The Problem with Behe (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 09, 2009, 18:36 (5462 days ago) @ George Jelliss

George,
> This part of the thread seems to have metamorphosed to be about Behe rather than Stenger! 
> 
> I don't quote Stenger blindly as DT claims. I quote him carefully because I don't want to misrepresent his views, and the terms he uses are technical. I have been forced to quote him at greater length in order to reply to Mark in the "Nothing" thread. 
> 
> I agree with xeno/Matt's view about Behe, but I think it's all been said here before. He can't be compared with Stenger.-The reason for the shift is because I've noticed that David is very good at making subtle points. (Either that or I'm just good at noticing what isn't there!) My thinking is that he was challenging Stenger perhaps because you (and to an extent--me) have voiced support for some of his ideas, but when it comes to thinkers such as Behe--in general we look at it with carte-blanche distaste. -Are we simply engaging in boxed thinking? Or are we really considering what he says? -In my case, my exposure to Behe is on the flagellum argument, and as far as I'm concerned, he doesn't actually make a case. New post coming in a minute about a philosophical issue related to Behe/design at large...

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"