How do you let yourself get away with making that statement?
“We know it is very cold.” “We know what the cold does to the responsiveness of rubber o-rings.” “Let’s launch.”
Your making of the statement, “No one in engineering was saying that physics did not apply” is the obfuscation I see throughout this thread.
I don’t care how you spin it which is what you’ve done. How else do you account for saying, "it is A ok to launch in the cold despite what we know about the physics (o-rings get stiffer when they are cold)?
I see it as the greatest failure of a scientific organization ever. To arrive at that conclusion I’ve considered the simplicity of the science, the fact that they knew the science and that the only reason for the failure was that they wanted a different answer.
A lot of people here don’t seem to understand that Behe believes in evolution. He believes in common descent. He says that the Darwinian mechanism of random variation and natural selection aren’t sufficient to do the task claimed for them. He began his career absolutely content with ‘Darwinism’. It fit just fine with his view of the world and his theology. He only became disillusioned as he found bit by bit that the evidence for the mechanism was scanty.
The Challenger disaster is only relevant of an example of the extent that some will go to deny the plainest of truths and your spin here seems to fit right in. “No one in engineering was saying that physics did not apply”
Right.