>The Discovery Institute has posted replies to Ken
>Miller. E.g. here's one on the genetic code:
This persists in the same sort of misrepresentation as
before. My recent post on the universal code gives some
details of how the deviations from the universal code fit into
an evolutionary view.
The objections to Miller's metaphor of British versus
American languages reflect the limits of the metaphor to
some degree. However, in replying the DI also fails to
recognize any difference between an intelligent and
unintelligent reader. It is true that a person should not have
trouble reading color versus colour, though he might have
trouble with lift versus elevator, whereas the ribosome will
get the wrong amino acid, given a gene using a
non-standard code. However, a spell checker will have just
as much trouble with colour versus color.
The DI reply, following some YECs (perhaps convergently)
also tries to misrepresent convergence as
anti-evolutionary. Selection is expected to produce
The reason that overly broad claims about a universal
genetic code can give an opening for "creationists" is
because of the opportunity to misrepresent this as a false
claim by "evolutionists".
Dr. David Campbell
46860 Hilton Dr #1113
Lexington Park MD 20653 USA
That is Uncle Joe, taken in the masonic regalia of a Grand
Exalted Periwinkle of the Mystic Order of Whelks-P.G.
Wodehouse, Romance at Droigate Spa
Sent via the WebMail system at
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Oct 18 2001 - 11:22:32 EDT