Posted: Feb 13, 2015 3:52 am
Calilasseia wrote:Let's take a look at this shall we?
JayJay, I really wonder at times what fantasy parallel universe you're occupying, because NONE of your assertions bears even the most tenuous connection to observational reality. The notion that Behe is some sort of intellectual gadfly stinging the rest of biology into seeing the light, is not merely fucking laughable, it's deranged, palsied, encephalitic, and bordering on the clinically insane. Behe is a failtard, he's a wank-break shill for a wank-break ideology, the pedlars of which are professional liars for doctrine without exception, and the idea that his vomitings rise above the level of chimpanzee shit flinging, is another of those deranged notions that only a totally blinkered creationist ideological stormtrooper could treat as being worthy of something other than scorn and derision.
Cali, don’t you ever consider that you might be going too far in your bad mouthing of people you disagree with? No governor on your tongue? You get hoity-hoity when I dare criticise the work of establishment scientists, (never their persons) you call that traducing. Yet you give yourself permission to vomit all over Michael Behe. It’s unseemly and it’s uninsightful. Behe is no gadfly he is just a scientist who marveled so deeply at the functionality of what he saw through the microscope as to disbelieve that it could have happened through trial and error. And he is a stubborn cove. Institutional science can put up with a few people like him.
I don’t myself think that Behe is on the money, but he may be onto something that can be turned upside down into truth by reexamining what we mean by human design of things; that it is an exploration of what is creatively possible: the creativity doesn’t subsist in the designer but in what is possible within that state or level of technology.
Anyway that wasn’t the point I wanted to make, I wanted to point to the value of skeptical courage; the problem with the Christian evolutionist Kenneth R Miller is that he uncritically accepts what he never should have, that a human observer can see imperfections in natural design , at first glance . One way or another that is hubris; the characteristic fault of the atheist.