[general_re]

In simpler terms, the mechanism of natural selection, central to evolutionary theory, cannot possibly account for the development of so many varied and complex life forms simply by mutations in DNA.

So says the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his expert biological opinion. Does he do astrophysics and analytical chemistry too, or does he limit himself to the life sciences?

[PeterPhilly]

Yes, and Stephen Meyer has his Ph.D. in the history of science, rather than in an actual scientific discipline. As for his claim that mutations in DNA do not give rise to new body plans, perhaps he hasn't heard of Hox genes or in other genes that confer positional identity on the cells. Mutations in these genes, can quite easily disrupt the formation of bodily axes.

[R. Scott]

Does he do astrophysics and analytical chemistry too, or does he limit himself to the life sciences?

Probably – the stars are mere points of light in the Heavens.

[bondserv]

So says the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his expert biological opinion. Does he do astrophysics and analytical chemistry too, or does he limit himself to the life sciences?

Most likely he has spoken on the phone with Dr. Meyer. But then again, you are with the Brown Shirts; in one out the other.

"When the Biological Society of Washington issued its embarrassing apology for publishing the paper, the organization pledged that arguments for Intelligent Design 'will not be addressed in future issues of the Proceedings,' regardless of whether the paper passes peer review."

If you say it about one, the saying applies to them all. HaHaHaHa (-: peer-reviewed :-)

"'My conclusion on this,' McDiarmid said, 'was that it was a really bad judgment call on the editor's part.'"

[farmer18th]

So says the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, in his expert biological opinion. Does he do astrophysics and analytical chemistry too, or does he limit himself to the life sciences?

Philosophers and theologians have always been better thinkers than mere life scientists. Scientists don't really think. They measure, record, and document. For that reason, we can more or less trust a doctor to provide us with proper medication, because he can observe his subject. Biologists who purport to speak of events they can no longer observe, based on a very spare fossil record, are terribly poor souls to learn anything from because they are in the unenviable position of being mere empiricists in a world that cannot be observed.