Replies

The link doesn't work. But so what? Was Coyne lying? Did Behe deliberately misrepresent what he said or not?

It always amazes me how Darwinists, like democrats, resort to name calling in the absence of substantial contrary evidence. Your post is a clear example of atheisms high handed rule over science. By implying that "anti-E's" are not "normal" scientists, you have tipped your hat.

Normal scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals and are scrupulous about quoting others accurately. Behe and Dembski don't do either. Anti-E's are notorious for bearing false witness by misquoting normal scientists out of context, or as in Behe's case, adding a period in the middle of a sentence. If they were really trying to convince other people (scientist or not) that they were right, they'd be more honest. Therefore, one concludes they're not trying to convince anyone they're right, they're trying to get money from those who already disbelieve normal science. IOW, fleecing suckers.

Was Fred Hoyle (the b747-junkyard-tornado guy) a regular scientist, or someone who just craved a little attention after his pet theory (steady-state universe) was shot down? Is Dembski the Newton of informnation science (comparison some of his followers have made), or is he the Velikovsky?

Also, your confusing evolutionary theory with atheism.

Normal scientists publish in peer-reviewed journals

... which nobody reads. Millions have read Behe's work and to say that it has not been examined by people in the scientific community is absolute nonsense. Are you claiming that the articles against him are by morons whose words should not be accepted as scientifically sound??????

This link, http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htm ,should provide you with a more detailed list of Behe's responses to his critics, not just Coyne.

If you take a little time to read his responses you will find yourself a little more informed and better able to discuss the reasoning behind his tactics. Simply reading a highly irrational "peer-review" of his book by Coyne and basing your entire opinion on that is simply appeasing your intellectual bias. Coyne's criticism is nothing but ad hominem hot air relying on the old and useless Darwinian method of simply equating ID with Biblical creationism and dismissing it. This is a dishonest tactic and not one that a true scientist would adopt. But then again, that is what Darwinism is all about.

Lastly, I'm not confusing Darwinism with atheism. I'm merely pointing out that an atheistic ideology, naturalism, has so dominated scientific thought over the past several decades that honest scientific work in the area of origins cannont be carried out. Darwinism is the mechanism and atheism is the motivation.