<<>I'm sorry, Pim, but talk.origins does not constitute a legitimate,
objective,
>credible or refereed forum for "showing" much of anything.
So your brand of science cares more about where something was published
than what it says.>>
It is of utmost importance that an allegation of something being "shown"
(demonstrated, proved) in the scientific realm be published in a reputable
journal, peer reviewed. That is Behe's point. This stuff has NOT appeared in
legitimate journals.
<<But you didn't "question" the data, you dismisssed it offhand, because it
was in a forum that you don't like.
The paper comes with full references. If you have found any errors,
discrepancies,
or mistakes in the sources referred to (you have checked those sources,
haven't
you?), then explain them in detail. Otherwise you are guilty of the same
elitism
that Creationists always accuse scientists of.>>
I guess you're new around here. When the Robison piece first came out I posted
a detailed critique, including the reason Robison's citations were bogus (I
put that in my response to Pim, but you may have missed that part). I'll be
happy to forward it to you by private e-mail if you wish.
The thing that sparked this was Pim's bald assertion that it has been "shown"
Behe was "deluded." When pressed for details, all we got was a cite to a
poorly researched post from talk.origins.
If you and Pim are reaching conclusions based on such faulty research, you
need to know about it. And think things through again.
Jim