<<Only two problems with your argument 1) you conclude that if an author
makes an error that the rest of his work is not worth discussing>>
Wrong. I've only pointed out a standard matter of evidentiary weight--if
someone tries to write a "expert" opinion on a matter, but makes a fundamental
error on a basic point, one is virtually compelled to call into question his
opinions on more technical matters. Sure, one can discuss it; but one ought
not to rely on it as heavily as you have.
<<2) Behe
claimed that irreducible complex systems could not have evolved. THis
author as well as others have pointed out that this is an erroneous
assumption. >>
Again, where is the testable detail in this position? Nowhere.
<<If you can point out to me any such publications by Behe ? Perhaps we can
only then legitimately show his errors ?>>
A book trumps a journal. It is out there for all the peers to see, with plenty
of techinical material to chew upon. And, indeed, Behe has been debating its
various points. But the point I made to you, which you have no answer for,
remains: no testable studies in the journals. I, and I'm sure Behe, eagerly
await same. Until then, your opinion that Behe has been "shown" to be deluded
is flat.
<<Since it
has been shown that Behe;s IC systems could very well have evolved
naturally, there is no foundation for his assertions.>>
Wrong again. It has not been "shown." Perhaps you can detail the experimental
data you are relying on. That would help. Can you?
No? Then what's so scientific about your position?
<<Behe's argument is based on the erroneous assumption that this supports
his assertion that IC systems could NOT have arisen naturally. >>
This is another part of the Behe argument, and a separate issue. Stick to the
only one I brought up, the lack of testable detail in the journals. Where are
they?
Jim