Posted on 12/28/2005 3:01:53 PM PST by johnnyb_61820
... the idea that the four fundamental forces of physics alone could rearrange the fundamental particles of nature into spaceships, nuclear power plants, and computers, connected to laser printers, CRTs, keyboards and the Internet, appears to violate the second law of thermodynamics in a spectacular way.
Anyone who has made such an argument is familiar with the standard reply: the Earth is an open system, it receives energy from the sun, and order can increase in an open system, as long as it is "compensated" somehow by a comparable or greater decrease outside the system. S. Angrist and L. Hepler, for example, in "Order and Chaos", write, "In a certain sense the development of civilization may appear contradictory to the second law.... Even though society can effect local reductions in entropy, the general and universal trend of entropy increase easily swamps the anomalous but important efforts of civilized man. Each localized, man-made or machine-made entropy decrease is accompanied by a greater increase in entropy of the surroundings, thereby maintaining the required increase in total entropy."
According to this reasoning, then, the second law does not prevent scrap metal from reorganizing itself into a computer in one room, as long as two computers in the next room are rusting into scrap metal -- and the door is open. In Appendix D of my new book, The Numerical Solution of Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations, second edition, I take a closer look at the equation for entropy change, which applies not only to thermal entropy but also to the entropy associated with anything else that diffuses, and show that it does not simply say that order cannot increase in a closed system. It also says that in an open system, order cannot increase faster than it is imported through the boundary. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
I understand that common descent is compatible with ID, but I thought I was responding to an argument against common descent (I could be mistaken)
No. That would be St. Peter, if the legends are correct.
No.
First understand that ID is not a single theory. It is a class of hypotheses with the common features that the motivating force behind universal creation is not random but was created by the deliberate action of an intelligent life form.
ID is a hypothesis, not a proven conclusion. Furthermore, a proven form of ID would necessarily have data to indicate the specific nature of intelligence and method.
Those opposed to ID are closed minded, unscientific, and rule out a hypothesis without any basis for doing so, particularly since several constructs of ID fit all the data we have today. They reactionarily exclude ID as a hypothesis simply because it could be consistent with the Bible in some forms. That is atheistic thinking.
Scientific proponents of ID are not stating ID is the only possibility. (The labels in textbooks did not state that ID was a certainty either)
So ID is not a statement of faith because it does not presume the ID is a god, as required by most religious faiths. It is simply a possible set of solutions.
BTW: In science anytime we brainstorm a set of possible solutions to a problem we do not exclude any possible solution just because something similar may have beeen mentioned in the Bible. That would be unscientific and absolutely bigoted. It would also be stupid.
Uh, for science hypothesis perhaps since it is non-axiomatic. I was talking mathematics and similar, which is axiomatic. Do you have to run an experiment to show that the sum of two arbitrary numbers is what mathematics asserts it is?
No, but in showing the relevance of your abstract theorems upon the real world, (you know, the one full of DNA and phospholipids and ERV's), then experimental results DO count.
BTW, I was up till 2:30 AM posting on Free Republic. Was it you I asked for references for some of thework on AIT or somesuch alphabet soup ?
Cheers!
In the form of links to course material, or Scientific American level expositions?
The material isn't too hard, but I don't have time to learn an entire new nomenclature and sets of obscure typographical symbols...
See my earlier posts about having a family, a life, etc. :-)
Cheers!
That just might end up getting seized upon by someone on either side of this debate for sarcastic quotes ;-)
I agree with that.
A statement of faith does not have to imply it is in relation to "religeon".
The Supreme Court ruled that secular humanism is a religeon and its charictoristic is a belief in the theory of evolution.
I recognize their right to have statements of faith as part of their belief system. To deny them that right would be bigoted.
They call their statements of faith "scientific beliefs". They can call it what they want.
...and the treadmill is calling me. Time to burn off 800 calories. :-)
Cheers!
Then quit using this to back up some claim of Evolution!
You're free to bracket out phenomena in whatever idiosyncratic manner you prefer, but in common parlance the emergence of multiple unique chromosomal races, even within a single species, certainly is "evolution". Equally certainly it's not all there is to evolution, but it certainly is what I was specifically using it as: a decisive refutation of (won't)connectthedots' inanely repeated claim that males and females with different chromosome numbers (or other significant genetic mutations) can't mate and produce offspring, and therefore that the evolution of such features is effectively impossible because a mutant would need to find a mate with the exact same mutation.
Wrong. I just dealt with this on another thread.
This comment by Justice Scalia in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) was in one of five paragraphs summarizing a series of arguments made by Senator Keith, the proponent of the bill which was passed by the Louisiana legislature, and which was being challenged in the Supreme Court. Further, Scalia's comments were contained in his dissent.
The fifth paragraph (5) is where the comment "The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion" can be found. Senator Keith was referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, a 1961 legal case in which this statement was placed in a footnote. As such it has no legal standing.
The entire section is quoted below. Note the lead paragraph--Scalia is summarizing Sen. Keith's positions. The citations are where these statements originated. Emphasis in (5) added: Source. If you read the original opinion to the bottom, Scalia used the Lemon test in his dissent.
Senator Keith and his witnesses testified essentially as set forth in the following numbered paragraphs:
(1) There are two and only two scientific explanations for the beginning of life (3) -- evolution and creation science. 1 id., at E-6 (Sunderland); id., at E-34 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-280 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-417 -- E-418 (Sen. Keith). Both are bona fide "sciences." Id., at E-6 -- E-7 (Sunderland); id., at E-12 (Sunderland); id., at E-416 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-427 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-491 -- E-492 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-497 -- E-498 (Sen. Keith). Both posit a theory of the origin of life and subject that theory to empirical testing. Evolution posits that life arose out of inanimate chemical compounds and has gradually evolved over millions of years. Creation science posits that all life forms now on earth appeared suddenly and relatively recently and have changed little. Since there are only two possible explanations of the origin of life, any evidence that tends to disprove the theory of evolution necessarily tends to prove the theory of creation science, and vice versa. For example, the abrupt appearance in the fossil record of complex life, and the extreme rarity of transitional life forms in that record, are evidence for creation science. 1 id., at E-7 (Sunderland); id., at E-12 -- E-18 (Sunderland); id., at E-45 -- E-60 (Boudreaux); id., at E-67 (Harlow); id., at E-130 -- E-153 (Boudreaux paper); id., at E-423 -- E-428 (Sen. Keith).
(2) The body of scientific evidence supporting creation science is as strong as that supporting evolution. In fact, it may be stronger. Id., at E-214 (Young statement); id., at E-310 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-416 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-492 (Sen. Keith). The evidence for evolution is far less compelling than we have been led to believe. Evolution is not a scientific "fact," since it cannot actually be observed in a laboratory. Rather, evolution is merely a scientific theory or "guess." 1 id., at E-20 -- E-21 (Morris); id., at E-85 (Ward); id., at E-100 (Reiboldt); id., at E-328 -- E-329 (Boudreaux); 2 id., at E-506 (Boudreaux). It is a very bad guess at that. The scientific problems with evolution are so serious that it could accurately be termed a "myth." 1 id., at E-85 (Ward); id., at E-92 -- E-93 (Kalivoda); id., at E-95 -- E-97 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-154 (Boudreaux paper); id., at E-329 (Boudreaux); id., at E-453 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-505 -- E-506 (Boudreaux); id., at E-516 (Young).
(3) Creation science is educationally valuable. Students exposed to it better understand the current state of scientific evidence about the origin of life. 1 id., at E-19 (Sunderland); id., at E-39 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-79 (Kalivoda); id., at E-308 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-513 -- E-514 (Morris). Those students even have a better understanding of evolution. 1 id., at E-19 (Sunderland). Creation science can and should be presented to children without any religious content. Id., at E-12 (Sunderland);id., at E-22 (Sanderford); id., at E-35 -- E-36 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-101 (Reiboldt); id., at E-279 -- E-280 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-282 (Sen. Keith).
(4) Although creation science is educationally valuable and strictly scientific, it is now being censored from or misrepresented in the public schools. Id., at E-19 (Sunderland); id., at E-21 (Morris); id., at E-34 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-37 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-42 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-92 (Kalivoda); id., at E-97 -- E-98 (Reiboldt); id., at E-214 (Young statement); id., at E-218 (Young statement); id., at E-280 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-309 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-513 (Morris). Evolution, in turn, is misrepresented as an absolute truth. 1 id., at E-63 (Harlow); id., at E-74 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-81 (Kalivoda); id., at E-214 (Young statement); 2 id., at E-507 (Harlow); id., at E-513 (Morris); id., at E-516 (Young). Teachers have been brainwashed by an entrenched scientific establishment composed almost exclusively of scientists to whom evolution is like a "religion." These scientists discriminate against creation scientists so as to prevent evolution's weaknesses from being exposed. 1 id., at E-61 (Boudreaux); id., at E-63 -- E-64 (Harlow); id., at E-78 -- E-79 (Kalivoda); id., at E-80 (Kalivoda); id., at E-95 -- E-97 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-129 (Boudreaux paper); id., at E-218 (Young statement); id., at E-357 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-430 (Boudreaux).
(5) The censorship of creation science has at least two harmful effects. First, it deprives students of knowledge of one of the two scientific explanations for the origin of life and leads them to believe that evolution is proven fact; thus, their education suffers and they are wrongly taught that science has proved their religious beliefs false. Second, it violates the Establishment Clause. The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Id., at E-36 (Sen. Keith) (referring to Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495, n. 11 (1961)); 1 App. E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. 1 id., at E-282 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-312 -- E-313 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-317 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-418 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 (Sen. Keith). Thus, by censoring creation science and instructing students that evolution is fact, public school teachers are now advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 1 id., at E-2 -- E-4 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-36 -- E-37, E-39 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-154 -- E-155 (Boudreaux paper); id., at E-281 -- E-282 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-313 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-315 -- E-316 (Sen. Keith); id., at E-317 (Sen. Keith); 2 id., at E-499 -- E-500 (Sen. Keith).
>Behe's bogus claims about his book being "peer-reviewed":
On the stand, Behe tried to establish that his book had been subjected to peer review, one of the bedrock processes of vetting the credibility of scientific writings. He testified that his book had undergone even more thorough review than a normal journal article would have because of the controversial nature of the subject. He specifically named Dr. Michael Atchison of the University of Pennsylvania as one of the book's reviewers. But NCSE's Matzke remembered an article written by Atchison in which he stated that he had not reviewed the book at all but had only held a ten minute phone conversation with the book's editor over the general content. When the plaintiffs' attorney introduced this article during cross-examination, it was clearly a blow to Behe's claim that his book had "received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles."
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/05-12-20.html
I've seen a more detailed description of the incident, and it isn't pretty. Behe basically gave his publisher a list of "suggested reviewers" for his book, and the publisher called them to see if they'd tell him it was worthy of publication, regardless of the scientific quality of the reasoning contained in the book. That's what passes for "peer-review" in Behe's strange world of supernatural causation science.
The specific testimony at trial setting up this whole situation is as follows (Q. = plaintiffs' attorney; A. = Behe's response):
Q. Okay. Now you stated on Monday that Darwin's Black Box was also peer reviewed, right?A. That's correct.
Q. You would agree that peer review for a book published in the Trade Press is not as rigorous as the peer review process for the leading scientific journals, would you?
A. No, I would not agree with that. The review process that the book went through is analogous to peer review in the literature, because the manuscript was sent out to scientists for their careful reading.
Furthermore, the book was sent out to more scientists than typically review a manuscript. In the typical case, a manuscript that's going to -- that is submitted for a publication in a scientific journal is reviewed just by two reviewers. My book was sent out to five reviewers.
Furthermore, they read it more carefully than most scientists read typical manuscripts that they get to review because they realized that this was a controversial topic. So I think, in fact, my book received much more scrutiny and much more review before publication than the great majority of scientific journal articles.
Q. Now you selected some of your peer reviewers?
A. No, I did not. I gave my editor at the Free Press suggested names, and he contacted them. Some of them agreed to review. Some did not.
Q. And one of the peer reviewers you mentioned yesterday was a gentleman named Michael Atchison?
A. Yes, I think that's correct.
Q. I think you described him as a biochemist at the Veterinary School at the University of Pennsylvania?
A. I believe so, yes.
Q. He was not one of the names you suggested, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. In fact, he was selected because he was an instructor of your editor's wife?
A. That's correct. My editor knew one biochemistry professor, so he asked, through his wife, and so he asked him to take a look at it as well.
Now that Prof. Behe has expounded upon the extensive world-wide search for scientific expertise to review his book, we will now proceed to what was read into the record at trial (from exhibit P-754) regarding the circumstances of and extent to which the professor of Veterinary biochemistry performed "peer-review" on Behe's book:
A.[Behe] Yes. As I said, I think the editor, his wife was in vet school and knew that she was taking biochemistry and so asked the professor in that class.Q.[by plaintiffs' attorney, quoting the written account of Prof. Atchison]:
"She advised her husband to give me a call. So unaware of all this, I [Prof. Atchison] received a phone call from the publisher in New York. We spent approximately ten minutes on the phone. After hearing a description of the work, I suggested that the editor should seriously consider publishing the manuscript.""I told him that the origin of life issue was still up in the air. It sounded like this Behe fellow might have some good ideas, although I could not be certain since I had never seen the manuscript. We hung up, and I never thought about it again, at least until two years later."
And that is what Prof. Behe characterized to the court, under oath, as an example of the "more scrutiny" than scientific journal articles "peer-review" afforded Behe's book, by a "reviewer" who had never even seen his manuscript, let alone read it.
October 27, 2005
Two of Behe's Reviewers Speak Out
Last week I wrote about the fact that Michael Behe claimed under oath in the Dover case that his book, Darwin's Black Box, received even more thorough peer review than a scholarly article in a refereed journal. Now more and more facts are coming to light. We only know the names of 3 of the 5 reviewers - Michael Atchison, Robert Shapiro and K. John Morrow. Atchison, I've already documented, did not review the book at all. He had a 10 minute conversation about the book over the phone, without ever seeing the text, with an editor who was concerned about whether it would sell, not whether the science was solid. Skip Evans contacted Robert Shapiro and was told that he did review the book, and while he agreed with some of his analysis of origin-of-life research, he thinks his conclusions are false. He did, however, say that he thought that Behe's book was the best explanation of the argument from design that was available.
Now, what of Morrow? As it turns out, this is the best of all. Over on the Panda's Thumb, a commenter has left the text of an email from K. John Morrow in response to an inquiry about his review of Behe's book. I contacted Dr. Morrow and we've spent some time on the phone over the last couple days discussing the situation. He has given me permission to post his response in full, with one disclaimer:
He dashed this response off pretty quickly in response to an inquiry and in retrospect he isn't certain whether he reviewed the book for Free Press, who ultimately published the book, or for an earlier publisher who was considering publishing it. His recollection from a decade ago is that after he had given his review of the book and the review written by Russell Doolittle of part of the book, the editor told him that they didn't think they were going to go ahead with publishing the book. But he can't be certain at this point whether that was an editor for Free Press or an editor from a different publisher who was considering the book for publication. Ultimately this doesn't matter. Behe himself named Morrow as a reviewer of the book in his testimony, so his views on the book are obviously germane to the question of the rigor of the peer review and whether it determined whether the book should be published. With that disclaimer, the post of his full response after the fold:
I did review Behe’s book for a publisher who, if I recall correctly, turned it down on the basis of my comments, and those of others (including Russell Doolittle who trashed it). When I reviewed Behe’s book I was much more polite than Doolittle, who didn’t mince words. Eventually Behe found another publisher, so he’s right; it was peer reviewed. What he doesn’t say is that is was rejected by the first set of reviewers.I also debated Behe in Dallas in 1992. Once, again, I attempted to be civil, professional and dignified. Behe’s response was aggressive, condescending and simply rude.
I will say, unequivocally, I am (as practically every professional working biologist I have ever met) convinced by the overwhelming body of evidence that Darwin’s concept of evolution, and its subsequent modifications by the last 150 years of investigation, is the correct, and the best explanation for the great cornucopia of living creatures with which we share this planet.
I’m absolutely appalled by Behe’s arguments, which are simply a rehash of ideas that Darwin considered and rejected. There is not a shred of evidence to support intelligent design, and a vast body of evidence that argues against it. It is not a scientific hypothesis, it is simply the philosophical wanderings of an uniformed (or disingenuous) mind.
At present I’m involved in product development for an immunodiagnostics company, and we are discussing how to approach to Avian flu, and how we can design a test that takes into account the constantly evolving nature of the RNA viruses. Do the intelligent designers want to return us to a time when mankind attributed disease to evil spirits, and allow us no tools to understand the ravages of epidemic diseases, and how to design therapies and diagnostics against them?
I believe that the argument is not about science at all, but simply right wing fundamentalists using a different tactic to force religious teaching in the public schools. I thought that Judge Overton had put this case to rest 30 years ago, but apparently not.
Thanks for this opportunity to clarify my feelings on this subject.
He mentioned Russell Doolittle in that letter. Dr. Doolittle is perhaps the world's foremost expert on the evolution of blood clotting, so Dr. Morrow asked him to review the section on blood clotting in Behe's manuscript. He then sent Doolittle's brief review to the publishers along with his own review of the rest of the manuscript. Both Morrow and Doolittle have given us permission to make public the review Doolittle wrote back in 1995. Here is the full text:
[emphasis added]November 14, 1995 Professor K. John Morrow, Jr. Dept. Cell Biology & Biochemistry School of Medicine Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center 3601 4th Street Lubbock, TX 79430Dear Dr. Morrow,
I read the draft of the chapter for a proposed book by Micheal Behe that you sent me. As you warned me on the telephone, my own writings play a prominent role in his attack on evolution. I don't know whether the word ingenious or disingenuous is more appropriate here, but he has certainly turned all my thinking completely around to suit his own ends. That it is really disingenuous is clear from the fact that he has managed to belittle important scientific findings by couching them with sarcasm.
But what annoyed me the most in the chapter was the author's appeal to Rube Goldberg, one of my favorite cartoonists, and a person I often refer to for my own perspective. On numerous occasions I have shown the two enclosed Goldberg cartoons as examples of how evolution works! Indeed, I used them in (trying to) teach our medical students about how complicated cascades work in contemporary cells. Also, I have used the same cartoons in debating our local creationist (Duane Gish), pointing out that certainly no Creator would have designed such a circuitous and contrived system. Instead, this is how the opportunistic hand of natural selection works, using whatever happens to be available at the moment. (I wonder if he knew about this?)
But let me back up a bit. First, the 1993 article of mine, which is so heavily quoted from and intentionally disparaged, was the text of a lecture I presented at an international conference on blood clotting. It was presented to an audience of mainly clinicians and biotechnologists, not persons well versed in the rudiments of protein evolution. The tone was intentionally light and breezy. My "casual language" has to be viewed in this light. My main point was to demonstrate that the delicate balance of forward and backward reactions that regulate blood clotting came about in a step-by-step process. I emphasized that the Yin-Yang was simply a metaphor and that other similar point and counterpoint comparisons could be made.
A more rigorous development of these ideas can be found in the cited references, one of which (Doolittle & Feng, 1987) is enclosed. This article predicted that certain components of the cascade appear relatively late in vertebrate evolution, and data in support of this contention are just now forthcoming (lower vertebrates appear to lack the equivalents of factors XI and XII).
A wonderful example of how gene duplications operate in this regard was noted almost 25 years ago. Thus, in hemoglobin, similar sequence extrapolations backwards in time suggested that the gene duplication leading to alpha and beta chains occurred at about the time of the diversification of fishes (see Fig. 1 of Doolittle, 1987, (enclosed). Indeed, when hemoglobin from lampreys and hagfish were examined, they were found to be single-\|chained! They had diverged before the key alpha /beta duplication that has led to the allosteric regulation of oxygen transport. Max Perutz has written elegantly about this.
Here are a few of his comments that I found most irritating.
On page IV-29 the author bold-facedly claims that "the (Doolittle) article does not explain.. how clotting might have originated and subsequently evolved." and then in italics "..no one on earth has the vaguest idea how the coagulation cascade came to be."
I disagree. I have a good idea, shared by most workers in the field, and it is a matter of the (important) details that we are trying to establish.
On page IV-24, Behe underscores that no "causative factors are cited." "What exactly is causing all this springing and unleashing?" Gene duplications, of course, the frequency of which is difficult to measure (I often note that "duplication begets more duplication," for reasons of the misalignment of similar sequences), but which is turning out to be enormously more common than expected.
Causation is tricky. Sometimes environmental or internal benefits are obvious. Often however, the rule for survival is "no harm, no foul," with adaptations occurring subsequently. For the moment, they don't even have to be slightly improved.
As for the "enormous luck needed", we are now into the crux of all evolutionary problems, which is to say, what is the probability of survival? Population geneticists are attempting to answer such questions in general terms (see, e.g., J. B. Walsh, Genetics, 139, 421-428, 1995). In fact, the product of most gene duplications, which are the heart of the evolutionary process, are doomed to random oblivion (see enclosed, Doolittle, Science, 1981).
Also, on page IV-26, he states, "the crucial issues of how much? how fast? when? where?" are not addressed. These are relevant and not unknowable matters. There is a wonderful article about to appear in Molecular Phylogenetics by D. Gumucio et al on how fetal hemoglobin has evolved in primates and that also outlines exactly the regulatory circumstances that allow its differential expression. Finally, my "model" does give some important numbers. The power of sequence-\|based analysis is that it reveals the order of appearance of new proteins, even when the sequences are limited to one or a few species. As noted above, it also has the power to make predictions about the occurrence of proteins in different creatures.
In the meantime, we must ask Mr. Behe whether he doubts the existence of gene duplications? (There are many examples of closely related species where one has n copies of a gene and the other m.) If he acknowledges their existence, then how does he account for the pseudogenes that these duplications often give rise to? Does he think they have a function? And what does he think was the origin of allosteric hemoglobins in all but the most primitive vertebrates? As I say, even his derisive comments call attention to a system that could only have come about by natural selection.
Should the book be published? Scurrilous as it is, I am a believer in a free press. I also know most publishers will publish anything that can make money, and I'm sure there's a naive market for claptrap like this.
I only ask that if you do recommend publication that you suggest that I be invited to review the book, so I can put my own Rube Goldberg cartoons to use.
Feel free to phone if there are other questions.
Sincerely,
Russell F. Doolittle
Research Professor
of Biology and ChemistryDr. Morrow further said in his email to me what I said a few days ago, that books and refereed journals are very different and that no book is ever as rigorously peer reviewed as a journal article for the simple reason that the book publisher's primary concern is whether the book will sell or not. He notes, "I think Mike is being pretty disingenuous (I use that word a lot) to say that the manuscript was subjected to rigorous peer review. Everyone knows that the criteria that book publishers use are mainly financial and economic."
Let me also say this: I think the book should have been published. I agree with Dr. Shapiro that while I think much of his argumentation is less than honest and his conclusions absurd, it's very well written and is probably the best example of the argument from design that has been published since Paley's day. It's a provocative and well written book on a hot subject. From the perspective of a book publisher, that certainly means the book should be published. The point of all of this is not to say that his book should have been rejected by the publishers. It is only to say that the claim that it underwent more rigorous peer review than a journal article is patently absurd and contrary to the facts.
Posted by Ed at October 27, 2005 04:08 PM
http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/10/more_on_peer_review_of_behes_b.php
There you have it, sports fans! Atchison never read Behe's book at all, Morrow (who DID read it) trashed it, and Doolittle rips Behe a new rectal orifice. And If you track down Shapiro's review (I did), he first compliments Behe for what he considers the best job to date of laying out the ID/irreducuble complexity argument, but then states he disagrees with most of Behe's conclusions!
My only regret is that this material never got into the testimony at the trial. I suppose the plaintiffs' attorneys probably felt it would be considering "piling on," to continue the sports metaphor.
Hehe. Considering the extraordinary self-destruction of the defendants, being caught in enormous lies, etc, on cross, one might even say that the plaintiffs were "piling on" simply by putting on a case at all!
Worth repeating....
;-)
Big deal... NOT! This ain't "Evolution", so quit trying to use it as such.
Same answer as previously. It certainly is "evolution," even if it's far from being all there is to evolution. And again it was directly responsive to the posting to which it was directed: johnnyb_61820's claim that "coevolution" (the linkage of adaptive evolution in two species: e.g. the prey develops thicker fur or hide so the predator develops longer teeth to bite through them) must be driven by Lamarkian evolution because waiting for new mutations would take too long.
Indeed it does!
Thanks.
Another thought...
If the publishers are going to be sure (as much as posible) that their output is true, then their checking staff would have to be smarter than the authors. Obviously this is NOT the case, so by default, some stuff HAS to be accepted on faith.
Excuse me for butting in...
1 Corinthians 2:14
The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
Chris Rock: Is this YOU?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.