Mitchell Coffey wrote:
On 4 Nov 2005 00:02:06 -0800, "Wakboth" <Wakboth2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
a...@sci.sci kirjoitti:
I hope Behe lives a long and active life.
If by "active" you mean "productive" or "useful", then he'd better get
started pretty soon because he's already wasted much of his life doing
nothing useful at all, and in fact interfering with other people's
useful work.
I'm thinking that by "active" he means "will testify for ID pushers and
creationists in court, showing them as the religiously motivated,
unscientific ignoramuses they are".
But I could be mistaken.
You could be but you aren't. Behe is ID's big-name credentialed
scientist.
encounter of Behe (a creationist) with Denton's book
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.LNX.4.44L.01.0310070016110.13014-100000%40linux2.gl.umbc.edu
in Behe's own words
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980529004405.20294A-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
So he admits under oath he can't defend ID as a scientific
theory, the necessary criterion for it to be taught in public schools,
without giving the term "scientific theory" a private, ad hoc
redefinition that, evidently, other relatively sophisticated IDers
wouldn't allow out of the attic.
ID as a metaphysical research program
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=dford3-1129317540.779352.231140%40f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com
Then he confessed his definition
would make astrology a scientific theory too. Then by way of
illustration - I know you know all this but it just makes me glow to
repeat it - the analogy he uses to defend his private definition
places ID as science squarely at the place astrology was in the middle
ages. This was under oath.
[1915 William Bateson]"We are just about where Boyle was in the
seventeenth century. We can dispose of Alchemy, but we can not make
more than a quasi-chemistry. We are awaiting our Priestly and our
Mendeleeff."
http://groups.google.co.in/groups?selm=b1c67abe.0405161853.5f28f100%40posting.google.com
[1963 Ehrlich and Holm]"it is conceivable, even likely, that what one
might facetiously call a non-Euclidean theory of evolution lies over
the horizon"
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980608234330.51A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1978 Rosen: the phrase
"'natural selection'" ought be "stripped from our technical
vocabulary,"
and the theory "sen[t]... off to join the ether, phlogiston, and
noxious
vapors."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.980913231459.8446A-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
1979 Futuyma: "ultra-modern synthesis" needed
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96A.990307202439.1296706B-100000%40umbc9.umbc.edu
[1996 Gilbert, Opitz, & Raff]"Population genetics is destined to change
if it is not to become as irrelevant to evolution as Newtonian
mechanics is to contemporary physics."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=Pine.SGI.3.96.980602230744.671C-100000%40umbc8.umbc.edu
I suggested we check in on Prof. Behe, discretely, every three months
or so. Maybe talk to his relatives. There's this bird flu thing
coming around and we'll want to make sure he gets on the short list
for any new vaccine.
Reality vs. worldview philosophy of materialism/ atheism
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-3813ksF5ggkc3U1%40individual.net
On the Origin of Life
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=dford3-39oh33F63riraU1%40individual.net
.
