The Evolution of Irreducible Complexity
It must be open season on Intelligent Design (ID). Yesterday, Nature tried defense with a new missing link claim (04/06) and today, Science is printing a story to tackle ID’s offensive line, irreducible complexity (see U of Oregon press release and EurekAlert). The Discovery Institute immediately jumped to the match, with Mr. Irreducible Complexity himself, Michael Behe, leading the charge (see ID the Future). Behe stood his ground without a flinch, calling this the “lamest excuse yet to answer the challenge irreducible complexity poses for Darwinian evolution.” Additional responses have been appearing on Evolution News and ID the Future.
Read both sides. Impressed with the Charlie charge? Kind of like Pickett’s, isn’t it? On both counts the Darwinists are fighting tanks with feather pillows. In both cases also, they only give the press their side of the story, and the other side is forbidden access to respond.
It’s time for Stupid Evolution Quote of the Week. For their bluff, bluster, fluff and froth, and for the silly idea that molecules planned ahead to be pre-adapted for later function, the reporters at University of Oregon are the winners:
Thornton’s group then showed that the ancestral receptor also responded to a far more ancient hormone with a similar structure; this made it “preadapted” to be recruited into a new functional partnership when aldosterone later evolved. “The stepwise process we were able to reconstruct is entirely consistent with Darwinian evolution,” Thornton said. “So-called irreducible complexity was just a reflection of a limited ability to see how evolution works.”
O ye of little faith, they cry, can ye not see how the unguided hand of Charlie hath wrought these wonders? The incorrigibility of Darwinian fundamentalists knows no bounds. But what will they say when they have to fight real intellectual armies in public view instead of straw soldiers? Pull down the the Bamboozle Curtain and public perceptions will change really fast.