<<I'm getting tired of this hair-splitting. The only way to "prove" evolution
in the way that you expect is to invent a time machine. >>
Russell, you're not sticking to the issue. I had a simple point about
reliance on a talk.origins piece as some sort of refutation of Behe. It isn't,
IMO. That's all.
<<Of course we have to "posit" it, in the same way we have to "posit" the
behavior of subatomic particles from the secondary evidence observed. That
doesn't make it an invalid or weak explanation.>>
It might. To posit something that is counter to what we actually know is a
"weak" position. That's what the scientific journals are for. They are a
professional way of saying "put up or shut up."
<<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.>>
This may be. It was several months ago that I wrote my response. I'll go back
and look.
<<If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.>>
Guess you're stuck with what's Left.
Jim