To Good to be True? Intelligently Designed?

I don't know what this discussion has to do with Bible Study and what the Bible really means.But would you please provide for me the quotation in context of this lie told by Doctor Behe? I don't want you to just show me the words "never been examined". I want to see the context.I read Darwin's Black Box but someone has my copy. So if your sample of this lie is in that book I would like you to show me the quotation.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Nice statement of faith there.Watch me do the same thing:Because Science is man's invention and the Bible is God's revelation, if there is a descrepancy between them the fault must be with man's invention because God knows all the facts.See, I also can make an assertive statement of faith.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Is this going to be a tag team effort?It sounds like there is still a question about which quote it is. You sound somewhat not completely sure. So I am not completely sure that this is the refered to quotation.Where's the confirmation of Rhain that this is the quote?Secondly, you or Rrhain need to provide evidence that Behe lied by showing me the date of the publication of his book as compared to publication dates of the said papers in those specific journals.Possible lying on Behe's part has to be demonstrated by showing that he probably knew that those papers were indeed previously published to his making that statement.Could you finish the job of proving Dr. Behe is a liar?Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Rrhain, Nice try yourself. But I don't think it is quite nice enough.The scientific method presupposes some truths. Those truths which it presupposes cannot themselves be proved by the scientific method because it presupposes them. Those truths must be arrived at by some other means. And having been stood upon by either a kind of "faith" or "trust" or however you'd like to call it, they become the presuppositional basis upon which scientific method is based.You have a rational belief in mathematics and logic. That is a kind of "faith" or sorts or trust. Science cannot prove them because science presupposes them.The belief, the "faith" if you will that the scientific method discovers truth can't be proven by the scientific method itself.So your science requires a faith of sorts. Those are rational beliefs which themselves cannot be proven by the scientific method. Otherwise you would have a problem with circular logic. Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same thing 400 million years of natural selection?Can you test for yourself to see if you come up with the same things the theorized "Big Bang" event? I partly get your drift. However you are making a dichotomy which doesn't quite fit. There is "scientific liturature".There are indications to me in the Bible that the liturature is divinely inspired. That is one of the reasons in instills faith in some of us. Of course it tells us quite plainly that it intends to instill faith in us. It makes no pretense to be a scientific method.There are a few exceptional cases which remind me of science method. For example Gideon's fleece test. Your dichotomy is weak. There is such a thing as scientific liturature. I think you are probably depending on some right now in this discussion.I'll consider your other comments a bit latter.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

You say I was sneeringly skeptical of your charge. Maybe, I can't see why a character attack was necessary."Oh Behe lied." Well, if he lied then there is no need to look into anything he wrote. That's an ad hominem attack which could indicate a weakness in your counter research.I don't think the man lied. I have heard him speak and questioned him about criticisms of his work. He doesn't come off to me as being morally weak so as to lie to advance his thesis in that way.You say the book isn't corrected. Well, I understand that he has a website where he answers his critics various charges. Perhaps you could check there to see if there is any adjustment.I've made corrections to many wrong ideas on this Forum. What was written stays up there. I don't think people always acknowledge that a correction has been made.Are you also the one who wants to use the term "fundies"? I usually regard that as a kind of derogatory slur on evangelical Christians. You talk about sneering? You talk about attitude?Anyway, the flood of molecular evolutionary papers after Behe's statement helps clarify the issues. So he did a service to science. What happen to "That's the way science works?"If he provoked many thoughtful papers on the matter than he gave the scientific community a kick in the pants. Did he say that no papers SHOULD be written? Of course not. He stated that he knew of none.Anyway, I don't throw out ID as nonsense.It does seem that when things in the Bible Study section get a little quiet with no "Fundies" there to debate, the moderation gets a little more less restrictive to allow other topics to overflow into Bible Study.I think this Discussion should be placed in one of the other areas. If I do bring in what the Bible says and what I think it means, related to this topic, I fear that you would protest. But I'd be at home in Bible Study and you'd be wondering away from where you really should be debating about Dr. Behe's alledged moral lapses as a professional scientist.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

For anyone interested in reading more about Michael Behe's responses to his critics, here is an interesting website responseding to some criticisms of his ideas. I have read some of both Internet articles written to refute his book and some of his respones. Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Rrhain,Explain a little more about how I am suppose to use your grid there.That is the significance of the verticle columns.Is an additional point here that not many articles about Irredcuble Complexity were written in those same specific journals?Does "Complexity" always mean to you "Irreducible Complexity?"Am I supposed to be impressed that mainstream science journals ignored or had few contributions on Intelligent Design?I mean are you saying "See? All the articles were on Darwinism and practically none were on ID" ?

Is it unfair of me to say, what I see you have presented is an example of evolution on a micro level, accompanied by a promise that one day we will see it on a macro level? That is if there is sufficient funding, time, grant money availiable.Is it fair to say that you have presented evidence for micro evolution with a promise of evidence for lab induced macro evolution to come? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

I don't think you answered the question. You shot back another to me.I'll ask it another way then. This is what you wrote: So is this evidence of evolution MINUS speciation produced in a lab with the promise that in the future with bigger experiements, more sophisticated equipment and sufficient time and grant money, evolution with speciation will be demonstrated?Is that a fair understanding of your confident statement?Does this mean that evolution with speciation has not yet been demonstrated in the lab but only theorized so far? Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.