RE: Judge Jones' decision

From: Gregory Arago <>
Date: Tue Dec 20 2005 - 17:48:21 EST

M. Behe likewise does his case no service when he says that "intelligent design theory has implications for virtually all human studies, including philosophy, theology, literary criticism, history and more." (ID: The Bridge: 1999)
  On what basis does he make such a claim given that he works in a department of biological sciences? He is not a philosopher, theologian, literary critic or historian. Further, how can a biologist redefine 'theory' anyway? Isn't this a purely revolutionary presupposition?

"Stephen J. Krogh, P.G." <> wrote:
  Behe also didn't help his case when he admitted on the stand that ID is not scientific.

Instead, Behe wants redefine “theory” - and admitted that this new
definition is so broad it would also include astrology.
Find your next car at Yahoo! Canada Autos
Received on Tue Dec 20 17:49:31 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 20 2005 - 17:49:31 EST