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!!! 😉
Are you having a stroke? Would you like someone to call the emergency services?
Thank you!
Here is the quote:
” All of these worlds would be peculiar.
The helium abundance would be incomprehensible from the usual arguments. In all of
these worlds statistically miraculous (but not impossible) events would be necessary to
assemble and preserve the fragile nuclei that would ordinarily be destroyed by the higher temperatures. However, although each of the corresponding histories is extremely unlikely, there are so many more of them than those that evolve without “miracles,” that they would vastly dominate the livable universes that would be created by Poincare recurrences.
We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would beextraordinarily unlikely.
What then are the alternatives? We may reject the interpretation of de Sitter space
based on complementarity. For example, an evolution of the causal patch based on standard Hamiltonian quantum mechanics may be wrong. What would replace it is a completemystery.
Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened in the evolution, and for reasonsof its own restarted the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation. However, even this does not rid the theory of the pesky recurrences.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/2054085_Disturbing_Implications_of_a_Cosmological_Constant
Looks like Jerry Coyne has joined the three musketeers in the debate…
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/09/scientists-damn-behes-new-book-he-responds-lamely/
But it looks like he will “do the killing” of Darwin Devolves book on Darwin Day or may be on Valentine’s Day:
“I won’t list the many examples of adaptations based on non-broken genes, which involve far more than duplications (such examples can involve simple amino acid substitutions), but more about that later. In the meantime, the thin-skinned Behe is crowing like a rooster, failing to notice that behind that irascible old rooster is a farmer with an axe and a hunger for chicken stew.”
It seems that all the musketeers have the killer evidence to crush Behe’s claims in Darwin Devolves book but they always seem to find excuses not to reveal them NOW. They seem to prefer to resort to insults instead…
This makes me even more suspicious about Darwinism… I think it’s a conspiracy…😉
Over at PS, Rum is making a pretty good case against “directed mutations”…
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/darwin-devolves-the-end-of-evolution/4270/53
If it is true that most mutations are random, nobody will remember his argument tomorrow… But if at least 25% of mutations turn out to be “directed” , he has provided his own rope for his beliefs of evolutionary theory by blind unintelligent processes by including the staggering complexity for the mechanism and information that giuded mutations would require…
Great job, Rum 😉
Just a side point:
Peaceful Science is not as peaceful anymore and they would like to name names…
Who can blame them? All the anonymous members of the peacekeeping troops are the main distraction and destruction of peace after all, including, as it appears to be the case of our homegrown Mung…
I think Dr. Trashitata is concerned that anonymous commentators are hurting his case of him being out of touch with reality…would be my take…
Well, you decide for yourself! And, if you live in Canada, don’t forget that commenting under the influence of narcotics, like marihuana, makes you impaired to drive, but not to comment at PS…
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/anonymity-and-peaceful-science/4372
It looks like Dr. Swamidass dug out some dirt regarding ID to help his case to become a successful scientist or something…
I guess he doesn’t have much faith in his science after all… pity…
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/a-new-deal-for-intelligent-design/4300/2
It appears to be the case peaceful science became a political movement just like Gregory may have mentioned it in the past…
Seems like your illiteracy doesn’t help you understand that Swamidass is arguing that ID could become less political and more scientific. I disagree with him, but he’s trying to help ID out, not harm it.
Out of interest, what’s your citation record?
As promised by Dr. Swamidass the much anticipated “circus” over the review of Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves had begun…
Over at Evolution News, John G. West suggests:
“Darwinists Devolve: Review by Swamidass, Lenski, and Lents Borders on Fraud”
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/darwinists-devolve-review-by-swamidass-lenski-and-lents-borders-on-fraud/
I was intrigued by this charge and actually read the review and all the links…
I’m going to wait for Behe’s more detailed response to see how bad the three musketeers’ review really is…If it is half as bad as West is insinuating, I’m willing to bet all the change I have in my pockets that the review will be retracted or it wiil be called to be retracted…
He has cited lots of people!
As promised by Dr. Swamidass the much anticipated “circus” over the review of Behe’s new book Darwin Devolves continues…
Out of three musketeers, 2 active ones, Swamidass and Lents, have been really busy trying to convince their followers that peace, including peace with ID, is all they have at heart…They even Apply for Discovery Insitute’s 2019 Summer Seminar…
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/lents-and-swamidass-apply-for-discovery-insitutes-2019-summer-seminar/4435
After Lents’ latest book Human Errors i.e. bad design = no designer failed to convince many, including Swamidass, they might as well attend…Behe might teach them few things, including how to read….papers…
Speaking of reading with comprehension, the two musketeers seem to have found some “golden nugget errors” in Behe’s book:
The Polar Bear adaptations: “albinism” and Apolipoprotein B-the so-called bad cholesterol carrier…
When I first read it, I thought I misunderstood something, but no…
The two musketeers really seem to believe that polar bears are white and fat is bad…😉
What will you do when it turns out West is as big a lying jackass as Behe and Kinkyfluffer and the rest of DI’s paid staff of clowns?
Definitely worth a look.
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-and-the-polar-bears-fat/4473
I’m curious to see how well Behe reacts to the queries raised so far. I’m also waiting to learn the next of several criticisms that Nathan Lents has lined up. If it’s as solid as polar bear fat, it should be fun.
BTW Kudos to Art Hunt.
I totally forgot to link it…
Thanks for doing it! 🙂
I’m going to take B) “He won’t understand the relevance and it won’t change a thing”
Behe is a smart. He wouldn’t have made claims he couldn’t defend well… If he needs some help, I happen to know someone who makes his very comfortable living by knowing these issues… 😉
Looks like Coyne is getting into the same hysteria…
Oh, boy! He can’t read too?
This is going to be circus the soleil EV vs ID …lol
https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2019/02/13/scientist-scrutinizes-just-two-examples-in-behes-new-book-finds-them-deeply-misleading/
But Coyne, Swamidass et al. are not circling the wagons!
That is so very true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District
He can defend that claim very well indeed.
Furthermore in response to a question about astrology he explained: “Under my definition, a scientific theory is a proposed explanation which focuses or points to physical, observable data and logical inferences. There are many things throughout the history of science which we now think to be incorrect which nonetheless … would fit that definition. Yes, astrology is in fact one, and so is the ether theory of the propagation of light, and … many other theories as well.”
Who?
So you can attend a DI event only if you’re friendly with ID?
And can pay your own way.
And are not drinking meths.
They have a mutual enemy: ID and Behe the archenemy…
They probably decided to forget about their differences in the battle for the greater good-Evolution guided of not…😁
I’m not ID friendly: not with common descent…guided or not…
So, you’re trying to justify keeping Darwinism on life support because…?
Nobody you know…He does his “killing” after Darwin’s Day…subtly though…😉
Again! In English this time…
The musketeers are very confident about their delusion of “white” polar bears…🤣
If they see white polar bears, maybe they will see cholesterol for what it really is? Isn’t Swamidass an MD? He should know the truth about it…one would hope…😉
What colour is snow? What colour is ice?
When you have the strength to face what happened in that courtroom I’ll be here, ready to discuss it with you.
Then I asked “who” and you responded:
So why mention this person at all if you are not willing to say who they are? What purpose does it serve? It’s almost as if you are bluffing….
Allusions to hidden truths. A good few points right there on the revised scale…
Good point! But I expected more from someone knowledgeable like you… 😉
So, is the polar bear “white” because its hair follicle cells produce white or off-white pigment? Or is it white/off-white, or it only appears to be white/off-white because its hair follicle cells stopped making pigment?
I tend not to trust the science based on the knowledge of court Judges…
After all the best evidence against irreducible complexity, the broken mousetrap used as a tie-clip, was recognized as empirical evidence by judge Jones…
I’ve heard that since then judge Jones has been getting a lot of broken mousetraps in packaged in tie-clip boxes as gifts with notes like:
Do not use until evolution fully complete!
Stories like that gotta be true… 🙂
You too!
The hairs are clear and hollow.
OK.
What about the brown bear?
They have pigmented hair.
Oh, the suspense. What comes next?
So, what’s the conclusion regarding polar bears hair?
No suspense! 😉
What would you have done or said differently?
Jesus stole the pigment? And I know how he did it, he used the quantum.
Oh! IT’S A LOSS OF FUNCTION!
Brilliant. Now do the polar bear’s skin. It’s jet black. Grizzly bears have pink skin
ETA: And don’t forget APOB. I believe that’s what was discussed mostly.
😉
Behe responded:
https://evolutionnews.org/2019/02/coyne-and-polar-bears-why-you-should-never-rely-on-incompetent-reviewers/
The two musketeers are panicking but they try to keep their embarrassment under control by distraction…
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/behe-responding-to-the-polar-bears-fat/4530/42
I would bet all my change $29.76 that whoever made the decision to publish the review of Darwin Devolves book in Science will be looking for a new job or the review will be retracted or both…
When there is will, there is a way” especially when the enemy threatens the most cherished beliefs-evolution.
Jerry Coyne just joined Peaceful Science…
Welcome to Dr. Jerry Coyne
https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/welcome-to-dr-jerry-coyne/4545
I have a feeling that Coyne might be embarrassed that he had based his own OP on the two musketeers’ humiliating bear evolution review failure and wants to cheer them up with the talking cat stories…
Well, we will certainly not see any evidence to counterargument Behe’s rebuttal…😉
That’s awfully nice, but I didn’t ask him.
Apolipoprotein B appears to provide a framework for lipoprotein particles and acts as a ligand. Do you agree with Behe that polar bears adapted to a high-cholestrol diet by degrading one or more of the molecular functions of APOB?
Also, how do you suppose that polar bears acquired black skin? It could not have been achieved by degrading the function of proteins involved in pigmentation, like what happened for their fur, right?
It sure appears to be the case to some… but how would you prove it or disprove it?
Yes and no…
Once again an IDer sits on the fence.
Can’t be shown to be wrong if you never make a claim!