response to criticism | Page 3 | Discovery Institute

^{The Center for Science and Culture
February 3, 2006
Intelligent Design

10}

The Truth About Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture

_{The Center for Science and Culture
February 3, 2006
Intelligent Design

10}

Misinformation and mischaracterization are rampant in the media coverage of the debate over evolution. Because Discovery Institute’s views and positions recently have been inaccurately reported, and because Discovery Fellows have been maligned in the media in the past, over the past few years we have published a number of Truth Sheets to set the record straight. Read More ›

^{Michael J. Behe
February 27, 2004
Intelligent Design

2}

Behe’s letter in the WSJ responding to Feb. 13 article by Sharon Begley

_{Michael J. Behe
February 27, 2004
Intelligent Design

2}

“We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations.” So lamented Colorado State University biochemist Franklin Harold in “The Way of the Cell” (Oxford Read More ›

Amazing bird Kingfisher. Diving bird. Colorful nature background. Bird: Common Kingfisher. Alcedo atthis

^{Stephen C. Meyer
December 18, 2003
Intelligent Design

24}

Teleological Evolution

_{Stephen C. Meyer
December 18, 2003
Intelligent Design

24}

It is difficult to see what empirical content Lamoureux's teleological evolution has or how it differs in substance from standard Neo-Darwinism with its denial of any evidence of actual, as opposed to merely apparent, design. Read More ›

^{William A. Dembski
January 25, 2002
Intelligent Design

3}

Refuted Yet Again!

_{William A. Dembski
January 25, 2002
Intelligent Design

3}

This article is written in response to Matt Young’s “How to Evolve Specified Complexity by Natural Means” which appeared in Metanexus. The mathematician George Polya used to quip that if you can’t solve a problem, find an easier problem and solve it. Matt Young seems to have taken Polya’s advice to heart. Young has taken Shannon’s tried-and-true theory of information Read More ›

Dark grey black slate background or texture.

^{The Center for Science and Culture
April 16, 2001
Intelligent Design

2}

The ”New” Creationism

_{The Center for Science and Culture
April 16, 2001
Intelligent Design

2}

Public tirades by dogmatic Darwinists about intelligent design theory are always useful. Such acts expose any remaining pretenses of their objectivity. Science writer Robert Wright’s response to the New York Times story (April 8, 2001) on design theory is particularly delightful. In sum, Wright argues that ID is just a marketing strategy, its advocates are simpletons who dont understand the Read More ›

Alpha-galactosidase (3d structure), administered as enzyme repla

^{Michael J. Behe
January 8, 2001
Intelligent Design

6}

Comments on Ken Miller’s Reply to My Essays

_{Michael J. Behe
January 8, 2001
Intelligent Design

6}

Kenneth Miller, Brown University Professor of Biology and author of Finding Darwin's God, has posted a response to my essays. I think it should be plain to most open-minded readers that he is struggling to fend off examples that weigh heavily against Darwinism. I do, however, want to make a few additional comments, in just two areas, to keep the issues in focus. Read More ›

^{Michael J. Behe
August 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

17}

Self-Organization and Irreducibly Complex Systems

_{Michael J. Behe
August 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

17}

Some biochemical systems require multiple, well-matched parts in order to function, and the removal of any of the parts eliminates the function. I have previously labeled such systems "irreducibly complex," and argued that they are stumbling blocks for Darwinian theory. Instead I proposed that they are best explained as the result of deliberate intelligent design. In a recent article Shanks and Joplin analyze and find wanting the use of irreducible complexity as a marker for intelligent design. Their primary counter-example is the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction, a self-organizing system in which competing reaction pathways result in a chemical oscillator. In place of irreducible complexity they offer the idea of "redundant complexity," meaning that biochemical pathways overlap so that a loss of one or even several components can be accommodated without complete loss of function. Here I note that complexity is a quantitative property, so that conclusions we draw will be affected by how well-matched the components of a system are. I also show that not all biochemical systems are redundant. The origin of non-redundant systems requires a different explanation than redundant ones. Read More ›

^{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design, Research & Analysis

31}

In Defense of the Irreducibility of the Blood Clotting Cascade

_{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design, Research & Analysis

31}

In 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 ›

Virtualization of Understanding — Photo by agsandrew on Adobe Stock

^{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

36}

Philosophical Objections to Intelligent Design

_{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

36}

I. Is Intelligent Design Falsifiable? Some reviewers of Darwin’s Black Box (Behe 1996) have raised philosophical objections to intelligent design. I will discuss several of these over the next few sections, beginning with the question of falsifiability. To decide whether, or by what evidence, it is falsifiable, one first has to be sure what is meant by “intelligent design.” By Read More ›

minimalistic yellow background with a mousetrap and a piece of tasty cheese

^{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

22}

A Mousetrap Defended

_{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

22}

In Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution I coined the term "irreducible complexity" in order to point out an apparent problem for the Darwinian evolution of some biochemical and cellular systems. In brief, an irreducibly complex system is one that needs several well-matched parts, all working together, to perform its function. Read More ›

Stack of documents with paper clips on office table. Space for text

^{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

20}

Irreducible Complexity and the Evolutionary Literature

_{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

20}

Although several persons have cited numerous references from the scientific literature purporting to show that the problem of irreducible complexity I pointed out in Darwin's Black Box is being seriously addressed, the references show no such thing. Read More ›

^{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

15}

“A True Acid Test”

_{Michael J. Behe
July 31, 2000
Intelligent Design

15}

In this essay I reply to what I consider to be the most important claim made by any critic of intelligent design: that direct experimental evidence has shown that evolution can indeed generate irreducibly complex biochemical systems. As I will show below, the claim is false. Read More ›