Reply #59: "quack" is almost too nice for him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

I wouldn't piss on him if he were on fire.

Michael Behe has a doctoral degree in Biology for the sole reason that they don't revoke doctoral degrees for conduct unbecoming a scientist. Behe may have once impressed a doctoral committee, but he in now neither a scientist in general, or a biologist in specific.

Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is not a piece of scientific literature. It has, however, been reviewed and found lacking.

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

"Darwinism is the only scientific theory taught worldwide that has yet to be proved by the rigorous standards of science."

Evolution has been rigorously tested for the last hundred and sixty years. And nothing in biology makes sense without it.

"Darwin himself knew that the only way to verify the main tenets of his theory was to search the fossil record."

"Darwin was, obviously, unaware of the DNA record. (I'll give Darwin credit, what's your excuse?) However, the fossil record also proves evolution.

"How many years have passed, with hundreds of scientists from all specialties searching, and still what evidence has the fossil record revealed concerning Darwin's transistional species?"

160 years. Thousands of scientists. Hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed scientific papers, all confirming evolution.

"The late Harvard biologist Stephen Jay Gould, who is the antithesis of a Bible-thumping Creationist, acknowledged: 'All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically lacking.'"

Quote taken out of context. And found on many Creationists websites. A quick googling and...

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/gaps/gaps.htm

If you'd actually read Gould yourself, you'd see he spent a significant portion of his career fighting Creationists."

"I know I will probably get flamed for this post, but it needs to be said. Anyone that challenges Darwinian Evolution is not automatically nuts or religious."

I disagree. Anybody who actually looks at the science sees that Evolution is the only explanation. The only reason to disagree is because it conflicts with the literal interpretation of the Bible. And anybody who isn't nuts knows that the Bible isn't supposed to be taken literally.

"Science is supposed to be about the exchange of verifiable information, and observations; even if that is contradictory to what Science holds as true at present."

Which is exactly why Creationism isn't science. And Evolution is.

"Otherwise, we would still believe the world was flat, and that the Earth revolved around the Sun.
If you want to challenge Prof. Behe, do so in a manner which doesn't cheapen your opinion, such as name-calling"

Using your analogy, Darwin would be the scientist who proves the world is round, and the Creationists would be the nuts who still believed the world is flat because it says so in the Bible. A more historically accurate analogy would be Darwin as Galileo demonstrating the heliocentric model (that means the earth going around the sun) and the Creationists being the Papacy who simply say "no it doesn't. Not according to the Bible."