Joined: Sep. 2006
Some highlights from Behe's blog:
|Part I: Like almost all reviews by Darwinists, this one begins with a genuflection to the Dover trial, where a former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Board-appointed-judge, showing no evidence he actually understood the academic arguments of either side, copied almost word for word the document handed to him at the end of the trial by the lawyers for the complainant. This was his “decision.” For signing off on a document castigating intelligent design the apparently clueless judge got his picture in Time magazine, was bequeathed honorary degrees, and has been lionized by all the right people.|
Always good to start with the traditional scientific boilerplate, "former-head-of-the-Pennsylvania-Liquor-Control-Board-appointed-judge".
|Part II: Truly in this instance the Darwinian elephant labored mightily and brought forth a gnat. |
A gnat being a very complex organism.
|Part III: And this: “He is obsessed with ‘randomness,’ which he incorrigibly associates with ‘Darwinism’ and cosmic purposelessness.” Now, wait a darn second. Wasn’t it Darwin himself, we are constantly assured, who based his theory on “random” variation? |
As Nick points out, Darwin didn't know the source or nature of variation, the word 'random' never appearing in Origin of Species.
"Itâ€™s like Zachriel spores all over the internet."