[...]
SB>Behe is trying to convince his audience that there is no scientific basis
>for such a remark. There is, of course. That's why the statement was made.
>Fourty years ago abiogenesis was a mystery. Now it's not such a big mystery.
SJ: This is an *amazing* statement. I wonder what Susan *would* count as "a big mystery"?
Behe's untenable insistance that IC is evidence of design?
SJ: It highlights Phil Johnson's observation that for Darwinists "evidence is not
really necessary". The problem is already solved in the definitions:
Well, dear Phil hardly should be taken to seriously.
So Stephen, why are you ignoring the reality that science has learned lots about abiogenesis?