There’s an interesting exchange tucked away in some comments at the Pandasthumb on what it would take to provide an evolutionary explanation of the bacterial flagellum:
To say that evolution is “a theory which has created cures for diseases and alleviated suffering” is therefore grossly misleading. It is like saying that tooth decay has assisted in designing new methods of filling cavities.
I think their listeners would be rather stunned to hear you or Behe or similar not remotely sounding like anti-scientific biblical creationists, which is the current stereotype they have of you and the ID movement
Of all the fundamentalist groups at large in the world today, the Darwinians seem to me the most objectionable.
So asking for a detailed, testable Darwinian pathway to show that evolution occurs is now a perverse evidential demand. Yes, you heard right.
Dekker … hopes the debate will get more serious after the impending publication of a collection of 22 essays about ID and related themes, most of them by Dutch scientists, which he has co-edited.
Imagine such blogs appearing at one university after another. Now imagine a Darwinist’s worst nightmare. But I repeat myself.
If (as Orr claims) I.D. Ã¢â‚¬Å“looks less and less like the science it claimed to be and more and more like an extended exercise in polemics,Ã¢â‚¬Â isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t it strange that it has recently convinced the foremost secular philosopher in England (Antony Flew) to give up his atheism?
A good Darwinist will imagine 2 or 3 far-fetched intermediate useful stages, and consider the problem solved. I believe you would need to find thousands of intermediate stages before this example of irreducible complexity has been reduced to steps small enough to be bridged by single random mutations
Evolutionary biology is one big group-think in which its practitioners can no longer imagine the need to justify their theory…. Evolution has come this far in spite of the facts.
According to the Prime Minister there are a sufficient number of scientists who have a special interest in this area.
I reflect on the potential applications of the new understanding on Ã¢â‚¬Ëœengineered self-organization of systems too complex to designÃ¢â‚¬â„¢
The Little Engine That Could… Undo Darwinism By Dan Peterson What critics of Intelligent Design theory can’t accept is that its proponents are making scientific, fact-based arguments. The American Spectator, June 2005
the fossils of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“Cambrian ExplosionÃ¢â‚¬Â period, near the base of the geological column, include some of the most sophisticated eyes ever known to have existed Ã¢â‚¬â€ the compound eyes of trilobites have double calcite lenses, which defeat any slow evolutionary explanation, and, what is more, they have no precursor in the rocks
Allen Orr’s article against ID is now out in the New Yorker (go here). It’s as bad as I thought it would be. I’m on the road right now but will comment on it later in the week. Note that I remarked last week on this blog that a fact-checker from the New Yorker had […]