented by:
Dr. Richard Lenski – an experimental scientist who claims to have achieved an equivalency of millions of years of human evolution by growing bacteria in the lab for the last 25 years…
Dr. Nathan Lents – Professor of Biology, John Jay College; Admin, The Human Evolution Blog; Blogger, Psychology Today; Author of “Not So Different” and “Human Errors.”
Dr. S. Joshua Swamidass, MD PhD, a professor at Washington University in Saint Louis, the confessing scientists and a Christian, who some believe became “the devil’s advocate” in order to defeat the enemy of true science (in this case represented by neo-Darwinism or evolution) the intelligent design movement and its founding father Michael Behe…
Today, February 7th at 2 pm, of unknown time zone, “the circus” (as Swamidass described it) of the differing worldviews will have begun; the three musketeers against the lone ranger, Dr. Michael Behe, PhD- Professor of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania.
What’s at stake? Some might agree that everything…
The subject of the first stage of “the circus” and the major speck in the eyes of the three musketeers representing evolution is the book by Michal Behe:
Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA That Challenges Evolution
This article criticizing Behe’s book and the discussion blog will appear at Science Magazine:
It should be entertaining 😉 I hope to be a small part of it… Some of my colleagues promised to join in as well…
Let the hunger games of Evolution vs ID begin!!! 😉
It looks like Darwinism is crumbling… Even Lenski admits it…
“…Behe is right that mutations that break or blunt a gene can be adaptive. And he’s right that, when such mutations are adaptive, they are easy to come by. But Behe is wrong when he implies these facts present a problem for evolutionary biology, because his thesis confuses frequencies over the short run with lasting impacts over the long haul of evolution…”
Well, this is awkward.
I guess none of you guys saw fit to let Behe know about
““apo B gene knockout in mice results in embryonic lethality in homozygotes and neural tube defects, male infertility, and reduced HDL cholesterol ester and apo A-I transport rates in heterozygotes.
Huang LS1, Voyiaziakis E, Markenson DF, Sokol KA, Hayek T, Breslow JL.”
He is still touting [Farese et al] for the effect of an ApoB “knock-out” in mice. Oh dear. That confirms my suspicion that he grabbed his Farese citation from wikipedia in a fit of desperation.
You guys should really try and help him out a bit…
Interesting but not to me personally…
Here is the thing: if the original paper published in Cell is built on false assumptions, does it really matter what your suspicious-but-charming speculations are?
There is no doubt now the polar bear’s lack of pigment in hair follicle cells is due to 2 damaging gene mutations. Do you agree or disagree?
If the ApoB protein science is built on strawman, as it looks to be, what’s left? 😉