Klinghoffer: Early Science Review of Darwin Devolves — A Panic Attack?


(T J Runyon) #24

I work on Basilosaurids and I have brought the new date up to them numerous times. Bechly ignores it in his chapter in the theistic evolution book. They say they went with the younger date to hold onto their evolutionary interpretation. If that’s the case why would they even announce it at 49mya?

(Nathan H. Lents) #25

And here is article #4. Definitely no crazed panic there. lol It reminds me of when my book came out and there was a new article from them every day for a while. That’s what they do is try to brute force the Google News and other search returns to overwhelm and direct internet search traffic to their version of the story. At one point, they had me in all three of their “featured article” boxes on the website…

An ID Juxtaposition for Peaceful Science
(Nathan H. Lents) #26

The article I referred to…


(S. Joshua Swamidass) #27

Don’t be offended. This just means your voice matters.

Much of there reaction was over the top, but there was one grain of truth on the bad design argument. I think it’s good to give them that win, and be glad they recognize you are important enough to engage. You are.

(Nathan H. Lents) #28

Oh I’m definitely not offended. It’s amusing in a strange way. Btw, I still don’t concede the point about the bad design argument. I understand that glitches/seams/quirks are neutral when it comes to positions like Behe’s, but they ARE evidence for common descent (at the very least), so for the many, many IDers who don’t accept common descent, the quirks are indeed a challenge to their position. I know it’s not a slam dunk, on its own, but it’s far more evidence than, say, YECs have.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #29

Well, I certainly agree it is evidence for common descent. That is why it doesn’t work so well as “bad design” unless you are taking an anti-evolution definition of design (which you are). Maybe we should pick this exchange up some time?

Nathan Lents: Bad Design of the Eye?

I’d expect a fun exchange between friends. Peace.

(Nathan H. Lents) #30

Right. I see it as evidence for common descent, no more, no less. I don’t think Behe would be challenged at all, in fact, I think it actually fits his model as well.

(Robert Byers) #31

Really? you know this? Thats quite a accusation. Is there evidence as much as for ANY claim of evolutionism?!
Behe is the star. he is a great scientist in these matters and takes on the claims of evolutionism at a very intimate atomic level.
Its not really my cup of tea and i see it as ALL just lines of reasoning fighting other lines of reasoning. there is no hard practical evidence for what mutation/selection can do or not do.
I think its a good idea to take on this lenski lab stuff because it failed to do what evolutionists wanted.
Glorious new populations to stick new biological names too. instead its still just a one name entity.
There just isn’t any lab work done by evolutionists for ID/YEC to stick their teeth into.
Behe bringing up lenski is not just a good for a point but a bigger point of evolutionists not clocking lab work.
Its very much like the Einstein/Bohr contention until bell came along. behe is trying to be Bell i think.
Unless he is both Bohr and Bell. (This analogy requires youtube entry level understanding of physics)


This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

(Nathan H. Lents) #33

Actually the experiment yielded exactly the kind of adaptations that evolutionary theory predicted, in spectacular molecular detail.

Okay, but he also accepts that the world is billions of years old and that all organisms, including humans, are related by shared common descent and evolution from universal ancestors. He argues only with the mechanism of that evolution, not whether or not it happened. So he agrees with me and other scientists on the biggest questions in the origins debate.


I had a fun time trying to explain the experiment to Andy Schlafly on his ‘Conservapedia’ site almost a decade ago. Some people are immune to education.

(Dr. Patrick Trischitta) #36

@Nlents and @swamidass See if Lenski would apply for the DI seminar.

(S. Joshua Swamidass) #37

He won’t. I’m fairly sure he does not want to engage deeply.

(Robert Byers) #38

The Lensji stuff is talked about because it failed to show enduring new populations.
They had hoped for this as I understand it.
Yes he is a iD scientist and takes on evolutionism. So desiring him as on your side is , finally, consent to decades of denying him his credibility to opine and persuade audiences.
His geology is not relevant to his biology.
As far as it matters, more, about paid scientists in these things its only tiny, tiny, numbers of origin biologists that would matter.
i’m not saying they only matter. its any human that applies their intelligence to the subject obviously.
He is a comrade on some fronts in the attrition of truth on important error.
He is a star in these circles.
For other questions other stars.

(Nathan H. Lents) #39

I can’t follow any of this.