Irreducible Complexity: Can It Be Explained Away?
When Sharon Begley, writing in the Wall Street Journal Feb. 13, criticized the intelligent design movement (see reprint on Access Research Network), Michael Behe answered with a pointed reply five days later. Begley particularly singled out the concept of “irreducible complexity.” Behe’s reply, defending the validity of irreducible complexity (a term he coined in his 1996 book Darwin’s Black Box as evidence for intelligent design), can be read on the Discovery Institute website.
Another article on intelligent design was printed on SpaceDaily.com. In it, Ronald Numbers, a historian of the controversy over Darwinism, thinks that inroads of intelligent design into the classroom might be a good thing, but doubts the scientific societies will ever accept it, because it would involve a major change in the way science is done: “The intelligent design people are saying that if the goal of science is to discover the truth, why should scientists, a priori, reject the theory of intelligent design?”
Charlie Darwin said a fair evaluation of any question can only be made when both sides are heard. Strange that many of his disciples don’t want you to hear the opposition. They think their sound bites tell you all you need to know about any controversy surrounding their idol. Numbers is an apostate Christian who accepts many of the Darwinian myths, but thankfully he seems to not be as viciously dogmatic as the rest of the Darwin Party against intelligent design. It is notable that SpaceDaily.com printed this partially open-minded article. Too bad they didn’t allow a qualified ID spokesman to make the case.