BTW, if you are going to keep citing Francis Collins as an exemplar of something you call the “Peaceful Science method,” I suggest you first learn a bit about the history of this group and how it came to be…
2 Likes
Sam does seem to be fond of false dichotomies. IIRC, he’s used this phony one already.
1 Like
I don’t understand your comment.
Can you tell me what you think I’m suggesting Francis Collins is an exemplar of? What characteristic?
I assume you are talking about the group Peaceful Science?
Isn’t it very possible that the group has evolved to be something very different from what was hoped for it?
Something you refer to by the term “The Peaceful Science Method,” which you seem to have made up yourself.
If you don’t know what the term means, then why are you using it?
Francis Collins had an indirect and unintentional, but nonetheless important, role in the very existence of this group.
Which is why your cluelessly citing him as an example of something you call " “The Peaceful Science Method” is so laughable. Don’t worry if you don’t get it. We are laughing at you, not with you. So you don’t need to get the joke in order to play your role.
2 Likes
Have you eliminated design inferences, and if so, why?
2 Likes
Ok, thanks for that.
Can you help me with another question,
I figured out how to do @Tim, but I’m not sure why I’d do that instead of a mere Tim. What is the purpose of adding the @ and the background highlight?
It does two things: (i) it alerts the user to the post (in the same way that replying or quoting them does); and (ii) provides a link to that user’s profile. It also serves the purpose of making it explicit that you’re talking about the person who has that username – either to distinguish them from others of the forum that may have (for example) first name “Tim” (e.g. Tim Anderson, Tim Horton, etc) but a different username, or for extra emphasis.
Good. Thanks.
I wondered if (i) might be the case, but had no way of confirming it.
In case you are of the impression that Behe is unimpressed with Doolittle’s accomplishments, here is a quote form Behe,
PROFESSOR DOOLITTLE is a prominent scientist, a member of the National Academy of Sciences who has worked hard on many aspects of protein structure over the course of a distinguished career. He knows more about the process of blood clotting, and more about the relationships among the protein members of the clotting cascade, than perhaps anyone else on earth. He does not, however, know how natural selection could have produced the clotting cascade. In fact, he has never tried to explain how it could have. Nonetheless, as reflected in his comments in Boston Review, he clearly thinks he has addressed the question. This results from a basic confusion, which I will try to clarify.
Behe, Michael J… A Mousetrap for Darwin: Michael J. Behe Answers His Critics (p. 56). Discovery Institute. Kindle Edition.
As the issue of whether Behe is impressed or unimpressed is irrelevant to the issue I raised, I am completely disinterested in his impression.
2 Likes
But what is relevant to the present discussion is whether Behe is a man of integrity, or a lying liar who tell lies.
Behe:
(Doolittle) does not, however, know how natural selection could have produced the clotting cascade. In fact, he has never tried to explain how it could have.
And yet:
Step-by-step evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation - PubMed (nih.gov)
5 Likes
There is also the fact that at Dover he claimed as a peer-reviewer of Darwin’s Black Box, Michael Atchison, who only discussed the idea of the book over the phone.
I often get the impression that Behe has trouble distinguishing what is true from that he’d like to believe is true.
1 Like
I do think he is at times quite acutely aware of the difference, and also of how his intended audience is less so. For instance, when he says “Darwinian mechanisms cannot account for this,” he is often correct. And if his audience mentally translates that as “Evolutionary mechanisms cannot account for this,” well, is that really Behe’s fault? It’s not his job to ensure creationists are not ignoramuses, is it?
But it is a bit of a tightrope act, and it’s not surprising that he sometimes falls off…
1 Like
Oops. Behe can’t even wriggle out of that one by saying Doolittle’s account was implausible, because it would still be a try.
Nor can Behe claim to be unaware of it, because his claim indicates he looked for it, and couldn’t possibly have missed it.
Behe simply does not check for work before saying it doesn’t exist.
He should talk to the scientists, read their articles. Think about the things that he might see! He could learn about the fugu, just like you and I do, and find out what the counterpoints might be. He could check our community’s work on immunities, and possible flagellar history…
2 Likes
But if he did that, then when he said things that were wrong they wouldn’t just be mistakes. They would be lies.
And Baby Jesus is more forgiving of mistakes than of lies. I am led to believe.
They’re lies anyway. If Behe had checked whether Doolittle had written anything, he was lying when he said Doolittle hadn’t. If Behe hadn’t checked, he was still lying because he was effectively saying that he had checked.
1 Like
Yes. That’s one of the times when the safety net came in handy.