They accused Sternberg of being a sleeper cell too.

So many Darwinists are now illness-level paranoid.

They squirm and squeal every time someone like Behe comes out and disturbs their comfort zone.

Light always disturbs darkness, and darkness cannot resist light.

“Paul Davies argues that it is a highly fortuitous miracle that the scientific enterprise succeeds at all, and that the discoverability of physical laws is a significant property of the universe.”

And let’s not forget what that rabid Bible-thumping creationist, Nobelaureate, and all around wacky guy, Sir Roger Penrose, wrote in Road to Reality: that the conditions at the Big Bang were precise to one part in 10^10^123 of the volume of the phase space.

I guess in the multiverse, SOMEBODY had to win the lottery.

That is the message of the book. It is interesting to read John Lynch’s blog and no one picks this up so no one is reading the book but they are all giving their two cents.

Behe has gone further than anyone has ever done before and no one is discussing this aspect of it. They will have to be informed on just what the book is saying so they can go into a differnt attack mode.

One guy actually said this

“Behe is a mole. He will come out one day and declare that he was wrong all along and that people should just ditch ID altogether. His sleeper cell status will probably expire after 20 years or so, so look for his big awakening is about 5-7 years.”

When what is being said in the book completely undermines the “mutation” part of NDE.

I have read Allan McNeill’s response too, and I was equally surprised. You say:

“Neutral drift = purely random mutations without selective benefit. That is the answer? That is how evolution works?”

I agree with you completely. I have never understood the reasonings of many evolutionists about neutral mutations and genetic drift. How is that supposed to explain the genesis of information? They seem to be satisfied with the notion that genetic drift can “shuffle” the alleles, and randomly fix some. How is that supposed to create new alleles, new proteins, new functions? What’s the difference, from an informational and mathematical point of view, with RM? Any random event is random, whatever the modality, point mutation, deletion, crossing over, genetic drift, and so on. It’s strange how some evolutionsts choose to minimize the “supposed” role of NS (which at least is an attempt, however wrong, to explain the non randomness of biological information) in favour of the totally random genetic drift.

If, as Jerry says, “Behe has tentatively ruled out anything but very trivial results for changes in life due to NDE”, I am very happy for that. I am perfectly convinced that NDE can do nothing at all in the sense of generating significant new information, so maybe that even Behe’s “very trivial results” are too much…

Gingerich argues the opposite, and thus argues for a position sympathetic toward cosmological ID.

Gingerich is like Francis Collins and Charles Townes in that he rejects biological ID but accepts cosmological ID. This is is still progress imho.

Barrow and Tipler argue quite well, from accepted physical principles alone, that there is an Intelligent Designer for the universe. The differential equations of physics find a solution in the Intelligent Designer of the universe.

Paul Davies argues that it is a highly fortuitous miracle that the scientific enterprise succeeds at all, and that the discoverability of physical laws is a significant property of the universe. Scientific discoverability does not seem to be accidental. The cardinaiity of non-computable numbers is vastly beyond that of computable numbers. So then, why is our universe computable?

Davies and Barrow received about 3 million dollars for their work toward such conclusions. Unfortunately for Tipler, he received a 40% pay cut, which he believes is due to his pro-ID position. Gingerich is now retired and immune to persecution. His fame and reputation give him the privilege of writing such ID-sympathetic works which can even be published by Harvard University Press!

Finally, Townes also wrote a ID-sympathetic book, Making Waves some years ago. He won the Nobel Prize prior to writing the book and then won the Templeton prize (1.4 million). So, all told I count over $4,000,000 in prize money to ID-sympathetic books by Barrow, Davies, and Townes.

Neutral drift = purely random mutations without selective benefit. That is the answer? That is how evolution works?

I have always liked Allan McNeill.

But the net result of his presentation is to minimize the role in evolution of natural processes. And this will not be liked one bit.

Behe has tentatively ruled out anything but very trivial results for changes in life due to NDE.

By showing that three organisms did not produce anything positive or complex with a huge number of reporductive events, Behe by extension says that it probably didn’t happen with all the other reproductive events for multi-cellular organisms. The number of reproductive events for multi-celled organisms are dwarfed by the reproductive events of the three life forms he examines () in detail.

Most of the authors at UD have only recently gotten copies of Behe’s book (myself included!).

I can’t wait for you to explain how Behe has it all wrong, because the malaria parasite and humans really haven’t been around all that terribly long, after all.

Perhaps we should stick with the HIV virus. Surely that fits neatly within a YEC paradigm.