M. Behe likewise does his case no service when he says that "intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all human studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more." (ID: The Bridge: 1999)
On what basis does he make such a claim given that he works in a department of biological sciences? He is not a philosopher, theologian, literary critic or historian. Further, how can a biologist redefine 'theory' anyway? Isn't this a purely revolutionary presupposition?
Arago
"Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <panterragroup@mindspring.com> wrote:
Behe also didn't help his case when he admitted on the stand that ID is not scientific.
Instead, Behe wants redefine “theory” - and admitted that this new
definition is so broad it would also include astrology.
---------------------------------
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Tue Dec 20 17:49:31 2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 20 2005 - 17:49:31 EST