Behe/Newton, bombardier beetle

Rich Daniel (
Thu, 27 May 1999 18:32:34 -0400 (EDT)

Paracelcus wrote:
> Rich Daniels wrote:
>> I find it odd that you admire Behe so much and yet think he's mistaken
>> about common descent, when you claim that the evidence for common
>> descent is (paraphrasing) obvious trash to anyone who doesn't have an
>> ideological axe to grind.
>> Is Behe so stupid that he can't see the flaws in the evidence? Is he
>> so cowardly that he won't point them out (in spite of his bravery in
>> writing _Darwin's Black Box_)?
> Was Newton so stupid...?

Not a good analogy. Newton didn't have all the information available to
Einstein; Behe does have all the information available to you.

You have accused us of being blinded by ideology. Behe is obviously not
blinded in the same way, else he would not have written _Darwin's Black
Box_. I suppose your claim is that Behe is blinded, just to a lesser
extent. But it seems to me that if the evidence for common descent is
as ridiculously weak as you think it is, then any scientist who believes
in the possibility of divine intervention should agree with you that
common descent is a sham.

>> See
> I have already dealt with this in a previous post. They are nonsense,
> but I couldn't explain how or why without using concepts you apparently
> do not know or understand. Either that, or you know they are nonsense
> and will not admit it. The former is excusable, but the latter is not.

There's no need to insult me. Our acquaintance has been much too short
for you to have any idea what concepts I do or don't understand. If you
have already rebutted the bombardier beetle FAQ, your post
has not yet shown up in my mailbox.

We seem to be getting off to a rocky start. If I have offended you,
it was unintentional. Let's all please be as civilized as possible.

Rich Daniel