A student kindly writes to comment on the textbook, Evolutionary Analysis, by Jon C. Herron and Scott Freeman of which, he says,
I was suprised to find “ID creationism” mentioned in my evolutionary analysis textbook. While talking about biochemical designs, the book states “creationist Michael Behe believes he has found a profusion of cases”. They mention the cilium is not irreducibly complex in an evolutionary or a mechanical sense and that IC systems can evolve by natural selection. Also, “we predict that in the coming decades, all of Behe’s examples of IC will yield to evolutionary analysis”. Have they yielded any?
Also, the objections they cite that ID makes are: violation of the 2nd law and speciation has never been directly observed.
They also bash Dembski’s NFL theorem.
Right. But why do they care? Laszlo Bencze heard about it and wrote to say,
Another way to look at it is the old ad man’s trope: “Any publicity is good publicity.” The fact that your text feels it important to dispute ID is good indication of how significant they find it. In times past no textbook writers bothered to give contemporary creationism so much as a nod. Creationism wasn’t on the map. Now ID (disparaged with the bogus term “ID creationism”) has stepped into the foreground.
As for your questions, the situation is worse for a random evolution of the flagellum now than it was when Behe wrote his book. More complexity has been discovered.
Yes, and people are even trying to poach the ID brand now.
See also: Michael Behe isn’t actually a creationist, but it probably doesn’t matter. One might wonder why anybody who questions these types of folk is supposed to be a “creationist” anyway? How much longer can that last?
and
What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!
emphasis mine
Seeing that ID creationism exists only in the minds of the willfully ignorant, it is surprising to see it in any textbook that isn’t exposing it as such.
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mahatma_Gandhi#Misattributed
All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.
— Arthur Schopenhauer
http://www.megafoundation.org/.....sHall.html
All publicity is good publicity for causes that are right. Amen.
I know in Canada they bring up iD in university textbooks but then say its illegal and dumb etc.
Yes they must bring it up. I think because they want to persuade kids there is no evidence in nature for God or genesis and since great numbers think there is THEN its very pregnant to ignore a famous revolution in our times ID or the ancient beliefs YEC.
Over drinks they decide they need a paragraph to address the famous opposition and hope they kill it.
They can’t win.
They just publicize to millions of kids who never heard of it.
They can’t win. Error never can in the end.