Pim van Meurs
05-02-97 09:04 AM
To: 70672.1241 @ CompuServe.COM
cc:
Subject: Re: Behe, Dennett, Haig debate at Notre Dame 1/2
Pim writes:
<<Jim:I guess I missed something. Where was this shown? To what
journals/articles/books are you referring?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html>>
Jim: I'm sorry, Pim, but talk.origins does not constitute a legitimate,
objective, credible or refereed forum for "showing" much of anything. I
posted a criticism of the Robison piece (which you rely on) some time ago.
I am surprised how easily you dismiss data you do not agree with as not
legitimate. Heck if legitimate, objective is a requirement, I might
extrapolate this to ask 'why are we discussing Behe'? The article on
talk.origin's archive addresses how a stepwise change can lead to a system
in which system X and Y evolve in such a manner that in the end system Y
becomes totally dependent on system x. Behe argued that such systems are
irreducibly complex.
Jim: So my question remains. Where has it been "shown," in a legitimate
forum,that Behe is "deluded"? You no doubt have the citations in the
Robison post, but did you know that Behe posted an answer to this,
explaining that ALL of the papers cited by Robison are concerned with the
development of *metabolic
pathways* (metabolic pathways are NOT irreducibly complex)? And did you
know
that Robison never responded? What does that tell you?
What should it tell me ? And why are you trying to imply wrong-doing
rather than addressing the comments by Robison which address the formation
of a irreducibly complex system in small steps ?
Let's focus on the argument and not on the person ?
Regards
Pim