This month in American Spectator they staged an Evolution Theory debate. That’s OK with me.
The Darwin evolutionary theory of random mutations and selection is a mechanism that cannot work in the real world of living things that are composed of chemicals to include base pairs on a spiral skeleton structure of phosphate and sugars called DNA. DNA is the core of genes.
I’ll bet that random mutation with selection doesn’t get us to what we are, you bet what you like.
So the American Spectator set up the debate, why not.
JunkScience.com aficionados are up for it–one of the great debates for sure.
(I got a dog in this fight because I know enough to know that random mutations of base pairs with selection ain’t gonna get us to bacteria, ricketsia, protozoans, ants, wasps, moths, praying mantises, crocodiles, pythons, tortoises, hawks, wrens, elephants,wolves, horses, antelopes, apes, and humans in the time allotted, and I don’t know the mechanism that might have created this functional complexity. I am not a creationist.)
On one side of the debate is Stephen Meyer, a PhD (Cambridge) in the history of science, on the other side is a strong Darwinist, journalist, essayist and polemicist, John Derbyshire, who most would consider a fair hand at argument and debate, even if he is a little weak on basic science.
But it’s not a fair fight as you will see by reading the text linked below. Derbyshire can’t get past name calling and strawman arguments.
Stephen Meyer presents an argument based on scientific analysis of the question of mutation/selection with an ample consideration of what is known to be true about cellular molecular biochemistry and genetics. He doesn’t talk about God or Genesis, at all.
Meyer asks the reasonable question, can the random mutation/selection theory work at the biochemical and genetic level, given a limit in time and the nature of random shuffling of genetic material to make specific and complex, functional proteins.
Derbyshire devotes his space to–oh, nothing here but creationist bunkum, and creationist bible belters, disregard. I met em, I examined them, they are kooky religionists, and there’s nothing to consider in these arguments they make. Sneer, sneer.
This “debate” was not a debate on science and analysis of possibilities, and it is emblematic of the nonsense that I see all the ime on design. As soon as possible the evolutionists turn any debate on design into a debate about the bible or the creationist hokum.
If someone on the design side presents a science or logic or probability/possibility argument based on accepted and known biomolecular science, the response is that the arguments are just cover for biblical creationism. You know 7 days, that’s it.
The evolution side frames the argument to create a maximum advantage for ad hominem and mendacious sneering and snarkyness. Elitism does not abide by a departure from the canon and their tolerance for “religious nuts” keeps any serious argument on design from occurring, even with people who propose design without a religious “taint.”
Recently I read a silly, and I mean silly devotional piece on Richard Dawkins by a guy named David Dobbs. Dobbs can’t stop praising Dawkins’ book The Selfish Gene that is symptomatic of the problem. He thinks Dawkins hung the moon, and I think Dawkins hung a whole lot less in his expansive and very confident book that provides nothing close to convincing arguments to nullify the questions raised by the design people. Dawkins just asserts that it works because the genes make it work. I say these are simple chemical molecules and they have no innate sense of anything except to be molecules.
The guy Dobbs almost swoons and collapses talking about the magic of vision and eloquence of Richard Dawkins, but I am not impressed.
Dawkins’ book is wishful thinking at best. He thinks that chemicals know what they want to do to move evolution along? PUULEEEEZ.
Derbyshire complains that design advocates haven’t been involved in the basic research on evolution. My position is that the design people have been focusing on the question of how to interpret the evidence we have and the science that is settled.
Richard Dawkins has filled up pages with his theory and argument that goes like this–no fossils for intermediate forms, evolution works, no explanation for how evolution moves forward and produces more and better functional organism, no problem, I invented the selfish gene, evolution works.
It is probably not fair to put Derbyshire in the position of arguing that design theorists are wrong, since he cannot deal with the arguments at all.
But can Dawkins? Not from what I have seen.
I am not a bible belter, young earth creationist. I just know the complexity of living things and I have no clue how the mutation/selection theory could possibly make the complex proteins essential to life by random variation and selection in the alloted time for mutational variances. Period.
Meyer takes the time to show that there isn’t enough deep time since the big bang to make the mutations that would produce the complex proteins for an armadillo, or a human. For damn sure.