Re: Presumption flawed (was Dr. Roland Hirsch)

From: Susan Brassfield Cogan (susanb@telepath.com)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2000 - 22:36:01 EDT

  • Next message: Susan Brassfield Cogan: "Re: Putting names in subject lines - a form of ad hominem?"

    At 06:25 PM 10/21/2000 +0800, you wrote:
    >Reflectorites
    >
    >Stephen:

    >Has anyone noticed that Huxter and Susan have suddenly gone quiet on
    >this? I wonder why? ;-)

    :-) I lead a *very* full life!!!

    >On Thu, 19 Oct 2000 21:54:12 +0800, Stephen E. Jones wrote:

    <snip Huxter's list of Hirsch's papers in the chemistry field>

    >Since 1991 he has chaired the structural biology task group at the
    >Department of Energy, which supports an annual budget around $28
    >million for research in molecular biology, instrumentation, computing,
    >databases (Protein Data Bank), and synchrotron stations for protein
    >crystallography and other techniques.

    Frankly I thought I *had* answered this. I also did a web search on Hirsch
    and found only chemistry references. The above doesn't really mean much. It
    means he chaired a task force. It doesn't mean he did biological research
    himself.

    I would suggest that any Behe fan (as Hirsch seems to be) should read
    "Darwin's God." I'm reading it at present and enjoying it tremendously.

    It seems the flagellum are *not* irreducibly complex.

    >He is also involved in managing the genome program and serves on an
    >NIH Advisory Council as DOE representative.
    >
    >So it can be seen that "biochemistry and molecular biology *are*
    >Hirsch's field"!

    well, no. Perhaps related. I'd love to see more than just that one
    statement of his.

    >This presents a real problem for the Darwinists who have tried to portray
    >IDers as a bunch of no-nothings pushing a discredited 18th century
    >argument. Sooner or later the Darwinists are going to have to treat ID
    >seriously or the public is going to start to notice (if they haven't
    >already)
    >the credibility gap between the Darwinists rhetoric and the reality.

    Stephen, Stephen, Stephen, the public doesn't decide what science is and
    isn't. Scientists do. If the ID wants to be considered science, then it is
    they that have to be convinced and it is arguments well-supported with data
    that will ever do it. Rhetoric will work on the public, but simply won't
    work on scientists.

    Susan

    --------

    Always ask. Hang out with people who make you laugh. Love as many people as
    you can. Read everything you can get your hands on. Take frequent naps.
    Watch as little television as you can stand. Tell people what you want. Do
    what you love as much as you can. Dance every day.
    --------
    Please visit my website:
    http://www.telepath.com/susanb



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 21 2000 - 22:41:22 EDT