Oh, yes, I was waiting for his name to pop up, LOL. What a joke.
Make it simple for you. Pick up the Nov/Dec 05 issue of Skeptical Inquirer. It should be enough to run away from that joker as fast as you can. He is a lone voice in his own wilderness, nothing more. Who said that because there might be an irreducible complexity, yet to be proven, just his hypothesis, causes the follow on to intelligent design? Was it peer reviewed?
Actually, this Irreducible complexity is proof of a very poor design who know absolutely nothing with such a flawed design that all it takes is one protein to collapse the structure. We can build better bridges than that.
The basic idea is that the generally accepted scientific theory that life evolved through biological evolution by natural selection alone is incomplete and flawed and that some additional mechanism is required to explain the origins of life.
That is only HIS idea, not an accepted scientific fact. Which peer process did he submit his paper to? Which Journal? No, it is his book alone, no peer review at all. Sorry, that is not a theory. How did he try to falsify it?
An irreducibly complex system is one which could not possibly have been formed by successive, slight modifications to a functional precursor system because without all of the elements, the system isn't beneficial.
And an Intelligent design would create such a complex system that only one part will render it useless??? I would say otherwise and that is what hes peers are saying. Just have to read their works on it, or a short glimpse in the above issue
This, plus the widely accepted age of the earth (4.5 billion years) - to me - doesn't allow for evolution to be possible.
False premise. The first is not established, not the age. Second, one has only to ask credible biologists beyond Behe. They will tell you otherwise.
This is obviously up for debate - but that's pretty much where I lean and why.
Not debated in the evolutionary development biology, nothing to debate. Behe is just plain wrong. Interesting speculations by him, nothing more. I go with the rest of the field, not one lone wolf and certainly not Dembski who has doubt about Behe's logic.
But, I would offer Scott Gilbert, a biologist at Swarthmore College and author of the leading college text of developmental biology and accomplished historian of embryology and evolutionary biology:
" To creationists, the synthesis of evolution and genetics cannot explain how some fish became amphibians, how some reptiles became mammals, or how some apes became human... Behe named this inability to explain the creation of a new taxa through genetics 'Darwin's Black Box.' When the box is opened, he expects evidence of a Deity to be found. However, inside Darwin's black box resides merely another type of genetics- developmental genetics."
this developmental genetics is shedding new light on the making of complexity and the evolution of diversity for twenty years now. Some just refuse to see it. What else is new. I see a great parallel in audio. LOL
