Saturday, April 08, 2006
The Evidence is In
Last week, Nature reported that a team of scientists led by Neil H. Shubin of the University of Chicago have uncovered several well-preserved fossils that possess fins, scales and other fish-like attributes. The scientists also found the anatomical traits of a transitional creature -- a missing link. As John Wilford, of the New York Times put it, "a fish that is still a fish but has changes that anticipate the emergence of land animals — and is thus a predecessor of amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs, mammals and eventually humans."
Kenneth Chang, of the New York Times, also reported last week that "scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts."
Joseph W. Thornton, professor of biology at the University of Oregon and lead author of the paper said the experiment refutes the notion of "irreducible complexity" put forward by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.
Behe, of course, described the results as "piddling." The Discovery institute was quick to say that the transitional fossils pose no threat to intelligent design theory.
In fact, no evidence will ever convince intelligent design activists they are wrong. That's why ID is religion, not science.
Kenneth Chang, of the New York Times, also reported last week that "scientists have for the first time demonstrated the step-by-step progression of how evolution created a new piece of molecular machinery by reusing and modifying existing parts."
Joseph W. Thornton, professor of biology at the University of Oregon and lead author of the paper said the experiment refutes the notion of "irreducible complexity" put forward by Michael J. Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.
Behe, of course, described the results as "piddling." The Discovery institute was quick to say that the transitional fossils pose no threat to intelligent design theory.
In fact, no evidence will ever convince intelligent design activists they are wrong. That's why ID is religion, not science.
