Month: March 2011
Behe’s Critics’ Scaffolding Falls Down
Only a die-hard ID-critic would find it “absurd” to actually test neo-Darwinian explanations on a mathematical level.
Michael Behe’s Critics Misunderstand Irreducible Complexity and Make Darwinian Evolution Unfalsifiable
It seems that Boudry, Blancke and Braekman misunderstand both Behe’s argument and the nature of the scientific process: the fact that a theory (in this case, Darwinism) can be saved from refutation by proposing wildly speculative and unfalsifiable scenarios does not mean that theory holds merit.
Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life — and Another Dawkins Whopper
Watch a fascinating exchange between Dawkins and genome guru J. Craig Venter, which occurred last month during a science forum held at Arizona State University.
Behe’s Critics Use Faulty Logic to Allege Creationist Connections to the Origin of Irreducible Complexity
Quarterly Review of Biology (QRB) published an error-filled article attacking Michael Behe and intelligent design (ID) as penance for publishing Behe’s article. So much for the claim from critics that Behe’s QRB paper had nothing to do with ID. In any case, the critical article by Maarten Boudry, Stefaan Blancke, and Johan Braeckman uses fallacious logic to attempt to connect Michael Behe’s arguments from irreducible complexity to young earth creationism. There argument seems to be that if anyone anywhere who is a creationist has ever talked about an idea that sounds like irreducible complexity, then that was necessarily one of Behe’s sources for his ideas. Behe’s critics thus quote Henry Morris and other creationists talking about how some biological features Read More ›
NPR Describes Way it Covers Science
What NPR has decided is that there is only one correct side to the issue and that the critics will be heard only in the political content of the debate, not the scientific.