"To serious students of science, it would seem that a scientist must win such a debate. After all, on the side of the scientist are vast
numbers of all kinds of observations, to say nothing of careful argument and unassailable logic. On the side of the creationist there
is, from the scientific point of view, exactly nothing."

(Asimov I., "The Roving Mind," [1983], Oxford University Press: Oxford UK, 1987, reprint, p.29)

First of all, "serious students of science" can come from all walks of life. "A scientist" can be either an evolutionist, a creationist, an agnostic, etc. Asimov's implication is that the scientist or serious student of science will naturally be an evolutionist, while a creationist will be a non-scientist or "not-very-serious" student of science. Here we see Asimov employing rhetoric to try and persuade his audience of the sound scientific basis for belief in neo-
darwinism. Although it is quite a powerful rhetorical device, its truth value is zero. In other words, it is extremely deceptive.

Although it is true that this debate can be viewed as science versus non-science, it is begging the question to assume that neo-darwinism is science. On the contrary, I remain convinced that neo-darwinism is non-science - but I would rather discuss that proposition in the empirical sense and the rational sense, than employ the rhetorical sense, as Asimov has done.

Secondly, the rhetorical device employed by Asimov creates a fascinating contradiction with the ugly fact of the matter:

"And yet, somehow, in such debates, the creationist often appears to have it all his own way, while the scientist is reduced to an ineffective defense."

The simple explanation for this ugly fact is that there is NOT a sound scientific basis for belief in neo-darwinism. This is never shown more clearly than when an evolutionist attempts to explain complexity, information and design. I sincerely hope that at least one evolutionist in this forum will challenge that explanation and provide an explanation of complexity, information and design.

Chris Doyle

PS. This contribution is a slightly modified version of a message I posted to the CreationEvolutionDesign Yahoo group. I feel it's central point: "Is there a scientific basis for neo-darwinism?" applies to this forum too.

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Moderator ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Doyle:
Secondly, the rhetorical device employed by Asimov creates a fascinating contradiction with the ugly fact of the matter:

"And yet, somehow, in such debates, the creationist often appears to have it all his own way, while the scientist is reduced to an ineffective defense."

The simple explanation for this ugly fact is that there is NOT a sound scientific basis for belief in neo-darwinism.

---

Or that science is complicated and very difficult to explain to underinformed audiences while one's opponent is throwing out incorrect assertions every other sentence.

quote:

---

This is never shown more clearly than when an evolutionist attempts to explain complexity, information and design. I sincerely hope that at least one evolutionist in this forum will challenge that explanation and provide an explanation of complexity, information and design.

Chris Doyle

---

Hey Chris.

So, this article in Trends in the Biochemical Sciences is just blowing smoke?

quote:

---

Trends Biochem Sci 2002 Feb;27(2):67-74

Evolution of enzyme cascades from embryonic development to blood coagulation.

Krem MM, Cera ED.

Recent delineation of the serine protease cascade controlling dorsal-ventral patterning during Drosophila embryogenesis allows this cascade to be compared with those controlling clotting and complement in vertebrates and invertebrates. The identification of discrete markers of serine protease evolution has made it possible to reconstruct the probable chronology of enzyme evolution and to gain new insights into functional linkages among the cascades. Here, it is proposed that a single ancestral developmental/immunity cascade gave rise to the protostome and deuterostome developmental, clotting and complement cascades. Extensive similarities suggest that these cascades were built by adding enzymes from the bottom of the cascade up and from similar macromolecular building blocks.

---

Looks to me like Behe is refuted on several points by this one article. And, as Dembski has tied his argument's fate to Behe's...

Looks to me like Behe is refuted on several points by this one article.

Details, please. Posting an abstract does not constitute a respectable argument.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul A. Nelson:
Drosera wrote:

Looks to me like Behe is refuted on several points by this one article.

Details, please. Posting an abstract does not constitute a respectable argument.

Have you read the paper in question?

---

Yep. However, I just realized this thread is probably poorly-framed with respect to the goals of this forum. I've started a new thread which hopefully will comply.

The pubmed link is in both posts, though, if you want to read the article.

1. It is better suited for a general discussion board.

2. It is a negative argument that cannot be salvaged into a positive argument

3. It discusses the beliefs of people (belief in neo-Darwinism) and implies that they are non-science and irrational