Comments on: Chu-Carroll on Behe’s The Edge of Evolution http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123 "no matter how gifted, you alone cannot change the world" Tue, 02 Sep 2008 04:09:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1 By: Heleen http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-17657 Heleen Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:17:39 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-17657 Another review:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/korthof86.htm

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-17589 Blake Stacey Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:07:56 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-17589 Actually, in my very first post on this topic, I made a prediction:

“I have little doubt that the pro-fact sector of the Blagopelago will drown The Edge of Evolution in scalding, scathing, witty and above all factually correct reviews.”

]]> By: ERV http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-17587 ERV Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:04:15 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-17587 hehehehe You didnt know what you would be getting into at the time, did ya, Blake?

heeeeeeehehehehehe!!

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-7209 Blake Stacey Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:19:42 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-7209 Jake S:

Good points. I think it’s important to remember that, like biological evolution, the social and ideological evolution of creationism is not a linear chain, but an ever-branching tree — a bush, not a ladder. We still have Young-Earth Creationists, and they don’t exactly get along with the ID folks; at the same time, we have OECs living alongside “design proponents” and using much the same arguments. I think that a big division, perhaps the key branching point in the cladogram, is whether or not the creationist accepts an old Earth.

]]> By: Jake S http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-7207 Jake S Thu, 06 Sep 2007 17:07:30 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-7207 A lot of creos, esp. when ranting about “Darwinism”, seem to think that evolution was Darwin’s pipe dream, when in fact he was far from the first to notice the evidence that life had changed through time, and his claim to fame came about by being the first to propose a mechanism (nat’l selection, of course). If ID is presenting itself as evolution like this, I think they are trying to equate it with theistic evolution. I have noticed that many people in the general public seem to think that’s what ID is already..theistic evolution. This confusion is not unintentional, of course. This maybe the direction that ID is going now…trying to pass itself off as an alternative mechanism to “atheistic Darwinsim”. The only problem is that if they do this they would have to accept common decent, fossil evidence, 4.6 billion year old earth, etc. (which they would never do, as it would cut of the YECs support) And the public will see this not as creationism vs. evolution, but “new scientific evidence of a designer who guided evolution” vs. “atheistic unguided evolution”. As if evolution not being able to plan ahead is the same thing as stating that could not have a say. Sure, you cannot rule out the possbility of a hidden God pulling the mutational strings(theistic evolutionists have come to terms with this) but that is an unscientific statement. God cannot be observed (well, by most people I know), and definatly cannot be falsified. Science cannot address it for practical reasons. IDers, even under this new disguise, still won’t get that, and will do everything in their power to prevent the public from understanding that. Most people are comfortable with theistic evolution, and this is the feeling IDers are trying to exploit.

]]> By: Discovery Institute Fellow runs for school board as “Darwinist”? « Further thoughts http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-6871 Discovery Institute Fellow runs for school board as “Darwinist”? « Further thoughts Mon, 03 Sep 2007 04:54:39 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-6871 [...] I started keeping a Blake Stacey-style list of posts related to this issue (see his lists of Behe and Pivar-related posts), I should keep it [...]

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-5793 Blake Stacey Wed, 22 Aug 2007 02:31:18 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-5793 John Kwok:

Thanks! I admit I haven’t been keeping up with the Amazon commentary, so it’s good to hear that others have been involved.

]]> By: John Kwok http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-5786 John Kwok Wed, 22 Aug 2007 01:55:55 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-5786 Hello,

You might wish to check out both my review and Carl Flygare’s of Behe’s book here at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-Search-Limits-Darwinism/dp/0743296206/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7963357-7968944?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187747368&sr=8-1

I’m a former paleobiologist and Carl has a background in information technology. I’ve also been among those commenting extensively on Behe’s work at Amazon.com along with Abbie Smith, biochemist David Levin, botanist Mary Endress and a few others.

]]> By: The Edge of Michael Behe « Gay for Gabriel Byrne http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-4390 The Edge of Michael Behe « Gay for Gabriel Byrne Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:35:43 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-4390 [...] in NY Times here and H. Allen Orr in The Boston Review here, to mention a few. Blake Stacey has gathered most of the professional [...]

]]> By: retired http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-3522 retired Tue, 24 Jul 2007 18:20:48 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-3522 Well,
You may want to check out the book “Evolution and religious creation myths: How scientists respond” by Lurquin and Stone (Oxford UP, 2007).

]]> By: factician http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-3286 factician Thu, 19 Jul 2007 13:58:00 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-3286 Thanks for the link. I also wrote http://conspiracyfactory.blogspot.com/2007/07/dr-egnor-can-i-have-unicorn.html if you’re interested.

]]> By: Quote Mining « globalizati http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1645 Quote Mining « globalizati Fri, 22 Jun 2007 04:22:34 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1645 [...] this blog has an excellent list of reviews/ criticisms of Behe’s new ‘work.’ [...]

]]> By: Blake Stacey http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1605 Blake Stacey Thu, 21 Jun 2007 15:56:08 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1605 JLT and Jim Lippard:

Okay, that’s really weird. I restored the list (and the truncated paragraph leading up to it). Now, I’m going to take the time to be worried.

(Jim Lippard’s comment was trapped in the Akismet spam filter, which delayed my recognition of the problem. Grrr!)

]]> By: JLT http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1595 JLT Thu, 21 Jun 2007 13:25:57 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1595 Your list of Behe reviews seems to have disappeared.

]]> By: Jim Lippard http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1557 Jim Lippard Wed, 20 Jun 2007 20:04:48 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1557 What’s happened to this post? The links to reviews are missing and it cuts off in mid-sentence…

]]> By: The Second Enlightenment » The Pythonian Destruction and Finale of Michael Behe http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1254 The Second Enlightenment » The Pythonian Destruction and Finale of Michael Behe Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:22:51 +0000 http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=123#comment-1254 [...] is also strong and very damning reviews and critiques coming from the science world on all [...]

]]>