Hi all and Jim Green-
Here is a quote from the a Discovery Institute "savant":
"But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report
about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the
problem this way: â"The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into
how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."
"The very universality of these genes invalidates the grand claims that
are
made for them. Here's why: if biological structures are determined by
their genes, then different structures must be determined by different
genes. If the same gene can determine structures as radically different as
a fruit fly's leg and a mouse's brain, or an insect's eyes and the
eyes of humans and squids, then that gene really isn't determining much
of anything at all."
by ID advocate William Dembski http://www.stnews.org/articles.php?article_id=1332&category=Commentary
___________________________________________________________________
What's wrong with this quote? What's wrong is that Dembski is not
quoting (and arguing with) a proponent of the "grand claims". He is
tryinjg to argue with Pennisi who is merely a writer (read "reporter") for
Science magazine. Had Dembski included that fact, it would have given
his argumeent a whole different slant. As it is, Dembski creates the
impression that he is participating in an argument between two scientists.
************************************************
Here's more about Dembski:
A mathematician and a philosopher, William A. Dembski is associate
research professor in the conceptual foundations of science at Baylor
University and a senior fellow with Discovery Institute's Center for
Science and Culture in Seattle. He is also the executive director of the
International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design
(www.iscid.org). Dr. Dembski previously taught at Northwestern University,
the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done
postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of
Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of
the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in
psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a Ph.D. in philosophy, he also
received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988
and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in
1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral
fellowships. Dr. Dembski has published articles in mathematics,
philosophy, and theology journals and is the author/editor of seven books.
In The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities
(Cambridge University Press, 1998), he examines the design argument in a
post-Darwinian context and analyzes the connections linking chance,
probability, and intelligent causation. The sequel to The Design Inference
appeared with Rowman & Littlefield in 2002 and critiques Darwinian and
other naturalistic accounts of evolution. It is titled No Free Lunch: Why
Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. Dr.
Dembski's most recent book is a coedited collection with Michael Ruse for
Cambridge University Press titled Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA.
_____________________________________________________________________
Dembski's argument, in his posting, is clearly fallacious. See
your local evo-devo biologist.
Regards,
Jack
--
"Trust me. I have a lot of experience at this."
General Custer's unremembered message to his men,
just before leading them into the Little Big Horn Valley