RE: Introduction

Pim van Meurs (
Sun, 23 May 1999 21:40:18 -0700

"Paracelcus" wrote:
...I'm a design theorist...

Rich Daniel replied:
Do you agree with Behe that the evidence for common descent is convincing? In particular, do you accept that man and apes have a common ancestor?

My comments:
Behe is an emminant scientist whose theory of irreducible complexity is nothing short of brilliant, but it doesn't go far enough. Whole organisms can be irreducibly complex, like humans. The idea that man evolved from apes (which is really what you are saying, isn't it Rich?) is too comical to take seriously.

Mere assertion especially given the available evidence supporting this. Well actually you should know better than that and should have stated man and apes share a common ancestor.

I mean, what could be more irreducibly complex than the human brain? Besides, the earth isn't old enough for any real "common descent" to have taken place.

Another unsupported assertion. It's interesting to notice that it has been shown that irreducibly complex systems can arise gradually so Behe's arguments do not hold much relevance.

Or take the bombardier beetle? How could it evolve such a complex and intricate defense mechanism one piece at a time without blowing itself up, poisoning itself or getting eaten because the mechanism misfires? There's a good example of organism-level irreducible complexity.

Could you expand on the bombardier beetle argument. How would it blow itself up ?

Rich Daniel inquired:
Have you read

My comments:
I have; it's utter crap, and that's putting it mildly. A couple of brain-dead know-nothings who don't understand the subject they are trying to "critique" (hatchet-job would be a better description). If they

Nice ad hominem but really your response shows how empty creation "science" really is.

think they can refute Behe, why don't they published their "results" in peer-reviewed journals like Behe has? Because they know any good biochemist would cut them to ribbons. They would rather write propoganda pieces for the electronic equivolent of a scandel sheet than do any real science.

Is that why there are so few published creation scientists? No your argument does not hold.