Darwin’s Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It

Spread the love

The Foundation for Thought and Ethics have just released a kindle-format version of an interview that our own Bill Dembski did for “The Best Schools” website. Download it here.

Be sure to also  check out Bill Dembski’s response to Thomas Nagel’s critics over at Evolution News & Views.


17 Replies to “Darwin’s Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    In tribute to Darwin’s Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It, here is a song

    The Band Perry – Better Dig Two – music

  2. 2
    Granville Sewell says:

    BA77, as long as we’re linking in songs, here’s a cute one called the Design Song written and performed by W.E.Loennig (in German, naturalich). Actually pretty good, and here are the printed lyrics.

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    Why Thanks Dr. Sewell! 🙂


    Here is a pretty good discussion on the recent evidence that came out (further) overturning ERV’s:

    ERV’s – Dumb DNA design? – Ian Juby – February 2013 – video

  4. 4
    Granville Sewell says:

    Should add to comment #2, for those who don’t know who W.E.Loennig is, he studied mutations for 30 years at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding in Koln, so he is quite familiar with the subject of the song! Go up one level to to see his library of writings on evolution and design.

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Little boy named Brandon shocks a guitar store owner;theater

  6. 6
    John Witton says:

    Although Larry Moran has just posted his own blog about Dembski’s-“Darwin’s Dead Idea and the Man Who Helped Kill It”, he also posted another blog and a video, in which Craig Venter denies common descent. Surprisingly enough, Larry says, that “Everything that Ventor (Venter)says is correct”.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    OT: Carrie Underwood – Blown Away – music video

    Carrie said in her acceptance speech for her Grammy last night, “I thank the good Lord that I am a part of such a wonderful, talented, amazing family. There’s a lot of people to be thankful for … the fans who have been coming out and supporting us: you guys are the reason we get to do what we do. My family, my amazing, perfect husband. Glory to God! Thank you so much.”

  8. 8
    JLAfan2001 says:

    This is ironic. Venter who is a Darwinist denies common ancestry and the tree of life. Behe who is a IDist supports it. Are we sure that Venter’s view is correct or is he being misquoted? If it is correct, how does this put him with other Darwinists? I cna’t see Moran agreeing with this.

  9. 9
    Joe says:

    It’s UNIVERSAL common descent that Venter is against, ie more than one tree of life.

  10. 10
    udat says:

    JLA, Venter has said a similar thing before — from Life: What a Concept! (p. 42)

    One question is, can we extrapolate back from this data set to describe the most recent common ancestor. I don’t necessarily buy that there is a single ancestor. It’s counterintuitive to me. I think we may have thousands of recent common ancestors and they are not necessarily so common.

  11. 11
    JLAfan2001 says:

    Thanks for the clarification. Does Behe believe in universal common descent or descent within species like Venter?

  12. 12
    John Witton says:

    This is what Larry Moran wrote today on his blog reg. LUCA in response to Venter’s video and my indication of Dawkins’ lack of knowledge of the variants of the genetic code, as well as the tree of life :

    “I’m pretty sure that Dawkins doesn’t agree with those who question whether there’s a tree of life. One of the most profound implications of the net of life is that it’s consistent with several independent origins of life that preceded the rise of a modern genetic code and contributed to existing species. In other words, there may not be a single LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor). Dawkins does not like that. It’s not what he says on the lecture circuit.

    Dawkins is in good company. He signed a letter to New Scientist about the cover I showed in the post above. The other signers were Jerry Coyne, PZ Myers, and Daniel Dennett. Here’s part of what they said …

    The banyan tree is a good analogy but it’s still not a net. And it’s just not true what they say about HGT. The problem is, in fact, serious enough to obscure the branches.”

  13. 13
    JLAfan2001 says:

    This is very interesting. Science can’t figure out how life came about once let alone thousands of times. What are the odds that life arose multiple times presumably in multiple locations with the same DNA and genetic coding? DNA shows that we are related one species to another. How does that happen if life arose by itself in different times and places? Was the early earth swarming with the building blocks of life everywhere?

  14. 14
  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    as well: An Enzyme’s Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case of Convergent Evolution – Jonathan M. – February 11, 2013
    Excerpt: The authors attempt to account for the incongruity by positing that “the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” They thus attribute the shared genes to horizontal gene transfer (with no offered mechanism), a proposition that has become a catch-all to explain away severe conflicts between evolutionary phylogenies.,,,
    “phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception”
    (Dávalos et al., 2012).
    Is it possible that the real reason for such striking and widespread phylogenetic discordance is that evolutionary biologists are looking at biology through the wrong lens? Could the reason that there is so much difficulty in correlating organisms to a tree be that no such tree exists?

  16. 16
    Andre says:

    If life started multiple times in many locations and yet we still have DNA as the universal code then it becomes clear that common ancestry is false and design is true. What are the chances that DNA evolved multiple times?

  17. 17
    Jon Garvey says:


    Craig Venter (video recently on Moran’s Sandwalk site) seems to suggest the minor variant DNAs as evidence for multiple origins of life. If that were so, you’d expect some chemical basis for the code and its correlation with amino acids.

    And that is almost as far-fetched as multiple simnilar DNAs emerging by sheer luck.

Leave a Reply