Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Bated Breath

 
Jonathan Wells made an announcement that sets my heart all aflutter. I just can't wait for his new book to appear Zombie Genes?.
Richard Dawkins, Douglas Futuyma, Michael Shermer, Philip Kitcher, Kenneth Miller, Jerry Coyne and John Avise have also written recent books in which they argue that much of the human genome consists of "junk DNA" that provides evidence for Darwinian evolution--and evidence against intelligent design.

But the notion of "junk DNA" owes more to the historical contortions of neo-Darwinian theory than to biological evidence. In fact, there is now a large and growing body of evidence that Collins, Dawkins, Futuyma, Shermer, Kitcher, Miller, Coyne and Avise are dead wrong on this point--as I will show in my forthcoming book, The Myth of Junk DNA.
I teach a course that analyzes the "science" behind Intelligent Design Creationism and the book we use is Icons of Evolution. Problem is, the students have already written over 100 essays on this book and there's little more they can say. The book has been thoroughly trashed.

Next year we'll have an entirely new Jonathan Wells book to kick around. Yeah!


[Photo Credit: Jonathan Wells from Conservapedia]

9 comments :

  1. Instead use Behe's Edge of Evolution, would be the book I would hope would be used! I would even be interested in reading some of the essays about Behe's arguments, or an essay by one Professor Moran...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wouldn't "Moonie Genes" be a better title?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ohmigosh I'm so excited about this book too! I think it will be entertaining.

    And to Lee: haven't you seen what Larry has already written about EoE?

    ReplyDelete
  4. lee-merrill says,

    Instead use Behe's Edge of Evolution, would be the book I would hope would be used! I would even be interested in reading some of the essays about Behe's arguments, or an essay by one Professor Moran...

    Here's the short version.

    Behe argues that it's nearly impossible to evolve a better protein if you need two mutations that occur simultaneously because either one alone is detrimental.

    He is mostly, but not entirely, correct.


    ReplyDelete
  5. This contention of Behe's has been disproven by experiment.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19758465

    Creationists aren't only wrong; they're behind on the literature.

    ReplyDelete
  6. What is the course code? I need a bird course :-)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Problem is, the students have already written over 100 essays on this book and there's little more they can say. The book has been thoroughly trashed.

    Can you please publish a "Best of" from these essays? Or at least blog about some of the best of them?

    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  8. > Behe argues that it's nearly impossible to evolve a better protein if you need two mutations that occur simultaneously because either one alone is detrimental.

    Well, I believe he only requires independence, and four mutations being his edge. But more details, please? I have tried to follow your prior comments on this, and would be most interested in your take on his arguments.

    And essays of your students--I believe Behe's arguments are the best ID arguments, so maybe tackle Sir Lancelot? instead of Pellinore?

    ReplyDelete
  9. @lee_merril
    Best meaning funnier?
    Everybody knows how to tackle Sir Lancelot. It's just no challenge.

    ReplyDelete