Evolution Engineered

I admit that lately, I haven’t been too interested in actively participating in the ID/evolution debates. I have various excuses reasons: the culture war mentality doesn’t appeal to me, my extra-curricular interest has moved to other topics (economics, health care, theology), it has been a slow news period for this topic, I don’t see a need to add to what others have already so eloquent written, and currently, I find the debate predictable and boring.

That is, until an old argument of mine got resurrected (thanks Brent):

BTW, I still consider “design” a mechanism.

I’ve already debated this at TT over a year ago, and I’m not looking to rehash old arguments. What I do want to point out is that I am not alone in taking this position. Continue reading »

I have to admit, I’m becoming a fan of Richard Sternberg, or at least his style of writing after reading his latest contribution to ENV.

FYI

I sometimes browse through Evolution News & Views (ENV), mostly for Dr. Michael Egnor’s cool and awesome posts.

Recently, I noticed a post by Richard Sternberg at ENV titled “When ‘Junk DNA’ Isn’t Junk: Farwell to a Darwinist Standard Response“. It caught my eye because a) Sternberg is not a regular contributer to ENV, and b) the post was about “so-called” junk DNA. Most of the post was a brief overview of the junk DNA position. Only two paragraphs dealth with evidence countering the junk DNA position.

Update 29-April-2009: Richard Sternberg at ENV redux