This is in connection, of course, with his new book, A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics which, by the way, is: Best Sellers Rank: #7,155 in Kindle Store 2 in Biochemistry Science 4 in Biochemistry (Books) 4 in Evolution (Kindle Store)It’s nice to see that, in a world largely deformed by Cancel Culture, some people still love a good debate.
So can that French scientist Didier Raoult, who discovered the mimivirus, come out of the doghouse now? He was confined for doubting Darwin. But who really has time for Darwin now?
There is no science explanation, at present, for why life forms, human, animal, plant, or bacterium, strive to go on living but rocks do nothing to avoid becoming sand.
Look on the bright side. Darwinism may be endangered but the birds aren’t, or not necessarily. Hey, we can live with that.
Mike Behe’s new A Mousetrap for Darwin is available today and that’s the position he takes. That’s our sense too. What about New Scientist’s thirteen reasons for moving past Darwin and the doubts about speciation? Whatever else maybe said of these folk, they are not currently suffering from Darwinbrain. We need to distinguish between rubbish dropkicked from one edition to the next of a public school textbook and what alert minds are really thinking. And they’re really thinking that it’s time to move on.
They said it. We didn’t. “Blowing the dogma out of the water”
The book is currently #2 in Biochemistry Science, #6 in Biochemistry (Books), and
#13 in Evolution (Kindle Store) at Amazon
Austin Anderson: Now I understand why I’ve never been asked in a biology class to read the original text of Darwin’s theories: Our contemporary reverence for Darwin’s gentlemanliness and the pure scientific brilliance of his theories is an overly optimistic illusion that shatters upon a closer look at his publications.
It’s good news that they are thinking this way. If we’re going to vote money and legislation for environmental protection, we do need useful working classifications. Why waste time, money and energy “saving” a “species” that doesn’t really exist as a separate entity when some whole ecologies are critically endangered? And it doesn’t matter how we choose to classify the “species” within them. At least these are more constructive discussions to be involved in than attacking or defending Darwinism.
Hirsch: In one important area of resource extraction—marine fisheries—we can trace the ramifications of Darwinian humility as it blinded powerful people to the unique and cataclysmic scale of their ecological impact.
Bencze: Furthermore [in his recantation], he writes that natural selection is “a most successful metaphysical research program.” Wait a minute. Wasn’t that what he was to apologize for? So within his recantation he is reaffirming his original point of view, the very one that got him in trouble.
Re “attempts to silence naysayers”: Seriously, at least half of all Darwinism in print would likely be discredited if naysayers were given a respectful hearing. Sure, some of it is salvageable but without honest critique from outside Fort Darwin, how would you know which half?
Frost closes the stanza with “We were just purpose coming to a head.”
PNAS’s Darwin rubbish is neither knowledge nor wisdom. It’s just Politically Correct Darwin rubbish. All it demonstrates is that science is in a rut.
Researchers: “To build the machinery that enables bacteria to swim, over 50 proteins have to be assembled according to a logic and well-defined order to form the flagellum, the cellular equivalent of an offshore engine of a boat.” They ADMIT this? It sounds like a Recovery Meeting.