In a message dated 10/1/2000 3:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
rwein@lineone.net writes:
> Subj: Re: Michael Behe comments
> Date: 10/1/2000 3:00:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From: rwein@lineone.net (Richard Wein)
> Sender: evolution-owner@lists.calvin.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:rwein@lineone.net">rwein@lineone.net</A> (Richard
> Wein)
> To: evolution@calvin.edu
>
>
>
>
> From: FMAJ1019@aol.com <FMAJ1019@aol.com>
>
> >Interesting website of our dear friend Wells:
> >
> >I noticed this error in logic made by our dear friend Behe:
> >
> >"Jonathan Wells demonstrates with stunning clarity that the textbook
> >examples Darwinists themselves chose as the pillars of their theory are all
> >false or misleading. What does this imply about their scientific standards?
> >Why should anyone now believe any of their other examples?"
> >
> >--Michael J. Behe, Professor Biological Sciences, Lehigh University,
> >Pennsylvania
> >
> >I am somewhat disappointed in Michael though.
>
> ID proponents *do* make a lot of logical errors, but I fail to see one in
> the passage quoted above. Could you point it out for me, please?
>
> Richard Wein (Tich)
>
>
Ignoring for the moment the accusations, Behe seems to suggest that if some
examples can be shown incorrect why should one believe any of the other
examples.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 18:08:43 EDT