Thursday, July 13, 2006
Evolution still going strong!
Oftentimes I'll scan the headlines before I post and came across yet another bit to add to the mountains of evidence for evolution. Finches on the Galapagos islands are observed evolving right now. Darwinian evolution expects it and explains it.
By coincidence I happen to be reading a book entitled Why Intelligent Design Fails edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis. The book patiently tries to make sense of the claims of Michael Behe and William Dembski (the two most prominent proponents of ID) and then to discover what scientific value these claims might have.
Behe's main argument seems to be that some structures are 'too complex' to be the result of evolutionary mechanisms. An anolgy is the common mouse trap that will not function without a certain minimum of parts working in concert. It used to be the supposed impossiblity of the evolution of the eye that creationists got excited about, but since that has been very well explained new examples had to be found. Two examples he cites are bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system. The authors seem to find the concept of 'irreducible complexity' to be vague and incoherent, his biological examples not very puzzling, and even that his mouse-trap analogy doesn't work.
Dembski's arguments seem to boil down to his belief that it is highly improbable that the specified complexity he finds in nature can be the result of evolutionary mechanisms. Sadly, Dembski has published very little in any peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps it is lack of trying, or perhaps it is a vast conspiracy. But, even if it is allowed that it is highly improbable does not make it impossible. After all someone wins the lottery, however astronomical the odds.
Though we don't see much research on Intelligent Design, evidence for evolution keeps piling up every day.
By coincidence I happen to be reading a book entitled Why Intelligent Design Fails edited by Matt Young and Taner Edis. The book patiently tries to make sense of the claims of Michael Behe and William Dembski (the two most prominent proponents of ID) and then to discover what scientific value these claims might have.
Behe's main argument seems to be that some structures are 'too complex' to be the result of evolutionary mechanisms. An anolgy is the common mouse trap that will not function without a certain minimum of parts working in concert. It used to be the supposed impossiblity of the evolution of the eye that creationists got excited about, but since that has been very well explained new examples had to be found. Two examples he cites are bacterial flagellum and the blood-clotting system. The authors seem to find the concept of 'irreducible complexity' to be vague and incoherent, his biological examples not very puzzling, and even that his mouse-trap analogy doesn't work.
Dembski's arguments seem to boil down to his belief that it is highly improbable that the specified complexity he finds in nature can be the result of evolutionary mechanisms. Sadly, Dembski has published very little in any peer-reviewed journals. Perhaps it is lack of trying, or perhaps it is a vast conspiracy. But, even if it is allowed that it is highly improbable does not make it impossible. After all someone wins the lottery, however astronomical the odds.
Though we don't see much research on Intelligent Design, evidence for evolution keeps piling up every day.
# posted by newbie @ 4:34 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Here, here, I can only pray that evolution is around for the next generation and that intelligent design is recognized as not being intelligent at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home
