You remind me of a member here who used to complain constantly that his free speech rights were being violated because people who agree with him criticized him. Now you're alleging by implication that you're being excluded from the discussion--and yet here you are, right in the middle of the discussion. You could benefit from a sense of proportion, as well as a common sense application of a rather obvious logic.
You make a claim, and when challenged, simply link to a suspect web site with an article by a suspect individual. They are both suspect because the promote a point of view biased against evolutionary theory due to religious proclivities. In his ruling in the Kitzmiller versus Dover School District
case, Judge Jones pointed out several failures on the part of Mr. Behe to make his case, and several instances in which Behe effectively admitted that so-called intelligent design is a religious point of view, and not scientific evidence. From the ruling: Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God.
; and As no evidence in the record indicates that any other scientific proposition's validity rests on belief in God, nor is the Court aware of any such scientific propositions, Professor Behe's assertion constitutes substantial evidence that in his view, as is commensurate with other prominent ID leaders, ID is a religious and not a scientific proposition.
; and First, defense expert Professor Fuller agreed that ID aspires to 'change the ground rules' of science and lead defense expert Professor Behe admitted that his broadened definition of science, which encompasses ID, would also embrace astrology.
; and We therefore find that Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large.
; and Professor Behe has applied the concept of irreducible complexity to only a few select systems: (1) the bacterial flagellum; (2) the blood-clotting cascade; and (3) the immune system. Contrary to Professor Behe's assertions with respect to these few biochemical systems among the myriad existing in nature, however, Dr. Miller presented evidence, based upon peer-reviewed studies, that they are not in fact irreducibly complex.
; and In addition, Professor Behe agreed that for the design of human artifacts, we know the designer and its attributes and we have a baseline for human design that does not exist for design of biological systems. Professor Behe's only response to these seemingly insurmountable points of disanalogy was that the inference still works in science fiction movies.
You might also look at the ruling in Association of Christian Schools International versus Roman Stearns
. Behe was paid $20,000 to testify in that case, and the judge writing the ruling was as unimpressed with Behe's alleged scientific statements as was Mr. Jones in the Kitzmiller
In your remark to which I have objected, and to which I continue to object, you did not say that Michael Behe has said this, you spoke as though you yourself knew that evolution was statistically improbable. Therefore, you own the statement, and you need to defend the claim. As with all of your silly word salad and scientific woo-woo here, you provide no substantiation and no evidence. You just make up new silly claims, such as that Michelson-Morley was "misinterpreted." If this thread were a tennis match, it would be 40-love in every set, and it would be set scores of 6-0 and 6-0.
You lose, game over.
From the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace and World Affairs, here is a précis of the case
. You can look up Judge Jones' ruling on your own, if you like. You've not been excluded from the discussion, and neither has the charlatan Behe--but you've both been spanked, which is no more than you deserve.