Post reply

Reply to the message by David Turell

Name:

E-mail: (optional, won't be displayed directly)

Leave this field empty:

Homepage: (optional)

Leave this field empty:

Location: (optional)

Remember me (cookie)

Category:

Subject:

Formatting help

skip to input

format text bold: [b]bold text[/b]
format text italic: [i]italic text[/i]
insert hyperlink: [link=http://example.com/]link text[/link] / [link]http://example.com/[/link]
set text color: [color=#rgb]colored text[/color]
font size: [size=small]small text[/size]; [size=large]large text[/size]
insert list: [list][*]list item[/list]
insert image: [img]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; left: [img=left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; right: [img=right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail: [img=thumbnail]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail left: [img=thumbnail-left]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]; thumbnail right: [img=thumbnail-right]http://example.com/image.jpg[/img]

:-)
;-)
:-P
:-D
:-|
:-(

Message:

> >  > In reply to David Turell&apos;s latest comment. Professor Behe&apos;s views have been disowned by his own University: >  > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Behe >  > The Department of Biological Sciences at Lehigh University  > has published an official position statement which says  > "It is our collective position that intelligent design  > has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally,  > and should not be regarded as scientific." >  > Another well-known creationist, Professor Andy McIntosh of Leeds, has also had his views disowned by his institution: >  > http://www.leeds.ac.uk/media/news/mcintosh.htm >  > "As an academic institution, the University wishes to distance itself publicly from theories of creationism and so-called intelligent design which cannot be verified by evidence." >  > I have seen Prof. McIntosh speak at one of the creation conferences held in Leicester. He is a passionate speaker, and believes in a literal interpretaion of Genesis. - I am aware of all the Lehigh comments. That does not change the fact that Behe&apos;s scientific thinking in his books are valid starting points for considering differing sides of scientific questions regarding Darwin&apos;s theory. Unless all opinions are considered, and I&apos;ve read Kenneth Miller, for example, there is no point in reaching a conclusion. Reading only one side leads to robotic thought, not opinion. Current scientific opinion regarding Darwin is a current consensus, without current proof. Natural Selection may lead to speciation, but there is no current proof. The Altenberg Conference, when published, will give new insights, and I eagerly await it. And one should know to beware of Wikipedia, which may be edited or slanted by almost anyone, although what is quoted about Lehigh is correct.  - As I have pointed out before, in the medical community it was accepted gospel that stomach acid caused ulcers until two nutty downunderers wondered about the funny bugs in surgical specimens, grew out H. Pylori, and changed the entire treatment of ulcers, although the acceptance took 20 years! Beware of Kuhn!