Edge of Evolution: The Search for Darwinian Boundaries - Publisher's Introduction

Edge of Evolution: The Search for Darwinian Boundaries - Publisher's Introduction Why this book?! With clear language, interesting style, and solid inferences, Behe rips apart the main idea of Darwinian evolution; the idea that the universe is random. When Michael Behe published his first book, Darwin’s Black Box, a new phase of the intelligent design movement was launched, with a loud noise from critics. Yet hundreds of thousands of readers, and a growing number of scientists, were convinced that Darwinism could not explain the workings of a complex cell. How much can Darwin’s theory explain about life? Today, most scientists believe that it is capable of explaining everything from the mechanism of a cell to the history of life on Earth. Darwin’s ideas have spread to the fields of culture, politics, and law. The results are shocking; random mutations and natural selection explain very little of the mechanism of life, and therefore the edge of evolution; the boundary between random and non-random mutations lies very far from what Darwin pointed out. Behe showed that building many complex biological bases, and even proteins, probably requires many coordinated mutations. Not only do random mutations have no explanation for the emergence of complexity seen in life, and not only is their role limited to the extent possible, but what science has now come up with about their way of working, emphasizes that the rate of mutations that add a function by breaking something is hundreds of times greater than that of adding a function by doing something new. Behe's work in this book deserves full appreciation, respect and praise, however, for every horse as a cub, and Behe's cub in this book, is an expansion of the acceptance of the concept of common regression. In theory, intelligent design theory does not conflict with the idea of the common regression of all living things on Earth from a common common ancestor. "The main issue is not the kinship of all living things ... the main issue is how biocomplexity arose, and whether intelligence played a central role in its emergence."[1] And yes, the relation of living things to each other, and the degrees of kinship between them, is somewhat far from answering the question of the explanation for their existence. But in practice, what is the scientific evidence that makes us accept the idea? In fact, there is no evidence, and even worse, there are many obstacles to accepting the idea of co-regression. The fossil record is full of interruptions and cannot provide us with transitional forms, the science of evolution of molecular strains is full of methodological problems and self-interventions and then the most it can give us is the suggestion of hypothetical ancestors, the genes of organisms are full of orphan genes (which are unlike none of the supposed ancestral genes), and the genetic codes of organisms cannot be traced back Michael Behe is well aware of these issues, and admits that he does not find a solution to them, but he believes that the assumption of the existence of the intelligent designer ends the obstacles to accepting the hypothesis, because the differences between the supposed sons and the supposed ancestors, it is easy to explain their existence if we accept the existence of the intelligent designer, Behe says: "I do not have solutions to the difficult problems posed by skeptical scientists in Gene common ancestor hypothesis; ORFan gene, nonstandard genetic codes, different methods of embryogenesis among homologous organisms...etc. Yet, in my view, if we talk about an intelligently designed ancestor rather than a Darwinian evolutionary ancestor, those problems – though they will still exist – will become less daunting. I agree, of course, that unguided random processes cannot explain it, but an intelligent actor may have ways of overcoming obvious difficulties. So, in judging the probability of co-regression, I'm overlooking problems that might be called "how did that come to be here?", and I'm giving more weight to the arguments for genetic "errors" and "non-functional properties." If there's a peculiar property common to two species, and we're able to say, as far as we know, that it doesn't have a function... then I see it. Strong evidence for co-regression".[3] So, the evidence behind Behe's argument for co-regression is the pseudogenes, which, as far as we know, have no function. In a letter to Nature, Behe wrote: "If at least some false genes have undoubted functions, is it not possible that other biological properties we see as peculiar have functions we have not yet discovered? ... The risk of negative arguments is that they may be based on lack of knowledge rather than positive outcomes."[4] In a 2012 paper, a group of researchers released this powerful statement: "We believe that many, many functional pseudogenes will be discovered whenever biological technologies are developed in the future...It is certain that the so-called pseudogenes are functional, but we should not continue to consider them as junk or DNA fossils." If most of them prove to have a function, they will no longer be good proof of common descent.” Although the basic logical argument is weak in our view, and convinced of the idea, it is quite open to changing its mind in the light of recent evidence. Another point before closing is an explanation of the religious implications of Behe’s position and that of the proponents of intelligent design for common regression, as well as for our position as a center on the issue. Although, as we have explained, there is nothing to prove, at the same time there is no contradiction between Islam and the intelligently designed common regression assumption. For even in the case of man, if humans and apes descended from a common ancestor, this does not mean that man gradually emerged from the wombs of ape-like animals; this is, of course, absolutely unacceptable both in the case of man and in the case of any being containing irreducibly complex systems (in Behe's words from molecular machines to the human mind), where there is irreducible complexity. To reduce, the concept of gradualism fell into appearance. Accordingly, in scientific language, man was not born from the womb of an animal even under this assumption. In religious language, man is a new creation, a creature of clay, a soul, not born from the womb of an animal. Nothing in Behe's hypothesis contradicts any of this, but he goes further: "If such speculative views directly or indirectly contradict God's inspired belief, then the demand for their recognition cannot be accepted in any way."[6] Of course we agree with him on this. This is in terms of non-contradiction, but in terms of belief, we do not believe in intelligent design, our belief in metaphysical creation, we look at it as a scientific theory compatible with evidence and not opposed to Islamic doctrine, but like any scientific theory, unstable, uncertain, and refutable. As for belief, we believe that God is the creator of everything, whether the creatures appear to us to be the product of intelligent design or the inevitable laws or coincidence (for us coincidence, and for whom we believe). We also do not see that the religious concept of creation and the Creator lacks empirical scientific proof, the sign of creation on the Creator is a direct sign that any sane person is aware of. We also see that denying the sign of creation on the Creator is not justified in science, this is a philosophical mental concept that needs a kind of protest completely contrary to what exists in science, and yet we go down with God in a scientific debate about the alleged sign of science on the negation of the Creator in order to spread suspicion. If it is from a final word before the end, it is thanks to all the staff members who contributed to the release of this book, and the note that the margins of the original book are at the end, and the margins in the book itself are for the staff of the center. Then advice to those who will read the book, a little carefulness before the judgment will not harm you in anything. [1] William Dembski and Michael Ruse, Debating Design, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p323. [2] In the second chapter of Jonathan Wells's book, The Zoological Science, details are more detailed. [3] Interview with Michael Behe on The Edge of Evolution, Discovery Institute, June 18, 2007, http://www.discovery.org/a/4097, Last accessed: 24/1/2019. [4] Michael Behe, A Functional Pseudogene?: An Open Letter to Nature, May 13, 2003 http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/behepseudogene052003.htm, Last accessed: 24/1/2019. [5] Wen YZ, Zheng LL, Qu LH, Ayala FJ, Lun ZR. Pseudogenes are not pseudo any more. RNA Biol. 2012 Jan;9(1):27-32. doi: 10.4161/rna.9.1.18277. Epub 2012 Jan 1. PubMed PMID: 22258143. [6] Michael J. Behe, A Catholic Scientist Looks at Darwinism, in William A. Dembski (Editor), Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, ISI Books (July 9, 2004), p.149. - Management of the Brahin Center — Source: Brahin Center website - Posted on 2019-01-19 (archived at the Internet Archive) https://braheen.com/publications/intros/حافة-التطور-البحث-عن-حدود-الداروينية-مقدمة-الناشر