Replies

Whether or not he is a moron is up for grabs, but his ideas on "irreducible complexity" and related mathematics are utterly devoid of competence or intelligence. He may make a good sale to the layman, but to a professional mathematician who specializes in fields relevant to what he is talking about it is third-rate garbage. He is neither a credible source nor a competent practitioner of the mathematics he is trying to dabble in.

I've read the entire book. There's not a lot of mathematics in it. He pretty much sticks to his field, which is molecular biochemistry. If you're arguing that your knowledge of mathematics makes you more qualified to talk about evolution than his knowledge of molecular biochemistry, then we can debate that issue separately.

Behe makes compelling arguments (I personally find the blood clotting argument MUCH more interesting than that of the eye, but they're both very powerful).

The debate is moot. What we call science (nor the mathematics on which it is founded) is meant to explain the ultimate source of life. To place ultimate trust in science or even mathematics, is to make the mistake of the Pythagoreans, the last great cult of the Western World.

Science and mathematics require you to assume that certain things are true. Their are different varieties of mathematics that assume different truths. Take for example Euclidean geometry vs. spherical geometry or some other noneuclidean system. You get different results for what is mathematically true based on the assumptions that you make. The same is true of science. Einstein made one of his assumptions(postulates) that the speed of light is constant in any reference frame. This radically changed the accepted scientific view of the universe. Now, certainly Einstein didn not make this assumption arbitrarily and experiment has tended to confirm this assumption within our relatively small sphere of measurement. That does not mean its true everywhere or at all time. That Einstein conveniently takes care of by making another assumption(postulate) that the laws of nature are the same in all uniformly moving reference frames. It may or may not be true.

More importantly, both science and mathematics assume that once they have 'correct' assumption[that is to assume that they could find such a thing] that logic will lead to other correct conclusion based on those original assumptions. In the field of logic, their is what is called the paradox. That is to say, that logic can lead to contradictory conclusions. A classical example has to do with the doctrine of sets, on which mathematics is based. Say you let a set be composed of all dogs. This set is not itself a dog, so it is not a member of its own set. Now say you take a set that is composed of all sets. It is itself a set, therefore, it is a member of itself. The contradiction arises when you look at a third set. The set of all sets that are not self members. If this set is a self member, it would not be a member of itself. If this set were a self member, it would not be a member of itself. That is a contradiction, and a logical one. A paradox. Now, many of you will say, that this is just a clever semantic argument, and it is. Then again, all science and mathematics are just clever semantic arguments and not a source of ultimate truth. Philosophers over the years since this paradox was first put forth have put forth explanations as to why it is not valid, all of which are long tedious, explanations of nonsense in my opinion.

I find Darwins theory of evolution of species by natural selection to be infinitely more speculative than Einstein's theory of relativity. However, we should keep what we call science in the proper frame of reference as a useful tool. I dont deny that a population can and does change over time whether it be from selective breeding of dogs or natural selection. The question is that will this selective breeding lead to a new species over time? Darwin and many maninstream scientists say yes. However, the term species itself is arbitrary. Why are things classified as species? Wolves are completely able to interbreed with domestic dogs and produce viable offspring. Why are they classified as different species. Buffalo(American bison) can do the same with domestic cattle. Why are they classified as different species. Certainly the two examples above the animals cited have dramatic physical differences in appearance, but so do Irish Wolfhounds and pugs, but they are classified as the same species.

In short, dont look to 'science' falsely so called to find truth. Their is no truth in 'science.' Truth comes from God. 'Science' comes from man.