Behe demolishes Darwin (yet again!)

Michael Behe hasn’t changed his tune (mostly wrong notes!) since he publish Darwin’s Black Box in 1996. his is a god of the Gaps argument and can be summed up as godofthegapswrappedupinaminoacids.

Intelligent Design has been a failure and has offered nothing except as a featherbed for a falling young earth creationist.

There are many better alternatives for a Christian  and other theists which don’t involved mucking up the science


Primate's Progress

Michael Behe has a new book coming out, Darwin Devolves, which according to the mendaciously mislabelled Evolution News “Topples Foundational Claim of Evolutionary Theory.” I am unlikely to be sent a review copy, so I am relying on the Evolution News summary.

In brief, Behe continues to assert the existence of irreducible complexity in animal organs, while maintaining that

Darwinian evolution proceeds mainly by damaging or breaking genes, which, counter-intuitively, sometimes helps survival. In other words, the mechanism is powerfully de-volutionary. It promotes the rapid loss of genetic information.

and encapsulates this conclusion in what he calls the First Rule of Adaptive Evolution:

Break or blunt any gene whose loss would increase the number of offspring.

I reviewed Behe’s earlier statement of this Rule some years ago, in PandasThumb, and friends have suggested that I repost it. So here it is. (I am proud to say that…

View original post 984 more words

1 thought on “Behe demolishes Darwin (yet again!)

  1. ianpalmer4

    I’m uneasy about a Godless evolution. I agree that the pattern revealed by comparative anatomy of species, the fossil record, and the DNA spectrum are a compelling case for evolution of species. On the other hand, when I see beauty in a sunset or a waterfall, or a hummingbird, i can praise God. And this comes from my consciousness, which has no explanation in evolution as I understand it (much easier to accept I’m made in the image of God). Evolution is also limited to species development, and does not include the origin of life from inanimate chemicals, which has no science explanation. Finally I sense that Behe has a point about irreducible complexity — its pretty hard for me to fathom how a hummingbird evolved without God’s influence. As a priest, Michael, I’d be interested in your perspective on these things.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s