Meet your next favorite book:
Sign in with Facebook
Stephen Andrew's Reviews > Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
by Michael J. Behe
Stephen Andrew's review
Aug 01, 08
Recommended to Stephen by:
found it myself
Recommended for:
anyone interested
Read in May, 2005
I have noticed that all the reviews of this book that are
negative or refer to it as well debunked and (every scientist already
knows this is crap). Not one can give a specific simple example of how
behe can be challenged. simply stated they have no such answer. They
can't. Because Behe is right. no matter whether you believe in
creationism or design or evolution or what ever your stance, there
simply is no well articulated answer to his argument. when someone
points one out. not with some footnote, but a real explanation for how
complexity of this order of magnitude can arise by darwinian mechanisms
then ,...hooray but i havent seen it anywhere in any review or any
analysis by some great scientist such as dawkins, wilson, dennet or any
other. Because they simply dont have a rebuttal that makes sense in
the darwinian mechanism. maybe there is some other mechanism that can
be at work. I dont claim to be a creationist but scientists ought to
look at their shortcomings with some guts, instead of just poo pooing
what they've read. come on give us a real response that can really
challenge what Behe has come up with. be brave. where are you???
Discover new books on Goodreads
Meet your next favorite book:
Stephen Andrew's Reviews > Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution
I found your review interesting. I haven't read this book yet,
but I am curious what he has to say. As a molecular biologist, I have
to state that simply because scientists have not yet been able to
explain something yet, does not mean that it is unexplainable. Perhaps
we have not yet progressed to a level of being able to explain certain
things but will in the future. 20 years ago my particular specialty
within my field did not even exist. Now we have the human genome
mapped. Jumping right into - we can't explain it, so it must be God -
is a cop out and not proof or evidence of the existence of a god or
creator. Note that I personally do believe in a God.
~Aldrea
There is a very simple challenge to what Behe has come up with: it's a fallacy.Consider the logic of claiming that designed objects exhibit irreducible complexity, and we see irreducible complexity in biological organisms, therefore biological organisms are designed. It's like claiming that rain makes things wet, therefore when we see something that's wet we know it was rained on. Given the fallacy at the heart of Behe's logic, it doesn't matter how many examples of "IC systems" he comes up with, because they can never warrant the conclusion of design.
No comments:
Post a Comment