[MatthewTan]

10,000 scientific papers on evolution?

Good! Edge of Evolution by Michael Behe is happy to embrace all the micro-evolution from natural selection acting on random mutations. No big deal.

Show us a good example of macro-evolution that came about through random mutations, and explain how you rule out intelligent design for the macro-evolution scientifically - and we will be more impressed.

[MatthewTan]

Another paper by Pat Sullivan on his blog of July 4, 2007.
Visit www.pro-science.com to keep yourself abreast about science and materialism, and the non-materialistic alternative.

- from Pat Sullivan’s blog -

Review of Dawkin’s Review of Behe’s “Edge of Evolution”

Here is Dr. Dawkin’s review of Dr. Behe’s new book “The Edge of Evolution”. A quote from his review.

Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science.

Exactly my point in my post here in number 2 and 3... Always say ID scientists are creationists and always say they are not real scientists. In other words, demean them which is my point number 1.

Here is a review of Dawkin’s review written by Logan Gage. A quote from this review.

Dawkins is a master of rhetoric. Only he could take a clear example of intelligently designed evolution (dog breeding) and offer it as a convincing “proof” of Darwinian evolution.

Here is another review of his review appearing on the blog “Uncommon Descent” A snippet from this review,

But where Dawkins lacks in substance, he more than makes up for it in form. Dawkins cunningly avoided dealing squarely with the facts, and rather chose to resort to veiled ad hominems and arguments from authority. For Dawkins, this only makes sense because, as one of Dawkins loyal cohorts in Canada, Larry Moran, aptly said, “it’s going to be a challenge to refute Behe’s main claims”.

Finally here are Behe’s own comments regarding a few other reviews of his new book. A quote from it.

Yet he is unwilling or unable to engage my arguments. He spends the first third of his review, and parts thereafter, writing of young earth creationism, while stating somewhere in the middle that, oh yes, Behe is not a young earth creationist. He says that all those arguments of Darwin’s Black Box have certainly been refuted, without bothering with wearying details. And he regrets that there is more of the same pesky trivia in The Edge of Evolution: “we are still where we were with Darwin’s Black Box. The microworld is too complex to be a product of nature.” In fact, he never tells readers of the review what the book’s argument is. No sickle cell, no malaria, no nothing. Unfortunately, the review boils down to mere Darwinian posturing.

Have a safe 4th of July!

[Jeff Gordon]

My reading and study doesn't prove out any hard core ID religiosity.

I have never heard of any atheist who "believes in" ID. We can safely say that 100% of the ID "believers" or religious in one way or another.

Evolution, by contrast, is accepted by both religious people and atheists.

[TXnMA]

Ping to yet another ID/MacroEvo thread...

[AntiKev]

By the same token, show us a good example of intelligent design and explain how you rule out macro-evolution. This debate goes both ways. But again, just more meaningless finger pointing “my imaginary friend is better than yours!”

The problem is that although Darwin provided the basis for current science, a significant portion of his research and observations have been discarded in favour of more modern research. There is no conclusive evidence either way right now...but I will point out a quote that I posted in another ID/Evolution thread earlier:

“I’ve never understood how God could expect His creatures to pick the one true religion by faith - it strikes me as a sloppy way to run a universe.”
- Robert Heinlein through Jubal Harshaw in Stranger in a Strange Land

[robertpaulsen]

"Nor do they explain the amazing fine tuning of our universe to support the possibility of life."

Yes, given our lifeform, it's amazing how the whole universe was built around it, fine tuned to support it. Why, a mere 1% change in the force of gravity would make life impossible!

There must be intelligent design!

(/sacrcasm for those who didn't pick it up.)

[Raycpa]

The original Star Trek hinted at an intelligent designer all the time.

When the universe is assumed to be billions of years old and our existence is a tiny fraction of that, why isn’t it possible that we are the product of some vast experiement by an intelligence greater than we can know?

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[ChessExpert]

Thanks for posting. There is a lot of content, and it was thoughtfully written. My logic class contained a section on informal fallacies, and Sullivan addresses some of them. He spends a fair amount of time noting and arguing against the ad hominem attack. It is a shame these “attacks against the man” are so common in these debates. Sullivan was right to take this on upfront and at length. Again, it is a shame that Sullivan was compelled to address this.

Another fallacy is the genetic fallacy: the fallacy that an argument should be accepted, or rejected, based upon it’s source. I think Sullivan dispatches this one too. Not everyone gets this wrong. The Hidden History of the Human Race is written by Cremo and Thompson, who acknowledge they have a Vedic background. But as they say “What really matters is not a theory’s source but its ability to account for the observations.”

Here is something more advanced:

Everyone brings bias to their arguments, conscious or unconscious, and bias in and of itself is not wrong -- hidden bias is what's wrong.

I think he is absolutely right and many people should take this to heart.

Sullivan notes the bias of some evolutionists who must find a naturalistic explanation regardless of the evidence.

Sullivan distances himself from creationists. But one of the best and most refreshing admissions of bias that I’ve seen was at a creationist (some say “creation science”) website. The author addressed the age of the universe and freely admitted that his religious understanding gave him the answer - now to the science. He came up with several approaches and evaluated each, pro and con. I remember one approach had the speed of light changing over time. That struck me as sheer conjecture. But so does the idea of multiverses, and other cosmological speculation that some are given credence by some.

[RightWhale]

Marketing science: The list should be a bullet list following the seven plus, or minus two rule.

[Fester Chugabrew]

Terrific post. All who respond have proven themsleves to be creators. Not very “scientific” of them, I say!