<<Fortunately, time is on my side. Behe is arguing that we are not going to
find the details he's looking for. That's a pretty gutsy and even a
foolish claim. We'll see. >>
The "we'll see" is fine. Time, however, may NOT be on your side. What happens
if we DON'T find such details, and wake up and it's suddenly 2030? Shall we
continue to imagine?
<< For now at least, the professional opinion is
on my side. If Mike is making any inroads, it's among the philosophers,
lawyers, and theologians. As Dennett said, if Behe is right, then he's on
the road to Stockholm, and if that's true, then there should be a host of
copy-cats following him. To date, there has been no such response from the
professional biochemical community.>>
Ah, Dennett's talking through his hat. Mike is critiquing the current party
line. You don't win awards for that. Oops, wrong, Mike's book was Book of the
Year from Christianity Today. I should say you don't win SCIENTIFIC awards for
that. But come on, do we really expect the "professional biochemical
community" to suddenly drop their lab coats and hop on board? Something as
monumental as Behe is suggesting will take a long time to be chewed upon.
so, yes, time will tell.
Jim