Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Edge of Evolution review in Science Magazine

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Sean Carroll writes a review of Michael Behe’s new book “Edge of Evolution” for Science Magazine titled God as Genetic Engineer. Professor Behe can’t respond to this for at least a week so let’s give him a hand by fisking it. Please keep your comments topical, focused, and well supported by evidence arguing against the reviewer’s conclusions.

EVOLUTION:
God as Genetic Engineer
Sean B. Carroll*

——————————————————————————–
The Edge of Evolution
The Search for the Limits of Darwinism
by Michael J. Behe
Free Press, New York, 2007. 331 pp. $28, C$33.99. ISBN 9780743296205.
——————————————————————————–

“The Lord hath delivered him into mine hands.”

Those are the words that Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s confidant and staunchest ally, purportedly murmured to a colleague as he rose to turn Bishop Samuel Wilberforce’s own words to his advantage and rebut the bishop’s critique of Darwin’s theory at their legendary 1860 Oxford debate. They are also the first words that popped into my head as I read Michael J. Behe’s The Edge of Evolution: The Search for the Limits of Darwinism. In it, Behe makes a new set of explicit claims about the limits of Darwinian evolution, claims that are so poorly conceived and readily dispatched that he has unwittingly done his critics a great favor in stating them. . . .

[The AAAS copyright people asked for this review to be removed from this site. –WmAD]

Comments
Here's one glaring mistake in the author's review (my emphasis): In Darwin's Black Box, he posited that genes for modern complex biochemical systems, such as blood clotting, might have been "designed billions of years ago and have been passed down to the present but not 'turned on'". This is known to be genetically impossible because genes that aren't used will degenerate, but there it was in print. It's easily possible. Error checking to insure data integrity to any arbitrary reliability standard is de rigueur in computer memory systems. In my experience most things that human designers have come up with in electronic information processing has antecedents in biological information systems. I therefore anticipate things we've invented on our own to have parallels in organic systems and mechanisms for insuring any required level of data integrity is no exception. An organic mechanism for that level of data integrity has not been identified that does not rely on natural selection but it appears that the effect of such a mechanism has been discovered recently. I blogged the discovery here https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-sound-of-circular-reasoning-exploding/ In a nutshell 1000 highly conserved sequences of non-coding DNA between mice and men (140-180my of reproductive isolation) were knocked out of the mouse genome in a block spanning some 1.5 million base pairs. The GM mice were then raised and examined for genetic abnormalities. The researchers expected to find a lot of problems and thus gain insight into the loci of genetic disorders in humans. To their great surprise the mice were quite healthy in every way. The surprise was because they'd presumed one of many evolutionary tautologies (circular reasoning) was an axiom that goes without question. The tautology: "If it is highly conserved it must have important biological activity. If it has important biological activity it must be highly conserved." The reviewer also takes this tautology as an evolutionary axiom. This deficiency in the reviewer's knowledge of recent findings in experimental biology should be pointed out along with why he holds to an axiom that no longer appears to be true.DaveScot
June 9, 2007
June
06
Jun
9
09
2007
07:45 AM
7
07
45
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply