03-15-2005, 01:58 PM #1
This came from Ravi Zacharias.
Take, for example, professor Michael Behe’s book Darwin’s Black Box. Behe is Associate Professor of Biochemistry at Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. I cannot help but smile when I think of a professor from Bethlehem addressing the issue of origins— albeit a different Bethlehem. But the pun cannot but generate a smile. Larry King was not far off the mark. Behe’s book basically challenges the naturalist into recognizing that biochemically evolution is impossible. In just one of the many outstanding chapters he illustrates his point by describing the chemical changes that are set in motion to generate sight. From the moment a photon hits the retina to the end result of an imbalance of charge that causes a current to be trans-mitted down the optic nerve to the brain, resulting in sight, a series of chemical reactions have taken place that in evolution’s mechanism would have been impossible. His bottom-line argument is this: The irreducible complexity of the human cell meets Darwin’s test of what it would take to prove Darwinism false.
How does the scientific community react to this? One scientist sitting next to me at a meeting said, "Give us time; we will find an answer." If that was not a betrayal of bigotry in its determination to find materialistic answers at all costs, I do not know what is. If the theist uttered such hopes were theism to face such an impos-sible explanation, he or she would be mocked with the same venom that Darrow spewed upon William Jennings Bryan in the infamous Scopes trial. Buttressing this "naturalism at all costs mentality," Darwinism’s fiercest watchdog, Richard Dawkins at Oxford, unable to scien-tifically challenge Behe, dismissed him as intellectually lazy. "Tell him to go and find an answer in his own dis-cipline," he bellowed.
03-15-2005, 02:17 PM #2
in the evolution vs creationism thread I posted articles that disprove all of Behe's arguments. He has yet to respond to any critiscism on his theories and goes on pretending no one is presenting valid claims that disproves them.
Read throught this site
03-15-2005, 02:23 PM #3
Do you know who Dawkins is? If he cannot respond, I doubt any person you have found can respond, that site is silly.
03-15-2005, 04:10 PM #4Originally Posted by books555
But that site isnt silly. Just because the authors of the articels doesn aggre with you doesnt make it silly. They all make valid and good points, points that behe has avoided to even adress. I dont care how highly regarded this dawkins fellow is. He isnt the only authority. Read the site man, dont just judge it because it doesnt fit your view of the world. The article disproving the ireduccible(sp?) complexity issue is great.
03-15-2005, 04:27 PM #5
I have read it. I find the arguements irrelevant.
03-15-2005, 04:29 PM #6Originally Posted by books555
Well then we agree to disagre cause I find them convicing
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)