Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Letter from Michael Behe that a chemistry journal wouldn’t publish in 2004


The journal allowed an attack on ID but not a rebuttal:

As an active proponent of the argument for intelligent design I enjoyed reading “Evidence from Biochemical Pathways in Favor of Unfinished Evolution rather than Intelligent Design.” However, educators who plan to use it for classroom discussions should be sure to alert students to the regrettable errors in the article’s reasoning.

The most serious mistake is its repeated use of the invalid argument from ignorance. The authors imply that since no reason is known why, say, DNA should be synthesized discontinuously on the lagging strand, then no good reason in fact exists. Yet not long ago the same sort of fallacious argument from ignorance was made concerning “junk DNA.” In that case the reasoning went something like the following: no function was known for much genomic DNA; therefore none existed; no self-respecting designer would have made genomes containing long stretches of apparently purposeless sequences; therefore Darwinism is true.

Michael Behe, “Excerpt: Letter to the Journal of Chemical Education” at Evolution News and Science Today: (December 6, 2020)

Junk DNA? Now, we are encouraged to celebrate Encode III and the demise of junk DNA.

The argument that anything that doesn’t fit our beliefs about how things should be is evidence of poor design or no design is highly vulnerable, given that we really do not know very much as yet. And the more we learn, the more complex it all becomes.

And of course, you could add all the supposedly vestigial organs that they claimed were vestigial because they had no known function. Almost every single one of their "vestigial organs" have come back to bite them in the rear and make a fool out of their materialistic assumptions, appendix included. tjguy

Leave a Reply