Tag: Irreducible Complexity
Behe’s Critics Fail to Understand Analogies and Design Detection
Whenever biochemist Michael Behe’s argument for design from “irreducibly complex” molecular machines appears, there is a Darwinist waiting in the wings with a devastating critique (or so he thinks). Take as an example the following passage from biologist Craig M. Story. He recently reviewed Fazale Rana’s new book The Cell’s Design for Christianity Today (see “Same Song, Second Verse“). In his review, he critiques Behe’s argument, because according to Dr. Story, Rana merely regurgitates Behe. Rana, like Behe before him, may be commended for providing a layman’s description of a number of astonishingly intricate cellular processes. But his portraits of cellular workings will fail to convince most mainstream scientists for the same reason that Behe’s book has been roundly dismissed: Read More ›
Leading Biologists Marvel at the “Irreducible Complexity” of the Ribosome, but Prefer Evolution-of-the-Gaps
A roundtable symposium was recently held at by John Brockman entitled, “Life: What A Concept!” discussing how life arose. Participants included some huge names in origin of life research and genomics, such as Freeman Dyson, J. Craig Venter, George Church, Robert Shapiro, Dimitar Sasselov, and Seth Lloyd. None of the participants are favorable towards intelligent design, but the transcript of their conversations suggested that the ribosome may exhibit “irreducible complexity” (their words). It’s clear that these anti-ID scientists don’t even understand exactly how life works, much less do they know how it arose naturally, but that they are nonetheless taking an evolution-of-the-gaps approach, assuming that complex micromolecular machines like the ribosome will (despite their present appearances) indeed turn out to Read More ›
Do Car Engines Run on Lugnuts? A Response to Ken Miller & Judge Jones’s Straw Tests of Irreducible Complexity for the Bacterial Flagellum (Continued — Part II)
(Part II, Version 1.0)By Casey LuskinCopyright © 2006 Casey Luskin. All Rights Reserved. The entire article can be read here …Yesterday, I posted Part I of this response. To reiterate, there are three primary problems with Judge Jones’s ruling that Ken Miller refuted Michael Behe’s arguments that the bacterial flagellum is irreducible complex: Yesterday I posted sections addressing parts (A) and (B). Today I will continue with the response, expanding on Part (C): (C) Miller’s Incorrect Characterization of Irreducible Complexity To repeat Miller’s assertion, he testified that irreducible complexity is refuted if one sub-system can perform some other function in the cell: “Dr. Behe’s prediction is that the parts of any irreducibly complex system should have no useful function. Therefore, Read More ›