Latest | Page 7

Dear Readers, As I wrote in The Edge of Evolution, Darwinism is a multifaceted theory, and to properly evaluate the theory one has to be very careful not to confuse its different aspects. Common descent, natural selection, and random mutation are separate concepts; the first two are well supported, but the power of random mutation is not. I argued that evolution — understood just as common descent — did happen, but that randomness played only a minor part. Instead, nonrandom processes — either front-loaded, guided, or somehow influenced by an intelligence — played by far the greatest part. Unfortunately, stories in the news and on the internet regularly confuse the facets of Darwinism, ignore distinctions made in The Edge of Evolution, or Read More ›

Dear Readers, This past Thursday I was a guest on The Colbert Report, where I was interviewed about The Edge of Evolution by the inimitable Stephen Colbert.  You can watch the video here.

Dear Readers, Here I respond briefly to Richard Dawkins’ review of The Edge of Evolution in theNew York Times. I must admit I was surprised that he agreed to do it. In the past Dawkins has said that on principle he would not interact with proponents of intelligent design, because that would give us publicity. I guess when the New York Times offers writing space, principles can be reconsidered. Other Darwinist reviewers have blustered; Dawkins is the only one who has dripped venom. I will pass on replying to that. He makes just two substantive points in his review. The first is that the success of artificial selection in things like dog breeding show the malleability of organisms, so why should Darwinian evolution be Read More ›

Yesterday, in the first part of my response to Kenneth Miller’s review, in which I addressed his substantive points, I ended by showing that a reference he cited did not contain the evidence he claimed it did. In this final part, I more closely examine Miller’s tendentious style of argumentation. Speaking of throwing around irrelevant references, Miller writes: Telling his readers that the production of so much as a single new protein-to-protein binding site is “beyond the edge of evolution”, [Behe] proclaims darwinian evolution to be a hopeless failure. Apparently he has not followed recent studies exploring the evolution of hormone-receptor complexes by sequential mutations (Science 312, 97-101; 2006), the ‘evolvability’ of new functions in existing proteins — studies on serum paraxonase (PON1) Read More ›

Dear Readers, Here I respond to the unfavorable review of The Edge of Evolution by Kenneth R. Miller inNature. Like Sean Carroll, whose review in Science I discussed earlier, he employs much bluster. But Miller goes well beyond simple bluster. I overlooked Carroll’s rhetoric and dealt only with his substantial arguments. This time I’ll do things differently. Today I’ll respond to Miller’s substantive points. Tomorrow we’ll take a closer look at his style of argumentation. After mentioning that de novo resistance to chloroquine is found roughly once in every 1020 malaria parasites, and quoting several sentences from The Edge of Evolution where I note “On average, for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would need to wait a hundred million times ten Read More ›

Dear Readers, Tonight concludes my response to University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, which began earlier this week.  As you know if you’ve been following my blog here, Professor Coyne reviewed my new book Edge of Evolution in The New Republic.  I replied to his response here, and he has responded to my reply at TalkReason.org.  Because it quickly gets awkward to include all of the context here, I’m only quoting the portions of his response that I specifically address here.  Readers who want to see the full back-and-forth should read his posted review and response. Coyne: The reviews by Ken Miller in Nature and Sean Carroll in Science cite several examples of the gradual origin of adaptations via the step-by-step accumulation of point mutations in proteins. Behe: Hardly. Read More ›

Dear Readers, Today I have continued my response to University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne, which began yesterday and will conclude tomorrow.  Just a reminder that I’m only quoting the portions of his response that I specifically address here because it quickly gets awkward to include all of the context.  Readers who want to see the full back-and-forth should read his posted review and response. Coyne: 1. There is no evolutionary expectation that complex protein-protein interactions will evolve in a parasite adapting to a new drug. Behe: Darwinism purports to account for the complexity of cellular machinery which, along with much else, involves very many protein-protein interactions. Yet if “there is no evolutionary expectation that complex protein-protein interactions will evolve” in Read More ›

Dear Readers, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne has responded at TalkReason.org to my reply here on Amazon.com to his review of The Edge of Evolution in The New Republic. Here I will respond back — not to everything he wrote (nor to other posts and replies on that website), but only to what I think are the more important points of his original response. Because it quickly gets awkward to include all of the context, I will just quote the portions of his response that I specifically address here. Readers who want to see the full back-and-forth should read his posted review and response. Coyne: It is clear from Behe’s response on his Amazon blog to the negative reviews by Sean Carroll and Read More ›

Dear Readers, Today I give you one last response for now, to Michael Ruse’s review of Edge of Evolution. After more reviews are in, I’ll compose a comprehensive response. I leave you with this for now. Michael Ruse in The Globe and Mail Michael Ruse is a philosopher of biology who has written over a dozen books on aspects of Darwinian thought. In his review of The Edge of Evolution he says a few kind words about me personally, and I will return the compliment. I like Michael Ruse and have always enjoyed our interactions (well, with one exception that I won’t mention). He is generally an amusing, fun fellow. Yet he is unwilling or unable to engage my arguments. He spends the Read More ›

Dear Readers, Yesterday I responded to Jerry Coyne’s review of my new book, The Edge of Evolution.  Today it’s Sean Carroll’s turn. Sean Carroll in Science Almost the same day that The Edge of Evolution was officially released Sciencepublished a long, lead review by evolutionary developmental biologist Sean Carroll, whose own work I discuss critically in Chapter 9. The review is three parts bluster to one part substance, which at least is more substance than Jerry Coyne’s essay. Here I’ll ignore the bluster and deal with the substantive points. Carroll first covers his rhetorical bases by warning readers that “Unfortunately, [Behe’s] errors are of a technical nature and will be difficult for lay readers, and even some scientists (those unfamiliar with molecular biology and evolutionary Read More ›