At 06:08 PM 10/1/00 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 10/1/2000 3:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
>rwein@lineone.net writes:
>
>
> > Subj: Re: Michael Behe comments
> > Date: 10/1/2000 3:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> > From: rwein@lineone.net (Richard Wein)
> > Sender: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> > Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:rwein@lineone.net">rwein@lineone.net</A>
> (Richard
> > Wein)
> > To: evolution@calvin.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: FMAJ1019@aol.com <FMAJ1019@aol.com>
> >
> > >Interesting website of our dear friend Wells:
> > >
> > >I noticed this error in logic made by our dear friend Behe:
> > >
> > >"Jonathan Wells demonstrates with stunning clarity that the textbook
> > >examples Darwinists themselves chose as the pillars of their theory
> are all
> > >false or misleading. What does this imply about their scientific
> standards?
> > >Why should anyone now believe any of their other examples?"
> > >
> > >--Michael J. Behe, Professor Biological Sciences, Lehigh University,
> > >Pennsylvania
> > >
> > >I am somewhat disappointed in Michael though.
> >
> > ID proponents *do* make a lot of logical errors, but I fail to see one in
> > the passage quoted above. Could you point it out for me, please?
> >
> > Richard Wein (Tich)
> >
> >
>Ignoring for the moment the accusations, Behe seems to suggest that if some
>examples can be shown incorrect why should one believe any of the other
>examples.
Yes, it is a classical argument _ad hominem_.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 18:15:53 EDT