Demolishing Darwinism

In the last post, I reported on Dr. Michael Behe's talk at Stanford and the angry response it invoked. Here is a link to an article written by Behe that briefly outlines one of the arguments against evolution. Here is an article in the Boston Review that blasts Behe's claims. Compare for yourself. The blindness and bias of the Darwinist camp is painfully evident. One of the arguments the author of this article makes is that of a programmer writing code for software. You add some feature to your code to make an improvement and then later on down the line, that feature becomes indispensible to the overall operation of the software. This is how a system that appears to be irreducably complex could develop in a Darwinian fashion. This argument illustrates the disconnection from reality that plagues Darwinist theory: the analogy relies upon the intelligent agent (you, the programmer) who is designing the system. In order to have effectively made his point, the author would need to describe a self-organizing system that makes improvements on itself - because these small improvements are the supposedly simple and believeable steps that could have turned into complex, essential parts down the road. Darwinist theories always beg the question: where did this apparent design come from? When you ask that question, they'll tell you about the parts and process from which a particular biological system was formed and somehow downplay or fail to mention the unimaginable complexity of those building blocks, hoping you will not keep inquiring where those came from, and so on until it is apparent that life did not spring from non-life, one of the most important scientific discoveries ever (made by Louis Pasteur, for whom the process "pasteurization" is named.) History has shown many times that an overwhelming majority can be wrong. Near unanimity is not proof.