Re: [asa] Rejoinder 3B: Reply to David Opderbeck

From: Steve Matheson <>
Date: Tue Sep 30 2008 - 22:34:25 EDT


Thank you for visiting and taking the time to explain your opinions to the
list. I hope you have learned a little about the perspectives of the people

Many of your questions and impressions have already been addressed thoughtfully
by others. If I had the time or the inclination I would refer to all of them,
so that you might learn that many of us have already carefully considered all
of the challenges you raise. There really isn't time for that, and I'm
pursuing a different goal here anyway. Please note that I speak only for
myself and not for "theistic evolutionists," who in any case (as you've been
told at least once) do not constitute a movement that can be spoken for.

I have some overall impressions of the conversation so far. You arrived
talking of "rapprochement," by which I take it you meant "cessation of
hostilities." While I don't think there can or should be rapprochement between
today's ID *movement* and science, I do welcome honest and generous dialogue
between Christians who hold differing viewpoints with respect to questions of
origins, and I am actively seeking dialogue with thoughtful ID proponents. My
experience is that this kind of bridge-building is fairly easy to do face to
face (assuming goodwill on the part of the conversants) but harder to do in
forums like this one. In my view and based on experience, conversants who
achieve constructive dialogue don't begin or end with tit-for-tat yes-butting –
they begin with careful listening to each other's perspectives, proceed to
affirmation of the legitimacy of each other's positions, and *then* (if this
has gone well) they can engage in critical analysis of both sets of ideas.
Face to face is better because the critical first steps are more easily and
naturally skipped in virtual environments. But I know that this can be
accomplished, even online. Let me illustrate with an example.

A few years ago I participated in a symposium in which speakers representing EC
and YEC positions addressed various origins-related topics. The idea was that
the EC and the YEC spoke back-to-back, with time for questions and discussion.
I spoke on biological evolution (specifically common descent) and the YEC
biologist who spoke after I did was a prominent member of the BSG. To shorten
a somewhat long story, he and I were able to establish a friendship and a
strong professional relationship, because we were able to affirm the legitimacy
of each other's positions, and because we were able to get to know each other
face to face. Our positions (at the root) are quite distinct, but there is
much that we share, and I'm excited by our close relationship. It is my
intention to attend a BSG conference sometime soon, and I'm sure I will be
treated with warmth and respect. And it is my intention to seek deeper
engagement with the BSG in other ways. You might think that a fully committed
EC, with a high regard for what you so love to call "Darwinism," would have no
sound basis for building rapport with a YEC. But it's not the case, and I
think I've identified the way we accomplished our rapprochement and transition
to respect and partnership.

Here's my point, and I hope I don't offend you or seem unwelcoming, neither of
which I intend. I believe this conversation has been a failure for the most
part, at least so far, because I don't think you have shown any interest in
either of the first two steps. As near as I can tell, you came to dispense
critical analysis of the "TE" position. You make many very serious errors, but
the biggest one by far is this: you either cannot or will not muster respect
for the views of many of us here.

At this point, I'm reluctant to directly engage your errors and our honest
differences, because I don't see the point of dialogue with you on those
topics. For the benefit of Ted and others, I will comment on Denton's work,
and re-post some analysis of the "junk DNA" myth, but for now I will address
list members and not you on these subjects. My inor punish you, though I would understand if you felt that I had not showed you
the hospitality that others have. No, Timaeus, my intention is to engage you
at the first two steps, the ones that I believe were unwisely skipped.

In the meantime, I offer a second example of successful rapprochement. I've
never met Mike Gene; I've only interacted with him online. I have praised him
on this email list, not because of his specific positions, but because he
articulates a thoughtful design perspective that communicates a healthy respect
for those who see the world differently. He hasn't yet gotten me to see the
rabbit, but I always give him the chance by reading every one of his posts.
He's shown me respect, and earned mine in return. You have done neither.

You see, then, that the reason I'm not excited about your visit so far has
little or nothing to do with your opinions about God's action in the world, or
randomness, or the efficacy of darwinian explanations.

It doesn't have to be like this. The way to achieve rapprochement and
understanding is not to more vigorously abuse "Darwinism" or to more
dramatically exaggerate the achievements of Michael Denton. It's to listen,
and to show the respect you think you deserve. And I'm not saying it can't
happen. As Barack Obama would say, "We can do this."

Steve Matheson

>>> "Ted Davis" <> 09/30/08 2:11 PM >>>
Timaeus has been very busy writing replies to various list members, and this
one is lively and pointed. Overall, Timaeus wants us to see that ID is making
substantive challenges to the claims of many evolutionary biologists, namely,
that evidence is lacking to back the claim that RM + NS is actually the cause
of higher level changes in organisms and the formation of complex machinery
within cells. Timaeus says that Denton is a world class biologist whose
scepticism about orthodox neo-Darwinism is fully warranted. In addition,
Timaeus challenges all TEs to take Denton very seriously, not to dismiss him as
ill informed; and, not to be too quick to revise Christian theology in light of
evolution. Judging from my own extensive interaction with ID advocates, in
making these points Timaeus is reflecting the consensus within the upper
circles of the ID movement.

I thank Timaeus for continuing to engage with us. It might be best for all of
us if the pace were to slow a little, partly in order for all of us to be able
to digest what everyone is saying, and partly also to increase the possibility
that some of the most well-informed ASA members (on these issues) will be able
to join in at some point. A number of our best voices are silent now, owing to
their day jobs, and I don't know if/when they will be able to chime in. I am
myself, esp interested in hearing from any biologists who have expertise in the
kinds of things that Denton talks about: as I said when reviewing the Dover
trial, I can't sort out whether Ken Miller or Mike Behe is actually correct; I
can only report a continuing difference of opinion. I do hope that at least a
few more biologists and biochemists will contribute.

(Incidentally, Timaeus, our list has never included some of the most prominent
scientists within the ASA, such as Francis Collins or Owen Gingerich or Bob
Griffiths. I don't expect that to change, but it does somewhat shape the
nature of the conversation here. It'd be terrific for leading IDs to speak
directly to and with leading ASA scientists, but except for the occasional
exchange at an annual meeting it usually doesn't happen. The group you are
talking to, insofar as it even represents the ASA at all, given its
composition, is not heavily weighted toward the most relevant sciences as far
as I can tell. And, except for George Murphy, most leading theologians who
write about evolution aren't members of the ASA at all, though some of us do
read them.)

Speaking for myself, Timaeus, one of my top concerns is whether or not I fairly
describe and analyze the views of ID advocates, esp when I econtroversy with my own opinions but also when I teach about ID on or off
campus. To that end, Timaeus, I would really like for you to comment on the
following paragraph, taken from an essay I published about the Dover trial. I
will be doing a talk based on that paper at the American Society of Human
Genetics in Philadelphia later this year. Obviously, I make no promises about
changing anything in this paragraph, but I do want to have your comments. Here

"At this point, there simply is no ID “theory” to teach–or even to practice in
the laboratory, let alone to place at the center of a new scientific paradigm.
ID currently consists only of an interesting philosophical critique of the
explanatory efficacy of Darwinian evolution, combined with an appeal for
scientists to add “design” to the set of explanatory principles they employ in
biology and other sciences. When ID advocates say, “teach the controversy,”
they do not mean that ID should be taught as an alternative to evolution, in
the same sense in which the authors of the Arkansas bill wanted creationism
taught as another theory of equal merit to evolution. Rather, they are
referring mainly to ID’s criticism of evolution as it is presented in
textbooks: They want students to learn that some scientists do not accept
important aspects of the standard picture of evolution."

That's enough from me now, it's time to hear again from Timaeus. Below is his
reply to David Opderbeck.



Mr. Opderbeck, you wrote:
“I respond: There seems to be a continuing disconnect here. I don't think
any Christian TE's see the Darwinian mechanism as "self-sufficient." I
think you're still confusing observed causal sufficiency with

Answer: No, I absolutely am not. I am not talking about metaphysics,
theology, or religion. I am saying that the Darwinian mechanisms are
insufficient causally, in the limited, scientific sense of “cause” which
Darwinists and TEs allow. I am saying they cannot produce complex organs,
systems, etc. Or, at the very least, that they have not been proved capable of
doing so, not by a long shot. It has nothing at all to do with metaphysics. I
am saying, bluntly, that Darwinism is poor science, because it is weakly
supported science. If you want to know why, start by reading Michael Denton’s
first book. Never mind Mike Gene’s report of Korthof’s discussion. Yes,
Korthof finds flaws in the book; but he also says some good things about it.
And most important of all, Korthof says that it is MUST reading for anyone who
really wants to understand the rock-bottom assumptions of Darwin’s theory. And
I think this is exactly the kind of reading a non-specialist such as yourself
is looking for: reading which gets at the heart of what Darwinism is about.
And if you find it helpful, then read Denton’s second book. (Which Korthof
likes better, because Denton there unambiguously confirms Korthof’s
naturalistic prejudice, though its important to point out that Denton didn’t
argue for supernatural causes even in the first book, but merely showed the
scientific flaws in Darwinism.)

Now, to refer my argument to TE, I am also saying that most TEs seem to believe
that Darwinian mechanisms are sufficient causally. That is, they seem to
believe that the Darwinian mechanisms of random mutation plus natural selection
(perhaps supplemented here and there by other materialistic mechanisms which,
as far as I can see, are still all chance mechanisms, so it still comes out to
chance plus natural selection) are adequate to produce eyes, flagella, etc. I
am saying that they are wrong to believe this. I think they have accepted
exaggerated claims that have no empirical basis. And I think they do this
because they constantly confuse the fact of common descent with the mechanism
of evolution. Ninety per cent of the evidence they cite as ‘decisive proof’ of
evolution is evidence only for common descent, not for the efficacy of the
Darwinian mechanisms. But the two are so wedded together in their mindit is like pulling teeth to get them to distinguish them, and see that the
evidence is relatively strong for the one, but quite weak for the other. We
can see hard evidence for common descent in the fossil record, in
biogeographical distribution, etc. We cannot see hard evidence for the power
attributed to Darwinian mechanisms. We see hard evidence that it can produce
longer finch beaks. The rest is inferred, illegitimately in my opinion. This
is not a point of biology even, but of elementary logic, and one needs very
little training in the details of biology or any science to understand it.

And then you wrote:
“But, all of my friends who are working scientists tell me it's simply not
true. And their story seems much more robust and plausible than the ...”

Darwinism isn’t “robust”. Darwinism is “anemic”. But if you doubt that what I
say is true:
Ask your “scientist friends” to point you to a series of articles or a book
which contains a detailed series of evolutionary pathways for any of the
following: (1) fins to feet; (2) gill-breathing to lung-breathing; (3)
cardiovascular system; (4) camera eye; (5) bacterial flagellum; etc. And make
sure you ask them for an account that will specify: (1) how they know what the
original genome of the putative ancestor looked like; (2) exactly what segments
of DNA changed, with a full accounting of all the body parts and systems that
those segments of DNA made proteins for, and what other segments of DNA would
have had to change along with it, since often, if not usually, more than one
segment pertains to a particular structure or function; (3) all the major
developmental details connected with the previous point; (4) accurate
information about the environmental conditions hundreds of millions or tens of
millions of years ago (level of UV radiation, balance of gases in the air;
solar activity, volcanic activity, tectonic activity, paleomagnetic fields,
salinity of sea-water, complete list of competing species and food sources,
etc.) – all of which must be known to be sure that any given phenotypical
change would have been advantageous enough for nature to select; (5) how many
stages the pathway would take, and how many years on average each stage in the
pathway would require (based on favourable mutation rates), checked against the
time the fossil record allows for, and how they calculated the average time or
number of generations required for the favourable mutations.

If you ask this, I’m sure they will be very helpful. I’m sure they will point
you to Ken Miller’s argument for one possible link in the chain leading to the
flagellum, as if one link could prove the efficacy of the mechanism. And they
will go on endlessly about now bacterial resistance proves evolution, as if a
single-amino-acid change in a one-celled creature is comparable to the millions
of changes required for the creation of a camera eye. And they will talk about
Archaeopteryx, as the transitional phase between birds and reptiles, without
discussing the problem which the entire world of evolutionary biology has been
unable to solve, i.e., how flight could have evolved gradually,
Darwinian-fashion, when both aerodynamic considerations and physiological
considerations suggest that an evolutionary leap would have been necessary.
(See extensive discussion in Denton’s first book; the discussion cites leading
Darwinian authorities.) They may even stoop to discussing the colour of the
peppered moth and the soot of the Industrial Revolution, employing an old story
debunked by Jonathan Wells. They will discuss fossils that look sequential,
which is often a subjective judgment, and they won’t mention that mere sequence
could only establish common descent, not causal mechanisms. They will tell you
that 90% of biologists accept Darwinian evolution, as if truth is decided by a
show of hands rather than evidence. They will tell you that the AAAS and NABT
endorse evolution, as if establishments have never been wrong beforafter they’ve yakked on about these same old standard points, don’t forget to
remind them that they haven’t provided what you’ve asked for – precise
evolutionary pathways, with intermediate steps, time calculations for each
step, etc. They will then get a little defensive, maybe even a little testy,
and tell you that a few minor gaps remain to be filled in, and that’s what
keeps science interesting, but that many if not most of your questions are
answered in !
. They will rarely specify even the name of a journal, let alone an article or
an author. They may even tell you to Google for some articles, because they
don’t know any offhand. And if they do turn up an article for you, it will be
something very technical and tiny, which, even if it proves what it sets out to
prove, will be like proving a mosquito can be born with a new eye colour.
That’s my prediction. Try it, and let me know if I’m wrong.

About theology. I think it’s mainly irrelevant to the main question that
should be asked, before TE even gets underway. TE’s whole raison d’etre, as
indicated in its name, is to link up belief in God (usually the Christian God)
with what is taken to be the fact of Darwinian evolution. Logic therefore
dictates that the factual character of Darwinian evolution be fully established
before the theological inquiry takes place. My point is that, even if we grant
that common descent is established (which it isn’t, strictly, for a variety of
reason which I don’t have time to cover, but I accept CD, so there’s no need to
make it an issue here), the Darwinian mechanism is far from established. That
is what I’m trying to open everyone’s eyes to here. Even if we know that we
came from primordial slime, we have almost no idea how it might have happened,
no matter what the Darwinists tell you. Saying “random mutations guided by
natural selection”, and waving your hands is not proof. Insistence and
preaching and scolding is not proof. Appeal to the consensus of modern
biologists is not proof. Threats to expel dissenters from the scientific
community, by denying them degrees, jobs, promotion and grants, are not proof.

Now I’m no scientific washout, but I’m not a scientist, either. So no one is
going to take me as an authority. I’m not asking anyone to. That’s why I
point to greater scientists and greater evolutionary thinkers than myself, like
Behe and Berlinski and Denton. Take Denton. He has an M.D. and a Ph.D. in
Biochemistry/Physiology. He has done world-class research on the genetics of
retinal cancer, which might be thought to give him some knowledge of the actual
workings of the human eye, its physiology, biochemistry, relation to other
bodily systems, and so on. When a man like that expresses doubt that Darwinian
processes could produce a camera eye, I think we are very foolish to ignore
him. We don’t have to agree with him, but to ignore him is irresponsible.
Ditto for Dr. Michael Egnor, a neurosurgeon who has performed 2,000 brain
operations, and so might be thought to understand something of the complexity
of that organ and its operations, and who has criticized Darwinian mechanisms.
Indeed, the number of Darwin-doubting physicians and surgeons, people who work
with bodies intimately and understand them better than most people, is quite
suggestive. Jerry Coyne, at his blackboard in Chicago, has no trouble
theorizing about evolutionary pathways; but does he have any clue how they
would work out in practice in a complex higher organism, in comparison with
someone like Dr. Egnor?

How many TEs are even aware that there is widespread doubt about Darwinian
mechanisms, even outside of ID and Discovery? Of course it is not a majority
trend yet, but the doubt is much more widespread than TEs imagine. It is not
just benighted YECs in the hills of Tennessee or the cities of the South. It
is, increasingly, doctors, lawyers, computer programmers, physicists,
mathematicians, engineers, philosophers, and historians of science, many of
whom have only vague religious convictions, aconvictions at all, who are doubting the Darwinian mechanisms. Denton is just
the tip of the iceberg. But he’s a very noteworthy tip. Another noteworthy
tip of an iceberg is Richard von Sternberg, who has two Ph.D.s in biology,
i.e., one more than Miller, Matheson, Ayala or Collins possesses.

About theology. I don’t want to get off into the details of Aquinas here,
which I could in fact discuss competently, but some phrases in your post almost
sound as if you subscribe to a dualistic account of knowledge, whereby, e.g.,
“science” could show us that there is no free will (as many claim that
modern psychology shows), and that this would be a valid truth within science,
while “theology” could guarantee us that there really is free will on a
“metaphysical” level, above the level of naturalistic causation, and that
this would be “true” in theology; and that the two truths, though plainly
opposite in meaning to any person of common sense, do not contradict each
other. I don’t know if this is what you meant, but if it is, it sounds
dangerously schizophrenic. And even if don’t believe that, since I believe
that some other TEs do hold a doctrine something like this (or seem to, the
vagueness of expression leaving me unsure), I want to react to it.

The idea that something could be metaphysically true and scientifically false,
or vice versa, is typical of the soul-destroying, culture-destroying dualisms
that have plagued the modern world since Descartes. There is only one world,
not two; there is only one “nature”, not two; there is only one “human nature”,
not two. If evolution shows us that we IN FACT arose by accident, REAL
accident, then we have a conflict. Unless you are willing to use the word
“truth” in two entirely different senses in the two fields, the teaching
that we arose by accident can’t be a truth in science, but a falsehood in
theology. Yet at times Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott (not that she cares at all
about religion, except for PR purposes) have said exactly this: that design
might be the true picture of nature, yet still be inappropriate for science
class, where the only valid mode of explanation excludes design. This, of
course, is supposed to make Christian students and parents feel better about
having Darwinism taught as unchallenged orthodoxy in science class. But in
fact this phoney dualism is just an excuse for making sure that the students
never hear the arguments of Bergson, Denton, Behe, Dembski, von Sternberg,
Antony Flew, Berlinski, etc., because Miller and Scott deftly, slyly, and
basely equate questions about “design” with questions about “higher purpose or
meaning in life” or “proof of supernatural beings” or the like.

Frankly (and again, I’m not sure this is what you meant, and probably you
didn’t, but I think some other TEs may well believe this), I think that the
“two truth” position is based on fear. It’s an attempt to shield the truths
of theology from the truths of science, to make sure they can never conflict.
(I think it’s no accident that those who use language that sounds vaguely like
“two truths” are generally against even the possibility of design detection,
because design, if detectable, would join the two worlds – the world of truths
known about God exclusively through faith, and truths known about the world
exclusively through science -- that they have spent many years learning how to
keep asunder.) To me, this is every bit as reprehensible as the position of
those YECs who – also out of fear – won’t honestly face the evidence of
radioactive dating or geology. Personally, I prefer people who are
intellectually fearless. I prefer people who can stare truth in the face, even
if it’s ugly, and say, “Yes, unfortunately, this is the truth.” If pure
Darwinism IS the truth, then, in my judgment, it is an ugly truth. But if so,
let’s face it like brave men and women, as Bertrand Russell suggested in A Free
Man’s Worship, and not try to pretend that it’s truth in science, but not truth
in metaphysics. Russell would have laughed such a distinction to scorn.
Either we are a pointless accident or we aren’t. A stand must be taken. I’ve
taken mine. I say we aren’t a pointless accident, not only for all kinds of
positive reasons based on our nature and the nature of the world, but because
the main arguments that caused people to think that we ARE a pointless accident
came from an allegedly scientific argument (Darwin’s), and that argument is
empirically very, very weak. Blind matter simply can’t do what Darwin says it
can. Or, if it can, Darwinians are nowhere near proving it, and they won’t be
capable of proving it in the lifetime of anyone reading this, an!
d so, on
our current understanding of nature, Christians should simply go about their
theologizing as if Darwinian mechanisms are a false (or at best speculative and
uncertain) account of how nature works. That’s what I do, and my theology’s
just fine. J

Finally, you wrote:
 “Timeaus said: But there is no evidence – none, zero, zilch, nada – that
they can build an eye, a circulatory system, or an avian lung (the last of
which, Mr. Nield, is discussed in both of Denton's books).
I respond: In my view, this empirical claim is the heart of the matter.
How does a non-biologist assess this claim?”

Mr. Opderbeck, your intellectually humility is noted. I understand that you do
not want to play the expert in fields that you have not been trained in. That
is admirable. Nor do I. But seeing the flaws in Darwinism does not require
an expert, because the Darwinian theory is relatively easy to understand in its
general outline. And it is easy to understand what it would take to verify it,
in general outline.

Neither you nor I need to understand all the details of protein synthesis to
ask the question: “How did the DNA-protein system get started, since,
according to our current empirical knowledge, as even the leading Darwinists
admit, each (of protein and DNA) needs the other even to come into existence at
all?” And we can register the answer when Darwinists admit: “We don’t know.”
(See The Design of Life by Dembski and Wells, for a lengthy discussion, citing
mainstream science literature, establishing that Darwinists don’t know the
answer to this question, and that they admit they don’t know.) Again, neither
you nor I need to understand all the detailed genetics and developmental
science connected with the human eye, to ask Richard Dawkins: “Dr. Dawkins, in
your book you have given fewer than a dozen steps of the thousands or millions
of steps that would be needed, on the Darwinian hypothesis, to get from the
light-sensitive spot to the camera eye. And even those few steps, you have
described in a qualitative and superficial manner, speaking only of the results
of each step, and how they might help in evolutionary fitness. You have not
provided the genetic and embryological details to show how this pretty picture
could actually have been accomplished by the mechanisms we know to be available
to the genome and its cellular and organismic environs. And you have not shown
any of the math regarding the frequency of the required mutations, so we don’t
know if the changes could have occurred in the time-frame given by the fossil
record. I am open to your views, but would you now please give me the longer
version, with the details? Or tell me where I can find all the details?” And
we can register when Dawkins remains sullenly silent, or changes the subject.
And again, we don’t need to know the details of biology to ask: “Dr. Gould and
Dr. Sagan, you have both stressed the contingency of evolution, its radical
dependence upon chance events which are not only rare in themselves, !
but have
to occur in just the right environmental conditions to be useful. On your
account, then, we would expect that the development of the camera eye, that
organ of extreme complexity which made Darwin “shudder” [direct quote from
Darwin], would be likely to occur not more than once in the whole course of
evolution on earth. Yet the camera eye, in different forms, has developed many
times on the earth. As Dr. Dawkins loudly insists, ‘it’s no trouble for
nature to make an eye; it’s done so probably thirty times.’ Is this not like
lightning striking thirty times on the same spot? Does not the parallel,
ultra-low-probability evolution of eyes, in different evolutionary lineages,
suggest that something else is going on, other than random chance aided by
natural selection? Does it not suggest, perhaps, that nature does not achieve
complexity by lucky accidents filtered by natural selection, but has a built-in
tendency towards complexity, which it realizes in different evolutionary
lineages, according to local environmental or genomic constraints? And how can
such a tendency be accounted for, in Darwinian terms, or indeed, in terms of
any purely mechanistic natural science? Why should matter behave in such an
upward-organizing way?”

Mr. Opderbeck, you and I are quite competent to ask such questions. And it is
wrong, utterly wrong, morally, pedagogically, scientifically, and politically,
for Darwinist scientists, when we ask such questions, to say: “Biology is an
extremely complex subject, and not for lay people. You wouldn’t understand our
answers and therefore are not competent to criticize them. Just trust us when
we say that the majority of scientists find the evidence for Darwinism
overwhelming, and leave the science to us.” Such answers are cowardly,
evasive, defensive, bullying, and contemptible all at once. Not one of my
teachers of mathematics, physics, or chemistry ever asked me to accept as true
a fact, theory, hypothesis or speculation without giving me reasons which were
understandable to me. I was always encouraged to confirm the truths of those
subjects for myself. Not once did they ever pull the “argument from
authority”. Why is that, of all scientists, it is only the evolutionary
biologists have to use the “argument from authority” to silence dissent? The
best way to silence dissent is to provide evidence. And the best way to get
students and the general republic to respect the truths that evolutionary
biology HAS established is for them not to bluff, lie or mislead about what
they know and don’t know. There would be a lot less disrespect for
evolutionary biologists if they were more humble, more honest about their
ignorance, and less inclined to boast about how Darwinism is as certain as
Newton’s laws or the germ theory of disease, when everybody knows that it

So don’t be afraid, Mr. Opderbeck. You have a fine mind. Even Korthof says
that a non-biologist should be allowed to read Denton if he has a critical
mind. You have that. Read Denton. He won’t corrupt you. If he’s nonsense to
your mind, throw him away. But I think you will find that he blows your mind.
I already knew how weak the Darwinian theory was at a few key points, but I did
not realize, until I read Denton, that I had only scratched the surface of its
weaknesses. So read Denton. Read Berlinski. Read the essays in Uncommon
Dissent. Over half of them are superb. Read both of Behe’s books, if you have
enough general chemistry from high school and undergrad that you feel
comfortable with the material. And if Sternberg starts publishing stuff, look
at it. Sternberg’s a keeper. The Darwinists don’t want you to read these
guys. That means you probably should.

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 Tue Sep 30 22:35:42 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Sep 30 2008 - 22:35:42 EDT