How can Ted Davis say something is a “very thoughtful commentary” by Nick Matzke about Behe if he has not read the book and actually talked with Behe.

By the way Ted Davis refers to Nick Matzke as his good friend.

In Wikipedia it is called MSTN. Perhaps a dyslexic reporter.

Likely, since the abstract from the paper also refers to “MSTN”.

On randomness: personally, and I’m sure some would disagree, that randomness has more to do with the source of the mutation. Two examples. If the mutation is caused by internal functions then that isn’t random. Although it’s possible in certain cases a randomizer function may be used it’s still the purposeful randomization of variables. But if the mutation is caused by a breakdown in error correction I’d call that random myself.

I’m no historian and I’m sure there are historical data points to counter this claim, but my sense is that “random” has always been used to a metaphysical purpose. Before we even knew about the genetic basis for variation it was insisted that variation appeared random to man in his state of ignorance, that evolution was not teleological, and that natural selection was culling from among both positive and negative, random-with-respect-to-fitness variability.
You might be right that it is losing lustre because of religious resistance, but I would guess more likely that it is falling out of favour for empirical reasons.
Statistical investigation just does not seem to support any use of the word when it comes to mutation and its purported results. This is why you get Dawkins emphatically insisting ‘evolution is not random, it is anything but random, etc’.
I think you see the “random doesn’t mean random” arguments now because the dogmatists dug themselves a hole using the word metaphysically, only to find that the word doesn’t stand up scientifically.

If theist evolutionists, and people like Matzke, do not really mean true randomness, they should stop using the words “random mutation” – just “mutation” or “unknown mutation” will do.

Then at least we can move on and test whether evolutionary significant mutation is random or non-random. Rather than assuming without evidence that it is random mutation.

They keep telling us that evolution occurs by random mutation (and natural selection).

But when they see Christians unwillingly to accept true randomness, they bluff their way by telling us that randomness does not really mean true randomness.

You will read something like this in ASA forum – phenomenon that appears random to men is not really random for God. What nonesense! If it is not random to God, then it is not random, and stop using the word.

We are reading this kind of meaning-of-word bluffing, this time coming from Nick Matzke posted on ASA by Ted Davis.

So anyway, “The Edge of Evolution” is just
another variant on lame old creationism in my
view. Behe’s real problem is not that he has a
well-thought-out scientific objection to
evolution, it’s that he views “randomness” as a
metaphysical problem for his worldview. He
thinks if “randomness” is “real” then God, or at
least cosmic purposefulness or a caring God,
can’t exist. But instead of attacking the
metaphysics of Monod or someone who actually did
advocate this metaphysical view of randomness
(science in general does not — “random” in
science is just a statistical statement of
uncertainty, nothing more), Behe tries to solve a
metaphysical problem by attacking mundane
evolutionary theory’s concept of “random
mutation.” If he thought about it, he would
realize that the real randomness-lovers in
science are the atmospheric scientists, who
invoke statistical “random processes” every
chance they get in models of precipitation, wind,
etc. But no, it’s evolution-bashing that is the tradition in the U.S.

Cheers!
Nick

i strongly suggest you read genesis 1 again to refresh your memory on the order of biblical creation before you accuse me of agreeing with it

http://www.bartleby.com/108/01/1.html#S1

briefly:

seed bearing plants and fruit bearing trees on dry land come first (day 3)

next comes sun, moon, and stars (day 4)

next comes sea creatures (including whales) and birds (day 5)

then land animals including humans(day 6)

what’s wrong with that picture?

I disagree. The only thing the Bible says about it is that animals reporduce afer their own kind. Creationists do not consider “kind” to be the same as species. Biblical creationism requires a bottleneck at the flood and then rapid diversification. The only way to get that is to have pre-existing alleles that can be rapidly sorted by the environment into different species. If you look at the list of extant species, there are something like over a hundred species of shrew, 39 species of deer and so on. From a creationist view point these would all be the same “kind.”

creationist perhaps but not biblical – designed is roughly synonymous with created – biblical creation is a lot more narrow – unjustifiably narrow imo

wolves have mitochondrial variations from other wolves – such a comparison is meaningless as you’d have to have dna from a single ancestral wolf known to be the mother of all dogs – since wolves and dogs can all crossbreed there probably is no single she wolf that is the mother of all dogs and you’re sure as heck not going to get a sample of her long dead dna