Saturday, June 14, 2008 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Behe's Empty Box

by John Catalano

Behe's Empty Box

Some years ago, John Catalano, of New York, was a kind of predecessor of Josh who ran a website which was a kind of predecessor of this one. One of the many good things John did was to maintain a section called "Behe's Empty Box". You might be surprised that it is necessary to pay attention to Behe. Unfortunately, it is. I frequently get letters from people who have read Darwin's Black Box and seem persuaded by it. It is very useful to refer them to Behe's Empty Box. It has not been maintained now for seven years but, since nothing worthwhile has come from Behe during that time, it is still very valuable and we are posting a link to it here.

Richard Dawkins

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

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Saturday, June 14, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 50 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #193034 by mordacious1 on June 14, 2008 at 1:21 pm

"...nothing worthwhile has come from Behe during that time."

That is an understatement.

Behe: "...from the evidence, I think intelligent design is the best explanation."

Does one need to know more from this guy? I think not.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #193040 by Philip1978 on June 14, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Richard

I find it very odd you still get letters about this chap, I suppose the religious mind is not something one can possibly fathom, but with all he has been through do you not think throwing in the towel would be a good thing? (Thinking about it I am perfectly sure his knowledge of where his towel is would be a more suited case for Sherlock Holmes or Morse after a good pint of Oxford ale!). I would have thought after all that has happened to Behe his credibility has sunk to such lows that digging or gargantuan sized drills would have to be incorporated to find it!

Well, please keep up the good work in persuading people that irreducible complexity is in fact a swear word and I will keep learning better truths, I promise! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

3. Comment #193044 by LaTomate on June 14, 2008 at 1:51 pm

Isn't Michael Behe the one who testified in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District in favor of creationism in front of a conservative judge and lost?

Why isn't the word out about that? Why would anyone want to listen to his explanations anyway after that?

What a sad state of affairs. They lose and yet keep coming back to waste everyone's time and effort with their rubbish.

Other Comments by LaTomate

4. Comment #193068 by EvidenceOnly on June 14, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Behe's box contains NO scientific evidence.

His box, however, is like the (lack of) discovery institute filled to the rim with lies for jesus. From that angle, it is definitely not empty.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

5. Comment #193074 by stereoroid on June 14, 2008 at 2:29 pm

The link to the H Allen Orr article on that page is bust, but it's online at Boston Review, here. Good stuff.

Also, Behe's responses to Orr and other critics are here. Sample quote:

"Professor Ruse asks if I have the right to appeal to design as a scientist. Well, many scientists already appeal to design. I mentioned the SETI program earlier; clearly those scientists think they can detect design (and nonhuman design at that.) Forensic scientists routinely make decisions of whether a death was designed (murder) or an unfortunate accident.

Oh, the agony...

Other Comments by stereoroid

6. Comment #193110 by Layla Nasreddin on June 14, 2008 at 3:51 pm

Michael Behe? The guy Time magazine saw fit to write about Dawkins in their Time 100 list? I guess somebody thinks he's still important!

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

7. Comment #193113 by Philip1978 on June 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm

Layla Nasreddin

Yes, that be the same Behe, a very silly man indeed, so silly that he got his arse well and truly booted into obscurity when he started making ridiculous and erroneous claims about Flagellum Motors at the Dover Drubbing, I mean, Trial!

He is not important, more of the black sheep of the family who never evolved! :)

Other Comments by Philip1978

8. Comment #193114 by LochRaven on June 14, 2008 at 4:01 pm

EvidenceOnly - Just to add to that, my bowels aren't empty either, but we all know what they contain. :-)

Other Comments by LochRaven

9. Comment #193127 by SPS on June 14, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Pardon me for recycling part of my post on Dinesh D'Souza's blog entry with a slight edit:
http://news.aol.com/newsbloggers/2008/06/12/can-a-darwinian-be-a-christian/27#comments

I know some here have been making assertions about science in defense of their faith. I am curious. Would you be as comfortable making these claims in an auditorium full of evolutionary biologists, physicists, mathematicians, etc? Would you be open to being shown incorrect?
Some have posed that intelligent design/creation make sense, because certain things are 'impossible'. Why do you then credit a creator in doing the impossible whose methods you do not know, and who believers readily admit they cannot comprehend? Why do you not allow for the first, and allow for the second? Why are you searching for an evidence based god? If evidence is important then where does that place the importance of your faith? Would you still believe without "evidence". If you would believe without evidence doesn't this reveal you as biased against it?
A yes or no answer will suffice for most of these questions, but answer as you wish.

Other Comments by SPS

10. Comment #193129 by mordacious1 on June 14, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Layla

Twin towers behind you in your avatar? Subtle point about religion.

Other Comments by mordacious1

11. Comment #193131 by Pythagoras on June 14, 2008 at 5:46 pm

The idea of irreducible complexity needs to be hit on the head. The whole idea of irreducibly complex systems as disproving evolution is logically unsound. It just indicates a lack of imagination.

If a system is irreducibly complex, i.e. removing any one part will stop it from functioning; does that imply that it could not have evolved? The answer is NO it does not! The whole irreducible complexity argument is invalid from the outset. Since evolution can add and remove parts, and parts can serve multiple purposes, there is no reason that the parts in an irreducibly complex system evolved for the purpose they currently have. The parts may have been part of another system which originally served a different purpose. The system that the parts evolved to support may have changed or disappeared.

There are plenty of known examples of this kind of thing. The mammalian ear comes to mind. I'm sure biologists could come up with many more.

Regards,
Pythagoras

Other Comments by Pythagoras

12. Comment #193134 by mordacious1 on June 14, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Pythagoras

Irreducible complexity has been demolished so often it is ridiculous. Each and every argument that the cretinists have, has been trashed by the scientific community and others over and over again (and in public forums, like Dover). Yet they keep bringing them up. The Dover trial should have been on the four major networks, then maybe people would listen and learn. I doubt it though. Plus they would have had to bump, "Dancing with the Stars".

The believers look at Kirk Cameron's crocoduck, and say "yeah, that evolution stuff is nonsense". Let's face it, alot of these people are just too damn stupid to walk and breath at the same time.

There, I got that out of my system for the day.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #193147 by Layla Nasreddin on June 14, 2008 at 8:30 pm

mordacious1 wrote:

Layla

Twin towers behind you in you avatar? Subtle point about religion.

Uh, yeah, why do you think I chose that picture? My life was affected, indirectly, by those two buildings (and their destruction) far, far more than I would ever have dreamed...go figure.

I've been looking this guy up on Google and he seems a right...well, I won't say it. The adjective "mendacious" comes to mind. (By the way, did you know there's such a thing as CreationWiki? I didn't!)

Where IS John Catalano these days, incidentally?

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

14. Comment #193163 by Vinelectric on June 14, 2008 at 11:11 pm

Layla,

Tried to follow your example.I've never been to Afghanistan, but still...

Other Comments by Vinelectric

15. Comment #193201 by Layla Nasreddin on June 15, 2008 at 12:08 am

Vinelectric,

Very nice!

I still have the ticket for the observation deck at the World Trade Center, from when I dragged family members all the way to NYC, so it really hit hard. "I was there!"

Incidentally, I like the name of that site -- The World of Richard Dawkins. "It's Richard Dawkins's world, we just live in it," as the snowclone (a kind of linguistic meme) would have it.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

16. Comment #193228 by rod-the-farmer on June 15, 2008 at 2:39 am

I tried the creationwiki web site, and it is down. There is, however, one link that works. "Locations of visitors to this page

http://www3.clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php?url=http://creationwiki.org

which is rather telling in that the bulk of the people are from the U.S., despite there being versions in other languages, according to the main page.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

17. Comment #193229 by Enlightenme.. on June 15, 2008 at 2:57 am

^^I went with my brother and a friend in May 2000, and May 2001, I might just scan one of my view from the top photos to make another avatar (yours could do with a bit of photoshopping for exposure balancing, Layla)
I also have some from a couple of ferry rides to NJ and Liberty.
I haven't been back since (my mate moved from Queens, so no floor to kip on!)
Right, I'm off to do some gliding over Wiltshire.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

18. Comment #193230 by stevencarrwork on June 15, 2008 at 3:08 am

Michael Behe wrote in Darwin's Black Box 'In The Blind Watchmaker Richard Dawkins tells his readers that even if a statue of the Virgin Mary waved to them, they should not conclude they had witnessed a miracle. Perhaps all the atoms of the statue's arm just happened to move in the same direction at once - a low-probability event to be sure, but possible. Most people who saw a statue come to life would tell Dawkins that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy, but they couldn't make him join the Church of England.'

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

19. Comment #193244 by Ian on June 15, 2008 at 3:47 am

The section he's referring to is on page 159 of my Penguin edition - it's in the index. :-D

No, not quite. The way I read it, Richard is trying to illustrate the difference of something which is impossible in principle and something which is merely massively unlikely. There is no law which states that all the atoms in an object can't move in unison, but it's only one vanishingly small possibility among all the permutations in which the billions of atoms could move.

Behe is telling the truth in order to decieve, a common tactic among the religious.

Other Comments by Ian

20. Comment #193261 by nalfeshnee on June 15, 2008 at 4:52 am

I think the only link one needs to give people interested in ID is the http://www.uncommondescent.com/resources/ page.

If you follow that link, you will see an empty page, with the words "Coming soon".

Somehow, I doubt it.

ID has no resources - just like Behe's empty box.

(Incidentally, the blog is worth reading for its comedy value.)

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

21. Comment #193264 by stevencarrwork on June 15, 2008 at 5:07 am

So Behe was telling the truth? Dawkins would never regard a waving statue as a sign from God, and would prefer an explanation that he himself says that is just so improbable that it beggars belief?

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

22. Comment #193268 by Steve Zara on June 15, 2008 at 5:43 am

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?

I wouldn't. It is at least conceivable that such a move is possible using something like a Star Trek transporter. Or, someone could be influencing my mind. Or, Paul Daniels could be around somewhere.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #193270 by Wosret on June 15, 2008 at 5:51 am

"Yes it is clear from the 'evidence' that the universe was intelligently designed. Which evidence is that exactly? Well, my intuition, my hopes and dreams, my ignorance, and most powerful of all, the fact that you can't prove that it wasn't!"

"Now look over there while I play the switch-a roo with 'intelligent designer' and 'the christian god'."

More amazing than the water to wine one.

damn do these people love to obfuscate and hide in ambiguity. Then switch stuff up when you aren't looking.

Other Comments by Wosret

24. Comment #193271 by Wosret on June 15, 2008 at 5:55 am

It is never justified to call anything a supernatural evident. I think that Hume demonstrated this beautifully, and clearly. It presupposes a knowledge of nature that no one possesses. Without omniscience no one knows what isn't possible to occure by natural processes.

The very best we could say is, "that contradicts what we know about nature." if something that fitted that description were to occure, but of course the best explanation would be that our understanding of nature was wrong. Which is quite possible, since such knowledge is merely probabolistic, and fallable.

Other Comments by Wosret

25. Comment #193272 by BillySands on June 15, 2008 at 6:05 am

I think the only link one needs to give people interested in ID is the http://www.uncommondescent.com/resources/ page.

Just got this encouraging article about declining christianity off it

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article3890080.ece
I'll post it on the hellmoith thread just for DR

Other Comments by BillySands

26. Comment #193277 by Mark Smith on June 15, 2008 at 6:49 am

Was Behe telling the truth about Richard Dawkins here, when he claimed that Dawkins would not consider a waving statue a supernatural event?

A waving statue would be just that, a waving statue. Interestingly, most 'professional theologians' distinguish between amazing events and 'true miracles', the latter being ones which have an accompanying message (explicit or implicit) from the divinity and tending to do good. Behe might have been better picking something like an amputee 'miracled' a new leg.

Other Comments by Mark Smith

27. Comment #193278 by beeline on June 15, 2008 at 6:55 am

Am I the only one who noticed what an INCREDIBLY GREAT COLLECTION OF LINKS and INFORMATION there is on that page by John Catalano. An incredibly detailed and structured knowledge resource for everyone.

He sounds like an excellent guy.

Other Comments by beeline

28. Comment #193280 by Diocletian on June 15, 2008 at 7:09 am

Thanks Richard for reminding us about Catalano's website - and a huge thanks to Josh for creating the even more evolved RichardDawkins.net site!

Other Comments by Diocletian

29. Comment #193288 by Border Collie on June 15, 2008 at 7:59 am

Unfortunately, it's important to keep up with the Behe's of the world because their brand of tripe is the only education that much of the US receives. In a country where the school systems have gone to hell, many people get most or all of their "education" from church, religious schools, TV, tabloids, etc. which is to say, no education at all. Yippie ki yo ...

Other Comments by Border Collie

30. Comment #193290 by AdrianT on June 15, 2008 at 8:03 am

It is important that refutations of pseudo-science are available and easily accessible.

Simply refuting Behe's suppositions does not mean "irreducible complexity" stories about flagellum, the HIV-1 virus go away.

Only 3 months ago, one of the main Christian newspapers in the netherlands, Nederlands Dagblad, printed a silly article entitled "science says God exists", referring both to Behe's claims and about how remarkable snowflakes are, among others. (article in question is at following link:

http://www.nd.nl/Document.aspx?document=nd_artikel&vorigDocument=nd_zoekresultaten&id=109234

It really is like trying to stop weeds growing in the garden. So well done in providing a reference point that can help combat this!

Other Comments by AdrianT

31. Comment #193319 by EvidenceOnly on June 15, 2008 at 10:01 am

Ref. Comment #193290 by AdrianT

We have all experienced that bad news travels around faster than the speed of light and you have to work constantly to communicate good news.

In the same vain, GodDidIt-ists and IDiots (like Behe, Demski, Stein, the [un]Discovery Institute) manage to spread lies for jesus faster than the speed of light and we all have to work constantly to communicate TRUE science and evidence to the public.

Our job gets harder every day as the GodDidIt-ists and IDiots aided by right-wing politicians are dumbing down the general public.

We need to continue the fight for truth dough.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

32. Comment #193322 by Layla Nasreddin on June 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

Enlightenme.. wrote

^^I went with my brother and a friend in May 2000, and May 2001, I might just scan one of my view from the top photos to make another avatar (yours could do with a bit of photoshopping for exposure balancing, Layla)

Do you know how much balancing I did to get it as "good" as it is? It was an awful picture (exposure-wise) to begin with, alas...

rod-the-farmer wrote:

I tried the creationwiki web site, and it is down

Ha...maybe I crashed it (or something)! It was certainly there last night...and Behe was listed under "Creationists" and "Creation Scientists," which sort of gives the lie to his claim that he IS NOT a creationist!

beeline wrote:

Am I the only one who noticed what an INCREDIBLY GREAT COLLECTION OF LINKS and INFORMATION there is on that page by John Catalano.

I noticed! Especially entertaining was that 1985 smackdown of Rose, Kamin and Lewontin's book Not In Our Genes. Thank you to John Catalano, wherever you are!

Edit: Speaking of withering reviews, there's also Dawkins's devastating review of Behe's latest book The Edge of Evolution. Ouch...

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

33. Comment #193324 by moderndaythomas on June 15, 2008 at 10:16 am

Science in general is the measure of nature placed in the context of data to utilize in the persuit of advancing hypothesis to theories.
Placing competing hypothesis on a "scale" together with supporting data is part of the scientific method.
The heavyer of the two wins.

Why it is not prudent to practise this kind of scientific scrutiny in science classrooms with evolution on one side and creationism (or to play the three dressed up as a nine game, Intellegent Design)on the other is beyond me.

Religion is exempt from ridicule because of its status, but not ID!

Teach the controversy indeed.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

34. Comment #193343 by moderndaythomas on June 15, 2008 at 12:05 pm

Layla Nasreddin.

On Dawkin's review of Behe's second book:

"the book of a man who has given up. Trapped along a false path of his own rather unintelligent design, Behe has left himself no escape. Poster boy of creationists everywhere, he has cut himself adrift from the world of real science."

Pure poetry.

Other Comments by moderndaythomas

35. Comment #193442 by EvidenceOnly on June 15, 2008 at 3:49 pm

moderndaythomas,

Religion should not be exempt from ridicule because...
... it is ALL ridicule.

Anything that anyone anywhere claims that is not based on evidence should be ridiculed.

Society cannot grow up if we don't ridicule true nonsense.

We MUST ridicule religion, alchemy, astrology, the mercury retrogade, [un]intelligent design, ...

We MUST do it with the same force and clarity as we would do if someone would claim that 1 plus 1 is 3 (in base 10).

We should ridicule the ideas, while treating those who utter them as humans.

If they cannot see the difference between ridiculing ideas vs ridiculing themselves, then they have not evolved far enough on the human scale.

Other Comments by EvidenceOnly

36. Comment #193465 by Layla Nasreddin on June 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

CreationWiki is back up. If I didn't know better, I'd swear the whole thing was a massive joke, but of course it isn't. Which just proves the point that, really, you can never stop defending against this kind of misbegotten tripe, no matter how self-evidently ridiculous and unbelievable it seems to you, personally.

Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin

37. Comment #193527 by acs on June 15, 2008 at 7:24 pm

Behe's expose on the recent Lenski experiment is excellent. Behe considers the experiment in light of his book, The edge of evolution.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/A3DGRQ0IO7KYQ2/ref=cm_blog_blog

Here is a short quote:-

One of the major points of the book was that if only one mutation is needed to confer some ability, then Darwinian evolution has little problem finding it. But if more than one is needed, the probability of getting all the right ones grows exponentially worse. 'If two mutations have to occur before there is a net beneficial effect' if an intermediate state is harmful, or less fit than the starting state 'then there is already a big evolutionary problem.' (4) And what if more than two are needed? The task quickly gets out of reach of random mutation.

I havent seen a more silly argument from "personal incredulity" than this. What he is effectively saying is that, even though we can see this mutation, we can't build a scientific theory on it because it is not neat and simple. IDiot.

He really has mastered the argument from Personal Incredulity, otherwise known as the argument from Ignorance.

Other Comments by acs

38. Comment #193815 by Raiko on June 16, 2008 at 4:34 am

I always thought "Behe's Empty Box" was only a book-review-ish essay. And while we're on that essay, is there a German translation of it (or can I write one?). Behe's book is unfortunately also published in German and sadly enough, people tend to buy his nonsense. I'd love to point them to the essay, but it doesn't seem many of them speak English. And Kenenth Miller's "Finding Darwins God" is unfortunately not translated, as far as I know.

I think I meant the review by Orr when confusing the website with a review.

Other Comments by Raiko

39. Comment #194543 by acs on June 16, 2008 at 11:34 pm

37. Comment #193465 by Layla Nasreddin on June 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

CreationWiki is back up. If I didn't know better, I'd swear the whole thing was a massive joke, but of course it isn't. Which just proves the point that, really, you can never stop defending against this kind of misbegotten tripe, no matter how self-evidently ridiculous and unbelievable it seems to you, personally.

I found this great quote on CreationWiki today from http://atheistwarroom.blogspot.com/

Tony asks him how Adam and Eve could have lived in the Garden of Eden with a carnivorous tyrannosaurus, and instead of explaining that tyrannosaurs would have been vegetarians back then, instead gives him a book and leaves.

What big teeth you have Mr Tyrannosaur?

All the better to eat grass with.

Other Comments by acs

40. Comment #195485 by stevencarrwork on June 18, 2008 at 10:12 am

I see nobody has refuted Behe when he claimed Dawkins would prefer an 'explanation' of all the atoms in a statue moving together , to explain away a moving statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

41. Comment #197279 by Raiko on June 21, 2008 at 2:47 pm

I see nobody has refuted Behe when he claimed Dawkins would prefer an 'explanation' of all the atoms in a statue moving together , to explain away a moving statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary

What relevance does a hypothetically moving statue of anything have? Also, I would assume that no intelligent scientist, which includes Prof. Dawkins, would start off an examination by assuming the statue (or the atoms within) was moving by itself. I'm sorry Dr. Behe has yet again jumped ahead of himself by doing bad science.

Other Comments by Raiko

42. Comment #197406 by stevencarrwork on June 22, 2008 at 1:52 am

It was Dawkins , not Behe, who said the explanation of a moving statue of the Virgin Madonna was the atoms moving by themselves.

Read the last 2 pages of the God Delusion.

Other Comments by stevencarrwork

43. Comment #198008 by Raiko on June 23, 2008 at 3:42 am

I only have the audiobook of TGD, but I remember no such thing. If it was in the footnotes - I don't have those. I'll listen to the end part again, though, because if it is in there, I really want to hear it in context.

Also, nice contradiction:

see nobody has refuted Behe when he claimed Dawkins would prefer an 'explanation' of all the atoms in a statue moving together , to explain away a moving statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary

((emphasis added))

vs.

It was Dawkins , not Behe, who said the explanation of a moving statue of the Virgin Madonna was the atoms moving by themselves.

((emphasis added))

Could you please make up your mind?

---

EDIT: I listened to the last chapters on the TGD CDs and I could find nothing about a statue.

Other Comments by Raiko

44. Comment #202281 by bendigeidfran on July 1, 2008 at 8:11 am

I think it's from 'origins & miracles' in 'The Blind Watchmaker' (been 20yrs since I read it).I don't remember him expressing a preference...I remember it as a scale of probabilities from more likely events to less likely events written left to right. So starting on the left of your page you might have a perfect deal in bridge, then quite a way rightwards a replicating molecule, then quite a big way further rightwards (it's a big page) a single cell appearing from nowhere, then a couple of miles further right is your waving statue, and then damn! God just doesn't quite fit on the page.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

45. Comment #202284 by bendigeidfran on July 1, 2008 at 8:20 am

But put better of course. A Jehovah's Witness never returned my copy.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

46. Comment #202788 by bendigeidfran on July 2, 2008 at 1:36 am

So a statue waving by chance is more likely than a being with statue-waving powers. 'Free logic' is required to prefer the latter.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

47. Comment #210204 by Raiko on July 14, 2008 at 4:42 am

A statue waving by movements of the atoms through some natural, physical cause seems by far more likely than a statue with supernatural powers. This doesn't necessarily have to be a chance process, in my opinion.

What's your point then?

It seems to me that Dawkins might have picked an absolutely unlikely, irrelevant event and then shown that even IF that event took place, it still wouldn't be a good idea to credit it to supernatural powers. However, I have yet to read The Blind Watchmaker, so I wouldn't know his motivation.

Other Comments by Raiko

48. Comment #211524 by plyons on July 16, 2008 at 5:29 am

"I see nobody has refuted Behe when he claimed Dawkins would prefer an 'explanation' of all the atoms in a statue moving together , to explain away a moving statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary"

Aah! the 'Blessed Virgin Mary' waving. What's to refute? I think RD is clear. All the atoms moving together is highly improbable. A statue waving (or crying or bleeding) is impossible. We dont believe your fairy stories. How difficult is that to understand?

Other Comments by plyons

49. Comment #223822 by Raiko on August 3, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Sorry about earlier - I confused the names.

benedigeidfran, thanks for explaining where this came from and what it said.

It seems stevencarrowrk has fled the scene, anyway. I think plyons put it very succinctly. If stevencarrwork ever comes back, the best is to refer him to plyons, then. It's still beyond me what Behe has to do with anything.

Other Comments by Raiko

50. Comment #229047 by bendigeidfran on August 13, 2008 at 3:33 am

It's a game you'll find believers happy to play. The key is to get them to suggest the improbable events, so leave them the obvious ones like lottery wins etc. Then when you've got a good spread invite them to draw a line between what is possible and impossible based on how much time the universe has had. Generally they fall over themselves to correctly rule out spontaneous DNA, or cell generation, as usually someone has told them this is the foundation of Biology. Then pause for effect and ask them to place god.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

Reload Comments | Back to Top