The Edge of Evolution (book) - disproved?

[Stu]

Although I've been aware of Intelligent Design and Creation Science for sometime, it's still fairly new territory for me, but have recently been delving a little deeper and indeed finding it a fascinating area of debate - more specifically Michael Behe's Irreducible Complexity theory and the many new fossil finds relating to the Cambrian Explosion (Paul Chien & co.).

So I'm looking to get my hands on a couple books right now, namely Darwin's Black Box and The Edge of Evolution, both by Behe.
So my question is: Have these books been proven to be false or bad science? I have friends who are neo-Darwinists and so we have these debates occasionally..

Some of the evolutionists I have spoken to claim the books have indeed been proven to be false in areas. Are they right or should I still give The Edge of Evolution a read.

And what about Darwin's Black Box, is Irreducible Complexity not so irreducibly complex after all? I've read (some of) William Dembski's Still Spinning Just Fine in response to Ken Miller's The Flagellum Unspun: The Collapse of 'Irreducible Complexity', but heard that additional arguments against Irreducible Complexity have since been put forward.

Has Behe's himself followed up on this as I can't find anything other than Demski's article..

I'm by no means an expert in biology or any of the other fields but have recently taken a keen interest in the ID and creation science movments.

Stu

[Tevko]

First off, read this - http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/03/mi ... 44801.html

Hey man, one thing to remember, evolutionists are viciously protective over their theory. What has turned into honest inquiry has become protection of a set of views. Behe's theory has NOT been refuted, although, rather than actually debate Behe, most evolutionists have resorted to making fun of him. ID is alive and well my friend, here are some of the best websites I can find to prove it.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/

http://egnorance.blogspot.com/

http://www.discovery.org/

http://www.evolutionnews.org

http://creation.com/

[Gman]

Behe certainly hasn't been refuted although certain evolutionists have possible theories to his questions. Nothing solid at all however..

The thing to remember is that evolutionary theory governed by pure "chance" is a faith based religion which requires miracles much the same as the creationists viewpoint. Both belief systems will require some faith to get their premises kick started.. And that is a fact folks.

[Stu]

Thanks guys I decided to start with Behe's Darwin's Black Box and The Myth of Junk DNA by Jonathan Wells.

Yeah, I've only recently come to realise (and experience) that for some evolutionists the "Church of Darwin" really is the equivalent of their own religion; and they will defend it vociferously and aggressively despite a lack of evidence.

Guess you gotta look beyond their conviction, and focus solely on the arguments put forward.

I always thought that the fundamentals had been solved / addressed by neo-Darwinism.
First life
The origin of DNA / protein
Sexual reproduction

who thought that none of it even comes close. Go figure.