Excellent article profiling @NLENTS.
Behe’s assertion that ‘purposeful design’ comes from an influx of new genetic information cannot be tested through science. By contrast, modern evolutionary theory provides a coherent set of processes–mutation, recombination, drift, and selection–that can be observed in the laboratory and modeled mathematically and are consistent with the fossil record and comparative genomics. (from Science )
In this review, Lents sticks to the science. They point to sections or examples in Darwin Devolves that fail to take into account evidence produced by testing modern evolutionary theory. Although Lents and both of his co-authors have been subject to attacks on their work by supporters of creationism, he says he’s learned his lesson about responding to attacks that are ultimately unserious or political in nature.
“I’ve come to realize, Lents says, “that in these exchanges, my real audience is not the intelligent design community. I’m writing for millions of silent readers who come into this debate innocently and earnestly when they see their children start to learn about evolution in middle school and they want to see what’s out there, they want to read for themselves. So that’s who I’m writing for, the people who are just genuinely trying to find answers about what the science really says, what evidence do we really have, that kind of stuff. So I’m not really speaking to the intelligent design community anymore, I’m just speaking to the general public, trying to correct the record on science.”
Well said.
Before I noticed my error I first though that should read Nathan Lents is sticking it to Behe’s (air quotes) “science”. 