Michael Behe has a paper forthcoming in the December Quarterly Review of Biology, entitled Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”. It may well be interesting to find out what Behe has to say on mutations.
As one might expect, the biblical literalists at C4ID (who bizarrely promote ID creationism) are gearing up to make the most of it. Elsewhere in that page, the C4ID crew enthuse about Behe’s reception during his tour, and list the main points he expounded as:
- Design is not mystical. It is deduced from the physical structure of a system
- Everyone agrees aspects of biology appear designed
- There are structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution
- Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination
- Bottom line: Strong evidence for design, little evidence for Darwinism
Not much new there, though what the ‘structural obstacles to Darwinian evolution’ might be escape me! And to claim that ‘Grand Darwinian claims rest on undisciplined imagination’ when one’s own views are based on religious texts is nothing short of bizarre. C4ID go on to claim:
No academic paper was presented or question asked of Prof Michael Behe that in any way created difficulty except perhaps the lack of time to go into the detail he would have liked to.
The reports of Behe’s tour indicate that serious questioning was hampered by the way questions were submitted.
Significantly, if Intelligent Design isn’t science, then why did opponents attempt to undermine it by citing scientific papers, albeit ones that were largely irrelevant?
The point C4ID make is risible. To demonstrate the unscientific nature of Intelligent Design creationism, the citation of scientific papers is rather important. I would challenge C4ID to identify which papers they were, and why they were irrelevant.
Apparently more events will be organised. Oh good.