Re: new from dembski on the flagellum

"Frank J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

> Or more importantly from a scientific perspective, how the design was
> actuated, if not by evolution. The most amazing part of Dembski's
> double standard is that there are people actually working on
> potentially alternative mechanisms (Kauffman comes to mind), and all
> he does is criticize *them* for not having all the answers. Meanwhile
> he has *no* answers, nor is he even looking for one.

most recently, he has dragged kauffman out to whip
the 'pro-darwinian lobbyists' with. (why doesn't genie
scott insist that kauffman's work be included in high
school biology textbooks?  because it will 'confuse
kids about evolution as a science')  what is that, a
double-double standard?

>
> >  This kind of questioning seems entirely analogous to asking
> > what the selective advantage of a particular feature is, and to be
skeptical
> > of one while promoting another seems to require a bit of willful
cognitive
> > dissonance.

--
All kinds of strange things go on there.
Everybody knows that if you head into
the Republic of Texas, anything can
happen.  That's why we all stay here in
Colorado.  (Kathleen Ann Goonan)

> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Steven Carr
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/
> > >
>