Nor do I. I just find it odd that the person chosen by the Discovery Institute to represent Intelligent Design as an expert witness fails to see what you claim is the end of Darwinism.
I also find it odd that the evolution critics having the best academic credentials in mathematics and information theory don't see what see.
Perhaps they aren't smoking what you are smoking.
[[Nor do I. I just find it odd that the person chosen by the Discovery Institute to represent Intelligent Design as an expert witness fails to see what you claim is the end of Darwinism.]]
There are many otp sicnetists at Discovery that are agnostic too- but their opinions don’t discount the good science they do- the results are of course open to opinion, and I don’t find it odd that the discovery institute would present good science by folks who’s opinions might lead to different conclusions- their ocnclusions are again, simply opinion.
[[I also find it odd that the evolution critics having the best academic credentials in mathematics and information theory don’t see what see.]]
[[Perhaps they aren’t smoking what you are smoking.]]
No, they’re prolly smoking somethign stronger- There is no biological evidnece of relatedness of supposedly million year old species, and if these people are ‘seeing something different’ then they are forming an a priori opinion that has no evidence to back it up. That is not to say the field shouldn’t be explored, of course it should, and peopel should have different opinions, however, it should always be noted and stated, that beleif in evolution is just that, beleif, and that it has many problems. But alas, that’s asking too much I guess.
let me also point htis out because it’s important- Behe of course is a brilliant person, but he even jumps the chasm of evidence and puts his faith in something that has no evidentiary examples to support. He argues against Darwinian evolution, and does so devestatingly, however, as you point out, he does beleive in common ancestry, and what does he base that belief on? Evidence? No- opinion! He states that macroevolutionary changes must have happened as a result of natural direction for which we can’t reasonbly expect to have happened in an unguided manner. This is a cop out hwne it comes to science- plain and simple. It’s paramount ot stating “Common ancestry is a fact, we don’t know how, we don’t have any evidence, but it non the less is fact.”
His opinion is fine- for him. His scientific understanding of true facts are what’s important- not his own a priori opinion.