[spqrzilla9]

Behe is certainly far more credible than Hovind as Behe attempts to engage the science as real science. However, I find that Behe engages in several dubious rhetorical tricks and circular logic in his work. I don't find him at all convincing. The whole irreducible complexity argument is a fallacious form of logic - argument from ignorance.

There are some fine responses to his "Darwin's Black Box" available - written by more articulate people than I - that show that Behe's been left behind by the science.

[ml/nj]

The whole irreducible complexity argument is a fallacious form of logic - argument from ignorance.

And so endeth the argument.

Behe is ignorant. I am ignorant.

ML/NJ

PS Last fall I was up at Cornell where my son is now a freshman. I went to their bookstore as I am wont to do (to relieve my ignorance). I look all over for stuff I might read, and I came to their "science" section. There I found a book by a Robert T. Pennock, Tower of Babel. He subtitles the book, "The Evidence against the New Creationism." Probably the most referenced subject in Pennock's book is "Behe, Michael." Of course, Behe's book isn't on sale at Cornell. Pennock, BTW, is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at The College of New Jersey - WOW! talk about major scientific credentials. (I did buy the book but I haven't read it yet.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

I heard Behe give a talk last month. He was less than unconvincing. He answered none of his critics.