1. says

    I get Seed and I noticed your article (while I was looking for “On My Mind: Seth Lloyd”). Do those of us with Seed subscriptions get to have it available online early (by entering the serial barcode numbers), or do we have to wait like everyone else? :P

  2. Skeptic8 says

    Creationosts seek to train educators. (
    The Institution for Creation Research is moving from Santee CA to the Dallas TX area. They’re trying some sort of accreditation scheme whereby they teach real science PLUS+ at their fruit & nut orchard.

  3. says

    I’m ashamed to report I’ll be one of those horrible people who read your article at the newsstand. I just don’t “do” dead tree-ware any more. Unless it’s published in the UK and comes with a free CD of pop songs – perhaps you could persuade the management of Seed to put Amy Winehouse on the cover next month?

  4. Sven DiMilo says

    This type of organization, in which means are adapted to ends and multiple structures and processes perform multiple functions, all of which contribute to the overall functioning of the organism are unattainable by any kind of random process or chance occurrence.

    You’re right, but for the wrong reason. What’s missing here is natural selection. It’s not random. You might want to read up on it some.

    But, wow–the eye! You really stumped me there. Why the heck did no one think of this devastating counterexample before you did, just now? I mean, Chas. Darwin was a pretty smart guy, but he never even thought about the organization of the eye!


  5. says


    I’m glad Mark is having some success with his book.
    Unfortunately, just giving an answer does not mean the question has been adequately addressed.

    Darwin talks about “gradations”. He’s referring to linear progressions.

    He never once (nor does Mark) addresses the problem of achieving integration of structure and function in the eye nor does he address the issue of organization.

  6. andyo says

    Oh boy, I see this one shooting up to 100 comments.

    Cowboy, I’m just a lay person and I still see the flaw in your argument. At first, creationists used what you call “organization” as “complexity”, and said it is not achievable by random. When they were explained exactly how “complexity” is achieved, by natural selection and other means, which are non-random, they just kept going.

    Don’t you realize you’re making the same argument, but just using other words? Is that a new tactic of the creationists? “Organization” can be achieved simply and with rather beautiful ends by natural selection, even I understand that. What scientists are debating now is what other processes might contribute, and how much. It is just details. Creationists are just making noise and wasting everyone’s time. If creationists wanna believe whatever, then they should do it in their churches.

  7. Skeptic8 says

    Random exercises in change fail unless they serve the ends of survival and reproduction of an existing clade. When they do they are integrated into the existing organization of the clade adjusting existing structures. The progeny of the organism perpetuates the adaptive trait. The natural process has plenty of time if something doesn’t find it a tasty morsel in infancy.

  8. andyo says

    That’s why I said “they”. I don’t know if you are or not, but it doesn’t depend on what you or I say. If you believe there’s a creator because “complexity” or “organization” or whatever can’t be explained otherwise, then you are a creationist. If you don’t, then you should know that there’s no credible case whatsoever for a designer.

  9. Dennis says

    You’re not a shameless pitchman — you’re just an obscure professor, at an obscure school wasting your time on a boring blog.

    Nobody reads Seed Magazine. You idiots have wrecked science, because you never falsify your hypotheses.