Joined: April 2007
DI folks should have known better: Larry Moran debunked Schwabe's claims back in 1992. Still, they continue to cite Schwabe, the latest example being WE Lönnig in his Dollo's law paper. The reason is obvious: They present Schwabe's "Genomic Potential Hypothesis" (GPH) as another "alternative" to evolution theory to corroborate their claim that there is more dissent than just ID and that there is something like a controversy. However, ID-creationists do not dare to discuss Schwabe's claims (who IIRC according to a news article I once read claims to be an atheist). Either they are not interested in doing this or they are afraid of running the risk to question their own claims when doing so. Thus, they can cite Schwabe in footnotes or subordinate clauses only. Calling this
is just ridiculous.
|Much Ado About A Footnote Citing Christian Schwabe|
BTW Paul Nelson has some problems with properly citing. He mentions Schwabes FASEB paper but doesn’t give the exact reference (Georges D and Schwabe C (1999): Porcine relaxin, a 500 million-year-old hormone? The tunicate Ciona intestinalis has porcine relaxin. FASEB J 13(10):1269-75). Is this just incompetence or did he do so by purpose?
Being cited as
doesn't really hit the point. Besides indeed discussing the absurdity of Schwabe's GPH Geert and myself have shown that at least Schwabe's Ciona data are completely flawed: Actually, there is no relaxin gene in C. intestinalis.
|Hafner and Korthof (2006) argue vigorously against Schwabe’s position|
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."
- William Dembski -