[Dan Day]

[Behe writes:] When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with [snip] So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions.

Now which one of the two is science and which one is not?????

Darwin's is, since he lays out a specific hypothesis which can be examined and tested (and if found wanting, falsified).

Behe, on the other hand, describes the activity of a *modern* eye (note he starts out talking about a "retina"), then at the end pulls a bait-and-switch and implies that such things are necessary for a primitive "light sensitive spot".

Just like your dishonesty on another thread, that's like trying to "prove" the impossibility of the Wright Brothers making a working airplane in their garage by waving the high-tech plans for a Stealth Bomber -- and thus pretending to have proven that the entire aviation industry was too improbable to believe.

That's not science, that's dishonest lawyering.

Nice try.

[gore3000]

[Behe writes:] When a photon first hits the retina, it interacts with [snip] So this is what modern science has discovered about how Darwin's 'simple' light sensitive spot functions.

Now which one of the two is science and which one is not?????-me-

Darwin's is, since he lays out a specific hypothesis which can be examined and tested (and if found wanting, falsified).

What a laugh, Darwin has been refuted by science and shown that his simplistic nonsense is total bunk, but he is correct? You evolutionists have a funny definition of what is true - somewhat like that of the Communists - totally backwards.