Behe, a biochemist and author of Edge of Evolution comments on an expanded version of a short essay called “Irremediable Complexity?” featuring prominent evolutionary biologist W. Ford Doolittle as an author. The short version was published last year in Science – the expanded version is in IUBMB Life:
“Irremediable Complexity” (9 August 2011)
… the gist of the paper is this. The authors think that over evolutionary time, neutral processes would tend to “complexify” the cell. They call that theoretical process “constructive neutral evolution” (CNE). In an amusing analogy they liken cells in this respect to human institutions:
Says political theorist John West here:
Earlier this summer, Perry's education commissioner recommended for use supplementary science curricula that fail to offer any critical analysis of Darwinian claims, contrary to the state's own science standards. At the same time, Perry's education commissioner allowed his staff to spike the one proposed curriculum that did try to follow the Texas science standards.
Presumably, he thinks everyone who supports him is dumb as a post.
In “The Interstitials” (New Republic, August 17, 2011), Michael Kimmage reviews Robert Vanderlan’s Intellectuals Incorporated: Politics, Art and Ideas inside Henry Luce’s Media Empire, an account of Henry Luce’s Time, Life, and Fortune empire:
Intellectuals Incorporated is a bracing contribution to American intellectual history. It is full of well-drawn biographical portraits, and through them Vanderlan analyzes a dynamic whereby intellectuals transform and are transformed by the world around them.
In "Peter the Wild Boy" (History Today Volume 60 Issue 4 2010), Roger Moorhouse recalls for us the "wild child" myth of the early days of modern science: "If we could just get hold of a genuinely wild child, raised in the woods by animals, we will learn about human nature." In 1725, a 12-year-old boy was found in the woods, naked, mute, and quadruped (at the time) – later baptised as "Peter," What to make of him? Absent Darwin, they couldn't decide that he was a human-ape hybrid, but other theories abounded.
Anyone who studies design in nature will have heard it a million times, usually from theistic Darwinists: "Identifying design in life forms is risky to faith because once we find out how it really happened, your faith will be diminished. Protect your faith by assuming that God played no direct role." Yes, but what ifthere is no gap? Who, except the theistic Darwinists, said there was? It's their scam, and boy have they milked it.
Here, New Scientist's Amanda Gefter explains, "Time need not end in the multiverse" (11 August 2011):
GAMBLERS already had enough to think about without factoring the end of time into their calculations. But a year after a group of cosmologists argued that they should, another team says time need not end after all.