Re: Behe demonstrates astounding ignorance of science

John Vreeland wrote:
On Panda's Thumb a few days ago, I read this:

http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/12/behes_confusion.html

The main Behe quote (there is more on the site) is this:

The National Academy of Sciences has objected that intelligent design
is not falsifiable, and I think that’s just the opposite of the truth.
Intelligent design is very open to falsification. I claim, for
example, that the bacterial flagellum could not be produced by natural
selection; it needed to be deliberately intelligently designed. Well,
all a scientist has to do to prove me wrong is to take a bacterium
without a flagellum, or knock out the genes for the flagellum in a
bacterium, go into his lab and grow that bug for a long time and see
if it produces anything resembling a flagellum. If that happened,
intelligent design, as I understand it, would be knocked out of the
water. I certainly don’t expect it to happen, but it’s easily
falsified by a series of such experiments.
/end quote

Of course, even if it was demonstrated that a flagellum could have
evolved (which has already been done) Behe would be the first to claim
that it had not, actually falsified ID but had only demonstrated that
the flagellum was an insufficient example. As was the eye. And blood
clotting proteins and all the other examples he has come up with so
far.


Sounds *exactly* like his feeble attempt at Dover...

--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)

.