Ping!
Dr. Behe has already testified, under oath, that intelligent design is no different than astrology.
Is ICR defending astrology as well?
I've actually read the article in question from PNAS. It's a joke. They don't actually support the contentions presented in both the abstract, as well as the popular press releases, and one gets the impression that Dr. Lithgow, et al. produced it more for its "gotcha wowsers" effect than anything else. The science in the paper simply doesn't support the claims being made about the paper.
Behe’s Black Box was refuted long ago. You know it’s bad when the book supposedly got a more rigorous pre-publication peer review than most scientific journals (according to Behe), yet three of the reviews would have resulted in a rejection, and one “reviewer” didn’t even see the book. Interestingly, it was the opinion of that last one that convinced the publisher to publish the book.
I have to hand it to Behe though, the book did force the scientists to defend the current state of science, and forcing such a defense is always good, at least the first time, then rehashing the rejected stuff starts to get old.
Both creation scientists...
There is no such thing as a Creation scientist.
...highlight examples of irreducible complexity in their studies, because they argue against evolutionary hypotheses.
False conclusion right from the beginning, eh Brian Thomas *MS? They highlight a catch-phrase they've manufactured and CLAIM it argues against the THEORY of evolution.
The very structure of these systems—with their interdependent parts working all together or not at all—demands a non-Darwinian, non-chance, non-piecemeal origin.
False conclusion, Brian Thomas *MS.
But did they use real science to demonstrate this, or just scientific-sounding phrases?
Discrediting scientific research by asking a simple question. I doubt Brian Thomas *MS would know the difference either way. Careful of the projection, Brian. I'm waiting for the other catch phrases of "design" and "kind" to be mentioned.
What they do claim is that an imaginary, not-yet-complete machine has no function, and is thus invisible to natural selection and therefore “unevolvable.”
NOTHING that comes from transcribing and translating DNA is "unevolvable"........random mutations are a bitch.....one basepair change can alter the shape of a protein to give it new function or render it functionless......or it could do nothing more than get passed on to further generations where another mutation in the same codon could alter the protein expression.....so long as DNA is involved, there is no such thing as "unevolveable"...natural selection may not be involved, but natural selection is not the end-all be-all of "evolution."........dear Brian here doesn't seem to know that.
...but DO TELL, dear Brian with all that scientific knowledge you have. I see lots of bogus claims and assertions, but that's what Brian Thomas *MS is used to doing.
Wonder what Brian Thomas *MS thinks about hemoglobin.