ADVERTISEMENTS

Unfortunately for Luskin, it's against Ken Miller sitting astride a war horse of logic, facts and the words of Michael Behe, whose demolition at the Kitzmiller trial Luskin is trying desperately, and unsuccessfully, to paper over.

Writing at Carl Zimmer's blog, The Loom, Miller parries with ease Luskin's feeble feints and leaves Behe's claim that the blood clotting cascade, or any part thereof, is irreducibly complex ... well ... bleeding on the floor.

As Miller rightly puts it:

Best of all, two more posts by Miller will be appearing this weekend at The Loom. No doubt they, like this one, will be well worth the read.
_________________________________________________

Update: The second of Miller's posts deals with the fact that Luskin actually misunderstands Behe's argument about IC (or, in my less forgiving interpretation, actively misrepresents it in an attempt to save it -- rhetorically, if not scientifically). Miller points out that IC is not an argument for design but an argument against evolution by natural selection. As such, it is a "just not-so story" -- an argument that evolution is not conceptually possible. All that is needed to refute such an argument is a conceptual pathway for evolution by natural selection to work. But science has better than that, it has actual evidence that partial assemblies of the claimed examples of IC are not, in fact, "by definition nonfunctional," as Behe claimed.
.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.