<<>I'm sorry, Pim, but talk.origins does not constitute a legitimate,
objective,
>credible or refereed forum for "showing" much of anything.
So your brand of science cares more about where something was published
than what it says.>>
Jim: It is of utmost importance that an allegation of something being
"shown"
(demonstrated, proved) in the scientific realm be published in a reputable
journal, peer reviewed. That is Behe's point. This stuff has NOT appeared
in
legitimate journals.
But neither is Behe's book an example of a reputable, peer reviewed
publication. So we might as well not discuss the issue ? Is that what you
are trying to say ? Furthermore peer reviewed or not, arguments should be
addressed not dismissed.
Jim: 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.
A 'poorly researched post' which shows nevertheless how an irreducibly
complex system can form naturally.
Jim> If you and Pim are reaching conclusions based on such faulty
research, you
need to know about it. And think things through again.
Perhaps you could address why the mechanisms in the webpage do not show
that an irreducibly complex system could form stepwise ?