Replies

Someone thought it would really make a point to ask, “Are You Too Dumb to Understand Evolution?” The dummy is the one who asked the loaded question. That’s been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Most of us have little scientific understanding. There are, however, those who do have scientific understanding to the point that they confound others with scientific understanding, and they punch holes in Darwin’s Theory.

As for Behe and his claims, I don’t see why Coulter would have quoted him unless he pointed out some serious problems with Darwin’s Theory. Nor would evolutionists need to seek discrediting him. He’s a problem for evolution believers. Nor is Behe the only one.

Behe is a godless evolutionist! Don't you get it! He believes that we should teach our school children that God is dead! Why do you accept his authority?

As for Behe and his claims, I don’t see why Coulter would have quoted him unless he pointed out some serious problems with Darwin’s Theory.

I have asked you a number of times to point out one or more holes in evolution theory.

I have also pointed out that the quote you presented from Coulter is demonstrably wrong. It is simply untrue.

Same with Behe's latest book. He asserts that adaptations that take two or three steps are statistically impossible, and yet several instances have been observed, some in HIV in the last few decades, and some in carefully controlled laboratory experiments.

Some of these instances were in the literature before Behe wrote his book.

I don't know how you reason, but for me it's kind of silly to start with a premise that is known to be untrue.

As for Behe and his claims, I don’t see why Coulter would have quoted him unless he pointed out some serious problems with Darwin’s Theory. Nor would evolutionists need to seek discrediting him. He’s a problem for evolution believers. Nor is Behe the only one.

I don't understand the disconnect you have here. (It would serve your argument better to leave Coulter out of it; as her chapter on evolution was just embarrassing on many levels.)

So Behe, who admitted under oath that ID was on equal footing with ASTROLOGY, and who does certainly believe in an old earth, common descent, and adaptive evolution, has come to believe that some very minute details have not been sufficiently explained through evolution?

So what? Isn't that a GOOD thing? "Thanks!" says the scientists, "Now let's get to work on that interesting question." And they do.

They also admit wrongs, admit to knowledge gaps, and (time/$ permitting) set to work on them. That's how science works.

I actually think Behe is a genius - he's a fully aware and knowledgeable evolutionist but also a shrewd businessman. He publishes books with lots of big words to sell on the mass-market and become rich, but he also cleverly goes on trial and says the most damning things about ID, basically derailing the whole childish idea.

Three cheers for Dr. Behe!

Never mind. I see that I posted to you yesterday Behe’s exact words where he calls the ToE an “Elegant Design” and says that man evolved with animals from common descent.