I dont think he claimed ‘science’ was redefined to exclude ID, but I agree he said acience used to include a much wider set of ideas. I do astrology and am pretty good at it (I do horary and trasiting mid-point stuff, not natal astrology) and it certainly has a lot of consistent methodology. And, of course, astrology doesnt claim to know how the planets influence us, just that they do. So I do see the parallel.

> Your typos made it hard for me to understand your argument.

Sorry, fat fingers and I get excited.

> our typos made it hard for me to understand your argument. ‘a priori’ means, basically, “a prior assumption.” This is the argument that Johnson uses against many Darwinists — that they already assume evolution is true (a priori) so all evidence found must fit into their already held belief.

Oh, I’ll look it up (a priori), but surely if darwinists are making evidence fit the theory, the Behe is still worse, because they look at the evidence and try to make it fit, and run the risk of debrainwashing themselves, while Behe didnt look at the evidence at all, and so can never risk, um…cognisent dissonance.

I read about ‘over unity’ engines, machines that produce more energy than they absorb. I also read physicists have dismissed those as impossible too.

> How was it bad?

It made him look bad, like his publisher had hidden something from him.

Everyone’s own bias will determine how well Behe did, I’d guess.

“From admitting that science had to be redefined to include ID,”

Not quite. He’s actually saying that science was a broader term in the past and has been redefined to exclude ID now.

” to saying that the immune system couldnt evolve so he so the papers couldnt contain evidence (to praraphrase). There’s a term for that logic but I cant remember it, is it ‘a priori’? May be. ”

Your typos made it hard for me to understand your argument. ‘a priori’ means, basically, “a prior assumption.” This is the argument that Johnson uses against many Darwinists — that they already assume evolution is true (a priori) so all evidence found must fit into their already held belief.

“The evidence about the peer review of his book (which I have ordered, it isnt in my local shop) was pretty bad”

How was it bad?

I’m actually unclear on most of your points here…

I read it too, and I thought he was hammered. From admitting that science had to be redefined to include ID, to saying that the immune system couldnt evolve so he so the papers couldnt contain evidence (to praraphrase). There’s a term for that logic but I cant remember it, is it ‘a priori’? May be.

The evidence about the peer review of his book (which I have ordered, it isnt in my local shop) was pretty bad, but then so was the citation of his paper aout ‘amino acid residue’. Didnt the results say 20,000 years to evolve XYZ if you only have limited bacteria and ignore most mutation types? I think it did.

The IC system of the blood clotting didnt work out well either. The core system he identified as IC didnt work, he said it was fatal.

So I am going to have to read his book, and double check on what he says, because based on the trasncript and partial readings of material, I think he got spiked.

In some ways, this was a disaster for the Neo-Deo crowd. Their nemesis got his day in the sun, and held is own quite well.

http://www.discovery.org/scrip.....coMainPage

Colleagues “think I went bad,” he said. “But they’ve had a chance to show what a dope I am, and in my completely unbiased view, they’ve failed.”