So you will not even bother to look at the argument, then?
BTW, has Behe been published in a peer-reviewed journal?
><<But you didn't "question" the data, you dismisssed it offhand, because it
>was in a forum that you don't like.
>
>The paper comes with full references. If you have found any errors,
>discrepancies,
>or mistakes in the sources referred to (you have checked those sources,
>haven't
>you?), then explain them in detail. Otherwise you are guilty of the same
>elitism
>that Creationists always accuse scientists of.>>
>
>I guess you're new around here. When the Robison piece first came out I posted
>a detailed critique, including the reason Robison's citations were bogus (I
>put that in my response to Pim, but you may have missed that part). I'll be
>happy to forward it to you by private e-mail if you wish.
Sure, I'd like to see it.
>The thing that sparked this was Pim's bald assertion that it has been "shown"
>Behe was "deluded." When pressed for details, all we got was a cite to a
>poorly researched post from talk.origins.
What I read was not a "poorly researched post from talk.origins", but a
well-researched, well-argued, and well-documented FAQ in the talk.origins
archive. Maybe you didn't see the final version.
>If you and Pim are reaching conclusions based on such faulty research, you
>need to know about it. And think things through again.
I'll look at your response and see what I think.
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.