Thanks, nowiser.  But Babelism has now evolved into something far more insidious- WD, or Wrathful Dispersion.  Slipping on a similacrum of scientific sincerity to diguise its fundamentalist origins, it threatens even now to render our schoolchildren Babbling WDgets…

Apropos, Pharyngula and the original NYT article

Thanks guys.  Those made it all the sweeter.  I particularly liked

Much of the public opposition to WD, however, has come in the form of parody. In particular, a satirical Web-based grassroots pseudo-cult has grown up around the theory that all modern languages were in fact “shat out of the arse of the Flying Stratificational Grammar Monster,” with adherents claiming to have achieved enlightenment upon being “touched by His Boolean Appendage”

And I never said what grounds I believed it on, so you’ve made your own assumption.
Really? So are you being deliberately obtuse then?

No.  I simply mean I am not the subject.

You’re quite right, however, to say that not everyone believes in Evolution. We’re well aware of the fact that the majority of Americans don’t believe in it. That’s the problem as there’s quite simply an overwhelming amount of evidence in support of it and no one has come up with a better theory to replace it with. IDer’s keep claiming there’s this big controversy among scientists over the issue and there really isn’t. There’s a handful of scientists, mostly from fields unrelated to biology, who object to it.

One thing I have tried to clarify, which I find sometimes lacking in clarity from supporters of evolution theory, is what someone means when they say they “don’t believe in evolution.” I don’t accept it as a theory of origins, because it can’t show descent with modification.  I don’t deny evolutionary change within species, but there are too many gaps to fill in to make the transition from there to descent with modification.  To me, the main issue of evolution has to do with, does it provide answers to the greater issue of cosmological origins.  I don’t believe it does, nor have I been shown anything to cause me to change that view.  So it comes down to, basically, the argument as already characterized, either Goddidit or Goddidn’tdoit.

Perhaps you could give us another way to go by providing something to actually critique. I believe this is the third time I’ve had to ask you for this.

I responded with Dembski and Behe.  The main “critique,” if you can call it that, that I’ve received was non-specific ridicule concerning, of all things, an unrelated question about astrology, in a trial taking place 9 years later.  That does not constitute a refutation of his position at all.  Most of the other “critique” I have been offered is from people who either say “he has been shown to be wrong” (sans support), or to post a link and say, “go read this.”
The fact is, the posters here have this going for them at least, that they give the appearance of being informed on the issue.  That being the case, I thought I could assume they had actually read Behe, but so far Les is the only one to acknowledge that, the best anyone else has acknowledged is to have read “parts” of it.  Which probably explains the reluctance to critique Behe directly.

I too have read some of his work. But he continually relies on the assumption of “irreducible complexity�?. Given that his two poster child systems for irreducible complexity have turned out to be, well, not irreducible, I don’t find him having much of an argument anymore given that’s the underlying supposition to everything.

“Some of his work?” Is this scientific method at work again, comparing two examples that represent a small part of the whole, and automatically dismissing the rest?

There were two links posted above, one of them was rather technical, and the author failed in his promise to keep it short and simple.  That’s okay for someone who can decipher it.
The other link was a review of Behe’s book.  The author in his two-line summary declares, “Behe’s argument for intelligent design ultimately fails because it is a belief and not a potential explanation.”
So what?  Any hypothesis is a belief, which is then examined to see if it can be substantiated or refuted.  So far I’ve not actually seen it refuted, mostly just claims that it has.

[if you scroll down on this page, you get about seventy links that address flaws in Behe’s work, from the general to the very specific, from IC to the blood clotting cascade in vertebrates.]

Great.  Here are quite a few responses from Behe himself to the supposed “evidence” against his position:  http://www.arn.org/authors/behe.html
(Look for the articles listed under “Responses to Critics.”

So why do you seem to think he’s such a credible source when he can’t even be enough of a scientist to complete the scientific method and modify his hypothesis when it’s been shown to be wrong?

Easy.  It hasn’t been “shown to be wrong.” Not in my estimation, and certainly not in Behe’s. 

My observation, based on involvement in debates on various issues in various places, is that someone who is secure in the knowledge that the position of the other person is worthy of dismissal, will simply dismiss it; otherwise, they go to great lengths trying to persuade them that their position is worthy of dismissal.  It’s easy to see which response has been more common from the evolutionist side.

Easy.  It hasn’t been “shown to be wrong.�? Not in my estimation, and certainly not in Behe’s.

I’m not going to bother replying to the rest of your post right now because I’m working on doing some real science right now, so I’ll just reply to this as it’s the underpinning of everything else.

Please explain how when Behe says “the flagellum and the blood clotting mechanisms are irreducibly complex”, and then both are shown to be, in fact reducible, that isn’t considered “wrong”.

Myxi, where’s the beef? For the third or fourth time…

We don’t care about your perceived shortcomings of evolution, we don’t care if you feel we slight Behe, Dembski, or whoever, we don’t care if they have answered to criticism.

Please tell us what ID is and why it’s right - or stop wasting our time. Your posts are riddled with accusations, but there’s little to no substance to them.

As far dismissal of ID is concerned, if the NY Times is to be believed we enjoy the company of the Templeton Foundation, Wheaton College, and Baylor.

As far dismissal of ID is concerned, if the NY Times is to be believed we enjoy the company of the Templeton Foundation, Wheaton College, and Baylor.

Let’s not also forget the 38 nobel lauriates, those from the Steve project, the shovelbums survey, the 16,000 religious officials and scientists that say science and religion can go hand in hand....

Hey Mxyzptlk, if you’re so well read in Behe and Dembski, why don’t you *start* by telling us which of their arguments you find most compelling. Quote the pertinent paragraphs, cite the sources and then the folks here can (once again and if they so choose) get to work debunking them. It’s easy! Just cut the best words from Dembski’s sad little website and bring them on over here.

I can tell that some of the regulars are getting tired of watching you sidestep their very relevant points and questions. Can you? Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “Why did I come to SEB?”

Was it so that after VoijaRisa and others asked legitimate questions of the points you had raised in defense of ID, you could instead feign outrage at the *gasp* tone of their criticisms instead of addressing them directly:

It just seems that the general approach I’ve faced here is, to lay back and wait for me to provide something so critics can take potshots at it.  And when I’ve asked for someone’s estimation of Behe’s work, I get a general sense that no one has actually read it.

It just seems to me that you are whining.

Besides, Les, elwedriddsche and VoijaRisa aren’t the ones trying to convince everyone of the new and exciting untestable “scientific” theory for everything! If you want meat and potatoes for dinner, then drag a carcass over here and start peeling spuds! From reading your posts so far, I have the “general sense” that you haven’t read Dembski or Behe either. (Beyond the dustjackets and what others on the web have written, anyway - which FTR is all I have read - ‘garbage-in-garbage-out’ being something I try to follow.) It is worth mentioning that I’ve seen a lot more substance written about Behe by people other than you on this thread since you arrived.

If you want to talk about Behe and Dembski - and I’m sure they’ll appreciate the support in this time of need - then please do - and then we can all take aim with some well-placed potshots at the flawed underpinnings of their ideas. Thanks!

Back on the merry-go-round again, Myxi.  One last try to clarify things, and then I throw in the towel.
There are several more or less related issues here, but let’s try to untangle them:
a) the number of scientists in favor of ID vs. the number of scientists against ID.
b) the credentials/credibility of the scientists in favor of ID.
c) the status of evolutionary theory: is it well-formed, does it fit the evidence, what does it explain.
d) the status of ID: is it well-formed, does it fit the evidence, what does it explain.
e) and a new one from Myxi: “ To me, the main issue of evolution has to do with, does it provide answers to the greater issue of cosmological origins.”

And here are the answers:

a) I don’t think anyone has a hard number for the ratio of scientists against ID to scientists for ID.  There’s little doubt, however, that it’s a pretty big ratio.  It becomes even larger when we only count scientists whose specialty involves evolution, e.g. life scientists.  Probably (a wild guess) on the order of a thousand to one.
b) Of the credentialed scientists who have come out in favor of ID, only Behe has life science credentials (in biochemistry), as far as I know.  Credibility is a moot point.  I personally don’t find Behe, Dembski, and Johnson (the only ID’ers whose work I know in any detail- admittedly, I haven’t read everything they’ve written, but I have read large chunks of Darwin’s Black Box, Intelligent Design, and Darwin on Trial) very credible, but that might be because I know a bit about evolution (upper division paleo classes, field and lab work).  Behe, especially, until his embarrassing performance on the witness stand in Dover, has been a persuasive speaker, and I can understand someone who doesn’t know much about modern Neodarwinism being impressed by him.
c) Modern evolutionary theory is well-formed: it is falsifiable (one Precambrian rabbit fossil would scuttle huge parts of it) and naturalistic (no supernatural forces invoked).  It fits the evidence well.  Of course it doesn’t explain everything- there are gaps in the fossil record and structures whose evolution is not entirely understood- but the basic picture of descent with modification, from procaryote to Pat Robertson, is substantiated, not just from the fossil record, but from genetics and biochemistry.  Myxi, I know I can’t convince you of this in a few sentences.  It is admittedly complex, and if you want to get a basic grasp of what is known about evolution, you have to do some research.  There’s lots of information out there- talkorigins is a good place to start, if you’re interested.
d) Now we get to the beef, as elwed succinctly put it.  Points a) and b) are arguably sausage (as they say here in Austria, meaning “not pertinent").  Point c) can’t be meaningfully discussed, because you don’t know jack about evolution- saying “I don’t accept it as a theory of origins, because it can’t show descent with modification” and then admitting “I don’t deny evolutionary change within species” demonstrates that, since evolutionary change is descent with modification.  I will not repeat for the nth time the problems we’ve pointed out with ID as a theory, which you have not addressed, except to “respond with Dembski and Behe”, as you yourself put it.  If you can’t or won’t get off this merry-go-round, I have better things to do.
e) And now we get to the real clincher: your objection that evolutionary theory does not explain cosmological origins.  It’s not clear from the context exactly what you mean: the origin of the universe, or the origin of life.  In any case, this has little to do with evolutionary theory or ID: the origin of the universe is cosmology, the origin of life is biogenesis, not normally considered part of Neodarwinism.  That’s a whole ‘nother debate, whether Goddidit is the answer to either origin.  We’ve had that debate here too- check out the archives.  For what it’s worth, my answer is No.

Couple more things. Rgjp- nice points.  You mention Behe and Dembski’s “time of need”.  Indeed- check out the article that elwed mentioned at the NY Times about the less-than-enthusiastic reception ID is getting even at religious universities.  A small sample:

The only university where intelligent design has gained a major institutional foothold is a seminary. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., created a Center for Science and Theology for William A. Dembski, a leading proponent of intelligent design, after he left Baylor, a Baptist university in Texas, amid protests by faculty members opposed to teaching it.

Intelligent design and Mr. Dembski, a philosopher and mathematician, should have been a good fit for Baylor, which says its mission is “advancing the frontiers of knowledge while cultivating a Christian world view.” But Baylor, like many evangelical universities, has many scholars who see no contradiction in believing in God and evolution.

Derek Davis, director of the J. M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies at Baylor, said: “I teach at the largest Baptist university in the world. I’m a religious person. And my basic perspective is intelligent design doesn’t belong in science class.”

Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. “But they are, and everybody knows they are,” Mr. Davis said. “I just think we ought to quit playing games. It’s a religious worldview that’s being advanced.”

You can enjoy PZ Meyrs’ well-earned gloating about the good news over at Pharyngula.

Hey Mxyzptlk, if you’re so well read in Behe and Dembski, why don’t you *start* by telling us which of their arguments you find most compelling. Quote the pertinent paragraphs, cite the sources and then the folks here can (once again and if they so choose) get to work debunking them. It’s easy! Just cut the best words from Dembski’s sad little website and bring them on over here.
I can tell that some of the regulars are getting tired of watching you sidestep their very relevant points and questions. Can you? Perhaps it is time to ask yourself, “Why did I come to SEB?�?

Seems to me I did that already, when I brought up the flagellum and blood clotting.  Didn’t have to quote pages or anything and nobody called for any, they were all too familiar with it and anxious to jump upon it.  When I ask anyone else what some examples of their compelling arguments are, they slap a link up and suggest I go read it so I can find out for myself what’s wrong with the argument.  Now if the approach is good enough for them, why does it have to be a double standard when it comes to me? 

Mr. Davis noted that the advocates of intelligent design claim they are not talking about God or religion. “But they are, and everybody knows they are,�? Mr. Davis said. “I just think we ought to quit playing games. It’s a religious worldview that’s being advanced.”

Good.  Then let’s quit playing games and ask ourselves why science is so automatically defensive at the very mention of anything that could be viewed as bridging the two.  It makes no sense at all, if scientific theories are so solid, to be so defensive, which gives the impression there is this stark fear of science being somehow in danger from religion.  Behe suggests the figure of 90% of our general population who believe in God is no different among scientists.  And perhaps this statement by Behe, stated in the context of a discussion of Dickerson’s Rule, gets lost in the discussion:

Ken Miller, whose argument from imperfection I analyzed in the last chapter, is like myself a Roman Catholic, and he makes the point in public talks that belief in evolution is quite compatible with his religious views.  I agree with him that they are compatible.  The compatibility or lack of compatibility, however, is irrelevant to the scientific question of whether Darwinian evolution of biochemical systems is true.  (Since some of you seem to be fond of page numbers, that would be 239.)

Well, if Behe is in agreement with Miller that his religious views are compatible with his views of evolution, then what’s the beef?

For that, all one has to do is to turn to Behe’s introduction, where he, like any writer ought to do, lays out the rationale for the book.  There, on pp. x-xi, he says what I have been trying to state by way of definition all along, and which has basically been ignored:

Evolution is a flexible word.  It can be used by one person to mean something as simple as change over time, or by another person to mean the descent of all life forms from a common ancestor, leaving the mechanism of change unspecified.  In its full-throated, biological sense, however, evolution means a process whereby life arose from non-living matter and subseuently developed entirely by natural means.  That is the sense that Darwin gave to the word, and the meaning it holds in the scientific community.  And that is the sense in which I use the word evolution throughout the book. 

I’m not certain I would agree with him that the scientific community uses the word that way, judging from the response I’ve received since posting here.  I get a much stronger impression that the objections being raised are actually in opposition to what is not even being said.  That becomes clear when the statement gets repeated over and over that science has already produced such an abundance of evidence about evolution, how can anyone deny it?  And the fact is, no one is.  Behe is not, and says it is compatible with his religious beliefs.  I am not, and have said it is compatible with religious beliefs as well.  But where I have drawn the line, and where Behe draws the line also, is patently clear:  Despite the abundance of evidence showing evolutionary changes do occur, science has not proven the theory has any direct relation to any theory of origins. 

That puts the debate squarely in the arena I described in my last post, that ultimately, the difference comes down to either “Goddidit” or “Goddidn’tdoit.”

(And for the record, Behe does not make his arguments for design solely on a religious basis.  He attributes origins to design and a Designer, but with the understanding that by “Designer” one could as easily mean some other higher intelligence.)

Of course it doesn’t explain everything- there are gaps in the fossil record and structures whose evolution is not entirely understood- but the basic picture of descent with modification, from procaryote to Pat Robertson, is substantiated, not just from the fossil record, but from genetics and biochemistry.

But even that would not answer the ultimate question of how the first life originated from non-living matter, which is the hypothesis science has yet to establish, and which is not explained by evolutionary change.  It’s the one thing ID addresses which evolution does not answer.

Myxi, I suggest you take the advice that Consi offered to you in the Horus thread. Then quit whining and shit or get off the can.

If you want to debate ID, make a case for it. In a few sentences or paragraphs, what are the central ideas? Does it do anything beyond telling me that intelligently designed organisms are intelligently designed by an intelligent designer?

You can score points by telling us what actual research is done in support of ID. Is there any actual research done?

You can further score points by answering the questions asked of you instead of getting all wound up because we don’t buy into IDolatry (thanks, PZM).

Hey all,

I just found the COOLEST website. It caused the highest increase in blood pressure since I found Jack Chick’s website, and read his “All muslims are terrorists” tract.

The site is http://www.answersingenesis.org/

The basic premise of the site is simple..the world is 6000 years old, and here are the scientific[sic] explanations to make this true.

It’s so well done. Everything you might have questions about are dutifuly explained with important-sounding support. Comments like “This theory stood up to aggressive peer review at the 2005 Creationist Conference” and “There is a gap in this theory, so my theory with gaps must be right” abound.

It answers questions like:
- Isn’t it true that carbon dating is completely inaccurate?
- How are stars that are 7000 light years away viewable from earth?
- How did dinosours exist?

I seriously encourage you all to go read it! I’ve already been there, so will go curl up with a nice science book that doesn’t talk about 7-order-of-magnitude distortions of “t” in d=r*t.

Now before anyone gets set to lynch J1, I should point out that he’s just kidding.

Personally I’m done with Mxyzptlk. It’s clear from his responses that he has nothing new to offer the discussion that hasn’t already been beaten to death and he continues to evade answering direct queries and ignores rebuttals to the few points he raises. His grasp of science and the theories he’s attacking are weak at best and his mind is already made up on the issue. The fact that he thinks anything Behe has to say on the topic is at all credible puts the final nail in that coffin. It can’t be said for certain, but appearances are that Behe was largely to credit for the folks in Dover, PA coming to their senses and yanking every single school board member who supported teaching ID in schools from their posts during the last election. That’s quite a feat and probably the only positive benefit Behe has had on the science curriculum in that state.

If you want to debate ID, make a case for it. In a few sentences or paragraphs, what are the central ideas? Does it do anything beyond telling me that intelligently designed organisms are intelligently designed by an intelligent designer?

Gee, I was pretty sure Les told me when I arrived that the people here were pretty well-informed on this.  You mean you’ve been able to knock ID as strongly as you do and you don’t even know the central ideas?

Yes, scientists have been fooled by hoaxes before. They also managed to figure out the hoax and correct themselves in the process.

Oh, yes, a 41-year process.

Another famous “Dr.�?, Kent Hovind, latched onto an 1999 April Fools prank by scientists as proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. The sad part is this prank is still showing up as “proof�? on various pro-ID/Creationist websites.

In much the same manner, falsified pictorial representation of embryos, supposedly in the “early stages” of gestation, but actually in mid-cycle, were intentionally misrepresented by Haeckel, and the error still persists in some textbooks.

c) Modern evolutionary theory is well-formed: it is falsifiable (one Precambrian rabbit fossil would scuttle huge parts of it) and naturalistic (no supernatural forces invoked). It fits the evidence well. Of course it doesn’t explain everything- there are gaps in the fossil record and structures whose evolution is not entirely understood- but the basic picture of descent with modification, from procaryote to Pat Robertson, is substantiated, not just from the fossil record, but from genetics and biochemistry.

And therein lies the double standard.  Present your case on ID and it is scrutinized microscopically and discarded on the least argument one can find.  Present the case for evolution, and suddenly it doesn’t matter that there are huge gaps and things that can’t be explained. 

Call it what you will, that’s nowhere near being a level playing field.  That and the gang-rape reply tactics make any discussion with you useless.

Awwwww. Poor Mxyzptlk. He’s so put upon. I feel just terrible about it too.

Personally I’m done with Mxyzptlk. It’s clear from his responses that he has nothing new to offer the discussion that hasn’t already been beaten to death and he continues to evade answering direct queries and ignores rebuttals to the few points he raises. His grasp of science and the theories he’s attacking are weak at best and his mind is already made up on the issue. The fact that he thinks anything Behe has to say on the topic is at all credible puts the final nail in that coffin. It can’t be said for certain, but appearances are that Behe was largely to credit for the folks in Dover, PA coming to their senses and yanking every single school board member who supported teaching ID in schools from their posts during the last election. That’s quite a feat and probably the only positive benefit Behe has had on the science curriculum in that state.

Once again, the tactics are:

(1) belittlement
(2) accusation of evasion, which could be said of most of the other posters here as well
(3) using one unrelated incident from a trial seven years after Behe’s book as an excuse not to address anything in the book.

But at least you feel terrible about it, that’s a start. 

I’ve had evasions to questions too, the main one being, where is the support for evolution as an answer to life origins?  One without “gaps” and “things we can’t explain,” that is.

Once again, the tactics are:

(1) belittlement
(2) accusation of evasion, which could be said of most of the other posters here as well
(3) using one unrelated incident from a trial seven years after Behe’s book as an excuse not to address anything in the book.

There were no tactics in that reply. It was merely a summary of my opinion about you. The accusation of evasion isn’t really an accusation because it’s self-evident to anyone capable of scrolling backwards up this thread and seeing all the points raised and direct questions asked of you which you have blithely ignored. Out of all the points I raised in a previous reply from me you address exactly two. It’s not an accusation when it’s true.  Finally the Panda Dover trial is DIRECTLY linked to Behe and his book because he was testifying on behalf of the ID supporters USING the arguments in his book as a reference during the trial. The fact that Behe can’t even properly explain the mechanisms behind his own theory other than to engage in circular logic (it’s designed because it looks designed and it looks designed because it’s designed) is a direct condemnation of his viewpoint.

Still, once you finally got around to posting the two aspects of Behe’s book you felt were compelling evidence in support of ID we stepped up and provided supporting references to how both of those examples have been shown to be anything but irreducibly complex, which you proceeded to dismiss out of hand.

But at least you feel terrible about it, that’s a start.

Seeing as it’s difficult to tell if you’re capable of understanding sarcasm, allow me to clarify that I don’t really feel terrible about it. I was just being intentionally factitious.

I’ve had evasions to questions too, the main one being, where is the support for evolution as an answer to life origins?  One without “gaps�? and “things we can’t explain,�? that is.

Which, again, shows what an idiot you are about the topics you’re attempting to discuss. Evolution doesn’t say anything about the origins of life. That’s a separate theory altogether known as abiogenesis. Evolution is unconcerned about how life started, just how it got to its present state.

Also there aren’t very many theories that don’t have “gaps” and “things we can’t explain” in them. If that’s your criteria for rejecting them then there’s barely a single thing in science you can accept. The Theory of Gravity being one of the foremost.

It’s idiotic statements like the ones you’ve made here that make it clear you’re talking out of your ass with little understanding of what the science actually is.

Whoops; Les beat me to the punch.

Gee, I was pretty sure Les told me when I arrived that the people here were
pretty well-informed on this.  You mean you’ve been able to knock ID as
strongly as you do and you don’t even know the central ideas?

Most of us are pretty familiar with the basic ideas of ID and that’s the problem.  It isn’t much of an idea to begin with; and the only ‘evidence’ for it is that a mathematician, a lawyer, and a molecular biologest want very much to find a deity behind complex evolved organisms.

If there’s more, out with it.  If not, shut up.

By the way, evolution does not deal with the big bang or how life began.  Those fields are, respectively, cosmology and abiogenesis.  Either may suggest a deity depending on your frame of reference, so I’m a little unclear on why creationists resist them both so strongly.

I’ve had evasions to questions too, the main one being, where is the support for evolution as an answer to life origins?  One without “gaps�? and “things we can’t explain,�? that is.

Myxi, as I explained, that’s a different debate.  Because there is no fossil record of biogenesis, it is not normally considered part of Neodarwinism.  There’s lots of speculation and models concerning the origin of life, but at the moment, it remains speculation.

But if you’re hankering for an explanation “without gaps and things we can’t explain”, better stick to Goddidit.  That has the advantage of not requiring thinking.  Cheers.  Just keep it out of public schools.

(And for the record, Behe does not make his arguments for design solely on a religious basis.  He attributes origins to design and a Designer, but with the understanding that by “Designer�? one could as easily mean some other higher intelligence.)

Quis aedificavit ipsos aedificatores? Or is it just designers all the way down?

I’ll edify your edifiers, Ulfrekr:
Haven’t you ever heard of the Uncaused Cause?
In other words, just ‘cuz.

a) I don’t think anyone has a hard number for the ratio of scientists against ID to scientists for ID.  There’s little doubt, however, that it’s a pretty big ratio.  It becomes even larger when we only count scientists whose specialty involves evolution, e.g. life scientists.  Probably (a wild guess) on the order of a thousand to one.

Actually, I quoted a hard ratio earlier. it’s approximately .00001%. Let me explain how I arrived at this number.

I’m sure most of us are familiar with the Discovery institute’s list of 400 scientists in favor of ID. That list took 4 years to compile. Shovelbums.org recently ran their own counter survey that lasted 4 days. By taking the average value of number of scientists signing it, and extrapolating to 4 years, I arrived at my figure. However, as a scientist let me be fair and point out that there’s probably a large margin of error, from two probable sources that I will list.

The first is that the duration of shovelbums survey was extremely short, thus making it not good for obtaining average rates of signings. Thus, the actual value if the survey were to continue for 4 years could be higher or lower. I suspect this would shift it in favor of ID slightly.

The second source is that the DI list doesn’t actually say that the undersigned support ID. Only that they are critical of Evolution and think it needs rigorous testing. Thus, that’s actually a statement that I, as a scientist would sign, becuase as a theory, that’s what they all need to, and are subjected to. Thus, it’s unlikely that most of those 400 scientists actually support ID. This would skew my figure significantly in favor of evolution.

However, even with an approximated error I would still venture to guess that that figure is correct to +/- a power of 100. And for those that aren’t good with math, that means that the true figure could be somewhere between 0.01% and 0.0000001%. Either way, that’s still far less than 1% of scientists that actually support ID. Thus, are we really to believe there’s a “contraversy” when the theory of the sun made of iron I mentioned previously has more support and more peer reviewed journal articles?

Anyway, Mxyzptlk , you yet again dodged my question. How is Behe not been proven false when his two pet “irreducible” systems have been shown to be reducible?

You keep saying we’re not providing the evidence. But really, neither are you. I don’t expect you to post a 20 page dissertation. Give the quick summary and then link to the beef to back it up.

Let’s look at an exmaple of your rhetorical strategy here:

1) You post saying Behe has discredited evolution because his irreducible complexity theory has proven that systems like the flagellum and blood clotting are irreducible.
2) We counter that and say that they have been shown to be reducible. Additionally, several links have been provided demonstrating this.
3) You repeat your claim ad naseum with a bit of “stop persecuting me”, and “you’re not listening to anything I say” tossed in for good measure.

Are you not seeing how weak your argument is? We’ve effectively destroyed the flagellum/blood clotting/irreducibly complex argument, but you continue to use it. Furthermore, you’ve posted one link to a website and just said “go find it from there”. Meanwhile, we’ve provided specific links, quotes, etc… to save you the trouble of having to go digging. Why can’t you extend the same courtesy?

Lastly, you’re whining about how long it takes for science to run it’s course. Let me remind you how long it took to disprove the theory of epicycles. Science is slow. Get over it. But it does work. If you’re not convinced of this, ask yourself what sort of contraption you’re reading this on at this exact moment. Ask youself how religious faith got us to the moon. Ask yourself how you’d be getting to work tomorrow. Yeah, science is slow, but for a reason: It’s thorough. Accepting and lauding something simply because it’s novel is folly.

So aside from your pathetic attempt to paint science as a failed process because it doesn’t produce results on demand, the rest of us actually realize that this is about as logically valid as me demanding God show up before me right now and explain a few thigns. As a scientist planning to study galactic interaction, I know it’s a field that’s been active for several decades and that, even with my best efforts, and those of fellow scientists, I’ll barely scratch the surface by the end of my life.

And I’m fine with that. I’m not desperate to have everything explained right away like you seem to be. Science works by admitting there’s things we don’t know and then slowly, and thoroughly analyzing them. Science lives by analyzing the gaps. Not by filling them with God.

The site is http://www.answersingenesis.org/

I get a kick out of AiG. I’ve actually debunked 2 of their articles.

Here and here.

“Science lives by analyzing the gaps. Not by filling them with God.”
- VoijaRisa

Beautifully said.  Is someone collecting these nuggets for an SEB online calendar?  An email newsletter, perhaps; “SEB QOTW”