It seems like I’ve read that before, but can’t remember where. 
1 Like
Yes, I have.
But you, obviously, haven’t. Because if you had, you would have seen that it not only cited Behe’s response, but actually included a substantial quote from it.
Oops.
And, yes, that response actually does try to dispute Lynch article. Poorly and ineptly, of course.
Let me be clear: I am well aware that, as you say yourself, “this science is over (your) head.” So I not only provided an article written by an excellent science communicator explaining some of that science. I even further summarized and simplified that article for your benefit.
All to no avail. You seem you have made up your mind that Behe’s (many) critics have nothing substantive to offer, so you won’t even bother reading what they have to say.
Behe’s comment, again was “(N)othing shows the emptiness of Darwinism better than when very smart, dedicated proponents defend it so poorly.”
You demand that I “point to how (I) think his comment is wrong.”
I did just that, by citing one of the smarter and more dedicated proponents of evolutionary theory (Lynch) and how he showed in painstaking detail how Behe failed to make his case, and how Behe’s article relied on arbitrary and false assumptions regarding how evolution occurs.
But you couldn’t be bothered to try understand what Lynch has to say.
So all your bluster and faux-indignation means nothing. Understand the science. That’s all that counts here.
3 Likes
How is the defense of the theory of evolution not rigorous?
I would recommend one of the classics for you to check out:
2 Likes
This topic was automatically closed 24 hours after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.