Which is the same as Behe’s

The article is Science Daily’s way of climbing down the darwinian ladder with ever so slow yet purposeful steps.

So evolution is finished and we observe fluctuating adaptive landscapes (not specifically directed toward ‘more’ fitness); IOW stasis.

Well, whaddaya know?

I would like to know if Behe is going to publish a review about this interesting study:http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....171726.htm
“Speed Limit To The Pace Of Evolution.”
This seems to be very important for ID. I’m surprise that none of the usual ID website commented on that. Maybe too busy posting on theological matters?

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.

Not quite.

The consensus does not decide what is the best explanation but it can be evidence that one is in play.

If you poll biologists the great majority will tell you evolution is the best theory they have. If you poll physicists, the vast majority will tell you that quantum and relativity theory are the two best theories they have.

Are they necessarily wrong because there is a consensus as Crichton would have it? Of course not. There is widespread agreement because the evidence supporting those theories is irresistible.

If the consensus exists because the evidence exists then just maybe they are on to something.

As Hegel pointed out long ago, science, like all fields of intellectual endeavor, progresses when people argue and debate, not when they agree. That’s why I always invite ID supporters, YECs, and anyone else who’s willing to defend their views to make presentations in my evolution course. Once all our views are open and on the table, we can then proceed to shred each other’s views with all the vigor (and delight) we can bring to it!

P.S. That’s also why I come here; to help me clarify my own views by testing them against the views of people who are diametrically opposed to them. Or, as my fencing master often says, a true gentleman (and gentlewoman) is always “gracious and dignified in defeat, humble and gentle in victory”. en garde, mon amis!

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.