Home » Darwinism, science education » Casey Luskin tries to explain why science texts should be about science, not about confirming secularists’ deepest beliefs, Darwinian magic, etc.

Casey Luskin tries to explain why science texts should be about science, not about confirming secularists’ deepest beliefs, Darwinian magic, etc.

Here.

Rube shouts in: Darwinism does nothing for my society, or for me. I pay taxes to force kids to learn stupid stuff about bacterial “spite” or long range planning among horses, and I’ll oppose it any chance  get.

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

2 Responses to Casey Luskin tries to explain why science texts should be about science, not about confirming secularists’ deepest beliefs, Darwinian magic, etc.

  1. Unfortunately I would say Casey got lost again in explanations about Intelligent Design. The textbooks over-exaggerated evidences for evolution was the point of discussion not ID.

    Tom made a great case for Casey. “Just because they aren’t there doesn’t mean they don’t exist.” Exactly!! They aren’t there!!! Please put a check next to the box called :Evolutionary limitation and problem. After checking please teach that fact to high school students, that those hypothesized evidences are not there and continue to encourage students to find them! It’s called critical education, have evolutionists ever heard of it? What reason is there to research evolution if there is nothing wrong with it?

    That was the point I was hoping Casey would get to.

  2. OT: This is of interest to the protein-protein binding site limit highlighted by Dr. Behe in “Edge Of Evolution”:

    Largest-Ever Map of Plant Protein Interactions
    Excerpt: The new map of 6,205 protein partnerings represents only about two percent of the full protein- protein “interactome” for Arabidopsis, since the screening test covered only a third of all Arabidopsis proteins, and wasn’t sensitive enough to detect many weaker protein interactions. “There will be larger maps after this one,” says Ecker.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....144936.htm

    So taking into account that they only covered 2% then that gets a number for different protein-protein interactions of 310,000;

    Thus from some back of the envelope calculations, we find this is at least 30 times higher than Dr. Behe’s original estimate of 10,000 different protein-protein binding sites for a typical cell. (Page 143; Edge of Evolution; Behe)

    =================

    A review of The Edge of Evolution:
    Excerpt: Behe summarizes the statistical problems for the evolutionary scenario in an important Table 7.1 (p. 143). A typical cell might have some 10,000 protein-binding sites, but in all the cases surveyed, perhaps one protein-protein binding site has arisen by mutation: the sickle cell condition in humans, which is quite non-specific and actually destroys the normal structure of the hemoglobin tetrad and causes disease not evolutionary advancement. So Behe is being generous in granting one example. Considering the number of organisms that have ever lived, it is clear that evolution could have created only two at most of the ~10,000 binding sites. And definitely no complexes of three or more proteins (of which there are many).

    Quote: ‘The numbers of Plasmodium and HIV in the last 50 years would probably greatly exceed the total number of mammals since their supposed evolutionary origin (several hundred million years ago), yet little has been achieved by evolution. This suggests that mammals could have invented little in their time frame. Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives good reason to think that Darwinism doesn’t do much—even with billions of years and all the cells in that world at its disposal’ (p. 155).
    http://creation.com/review-mic.....-evolution

Leave a Reply