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.)
And so endeth the argument.
Behe is ignorant. I am ignorant.
No, so endth your misrepresentation of what I wrote.
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. In the "creation science" version it that claims that if we cannot prove how to get from A to B then it can't have happened. This is not real logic and one would think the basic fallacy of this "logic" would be obvious.
I was not in fact calling you ignorant. But I suppose that was a more convenient assumption for you.
The bottom line is that "creation science" isn't science. Where it criticizes evolution, that's fine and good. Either evolution will survive the criticism stronger or it won't. But that wouldn't make "creation science" right. For "creation science" to be a real science, it would instead have to form an internally consistent theory, with testable hypotheses. No proponent of "creation science" has ever done this, none has ever actually practiced science accordingly.