Darwin Devolves’ — who’s the one really going backward here?

According to Behe, the scientific community disagrees with his analysis because we refuse to allow room for the actions of a divine mind in the realm of the natural world, but there’s a simpler reason. We don’t agree with his position because there is no evidence for it . Moreover, there is a great deal evidence against it. He attempts to rebut some of this evidence, but most of it he outright ignores.

The irony here is that my colleagues have no problem with my discussion of the de novo creation of Adam. I wonder why that is?

He also frequently conflates evolution with natural selection, and uses the term Darwinism to sloppily refer to either of them. Natural selection is but one evolutionary force and must be understood in the context of others such as genetic drift, neutral theory, recombination, exaptation, sexual selection, punctuated equilibrium, frequency-dependent selection, and dozens of others. Behe constantly repeats his refrain that natural selection cannot account for everything we see in nature. Yeah, we know. And we’ve known that for a very long time.

And I agree, evolutionary science is more than natural selection.

1 Like

I agree! It seems to be about WAY more than natural selection.

I’m not sure how saying that an animal arose through natural selection is any different from saying that google or amazon arose through market selection. Of course they did. But that’s the least interesting part if why they are successful. Why is evolution any different?

As Andreas Wagner’s book states, natural selection explains the survival but not the arrival of the fittest.


Speaking only for myself, the difference here is that you do not claim that it is science. You only claim that it is consistent with science.

We all muse about various things that interest us. It is when we try to force our musings on others, that they become a problem.

1 Like