>So far, *all* responses to my "Where's the science?" posts have drawn
>essentially irrelevant and/or evasive posts (such as Stephen's, in which
>Behe's *alleged* elimination of *one* category of possible evolutionary
>paths to certain structures is taken as proof that *none* of the *many*
>paths available on the basis of evolutionary theory is possible or likely.
Nor has anyone responded to my query as to why in the world a
scientifically-minded person takes time to participate in a debate that
was over in the 19th Century. Are you like Christians who lie awake
worrying about a few unconverted in the jungle somewhere? Or are you
just outraged that the 40% of the population who are creationists might
influence 1% of the public science funding?
ID may ultimately arise from incredulity. No problem. The challenge is there,
to make evolution more credible. Irreducible complexity may be just the
old problem of incipience, but discussion of it has got to be of more
scientific interest than ad hominem arguments in a context of old-style
creationism-bashing.
--Cliff Lundberg ~ San Francisco ~ cliff@noe.com