The issue of chance... (My own introduction) (Evolution)

by Matt S. , Friday, June 05, 2009, 18:28 (5648 days ago) @ David Turell

Mr. Turell,
You are correct to be careful on wikis, but the professor who had his work posted on his university website had to pull the page down due to too much traffic (and an excess of 400 emails a day.) I just found this out and am trying to see if he'll let me host it myself on my own web domain. The only place I could find it is on that wiki, as all the websites linked to Dr. Lampe's webpage. Alternatively you could start searching bio databases to see how often Behe's name comes up and how often his work is cited. - I've read Kuhn, his observations don't apply here. Kuhn's great criticism is in how a grand idea appears and then creates a new paradigm that is filled by research within the paradigm, after an intense (and USUALLY short fight--see Astronomy) His observations are quite correct as is evidenced by Crick and Watson, and Einstein. It doesn't work here though because Behe doesn't follow the rules of science. - Part of rating whether or not a scientist is good or not, is in both in the quantity and quality of peer-reviewed research. Behe isn't a good scientist because in 20 years he has never once tried to correct his 'scientific' research. (His output is in writing books in defense of ID, and hasn't written a peer-reviewed paper since Graduate School. When shown he solved an important equation wrong, he didn't fix it in subsequent printing of his books. He has done this time and time again. Real scientists don't allow errors like that to occur, they fix them. This suggests that his motives aren't scientific at all... - For example, Darwin published Origin of the Species, and received intense fight from both scientists and religious figures. In a similar 20 year period, the scientific debate had largely been settled. (Acceptance of a new paradigm.) In 20 years, no aspect of Behe's work is accepted nor cited in the biological sciences. That shouldn't happen if his science was sound--it's just not how the machine of science works. Scientists will fight for their pet theories, but wrong is wrong, and science is self-correcting. - Behe isn't a scientist he's a philosopher who is part of an organization whose goal is place protestant Evangelicalism into the government and school system. Google "wedge document" and the results should surprise you. When Behe testifies it is for this incredibly spurious organization, which he is a part of. ID is a kitchy creationism and nothing more. Borrowing from their playbook will earn you only the company of bad friends. Dembski is part of the same movement, I wasn't lying when I told you that his equation is flatly wrong, using the theorem correctly it asserts the exact opposite of what he was trying to say. Stick to Shapiro.