Chris
That's true, I think. I was talking with someone just yesterday about this,
and that's almost the conclusion I've been approaching. Trying to get
Stephen to quit misrepresnting Gould, Dawkins, myself, Susan, and anyone
else who's handy may be a waste of time. In fact, even bothering to point
these occurrences out to people may be a waste of time.
So, in the future, I think I'll just skip over such outrages and go on to
other issues, etc.
I've been thinking about the irreducible complexity issue. *If* some complex
structure could be shown to be necessarily constructible only in ways that
are definitely not accessible to evolution, it *would* be proof that
*something* odd was going on. It would not, of course, support
non-naturalistic ID theory, but it *could* support naturalistic ID theory.
In any case, this is an area for research. But it does not help that Jone's
and Behe pretend to have proved something when they've only just barely
*begun*.