A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “Information Challenge” (Part 2): Does Gene Duplication Increase Information Content? (Updated)

[Editor’s note: This was the second installment of a three-part series. The full article, A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”, can be read here.] In Part I, I demonstrated that specified complexity is the appropriate measure of biological complexity. In this section, I will show why merely citing gene duplication does not help one understand how Darwinian evolution can produce new genetic information. Dawkins’ main point in his “The Information Challenge” article is that “[n]ew genes arise through various kinds of duplication.” So his answer to the creationist question that so upset him is gene duplication. Yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. As Michael Egnor said Read More ›

A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “Information Challenge” (Part 1): Specified Complexity Is the Measure of Biological Complexity

[Editor’s note: This was the first installment of a three-part series. The full article, A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”, can be read here.] Last week I posted a link to a YouTube video where Richard Dawkins was asked to explain the origin of genetic information, according to Darwinism. I also posted a link to Dawkins’ rebuttal to the video, where he purports to explain the origin of genetic information according to Darwinian evolution. The question posed to Dawkins was, “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” Dawkins famously commented that the question was “the kind of question only a creationist would Read More ›

Richard Dawkins on the Origin of Genetic Information

[Editor’s note: This was the preface of a three-part series responding to Dr. Dawkins. The full article responding to Dr. Dawkins, A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”, can be read here.] Want to learn about how Darwinian evolution generates new information? This video clip, which includes the raw footage of the original question, shows how Richard Dawkins responded, in context, when the question was directly posed to him during an interview. Phillip Johnson described this interview as follows: “In response to the question, Dawkins hesitated for at least eleven seconds, an agonizingly long time in the context of a video interview, before he finally gave a completely irrelevant reply about the transition between fish and amphibians. The creationists Read More ›

The Fruit of Richard Dawkins’ Efforts on the Intelligent Design Debate

After posting about the law review article in the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion which argued that Judge Jones went too far, I was sent an unsolicited e-mail by someone I’ll call SGB with the subject, “Intelligent Design is Not Science.” The e-mail was sent as a letter to the Editor-In-Chief and Managing Editor of the Rutgers Journal of Law and Religion, apparently intended for public consumption. I was cc’d on it, along with Richard Dawkins and Glenn Branch (of the NCSE). It’s a long letter, which largely misunderstands ID and Mr. Italiano’s legal arguments. But SGB’s conclusion was most interesting: In a book titled “The God Delusion”, author Richard Dawkins considers “the God Hypothesis.” He defines the God Read More ›

Orr Attacks Dawkins

A number of scientists, most notably Richard Dawkins, are presently engaging on what is being called a “crusade against religion, not just intelligent design.” Richard Gallagher, editor of The Scientist calls it “thought-provoking and worthwhile.” But not so H. Allen Orr, who attacks Dawkins’ latest book as “an extended polemic against faith.” Orr calls Dawkins “an enemy of religion” and says he is “is on a mission to convert.” But Orr is apparently not on such a mission, saying “I’m among those scientists who must part company with him.” Orr calls The God Delusion “badly flawed” because it “never squarely faces its opponents.” In short, Orr believes that Dawkins rejects religion too hastily and in too dismissive a fashion, saying, Read More ›