Your Garage Beauty Summer Reading STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Starting at $39.99 Wickedly Prime Handmade Wedding Rustic Decor Book House Cleaning masterpiece masterpiece masterpiece  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire 7 Kids Edition, starting at $99.99 Kindle Oasis Nintendo Switch Water Sports STEMClubToys17_gno
Customer Review

11 of 21 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Prove It, February 4, 2011
This review is from: Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution (Paperback)
This book presents a nice logical discussion about our observable world. Today's technology allows us to see deeper into the cell and see amazing processes taking place. It appears that life starts complex, not simple. This is a good read to unwind your mind from the strange stuff we were taught in high school and college biology. I find it crazy that some reviewers would spend time to defend their beliefs and attack this book when their beliefs are not based on the observable world, but entrenched in an outdated belief system from the early 19th century. I guess the funding structure, years of bad research and the establishments behind them are threatened. If irreducible complexity is not valid, prove it.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the guidelines and FAQs here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 7, 2011, 10:03:53 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 20, 2011, 7:59:54 AM PST
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html. Actually, since irreducible complexity is not truly defined, disproof is difficult except by tackling Behe's examples one by one. Not surprisingly, none of his examples has held up under scrutiny. It is one of the problems of irreducible complexity and one of the reasons why it is questionable science at best.

Even more bizarre is that this undefined concept only suggests that some structure in an organism could not have formed through evolution and that this somehow is evidence of intelligent design. At best, this is simply a feeble attempt to offer a possible disproof of evolution and presents no support for ID at all.

It really seems like America is getting "dumbed down" by stuff like this. It tells them what they want to hear, that science is nonsense and can be safely ignored, that everything in the world is simply a matter of opinion and their opinion is as good as a Noble prize winning scientist. There is not a lot of respect for higher education and I imagine that really great public universities will soon become a thing of the past as funding is cut and programs disappear and characters like this reviewer cheer it on as some rebellion against the 'insanity' of the educational system, the same system that taught him to read in the first place.

In reply to an earlier post on May 2, 2011, 10:14:27 PM PDT
John D. Muir says:
Joe, you have it the wrong way round. It is for someone advancing a scientific theory to prove it, with empirical evidence. Behe doesn't come anywhere near doing that. He simply says that he doesn't believe evolution could have created certain structures and from that deduces intelligent design. It's a non-argument, as the scientific community well knows. He's aiming for credulous people who have not noticed that hundreds of thousands of scientists over the last 150 years have worked on projects which have not only failed to show any evidence that evolution did not happen (even Behe concedes it did) but have supported and amplified our knowledge of how it happened.

If there's a flaw in American education, it is that not enough people are getting the message that evolution is science and creationism is religion.

In reply to an earlier post on May 3, 2011, 7:42:28 AM PDT
Joe Reviewer says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2011, 6:30:40 AM PDT
So gravity is a religion with no facts as well? After all, it is also called a theory and according to you that is what a theory is. But take away the government funding and apples still fall from trees, the sun still comes up in the morning, and plants and animals continue to evolve. Take a trip to a local museum and check out the fossilized critters if you need evidence for evolution.

In reply to an earlier post on May 5, 2011, 6:11:03 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 5, 2011, 6:15:32 PM PDT
Joe Reviewer says:
gravity is something observable and repeatable. Fossilized critters does not equal evolution by a long shot.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2011, 10:44:02 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 6, 2011, 11:08:06 AM PDT
Really? What does gravity look like? Is it blue with polka dots? You cannot observe gravity. You can only observe the effects of gravity.

We can also observe the effects of evolution. If we look at rock strata of varying ages, we will see changes in the organisms they contain over time. This is the result of evolution. Organisms change over time.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2011, 11:53:45 AM PDT
Joe Reviewer says:
climp a tall tree and jump, you will see what it looks like.

In reply to an earlier post on May 6, 2011, 1:40:05 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 3, 2011, 10:23:31 AM PDT
Perhaps you speak from experience. Whatever you saw, stars circling in front of your eyes, the ground coming up towards your forehead or anything else, it wasn't gravity. Try again.

So much for "a nice logical discussion about our observable world." You seem not to know the first thing about it. It is one of the horrors of books like this - they empower people with no background and no insights into believing they should decide what is and is not science. Things they do not know or cannot see are forbidden. Scary. Perhaps Joe Reviewer will jump out of a tall tree again and it will knock some sense into him.

Posted on Jun 8, 2011, 8:34:12 AM PDT
@ D. Zinsmeister and John D. Muir: We're going to lose universities and real education? Check some statistics. In the US we're spending ever more money on education, and have been for decades.

Is the problem really "that not enough people are getting the message that evolution is science and creationism is religion"? There has also been for decades a virtual lock on presecondary and secondary education in the US by government monopoly schooling systems. In the same timeframe there has been a practical legal and pseudo-scientific ban on any scientific or philosophical discussion of even any questions or problems of the evolutionary model as an explanation for origins. (Pick a 9th grade biology text, any 9th grade biology text!) So why is it in survey after poll after overwhelming anecdotal evidence that a vast majority of the products of our modern American education system still believe that evolution does not adequately explain origins of life?

How much more control do you need to overcome normal, thoughtful folks' assessment that your so-called "science" (read: macroevolution) may not be all you have cracked it up to be? If they are not succumbing to your propaganda after all this time, just give it up: it ain't happening.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 9, 2011, 8:09:19 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 9, 2011, 8:37:41 AM PDT
Where I live, we had a 15% cut in the state's budget. 40% of that is projected to come from higher education.

Evolution does not explain the origins of life. It explains how existing organisms show change over time. Evolutionary theory is questioned all the time. I can only guess you have not read much on the subject. Behe et al are not criticized because they attempt to disprove evolutionary theory. They are criticized because they do it poorly.

With so many creationist inspired people emerging from the public school system, it is doubtful that you can claim some sort of government mind control is at work. I doubt most high school graduates have a real understanding of what evolution is or what natural selection is. I doubt many would understand why creationism and ID are not science.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›