PZ lays a smackdown on a neurosurgeon who is one of the Discovery Institute's 700 who are "skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life" and claims:
I am asking a simple question: show me the evidence (journal, date, page) that new information, measured in bits or any appropriate units, can emerge from random variation and natural selection, without intelligent agency.
Predictably, PZ doesn't even have to break into a sweat taking care of this stupidity.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Time magazine has a science blog, Eye on Science, and the writer, Michael Lemonick, doesn't hesitate to take on the Intelligent Design creationists. A recent entry criticizes the Discovery Institute's silly list of dissenters from 'Darwinism'. Not only is the number that they cite pathetically…
You know, I'm really tired of this.
I'm tired of my fellow physicians with a penchant for spouting scientifically ignorant "attacks" on or "doubts" about evolution. It embarrasses the hell out of me around ScienceBlogs, and I really wish they would stop it. Sadly, it seems to be an increasingly…
Over the last couple of days, Dr. Michael Egnor, an anti-evolution neurosurgeon who recently signed on to the Discovery Institute's list of "scientists" who doubt evolution, has created quite a stir here at Scienceblogs. Quite a few Sciencebloggers have already weighed in on his specific arguments…
Things have not been going so well on the political front for the advocates of intelligent design (a k a the progeny of creationism). This election season their allies on state boards of education in Kansas and Ohio went down to defeat. On the scientific front, things have never really gone well.…
Update:
Egnor responds, the DI crows, and PZ hits back. For a trained doctor, this guy is clueless.