SEATTLE, April 6 /PRNewswire/ -- After several years of claiming that
there is no debate about the theory of intelligent design (ID) researchers
have published an article bringing the debate to the pages of the latest
issue of Science. Three researchers, Jamie Bridgham, Sean Carroll and Joe
Thornton claim to have shown how an irreducibly complex system might have
arisen as the result of gene duplication and a few point mutational
"This continues the venerable Darwinian tradition of making grandiose
claims based on piddling results," said biochemist Michael Behe, who
developed the theory of irreducible complexity in his 1996 best-selling
book Darwin's Black Box. "There is nothing in the paper that an ID
proponent would think was beyond random mutation and natural selection. In
other words, it is a straw man."
In a response posted on the Discovery Institute website, ID The Future
(www.idthefuture.com ) Behe explains: "The authors (including Christoph
Adami in his Science commentary) are conveniently defining 'irreducible
complexity' way, way down. I certainly would not classify their system as
anywhere near irreducibly complex (IC). The IC systems I discussed in
Darwin's Black Box contain multiple, active protein factors. Their
'system,' on the other hand, consists of just a single protein and its
ligand. Although in nature the receptor and ligand are part of a larger
system that does have a biological function, the piece of that larger
system they pick out does not do anything by itself. In other words, the
isolated components they work on are not irreducibly complex."
In addition to Behe's response, Discovery's Center for Science &
Culture has published an analysis of the research written by molecular
biologist Dr. Douglas Axe, philosopher of biology Dr. Paul Nelson, and
philosopher of science Dr. Stephen Meyer.
"In the experiment just two amino acid residues were changed, no new
components were added, no old components were taken away," added Behe. "The
fact that such very modest results are ballyhooed owes more, I strongly
suspect, to the antipathy that many scientists feel toward ID than to the
intrinsic value of the experiment itself."
"If this is the best that the Darwinian establishment can do after ten
years of trying to refute Behe's theory of intelligent design, then neo-
Darwinian theory is in a world of hurt," said Dr. Stephen Meyer director of
the Center for Science & Culture. "Indeed, Behe's case grows stronger with
each successive attempt to test it by experimental refutation."
To arrange interviews with a Center for Science and Culture scientist
please contact Robert Crowther at (206) 292-0401 x.107, or
firstname.lastname@example.org . For more information visit www.discovery.org/csc/ .
SOURCE Discovery Institute