Pa. scientist again attacks evolution : The Edge of Evolution, Search for Limits of Darwinism

Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 08/19/2007 | Cameron Wybrow

[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.

[Tribune7]

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

That's Behe's position to a degree. He's saying evolution has limits (hence the "Edge of Evolution")

[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.

[Dutchboy88]

Is the “middle ground” that a partnership exists between a thinking Creator and an unthinking phenomenon we will call “random pushing of stuff around that throws up new stuff that works”? Are the two equal and co-eternal? Seems tough to hold the “little bit of both” position.

[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.

[narby]

Is the “middle ground” that a partnership exists between a thinking Creator and an unthinking phenomenon we will call “random pushing of stuff around

Isn't God powerful enough to control "randomness"?

[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”.

[Coyoteman]

Two items though defy explanation in evolutionary terms: The origin of life and the Cambrian explosion.

The origin of life is not a part of evolution. In fact, the theory of evolution works fine with any of several origins.

As for the Cambrian explosion, try this article.

[Dutchboy88]

Precisely the point. Is the Creator controlling randomness or is there another “thing” in the universe that He does not control? Can’t have it both ways.

[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.

[Coyoteman]

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

Why would you omit pantheism?

And what evidence would you bring to bear on the subject to support your opinion either way?