Thursday, March 20, 2008


Jonathan Wells provides a powerful response to the absolute nonsense that several Darwinists have been blogging about in response to an article he posted at EN&V on 2/29.

I've kept up with the tennis match between the two sides...

IDists: Jonathan Wells, Michael Egnor

Darwinists: Ian Musgrave, PZ Myers and Larry Moran

As I've read the posts written by Musgrave, Myers and Moran, I've been so very puzzled by the fact that the 3 M's seem to have absolutely no idea that the term "Darwinism" has a different meaning than the word "evolution". It's amazing that after so many years in which these gentlemen have been ranting on and on about various issues in this debate, they still seem to have no clue as to what IDists are referring to when they talk about microev., macroev., Darwinism & common descent.

I simply can't figure out whether they are a.) clueless or b.) deceptive beyond belief.

Wells initially referred to an article which considered the following...

Frédéric Dardel and his colleagues crystallized two forms of the antibiotic-modifying enzyme acetyltransferase and showed that it has a flexible active site that can evolve to enable bacteria to break down various antibiotics and render them useless. The research may aid in the design of new antibiotics to deal with this form of resistance, which is becoming a serious medical problem.

Wells went on to proclaim that...

This is very good news! Unfortunately, Darwinists will probably claim — as they have done many times in the past — that their theory was indispensable to the achievement.

Yet Darwinian evolution had nothing to do with it.

What followed was a heated exchange between the 3 M's and Wells/Egnor. Wells has referenced all the links so that you don't miss anything, and he provides an excellent response that explains in detail what is meant by the terms evolution, microevolution, macroevolution, and Darwinism.

This article is *very* pertinent to the immense and continuous communication gap that is found in this debate. Many Darwinists have, unfortunately, blurred the lines between various aspects of evolution in order to claim that the theory is a "fact".

Wells' article is a keeper to be referenced to over and over as it seems this little dilemma over definitions will always remain a source of confusion and at times deliberate deception.

As you're reading the various links in the article, you'll notice the level of professionalism that the IDists hold to. The Darwinists behave like insolent children. The name calling makes them look so ridiculous...not at all the type of behavior one would prefer to see from professors who are teaching our students.