RE: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

From: John Walley <>
Date: Thu Aug 30 2007 - 08:35:50 EDT

Also Pim, I found this interesting article on PZ Meyers's site that you
referred us to below.

Turns out PZ has a daughter (see attached) that just turned 17 and he
proudly shares that she chose to celebrate the occasion by participating in
a recruiting drive for the Campus Atheists, Skeptics, and Humanists group at
her school. In her blog she notes that she is not just an atheist but
anti-religious, although she says she doesn't blame her dad for this but
arrived at this conclusion herself.

I'm curious, in your worldview, is this a good thing and is this the logical
outcome for our kids from having an understanding of true science free from
religious prejudices and the scientific vacuity of ID?

As a Christian Pim, do you not feel the need to also counter some of the
atheist prejudices of PZ and others? Would you consider that this is a
symptom of moral or spiritual vacuity and what should we do about this in
our society?


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On
Behalf Of PvM
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2007 12:09 AM
To: David Campbell
Cc: John Walley; AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Behe's Math... was Arrogance

See Behe flail

A wonderful example of the extremes to which ID proponents have to go
to deny the evidence. As PZ explores

<quote=>Want to see some real science? An article in the NY Times
summarizes research in the evolution of glucocorticoid receptors. This
is really cool stuff, where the investigators do step-by-step changes
in the protein structure to determine the likely sequence of
evolutionary changes - it really does describe the path of
evolutionary history for a set of proteins at the level of amino

Now, if you want to see some junk science, Michael Behe flounders
disgracefully to try and dismiss the work. This is a genuine
embarrassment: Behe is a biochemist who has done legitimate work in
protein structure, and this kind of research ought to be right up his
alley, where he could make an informed analysis. Instead, it's ugly
and sad. A sensible creationist would simply admit that sure, here's
one case of the evolution of a receptor that is solidly made, but hey,
look, over there - here are all these other proteins that haven't been
analyzed to the same level of detail. It would be pathetic and
avoiding the issue, but Behe has a different and worse strategy: he
denies the work shows anything at all.</quote>


To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

Received on Thu Aug 30 08:36:24 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Aug 30 2007 - 08:36:24 EDT