Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mike · 08-14-2002, 11:41 AM

For interesting scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution read "The Science of God" by physicist Gerald Schroeder and "Darwin's Black Box" by molecular biologist Michael Behe. Behe also quotes others of the scientific community that are dissatisfied with Darwin. Some go so far as to say that the paradigm has outlived its usefulness. Controversial, yes, but I challenge you to critique the science.

Sci_Fidelity · 08-14-2002, 11:57 AM

Mike,

Thanks for your references, but generally people here are quite aware of them, in particular Behe. His work has been thoroughly critiqued here and elsewhere, and, might I say, has been literally ripped apart by scientists in his own field. Nice try though.

pz · 08-14-2002, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mike:
<strong>For interesting scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution read "The Science of God" by physicist Gerald Schroeder and "Darwin's Black Box" by molecular biologist Michael Behe. Behe also quotes others of the scientific community that are dissatisfied with Darwin. Some go so far as to say that the paradigm has outlived its usefulness. Controversial, yes, but I challenge you to critique the science.</strong>

Behe's book is dreck. Be a little more specific than just naming the whole book, and I'd be happy to meet your challenge -- although you might want to just browse talkorigins.org, first, where DBB is rather thoroughly disemboweled.

Mike · 08-14-2002, 12:38 PM

Thank you for the reference, I'll check it out.

Mike.

Lizard · 08-14-2002, 03:11 PM

You might also visit

<a href="http://www.talkdesign.org" target="_blank">Talk Design</a>

for extensive debunking of Dembski's mathematical probability stuff.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-14-2002, 11:41 AM	#71
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	For interesting scientific alternatives to Darwinian evolution read "The Science of God" by physicist Gerald Schroeder and "Darwin's Black Box" by molecular biologist Michael Behe. Behe also quotes others of the scientific community that are dissatisfied with Darwin. Some go so far as to say that the paradigm has outlived its usefulness. Controversial, yes, but I challenge you to critique the science.

08-14-2002, 11:57 AM	#72
Sci_Fidelity Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 595	Mike, Thanks for your references, but generally people here are quite aware of them, in particular Behe. His work has been thoroughly critiqued here and elsewhere, and, might I say, has been literally ripped apart by scientists in his own field. Nice try though.

08-14-2002, 12:38 PM	#74
Mike Regular Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 100	Thank you for the reference, I'll check it out. Mike.

08-14-2002, 03:11 PM	#75
Lizard Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Kansas Posts: 169	You might also visit <a href="http://www.talkdesign.org" target="_blank">Talk Design</a> for extensive debunking of Dembski's mathematical probability stuff.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.