So you know Behe is a charlatan but you aren't familiar enough with his work to have a clue what I am talking about in reference to his work?
No, I've done my homework. Behe is simply a charlatan who has a legitimate degree in biochemistry and chooses to use it in a dishonest, anti-science manner. He's not the first person to misuse a good education for personal profit, and, sadly, he won't be the last.
I am unclear, are you attacking personal profit, or Behe's charge?
Let me see--scientists who want to publish their "pro-evolution pieces", i.e., the results of their research, do not get paid for publishing these results.
I am not talking about research, I am talking about "The God Delusion", for example. Of course I would rather judge the ideas in a book, as opposed to its specific publishing arrangement with the author.
Apparently, anti-science is quite lucrative, for those with no morals.
So anyone who disagrees with you is an immoral anti-scientist out for profit? To you this is a scientific argument?
That about sums up any attempt of a discussion with exDemMom. It's also frustrating when someone attaches their inferred meanings to words that have an adequately explicit and commonly accepted connotation. It becomes pointless to make an earnest reply.
I have done quite a bit of reading between posts and conclude without hesitation that most of the controversy about evolution comes from evolutionist, who must be anti-science charlatans if they contradict exDemMom.
By the way, most evolutionists are funded by research grants or the institutions that employ them. This is not work they do out of pure benevolence in their spare time. Everyone has to make a living.
For anyone who is well-trained in science, recognizing a charlatan is as easy as recognizing a non-native speaker of English. The fact is that Behe has published very little in the way of genuine scientific articles, and the little he has published is narrowly focused on chemical reactions. Well, there was a letter to the Genetics journal where he tried to criticize some evolutionary mathematics, but it was rebutted immediately. He has limited his career by excluding any topic that requires evolutionary considerations--which includes most topics in the life sciences. His background does not mark him as an expert in evolutionary biology, nor does it suggest that he knows anything about the subject. He is the perfect example of a scientist who clings to dogmatic belief despite all evidence, and ends up not accomplishing much as a result.
I am unclear, are you attacking personal profit, or Behe's charge?
It is Behe and his ilk that I am attacking. I have nothing against someone earning a profit honestly.
I am not talking about research, I am talking about "The God Delusion", for example. Of course I would rather judge the ideas in a book, as opposed to its specific publishing arrangement with the author.
Is "The God Delusion" a book explaining someone's opinion? I had not heard of it before; I googled it just now. Since the existence of God is neither scientifically provable nor disprovable, no book on that subject can be a scientific book. For a scientist to make money from writing pro-evolution pieces, they would have to be able to publish writing based solely on science, and get paid for it. Some scientists have successfully marketed science to the lay public; if they make money from doing so, it has the virtue of being honestly earned.
So anyone who disagrees with you is an immoral anti-scientist out for profit? To you this is a scientific argument?
There are a number of anti-science efforts out there, and they are all immoral. This has nothing to do with whether someone agrees with me or not. I detest country music; I don't think country music fans are immoral. But people who lie about science as a means of separating people from their money are thoroughly immoral. People die because of anti-science; I can't think of a single redeeming aspect to it.