Topic

response to criticism

Close-up Of Orange Figure Against White Human Figures On Seesaw
Close-up Of Businessperson Showing Orange Figure Against White Human Figures On Seesaw Over Wooden Desk

Right of Reply: Our Response to Jerry Coyne

Jerry Coyne has offered a response in the pages of Quillette to David Gelernter’s provocative article, “Giving Up Darwin.” Gelernter rejected the standard model of neo-Darwinian evolution for a simple reason: he looked at three pieces of scientific evidence that appeared to be incompatible with that model. Read More ›

Responses to Criticism of Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves

With the release of Michael Behe’s Darwin Devolves, the scientific dialogue between its detractors and defenders continues. Here we collect some of the most noteworthy criticisms and responses by Michael Behe and others. Find the most comprehensive coverage and most recent responses of Darwin Devolves at Evolution News. Re: Lents at Skeptic Magazine Regarding “Behe’s Last Stand: The Lion of Intelligent Design Roars Read More ›

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations

In the Abstract of their recent article, “Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution” (GENETICS 180: 1501–1509, 2008), Durrett and Schmidt write that one of their aims is “to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe’s arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.” Their effort, however, is itself seriously flawed. They Read More ›

The Facts about Intelligent Design: A Response to the National Academy of Sciences’ Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Download this article as a PDF [638 kb] Introduction A 1982 poll found that only 9% of Americans believed that humans developed through purely natural evolutionary processes. Two years later, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued its first Science and Creationism booklet, stating that science and religion occupy “separate and mutually exclusive realms.” [1] Public skepticism of evolution remained Read More ›

Beyond the Edge of Evolution: The New York Times Story

Dear Readers, As I wrote in The Edge of Evolution, Darwinism is a multifaceted theory, and to properly evaluate the theory one has to be very careful not to confuse its different aspects. Common descent, natural selection, and random mutation are separate concepts; the first two are well supported, but the power of random mutation is not. I argued that evolution Read More ›

Introduction and Responses to Criticism of Irreducible Complexity

Modern biology has discovered that cells are like miniaturized factories that function using micromolecular machines. In Darwin’s Black Box (1996), Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe proposed that many of these molecular machines exhibit irreducible complexity and therefore could not have been produced by an undirected Darwinian process. Instead, they appear to be the product of intelligent design. Behe’s book initiated a firestorm of controversy both inside and outside of the scientific community, and the debate continues to rage. As the responses below demonstrate, Behe’s arguments have not been refuted. Indeed, the case for the irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum and other molecular machines has continued to grow.

Read More ›
cassi-josh-644012-unsplash
View of red, blood-like liquid patterns
Photo by Cassi Josh on Unsplash

In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade

Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I devoted a chapter to the mechanism of blood clotting, arguing that it is irreducibly complex and therefore a big problem for Darwinian evolution. Since my book came out, as far as I am aware there have been no papers published in the scientific literature giving a detailed scenario or experiments to show how natural selection could have built the system. However three scientists publishing outside science journals have attempted to respond. Read More ›