Darwin’s Foolish Theory Is Ready To Shatter

Did our title shock you, dear reader? Wait until you read the rest of our post. It’s about a new article at the Discovery Institute’s creationist blog, titled Behe’s New “Mousetrap” Book — The Fragility of Darwinism.

The thing was written by David Klinghoffer a Discoveroid “senior fellow” (i.e., flaming, full-blown creationist), who eagerly functions as their journalistic slasher and poo flinger. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us for emphasis, and occasional Curmudgeonly interjections that look [like this]:

Darwinism is “sustained mostly by sociology.” [What?] Meaning, career pressures, groupthink, media hypnotism, and the like. So says biochemist Michael Behe, author of the new book A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics [Amazon link], in a webinar conversation with Discovery Institute’s John West. The webinar was held over the past weekend and you can see it now.

We’ve written about Behe’s new book a few times before, and it seems like the Discoveroids have written about it a dozen times. Our most recent post was Michael Behe Is Absolutely Triumphant. Anyway, Klinghoffer mentioned a webinar featuring Behe and Westie, and a video of the thing seems to be embedded in the Discoveroids’ post. Klinghoffer says:

The video recording of the event is quite entertaining [Hee hee!], covering topics both weighty and whimsical — like Behe’s comparison of life, with its molecular machines, to The Borg from Star Trek. [Hey, the Borg were designed!] And what is the Lehigh University biochemist’s favorite Star Trek episode, anyway?

Does anyone care what Behe’s favorite episode is? After that bizarre question, Klinghoffer tells us:

Dr. Behe and Dr. West discuss the purpose of gathering Behe’s replies to the stronger and the weaker critiques of his earlier books. They take on a diverse range of live questions from viewers around the world. Why this book and why now? The idea of the volume is not merely to dunk on the critics. Behe, to be frank, doesn’t find of any their criticisms very meaningful.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA! To a Discoveroid, there are no meaningful criticisms to Behe’s version of creationism. Klinghoffer continues:

West was surprised to realize just how voluminous Behe’s record of answering critics actually is. He first thought he could fit the replies in a volume of just 300 pages or so. It turned out that Behe had more than 700 pages available to use. These were culled down in the end to 556 pages.

A mere 556 pages. Klinghoffer makes it sound like a wonderfully well-written book. His final paragraph is amazing. Read it carefully. Savor it:

Instead, A Mousetrap for Darwin demonstrates that “Darwinism is much more fragile” than many people realize, as Behe puts it here. [Gasp!] That is the big takeaway. What’s assumed to be an unmovable, unbreakable monument to objective science should at this point, if we were all honest with ourselves, be steps away from shattering.

Ooooooooooooh! Darwin’s theory is on the verge of shattering. Don’t be clinging to it when that happens, dear reader.

Copyright © 2020. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

15 responses to “Darwin’s Foolish Theory Is Ready To Shatter

  1. Michael Fugate

    Here is one of the endorsers of Behe’s book. How can evolution supporters hold out against something this sophisticated?

    Where do you see evidence for design in this field of research [biochemistry]?
    I’ve been asked this question a lot and sometimes my mind just goes blank because I can’t think of a point in that process where I don’t see evidence for design. The evidence is in everything.
    If biochemists see a specific molecular structure, we want to determine its function. We want to understand the structure-function relationship of the molecule. Any biochemist will assume that there is a function (that is, a purpose or meaning) for a molecule. All scientists operate under those assumptions. For me, this is an assumption that’s really supported by my Christian faith. I believe function, meaning, and purpose are best explained as the products of a Mind and support intelligent design.

    https://reasons.org/explore/blogs/reflections/read/reflections/2014/12/02/science-and-faith-an-interview-with-a-biochemist

  2. chris schilling

    Darwinism sustained mostly by sociology?

    Who knew sociology — a “soft” science — could be so powerful; so intractable? At the same time, the entire Darwinian edifice is on the verge of shattering. See it trembling?

    Behe has become just another crank conspiracy theorist. He belongs to a club that will have him. Powerful evil forces are marshalled against these defenders of the Light and Truth. At the same time, these forces are so flimsy, Behe — a veritable Samson — can threaten to bring the whole damn temple down around him. The temple, you see, is only propped up by duped, willing accomplices (powerful/not really powerful).

    Conspiracy theories. Saviour fantasies. Simple-minded Manichean concepts of good vs evil — they’re all cut from the same defective cloth.

  3. Theodore J Lawry

    Creationists always say that “Darwinism” is on the verge of collapse, and yet it never does. As for Behe’s book, of course they say it is going to destroy evolution because they want you to buy it. Furthermore, such a book is really easy to fake: just mention only the criticisms you have an answer to. Creationists are constantly doing that, Behe’s book, I suspect, would be useless unless you can check what the critics actually said.

    In the Dover Trials Behe was a complete failure, came up with nothing, even though he had had 15 years since publishing his first book,

  4. Out of date again! Darwinism was demolished in 1879: The Refutation of Darwinism: And the Converse Theory of Development; Based Exclusively Upon Darwin’s Facts (T Warren O’Neill, 1879), which shows conclusively that species are immutable, and that any variation is further worse, and many since, some of which I listed here: https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/even-on-his-birthday-dont-say-darwin-unless-you-mean-it/

    Actually, Darwinism, in the sense of evolution showing Darwinian gradualism and being driven by natural selection, was refuted in the first instance by the discovery of mutation around 1900, and in the second instance by the realisation around 1968 that most evolution is driven by random drift. But somehow, I don’t think that’s quite what Behe meant

  5. Behe is 150 years behind the times. There have been numerous books refuting Darwinism; see here: https://paulbraterman.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/even-on-his-birthday-dont-say-darwin-unless-you-mean-it/

    I would draw particular attention to The Refutation of Darwinism: And the Converse Theory of Development; Based Exclusively Upon Darwin’s Facts (T Warren O’Neill, 1879), which proves conclusively that any variation that occurs between generations is falling away from the ideal type of each species. T Warren O’Neill Devolves!

  6. Michael Fugate, thank you for that cite. It’s… difficult to imagine anything more fatuous.

    “Any biochemist will assume that there is a function (that is, a purpose or meaning) for a molecule.

    Say what? Purpose? Meaning? For a molecule?

    So Behe thinks that teleology is, well, everything. Everything has external purpose. Everything is designed. Everything is intended, down to the molecule. Probably further. That’s crazy.

    But what is even more whacky is that Behe attributes that attitude to other biochemists. All biochemists, in fact. With the obvious fact staring him in the face that they don’t think that, at all.

    This is a mind not responsive to reality. It only manifests it in certain specific applications, I suppose, which explains how Behe can function at all. But still… That is so fubar as to elicit pity.

    Pity, for here’s the thing. If everything has external purpose, what are we to make of misfortune, disease, pain, loss, bereavement, except that they are purposeful, too? And what follows from that?

  7. Theodore J Lawry

    @David Luckett You are are quite right, but Behe is way ahead of you. He has an answer to the eternal question of why a supposedly loving God condones immeasurable human suffering. But even atheists won’t like it. According to Behe, in the Edge of Evolution p. 237, God doesn’t just condone suffering, God Designs it!

    “Here’s something to ponder long and hard: Malaria was intentionally designed. The molecular machinery with which the parasite invades red blood cells is an exquisitely purposeful arrangement of parts. C-Eve’s children died in her arms partly because an intelligent agent deliberately made malaria, or at least something very like it. What sort of designer is that? … One who relishes cries of pain? … Maybe. Maybe not. ”

    Design by Satan. If God is the Designer, then God, as an intelligent and moral being, is responsible for the cruelty of that same design. ID’s case, such as it is, is perfectly compatible with the Designer being Satan. So that’s why ID’s proponents won’t say who the designer is!

  8. Robert van Bakel

    Actually the title of this piece is entirely inaccurate, it should read: “Darwin’s Foolish Theory Is Ready to Shatter, Again!”

  9. @Theodore J Lawry
    And why don’t they say what design is?

  10. @MichaelF quotes a Behe fan: “a function (that is, a purpose or meaning)”
    We should never forget that empty semantics is a cornerstone of IDiocy.

    @TomS: asking that question is answering it.

  11. Function, purpose or meaning.
    Like the blind spot in vision; or the Dumning-Kruger effect in thinking; or flaturence.

  12. Michael Fugate

    The strange is not only do they find a purpose, but they can find the “right” purpose. There is a “morality” in molecules.

  13. My reply to the statement that evolution is steps away from shattering is similar to what I said to someone on 42nd street in Manhattan who was waving a bible and shouting “Jesus is coming”: “y’all let me know when it happens”.

  14. @Michael Fugate: morality in neurotransmitters perhaps?

  15. @abeastwood
    But the Bible clearly tells us that we don’t know when Jesus is coming. We should ignore those who claim to know.