Replies

So no Miller is just trying for headlines, -me-

Miller has no need of headlines.

Of course he needs headlines. He is a prolific book writer and obviously wants more income. That you are unaware of it shows he does indeed need the publicity.

Behe made numerous predictions about explanations of verious apparently-too-complex-to-evolve biological machines that would never be published in technical journals. Some of which had already been published when his book was written. Apparently bench-checking was not his forte.

Attacking the man with vague accusations which of course cannot be refuted because they are so vague. The fact is that his book 'Darwin's Black Box' has gone through numerous printings and has elicited numerous scientific reviews. His assertion that the bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex and had to have been intelligently designed has been the subject of much scientific experimentation. Such experimentation and research has shown that the bacterial flagellum is indeed irreducibly complex, if any one of the 40+ genes that make up the system is knocked out, the entire system fails to work at all.

(and BTW the argument of the secretory system is not his originally so he may also be guilty of plagiarism).

Fat chance. Miller's books are top-heavy with current cites from the journals.

Well in his current article, Miller does not give acknowledgements to anyone. Here is an article from an Ian Musgrave from March 2000 which makes the same arguments. Methinks he is a plagiarist.

Of course he [Miller] needs headlines. He is a prolific book writer and obviously wants more income. That you are unaware of it shows he does indeed need the publicity.

Ah, the conspiracy theory of book authorship. Of course, what was I thinking?

Attacking the man with vague accusations which of course cannot be refuted because they are so vague.

Yea, you hope anyway. Miller wrote an entire book about Behe, Dembski, and Johnson: "Finding Darwin's God". And it is far from vague, it is referenced up to its gills, and you will find the relevant references as to when and where, exactly, Behe's predictions were contradicted BEFORE Behe published.

Well in his current article, Miller does not give acknowledgements to anyone. Here is an article from an Ian Musgrave from March 2000 which makes the same arguments. Methinks he is a plagiarist.

Methinks he cites Miller, methinks reciting arguments in your own words doesn't not constitute plagerism, and methinks this is just a churlish emitting of wind.