“this literature was far more scientifically substantive than the usual caricature, and this drove me to immerse myself in the scientific literature of evolutionary biology to see if it was as convincing as usually portrayed.” Um, yes. And the longer such critiques can be evaded rather than addressed, the more substantive they will be.
Darwin Devolves is currently #8 in Developmental Biology at Amazon.
es, in one phrase, Mazur, author of Darwin Overthrown: Hello Mechanobiology, captures the problem: “he doesn’t define it.” Much Darwinism today survives on the fumes of “evolution” in general.
You’d never guess from his career that thinking the universe shows evidence of design would ruin science. How did he escape Darwin’s thugs?
Possibly, but maybe it’s inherently fuzzy. Meanwhile, an update on Adam Becker’s attack on Inference Review as an ID-friendly rag; Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder weigh in.
Media personality and author Eric Metaxas interviews philosopher of science Steve Meyer, author of Darwin’s Doubt and Signature in the Cell: According to a nationwide survey, more than two-thirds of atheists and one-third of agnostics believe that “the findings of science make the existence of God less probable,” while nearly half of self-identified theists believe […]
The problem here isn’t that Behe is necessarily right in each case. He’s more like a whistleblower. He might be wrong in some cases – but not by enough that it matters! That’s what makes a person expungible.
In a review, one reviewer has decided to talk about what Michael Behe actually says in Darwin Devolves. For example, In a section called “The Blind Metaphor,” Behe notes: “The primary way by which natural selection makes evolution self-limiting is by promoting poison-pill mutations. Whatever genetic alterations that help an organism survive and reproduce better […]
The fact that the attack is incompetent is its strength, not its weakness. It shows the social power of Darwinism, irrespective of intellectual force. Most Science readers will probably go with social power. It gives them the right to sneer, right or wrong. Intellectual force requires a basis. Note: Social power is a form of living on capital. When it’s gone, it’s gone.
One wonders, do many biologists have independent ideas that Darwinism stifles? If so, they must be frustrated by the need to keep them under wraps or defend them from malign mediocrities for whom mere orthodoxy produces a living.
Well, somebody out there must think Behe worth hearing. At 8:00 pm EST February 11, 2019, the book was #1 in Developmental Biology. Ships on February 26.
In American Association for the Advancement of Science’s magazine, Science, we read, In the grand scheme of evolution, mutations serve only to break structures and degrade functions, Behe argues. He allows that mutation and natural selection can explain species- and genus-level diversification, but only through the degradation of genes. Something else, he insists, is required for […]
Paul Copan: Science has built-in limitations, but some moderns have placed a burden on science that it cannot—and was never meant to—bear. Theology, philosophy, and other sources of knowledge not only help supplement what science can show, but they can also enrich our study of science.
One outcome of morality becoming an uninspiring talkshop is that massive breaches of ethics are more difficult to address except in terms of the commotion they create, as opposed to the truths they violate or the individuals they harm.
When Nature’s Books and Arts editor Barbara Kiser’stop five for 2018 came out, #s 1 and 2 were Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray by Sabine Hossenfelder on the troubled state of theoretical physics, of which Kiser says, Lost in Math is a firecracker of a book—a shot across the bows of theoretical physics. […]