Sunday, March 30, 2014

Contextual mathematics of direct contact with nature, emotion, explanatory grace, poetry and prose......

's review
Aug 01, 08

Recommended to Stephen by: found it myself
Recommended for: anyone interested
Read in May, 2005

I have noticed that all the reviews of this book that are negative or refer to it as well debunked and (every scientist already knows this is crap). Not one can give a specific simple example of how behe can be challenged. simply stated they have no such answer. They can't. Because Behe is right. no matter whether you believe in creationism or design or evolution or what ever your stance, there simply is no well articulated answer to his argument. when someone points one out. not with some footnote, but a real explanation for how complexity of this order of magnitude can arise by darwinian mechanisms then ,...hooray but i havent seen it anywhere in any review or any analysis by some great scientist such as dawkins, wilson, dennet or any other. Because they simply dont have a rebuttal that makes sense in the darwinian mechanism. maybe there is some other mechanism that can be at work. I dont claim to be a creationist but scientists ought to look at their shortcomings with some guts, instead of just poo pooing what they've read. come on give us a real response that can really challenge what Behe has come up with. be brave. where are you???
12 likes · likeflag

Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read Darwin's Black Box.
sign in »

Comments (showing 1-4 of 4) (4 new)

dateDown_arrow    newest »

Brian Hodges You're right. Behe IS right, that when you look at certain biochemical processes, some things don't make sense. There are some things we don't know. There are some glaring things that science has not yet figured out. BUT, where Behe makes his mistake is when he jumps from "we don't know how this happens" to "it MUST BE Design." Sorry, that's not how science works. If we threw up our hands every time we didn't have an answer to something and said, "Oop, it must be God," we'd never figure ANYTHING out.

As I pointed out in my own review of this book, Behe does make some interesting points about certain gaps in the natural selection theory. If he had left it at that, I could have gone with him. It's when he says, "well we don't know what it is, but it LOOKS like this so it must be that," that he lost me.

No comments:

Post a Comment