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?
What the fossils told us in their own words
Follow UD News at Twitter!