Intelligent Design (New York Times Op-Ed)

[anhinga_anhinga]

In a somewhat unusual development the New York Times publishes an op-ed, Design for Living, by Michael Behe, a professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University.

NYT Abstract: "The theory of intelligent design, though not creationist, differs in key points with pure Darwinian evolution".

Michael Behe is one of the leading advocates of the theory of intelligent design. The New York Times usually pushes the "party line" that evolution by natural selection is the Only True Theory, and that any deviation from it in the classroom is the plot of religious fundamentalists against separation between church and state.

In reality, the question is quite open, so this departure from Bolshevist practices of journalism is refreshing.

Comments

[anhinga-anhinga.livejournal.com]

Indeed :-)

The arguments about evolution are mostly dominated by theological differences, I suppose. Most people decide what is right and what is wrong about our understanding of evolution in advance, for ideological reasons...

I think the way to look at it is that neo-darwinism (pure natural selection + no inheritance of features acquired diring life) still has to account for relatively fast evolution rates, either by bringing in intelligent design, or in some other fashion. And that the burden of producing satisfactory quantitative models is still on the neo-darwinist school (and that their failure to do so after all these years is disappointing).

For example, last May Daniel S. Fisher gave a talk named "The rate of evolution: Is anything understood?" at ICCS2004, and he said that he is getting the time of the order of 10¹⁰⁰ years necessary to reach the current level of complexity, rather than 10¹⁰-10¹¹ years we actually had.

I'll ask him whether there is any update in his studies of this issue.