Dawn Bertot writes:
besides this you still did not answer my direct question. We know you dont like his conclusions, but is his process science, is he doing science in his work, Yes or No?
Apologies for sticking my oar in, but the clear answer to this question is No. Behe has never, so far as I know, done any real research to test his IC hypothesis, for the simple reason that there is no falsifiable, testable IC hypothesis. Absent that, he's not doing science. Simply observing that there's order as well as complexity in the universe is not sufficient.
Evolution is falsifiable, because you can construct a test for it that can be phrased in terms of an if/then statement. For example, if organisms on this planet share common ancestry (a necessary result of evolutionary change), then their relationships have to fall into a nested hierarchy. Well, the test is to see if the contrapositive is true: if relationships among organisms do NOT fall into a nested hierarchy, then they do NOT share common ancestry. So far, all life on this planet can be organized in terms of nested hierarchies. Therefore, common ancestry (and thus evolution) has not, by this test at least, been demonstrated to be false.
If you can cite Behe putting his any of suppositions in the form of a testable hypothesis, as I've done above for evolution, then I'll gladly revise my position.
I have no time for lies and fantasy, and neither should you. Enjoy or die.
-John Lydon
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
-Steven Colbert
I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.
- John Stuart Mill
™ Version 4.2
