RE: Cambridge Publishes Neo-Creationism

Pim van Meurs (entheta@eskimo.com)
Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:31:11 -0800

Contrasting Views on Behe Reviews of Michael J. Behe's Darwin's Black Box by Braxton M. Alfred and Alice Fulton from the June 1997 issue of PSCF. http://asa.calvin.edu/ASA/PSCF/1997/PSCF697Alfred.html

Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

Behe's Empty Box Website http://www.spacelab.net/~catalj/box/behe.htm

Darwin's Black Box Irreducible Complexity or Irreproducible Irreducibility? by Keith Robison http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Behe responds http://www.arn.org/behe/mb_response.htm
Response to Talk Origins http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_toresp.htm
Response to Boston Review http://www.arn.org/docs/behe/mb_brresp.htm
American Scientist http://www.amsci.org/amsci/bookshelf/Leads97/Darwin97-09.html
Complexity--Yes! Irreducible--Maybe! Unexplainable--No! A Creationist Criticism of Irreducible Complexity
Terry M. Gray http://mcgraytx.calvin.edu/evolution/irred_compl.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html
Perish or Publish http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html
The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory George W Gilchrist http://www.natcenscied.org/id17-3.htm
Reports of the National Center for Science Education Behe and the Blood Clotting Cascade by George Acton http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb97.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/dec96.html

----------
From: Randy Bronson[SMTP:randy@Techsource.COM]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 1998 6:44 AM
To: Pim van Meurs
Cc: 'Kevin O'Brien'; 'evolution'
Subject: RE: Cambridge Publishes Neo-Creationism

On Wed, 11 Nov 1998, Pim van Meurs wrote:

> "Well, the ID proponents certainly hope to show that this theory IS testable
> scientifically, don't they? Isn't that what Dembski's argument is trying to
> accomplish (even if you think he fails to do so)?"
>
> Dembski's error is in the specification of his "filter" as well as in the idea that there basically is only a choice between evolution or
design. That he uses Behe's argument about IC, an argument which has been shown to be erroneous, only further undermines his position.

Could you point me to any online critiques of Behe's argument of which
you are aware. I've only come across one so far.(not that I've made an
extensive search)

Randy Bronson