That's exactly the problem, that "IMO". All you've presented is your
opinion.
><<Of course we have to "posit" it, in the same way we have to "posit" the
>behavior of subatomic particles from the secondary evidence observed. That
>doesn't make it an invalid or weak explanation.>>
>
>It might.
In some cases, it might. But not in this one. As Pim pointed out, Behe's
whole argument was based on the claim that someone could not imagine
a mechanism by which so-called "irreducably complex" features could have
evolved. The FAQ responded by saying that one could quite easily imagine
such a mechanism. And it explained how. Hence, it refuted Behe's argument.
>To posit something that is counter to what we actually know is a
>"weak" position. That's what the scientific journals are for. They are a
>professional way of saying "put up or shut up."
I ask again: was Behe's book a peer-reviewed publication?
><<If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.>>
>
>Guess you're stuck with what's Left.
And quite happy with it. Why are you wasting time on my .sig quote?
_____________________________________________________________
| Russell Stewart |
| http://www.rt66.com/diamond/ |
|_____________________________________________________________|
| Albuquerque, New Mexico | diamond@rt66.com |
|_____________________________|_______________________________|
If Rush is Right, then I'll take what's Left.