Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Michael Behe Lecture Recommend


Check out this lecture by Michael Behe about his book, The Edge of Evolution.

Two questions posed by members of the audience were of interest to me. Sean Carroll criticized Behe in a review of The Edge for not considering cumulative, sequential mutations, and Carroll used a specific example. Behe points out in the lecture that this specific example was addressed in his book, and that the subject of cumulative selection was addressed in detail. Behe goes on to speak about the resistance of “science” publications to print his rejoinders to his critics, and that the editors often say something like, “Your response would not be of interest to our readers.”

Really? Pointing out flagrant misrepresentations — might I even suggest lies, or evidence that the book reviewer did not even read the book? — would not be of interest to our readers?

This is the tyrannical Darwinian way: Suppress dissent. Vilify the opponent. Tell the population that the matter is settled, and that those who question are evil destroyers of “science.”

These tactics sound more like those of a depraved theocracy than those of a truth-seeking “scientific” establishment.

The other interesting question posed by a member of the audience — after Behe presented his probabilistic, empirical evaluation of the mutational factors required to defeat chloroquine by the malarial parasite — concerned the human population of the earth, the fact that it is currently about six billion, and that this represents about half of all humans who have ever lived since “Lucy” presumably evolved into modern humans through the now-indisputable mechanism of random mutation and natural selection.

The probabilistic resources have never existed for the Darwinian mechanism to do anything of any significance — except break things that can promote survival in a pathological environment — and this should be obvious to anyone who has not been blinded by Darwinian anti-logic.

Zeroseven, It's funny that you said "third-hand" to talk about a limb regrowing. Haha. Anyway, in defense of my citation, I think it was taken from the mother's journal. Anyway, CannuckianYankee is right. Let's get back on topic. Concerning the person who responded to Behe's lecture by saying that he did not consider successive/cumulative mutations: wouldn't that be even less probable than a single beneficial mutation. Am I missing something? Collin
Maybe we could all use some of that laughing gas right now. HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH! There. Can we now get back to the op topic? :) CannuckianYankee
I claim no denomination either. I am simply a Christian. All I did was follow your link to Youtube. I then, out of fairness and in search of truth and discernment, looked for an opposing viewpoint. I had never heard of Azusa Street before yesterday.The article I found linked Azusa Street to certain denomination(s) and Satanism, not me. I did not claim to embrace everthing in the article any more than you claimed to embrace God's laughing gas mentioned in your link. I believe God wants His people to be united in one body. I believe He is unhappy about the existence of denominations. Jesus did not die to build denominations. I'm not sure how to have unity with those who believe God sends laughing gas into their assemblies. It would require a departure from the word of God and I'm not willing to go there. suckerspawn
suckerspawn for your information I claim no 'denomination' when asked about my religion, but simply reply that I am a Christian when asked. That being said, I think it extremely poor taste for you to try to link any denomination of Christianity, no matter how misguided in doctrinal accuracy they may be, to Satanism. HMMM,,, A scripture about us being 'one body' comes to mind ? Do you recall the one I'm thinking about suckerspawn? If We Are The Body http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SExJ9od-0zQ bornagain77
The words "God's laughing gas" are not mine, they were used in part two of the Youtube video you linked to. The genuineness of the laughing gas was affirmed by the same fellows affirming the genuineness creative miracles at the Azusa Street meetings. Yes, God's ways are not man's ways. We are told to "test the spirits". I don't know how do that other than by lining them up against the word of God. Satan is also active and able to produce lying signs and wonders. Discernment is essential. suckerspawn
suckerspawn you start off correctly in surmising that reality gives zeroseven overwhelming evidence of the greatest 'creative' miracle ever. Namely that the universe has been brought into existence and is indeed sustained in its existence by God who is completely transcendent of time and space. Yet you then try to justify zeroseven's demand on God by implying he is merely asking for a revelation from God, when in fact he is not 'asking God' for any 'revelation' but is in fact 'testing God'. and I'm pretty sure you know the relevant scriptures on that particular line of thought.,,, Suckerspawn you then go on to try take digs at some of the strange things heard about going on in the Pentecostal church, such as 'spontaneously laughing congregations' (Now we all know spontaneously laughing in church is not scriptural in the least don't we suckerspawn??? 8) , and then you ask me if I believe if these strange things, you have heard about from Pentecostals, are truly manifestations of God's spirit (well actually you use the term 'laughing gas'). Well of course I don't believe ALL of these strange things, that you have heard about, are true and are from God, just as I don't believe the current glut of 'name it and claim it' preachers that pollute the airways of TV with their God wants everyone to be a millionaire claptrap, Yet I do firmly hold to the fact that God does indeed move 'miraculously' in many mysterious and strange ways to reach hardened men's hearts, since I have indeed seen, and heard, of Him doing many 'strange' things in unexpected ways for many different people.,,,, Much like Gil's testimony of his atheistic mother seeing 'Nuns' in her hospital room, though probably not as dramatic, so yes I am fairly skeptical of much of what goes on 'in the name of God' by some of those who claim to be 'specially anointed by God' above others, but I do not let that detract from the fact that I know all things are possible with the God who created and sustains this universe, and the God who indeed defeated death on the cross and grants eternal life to those who believe on His name. And just think about it Suckerspawn, just who are we to be so hasty to judge anything as 'too strange' to be of God's hand, when in fact we believe in the fact that God chose to defeat death in such a 'strange' way as the cross!?! Surely there are more 'socially acceptable' ways for death to be dealt with don't you think?!? bornagain77
BA77, zeroseven is surrounded by the greatest creative miracle there ever was, yet remains an unbeliever. In a passage of scripture, which has been quoted on UD several times, and which I wholeheartedly believe, Romans 1:20, such are said to be without excuse for their unbelief. God very subtly revealed himself to you. Zeroseven is asking for a revelation, a creative miracle. Why give him 2nd and 3rd hand accounts of eyewitness testimony. According to the Youtube video greater things are going on right now. I'm sure zeroseven can find someone with a missing appendage who is interested in having it restored. Tell zeroseven where to go. My faith came by hearing the word of God. I believe the gospel is the power of God unto salvation. I believe in the miracles of Moses, Elijah, Jesus, Paul, etc., not because of anything I see today, but because of what is written. John 20:30-31. Should zeroseven believe God sends laughing gas into assemblies of his people today? Do you? Perhaps this is not the forum to debate this, especially since it is so far off the topic in the OP. suckerspawn
Hi BA77, I don't think its an unfair test at all. I don't claim evolution can make a limb grow back in front of my eyes, or create a novel appendage for an animal while I watch. These things take many steps over a lot of time as you know. And there is no shortage of evidence of those steps, as there is for all aspects of evolution. On the other hand, there is no empirical evidence of amputees growing back limbs. Strange isn't it? zeroseven
zeroseven, it seems that you have set a very unfair 'test' for God that you yourself do not even require for your 'god' of evolution. Indeed, I have not seen any evolutionist ever present any evidence for any violation of Genetic Entropy (any gain in functional information above what is present in a parent species) that has withstood scrutiny, much less have I ever seen an evolutionist create a novel appendage for say a fruit fly or even a bacteria. Yet despite this stunning lack of evidence for your 'god', 'almighty', evolution, you refuse to even consider the mountains of evidence for design in life itself. Evidence of such staggering functional complexity that adjectives fail. Yet despite this blatant unreasonableness on your part for even fairly considering all this other 'scientific evidence', you find yourself willing 'to give God one more chance' if He jumps through this just this one hoop for you. Now zeroseven which of these adjectives best describes your attitude in this situation,,,, 1) Gracious??? 2) Arrogant??? 3) Insane??? It is simply remarkable that you would appeal to such a 'scientific' hoop for God to jump through all the while refusing the overwhelming 'scientific' evidence for design from all other fields of science investigated!!! Let me relate my experience to you zeroseven, when God revealed Himself to me, in a very subtle way I might add, and I have absolutely no doubt that He is real after that particular experience on that particular day, it was in no way a 'test' from me for God to prove Himself to me. When God revealed Himself to me, He choose to do so, in the tender and loving way that He did, because I was in a desperate situation, and I called out to Him from that point of need that I was in, and He had compassion on me. And I might add He continues to have gentle compassion on me to correct me in the myriad of mistakes I make in this world in my walk with Him. bornagain77
Suckerspawn, Not to belittle your belittling of Pentecostals, of which they have had more than their fare share, save for perhaps Mormons, but both my brothers were saved through that particular denomination of Christianity in rather dramatic fashion. A 'spiritual' fashion that left me thoroughly impressed as to the turnaround in their lives,,, and to paraphrase,,, if Satan cast out devils is not his kingdom divided against itself!?! bornagain77
Well said, Gil. BA77, take a look at this. http://redeemedhippiesplace.wordpress.com/category/azusa-street-revival/ suckerspawn
The biggest miracle of all is a hardened heart redeemed and fundamentally transformed, forever. Nothing else ultimately matters. GilDodgen
Of note to zeroseven: This video is of a man who received testimony first hand, from eye-witnesses, of a limb growing back at the Azusa Street revival: It's Supernatural: "Azusa Street Revival" (Part 1 of 3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hI1oOf_8R8 bornagain77
BA77, Collin, no I don't mean third hand, hearsay, anecdotal accounts from religious websites. I mean properly documented cases with photographs and other evidence. zeroseven
Though this is way off topic of Dr. Behe's crushing evidence against neo-Darwinian evolution: zeroseven you ask; "BA77, if you can show my any evidence of limbs growing back after prayer I will believe you." Creative Miracles Excerpt; My absolute favorite type of miracle is creative miracles. They occur when God actually forms a body part in a human where one was never formed or where one was removed intentionally, by accident, or by disease. Here are some real-life accounts. * In the Azusa Street revival in the early 1900s, people without real legs had real legs grown out of the stump, * a woman with cancer who was severely underweight because of cancer gained several pounds in the service (and the cancer was 100% healed), * people in wheelchairs walked again, * a woman with cancer in her nose had a new nose creatively created by God, * and when she told the lady who God used to bring about the miracle that she wanted a cuter nose because hers had a hook at the tip, God gave her a new nose! They lady said it was cutest nose she had ever seen. * People who were missing teeth had new teeth created in the church within seconds * A man who lost his arm had his arm grow back from the stump! * In another service in our generation, many people had gold crowns supernaturally placed on their teeth http://sheluvsgod.xanga.com/690666985/supernatural-miracles---they-do-exist/ Finger grew back and tongue grew http://healingherald.org/2010/02/finger-grew-back-and-tongue-grew/ zeroseven the following miracle is interesting for though the woman was blind from birth, she saw for the first time while she was in her 'real' spiritual body during her Near Death Experience, but what is interesting is that she still has not been physically healed of her blindness. Maybe the most important point is to be healed of spiritual blindness in the first place zeroseven!?! Blind Woman Can See During Near Death Experience - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994599 coast to coast – Blind since birth – Vicki’s NDE http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=99EAF86E08E54010 Kenneth Ring and Sharon Cooper (1997) conducted a study of 31 blind people, many of who reported being able to see during their NDEs. 21 of these people had had an NDE while the remaining 10 had had an out-of-body experience (OBE), but no NDE. It was found that in the NDE sample, about half had been blind from birth. In all, 15 of the 21 NDEers and 9 of the 10 OBEers could see during their experience while the remaining participants either claimed that they did not see or were not sure whether or not they had seen. As well, contrary to popular belief of many people in today's church, powerful miracles are not something that only happened in the early Christian church, there are still powerful miracles happening today, such as the blind seeing, the dead being raised, and the deaf hearing: Real Life Miracles - Blind See; Dead Raised; Deaf Hear - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4596829 but zeroseven, as Collin wonders so do I, will any of this really make a difference for you? bornagain77
zeroseven, Here is a story from my tradition. But something tells me that it won't satisfy you any more than bornagain's studies did. http://www.mormonhistoricsitesregistry.org/USA/missouri/caldwell/haunsMill/stories/haunsMill2.htm Collin
Bruce, Yes, I think you are correct. With Big Bang cosmology it is easier to escape a designer. But you will notice, as I already mentioned, that the 'escape' (namely multiverses) requires further conjecture, which depends on no evidence whatsoever; and in that, it is less parsimonious than Creation. ID has even stronger theistic "undertones" (to use Behe's words) than Big Bang theory. This is perhaps why the Darwinists raise the issue more strongly with ID. But by raising the issue, they're really avoiding evidence, and they are approaching the whole ID issue from an apriori metaphysical assumption rather than from purely scientific curiosity. This seems to be what Tom was doing when he raised the issue to Behe. He already assumed that IC could not be physical evidence for a designer. While Behe didn't address this directly, he preferred to demonstrate why his very question is a double standard in light of other evidence that has been applied historically as scientifically contributory towards theory; such as red shifts towards the Big Bang. The one thing I disagreed with is Behe's contention that red shifts are not physical evidence; but on the other hand, it was Tom who rejected Behe's physical evidence, so I think he was relating it as something similar to IC. Of course, I don't know where Tom really stands on the issue. He might have just been playing devil's advocate. The only thing I might have said to Tom, differently than what Behe actually said is this: "Well, what do you think ID is all about? It's presenting physical evidence of design, which implies a designer. To deny that is begging the question." But I think Behe did well to set up the false dichotomy between science and the 'unknown' by bringing up Big Bang cosmology. It is really one of the best examples, because of its near universal acceptance among scientists. As I mentioned earlier, I think the Darwinists will find an 'escape' from Theism if ID becomes the predominant paradigm, by "tweaking" the theory to fit methodological naturalism. Dawkins already revealed his acceptance of panspermia as an alternative to chance and necessity creating life on Earth; but strangely enough, he's quite aware of the infinite regress problem that panspermia raises. He escapes this with a non-answer: "Who designed the designer?" So Dawkins is satisfied with having no answer, rather than to acknowledge any from of Theism. CannuckianYankee
CannuckianYankee, What I was trying to convey was that I think that underneath the "rational" arguments and counterarguments in this debate is this defense of fundamental paradigms. That's why I used the phrase "in a way" in my statement about missing the point. I am a great fan of Behe's, and I agree that his answer addressed the question quite well. I was talking about what I see as what is underneath the usual arguments. As for the Big Bang, it does not directly invoke a designer, so it was easier for materialist scientists to ignore the implications. The Big Bang says that the Universe, including space and time, started from nothing 14 billion years ago. It takes an inferential step to then conclude that well, it must have been created by some non-material cause. One is not forced by the theory to take that step. When one asserts that living systems have been designed, however, a designer is present in the statement; designed implies a designer. The conclusion is unavoidable. Bruce David
I think life is full of "coincidences," for which the only rational explanation is that God is truly at work. I experience these all the time. Some of them are in the form of encouragement, while some are clearly in the form of chastisement, wherein I need to change the direction I'm headed. I would not be alive today if it were not for these "coincidences." CannuckianYankee
bornagain, I have an interesting story about my mother, who has been a devout atheist all her life. (When she found out that I had become a born-again Christian she wrote me a vitriolic letter about what an idiot I had become.) Three years ago, at age 86, she was run over by a drunk driver while walking her beloved dog, whom she rescued from an abusive owner. The dog was killed instantly, and my mother was thrown head over heels down the street by the impact. Miraculously, she suffered no broken bones, but suffered other serious injuries. She was life-flighted by helicopter to an intensive-care unit. Of course, when my dad called me up and told me the news, I freaked out and got all my Christian friends to pray for her. After she recovered she told me a strange story about how angels (in the form of nuns in old-fashioned black habits, which she later verified were never there in the hospital and could not possibly have been) were present at her bedside and offered to help her. She insists that this experience was real and not hallucinatory. Since then, my mother, on two occasions, has asked me and my Christian friends to pray for her. It's never too late to change the hearts of thieves on crosses, like me. That's the Good News. GilDodgen
Gil, Yeah, you'd think there'd be an evolutionary explanation for that. ;) CannuckianYankee
BA77, if you can show my any evidence of limbs growing back after prayer I will believe you. zeroseven
Cannuck, How interesting. My brother and sister are still devout atheists. They and I have the same genes and the same upbringing. I can't explain it. GilDodgen
Gil though I hate to drift too far off Dr. Behe's work, I do want to address the prayer study for one post, I noticed Hitchen's reference to that one prayer study also, but he failed to mention the extenuating circumstances of that one particular study that revealed a bias as to the way it was conducted. This following article goes into a bit more detail of the bias of the study as well as citing other more rigorous studies showing that prayer actually does work: Scientific Evidence for Answered Prayer and the Existence of God Excerpt: Obviously, science has demonstrated in three separate studies the efficacy of Christian prayer in medical studies. There is no "scientific" (non-spiritual) explanation for the cause of the medical effects demonstrated in these studies. The only logical, but not testable, explanation is that God exists and answers the prayers of Christians. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/prayer.html#AowIolZKZqed Here are a few more resources A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer Excerpt: Meta-analysis indicated small, but significant, effect sizes for the use of intercessory prayer,, http://rsw.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/17/2/174 Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes' Excerpt: In other words, does God – or some other type of transcendent entity – answer prayer for healing? According to Hodge’s study, “A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature on Intercessory Prayer,” the answer is “Yes.” http://asunews.asu.edu/node/1545 More resources and analysis of all prayer studies https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/intelligent-design/christophers-challenge/#comment-352761 Plus I myself have seen the 'miraculous' in answer to a situation in my life, though It was not exactly a answered prayer per se; Strange But True - Miracle Testimony https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0AYmaSrBPNEmGZGM4ejY3d3pfNTNocmRjZGtkdg&hl=en bornagain77
Gil, Christopher Hitchens has a younger brother, Peter, who is a Christian. He's also a celebrity of sorts in Britain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens CannuckianYankee
kairosfocus, I appreciate your comment, but I argue that these people are indeed theists. They worship a would-be god -- themselves. Sound familiar? bornagain, I watched the Hitchens interview. How sad and tragic, especially his comments about his mother's suicide. He wasn't available on the phone just before she ended her life. When he later found out that she was reaching out to him at the last moment, he must have been unimaginably tormented. I am no psychologist, but I expect that he has lived with this torment for much of his life, and that it is a major factor in his God-hatred. I would encourage all Christian believers to pray for Hitchens, even though there is no statistical evidence that this will make any difference. GilDodgen
Bruce, I don't think Behe's answer misses the point at all. If the Big Bang has theistic implications, what is wrong with a theory of OOL, which has theistic implications? There is clearly a double standard, because Big Bang cosmology is well established among the scientific elite, while ID is not. Also, Darwinists have not allowed themselves the time to come up with a tweak for their metaphysics, should ID be true. The Big Bang tweak is the multiverse. They will inevitably come up with a similar tweak if ID becomes the accepted paradigm. Perhaps they will determine that a certain signal from space is actually a radio signal (without much evidence), and conclude along the lines of panspermia or something like that; but they still won't "allow a divine foot in the door." For now they reject ID because of the theistic implication. They don't reject Big Bang despite the theistic implications, because they've had time to come up with a way out of theism. So I agree that you have to be open to a theistic explanation, but you don't have to be a theist necessarily. You just simply cannot rule out theism as a possible explanation like some strong atheists do. As there are atheists and strong atheists (one's who flat out deny that there can be a God), there are theists, and strong theists (those who claim that there has to be a God). I have friends who say they are theists, but never give God a thought. So many of them might be open to ID while not in the strictest sense be theists at all. They simply haven't made up their minds concerning which metaphysic they accept. I would guess that the world's population consists of a large number of people who are on the fence concerning theism/atheism. Besides that Bruce, Tom is rejecting, while Behe is at that very moment offering the physical evidence that he denies. He hasn't defined what he would accept as physical evidence (which could mean anything), so I fail to see his point at all. To Behe, irreducible complexity is physical evidence of design. To deny this by questions such as what Tom raised is question-begging. Tom might have come up with another objection to IC as physical evidence, but he simply assumed, or rather implied that it is not, then with that assumption and denial, he raised his question. So Behe not only answered his question brilliantly, he showed in his main lecture that such questions are invalid. The evidence, which Behe addresses IS physical; and that's the whole point of ID. Tom is now forced to consider the physical evidence, rather than to speculate on the identity of the designer. His question was actually a dodge of the evidence. Something Darwinists do quite often. CannuckianYankee
Adding to the above, in my view this is the reason this debate generates such passion and defensiveness, particularly among the ID deniers. ID doesn't just threaten their particular scientific theories, it threatens their most deeply held beliefs about the nature of existence. Most people, no matter how smart they are or how seemingly open to new ideas they are, will defend their world view with passion and vehemence, even sacrificing their integrity and common decency in the process, as we have witnessed repeatedly in the ID wars. Bruce David
Re CannuckianYankee's post (#10): Actually, I think in a way that Behe's response to the question misses the point. I think that Tom's question goes to the very heart of the controversy. When one is inferring a designer from some kind of artifact or phenomenon, it is necessary that the one making the inference be open to at least the possibility of the existence of a designer. Even in the case of SETI, the whole endeavor assumes the possible existence of an extra-terrestrial intelligence. If the possibility of such an intelligence is denied, then the inference to design will not be made, even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. This is exactly the situation we see in the case of living systems. The evidence for design by this point IS overwhelming. But since the designer must perforce be non-material (barring alien intervention, which just pushes the question back a step), someone who is a materialist and unwilling to move off of that position will reject the obvious conclusion from that evidence. This is why the majority of ID proponents are some version of theist--their faith opens them to the possibility of the existence of a designer. In fact, I think it might be safe to say that EVERY proponent of ID is some form of theist. Berlinski, for example, is an agnostic about God, and if you read his work carefully, he seems to be an agnostic about ID as well. Bradley Monton's position seems to be that ID is a valid philosophical response to the evidence, but he remains unconvinced (and an atheist). Antony Flew, on the other hand, became a "deist" when he accepted the scientific evidence for design. Bruce David
The shame here is that Darwinists refuse to listen to Behe after Dover. Of course they weren't listening to him before that either, but for different reasons. They believe he was strongly defeated at Dover, and so why should they consider anything he says. They won't even allow his letters to the editor of science journals to correct what his critics have charged. Any association with Behe apparently is a death wish. I guess what he's saying is too radical for them; that evolution has limits; and what evolution we can observe does not produce, it 'breaks.' I thought the highlight (at least for me) of the Q&A portion was the question posed by: Tom: "I guess, I would put it this way: In the human world we see designed things all the time. And there's no problem with the idea of design or creation, because we can see the designer. Now you're positing a designer. The problem that science has with that is how, we cannot see; we have no evidence of a designer, so how does he get; or she get designs into the three dimensional world that we do see without being able to see the designer, without having other physical evidence in the same world we have other physical evidence of the designer in the human world?" Behe: "Well that's an, a good question, and I should say; a conclusion of design or an idea of design or theory of design does not mean that all good questions we would like to have the answers for, either are answered or wont be difficult to answer, or maybe very difficult to answer. Um, I would say that, I would bring up examples where scientists would accept conclusions of design without physical evidence of the designer and ah, the standard example is the SETI program, search for extra-terrestrial intelligence; where scientists look for maybe radio signals, which might encode a message, which might be something you would not expect from unintelligent nature, and are actually eager to infer intelligent sources for those, even if you know in some view, they were sent off a billion years ago by a planet who's sun has since engulfed the planet, for which there would be no physical evidence. Going beyond that, it's true that in the history of science people have accepted ideas for which there was no physical evidence, and at least for a time, not had the glimmer of hope that there would be. One example is the Big Bang Theory, ah, where the only evidence for a long time for the Big Bang was the red shift of galaxies, which seemed to point to an expanding universe, which if you mentally reversed it, ah, indicated a universe which was much more dense and compact, and after you extrapolated that, the universe seemed to have a beginning. And, a number of scientists thought that this was a good explanation to the data, even though nobody had ever seen a universe exploding into existence before, nobody knew what could cause such a thing, a lot of people thought it had strong theistic overtones, maybe God did this, maybe the Big Bang needed a Big Banger, and so on. So I admit it would be interesting to know exactly how the design was placed into nature, whether it was all in the beginning and unfolded, whether design was added over time, or a million other possibilities. But I think currently the evidence we have is insufficient to answer that question. But I think the evidence may have, like the red shifts and more for the Big Bang is sufficient to make the basic conclusion that there is design in the world, even if we can't answer a number of other questions." I've heard versions of this answer by others, but I think Behe captures the essence of a design inference, which best tackles such questions. Several contributors here on the Darwin side continue to raise this question in one form or another, while completely ignoring the instances where design inferences have been made in science without one shred of physical evidence for the designer. We've discussed double standards before, but this is a clear example of what goes on. "We don't need physical evidence for alien life or Big Bangs, but gosh darnit, if there is a designer of life, it's 'supernatural,' and it isn't science. We would need physical evidence that we can touch with our hands for that." CannuckianYankee
Corrected link to Hitchens CNN interview: Author Hitchens on cancer, atheism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-mo6HVib6k bornagain77
Gil though off topic, I think this article may be of strong interest for you since you were a 'militant' atheist yourself: Former Atheist: Christianity Really Does Make Sense http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100802/formeratheist-christianity-really-does-make-sense/index.html also of interest from the same issue: Hitchens Certain He Won't Turn to God while Lucid Excerpt: Nearly two months after being diagnosed with cancer and undergoing chemotherapy, famed atheist Christopher Hitchens has lost much of his hair but his unbelief remains intact. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100807/hitchens-certain-he-wont-turn-to-god-while-lucid/index.html of note a CNN interview with Hitchens is linked in the article bornagain77
Gil: Re: These tactics sound more like those of a depraved theocracy ATHEOCRACY than those of a truth-seeking “scientific” establishment. There, fixed it . . . G kairosfocus
A Wikipedia article includes the following:
A dramatic population bottleneck is theorized for the period around 70,000 BCE (see Toba catastrophe theory). After this time and until the development of agriculture, it is estimated that the world population stabilized at about one million people whose subsistence entailed hunting and foraging...
Assuming this is correct, it means that during almost the entire history of human evolution there were no more than a million individuals at any given time. Try evolving chloroquine resistance with that. GilDodgen
I love the quote by Dr. Behe at approximately the 46 minute mark, in which he states: Again I would like to emphasize, I'm not arguing Darwinism cannot make complex functional systems, the data on malaria, and the other examples, are a observation that it does not. In science observation beats theory all the time. So Professor Dawkins can speculate about what he thinks Darwinian processes could do, but in nature Darwinian processes have not been shown to do anything in particular. bornagain77
Oops. Sorry about that. I hit the send button by accident. As I was saying, that is down from the peak of over 2% in the early 60's. At 2% growth rate, the world population would double every 35 years! Even at 1.14%, it would double every 61 years. Even allowing for the population to double every couple hundred years, we should have had many more than 200 billion people on this earth and the current population should be multiples of where it is today. If evolution is true, where are all the bones? Where have all the people gone? tjm
This article brings up an interesting problem that evolutionists must face. Why are there so few buried bones? OK, let's be generous and allow for a total population of 200 billion people since the beginning of the human population. Where are all the bones? There should be literally billions of them and very few are found. I wonder what the proposed population growth rate of humans is since they evolved. The current growth rate is said to be about 1.14% and that is down from the peak of over 2 tjm
It took 100 billion billion malarial parasites to evolve two amino-acid substitutions in order to defeat chloroquine, so even if the total cumulative human population has been 100 billion, you're still a billion times short. Then take into account how many mutations it would take to turn Lucy into Mike Behe, and the absurdity of the Darwinian proposition becomes obvious. Also, note Behe's comments about how Carroll claims that it has been demonstrated that protein-protein binding sites can evolve by Darwinian mechanisms and references two papers, which when read demonstrate nothing of the sort. They only compare protein sequences. Carroll just assumes that Darwinian mechanisms produced them, and then claims that this is a demonstration. GilDodgen
It doesn't change the argument much, but the total cumulative population of the world has been estimated anywhere from 50-100 billion, and even higher, no 12 billion as suggested above, though I'd be happy to see the evidence for the lower number. SCheesman

Leave a Reply