Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email


It is evident by the fact that Richard Dawkins, Jerry Coyne, Ken Miller, Sean Carroll, and Michael Ruse have written book reviews of Michael Behe’s book, The Edge of Evolution, that the best evolutionary biologists think about intelligent design. That only makes sense because Darwin himself wrote much about intelligent design and devoted an entire book, The Origin of Species, in a failed attempt to refute intelligent design.

We see peer reviewed literature by Zuckerkandl, Ayala, Koonin, and others referencing intelligent design. Here is a peer-reviewed article by 3 scientists from MIT in the journal of Molecular Systems Biology: The intelligent design of evolution where the authors assert:

The debate between intelligent design and evolution in education may still rage in school boards and classrooms, but intelligent design is making headway in the laboratory…
….
Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.

In preparing another thread, I came across the photograph of one of the most famous evolutionary biologists, John Maynard Smith. The photograph above was of Maynard-Smith when he was a bit younger. The photograph below is one of the last photographs of Maynard-Smith published, and it appeared in a memorial article written by Richard Lewontin in the prestigious Journal Science in 2004 [see: Retrospective: In Memory of John Maynard Smith (1920-2004)]

Look at the close up of the book on his shelf:

It’s none other than Michael Behe’s, Darwin’s Black Box, right beside Charles Darwin’s autobiography.

PS
I’d like to thank everyone, especially the evolutionary biologists, for purchasing Behe’s books, reading them, and advertising them.

[update: johnnyb pointed out that Maynard-Smith co-authored an aritcle with a creationist published in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, See: here for details.

HT: TelicThoughts A Mystery for the Ages

]

Comments
Keep the original photo file as I think they will erase it from the Science site some time soon.idnet.com.au
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT
Wow, Scordova, you had real sharp eyes to pick out the name of the book. And the book came within an inch of being obscured by Smith's head. Anyway, I don't think that the photo was necessarily intended to be an endorsement of the book.Larry Fafarman
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
02:53 PM
2
02
53
PM
PDT
I will say that I see "intelligent design" referenced more commonly - in fact I'd say that it's a pretty powerful meme (Thank you, Dawkins!) at this point. It's even shown up in previews of video games (Spore, by Maxis. Which may as well be an ID game, frankly.) I think the very idea that there can be design present in any and every level of material existence - from the formation of the universe to the mechanics of quanta, and everything in between - is itself a very powerful idea, regardless of what one thinks of the specific scientific claims of Professors Dembski and Behe. For advancing that manner of thinking - and providing an alternative to what is essentially a fierce philosophical orthodoxy in the sciences - I'm grateful to the ID movement at large.nullasalus
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
02:05 PM
2
02
05
PM
PDT
So, scientists everywhere may soon begin their own intelligent designs… and so far, it looks like the best designs are the simplest. At the protein level, at least, it looks like irreducible complexity is out and a rather reducible simplicity is in. Intelligent design, however, may be here to stay.
Like I always said, this is positive experimental evidence for ID. Let me explain. We have an effect, functionally complex molecular machines, and we propose two possible causal classes: intelligence and unguided (unintelligent) mechanisms. We observe the unintelligent mechanisms (as Behe's EOE recounts) and see that unintelligent mechanisms are incapable of producing the effect. This is a negative argument against the second causal class, and since the two classes are exhaustive and mutually exclusive, we could stop there by disjunctive syllogism. But, we can further strengthen our argument, and make a positive case for the first causal class (Design) by testing to see if this class can produce the observed effect. That is what the sceintists in the article are doing; they are providing direct evidence for Intelligent Design. Since they are capable of building such structures, (and as time passes they'll be able to produce increasingly complex ones), we can see that our first causal class (intelligence) can indeed produce the observed effect. So not only can intelligence demonstrably produce the observed effect, it is the only causal class thus far demonstrated to do so. Therefore, ID is the only resonable explanation at this point. As you can see, we have built a positive, two-pronged case for ID. This is why I love science (actual experiment).Atom
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
09:52 AM
9
09
52
AM
PDT
For the record, John Maynard Smith is a wonderful individual. No disrespect intended toward him.scordova
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
09:47 AM
9
09
47
AM
PDT
The picture of Maynard-Smith with Behe's book on his shelf is real (visit the link to Lewontin's essay in Science). The picture at the top had a thought cloud added to the photograph. Many thanks to the friend who put the thought cloud picture together.scordova
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
09:45 AM
9
09
45
AM
PDT
[To digress:] When Hannah Gray, then president of the University of Chicago, handed me my doctorate in mathematics in June of 1988, two figures who have been significant in my intellectual development also received doctorates -- honorary ones -- from her hand: Amos Tversky and John Maynard Smith.William Dembski
June 30, 2007
June
06
Jun
30
30
2007
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply