[Paradox]

If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.

How bout this, Evolution occurs, God nudges it along.

[zencat]

I think there's a middle ground here. Instead of the randomness of natural selection or the "outside" influence of intelligent design, why can't design be an inherent property within the system?

[cosine]

The Edge of Evolution is highly recommended. Behe’s ideas have implications for drug development among other things. The discussion of evolution and malaria is fascinating.

[Mrs.Z]

SirLinksalot refrains from comment due to the flaming which will certainly occur from the darwinists.

It should be duly noted however, that scientists who are convinced that their concepts should be chiseled in stone often find those ideas reduced to dust.

[gobucks]

If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.

In other words, for evolution to have 'worked' within 5 billion years for large animals requires generations of animals that had multiple SIMULTANEOUS mutations occuring at once....and all beneficial.

[TChris]

God designed life to evolve and adapt, within the limits He established.

[Hoplite]

He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes.

Behe's not retreating, he's just advancing in the opposite direction.

[onedoug]

I'm okay with evolution as far as genetics are concerned. Two items though defy
explanation in evolutionary terms: The origin of life and the Cambrian explosion.

[GreenOgre]

Where is the mechanism ID uses to mutate these genes? Who saw the ID mutator work? What did the ID mutator look like?

We have examples of mutation, but no evidence of supernatural involvement. Therefore ID is false.

[beethovenfan]

Sounds rather like the Warmists and the global warming “deniers”.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

Well....it’s a “God of the Gaps” argument: “That which I cannot explain, I attribute to supernatural causes”.

He’s entitled to take the position, but historically as regards the natural sciences, it’s generally been an erroneous one.

[lonestar67]

Why is this complicated?

Behe says that the theory of evolution is insufficient to explain the advanced state of mutations in a range of organisms.

That suggestion does not per se require the existence of God thought it may be more amenable to the possibility than the blinding atheist dogma that evolutionary scientism Darwin’s theory has been transformed into by ideologues.

Behe has a reasonable argument. If evolution is so awesome, why can it not be subject to debate?

[Brad from Tennessee]

“The editors of the major print media have assigned known enemies of ID to trash the book. . .”

Sort of like the Church attacking Galileo but instead of Catholics Behe’s critics are scientific materialists. If Behe’s theory is so weak why all the uproar?

The scientific notion of intelligent design is hard to debate without the intrusion of monotheism and atheism.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Behe's presentation and subsequent defense of ID (including his testimony at the Dover trial in 2005) outraged much of the biological community.

More fantasy facts. Biologists don't care that Dr. Behe said that creationism is the same as astrology.

[Aquinasfan]

If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.

He concedes that Darwinian processes can make new species, but argues that they are incompetent to generate new kingdoms, phyla, or classes. The creative limit, the "edge of evolution," lies somewhere between the level of species and the level of class. Darwinian processes can account for the difference between a dog and a wolf, maybe even a dog and a bear, but not the difference between a lizard and a bird.

Interesting, somewhat intuitive and corresponding with human experience, and conforming with the fossil evidence.

The ID crowd is adding to our knowledge regarding the development of creatures. Can't say the same for the evolution community, which seems to be positively reactionary.

[jonno]

bump

[Elpasser]

“Richard Dawkins [reviewed] for the New York Times”??

That’s preposterous. Dawkins is an evangelical athiest. That’s like having Ahmadinejad review “Satanic Verses.”

[mjp]

If this indicates the typical rate of occurrence of double mutations, then the Darwinian transformation of our pre-chimp ancestor into homo sapiens, which would have required at least some double mutations, would have taken at least a thousand trillion years, a time span greater than the age of the universe.

Also the lack of development of any new species in any of the billions of organisms in the area of Chernobyl with the billions of mutations and generations would support this conclusion.

[allmendream]

I’m eagerly awaiting the book where he explains how scientific Astrology is, according to his definition of science.

[RightWhale]

Why all these Creation threads? Is it part of some Design?