Debunking "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe?

[Nlighten1]

Does anyone have information about this book?

[DrWeird]

1. It's been debunked thoroughly many times.

Scientific American did a major debunking about a year or two ago.

I'm sure you can find something over at talk origins.

Basically, if a creationist says anything, it's been debunked.

[Terwilliger]

2. That's why you've gotta love 'intelligent design'

It's another example of one of those premises that ultimately can't be proven, but sounds just right enough to make it fit into the Creationist fantasies.

Still, I think it's important to see that the only fight these people have left is the "intelligent design" canard...it just means that they're running out of counter-arguments.

[DrWeird]

3. They're evolving.

Ironic, ain't it.

[msmcghee]

17. Their memes are evolving . .

. . to become better viruses of the mind.

[BurtWorm]

14. I could believe in unintelligent design.

That would explain a lot. ;)

[WoodrowFan]

4. http://www.skepticplanet.com/

I subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer and find the SCICOP and Skeptical planet sites very useful for debunking creationists, moon landing hoax, roswell nuts, etc.

I bet I'm the only born-again Christian subscriber to Skeptical Inquirer who reads the magazine and LIKES it!! LOL

[Silverhair]

15. Nope. I once had a letter published in it. Great Mag. And I ...

am a liscened Southern Baptist Preacher with a Master of Divinity degree. That degree took three years of post-grad work, 88 semester hours.

[WoodrowFan]

16. damn

I thought I had that demographic locked up! Oh well, maybe I'm the only PRESBYTERIAN! :think:

[ThorsteinVeblen]

5. Any problems with Darwin's Theory

are akin to classical physics vs. quantum physics. Quantum physics doesn't deny the truth of classical physics, it just limits it to a certain sphere of reality.

Just because Darwian Theory is not the ultimate model of the biological universe, doesn't not mean that "creationism" is the only other answer. The argument seems to go as follows: If we prove that Darwian theory is not true than creationism has to be true. That is a silly little joke of an argument just as creationists are silly little jokes of people.

[sujan]

9. 'creationism' is not science

in that it cannot be tested.

Just like the argument we're having on the String theory, is it a Scientific theory or Philosophy?

On the other hand, creationism is nothing but reactionary bullshit from those who hate human progress.

[HereSince1628]

13. I wish people would come to grips with science and progress

Any postulation that requires a supernatural being violates the basic premise that science deals with the natural universe.

I also wish that pro-evolution people would realize that biology has moved WAY past Darwin. Darwin's theory focused on selection, and more processes than selection are (probably)involved.

Consequently there have been a suscession of "theories" since Darwin's including mutation theory, neo-Darwinian theory (once again pushing selection), a statistically based theory dealing with issues of genetic drift, and something called the modern synthetic theory, which tried to put the good parts of all the theories together (it emerged mid-20th century).

Since the mid-1900's there have been significant challenges to evolutonary thinking including issues of neutral selection, the transformative importance of the horizontal transfer of genetic material from one "type" to another, and the manner in which new types emerge (cladistic vs angenesis vs a combination of both).

In short, let's avoid equating Darwinism with contemporary evolutionary theory. Biology has moved past Darwin. It has incorporated some of his ideas while clipping and tucking them to fit into the more general understanding of biology which is literally more than a century more advanced than it was at Darwin's death.

[ConsAreLiars]

6. Don't know that particular book, but read this Scientific American link

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up
By John Rennie

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF

[arcane1]

7. ah, I remember reading that a couple of years ago...

basic summary- some of this biology stuff is too complicated, and we don't YET have a 100% explaination for it all, thus intelligent design

:crazy:

[SteveG]

8. some sources debunking Behe and other Creationists and IDer's

The premier site is Talk.origins at
http://www.talkorigins.org

a specific debunking
http://www.wfu.edu/~ecarlson/tasc/rational/y2000/n5.html

National Center for Science Education
http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/4456_pr99_9172001__hanken_pace__9_17_2001.asp


hope these help.

[Merlin]

10. Just because Darwin is right doesn't mean there is no Creator.

In fact, in the beginning--before the fundies took over Intelligent Design--it was a theory advocating the idea that the evolutionary scheme is simply a component of creation itself.

In other words, to propound that the universe is the product of a higher being, a Creator, who imbued it with intelligent systems, is not the same as saying the Biblical mythology is true.

[JHB]

12. As a corrolary to Merlin's point...

I like to point out that, despite frequent claims by creationist "christians", atheists do NOT "need" evolution to justify their worldview, and atheism is entirely compatible with creationism.

In a created world atheists would certainly admit the existence of beings with tremendously superior power and knowledge, but, they'd remind you, "So what?" The existence of such a being or beings, even if they did in fact create us, does not make him/them divine and worthy of blind worship, any more than new bacteria strains or breeds of animals should worship us.

There's nothing moral about sucking up to power just because it's powerful.

[On the Road]

11. Creationists are Always Refuting Darwin for Some Reason

Its like trying to refute quantum mechanics by attacking Issac Newton.

In terms of modern biology, Darwin didn't know anything. Although genetic patterns could be seen in reproduction, Crick and Watson didn't come along for over a century. Creationists are always referring to the fact that Darwin couldn't understand how the eye could have evolved. Well, no shit, Sherlock! He was a single biologist with a mid-19th-century understanding of organisms and very limited fossil record to work with.

Having said that, there is a black box in evolutionary theory. Current theories have difficulty explaining a lot of the devlopment shown by the fossil record. Evolutionary scientists do a disservice to their field by pretending it isn't there. There's more to be discovered -- it just isn't divine creation.

[Ediacara]

18. black box?

Having said that, there is a black box in evolutionary theory. Current theories have difficulty explaining a lot of the devlopment shown by the fossil record. Evolutionary scientists do a disservice to their field by pretending it isn't there. There's more to be discovered -- it just isn't divine creation.

Could you explain this a little bit more? I am unclear what you mean by this statement.