• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

I've got a live one here! Intelligent Design.

Psiload

Master Poster
Psiload
Joined
Nov 14, 2001
Messages
2,102
We've had a spate of articles in my local newspaper recently on the topic of Intelligent Design. The following letter to the editor was published in today's paper:

Put Evolution to the Test

Of the many letters commenting on the God Squad's column on intelligent design versus evolution["'Good Science' can coexist with religion," Faith, Aug20], not one mentioned "Darwin's Black Box," the best-seller by Michael Behe, professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University. No one can reasonably defend Darwin's theory of evolution without responding to the many scientific challanges set fourth in this brilliant work.
Biochemistry, the study of the very basis of life, its principles and discoveries of the past few decades, raises major questions for Darwin adherents. Most of these issues have not only not been addressed but, worse, involve questions to which many "scientists" are totally oblivious.
Behe and other biochemists have served scientific inquiry well, and those defending Darwin's theory owe us answers to Behe's foundational questions. Behe finds intelligent design to be far more plausible an explanation for man's origins than any theory of evolution and random selection. I suppose this disturbs some secular humanists, atheists, and uninformed science teachers, sort of like the big bang thoery did a few decades ago, but true science seeks the truth, not censorship.

Frank J. Russo

Editor's note: The author is president of the American Family Association of New York
Click to expand...

I e-mailed Mr. Russo and provided him with several critiques of Michael Behe's book:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Within minutes, he responded with the following:

Please advise as to where Dr. Behe's questions have been adequately addressed and answered?
Regards,
FR
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

I've offered him an invitation to our fine forum. Shall we hold our collective breath?
 
*Holds breath*

...


*Goes pink in the face*


...


*Goes blue in the face*


Also, the whole thing screams Argument from Authority.
 
I like the way he substituted random selection for natural selection, while in the same breath bemoaning "uninformed science teachers."

If this is True Science, then I'd hate to get a taste of his True Religion.
 
He responded:

Don't understand what you are talking about---I asked where--what books--have addressed Behe's questions. Did I miss your answer?
FR
Click to expand...

Oh brother... :rolleyes:

If it's not written in a book, then it's not "adequate". Ideas aren't worth more than the paper they're printed on.

Just when you'd thought you'd heard it all.

I pointed him in this direction:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...1/103-6902350-0807821?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...3/103-6902350-0807821?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...3/103-6902350-0807821?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

and my personal favorite:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...5/103-6902350-0807821?_encoding=UTF8&v=glance

I'm wondering if he's just being belligerent, or if he's really not aware that such books exist... could that be possible?
 
Psiload said:
We've had a spate of articles in my local newspaper recently on the topic of Intelligent Design. The following letter to the editor was published in today's paper:



I e-mailed Mr. Russo and provided him with several critiques of Michael Behe's book:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/science/creationism/behe.html

http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html

Within minutes, he responded with the following:

:rolleyes:

I've offered him an invitation to our fine forum. Shall we hold our collective breath?
Click to expand...

Normally I would be an advocate of intelligent discussion and debate, but if he can't figure out he's being criticized in that e-mail, chances are he couldn't find valid criticism if it shouted in his face while beating him over the head with a rusty pick-axe. If he shows up he's just going to obliviously post the same old arguments and dodge important questions, etc...

I could be wrong, but given the history of this forum, I'd rather not risk finding out.
 
For the love of all things dull and ugly...

His response:

Would you simply list in words 2 or 3 of the best books in your judgment written providing answers to Dr.Behe's fundamental questions for evolution/random selection adherents. No amazon.com links---just a couple of titles.
Click to expand...

I fear I may have to resort to sock puppets to get my point across.
 
I, for one, don't want to try to argue with someone so obtuse that they're not prepared to follow a link to a book on amazon.
 
Psiload,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you did say you were emailing this guy, right? You're saying that he has a glowing red link on his screen that is one click away from the titles he's looking for and that is insufficient?

Maybe he's one of those people who prints out their email to read it. Either way, that just makes my head hurt.
 
The latest:

Thank you. That's what I was trying to get from you--sorry it took 3 emails. We're taping five tv programs tomorrow. Once that's done, I hope to find time to check out one of those books.Regards,'
FR
Click to expand...
That explains it...

He's just a simple fundy who fell on some ice and was later thawed by some of your "scientists"... this modern interweb thingy frightens and confuses him.

Yet he has a webpage... go figger:

http://www.afany.org/

He's too intimidated by the internet to do any research, yet he's confident enough in his opinions to fire off a letter to the editor accusing others of being "oblivious".

Now I understand why Jesus wept.

In my next e-mail, I'm going to ask him if he feels an apology is in order now that he's been made aware that the "scientists" are not quite as oblivious as he'd assumed.
 
Mojo said:
I don't want to look at his webite.

Could you ask him if he's had any books published? ;)
Click to expand...

He does a fundy show on local cable access. I believe I've skimmed by it in the past. I'll have to check it out now.

He's also one of those guys who spends his weekends standing in front of Planned Parenthood holding up huge pictures of aborted fetuses.
 
Response:

Upon reading the overviews of the three books you listed, I see that they are all basically focusing upon attacks on Intelligent Design and/or Creationism. Which of the three books in your view contains the most extensive, or the best, defense of evolution, responding to Behe's criticisms and questions?
Click to expand...
Anybody? I've read so many of these books that they tend to bleed together in my memory. Anybody know which one specifically and/or most extensively critiques Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box'?

The guy sounds like a real one-trick-pony Behe fan.
 
Latest:
Also, my letter stating "Most of these issues have not only not been addressed, but worse, involve questions to which many (his emphasis) "scientists" are totally oblivioous."Many" is an understatement by any stretch. I just wanted to be gentle. The statement is completely accurate. Your mis-reading of it is not indicative of the desirable scientific traits of carefulness and precision.
Click to expand...

He's trying to save himself by bringing to my attention his crafty use of 'weasel words' in his letter to the editor.


That sly devil. He's outfoxed me!

It's true! Many "scientists"... like the chemist guy who formulates the artificial coloring agent used in the manufacturing process of Cheez-Its... haven't responded directly to the questions posed in 'Darwin's Black Box', and dagnabbit! These "scientists" OWE him answers!
 
He's being dishonest here in that he's quoting himself out of context. The immediately preceding sentence in his letter makes it clear who he is referring to when he talks about "scientists." Or alternatively, it makes the dishonest intent of the letter abundantly apparent.

OK, have you tried asking him if he's prepared to claim that many evolutionary biologists (or as he describes them "Darwin adherents") are oblivious to these questions.
 
Mojo said:
He's being dishonest here in that he's quoting himself out of context. The immediately preceding sentence in his letter makes it clear who he is referring to when he talks about "scientists." Or alternatively, it makes the dishonest intent of the letter abundantly apparent.

OK, have you tried asking him if he's prepared to claim that many evolutionary biologists (or as he describes them "Darwin adherents") are oblivious to these questions.
Click to expand...
That's basically the response I just sent him. I told him I wasn't interested in semantic hair-splitting. I asked him if the intent of his letter was to paint a picture of a scientific community that was incapable, unwilling, or even afraid to respond the Behe's questions. And given the information that I've provided him with, would he agree that this is, in fact, by no means the case.

We'll see.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom