Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

New book from Michael Behe on how today’s DNA findings “devolve” Darwin

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Michael Behe’s new book at Amazon: Darwin Devolves: The New Science About DNA that Challenges Evolution is due February 26, 2019. No cover image as yet.

From HarperOne:

The scientist who has been dubbed the “Father of Intelligent Design” and author of the groundbreaking book Darwin’s Black Box contends that recent scientific discoveries further disprove Darwinism and strengthen the case for an intelligent creator.

In his controversial bestseller Darwin’s Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe challenged Darwin’s theory of evolution, arguing that science itself has proven that intelligent design is a better explanation for the origin of life. In Darwin Devolves, Behe advances his argument, presenting new research that offers a startling reconsideration of how Darwin’s mechanism works, weakening the theory’s validity even more.

A system of natural selection acting on random mutation, evolution can help make something look and act differently. But evolution never creates something organically. Behe contends that Darwinism actually works by a process of devolution—damaging cells in DNA in order to create something new at the lowest biological levels. This is important, he makes clear, because it shows the Darwinian process cannot explain the creation of life itself. “A process that so easily tears down sophisticated machinery is not one which will build complex, functional systems,” he writes.

In addition to disputing the methodology of Darwinism and how it conflicts with the concept of creation, Behe reveals that what makes Intelligent Design unique—and right—is that it acknowledges causation. Evolution proposes that organisms living today are descended with modification from organisms that lived in the distant past. But Intelligent Design goes a step further asking, what caused such astounding changes to take place? What is the reason or mechanism for evolution? For Behe, this is what makes Intelligent Design so important. More.

Devolution… at last, something Darwinism really explains!

How odd that genome mapper and theistic evolutionist Francis Collins should have helped kill Darwinism before he got most Christians to buy into it.

See also: Devolution: Getting back to the simple life.

Comments
OL, A drone could be designed to follow a preprogrammed trajectory, a certain path, but it could potentially come under the sway of a hacker that could detour it from its good path. As long as the communication between the drone and the designer is active, the designer could instruct the drone to maneuver and get away from the hacking threat. But if the link is broken, the drone is on its own. At that point, it could have a built-in self-destruct mechanism, which could be just the lack of communication with the designer.PaoloV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
01:40 AM
1
01
40
AM
PDT
Paolo, OK, now relate that to the drones and your comment at # 27. Thanks.OLV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
01:26 AM
1
01
26
AM
PDT
Oscar Luis, Have you ever heard of a designed self-destruct mechanism? Would you count that as poor design?PaoloV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT
Oscar Luis, OK, how about this excellent design idea that could go wrong?PaoloV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
Paolo Verspi, Your drones are off topic unless you relate them to what you wrote at # 27 in relation to Mung's comment at #26. Would you, please? Stop being vague. This is a serious discussion. State your point. Thanks.OLV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
12:36 AM
12
12
36
AM
PDT
Oscar Luis, Haven't you seen a drone, a.k.a. unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV)? Here's one example: A boy flies a dronePaoloV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
12:29 AM
12
12
29
AM
PDT
EugeneS (21): Very insightful comment. Thanks.OLV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
Paolo (29): drone? can you elaborate on that? thanks.OLV
July 6, 2018
July
07
Jul
6
06
2018
12:06 AM
12
12
06
AM
PDT
Jerry @ 19 -
No, other than some entity with some level of intelligence could do it.
Hm, that's not actually asking "what caused such astounding changes to take place?". For a start, "what caused...?" and "what could have caused...?" are subtly different questions. And then to answer "something" is incredibly vague. Yes, I agree that it could be a naturalistic process, but does ID ever ask if it actually was? EugeneS @ 21 - Questions like "what is the identity of the designer?", "how did they implement their design?" would be good starts. They are difficult questions, bu the first is surely the fundamental question behind "what caused such astounding changes to take place?", if you believe that it was an intelligent designer.Bob O'H
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT
Oscar Luis, Drone.PaoloV
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Paolo, Please, provide at least one example for illustration. Thanks.OLV
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Mung, That’s an interesting idea. Could the designed system require certain conditions in order to work perfectly “as designed”? What would happen if those requirements aren’t met? Could it deteriorate and eventually stop functioning, by design too? Why not?PaoloV
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
Designing a system that could only get worse over time would be a poor design. Better would be designing a system that can get better over time. :)Mung
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT
Mung: "Looks like the new book may just provide more ammunition to the “poor design” crowd." Why?gpuccio
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
more ammunition to the “poor design” crowd
But maybe the "poor design" is part of the design or really not poor design. It can be both actually. If there were perfect design, micro evolution might lead certain entities to dominate when that would be self defeating in the long run. A good ecology requires equilibrium. A man got to know his limitations. And there may be philosophical reasons for so called "poor design."jerry
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Looks like the new book may just provide more ammunition to the "poor design" crowd.Mung
July 5, 2018
July
07
Jul
5
05
2018
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
Hi nonlin.org Do you accept microevolution? Because ID is compatible with microevolution.Quaesitor
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT
Bob "Wouldn’t it require starting to ask questions about the Designer?" What questions? I can hypothesise based purely on evidence that The Designer of biocomplexity is: 1. conscious; 2. intelligent enough to think through the organization of self-replicating autonomous carbon based heterogeneous semantically closed nano-scale biological machinery; 3. able to carry-out planning activities and goal-oriented series of decision making steps; 4. powerful enough to implement the worked out strategy in order to make the design a reality. The Designer's intelligence was enough to create self-sustaining semiotic relationships between configurations of matter that did not exist before the design of organisms. The semiotic core of life is examplified by the {DNA/mRNA,genetic code,ribosomal interpreter} tuple. Is that enough for a start?EugeneS
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
03:12 PM
3
03
12
PM
PDT
Nonlin "Then your statement is meaningless." It depends what you mean by "meaningless" ;) Do you mean that population genetics is based on a tautology? Do you think it is not able to predict anything? 'Fitness' to Darwin meant not those that survive, but those that could be expected to survive because of their adaptations and functional efficiency, when compared to others in the population. RV+NS is a valid model, albeit too weak and insensitive to explain real complex biofunction in real environments. RV+NS is a valid corner case.EugeneS
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Really? How does ID do this? Wouldn’t it require starting to ask questions about the Designer?
No, other than some entity with some level of intelligence could do it. Some day soon your local lab will have the capability to create a basic cell. One might be curious about the intelligence but just what/who is not necessary. Nothing in ID precludes a naturalistic process. It just seems highly improbable at the moment that some things happened by naturalistic processes. But ID says a skilled intelligent entity could do it. You of all people should know this since you have been around since day 1 of this site.jerry
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
01:05 PM
1
01
05
PM
PDT
ET@11 Sickle cell occurrence of 10-40%, in equatorial countries of Africa is not "selection". Even 100% occurrence would not be selection of any kind. Who/how/whom would be selected? The malaria doesn't select, the mosquitoes do not select and humans do not select. What selection are you then talking about? How would you even test "a survival advantage"? Compared to what? Remember that 60-90% of the population in those areas does not have sickle cell and they survive.Nonlin.org
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
12:11 PM
12
12
11
PM
PDT
Mung@10 No, “natural selection” is not trivially true as shown. Why don't you read first and come up with some arguments instead of a simple denial?Nonlin.org
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
12:01 PM
12
12
01
PM
PDT
Eugene S@9 Since we're all different, can reproduction and survival be anything other than "differential"? No! Then your statement is meaningless. Can you determine "best adapted" by any other method than retroactively looking at survival? No! Then your statement is meaningless. Behe and all others are wrong.Nonlin.org
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
11:58 AM
11
11
58
AM
PDT
Quaesitor@7 All of them as shown. Have you seen any accumulation of changes? Neither did I or anyone else. Here's a preliminary list for you: Gradualism fails – http://nonlin.org/gradualism/ Natural selection fails – http://nonlin.org/natural-selection/ Divergence of character fails – http://nonlin.org/evotest/ Speciation fails – http://nonlin.org/speciation-problems/ DNA “essence of life” fails – http://nonlin.org/dna-not-essence-of-life/ Randomness fails – http://nonlin.org/random-abuse/ Abiogenesis fails – http://nonlin.org/warmpond/ etc., etc.Nonlin.org
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT
DATCG@3 As shown, there is no “natural selection”. Heck, there is no “artificial selection” either (again as shown). There is breeding, but that is much more than ‘selection’ of any kind – did you read? “Natural selection” is just a nonsensical concept Darwin invented. Why would anyone and Behe honor that nonsense?Nonlin.org
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
Oops, tarting -> starting.Bob O'H
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT
But Intelligent Design goes a step further asking, what caused such astounding changes to take place?
Really? How does ID do this? Wouldn't it require tarting to ask questions about the Designer?Bob O'H
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
It is true that natural selection is NOT the designer mimic Darwin proclaimed but that does not mean it doesn't exist. However, for example, it is obvious that someone with sickle-cell trait has a survival advantage in malaria-prone areas.ET
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
Why do ID proponents accept without questioning Darwin’s baseless concept of “natural selection”? Because it is trivially true. Natural selection has a number of different formulations, and ID proponents do not accept without questioning all of its formulations.Mung
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
06:50 AM
6
06
50
AM
PDT
Nonlin Survival of the best adapted is not tautology. Differential reproduction leads to differential survival. No tautology in here at all. However, RV+NS evolution does not build new biofunction. It is noise in comparison to what is necessary to achieve to build new functional biological structures. Behe is right.Eugene S
July 4, 2018
July
07
Jul
4
04
2018
01:56 AM
1
01
56
AM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply