The Three Musketeers vs D’Artagnan

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:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/363/6427/590

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/books/2019/02/07/darwin-devolves/

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!!! 😉

287 Replies to “The Three Musketeers vs D’Artagnan”

  1. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac:
    I say no. Human eye design is optimal.. because of QM, which clearly makes Lents no really qualified to be the critic or Behe’s book…

    I know that your point was ad hominem, attacking Lents “credentials” in quantum mechanics, despite quantum mechanics in the eye have nothing to do with Behe’s bullshit. I still find it hilarious that you think that there’s quantum mechanical vision optimization going on in the blind spot, and, even more hilarious, that you’ll never be able to reach the prior sentences and understand them.

  2. colewd
    Ignored
    says:

    Entropy,

    have nothing to do with Behe’s bullshit.

    Can you help me understand why you think his claims are bullshit?

  3. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I don’t think so…but here is the an interesting prospective:

    If Behe believes in some kind of common descent but doesn’t believe Darwinian processes are responsible forthe descent with modifications other than by breaking genes or decreasing gene functions, how has the descent with modification happened? Did God/ID really guided it? Or, is there something Behe doesn’t know?

    That has the makings of a good question.

  4. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Corneel: I’ve told you once.

    J-Mac: So further discussion with you is pointless, just like with Entropy?
    Thanks!!!

    It’s a joke. A Monty Python reference.

  5. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    Here it is again

    New mutations. Imagine how much variation you’d need in a population if you front-loaded it with genes for everything.

  6. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Natural Selection doesn’t do anything. It’s a filler term for our ignorance of what really happened. Now, while I agree that ignorance can cause many things, evolution is not one of them.

    What caused those particular alleles to increase in frequency.

    Natural Selection (hand-waving furiously). It boils down to stuff happens.

    We also invoke other processes like:

    1. Mendelian segregation of genes
    2. Brownian Motion of particles in solution
    3. Erosion

    … and so on. Are these vacuous processes? Is it a waste of time for scientists to invoke them? Model them?

    This issue has come up, and I’ve invoked these points in response, about half a dozen times here. The response from ID advocates and creationists here?

    Crickets.

  7. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Entropy,

    Can you help me understand why you think his claims are bullshit?

    Translation: he doesn’t like the claims an yet he thinks QM in human eye is an interesting concept…

  8. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel: So Behe is wrong to claim that “natural selection itself acts as a powerful de-volutionary force”?

    Don’t have the book yet. But I disagree with the whole “devolution” approach. Devolution is evolution.

  9. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Behe said it. I believe it. That settles it!

  10. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Joe Felsenstein: We also invoke other processes like:

    1. Mendelian segregation of genes
    2. Brownian Motion of particles in solution
    3. Erosion

    Are you saying we don’t know the causes behind these processes?

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/phc3.12319

  11. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Don’t have the book yet. But I disagree with the whole “devolution” approach. Devolution is evolution.

    It is micro-evolution within some “kinds” mainly by breaking genes or decreasing gene functions…no new body plans evolve…

  12. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    colewd:
    Can you help me understand why you think his claims are bullshit?

    I don’t know if I can help you understand. But I can give it a try if you’re willing to try and keep up. What say you?

  13. Joe Felsenstein Joe Felsenstein
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: Are you saying we don’t know the causes behind these processes?

    It sounds as if you are saying that we don’t know “causes” behind differences between genotypes in fitness. That it is somehow a mystery, and maybe not a process that can be used in scientific descriptions of changes in genotype frequencies in populations.

    And you seem to be saying that whether or not you can use the word “cause” somehow decides whether or not a process should be used in a scientific explanation.

  14. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    The Two out of Three Musketeers already promise more writing regarding their rebuttal of Behe’s Darwin Devolves when they have more space to write…

    Really?! Why did they write the first rebuttal for? To conceal the rabbit they are now going to miraculously pull out the hat? 😉

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/darwin-devolves-the-end-of-evolution/4270/28

    Will 1000 words of avoidance to address Behe’s main point of the book help in any way?
    Behe is celebrating at evolution news: Woo-hoo!

    The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution: Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring. The rule summarizes the fact that the overwhelming tendency of random mutation is to degrade genes, and that very often is helpful. Thus natural selection itself acts as a powerful de-volutionary force, increasing helpful broken and degraded genes in the population.

    And they had no response! That’s because there is in fact nothing that can alleviate that fatal flaw in Darwinism. Much more to come soon.

    Much, more to come …😉

  15. Gregory Gregory
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    Behe said it. I believe it. That settles it!

    LOL! I’ve met people like this. A few of them at the DI itself. Behe’s recent response on ENV, as Lents said, does strangely sound a lot like it came from David Klinghoffer, one of the most repulsive figures in the IDM. Behe’s life & career are defined now by his ideological IDism. Can’t imagine that he sees another way out anymore. Pay checks they’ll give him from evangelical coffers into his retirement. Sad dependent kitten.

  16. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    Allan Miller:
    Here it is again

    New mutations. Imagine how much variation you’d need in a population if you front-loaded it with genes for everything.

    It’s almost as if they’re about to claim that most of the human genome is junk because god-did-it “good” before, and now it’s more than 80% degraded (or whatever % that might be). That would be interesting backpedaling on junk DNA.

    Let’s see, then the ancestor of humans, gorillas, and chimps had many more genes than the three species together. The ancestor in common between the great apes and old-world monkeys many more genes than all of those two groups together, and so on. Our intelligence is therefore due to the degradation of genes for being not-so-intelligent, and that prior state of less intelligence was “good.” It’s almost as if Behe doesn’t think of the implications of his bullshit.

  17. CharlieM CharlieM
    Ignored
    says:

    Corneel:

    Mung: The Designer is a woman. You think women want to go through child birth more often?

    We are created in her image.

    I’ve got her nipples to prove it 🙂

  18. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    Behe said it. I believe it. That settles it!

    Not everything Behe says you should necessarily believe or settle for…I don’t…
    Some type of common descent, as Behe believes it, still requires verification…whether it be an unknown mechanism or God/ID guiding it…

    Too me, it all boils down to information…If a lifesystem has a preset or preprogrammed information “source”, as per the law of conservation of quantum information, then it can only evolve within the limits of the conservation of information…

    This idea could be tested…

  19. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    Gregory: LOL! I’ve met people like this.

    I am seriously considering moving to Pennsylvania when I retire. 😉

  20. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    CharlieM:

    We are created in her image.

    I’ve got her nipples to prove it

    Best answer in this thread so far.
    😀

  21. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I am seriously considering moving to Pennsylvania when I retire. 😉

    What’s the climate like in the winter? I hate too rainfall …

  22. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    The opening lines are hilarious:

    In 1996, biochemist Michael Behe introduced the notion of “irreducible complexity,” arguing that some biomolecular structures could not have evolved because their functionality requires interacting parts, the removal of any one of which renders the entire apparatus defective. This claim excited creationists and remains a central plank of the “intelligent design” movement, despite being rightly rejected by a U.S. federal judge in 2005 in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.

  23. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: What’s the climate like in the winter?I hate too rainfall …

    I much like rainfall moderation in.

  24. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Looks like Darwin Devolves scored another field goal!😁

    The Three Musketeers have used circular reasoning to criticize Behe’s book…
    In short, first they assumed that changes in life systems are the result of evolution and therefore they are proof of evolution and by the same token they refute Behe’s claims in the book…
    How do you like that? Great catch Brian Miller!

    https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/first-review-of-darwin-devolves-relies-heavily-on-circular-reasoning/

    If I had read the article, maybe I would have noticed that bomb by the musketeers too…🤣

    Whatta bloody joke that article by the three musketeers is!

  25. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    I suspect that Lenski was recruited merely to lend an aura of legitimacy that would have otherwise been entirely lacking.

  26. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    I suspect that Lenski was recruited merely to lend an aura of legitimacy that would have otherwise been entirely lacking.

    I agree! He is the only one of the three musketeers that has actually done some real experimental work… proving Behe’s point that whatever Darwinism can accomplish, it would be degraded…Bacteria are still bacteria after 66,000 generations…

  27. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: I am seriously considering moving to Pennsylvania when I retire.

    Erie has good tomatoes and corn. The winter is cold but the summers are nice. Nice turf to hit golf balls off of.

  28. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: I agree! He is the only one of the three musketeers that has actually done some real experimental work… proving Behe’s point that whatever Darwinism can accomplish, it would be degrade

    What is the experimental work detecting the designer in action?

  29. Mung Mung
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: Erie has good tomatoes and corn. The winter is cold but the summers are nice. Nice turf to hit golf balls off of.

    What about grapes!?

  30. Alan Fox Alan Fox
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung:
    I suspect that Lenski was recruited merely to lend an aura of legitimacy that would have otherwise been entirely lacking.

    Do you really think that? I doubt Lenski was coerced into co-authorship.

  31. Allan Miller
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac,

    Bacteria are still bacteria after 66,000 generations…

    Bacteria are still bacteria after 3.8 billion years. But, like, so what?

  32. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    Mung: What about grapes!?

    Lots As you travel toward Northeast and into NY state. And apples in the fall. Low taxes. A slower pace of life.

  33. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: first they assumed that changes in life systems are the result of evolution and therefore they are proof of evolution and by the same token they refute Behe’s claims in the book

    Then I presume the changes in life systems are in fact due to Intelligent Design? When can I expect a book to come out making that case?

  34. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    newton: What is the experimental work detecting the designer in action?

    The accelerated expansion of the universe…Do you need details? Or you will figure it out yourself what miraculous action by the Designer is involved?

  35. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Then I presume the changes in life systems are in fact due to Intelligent Design? When can I expect a book to come out making that case?

    Pardon?!
    The OP is about the book…Do you need a link? Or will you be able to scroll to the top of the page and find it yourself?

  36. Entropy Entropy
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The Three Musketeers have used circular reasoning to criticize Behe’s book…
    In short, first they assumed that changes in life systems are the result of evolution …

    Behe makes the very same assumption, only he cherry-picks “degrading” mutations and assumes them to be the product of evolution. I’d guess then that in Brian’s view it’s valid to assume that evolution is involved if the examples help the ID bullshit, but not if they contradict the ID bullshit. Otherwise, why doesn’t Behe conclude that his imaginary friend in the sky designed degradations, instead of claiming that evolution degrades?

    Since Behe selects degradations as evolutionary products, then Behe is the one using circular reasoning. He rejects evolutionary examples and trajectories to new traits because he’s already assuming them to be the products of a magical being in the sky.

    What were you saying about hypocrisy J-Mac?

  37. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: Pardon?!
    The OP is about the book…Do you need a link? Or will you be able to scroll to the top of the page and find it yourself?

    A) You barely respond in your own OP’s threads
    B) When you do it’s barely on topic.

    So feel free to use your pretend outrage to not answer the question. It’s fooling nobody.

  38. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The accelerated expansion of the universe…Do you need details?

    So that is evidence for the designer in action?

    Yes, I’d like some details.

    J-Mac: Or you will figure it out yourself what miraculous action by the Designer is involved?

    How do you know it’s miraculous?
    If newton does not believe in the Intelligent Designer, why will newton be able to figure it out? Why don’t you just say?

  39. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: A) You barely respond in your own OP’s threads
    B) When you do it’s barely on topic.

    So feel free to use your pretend outrage to not answer the question. It’s fooling nobody.

    Oh! My! again?!😉

  40. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: How do you know it’s miraculous?

    The scientists came to this conclusion…not creationists..they were disturbed by the findings as you and newton would be…

    Disturbing Implications of a Cosmological Constant

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2054085_Disturbing_Implications_of_a_Cosmological_Constant

  41. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    It looks like one of the three musketeers, Dr. Lents, will “do the killing” of Darwin Devolves on his religious holiday, Darwin Day. It looks like he needs some supernatural inspiration to address the main theme of Behe’s book: Darwinism is dead…

    https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/darwin-devolves-the-end-of-evolution/4270/41

    I’m pretty sure that with this extra support he can resurrect the he long dead ideology with the much needed life support…😉

  42. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The scientists came to this conclusion…not creationists..they were disturbed by the findings as you and newton would be…

    I ,for one, would be glad for someone to actually propose a specific theory of how the Universe or life or the flagellum was designed, so that might be tested, compared to existing theories.

    The paper seems to be more asking questions, which finding do you think might be disturbing?

  43. newton
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The accelerated expansion of the universe…Do you need details?

    So if the Universe was not expanding as quickly or was static or was contracting it would be experimental evidence against a designed Universe?

    Yes, if you could flesh it out, I would appreciate it. Only designed Universe have increasing acceleration of expansion because…?

    How does the designer cause the expansion of space?

    What is design theory’s position on the Big Rip?

    Or you will figure it out yourself what miraculous action by the Designer is involved?

  44. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: The scientists came to this conclusion…not creationists..they were disturbed by the findings as you and newton would be…

    Provide a quotation that uses the word “miracle” then.

  45. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: It looks like he needs some supernatural inspiration to address the main theme of Behe’s book: Darwinism is dead…

    Great. Darwinism is dead. Slow hand claps all round. Now what?

  46. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Provide a quotation that uses the word “miracle” then.

    If I do, will you leave me alone?

  47. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Great. Darwinism is dead. Slow hand claps all round. Now what?

    Are you asking me, “now what”?
    You gonna have to find yourself another set of beliefs… or a hobby…Knitting is supposed to be relaxing…
    Just don’t try to become a YEC! Byers alone is good enough for me…😉

  48. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: If I do, will you leave me alone?

    Click “ignore”.

  49. OMagain
    Ignored
    says:

    J-Mac: You gonna have to find yourself another set of beliefs… or a hobby…Knitting is supposed to be relaxing…

    I don’t believe in “Darwinism” in the same way you evidently believe in “design” so that’s not going to happen.

    Rather, I was asking now that you’ve killed “Darwinism” what do you propose replacing it with? Ramblings about “the quantum” perhaps?

  50. J-Mac
    Ignored
    says:

    OMagain: Great. Darwinism is dead. Slow hand claps all round. Now what?

    Are you asking me, “now what”?
    You gonna have to find yourself another set of beliefs… or a hobby…Knitting is supposed to be relaxing…
    Just don’t try to become a YEC! Byers alone is good enough for me…😉

    newton: I ,for one, would be glad for someone to actually propose a specific theory of how the Universeor life or the flagellum was designed, so that might be tested, compared to existing theories.

    The paper seems to be more asking questions, which finding do you think might be disturbing?

    OMagain! Howmany times do I have to repeat this?!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.